General politics discussion. Keep it civil.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

That link is to a report that's completely and totally disingenuous and the link truly pisses me off every time it's posted.

A child is not 18. A child is not 19. A child is a pre-pubescent human. The goalposts were moved and almost literally everyone grabbed it and ran. It specifically says "among children and adolescents," but child means "pre-pubescent" and adolescent means "in the process of transitioning from a child into an adult."

NPR specifically and pointedly drops the "and adolescents," as have multiple other news organizations. To me, that changes the tone of the conversation from one of journalism to one of opinion.

Homicide is in the top three leading causes of death for 1-4 year olds. It is not in the 5-9 and 10-14 range. For 1-4, it's accidents, congenital malformations, deformations, and chromosomal abnormalities, and assault. For 5-9, it's accidents, cancer, and congenital malformations, deformations, and chromosomal abnormalities. For 10-14, it's accidents, suicide, and cancer. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm

More than 1,000 0-14 year olds will die in car crashes this year.

Plenty of teenagers can defend themselves because they have stolen guns. Surprise, those are also the teens who are getting killed. If you want to get these kids (used colloquially) to stop killing each other, you have to fix the root causes of the violence. We're at least one generation away from correcting the violence once we correct the root causes of the violence.

so let us add the word "adolescent" back into the topic, and the conversation still is stupid and outrageous:



actually, looking at your link, homicide is 4th for the 5-9 group: https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/da...26D162700D2444

and 4th for the 10-14 group:
https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/da...1CA2616F0D9444

part of the problem with data is that it is limited. part of the problem is that for years, the data had no info with the word "gun" in it.

part of the problem was that for years, Republicans threatened to stop funding the CDC unless it stopped funding research into firearm injuries and death. this started in 1996 and only restarted after 2019.

so for years, politicians talked past each other with NO ACTUAL DATA on what gun violence looks like in the context of public health, and so everyone was talking out of their asses and data was only as good as the sources providing it.

"follow the science" is what people like to say. I guess if you don't fund the science and blame non-government research as biased, then everyone can twist the data to their own benefit.

can't have an honest debate about preventing gun violence when you can't even study the issue via the federal government...

[BryanSayWhat]

Originally Posted by mav1178

part of the problem was that for years, Republicans threatened to stop funding the CDC unless it stopped funding research into firearm injuries and death. this started in 1996 and only restarted after 2019.

so for years, politicians talked past each other with NO ACTUAL DATA on what gun violence looks like in the context of public health, and so everyone was talking out of their asses and data was only as good as the sources providing it.

"follow the science" is what people like to say. I guess if you don't fund the science and blame non-government research as biased, then everyone can twist the data to their own benefit.

can't have an honest debate about preventing gun violence when you can't even study the issue via the federal government...

mav, looks like you left out the fact that the "CDC" and it's parent agency the "U.S. Public Health Service" was known for having an "anti-gun political bias". It's not even that difficult to look up.

The NRA, Republicans, or pro-gun community couldn't give two shits about actual non-bias scientific firearm research. The problem is making sure there's absolutely no bias either way to being pro, or anti gun.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

Merely addressing the semantics/pedantry of something that is being phrased incorrectly. In no way was that aimed at you, btw, just aimed at the study and those reporting the study in media.

See below on the data, and my response was just to point out how anyone can manipulate data to suit their goals, even posts on a car forum.

Originally Posted by collegekid

I do like Mav1178's tiered leveling program for unlocking weapons as you grow older, but it all falls back into how people will get around it to get what they want anyway.

It's not about stopping people entirely. it's about trying to make sure those that have proven to own these weapons can actually own them.

its like a car, right? or hell, it's like buying a house... you gotta prove you can be a homeowner. same with higher caliber weapons, prove you can own it and not just because the 2nd amendment says you can.

just get the necessary training, a 1 time license fee (like a passport), and you can own WHATEVER YOU WANT.

Originally Posted by BryanSayWhat

mav, looks like you left out the fact that the "CDC" and it's parent agency the "U.S. Public Health Service" was known for having an "anti-gun political bias". It's not even that difficult to look up.

The NRA, Republicans, or pro-gun community couldn't give two shits about actual non-bias scientific firearm research. The problem is making sure there's absolutely no bias either way to being pro, or anti gun.

your response is pretty much why I brought up the funding issue, and how the CDC is becoming a politicized agency instead of something for everyone.

same with the SCOTUS.

so instead of funding the CDC, which unbiased institution should we fund to study gun violence?

I'll wait.

[BryanSayWhat]

Originally Posted by mav1178

your response is pretty much why I brought up the funding issue, and how the CDC is becoming a politicized agency instead of something for everyone.

same with the SCOTUS.

so instead of funding the CDC, which unbiased institution should we fund to study gun violence?

I'll wait.

At this point it would have to be a completely new federal agency/ institution that is based from the ground up with no bias. It also should've been done decades ago, but obviously are politicians can't get meaningful progress done in that aspect.

I'm completely fine with people hating guns, but the bias shouldn't be used to skew, or change facts to get laws passed.

It's like dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster changing the term "Assault Rifle", so that anti-gunners/ liberals would stop getting corrected in conversations. The Military definition for an "Assault Rifle" will always be "semi-auto & select-fire" not just "semi-auto". Common usage of an incorrect term doesn't magically change anything.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by BryanSayWhat

At this point it would have to be a completely new federal agency/ institution that is based from the ground up with no bias. It also should've been done decades ago, but obviously are politicians can't get meaningful progress done in that aspect.

I'm completely fine with people hating guns, but the bias shouldn't be used to skew, or change facts to get laws passed.

It's like dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster changing the term "Assault Rifle", so that anti-gunners/ liberals would stop getting corrected in conversations. The Military definition for an "Assault Rifle" will always be "semi-auto & select-fire" not just "semi-auto". Common usage of an incorrect term doesn't magically change anything.

Agree on all points except the first part.

Since the GOP is against big government in any form, this is pretty much a proposal dead in the water and we'd be back having this conversation the next time a mass casualty event involving kids and a person with a gunpowder-powered weapon happens.

tip toeing around words doesn't really change anything either... we just all collectively kick the can down the road and point at each other, hopefully no one we know personally is caught in the crossfire.