joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Again you offer a compromise solution which isn't.
First what would the experiments test?
Primarily test much of the mantra and viewpoints to see how valid they really are. For example, placing the subject in a situation to which they have to react, not with planned movements, but reflex ecounters. Since in the real world, that happens more often than planned encounters. Like, a robbery at a convenience store the person is shopping at, at the time. Of course, since this is a controlled environment and we want all person involved to go home safely, rules of engagement and safety protocols would be a must. Developing a set of questions in an objective manner would be a challenge, but doable. Then, a selection of people in the community to take part without explaining the REAL nature of the study. Perhaps some professional soldiers from our military and/or police used as a control ground, since they are often well trained.
This sort of research is not performed very often. The safety reasons are the primary reason, but fashioning the environment for objective testing, is equally hard. The logistics would be a challenge.
Assuming all the things above, the question is, what sort of things do we know already? We could test that knowledge, just to see if its still true. For example, during moments of great physical stress and anxiety on the human body, blood flows away from the hands and feet and towards the body. This results in poor aiming ability on the part of the shooter. Which is reasoning why those with firearms are trained to relax in those first few moments. Or try other ideas.
Funding for these research projects is enormous. That becomes the first big hurdle when trying to put all these parts together under one roof. If the funding comes from an organization with an obvious agenda, the whole thing is tainted and not taken seriously. So, it might have to come as equal parts from several sources on both sides of the debate.
The purpose of these experiments is NOT to prove guns should be banned or allowed to flourish. Its to answer, objectively, questions of concern about situations and how different skill, maturity, intelligence, and perhaps other factors (age, weight, height, sex, eye vision, etc.), factor into the questions. Basically, its to give a moment to test out much of what has been told to the public relating to firearms in different situations.
For example. The person that took down the shooter in Arizona; the one Rep. Gabby Gilfords was shot in. That person had a firearm on their hip. Why did the person tackle the shooter, rather than shot him at point blank range? That's both psychology and physiology on display. There are plenty of theories, but no actual field research.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
We already have the stats that show SYG, CCW, and general loosening of gun control is
consistently followed by a drop in crime not seen after a tightening of those laws.
Your going to use Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Dunn to show that SYG laws work? Those two killed kids in 'self defense'. Yet, we have only their word, that they were in any real danger. I think the research I'm talking about would place more understanding to the actual effectiveness of CCW.
If firearms show a drop in crime, then why does a crime also drop with less firearms? We can sit here, and arguing it left and right, and get no where. Because this nation has had plenty of those conversations, debates, and studies. What I'm suggesting in the research above, is more 'place your money where your mouth is' approach. The people most against this, are the ones that are afraid of something......knowledge. If through those studies we find CCW does help, good for us! If we find it is not nearly as effective as we thought, good for us as well!
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
So what lies would you expose?
What was one of the benefits of the space exploration? To prove to all the deniers once and for all, that Planet Earth is *NOT* flat. And there is no way one could walk or sail off the edge. What was the benefit of developing the toilet? It allowed large cities to be constructed in small patches of real estate. These are things gain through research. That beliefs have been tested for validity. Many of them are simply now known as 'old house wife tales', since the science research shows otherwise.
One question might be: During a sudden and violent confrontation with a possible intruder outside a house, how does the person with a firearm react? This came up in a thread not to long ago, right? We argued left and right over the particulars of it. At the end of it, how many people, with firearms, would go outside the house to confront the intruder? Would they take a flashlight with them? Would they stay inside and shout that the police are on the way? Do nothing? That's why we do research, to answer these and other questions. How we might do it, is mentioned above.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
It would tell us nothing about peoples reaction in a crisis because they would know
it wasn't real.
Ah....now that's another hurdle in the study. Make it real, but without placing anyone (the subjects, testers, confederates) in harms way. Here is one way it could be done. I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with its premise or findings. The fact they only used six students far to low to make an informed analysis. I think five to ten times that number would be good for such a study. What I'm getting at here, is the logistics and performing the whole thing in a safe and controlled environment. BUT...leave the individual not aware....what they are being tested on. Since that defeats the purpose of the research, right?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
It would tell us nothing about the lefts well known believe
Again, that is the purpose of this, to challenge those beliefs directly. Whether they come from one side to the other side of the spectrum is irrelevant. If a belief is placing people at more risk then positive benefits, what is gained by keeping that belief? That's only determined....AFTER....doing some serious researching.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
And we both know that for you to like the experiment it would be carefully
designed, as most controlled experiments are, to "prove" the conclusion the creators
wanted.
The reason to perform research is to slowly eliminate the bias. A handful of studies could say one thing, but several thousand will tend to give a pretty accurate understanding of the subject matter. Where do you think the Theory of Gravity comes from? There are millions of tests performed each year, to find if still works as previously known. Compare the lab research of gravity to firearms; which takes place more?
For me to be happy, is that the research was done to find...THE FACTS....and not to push a political agenda. I can handle having my beliefs challenged with scientific research. Can you handle your beliefs being challenged?
That is a serious question, BamaD. Not many people have the maturity or spirit to handle their long held beliefs being challenged and shown to be false. Its well understood through psychology that people will go to great lengths to deny a reality, even when the facts are plain as daylight.
|
RE: Concealed Carry bans overturned in Chicago, Violent... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread