Author Topic: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)  (Read 25067 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #120 on: January 04, 2013, 03:18:56 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12257
  • Tommy Points: 352

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?
Celtics fan for life.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #121 on: January 04, 2013, 03:24:30 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.
Great. So I guess that you're in favor of un-doing all the damage that the NRA has done to the ability of government agencies to share the information that they already have?

Not that I agree with your standpoint. The people who want gun studies done, are also taxpaying citizens.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #122 on: January 04, 2013, 03:38:49 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33239
  • Tommy Points: -27965
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.
Great. So I guess that you're in favor of un-doing all the damage that the NRA has done to the ability of government agencies to share the information that they already have?

Not that I agree with your standpoint. The people who want gun studies done, are also taxpaying citizens.

This is why our country is bankrupt.  Too many people can never say "no" to spending money on things that are of little value.

Multi-million dollar studies that prove that weapons designed to end life are dangerous shouldn't be near the top of the nation's priority list.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #123 on: January 04, 2013, 03:40:11 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33239
  • Tommy Points: -27965
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

What is there to study that's going to save $20 billion?

The purpose of guns is to kill things.  From the standpoint of a physician, that's about all you need to know.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #124 on: January 04, 2013, 03:43:53 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41491
  • Tommy Points: 2305
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

"I'm not in the business of answering hypotheticals."

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #125 on: January 04, 2013, 03:44:47 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12257
  • Tommy Points: 352

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

What is there to study that's going to save $20 billion?

The purpose of guns is to kill things.  From the standpoint of a physician, that's about all you need to know.

I was thinking more broadly -- I think more research should be publicly funded. I don't think the government should decide what to fund and not fund, but to have a panel of experts decide. This is the current set up (ie: the NSF administers grants, but area experts drawn from the academic community sit on boards that review which grants gets funded, which do not).
Celtics fan for life.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #126 on: January 04, 2013, 03:46:39 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33239
  • Tommy Points: -27965
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

What is there to study that's going to save $20 billion?

The purpose of guns is to kill things.  From the standpoint of a physician, that's about all you need to know.

I was thinking more broadly -- I think more research should be publicly funded. I don't think the government should decide what to fund and not fund, but to have a panel of experts decide. This is the current set up (ie: the NSF administers grants, but area experts drawn from the academic community sit on boards that review which grants gets funded, which do not).

Where's the money coming from?  Our government is bleeding money, and we're going to give even more of it out?  Sounds like a great payday for lobbyists, and a bad one for taxpayers.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #127 on: January 04, 2013, 03:47:15 PM »

Offline Interceptor

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1970
  • Tommy Points: 224
This is why our country is bankrupt.  Too many people can never say "no" to spending money on things that are of little value.

Multi-million dollar studies that prove that weapons designed to end life are dangerous shouldn't be near the top of the nation's priority list.
This is the McCain argument: little things like earmarks grease the skids for the big things. In reality, our country is "bankrupt" because of things like unpaid-for wars and tax cuts, growth of medical costs, and retirement promises that are perhaps not realistic. Nothing else even rates.

It's not because of turtle tunnels.

You don't know that the studies would have little value. How could you? How could anyone? We have the data, but aren't permitted to use it.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #128 on: January 04, 2013, 03:49:01 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17161
  • Tommy Points: 816

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

What is there to study that's going to save $20 billion?

The purpose of guns is to kill things.  From the standpoint of a physician, that's about all you need to know.
I believe the point of the study wasn't to show that guns kill people, but would be in finding ways to regulate guns to stop people from using guns to kill people, or to at least make it much harder to do.  Maybe the study can find a link in 60% of the mass killings, which could then be monitored more closely.  Maybe the studies could find simple methods for making guns more safely used or harder to make into automatic weapons.  Who knows, but to say something that leads to 31,000 deaths a year and countless other serious injuries, shouldn't be studied at all is just silly.
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #129 on: January 04, 2013, 04:03:06 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12257
  • Tommy Points: 352

Maybe there's no value, but it's hard to know if we're not even permitted to do the research in the first place.

Study away, I guess.  Just don't do it on the government's / public's dime.

Why not? What if research costs $20M, but ends up saving $20B?

What is there to study that's going to save $20 billion?

The purpose of guns is to kill things.  From the standpoint of a physician, that's about all you need to know.

I was thinking more broadly -- I think more research should be publicly funded. I don't think the government should decide what to fund and not fund, but to have a panel of experts decide. This is the current set up (ie: the NSF administers grants, but area experts drawn from the academic community sit on boards that review which grants gets funded, which do not).

