ExRx.net

"An idealistic journalist trying to be objective may not realize how his own assumptions determine what questions he asks, what he leaves in, what he takes out. Those are the forces of bias, which we all have.

Then there is flat pre-meditated agenda. Fox is not biased in the classical sense of an involuntary or subconscious slant because they are deliberately pushing a specific agenda." - KenDowns

I agree as far as Fox News is concerned, however I don't think liberal media bias is always as inocent as you seem to be suggesting.

We shouldn't have a blanket ban on funding research. That just fuels ignorance. We need to ban funding groups that don't do real science. We need to ban funding anything at all that does not follow the scientific method, anything that is not published by a legitimate science journal, anything that is not properly peer reviewed.

If they are funding actual research, that is important, but let's not call bull$h1t "research" and then ban research. That's just stupid. That's like saying because there are shills for the food industry doing silly self-serving propaganda pieces, all research into nutrition should be banned. That is some seriously faulty logic, which belies a darker, hidden agenda. (referring to the NRA and politicians here, NOT Matt)

RE: shell game post

Well that's what is going on. However you are partly right. There is no evidence that the profit from fear part of that is intentional.



It is in actual news. But there are liberal opinion shows. Those shows are of course biased, because that's the point. Same thing with the right wing opinion shows. There is nothing wrong with that. The only problem I have with those is when they go beyond having a slant or bias and straight up lie.

"We shouldn't have a blanket ban on funding research. That just fuels ignorance. We need to ban funding groups that don't do real science. We need to ban funding anything at all that does not follow the scientific method, anything that is not published by a legitimate science journal, anything that is not properly peer reviewed.

If they are funding actual research, that is important, but let's not call bull$h1t "research" and then ban research. That's just stupid. That's like saying because there are shills for the food industry doing silly self-serving propaganda pieces, all research into nutrition should be banned. That is some seriously faulty logic, which belies a darker, hidden agenda. (referring to the NRA and politicians here, NOT Matt)" - Ironman

A) Considering that the president is pushing for increased gun control, is it crazy to think that his administration would favor "research" that supports that agenda?

B) Why is the CDC funding the research? Murder is a crime, not a disease. Treating gun violence as a public health issue, rather than a crime control issue makes no sense to me.

C) Any study on "gun violence" is likely to be at least somewhat biased. Otherwise, the study would most likely focus on the causes of violent crime, or the causes of murder, rather than the weapons used.

D) If congress passes a bad law, then it's up to congress to repeal that law, not the president. The only exception I can think of, is if the law is unconstitutional, in which case the courts can strike it down (again not the president).

"Well that's what is going on." - Ironman

Are you refering to congress rejecting Obama's ATF director nominee(s)? If so, how many nominees were actually rejected? (That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually currious)

A) I don't know that they do favor it. It seems to be an obligatory response to the recent shootings. You could also say the same thing about any research. Blanket bans on any research is never a good idea.

B) Probably because there is much agreement that mental illness is a major factor. Keeping guns away from such people has been the primary focus of the executive orders, and even has a lot of Republican support.

C) No it wouldn't. Focusing on one area to the exclusion of the rest would be something that would make it biased.

D) If Congress passed a law, they aren't going to repeal it. Executive orders are part of checks and balances. It was also executive powers they were taking. Frankly I don't care how we remove bull$h1t that passed by buying off politicians. I'd like to take a pair of scissors to quite a lot of legislation.


No, actually I am not referring to that. I do remember hearing something like that. Republicans lately reject everything, so I don't think that has anything to do with it.

"D) If Congress passed a law, they aren't going to repeal it. Executive orders are part of checks and balances. It was also executive powers they were taking. Frankly I don't care how we remove bull$h1t that passed by buying off politicians. I'd like to take a pair of scissors to quite a lot of legislation." - Ironman

Firstly, the makeup of congress changes pretty regularly. ... Secondly, the president isn't above to law. He can issue executive orders within the limitations of federal law, but he can't ignore the law or override it.

Personally, I'm much more concerned with the president (or any president) becoming too powerful than I am with the power of congress. The president is ONE person. Congress is made up of MANY people.

"No, actually I am not referring to that. I do remember hearing something like that. Republicans lately reject everything, so I don't think that has anything to do with it." - Ironman

Then how is congress obstucting the ATF?

By making legislation to keep the ATF from being able to enforce most existing gun laws.

Can you give an example?

They have no way to ensure gun shops are obeying the law for one thing. Here is an article that briefly goes over it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/le ... =2&ref=us&

This prevents more than one unannounced inspection per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Ow ... ection_Act

This one stops tracing data being used in court and also mandates background checks be destroyed in 24 hours, thereby making it nearly impossible to make sure guns aren't being sold to people who shouldn't have them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahr ... _Amendment

Illegal guns are a problem here. If better enforcement was possible, there would be less shootings, and no momentum for gun control laws. I'm not talking about restricting law abiding citizens here, I'm talking about cracking down on criminals.

"This prevents more than one unannounced inspection per year." - Ironman

This law was passed in 1986. It's hardly a recent development.

"This one stops tracing data being used in court and also mandates background checks be destroyed in 24 hours, thereby making it nearly impossible to make sure guns aren't being sold to people who shouldn't have them." - Ironman

It says tracing data is inadmisable in civil court. It can be used in criminal trials.

The 24-hour rule is intended to prevent to creation of a federal registry.

One thing the ATF can do right now is go after people who lie on background checks. After all, they already have their name, address, phone number, drivers licence number, height, weight, eye color, date of birth, etc. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be a priority, since people who lie on background checks are rarely charged.

It's hardly a recent problem. Intentions are hardly a justification, nor is there any proof that was the intention.

Are you in favor of a federal firearms registry?

Sort of. I think there should be one, but it should only have the smallest amount of info possible. It should also have very restricted access. There should be something along the lines of the HIPPA regulations which enforce medical privacy. It should mainly just be used by law enforcement for things like tracking weapons used in crimes, making sure gun stores are following the law, and returning stolen guns to their owners when possible. So it would be very different than cars or something like that. At the same time the privacy laws that go along with that would prevent people from posting the personal information of gun owners like in the recent incident.

You could even have two levels of access with the more detailed level requiring a warrant. Or if you want to search by name and see all guns registered to a person instead of just tracking a number, you would also need a warrant. Something along those lines should protect privacy and enforce due process.