Obama’s Executive Ordered Study Report On Gun Violence Slaps Him In The Face

C

Cnon

New member
If you recall, back on January 16, 2013, standing with little children, Barack Hussein Obama tried to pull a fast one on the American people and issued 23 executive orders pertaining to gun control. Among those was number 14: Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. Well friends, that study did happen and it destroyed Obama’s position on guns and gun violence.
Well like all things in government, the people tasked with the study simply directed the study to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. However, many people have not heard about the report. Could it be that much of the information in the report didn’t quite “jive” with Obama and the anti-gun crowd?

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/o...violence-slaps-him-in-the-face/#ixzz2YQ44EErj

Cnon ;)
 
It's written by a committee with an interesting makeup. Gary Kleck is on board. Unfortunately, so is Arthur Kellerman (who's now apparently working for the Rand Corporation).

It doesn't tell me much I don't already know. I have a BJS report on my desk right now that shows a 39% decline in firearms homicides between 1993 and 2011, and a 70% drop in "victimizations."

We've seen a politically-motivated push for more "research," but if it's done with any degree of academic honesty, it's going to help our cause.
 
It's written by a committee with an interesting makeup. Gary Kleck is on board. Unfortunately, so is Arthur Kellerman (who's now apparently working for the Rand Corporation).

It doesn't tell me much I don't already know. I have a BJS report on my desk right now that shows a 39% decline in firearms homicides between 1993 and 2011, and a 70% drop in "victimization's."
Click to expand...


I believe it says the same thing we all know; guns reduce crimes by in large.
:D


Cnon
 
I believe it says the same thing we all know; guns reduce crimes by in large.
Click to expand...
We don't know that, and we can't prove it. That's a dangerous rhetorical approach to take.

There are many factors that could potentially cause the drops in crime we've seen. Correlation is not the same thing as causation.
 
About the only thing we do know for sure is that guns don't cause crimes. Inanimate objects never do. What we can prove is that gun ownership is way up but gun crime didn't increase as the gun grabbers would have liked everyone to believe it would. The steep drop in crime shows that other measures have been very effective at reducing crime, gun control hasn't.
 
In just about every thing I've ever seen, guns have shown a largely neutral correlation relating to crime with a slight downward trend at times.

I have never seen a report that has crime trending upwards as more people legally possess guns. I have seen many reports (including this one) that indicate a negative correlation where crimes or people injured in them go down as lawfully held guns are introduced to the situation.

This is how I say it when I argue with people. "Every report I have ever seen, including FBI and DoJ, indicates a neutral correlation with a negative trend, or sometimes no correlation at all, but never have I seen one correlate legally owned guns positively with more violence"
 
About the only thing we do know for sure is that guns don't cause crimes. Inanimate objects never do. What we can prove is that gun ownership is way up but gun crime didn't increase as the gun grabbers would have liked everyone to believe it would. The steep drop in crime shows that other measures have been very effective at reducing crime, gun control hasn't.
Click to expand...


This is what I was trying to say, but you said it better.


Cnon
 
I've always wanted to get one of Bloomburg's DAs in a news conference and ask this question. "How many guns have you convicted of a crime?" It's a trick question as you can see they don't convict guns just the people that use them.
 
We don't know that, and we can't prove it. That's a dangerous rhetorical approach to take.

There are many factors that could potentially cause the drops in crime we've seen. Correlation is not the same thing as causation.
Click to expand...

It seems the Anti-gun people are big on rhetorical approaches. It took me a long time to understand the vary last sentence of this quoted statement.

I feel if we keep dealing in facts and try to get the anti-gun people to put away feelings, then we make a little bit of progress.

If we continue to cite facts, and this report will help, we can help influence peoples opinions. Most people seem to be low-information voters and will listen to a 30 second commercial, but will not read a report on something they claim is of big interest to them.
 
Correlation is not the same thing as causation.
Click to expand...

This is one of the biggest things misunderstood (or deliberately ignored) about a great many things, guns being one of them...

It is a virtual certainty that 99%+ of all convicted felons in the US ate bread, or a bread product within 30 days of committing a crime.

This is a correlation. Something that is connected to something else, and can be proven.

"Ban bread, because bread causes crimes!"
This is based on the assumption that a correlation is a cause. And obviously a false assumption in this case.

personally, I think we spend too much money and effort doing studies and acting on our perception of their results. I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't be adding "studies indicate..." to the list of big lies (which include "the check is in the mail", and "we're from the govt and we're here to help you", among others... ).

We get all happy when studies show things our way (and when they actually do accurately reflect reality-which is usually the same thing;))
but remember that studies "proving" us right can be as flawed as one's showing us we're wrong...
 
. Most people seem to be low-information voters and will listen to a 30 second commercial, but will not read a report on something they claim is of big interest to them.
Click to expand...

IMHO this is the problem in a nutshell.
 
While the results of a real study may be interesting, I wouldn't really cite this as evidence. This was not a research study, all it did was collect/summarize previous research and make recommendations for future research. There is no new information in that report.

Basically, they just collected every bit of writing on gun violence and said "here is what ppl have said in the past about gun violence." They then made recommendations, given that most of their findings included "research or data in this area is very incomplete."

not exactly what you are making it out to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top