RE: CDC and Firearms

RE: CDC and Firearms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 4:22:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek That said, the CDC can't really do anything helpful on this matter. They're medical scientists and epidemiologists, not experts in society or firearms. It'd be like asking CERN physicists to speculate on the composition of a volcano, or it would be like asking an evolutionary biologist his opinion on relativity. They simply aren't qualified for this. The NIH however might be able to add something useful. Then you...REALLY...do not understand scientists at all. Scientists in the CDC study all parts of the human body. This includes the human mind. Thus, they are experts on humans interaction in a society. Firearms are like other objects in our society. Scientists study the relationship of firearms to individuals at all levels and determine what is healthy and not healthy. Likewise, it is possible for a CERN physicists to study a volcano. Geology does have many things in common with Physics (particularly time and pressure). Likewise, the concepts used in Geology apply to Physics and vise versa; therefore, what might apply as a finding in the CERN lab could be proved indirectly while studying a volcano. Curious how science works, eh? BTW, it would not be unheard of for a Evolutionary Biologist to consult a Physicist on things they are researching. How creatures behave, interact, and even change due to environmental changes might involve things a Physics Scientists could explain better. Many animals on the surface could not survive under water for extended times (assuming they had a way to breath) simply due to pressure. We understand this pressure (pounds per square inch, psi) through Physics. Yet there are creatures that live there. How? the CDC can be....EXTREMELY....helpful in dealing with the firearm culture this nation is plague with right now! To state otherwise is just a total lie. An the people stating it seem to all be of the conservative political viewpoint. Now why is that?

Termyn8or -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 4:33:06 AM)
OK, I am an electronics technician, so I am going to do brain surgery on you. T^T

Termyn8or -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 4:34:51 AM)
"the CDC can be....EXTREMELY....helpful in dealing with the firearm culture this nation is plague with right now! To state otherwise is just a total lie. You want people not to have guns. Therefore you have no guns. how the fuck do you plan on taking mine ? T^T

lovmuffin -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 4:49:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Then you...REALLY...do not understand scientists at all. Scientists in the CDC study all parts of the human body. This includes the human mind. Thus, they are experts on humans interaction in a society. Then I might suggest they dissect your birdbrain. They could gleen information useful to all of mankind [8D] quote: ORIGINAL: Scientists study the relationship of firearms to individuals at all levels and determine what is healthy and not healthy. You don't need scientists for that. I can tell you all about it. If you're a dirtbag walking past my home at 2am and you keep on walking by, that is healthy. If you're a dirtbag *who* breaks into and enters my home at 2am, that is not healthy. [8D]

joether -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 4:59:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "the CDC can be....EXTREMELY....helpful in dealing with the firearm culture this nation is plague with right now! To state otherwise is just a total lie. You want people not to have guns. Therefore you have no guns. how the fuck do you plan on taking mine ? Ah, 'conservative thought process'.... Its like a Sith; deals in absolutes. Its either white or black, but not grey in between. You can not handle my view because it is to complicated for you. How do I know this? Your viewpoint on display here. Do you really believe that if a person has a firearm they want it? That they agree with all your political viewpoints? There are people that should have guns, and people whom should not have guns. The government should have guns. So should law enforcement. Those citizens that can be trusted with firearms, can have access to them. Those that beat their significant other (or their children) should not be allowed to have a firearm. Those whom are belligerent, threatening, cruel, or suffer 'anger management issues' / 'road rage', should not have firearms. That we take arms away from those suffering from depression while getting them help. We do not allow children under the age of voting to have guns. Noticed the word 'trusted'? Yes that is very important. Because right now, conservatives have gone out of their way to distrust everyone that doesn't share their views on anything! They distrust the US Government. Now, there is a healthy distrust in government at all levels. Then there is the paranoid schizophrenia often seen in conservatives in our nation. As long as the distrust towards the government is healthy, that's fine. When it becomes 'Alex Jones fearing the US Government is going to use Jade Helm 15 to take guns and bibles from Texans", that is 'paranoid schizophrenia'. For most reasonable people, they can tell the difference. If you can not tell the difference, please, go find a good therapist! These same conservatives, distrust their fellow Americans to the same level as the US Government. Yet demand an unconditional trust from everyone (including the US Government) back at them. Trust is a two ways street. I would expect those on a BDSM site to understand that trust is a two ways street. You hit someone with a flogger, that is battery! Why should everyone trust someone that doesn't trust them in return? Doesn't make rational sense. Would you give a gun to someone you did not trust? Of course not! I know many people whom have firearms (like me). Notice I have no trouble with them owning firearms. That is because I trust them, and they trust me. Some of them are conservative, some are moderate, and some are liberal. I would like to trust conservatives with guns; yet, they do not trust me. Makes it hard given that the ones whom attacked in mass shootings recently were of a conservative philosophy. How do I know other conservatives will not attack other Americans? So, the manifestation, if you will, of that distrust by liberals/moderates towards conservatives with firearms, is the creation of more firearm laws. Which, as seen through observation, conservatives do not like. So if conservatives were to trust liberals/moderates more. Repair the bridge over the water as it were. Could trust be rebuilt? Yes. Yes it could! Firearm laws would be handled much better then they are now (not as restrictively nor foolishly). We as a society would handle mass shootings like adults rather than children. Yes there would be extremists from all sides that would try to undermine everything built. But in the long run, we as citizens, overcome our fears, build trust and move forward (cus we have a fuck load of other problems to solve). Is that clear enough for you, Termie? This is as simple an understanding as I can make it. It gets plenty more complicated!

