Obama Commissioned Study Proves Gun Control Doesn't Work

[Vox]

Go worship the "science" god.

you can't understand it, you can only worship it

 

[RDD_1210]

So it looks like this thread has run its course and once again when bullshit topics are exposed and a little digging is done, the truth comes out.

Instead of discussing why the topic doesn't match the evidence we get more ignoring, name calling or changing of the topic.

This is why our country can't get anything done. People like Vox are the epitome of what is wrong with our country today. Thanks for putting on the show for all to see Vox!

 

[Vox]

Gun control does not work, as has been proven REPEATEDLY both in 2003 and 2013 government studies.

Which made all the libtard gun-grabbers ( illiterate RDD being the best example)go ballistic.

not unexpectedly, when science methods do not prove the libtard agenda, the hell with that science

 

[The Rabbi]

So it looks like this thread has run its course and once again when bullshit topics are exposed and a little digging is done, the truth comes out.

Instead of discussing why the topic doesn't match the evidence we get more ignoring, name calling or changing of the topic.

This is why our country can't get anything done. People like Vox are the epitome of what is wrong with our country today. Thanks for putting on the show for all to see Vox!

The only bullshitter here is you. You cannot show that gun control works. The studies themselves do not show that gun control works. This is probably because gun control does not work.

 

[The Rabbi]

I guess you didn't read the study, did you?

Who am I kidding. Not only did you not read the study, I would be willing to place money you never even bothered clicking the link.

You realize that's not an answer, right?

Of course it is. I just pointed out where the answer is. The study that you are arguing against but haven't actually read.

No, that's a non answer.

 

[Ernie S.]

Please highlight the sentence that "clearly states that gun control does not work".

I'll wait.

Show where it says it does. Kind of depends on what side of the Constitution you place yourself on.

Never claimed this study made that conclusion. Whoops. Your turn.

Please highlight the sentence that clearly states that gun control works.

I'll wait.

Study, (commissioned by obama) cannot show positive impact for gun control legislation, so it concludes the data is insufficient.
I call "bullshit" The study obviously wanted to prove a predetermined conclusion. It didn't, so a claim that they cannot reach a conclusion is "English" for "Oops that didn't work out the way we wanted".

 

[PaulS1950]

In England there is a total ban on firearms (guns) of any kind in the home or on a person.
The rate of gun violence is on the rise there and their violent crime rate is higher than in the USA.

I would say that those statistics along with the CDC report and the history of high crime rates in heavily gun controlled cities in the USA definitely prove beyond any reasonable doubt that gun restrictions don't work.
Laws are never meant to prevent crime, they are in place so that criminals can be punished. Passing laws that don't affect criminals is useless and destructive.

 

[Ernie S.]

It is clearly stated that gun control does not work - in any form

Please highlight the sentence that "clearly states that gun control does not work".

I'll wait.

Still waiting....

Sorry. poking holes in your argument doesn't warrant or deserve my undivided attention.

If we take this "study" at face value, we are left with the conclusion that gun control has has no measurable effect on gun related crime, either positive or negative. At best, gun control is like shoveling shit against the tide. At worst, a group that tried to prove a predetermined conclusion was unable to make contradictory data disappear so they biased their results.

 

[RDD_1210]

Show where it says it does. Kind of depends on what side of the Constitution you place yourself on.

Never claimed this study made that conclusion. Whoops. Your turn.

Please highlight the sentence that clearly states that gun control works.

I'll wait.

Study, (commissioned by obama) cannot show positive impact for gun control legislation, so it concludes the data is insufficient.
I call "bullshit" The study obviously wanted to prove a predetermined conclusion. It didn't, so a claim that they cannot reach a conclusion is "English" for "Oops that didn't work out the way we wanted".

Please highlight where I made that claim.

I'll wait.

 

[Ernie S.]

I never said you made any claim. You just disputed the contention that the study proves gun control doesn't work. I am simply pointing out that such a claim is more logical based on who commissioned the study, and that any counter claim is ridiculous.

 

[Vox]

Sorry. poking holes in your argument doesn't warrant or deserve my undivided attention.

If we take this "study" at face value, we are left with the conclusion that gun control has has no measurable effect on gun related crime, either positive or negative. At best, gun control is like shoveling shit against the tide. At worst, a group that tried to prove a predetermined conclusion was unable to make contradictory data disappear so they biased their results.

The situation is much simpler.

The scientific language differs from that of the message boards/political discussions/general media and if a research paper wants to state that a thesis was not proven ( or something did not work) they will phrase it in polite sentences "statistical data has not shown significance", "the results were controversial", "methods did not warrant straight conclusions" and other similar constructions, which in translation mean " this study has proven shit"

Even heated debate and outward accusation of fabrication of the data would be hidden in discussion behind polite acceptable phrases. It is very similar to the exchanges between aristocratic families - they could be very bitter, but they were never straightforward and vulgar( examples are abundant in the literature and memoirs of the time).

The overview of the statistics available plus some of the studies done in the last 20 years( and some have been proven to have tremendous confounding biases - as is Kellerman circa 1993/95 mentioned in the government review of 2013) and most of them are actually based on the CDC data - which anybody can review on their site.

There is no possibility to design experimental studies on the subject, only observational are a possibility because of the moral aspect of the design of the experimental study in this area.

 

[jon_berzerk]

What the CDC study shows is that there is a controversy over the results of control mechanisms of the State. There is a lack of data (gee, isn't that conveneient. Considering these folks get federal money to conduct their studies....) and mixed results to all of these mechanisms. Essentially, they are conceding that politicians do NOT make evidence based legislation regarding firearms. They make appeal to emotion (causation, reaction, solution) policies that create mixed results, or none at all. This is an obvious observation to anyone with two working brain cells.

which is the same as the 2003 study that found the data to be inconsistent

 

[jon_berzerk]

Observation is certainly not on the side of gun control advocates. No need to even rehash the plethora of observed data regarding control policies and effectiveness. Most of the time a natural rate of decline in violence (while the possession of firearms explodes) regarding firearms is attempted to sway people into believing it is because of effective control measures. While other times strict gun control measures show complete and obvious failures (see Chicago), and yet more measures are what is advocated, rather than evidence based policy advocation.

Clearly, control measures do not show success in observation. More importantly, politicians aren't making gun control decisions ased on evidence. They make them for campaigning purposes and the demand of low intelligent "feel good" voters. Which is a huge problem when it comes to deciphering whether or not control mechanisms can be effective.

really no different then the 2003 cdc study

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/r214a2ta.gif