PDA

View Full Version : Harpers Magazine Article - The price of Gun Control


HowardW56
07-25-2012, 5:45 PM
The Price of Gun Control

Complete Article (http://harpers.org/archive/2012/07/hbc-90008724)

By Dan Baum (http://harpers.org/subjects/DanBaum)
Dan Baum is the author of Gun Guys: A Road Trip, which will be published by Knopf in March. He wrote “Happiness Is a Worn Gun: My concealed weapon and me” (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/08/0083063) for the August 2010 issue of Harper’s Magazine. He blogs at Our Gun Thing (http://www.danbaum.com/ourgunthing/).


When you write about guns, as I do, and a shooting like the one in the Aurora movie theater happens an hour from your house, people call. I’ve already done an interview today with a Spanish newspaper and with Canadian radio. Americans and their guns: what a bunch of lunatics.

Among the many ways America differs from other countries when it comes to guns is that when a mass shooting happens in the United States, it’s a gun story. How an obviously sick man could buy a gun; how terrible it is that guns are abundant; how we must ban particular types of guns that are especially dangerous. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence responded to the news with a gun-control petition. Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times has weighed in with an online column (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/the-shooting-in-aurora/) saying that “Politicians are far too cowardly to address gun violence . . . which keeps us from taking practical measures to avoid senseless shootings.”

nicki
07-25-2012, 5:59 PM
What is good about this article is that the author isn't from the political right, he appears to be from the political left.

This is a sign that we are "WINNING".

Surprised Harper's would print this.

Nicki

readysetgo
07-25-2012, 6:05 PM
Thanks for posting!

I like this quote the most, from CDC study:

"And what does the CDC mean by, “Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness"

What? Huh? Who?

dustoff31
07-25-2012, 6:10 PM
"And what does the CDC mean by, “Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness"

What? Huh? Who?

It means, "the studies didn't turn out the way we wanted them to, so we'll just try to ignore them."

curtisfong
07-25-2012, 6:11 PM
Thanks for posting!

I like this quote the most, from CDC study:

"And what does the CDC mean by, “Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness"

What? Huh? Who?

There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don't know.

HowardW56
07-25-2012, 6:11 PM
It means, "the studies didn't turn out the way we wanted them to, so we'll just try to ignore them."

:iagree: :yes:

Anubis Laughed
07-25-2012, 6:12 PM
THANK YOU for posting this!

Skidmark
07-25-2012, 6:14 PM
What is good about this article is that the author isn't from the political right, he appears to be from the political left.

This is a sign that we are "WINNING".

Surprised Harper's would print this.

Harper's is a fine rag. They have previously given good exposure to firearms issues.

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/08/0083063

HowardW56
07-25-2012, 6:21 PM
There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don't know.

You are talking about a goverment agency...

There are also known unknowns knowns that are claimed to be known unknows when they are actiually known knowns, but unfavorable.

I think that works... :)

Never Convicted
07-25-2012, 6:22 PM
wow, the comments are scary in Andrew Rosenthal's article. scary. I wanted to post a response, but why ? would anyone change anyone else's distorted view ?

readysetgo
07-25-2012, 6:24 PM
What do you all know about unknowns? Hmm hmm?

Skidmark
07-25-2012, 6:36 PM
There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don't know.

We know one thing - Donald Rumsfeld is a liar, who has yet to be held accountable for the absolute debacle that ensued from his botched handing of the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

Legasat
07-25-2012, 8:12 PM
We know one thing - Donald Rumsfeld is a liar, who has yet to be held accountable for the absolute debacle that ensued from his botched handing of the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

Be careful, that chip on your shoulder is going to tip you over.

Just sayin...

USMCM16A2
07-25-2012, 8:13 PM
Folks,



Very well written. A2

unusedusername
07-26-2012, 12:11 AM
That was in Harpers?

Winning!!!

email
07-26-2012, 12:25 AM
The best way to stop someone who's shooting at you is to shoot back, period.

Demonicspire
07-26-2012, 2:11 AM
I really enjoy Dan Baum's writing, he presents a rational case for guns without dipping into the violent paranoia that is depressingly common in the gun control debate.

halifax
07-26-2012, 5:37 AM
Thanks for posting!

I like this quote the most, from CDC study:

"And what does the CDC mean by, “Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness"

What? Huh? Who?

It means, and I agree, exactly what Baum's response to it says:

Dan Baum responds:

If fifty-one studies have been done to determine whether gun-control measures have an effect on public safety, and there’s no evidence to draw any conclusion at all, what does that tell you? And what does the CDC mean by, “Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.” Why shouldn’t it? To me, it’s always sounded like the CDC can’t bring itself to say the obvious: That if evidence existed that gun control measures save lives, we’d see it. And we don’t. And this conclusion is corroborated by the stunning drop in crime during the past two decades, when gun laws have only grown looser.



If the NRA, let's say, looked at one or two cherry picked studies that showed "there’s no evidence to draw any conclusion at all" then the statement “Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.” would have value. In this case, however, the CDC looked at 51 studies that weren't cherry picked and came to their conclusion.

CDFingers
07-26-2012, 6:28 AM
That was a good article. I'll buy his book.

CDFingers

Mesa Tactical
07-26-2012, 6:51 AM
Harper's is a fine rag. They have previously given good exposure to firearms issues.

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/08/0083063

Last time I read Harpers was at least half a decade ago, and I recall a pretty good pro rights article then, too.