Staleek -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 5:04:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek That said, the CDC can't really do anything helpful on this matter. They're medical scientists and epidemiologists, not experts in society or firearms. It'd be like asking CERN physicists to speculate on the composition of a volcano, or it would be like asking an evolutionary biologist his opinion on relativity. They simply aren't qualified for this. The NIH however might be able to add something useful. Then you...REALLY...do not understand scientists at all. I REALLY do understand scientists and science. Scientists are focused on one particular area of study. They have to be in order to be any good. A scientist is not simply a higher functioning human being, a scientist is someone who is at the frontier of knowledge in a particular field of study. An astrophysicist, for example, will be able to tell you about the temperature of space, about red-shift and blue-shift, and about how the mass of stars are worked out. He will not be any more qualified to repair your car or tell you what Shakespeare plays mean than anyone else. They're perfectly capable of forming an opinion on those matters, but their opinions won't be any more valid than anyone elses. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Scientists in the CDC study all parts of the human body. This includes the human mind. Thus, they are experts on humans interaction in a society. Firearms are like other objects in our society. Scientists study the relationship of firearms to individuals at all levels and determine what is healthy and not healthy. No they don't. They don't study the "human mind", they do study the "human brain". They are indeed experts in human interaction, a certain subset of it. Sexually transmitted pathogens, how likely someone is to get a coronavirus by sitting next to an air conditioning outlet etc. But attitudes and societal psychology is an entirely different field altogether. The CDC deals exclusively with pathogens which affect human life and the animals which humans depend on at the moment. You have absolutely no idea about the sheer enormity of this. You've probably heard words like "bacteria" and "viruses" and think it's a matter of counting numbers and working out which version of whatever tiny assassin is around before the work is done. Nothing could be further from the truth. Do you know about hemagglutinin, neuraminidase, or sialic acid? Ever even heard of these things? Go read up about what they are, see the astonishing level of microbiology required to understand them, and then understand that you need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of it before you can even begin to really understand the flu (hemagglutinin and neuraminidase is where you get "H" and "N" from to identify the strain of flu you have). And this is just human illnesses. The CDC also keep tabs on diseases in the animal population, particularly if any zoonotic diseases have been reported (rabies, f&m, leptospirosis, cryptosporidosis, vCJD etc) as well as potential threats from prion diseases, environmental pathogens whether natural or synthetic (vog or lead in water pipes for example). That's the "D" part of the "DC". The "C" part is very focused at the moment in preventing the age of modern medicine from ending, thus are trying to prevent the overuse of antibiotics while trying to find new compounds that work on bacteria which haven't become immune to antibiotics yet. That's the work of the CDC. It's absolutely enormous, while at the same time being highly specific and focused. Do you really think people who have acquired this level of expertise in the field of disease and sickness are also going to be qualified to talk about general human violence? You might as well ask NASA about it.

joether -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 11:03:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek That said, the CDC can't really do anything helpful on this matter. They're medical scientists and epidemiologists, not experts in society or firearms. It'd be like asking CERN physicists to speculate on the composition of a volcano, or it would be like asking an evolutionary biologist his opinion on relativity. They simply aren't qualified for this. The NIH however might be able to add something useful. Then you...REALLY...do not understand scientists at all. I REALLY do understand scientists and science. Scientists are focused on one particular area of study. They have to be in order to be any good. A scientist is not simply a higher functioning human being, a scientist is someone who is at the frontier of knowledge in a particular field of study. An astrophysicist, for example, will be able to tell you about the temperature of space, about red-shift and blue-shift, and about how the mass of stars are worked out. He will not be any more qualified to repair your car or tell you what Shakespeare plays mean than anyone else. They're perfectly capable of forming an opinion on those matters, but their opinions won't be any more valid than anyone elses. Actually the good scientists understand several different areas of science. They might be focus along one path (say, physics), but would understand how things interact with other things (i.e. chemistry or biology). The astrophysicist might also know how to repair a car. I know two of them whom are fixing up an old corvette right now (about 3/4ths finished). An yes, they are higher functioning humans because of the level of technical knowledge that must be understood at each level in order to understand the content at the next higher level. The Theory of Climate Change is a great example. That many people think they understand the theory when in reality; they know shit! The scientists that study this theory have to know not just the basics, the moderate, or even advance stuff. They have to know the stuff beyond the advanced level. Who do you think translates all that highly technical information into layman's terms so people whom have barely a high school's level can understand? Right now, scientists are making discoveries that have no practical application. Most people are unaware of these discoveries. Yet, many scientists do have many 'down to Earth' hobbies. People in highly technical subjects tend to have many subjects beyond their own focus. Which is why most scientists voted for President Obama; since that guy is much more likely to promote scientific study and achievement than his Republican rivals. quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: joether Scientists in the CDC study all parts of the human body. This includes the human mind. Thus, they are experts on humans interaction in a society. Firearms are like other objects in our society. Scientists study the relationship of firearms to individuals at all levels and determine what is healthy and not healthy. No they don't. They don't study the "human mind", they do study the "human brain". They are indeed experts in human interaction, a certain subset of it. Sexually transmitted pathogens, how likely someone is to get a coronavirus by sitting next to an air conditioning outlet etc. But attitudes and societal psychology is an entirely different field altogether. How did they become "...experts in human interaction..." if they were not experts on how the human mind interacts with its environment? Its called 'LOGIC'. They use it very often in science. So by your own words, you just agreed with me! quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek The CDC deals exclusively with pathogens which affect human life and the animals which humans depend on at the moment. You have absolutely no idea about the sheer enormity of this. You've probably heard words like "bacteria" and "viruses" and think it's a matter of counting numbers and working out which version of whatever tiny assassin is around before the work is done. Nothing could be further from the truth. How is Depression caused? Is it due to trauma? How the human mind was build? Lack of certain chemicals being produced in the human brain? By tapping into any of these, could effect the person in positive and negative ways. How do they know they are having a positive effect with a treatment they are testing if they do not know what to look for, because they do not study the human mind? Doesn't that sound a bit odd? The CDC employs a range of psychological outlooks on human health. Yet a few depression suffers have killed others and themselves with firearms. Would it not make sense to study every aspect of the chain of events and make recommendations to Congress to help combat that disease? quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek Do you know about hemagglutinin, neuraminidase, or sialic acid? "I do not know everything, but I do know where to look it up." -Albert Einstein- If I do not know, I can study up. I live a stone's through from Boston Medical, MIT, Boston University, Harvard Medical, and the Internet. In addition, I happen to know people in the medical, healthcare, and biochemical fields. I think if I needed to know the information, I could find it. Your point here is what? quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek Ever even heard of these things? Go read up about what they are, see the astonishing level of microbiology required to understand them, and then understand that you need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of it before you can even begin to really understand the flu (hemagglutinin and neuraminidase is where you get "H" and "N" from to identify the strain of flu you have). And this is just human illnesses. The CDC also keep tabs on diseases in the animal population, particularly if any zoonotic diseases have been reported (rabies, f&m, leptospirosis, cryptosporidosis, vCJD etc) as well as potential threats from prion diseases, environmental pathogens whether natural or synthetic (vog or lead in water pipes for example). That's the "D" part of the "DC". The "C" part is very focused at the moment in preventing the age of modern medicine from ending, thus are trying to prevent the overuse of antibiotics while trying to find new compounds that work on bacteria which haven't become immune to antibiotics yet. That's the work of the CDC. It's absolutely enormous, while at the same time being highly specific and focused. Do you really think people who have acquired this level of expertise in the field of disease and sickness are also going to be qualified to talk about general human violence? You might as well ask NASA about it. Curious and interesting. I do enjoy educated people; sometimes learn new things every day! Yet, how do chemicals in certain combinations affect the human behavior, if it is not ALSO study? You place one chemical compound within the human body. Five hours later, several more are added. Eleven hours after that, several more are added. Chemical compounds not only effect the human body's ability to function but the operation of the human mind. realizing that certain chemical components, in the right levels, at the wrong times, can hold dire effects on one's mind. Remember those Depression suffers? How they look towards life is different from non-Depression suffers. Chemicals within the human body that may not have effected a normal individual, could have a pronounce effect on the Depression suffer's personality or stability. Scientists of medicine like to examine all possible cases, not just the ones limited to the human body's functioning ability. What if an as yet discovered condition made people more prone to violence due to any number of factors (chemicals from the environment, disease, interaction with new technology, etc); wouldn't you want the CDC to be on top and leading the pack to understand the condition and how we as a society might combat its effects? Because one aspect of these mass shootings remains consistent from a psychological perspective: in order to garner media attention, the attacker has to raise the 'bar' to a new level of violence. When Columbine took place, the nation was stunned. When Sandy Hook took place, the nation was stunned. The recent attacks by a Muslim couple, stunned the nation. Is it because of one's ego? A thirst for destruction? Or something else entirely? This is a concept that would not be studied under your understanding of science. I get the impression that your a 'hard science' person. My background is in 'soft science', but do much study into the 'hard sciences' as well. That is why the CDC should study the gun culture; to understand everything in as complete form as technology and knowledge allow at current.

