Guns (Yawn)

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:09 pm

Time for a little Rudeness

2/21/2018

Let's Call Extremist Gun Owners What They Are: Sick and in Need of Help

One of the things I learned firsthand over the last few days of gun “rights” proponents attacking me for advocating a ban on certain weapons is genuinely distressing. It’s not that a lot of people own a lot of guns, although that’s disturbing enough. No, it’s that I believe, sincerely and with no malice, there is a widespread mass hysteria, if not outright mental illness, connected to a certain paranoid strain of gun owner.

Before someone says something like “Crazy liberal says every gun owner is crazy,” let me state as clearly as possible: I’m not saying every gun owner is crazy. If I meant that, I’d say it. You can be a gun owner and be perfectly sane. For instance, a good many gun owners believe the NRA is full of shit. A good many gun owners support things like a ban on semi-automatic rifles and handguns because, let’s face it, the chance of you being in a situation where you need to be able to keep shooting is pretty goddamn small.

But then there are gun owners who believe they need to stockpile weapons because they might need to go to war with the American government if it becomes a "tyranny" (which seems to mean "not as white and male"). Those people have gone mad with paranoia. And I'm not talking your typical kind of Fox "news" paranoia. I'm talking Alex Jones-levels of hysteria.

How so? By all accounts, we are living through an extended period of record low crime throughout much of the country. There is virtually no chance a foreign invader could send an army here to take over even part of the United States. And, despite all the hype, the number of terrorist incidents post-9/11 have been as small in number and number of deaths as terrorism pre-9/11. Indeed, the people who stockpile guns to await an Armageddon (Islamic or Christian or Communist or whatever) are more likely to commit acts of terrorism than any foreigner here. But, like crime rates, the number of terrorist incidents was higher in the 1970s than now.

These are facts. They are not opinions. They are borne out by study and statistics and history. Yet, in defiance of those facts, gun hoarders believe that it’s inevitable that they will need to defend the Constitution (well, the 2nd Amendment) against the United States military or some secret black-ops force or something. It's nonsensical, but it's the logic of the paranoid.

If you are given facts yet you refuse to acknowledge those facts are real, that’s delusional. If a horse is standing in front of me and people tell me that a horse is standing right in front of me, what would those people say if, knowing I had perfectly fine eyesight, I simply denied the existence of the horse. They’d wonder what the hell was wrong with me, as well they should. And no one should let me have a goddamn horse.

The good Russ Belville asked an interesting question over on the Rude Pundit Patreon page. He wondered if the gun hoarders who keep saying that we need to take care of the mentally ill would be willing for police to confiscate the guns of someone who is deemed legally insane or a potential danger to themselves or others. It’s a simple question that’s a put-up or shut-up kind of thing.

But maybe I'm being too harsh. In his New York Times "column" (if by "column," you mean "a desperate stroll through a barren wasteland and pretending that it's still a verdant meadow") yesterday, David Brooks argues that the left needs to respect the rights of gun owners more, even the most extremist ones. They see the desire to have a few more regulations, like background checks, maybe even a license and insurance, but most especially banning of any currently legal firearms as an attack on their “culture.” That ain’t a good enough excuse.

Motherfucker, cultures change all the time. Polygamy used to be part of Mormon culture. Then it turned out that polygamy was being used as an excuse to assault children. So it was outlawed in the place where it had been a big-ass part of the culture. People adapted and changed. And a whole lot of girls didn’t get raped by grown men. (Am I comparing 2nd Amendment absolutism to polygamy? Sure. Why not?)

Brooks talks about how the "Reds" (in this case, not the Commies, but people who believe in conservative ideology) hate being "shamed" by the "Blues" when they are brought together for a conversation: "The Reds feel shamed by the Blues to a much greater degree than the Blues realize. Reds are very reluctant to enter into a conversation with Blues, for fear of further shaming." And, truly, shame has been used to silence people. But if your perspective on school shootings is that dead children and fear in the classroom are just the price one pays for the "freedom" of mass gun ownership, well, you can kind of go fuck yourself and feel ashamed. People like Brooks who want the left to "reason" with the delusional and the factually wrong are exacerbating the damage done by the paranoiacs.

