The Philadelphia Stinkquirer is joining the New York Times in demanding funding for anti-gun research. This is one case where my opinions on this issue are driven entirely by the motivations of our opponents. Ideally I think better information is a positive thing, and transparency in government is certainly a worthy goal. In a different world, a world where the Courts took Second Amendment rights seriously, and made a habit of striking down stupid gun laws, I’d have little issue with trace data being public, or public money going to fund neutral research into what policies were effective and which ones weren’t.
But the people who want this the most are looking to undermine Second Amendment rights to the greatest extent they can. Since we have the political power to deny them the data and funding they need, we’d be foolish not to do it. So the answer is no, we can’t allow “health experts cannot study ways to reduce the risk of deadly gun violence,” because too many people have a fore drawn conclusion as to what the answer is.
Sebastian, You’re one with a fore drawn conclusion, it seems to me. You’re reading their minds and accusing them of what you obviously are also guilty of.
Your qualifier is really funny: “In a different world, a world where the Courts took Second Amendment rights seriously, and made a habit of striking down stupid gun laws,…”
In other words, if you don’t agree with it, it’s stupid.
I didn’t foredraw that conclusion, James Madison did. If people don’t like, they can move somewhere else, or propose a constitutional amendment to change it.
Except, Mike that the world Sebastian posits is the one we have. Where courts generally, have not taken 2nd Amendment rights seriously. Moreover, there is little if any doubt that the “research” sought is sought for exactly the reason Sebasian posits -to provide ammunition for the agenda sought. This is not research with an open mind, it’s research to serve a predisposed agenda.
Don’t bother to deny same, I wasn’t born yesterday. I understand how the world works.
Moreover, the policy question was decided some 200+ years ago. Take it up with the founders.
Here’s some research for you:
10:14am – Home alarm system activates(Sliding rear door to kitchen)
10:15am – Alarm company notifies me via cell phone
10:17am – Alarm company notifies county sheriff’s dept.
10:34am – I arrive home, I arm up and check house, then barn
10:39am – First deputy arrives on scene
(carries 9mm pistol, sees I have AR15 rifle leaning against truck, me 10′ away with hands up and in clear with ID out to prove I’m home owner as he pull up drive)
10:44am – Second deputy arrives
10:49am – Discover pry marks at rear sliding door, but no entry appears to have been made – maybe due to alarm or maybe due to 100lb German Shepherd in house.
11:34am – Deputies leave with report in hand
Why don’t you anti-gunners quantify that in your studies!
Dann in Ohio
“too many people have a fore drawn conclusion as to what the answer is”
Suppose that it is revealed that Dr. David Hemenway of Harvard is about to undertake a new study involving guns, and the details about the subject of the research are leaked.
Is there anyone here, on either side of the debate, who would not be able to predict, with 100% accuracy, what the results of Dr. Hemenway’s study will be BEFORE he even does his research?
I cant believe you guys are pointing fingers at the “gun control” researchers who do this. Don’t your guys do the same?
Dann in Ohio, that’s a wonderful story about how your dog and alarm system saved the day. I’m glad you didn’t have a shootout with the local cops over that.
@mikeb302000:
No “our guys”don’t do the same. The most renowned in this area is John Lott Jr. and I think he’s pretty fair at listing statistics from all sides. It’s like looking at traffic accident statistics. If you look purely at the cost of lives and limbs due to vehicles on our roads, you logically should get rid of them, but vehicles have positive attributes – they save us time getting from here to there, they even save lives (ambulances, fire trucks).
Anti-gun researchers are unwilling to concede that guns have any positive value – their research premise is purely “what statistics can we compile on the harm that guns do.” Their questionnaires ask “have you ever been harmed by a gun” and never “have you ever felt safer, thwarted an attack, or deterred an apparent criminal such as a burglar with a gun”. They record murders with guns, they don’t look into potential murders that were prevented by the victim having a gun.
My little anecdote was just to demonstrate that had I, my wife, or children been home that day; it was 25 minutes from the attempted break in of my home until law enforcement arrived. Anti-gun studies are used to support the fact that I supposedly don’t need more than 10 rounds in my magazine, yet 10 rounds is supposed to last me 25 minutes while waiting for police?
Camden, NJ is one of the most violent crime cities in the country and they just laid-off over 100 police officers. They aren’t even responding any longer to many calls if there is not immediate, life threatening danger. Average response time for Camden City Police in 2009 was over 7 minutes. People need guns when the police are not there and research is seldom done to look at that aspect.
The nutcase in AZ completed his havoc in less than a minute. Would he have been deterred if he saw 4, 5, or 10 citizens openly (not concealed) carrying guns in the crowd that day – researchers don’t usually want to explore that aspect.
If a researcher is willing to look at both the good and bad of guns, I can work with that – but most are not.
” If people don’t like, they can move somewhere else, or propose a constitutional amendment to change it.”
Exactly – and good luck to them : )
Mike: I cant believe you guys are pointing fingers at the “gun control†researchers who do this. Don’t your guys do the same?
“Researchers” are free to do that — but Mike is missing the point: Do those whose results are 100% predictable deserve federal funding?
The drive for more research is really an attempt 1) to keep running questionable studies until one turns out the way the statists like, and 2) to fund organizations that are so far out in left field, they can’t fund themselves, like NPR.
mikeb302000,
OK, I’ll play.
Would you be OK with the government funding research by the NRA or the SAF into the benefits of firearms ownership?
Dann, You’re really holding up John Lott as an example, this is the sock puppet guy with the dog, right. I’m laughing.
About the government funding, I have to agree it should be limited to unbiased and legitimate research. That sounds fair.