DesideriScuri -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 12:05:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether What protection do you have against the flu? Since your many more times likely to get that nasty biological problem then confronted by one or more individuals hell bent on fucking with you. While true, the comparison is beyond ridiculous. There has been no evidence of a flu virus making choices, or even being sentient. Adaptations are nothing more than survival of those viruses with a mutation that allows them to survive where other viruses don't. Viruses, too, have never been shown to choose to not attack a person based on "defenses" of that person. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Fucking move to Detroit or Chicago and see how you like it. Detroit and Chicago have some very nice people. A shame what is happening at the government level in Detroit. A good city with a lot of good history. But like all cities, they have their good times and bad. Right now, its a bad time for old Detroit. But this has NOTHING to do with the topic.... 1. Detroit is already out of bankruptcy, and is rebuilding. So, your veiled snipe at Republican governmental leadership is baseless. 2. Detroit and Chicago already have stricter gun laws than most cities, and, yet, still have high rates of gun violence. Which, isn't the exact topic (which you really only care about if it suits your purpose), but is very much related. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or And to those who want to use the other hoplophobe mantra to get federal laws by saying that the guns used in crimes are bought from surrounding areas and brought in to Chicago, tell me them why those surrounding areas are not crime ridden like Chicago. They are crime ridden. That you do not wish to look at the facts and figures is your problem. But we should help the CDC research this too.... Please cite your assertion that the surrounding areas of Chicago are crime ridden. The CDC doesn't need to research it. I'm sure there are plenty of universities or think tanks (for example, The Brady Center?) that can research it. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has no business researching non-disease topics, either. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or BECAUSE PEOPLE THERE HAVE GUNS. People in Chicago have guns too. Why does law enforcement find guns that originated more often from from states with very loose firearm laws, then tight ones? When we keep track of arms and whom is selling what to whom, things do not fall between the cracks to the criminal underworld as much. Or maybe you could point out to me all those atomic bombs in the hands of various gangs? Its been interesting Termyn8or. Just like old times.... Please cite your proof.

Staleek -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 12:13:27 PM)
Scientists really don't understand science outside of their field. They will know of the scientific method, thus will be able to peer review research, but beyond that they are lay-people. The CDC will survey people, ask how often they have intercourse, how many partners etc. They will study things like movement patterns, holiday destinations, and likely exposure to pathogens at those destinations. They will also assess how often people are prescribed anti-biotics, and monitor vaccinations. Lastly, they'll coordinate with other services around the world to determine current trends in epidemics and pandemics (this is how they decide which three strains of flu they will vaccinate against in any given year, for example). They do not deal with the more nuanced social issues. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Your point here is what? The CDC deals with diseases, not fatalities or injuries. I can go out right now, buy a fork, and stab someone to death with it. The CDC will not suddenly become experts in cultery because of this. You picked the wrong organization. The NIH is a group who would be qualified to conduct such a study.