The magazine is published by a non-profit (if I recall correctly), and rather than have a specific agenda, the editorial policy is to get people to think. For Harpers' usual readership, pro rights articles like these are very provocative.

OleCuss
07-26-2012, 7:21 AM
Thanks for posting!

I like this quote the most, from CDC study:

"And what does the CDC mean by, “Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness"

What? Huh? Who?

It's not quite as obviously stupid as it might seem at first glance.

To a large degree the terminology of many such studies is inherited from the US Preventive Services Task Force which, in turn, appears to have acquired it in modified form from the Canadian Task Force.

It is absolutely correct to say that just because you do not have evidence of effectiveness, that does not mean that it definitively is not effective. If the relevant studies were not properly designed or did not have sufficient "power", then an effective measure may not yet be demonstrated to be effective.

That said, in evidence-based medicine, if a measure or intervention is not found to be effective it is also not recommended for implementation.

So whatever else the studies may have shown, in the context of a medical study and its conclusion, the recommendation for gun control is not supported and it cannot be recommended.



A further note? Essentially all medical studies in regards to firearms are really just garbage.

In medicine, a really good study is "double-blind" which means you are comparing people/events/items and neither the researcher nor the research subject know if the individual/group are receiving the intervention or genuine item.

Somewhat less good is a "case-control" study. But a huge number of these are really poor.

There are other forms as well, but we probably needn't touch on them since they are usually less beneficial.

For very practical reasons you can't do a good double-blind study on firearms in medicine - and case-control studies are likely to be fatally flawed.

Net effect is that you just won't get a good medical study on the effects of firearms.

Realistically, you'll likely never get a good double-blind study on firearms outside of medicine, either.

Decisions on firearms freedom/control will forever be based on emotions, philosophy, and politics because the studies will always be inadequate to definitively answer the questions.

readysetgo
07-26-2012, 9:58 AM
We know one thing - Donald Rumsfeld is a liar, who has yet to be held accountable for the absolute debacle that ensued from his botched handing of the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.
Whoa! Left field!
There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don't know.

It's not quite as obviously stupid as it might seem at first glance.

To a large degree the terminology of many such studies is inherited from the US Preventive Services Task Force which, in turn, appears to have acquired it in modified form from the Canadian Task Force.

It is absolutely correct to say that just because you do not have evidence of effectiveness, that does not mean that it definitively is not effective. If the relevant studies were not properly designed or did not have sufficient "power", then an effective measure may not yet be demonstrated to be effective.

That said, in evidence-based medicine, if a measure or intervention is not found to be effective it is also not recommended for implementation.

So whatever else the studies may have shown, in the context of a medical study and its conclusion, the recommendation for gun control is not supported and it cannot be recommended.



A further note? Essentially all medical studies in regards to firearms are really just garbage.

In medicine, a really good study is "double-blind" which means you are comparing people/events/items and neither the researcher nor the research subject know if the individual/group are receiving the intervention or genuine item.

Somewhat less good is a "case-control" study. But a huge number of these are really poor.

There are other forms as well, but we probably needn't touch on them since they are usually less beneficial.

For very practical reasons you can't do a good double-blind study on firearms in medicine - and case-control studies are likely to be fatally flawed.

Net effect is that you just won't get a good medical study on the effects of firearms.

Realistically, you'll likely never get a good double-blind study on firearms outside of medicine, either.

Decisions on firearms freedom/control will forever be based on emotions, philosophy, and politics because the studies will always be inadequate to definitively answer the questions.

I understand the concept and was half joking about the "what huh who". I just particularly liked that sentence, it's one of those that you could blurt out and people would think it eloquent without putting much thought into it.

I still say it's baloney, especially if it was a large well thought out study. I mean you could use the "known unknown" concept for straw man argument all day long. If you're going to study something in depth, I personally would try my hardest to come to a yes or no conclusion instead of the maybe, maybe not route.

OleCuss
07-26-2012, 11:12 AM
The problem is that I don't think it is actually possible to do a large, well thought out study on firearms.

You'd really need to do a double-blind study. And you can't effectively or ethically arm and disarm people without their knowing it. And all the other variables?

You can't do a good study on it and get a definitive answer.

What you can say is that those who claim increased gun ownership has a positive correlation with violent crime are just full of excrement. That one has been clearly shown to be incorrect. We just can't say why there tends to be a negative correlation - could it be that the non-violent tend to buy the firearms? Increased prosperity in a portion of the population means more disposable income to purchase firearms? More effective policing when there are more firearms in the community (or the other way around?)?

There will never be a very good study showing the effect of gun ownership. This means that gun control or the lack thereof will largely be a philosophical/emotional/political issue rather than one that is really based on hard facts from studies.

This is, IMHO, one of the best arguments for single issue voting on the RKBA.

Those who are strongly in favor of the RKBA as an individual and fundamental right are going usually going to be people who are philosophically, emotionally, and politically committed to freedom. This will tend to carry over to other legislative and administrative matters. Libertarians have to like this.

If, however, you believe that power and freedom are reserved for the government, then you want the anti-RKBA candidate since they are likely to be fundamentally committed to limiting individual freedom and increasing governmental control.

If you like fundamental freedom, forget the studies, you want the RKBA.

If you believe that the government is the entity to ensure your "well-being" at the expense of individual freedom, then don't vote for those who favor the RKBA.