EDITORIAL: The feds take a shot at guns...

[spin]

Thursday, October 22, 2009
For a decade, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been forbidden by Congress from doing research on gun-control issues. Such piddling hurdles as federal law don't matter to the Obama administration.

***snip***

The research on right-to-carry laws illustrates the problem with the CDC. Dozens of refereed academic studies by economists and criminologists using national data have been published in journals. While the vast majority of those studies find that right-to-carry laws save lives and reduce harm to victims, some studies claim that the laws have no statistically significant effect. But most tellingly, there is not a single published refereed academic study by a criminologist or economist showing a bad effect from these laws.

Look at the refereed academic research on laws that require people to lock up their guns in their homes. The number of accidental gun deaths and suicides of children remain unchanged, but the number of murders and other crimes rises. This is not too surprising as the locks make it more difficult for potential victims to quickly obtain a gun for protection, hence criminals are less likely to be deterred. Accidental gun deaths aren't affected because most involve guns fired by adults with criminal records.

The research on guns that the CDC conducted before the ban - and that "public health" advocates continue to produce - is a joke. The statistical methods to research people's behavior, such as criminal activity, are different from methods used to evaluate drug efficacy, where controlled experiments can be done.

In drug studies, patients don't determine who gets the real drug and who gets the placebo. In real life, gun ownership isn't assigned randomly. People who are more likely to be victims are more likely to own guns. They may still be more likely to be victims even after getting a gun, but are much less likely to be a victim than they would have been if they had never gotten one.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/22/the-feds-take-a-shot-at-guns/?feat=home_top5_shared

[villager]

1. ah, quoting a Washington Times Moonie "editorial" now are, we?

"And ye shall know them by their sources..."

[GreenStormCloud]

2. Typical anti. If you can't dispute the argument, attack the source.

In fact, it is rare for an anti to actually try to debate the points, they are too busy name calling.

[krispos42]

4. Normally I would agree with you. However....

... villager has a point in this case. The Washington Times exists to provice a veneer of legitimacy to talking-points for Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, and others to pontificate about as needed, then force other real news outfits to devote some coverate to the "issue" the RW has been flogging for a week.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. I am a bit new to DU.

Are you warning me that certain sources are banned?

[krispos42]

6. Certain sites are banned, but I wasn't implying that the WT is.

Any more than Faux News is.

Just making sure that people know about the WT. Thom Hartmann talks about it on occasion.


If you link to a bad site, you're post will be removed and a moderator will usually send you a private message explaining why. :-)

[Katya Mullethov]

12. A scant few thoughts as well

THey'll let ya know when you've thought em out loud .

[Euromutt]

7. So treat it with the skepticism it deserves, but address the arguments

Otherwise, by the same token, we can dismiss without evidence anything and everything the New York Times has to say about firearms, given its well established bias on that particular issue (even though the publisher has one of the few CCW permits in NYC).

In this case, I can point to a few flaws in the piece, like asserting that Obama is going to influence the CDC's stance on firearms. That's not going to happen, because the CDC is already more anti-gun than Obama is.

[villager]

20. Typical apologist. Run a verbatim rightwing editorial and expect everyone on DU to swallow it.

n/t

[Euromutt]

21. Here's a novel idea: how about we *discuss* its flaws and merits...

...rather than simply writing it off entirely because somebody doesn't like the source? I don't care for Washington Times either, but if we write off sources because of perceived bias, we can legitimately dismiss anything the NYT has to say on firearms policy as well, since it's pretty much beyond dispute that the NYT is anti-gun (in spite of its publisher having on of the few concealed carry permits in NYC).

Fact is, the editorial in the OP contains some bollocks, and it contains some valid points. So how about we try to have a reasoned discussion about which bits we can dismiss, and which bits we need to think over?

[GreenStormCloud]

23. Still name calling, I see. Try discussion instead. N/T

[villager]

32. I agree. The use of "typical anti" was name-calling, and an indicator that "conversation"

..was not actually being sought.

[Euromutt]

33. Come off it, villager, you're not occupying the moral high ground here

You made it perfectly clear with your first response--the first in the thread--that you weren't interested in discussing the editorial on its merits or lack thereof, but sought not only to dismiss it on the basis of its provenance alone, but to dismiss spin in the same process.

Besides, what makes "anti" a pejorative? "Grabber" carries a measure of pejorative intent, I'll grant you that (which is why I don't use it myself), but could we accept "anti" as shorthand for "proponent of (much) tighter restrictions on private firearm ownership than those currently in force" without necessarily being intended as an insult per se?

[villager]

34. Ah, "my terms aren't perjorative -- but yours are!"

The double-standard is also typical of the proliferationists.