BamaD -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 12:15:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek That said, the CDC can't really do anything helpful on this matter. They're medical scientists and epidemiologists, not experts in society or firearms. It'd be like asking CERN physicists to speculate on the composition of a volcano, or it would be like asking an evolutionary biologist his opinion on relativity. They simply aren't qualified for this. The NIH however might be able to add something useful. Then you...REALLY...do not understand scientists at all. I REALLY do understand scientists and science. Scientists are focused on one particular area of study. They have to be in order to be any good. A scientist is not simply a higher functioning human being, a scientist is someone who is at the frontier of knowledge in a particular field of study. An astrophysicist, for example, will be able to tell you about the temperature of space, about red-shift and blue-shift, and about how the mass of stars are worked out. He will not be any more qualified to repair your car or tell you what Shakespeare plays mean than anyone else. They're perfectly capable of forming an opinion on those matters, but their opinions won't be any more valid than anyone elses. Actually the good scientists understand several different areas of science. They might be focus along one path (say, physics), but would understand how things interact with other things (i.e. chemistry or biology). The astrophysicist might also know how to repair a car. I know two of them whom are fixing up an old corvette right now (about 3/4ths finished). An yes, they are higher functioning humans because of the level of technical knowledge that must be understood at each level in order to understand the content at the next higher level. The Theory of Climate Change is a great example. That many people think they understand the theory when in reality; they know shit! The scientists that study this theory have to know not just the basics, the moderate, or even advance stuff. They have to know the stuff beyond the advanced level. Who do you think translates all that highly technical information into layman's terms so people whom have barely a high school's level can understand? Right now, scientists are making discoveries that have no practical application. Most people are unaware of these discoveries. Yet, many scientists do have many 'down to Earth' hobbies. People in highly technical subjects tend to have many subjects beyond their own focus. Which is why most scientists voted for President Obama; since that guy is much more likely to promote scientific study and achievement than his Republican rivals. quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: joether Scientists in the CDC study all parts of the human body. This includes the human mind. Thus, they are experts on humans interaction in a society. Firearms are like other objects in our society. Scientists study the relationship of firearms to individuals at all levels and determine what is healthy and not healthy. No they don't. They don't study the "human mind", they do study the "human brain". They are indeed experts in human interaction, a certain subset of it. Sexually transmitted pathogens, how likely someone is to get a coronavirus by sitting next to an air conditioning outlet etc. But attitudes and societal psychology is an entirely different field altogether. How did they become "...experts in human interaction..." if they were not experts on how the human mind interacts with its environment? Its called 'LOGIC'. They use it very often in science. So by your own words, you just agreed with me! quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek The CDC deals exclusively with pathogens which affect human life and the animals which humans depend on at the moment. You have absolutely no idea about the sheer enormity of this. You've probably heard words like "bacteria" and "viruses" and think it's a matter of counting numbers and working out which version of whatever tiny assassin is around before the work is done. Nothing could be further from the truth. How is Depression caused? Is it due to trauma? How the human mind was build? Lack of certain chemicals being produced in the human brain? By tapping into any of these, could effect the person in positive and negative ways. How do they know they are having a positive effect with a treatment they are testing if they do not know what to look for, because they do not study the human mind? Doesn't that sound a bit odd? The CDC employs a range of psychological outlooks on human health. Yet a few depression suffers have killed others and themselves with firearms. Would it not make sense to study every aspect of the chain of events and make recommendations to Congress to help combat that disease? quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek Do you know about hemagglutinin, neuraminidase, or sialic acid? "I do not know everything, but I do know where to look it up." -Albert Einstein- If I do not know, I can study up. I live a stone's through from Boston Medical, MIT, Boston University, Harvard Medical, and the Internet. In addition, I happen to know people in the medical, healthcare, and biochemical fields. I think if I needed to know the information, I could find it. Your point here is what? quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek Ever even heard of these things? Go read up about what they are, see the astonishing level of microbiology required to understand them, and then understand that you need to have an encyclopedic knowledge of it before you can even begin to really understand the flu (hemagglutinin and neuraminidase is where you get "H" and "N" from to identify the strain of flu you have). And this is just human illnesses. The CDC also keep tabs on diseases in the animal population, particularly if any zoonotic diseases have been reported (rabies, f&m, leptospirosis, cryptosporidosis, vCJD etc) as well as potential threats from prion diseases, environmental pathogens whether natural or synthetic (vog or lead in water pipes for example). That's the "D" part of the "DC". The "C" part is very focused at the moment in preventing the age of modern medicine from ending, thus are trying to prevent the overuse of antibiotics while trying to find new compounds that work on bacteria which haven't become immune to antibiotics yet. That's the work of the CDC. It's absolutely enormous, while at the same time being highly specific and focused. Do you really think people who have acquired this level of expertise in the field of disease and sickness are also going to be qualified to talk about general human violence? You might as well ask NASA about it. Curious and interesting. I do enjoy educated people; sometimes learn new things every day! Yet, how do chemicals in certain combinations affect the human behavior, if it is not ALSO study? You place one chemical compound within the human body. Five hours later, several more are added. Eleven hours after that, several more are added. Chemical compounds not only effect the human body's ability to function but the operation of the human mind. realizing that certain chemical components, in the right levels, at the wrong times, can hold dire effects on one's mind. Remember those Depression suffers? How they look towards life is different from non-Depression suffers. Chemicals within the human body that may not have effected a normal individual, could have a pronounce effect on the Depression suffer's personality or stability. Scientists of medicine like to examine all possible cases, not just the ones limited to the human body's functioning ability. What if an as yet discovered condition made people more prone to violence due to any number of factors (chemicals from the environment, disease, interaction with new technology, etc); wouldn't you want the CDC to be on top and leading the pack to understand the condition and how we as a society might combat its effects? Because one aspect of these mass shootings remains consistent from a psychological perspective: in order to garner media attention, the attacker has to raise the 'bar' to a new level of violence. When Columbine took place, the nation was stunned. When Sandy Hook took place, the nation was stunned. The recent attacks by a Muslim couple, stunned the nation. Is it because of one's ego? A thirst for destruction? Or something else entirely? This is a concept that would not be studied under your understanding of science. I get the impression that your a 'hard science' person. My background is in 'soft science', but do much study into the 'hard sciences' as well. That is why the CDC should study the gun culture; to understand everything in as complete form as technology and knowledge allow at current. Since all your other arguments have been destroyed you are resorting to the CDC ? And the cities around Chigago have some of the loest cime rates in the state, you are the only person I have ever seen claim otherwise. BTW an evolutionary biologist will tell you that having the means to defend yourself is a key to survival.

Staleek -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 12:33:53 PM)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714509/ Conclusion: Modification of FFLs through federal, state, and local regulation may be a feasible intervention to reduce gun homicide in major cities. In fact, here you go: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=gun+study Have fun ignoring the factoids.