Where's the money coming from?  Our government is bleeding money, and we're going to give even more of it out?  Sounds like a great payday for lobbyists, and a bad one for taxpayers.

The argument is that investment in research pays off in very large multiples in the future. The common example given is funding for basic science research, that leads to scientific discoveries that lead to the birth of new industries generating thousands of jobs (e.g.: US biotech and aeronautic industries). Admittedly, it is less clear that the studies described in the link above will have the same type of "payoff" in the future. But on the other hand, I think it is best left to NSF experts and the like to decide what might be of scientific merit, and what might not be.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #130 on: January 04, 2013, 04:21:22 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31032
  • Tommy Points: 5173
Save the money from the study and just use it to buy back guns when major gun control goes into effect. It would be a much better way of using the money.

Studying the fact that guns kill is pretty ridiculous allocation of research money in my book.We might as well spend research money on whether having a roof on a house is a good idea or not.

Seems like in both cases the study results will be rather obvious.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #131 on: January 04, 2013, 04:25:37 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12257
  • Tommy Points: 352
Save the money from the study and just use it to buy back guns when major gun control goes into effect. It would be a much better way of using the money.

Studying the fact that guns kill is pretty ridiculous allocation of research money in my book.We might as well spend research money on whether having a roof on a house is a good idea or not.

Seems like in both cases the study results will be rather obvious.

Just to clarify, the research is not to determine "if guns kill" but whether steps can be taken to "curb gun injuries"

Here is the quote from the newspaper article:
Quote
Between 1985 and 1997, public health research on guns was beginning to make inroads in identifying what steps might curb gun injuries.

The article is, of course, sufficiently bland as to provide very little additional information.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #132 on: January 04, 2013, 04:30:07 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31032
  • Tommy Points: 5173
Save the money from the study and just use it to buy back guns when major gun control goes into effect. It would be a much better way of using the money.

Studying the fact that guns kill is pretty ridiculous allocation of research money in my book.We might as well spend research money on whether having a roof on a house is a good idea or not.

Seems like in both cases the study results will be rather obvious.

Just to clarify, the research is not to determine "if guns kill" but whether steps can be taken to "curb gun injuries"

Here is the quote from the newspaper article:
Quote
Between 1985 and 1997, public health research on guns was beginning to make inroads in identifying what steps might curb gun injuries.

The article is, of course, sufficiently bland as to provide very little additional information.
How to curb gun injuries....try not loading the gun with ammunition and firing them. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Want to stop gun accidents, don't let the populace have guns. Again, seems pretty straightforward to me.

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #133 on: January 04, 2013, 04:32:46 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33239
  • Tommy Points: -27965
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Save the money from the study and just use it to buy back guns when major gun control goes into effect. It would be a much better way of using the money.

Studying the fact that guns kill is pretty ridiculous allocation of research money in my book.We might as well spend research money on whether having a roof on a house is a good idea or not.

Seems like in both cases the study results will be rather obvious.

Just to clarify, the research is not to determine "if guns kill" but whether steps can be taken to "curb gun injuries"

Here is the quote from the newspaper article:
Quote
Between 1985 and 1997, public health research on guns was beginning to make inroads in identifying what steps might curb gun injuries.

The article is, of course, sufficiently bland as to provide very little additional information.

Seriously?  12 years at the government trough to make "inroads" into figuring out how to lower gun injuries?

More training courses.  Fewer guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.  Lower capacity magazines.  Restrictions on certain types of ammunition.

Can I have my $20 million now?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: US Constitution / Gun Law Talk (Merged Threads)
« Reply #134 on: January 04, 2013, 04:43:25 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4146
  • Tommy Points: 360
This is why our country is bankrupt.  Too many people can never say "no" to spending money on things that are of little value.

Multi-million dollar studies that prove that weapons designed to end life are dangerous shouldn't be near the top of the nation's priority list.
This is the McCain argument: little things like earmarks grease the skids for the big things. In reality, our country is "bankrupt" because of things like unpaid-for wars and tax cuts, growth of medical costs, and retirement promises that are perhaps not realistic. Nothing else even rates.

It's not because of turtle tunnels.

You don't know that the studies would have little value. How could you? How could anyone? We have the data, but aren't permitted to use it.

It's not always about the dollar amount, it's about wasting money that someone worked to earn before they gave it to the government. The money that our government pays for useless studies tells us all how little they value how much work goes into creating that wealth in the first place.