As is the refusal to address the rightwing sourcing of their "information..."

[Euromutt]

35. I think you missed my post #21

Here's the link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=263399&mesg_id=263557

And I'm less than impressed by your accusation of a "double standard." You came into this thread behaving like a complete dick, and then you get upset when someone points out that that's how you're acting? Get a stepladder and get the fuck over yourself already.

[villager]

36. and since I've never been impressed by you and your snark, I'd say we're square!

Defend a source other than Rev. Moon, and maybe you'll get your conversation....

But if the Washington Times is the *single editorial source* making a pronouncement that "coincidentally" jibes with the wishes of the proliferationists, then yes, it can be dismissed out of hand.

And by the way, why is your name-calling okay -- you've sworn at me in other threads -- but you damn near have a meltdown if someone else dares use a collective noun than rankles you?

:hi:

[Euromutt]

37. You've largely answered your own question

It's in the word "collective." I don't have a problem with personal abuse; call me a "arrogant prick" or a "pedantic twat" and I won't particularly mind, not least because there's more than a grain of truth to those accusations.

What I do mind is the combined ad hominem/straw man style of name-calling inherent in the use of terms like "gun worshiper" or "proliferationist." It comes down to asserting that your opponent must be wrong for no other reason than that he disagrees with you. Compounding that particular bit of intellectual laziness is the willful misrepresentation of your opponents' position in some lame effort to justify the ad hominem. Your term "proliferationist" is a prime example (and is essentially the "arm everyone" canard worded differently), given that you're not going to actually find a single person on this forum who supports there being more gun owners owning more guns as a goal unto itself. We oppose people being arbitrarily deprived of the freedom to possess (certain types of) firearms (note the word "arbitrarily"; I'm not opposed to convicted violent offender or those otherwise adjudicated to form a threat to themselves or others being denied the freedom to possess firearms, but this has to occur by due process). But if someone doesn't want to own a firearm, I'm not going to badger or coerce them to get one; it's not like I own stock in any arms or ammunition manufacturing company.

Short version: I don't have problem with name-calling. I do have a problem with name-calling being considered an acceptable substitute to reasoned debate.

[villager]

38. And yet a collective word like "anti" -- to describe a whole group of people -- you don't have any

problem with?

You can be dismissive/reductionist to an entire group that disagrees with you, but no one else is allowed that privilege.

It's not that you're a pedantic twat so much, as simply a complete hypocrite.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[villager]

42. Well, "asshole," you have once again proven exactly what and who you are

No surprise, though, given your other rhetoric.

Welcome to ignore list land!

[Euromutt]

43. Oh, diddums!

You're happy to dish it out, but you're too delicate to take it, eh? Then you go scampering to the mods to protect you from those nasty, nasty men. Maybe you need to replace Rohrschach as your avatar with something more appropriate, like a shrinking violet. At least I have the guts to actually say what I mean, instead of mod-proofing my posts to willfully violate the spirit of the rules while paying cursory lip service to the letter.

And I'm really not going to lose any sleep over your adding me to your ignore list.

[X_Digger]

44. Welcome to the club! We meet on every 3rd Tuesday. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

40. So what short term do you prefer to refer to those on your side.

I don't really want to type out ""pro gun controlist", or "anti-armed-selfdefense" every time. What short, one word term would you find acceptable?

[GreenStormCloud]

41. I have started a thread using a different source.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x264059

It is about the same subject. Source is Investor's Business Daily

[villager]

45. Uh, not really -- you've just quoted yet another rightwing editorial page

n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Still refusing to discuss the topic, I see.

It looks like you are going to call every7 pro-RKBA site as RW. That is simply trying to hide on your part. Why don't you try discussing the points instead of hiding?

[friendly_iconoclast]

51. When all else fails, invoke the "genetic fallacy" .

"The Environmental Protection Agency is not legitimate because it was created by Richard Nixon."

See how easy that is?

[spin]

3. One thing that you have to understand...

is that left wing newspapers and organizations do not often publish pro-gun articles or editorials.

Therefore, I have no problem with using a Washington Times editorial. The editorial is interesting on several levels. First it points out the inconsistencies in the study by the CDC. It also makes several interesting points:

"The research on right-to-carry laws illustrates the problem with the CDC. Dozens of refereed academic studies by economists and criminologists using national data have been published in journals. While the vast majority of those studies find that right-to-carry laws save lives and reduce harm to victims, some studies claim that the laws have no statistically significant effect. But most tellingly, there is not a single published refereed academic study by a criminologist or economist showing a bad effect from these laws."

"Look at the refereed academic research on laws that require people to lock up their guns in their homes. The number of accidental gun deaths and suicides of children remain unchanged, but the number of murders and other crimes rises. This is not too surprising as the locks make it more difficult for potential victims to quickly obtain a gun for protection, hence criminals are less likely to be deterred. Accidental gun deaths aren't affected because most involve guns fired by adults with criminal records.

"People who are more likely to be victims are more likely to own guns. They may still be more likely to be victims even after getting a gun, but are much less likely to be a victim than they would have been if they had never gotten one."

But the editorial also is interesting as it also shows that the right wing media believes or is promoting the fear that Obama plans to ban firearms.

"The CDC's brazen end run around restrictions on gun-control research is hardly surprising given that when President Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation, it was the largest private funder of gun-ban research in the country. Now he has the resources of the whole federal government.

First we'll get the half-baked studies followed by fawning press coverage. Then Democratic politicians and activists will pretend the gun restrictions they've always wanted were spurred by the new government research. "

I present the editorial for discussion. If you disagree with the editorial, then debate what it says.

If all we were allowed to post in the Gungeon were articles from liberal sanctioned sites, this would be a very boring place, far from the Wild West of Du that it is today.

[divideandconquer]

8. "left wing newspapers and organizations do not often publish pro-gun articles or editorials. "

Being liberal is to be pro strong gun regulation , like in the rest of the civilized world.

[benEzra]

9. Hmmm. So Dianne Feinstein is a liberal and Russ Feingold isn't. Who knew? (n/t)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. More kneejerk cluelessness

Private gun ownership is a progressive value since it empowers people. Your ongoing attacks against union made products never cease to surprise us.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. Could you please point out some progressive editorial news sites that are also pro RKBA?

I totally agree that RKBA is a progressive value as it empowers the ordinary people, just as you say. But the mainstream of progressive "intelligentsia" seems to be solidly pro gun control. I would welcome knowing about a major progressive news organ that is pro RKBA.

I use pro-RKBA to mean that ordinary citizens can actually keep and carry on their persons (At least concealed if not open) loaded modern guns, ready to be instantly used. Further that such citizen to be unencumber by waiting periods for the purchase of such guns, or by limits on the number of guns purchased, or quanity of ammunition, or other gun control schemes.

[slackmaster]

13. Who put you in charge of defining what it is to be liberal?

:argh:

[PavePusher]

15. Well, thank goodness you are here to dictate the rules to us. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. D&C has been a really bozo, here and elsewhere, not to mention anti union

[hack89]

16. Liberal should mean strong support for civil rights

the Bill of Rights is the essence of a liberal society.

[SteveM]

25. Umm, not really...

FDR, JFK, LBJ were strong defenders of the Second Amendment; hell, Eleanor packed. The death knell for discriminatory gun-control laws came with the passage of the civil rights acts of the mid-1960s. (You do realize that the font for most all gun-control legislation was the South?)

BTW, peruse the platforms of the Democratic Party before 1968 and see if you find much about gun control or guns in general. Gun control is bad "Old Crow" hangover which came on when the above-mentioned acts pretty much ended the issue in the South.

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. "Being liberal is to be pro strong gun regulation" Oh, *really*?

That idea would be a big surprise to:

Harriet Tubman
Fannie Lou Hamer
Zora Neale Hurston
Eleanor Roosevelt
The Deacons For Defense And Justice
Robert F. Williams
The Lumbee Tribe
The United Mine Workers

-1 to you

[SteveM]

48. Friendly correction: Zora Neale was a life-long Taftian Republican...

as well as a trained "voo doo" practitioner (how much she practiced is uncertain). She acquired a shoulder holster & gun after too many conflicts in various Central Florida turpentine jook joints.

[proteus_lives]

31. Wrong!

To be liberal is not to infringe on the rights of others.

You're not a liberal, you're a left-wing authoritarian. You want restrict the rights of others.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. Very good points. Thanks

[SteveM]

24. Frankly the CDC got into this mess all by themselves...

when they tried to force-fit a public health model onto the gun-control debate. I'd much rather these folks come up with better (and god-knows FASTER) ways to develop and distribute adequate flu vaccines. But, no. Somebody's cock-eyed notion of politically-charged social science pasted together with a term like "disease" is bound to result in crap stats and data.

And that is just what happened with the CDC.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. So now can we discuss the points of the editoral instead of the WT itself?

How about this point?

]b]In drug studies, patients don't determine who gets the real drug and who gets the placebo. In real life, gun ownership isn't assigned randomly. People who are more likely to be victims are more likely to own guns. They may still be more likely to be victims even after getting a gun, but are much less likely to be a victim than they would have been if they had never gotten one.

Even though it is the WT, do any of the antis deny that it is true?