BamaD -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 12:39:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714509/ Conclusion: Modification of FFLs through federal, state, and local regulation may be a feasible intervention to reduce gun homicide in major cities. In fact, here you go: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=gun+study Have fun ignoring the factoids. Statisics show otherwise. However if a person doesn't want to own a firearm that is their business just like the decision to own one.

ifmaz -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/17/2015 7:42:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz I think you're putting too much faith in the CDC as there are many diseases (AIDS and cancer to name two) that have no cure, regardless of the CDC's crack investigative scientists. I'm not putting any faith in to the CDC. They use science the same as I do. To objectively look at information, test hypnothesis, look at evidence collected from experiments and tried to base conclusions on the findings. Then, they send it out for peer review. Joether, while you are a lot of things, a scientist you are not. You have a predetermined outcome and you look for evidence to prove it. You are, in no way, objective. I'd go so far as to suggest you are unaware of the meaning of the word. quote: ORIGINAL: joether The CDC has help bring the nation (not to mention the rest of the world) forward in the understanding of the problem with AIDS. If we had left AIDS up to 'faith' and 'belief', most likely we would be butchering all the gay people in the nation by now. Since we keep 'faith' based people in line, that has not happened. Instead, we have gain quite a bit of insight into the nature of the condition. Through tests and experiments, have made quite a number of discoveries and treatments. Where does faith come into play with regards to science? How did you even get on this tangent? quote: ORIGINAL: joether Back in the 1960's, being told you had cancer was a death sentence in medicine. In 2015, there are many ways of dealing with cancer. There are many Americans whom have benefited from the CDC's efforts on cancer research. Surely you mean the National Cancer Institute. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Yes, you need a miracle cure that comes from belief, right? Tell me, in the last two hundred years, how many illnesses has Christianity solved for America? How many medical problems has the religion help to alliviate? Yes there are Christians whom are medical doctors. They use medical scientist to help treat the injured, the sick, the young, the old, and the vulnerable. But they keep the two concepts separate. Unless your name is 'Ben Carson' and confuse 'neurosurgery' with 'national politics'. Again, how did you get on this tangent about faith healing? Are you assuming, because I disagree with your stance on firearms, that I am a conservative Christian and thus believe in "praying away" illness? quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Also, misuse of the semi-colon and a little excessive on the commas but at least you haven't misused 'whom' yet. What does this have to do with the topic? Don't like how I write without an editor? Then pay for me to have one, and it'll never happen again! I was bored one day and looked through some of your posts. Did you know you've never once used the word 'who' and have instead used (mostly misused) 'whom'? Asking what proper grammar has to do with the current topic while veering wildly off course into faith healing is more than a little ironic. You are more than welcome to use "an editor" (by this I assume you mean a word processor) when assembling your thoughts and/or posts. Personally I dislike the small window my browser uses and am, at this very moment, using a different editor to compose this response to you via the miracles of copy and paste. quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz You have a bit of a logic leap here. If the CDC was indeed 'controlled' by the Gun Industry (lets just call it the NRA), wouldn't the CDC be a propaganda machine for the NRA and not remain silent on firearm issues? Your not understanding the nature of control here. That much is obvious. The CDC's funding is per Congress. Right now, the majority party is the Republican Party. How many Republicans have either stated they like the NRA or will get down on their knees and kiss their shoes? ALL OF THEM. So it is not to hard to understand the CDC's dilemma of researching firearms in America given conditions. Please cite a source wherein every republican in congress has said they like the NRA. You cannot, because, like most of your rants, it is a lie. quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Also, additional misuse of semi-colons and our first misuse of 'whom'. Here's a quick tip: if the sentence reads better as 'he', use 'who'; if it reads better as 'him', use 'whom'. Here's a quick tip: Try to approach this thread from a scientific point of view rather than a belief system. You'll understand it so much deeper. In fact, you might even understand the problems facing the nation as a result of the gun culture running out of control. Or are you one of those people whom are HAPPY to attend funerals? Again, misuse of 'whom'. And again, how did you get on this 'belief system' tangent? There's a large amount of irony with you, king of emotional arguments, asking me to approach things with a scientific point of view. quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz I'm not sure solar panels would fall under the CDC's jurisdiction, I'd think that would be more of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission thing. The CDC really has no place in determining which technology can or cannot be used. It'd be extremely disturbing for them to do so; imagine if the CDC had blocked the iPhone from market while they researched some component in the iPhone. If it posed a health problem, it would fall under the CDC's jurisdiction. It can make recommendations to all sections of government on their findings. Its up to those government groups to take the information and use it correctly or just ignore it and see what happens. The CDC did once investigate whether cellphones could cause health problems in humans. After the research was concluded, cellphones were developed using better materials, better processes, and less chance of health problems. We as consumers gained from this research. Or are you not aware there are a lot of cellphones and smartphones in use these days? Please cite your source for this CDC research. quote: ORIGINAL: joether If the CDC found a health problem in one of Apple's products; I think Apple would examine the findings carefully. I think their lawyers would advise them not to release the product until things are corrected and made safe for the public. I'm sure your cited source will reveal just that. I anxiously await it. quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Also, you may want to omit subjective words and phrases like "ape shit". If one was to constantly degrade your chosen political party in every post you would write off their views and tune them out. Do you have any idea how long I've been on this forum? Do you have any idea how many conservatives resorted to the sort of attacks your attacking me on? If what you stated was true, then explain why so many of the regular conservatives are on here? Or on any of the threads I have started or posted? No, I do not have any idea how long you've been on this forum. I assume it has been a while. Congratulations. Would you like a cake? If you would prefer conservatives not comment on your threads perhaps you should not make them. The purpose of a forum is to discuss things, ideally rationally, and not resort to puerile name-calling. One gets the impression from your posts that you despise anything republican the way some conservatives despise anything democratic. If you choose to take my constructive criticism as an "attack" there's not much I can do about it. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Maybe you have not yet understood the nature of the forum; It has something to do with politics and religion. Before slamming me on English concepts; how about you learn said English concepts first? Specifically: Nature of the Topic for Discussion. You would quickly realize that liberals, moderates and conservatives each hold positions on a huge variety of concepts and ideas within the nation. 'Firearms' seems to be one of the more popular topics. Maybe the CDC should research why that is..... Thanks for not being condescending (that means to talk down to). quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Before we tackle "not one conservative", let us discuss "that would be the corrupted version of the 2nd". How did you arrive at this conclusion, especially after Heller, which affirmed the right to bear arms as an individual right? I've stated it time and again on this forum. Just look it up. I'm not going to state it here, because it is off topic. The conservatives on here will all try to tell you that my views are 'hogwash' and 'not correct'. You can believe them, or you can look up what I stated. Let's see how good your research skills are, eh? If your demonstrably incorrect views on the 2nd Amendment are off-topic, why did you state it and thereby add it to the thread's topic(s)? quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz You may want to refrain from subjective comments, especially those already proven incorrect. That guns dont kill people, but people kill people? Is that why we arm US Army soldiers with 'people' rather than 'assault rifles'? Kind of hard to carry some of those 300 lb Americans into battle. Usually a soldier favors mobility over lugging around a heavy person (or are they called 'fluffy'?). That's why we give them assault rifles. They are lighter and kill/maim more bad guys. Ever try killing someone with one of these 'people' the pro gun types says kills people? After one or two swings, I'm just DONE and ready for the union required break! But boy, can I mow people down with firearms....(or does ARMA 3 lie?). Having not committed murder, nor having any desire to do so, I am at a loss to detail how efficient I would be at "mowing people down with firearms". I imagine I'd Assault rifles, defined as fully automatic firearms, are exceedingly rare in civilian hands. As you seem to think a firearm will kill a person on its own, you may be interested in AssaultWeaponWatch.com. Three rifles (a Colt AR15, an M14, and an HK model 21) are under constant surveillance to see when/if they kill someone. quote: ORIGINAL: joether You can try to silence me. Just take a number and get in line with all the other conservatives that have tried to stop the evidence, facts, and truth from being known on this and other topics. Do you often feel persecuted? quote: ORIGINAL: joether Your as afraid as BamaD on what the CDC could find if it was allowed to research the gun culture in the nation. Your deathly afraid of your myths being destroyed due to scientific study and experiments. I'm perfectly 'OK' with gun control measures being tested. Just as long as we test all the gun myths from the NRA and other organizations/people. The CDC, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, has already investigated firearms. You may want to read up on their findings. As you repeatedly boast of your intellect you should have no troubles finding the link. It's not the result you wanted so I'm sure you'll demand additional "research", more than likely until you have a result that agrees with your desired outcome. Unfortunately this is not how science works. quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz It might be wiser to point to an objective source of information. I do appreciate an actual cite and not a cop-out "go look it up" response, however. I do appreciate $10,000,000 for my hour of work. Think I'll get it from all you conservatives? It never hurts to ask. quote: ORIGINAL: joether CNN is an objective source of good information. No, they are not. You continue to use this word 'objective' without understanding its meaning. quote: ORIGINAL: joether But I forget, unless information comes from the "Ministry of Tru----er-----FOX News", its not true. In other words, unless the conservative 'bent' has been added to information you read, it can not be 'truthful' and 'accurate', right? Because when organizations come into existence to explain what FOX New's (and other right wing organizations) state and didn't state due to political agendas; you have to wonder why journalists are not breaking down the doors at FOX News and other conservative media outlets for jobs..... I'd be utterly shocked if you could cite a single post of mine that cited Fox News or referred to them in a positive manner. However, since you have a black and white view of the world, I can understand how you'd lump anyone in disagreement with you as a conservative. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Nice thing with "go look it up", is that it teaches you to research things. Research things unlocks additional amounts of information. More and more information, allows a greater understanding of concepts, people, places, and events. Of course learning to think critically of this information helps on an even greater level. After that it comes down to 'how honest is the person with that information'. No, Joether, it is a way for you to spout nonsense and be lazy by not citing sources. Again, you have repeatedly referred to your intellect and appear to look down on others as unintelligent. quote: ORIGINAL: joether So here is the question: What do I have to gain (politically, financial, etc.) of the CDC examining all aspects of the firearms culture in the nation? Is the thread now about you and your relationship to the CDC? Have you donated money to the CDC or any sort of "firearm myth testing lab"? Have you offered your time or superior intellect to any firearm myth testing lab? Or do you just read CNN and think everyone shouldn't have a firearm because they scare you?