[Taitertots]

19. That article is total garbage

The claim is made that peer reviewed journals frequently come to a conclusion without making any mention of the journals they claim support the conclusion.

That makes any investigation into the claim impossible because there is no way to corroborate what the journals are claimed to have said.

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Another anti who refuses to discuss specific points.

What about the claim that most accidental child shootings are done by adults who are already not allowed to have guns? IOW -Adults who are already breaking the law.

Simply because it appears in the WT does not prove that the statement is untrue.

[Taitertots]

26. You couldn't fail any worse

The article doesn't mention what journal articles support their claim, just that they exist. Where are the alleged journals so they can be read and analyzed. Why would you just take their word lacking any evidence?

It has nothing to do with WT, read the article.

I'm against excessive gun control, but that article is crap. Only an ideologue or a total fool wouldn't see that.

[Euromutt]

28. It *is* a newspaper editorial, not a research paper

I agree with you that the piece would be more persuasive if it contained some actual examples of medical/public health journals displaying a bias, but newspaper editorials aren't expected to provide citations. The reason I'm not prepared to dismiss that particular part is because I know of some particularly egregious examples.

In 1990, the New England Journal of Medicine published "Firearm Regulation and Rates of Suicide" by John Sloan et al., and in 1993 it published "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home" by Arthur Kellermann et al. These are studies which have frequently been cited by the gun control lobby as "proving" that guns make their owners less safe. Curiously, publication occurred even though both Sloan and Kellermann had not deposited their research data with the NEJM and, by extension, its peer reviewers. That a journal would publish a study in which the researchers refused to show their data is practically unheard of; in fact, it should be completely unheard of. How can you accept a piece of research as valid when you can't see whether the findings are supported by the data?

The general trend of medical/public health research on firearms is pretty incestuous as it is. A very small number of researchers crank out the bulk of the research, and they have a strong tendency to cite themselves and each other, and not look at the criminological research, which frequently comes up with very different findings.

On top of that, scientific journals are well known to suffer from "publication bias"; that is, journals greatly prefer to publish articles which come up with something new than ones that do not reject the null hypothesis. It's understandable that they would, but it does mean that a better paper that does not reject the null hypothesis is less likely to be published than one that does reject the null hypothesis on the basis of weaker science.

An interesting piece to read in this context is "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of
Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?" (61 Tennessee Law Review 513-596 (1994); http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html). Note that three of the five authors are MDs.

[Taitertots]

29. Claiming there are journals without listing them is bad even in an editorial page

I can't stand behind even a position I agree with when it is improperly presented.

Wouldn't you object if an anti presented an editorial that claimed journals supported the claim and refused to post the journals?

The faults of some journals are even more reason why I need to see the ones that allegedly support his claim.

[Euromutt]

30. In principle, I don't disagree

I'm just saying how things are, not that that's a desirable state of affairs. I think op-ed pieces in general, and editorials in particular, could do with being required to provide a higher degree of supporting evidence (or, at least, point to where such evidence may be found) then they are at present. Anytime anybody busts out with the phrase "research has shown" I pretty much stop paying attention, no matter what their position.

[radiotube]

46. Why ban legitimate research?

If the CDC can figure out an effective, practical and inexpensive method of reducing gun crime without violating our second ammendment rights, than fantastic. This will have the added bonus of reducing pressure from urban areas to infringe the rights of others. Technology has come a long way since the early to mid 90s when Clinton tried. And frankly, I think most of the problem is that I don't see very many intelligent people actually working on the problem. Seems like its a typical example of ideologues duking it out Hardball style.

[X_Digger]

47. If it were legitimate, no issue..

.. but when 'research' on a social issue (crime) is done by epidemiologists (instead of criminologists) who use the same models as when they're studying swine flu, with a predetermined outcome, and 'normalizing for confounding factors' that make the data fit those predetermined outcomes-- it's hard to legitimately call it research.

When peer reviewers don't even have access to the data used in the study (Kellerman), yet pass it along for publication regardless, you have to wonder about inherent bias.

[SteveM]

50. Check out what the CDC says about "intervention strategies" re: gun control

In evaluating major interventionist strategies of gun control, the CDC concludes that studies evaluating the effect of the strategies on social problems which were to be addressed by the strategies were inconclusive and inconsistent. This even included studies which purported to show that crime decreased where concealed-carry was in effect. They recommend (not surprisingly) that more studies need to be made.

With precipitous decreases in gun-related childhood accidents, and decreases in gun-murders (even as the stockpile of weapons in civilian hands has increased tremendously) it is hard to see how advocates of gun control can shoe-horn essentially prohibitionist policies into a "public health" model.

I think the crux of this part of the gun control debate rests on what "...working on the problem" means. Just what is the problem?