Staleek -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/18/2015 5:54:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714509/ Conclusion: Modification of FFLs through federal, state, and local regulation may be a feasible intervention to reduce gun homicide in major cities. In fact, here you go: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=gun+study Have fun ignoring the factoids. Statisics show otherwise. However if a person doesn't want to own a firearm that is their business just like the decision to own one. Statistics emphatically don't show otherwise. In fact the conclusions I posted were based on the statistics. If you want to argue that the statistics are incomplete and this needs more research, I agree with you. However, the reason this has been inadequately studied is because of Rupublican stonewalling funding for research at the behest of the NRA. http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx A British viewpoint on gun control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TABgNerEro8 Honestly, the notion that gun violence (which is a serious public health issue in the USA) can be solved with more guns is beyond ridiculous.

DesideriScuri -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/18/2015 8:52:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek Honestly, the notion that gun violence (which is a serious public health issue in the USA) can be solved with more guns is beyond ridiculous. The idea that more gun control laws are going to end gun violence is also beyond ridiculous. It isn't legal to shoot someone (in general). It isn't legal to kill someone (in general). Yet, both things still happen. If all the guns in the world suddenly disappeared, I guarantee there will be someone murdered in the US within 24 hours. Probably not with a gun, but the violence won't disappear. But, apparently, 10k stabbing deaths is somehow better than 10k gun deaths. I don't see it, but, that's just me.

Cuckingcurious -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/18/2015 9:39:04 AM)
Op, Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The problem is poverty and lack of education if you take away guns people would still kill each other they have done so since we came to existence. If you ban guns all you achieve is that law abiding citizens won't be able to have a gun like in France for example. Criminals and terrorist will still have access best example would be Paris recently. If we can't stop illegal drugs from entering the country or illegal immigrants what makes you so sure we can ban guns? The most recent gun ban was in Australia yet it did little to no difference to the amount of homicides and suicides committed nor did it stop criminals from obtaining a gun. We have the second amendment for a reason its to stop things like nazi Germany from happening. Hitler banned guns in Germany under a similar guise as the liberals here are attempting to ban them. Guess what though? My uncle in Germany still has guns. He never uses them but he has them. I wish the CDC would figure out the reason for violent tendencies figuring out why guns kill people seems like a waste of resources....

mnottertail -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/18/2015 9:42:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek Honestly, the notion that gun violence (which is a serious public health issue in the USA) can be solved with more guns is beyond ridiculous. The idea that more gun control laws are going to end gun violence is also beyond ridiculous. It isn't legal to shoot someone (in general). It isn't legal to kill someone (in general). Yet, both things still happen. If all the guns in the world suddenly disappeared, I guarantee there will be someone murdered in the US within 24 hours. Probably not with a gun, but the violence won't disappear. But, apparently, 10k stabbing deaths is somehow better than 10k gun deaths. I don't see it, but, that's just me. Only a strawman that can be knocked down. Nobody has claimed it will end gun violence. Just cut out SOME of the crazy.

BamaD -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/18/2015 9:51:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Staleek http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714509/ Conclusion: Modification of FFLs through federal, state, and local regulation may be a feasible intervention to reduce gun homicide in major cities. In fact, here you go: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=gun+study Have fun ignoring the factoids. Statisics show otherwise. However if a person doesn't want to own a firearm that is their business just like the decision to own one. Statistics emphatically don't show otherwise. In fact the conclusions I posted were based on the statistics. If you want to argue that the statistics are incomplete and this needs more research, I agree with you. However, the reason this has been inadequately studied is because of Rupublican stonewalling funding for research at the behest of the NRA. http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx A British viewpoint on gun control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TABgNerEro8 Honestly, the notion that gun violence (which is a serious public health issue in the USA) can be solved with more guns is beyond ridiculous. Studies show that there are from 500,000 defensive firearms usages a year (from Bloomberg of all people) too 2,000,000 defensive firearms usages a year confirmed by your beloved CDC. One of those CDC results that Joe, and apparently you, chose to ignore. Studies also show that ccw passage leads to a decrease in crime while gun control measures have no positive affect.

mnottertail -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/18/2015 9:58:17 AM)
if the number is 500K-2M we aint got a handle on it. Missouri puts the lie to your second statement.

Cuckingcurious -> RE: CDC and Firearms (12/18/2015 10:01:59 AM)
For those that want some real statistics generated by the FBI. It's funny to see the states with the strictest gunlaws / gun ownership ratio are also the states with the most gun related homicides. On another note in 2013 there were 41000 suicides vs 16000 homicides. Only about a third or so we're committed by use of a fire arm. Also most gun homicides and suicides are committed by a hand gun not a rifle. Hand guns are easier for criminals to conceal... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125