Indeed, the only response to people who think this way, who are trying to discredit the activated students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the only thing that should be said to people who believe the lies being told about the kids who are now advocating for gun control should be that they are sick and they need help. Those liars shouldn't be given a platform. They shouldn't be put on a panel with people who are basing their arguments on facts. They should be told to listen to the kids, goddamnit. They are the Active Shooter Drill Generation. They've been dealing with this shit for their entire lives. They have a fuck of a lot more credibility than someone snarling about jackboots and chem trails.

Essentially, we have a large, sick segment of the population that is divorced from reality and heavily-armed. They are being exploited by craven politicians, the greedy gun lobby, and the conflict-hungry media, which makes them think that their delusional thinking has merit instead of being a symptom of damage done to them and to the public in general.

And, frankly, until we start treating them that way, as sick, which, may, yeah, make them feel a bit ashamed, nothing will fundamentally change, and this corrosion of our American soul around the bloody bullet holes will rot us away.


2/23/2018

Violent Things That Have More Influence on Kids Than Movies or Video Games

1. The guns you can buy at family-friendly places like Cabela's, a "sporting goods" store. This is from their 2016 Black Friday ad:
Image

2. The President of the United States saying, "This crazy man who walked in wouldn't even know who it is that has (a gun), that’s good. It's not bad, that's good. And a teacher would've shot the hell out of him before he knew what happened." You can put in the words of any politician who glorifies gun violence. Same effect.

3. These pathetic idiots on an open-carry march.

Image

4. The NRA's Mistress of Doom Dana Loesch telling gun owners to be ready to go to war. And the NRA in general.



5. Dumbass parents who teach their kids as young as 5 to shoot semiautomatic guns.

6. Trigger-happy cops, whose actions teach that shooting first is just what you do.

7. The worthless death penalty, which teaches that murder solves your problems.

8. Oh, yeah. And maybe all the motherfucking guns themselves. Maybe the real, physical guns that can fucking kill people have more of an influence than fantasy deaths. Or is it just easier to blame fiction than blame reality?
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com




The only thing that can stop a loud party is good guy with a gun.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Pol ... um=twitter



"Since we passed our legislation in Connecticut, which was comprehensive in nature, in 2013, we've had the largest drop in violent crime of any state in the nation by a substantial amount..."
- Gov. Dan Malloy CT

Dan Rather: Covering Trump is like "facing a fertilizer spreader in a windstorm"

Image

How The NRA Silenced the Science of Gun Violence Prevention

If, as the NRA claims, more guns lead to less crime, why are they opposed to funding studies that could back up their assertion?

Caroline O.Jun 19, 2017

Another mass shooting.

Another body count.

Another unending list of questions.

Why does this keep happening? Are we missing warning signs? Can we identify high-risk individuals ahead of time? Are there laws that could prevent or reduce firearm injuries and deaths? If so, what laws are most effective at mitigating the risks?

These are questions that are answerable through the scientific method. Indeed, we might very well know the answers to these questions, or at least have a growing body of evidence to guide us, if leading government scientists and federal agencies were given the funding to study them.

But they’re not: Thanks to a 23-word rider attached to a federal spending bill in 1996 and enacted in 1997, research on gun violence has been frozen for two decades.

The Scandalous History of The Federal Freeze on Gun Violence Research Funding

The freeze on federal funding for gun violence research can be traced back to 1993, when Dr. Arthur Kellerman and colleagues published the results of a CDC-funded study in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The study, “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home,” found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide. Rather than confer protection, the study concluded that people who keep guns in the home faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide.

The NEJM article was the subject of significant media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by trying to shut down the entire center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but in 1996, Dickey — backed by the NRA — authored an amendment that cut $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the exact amount the CDC had invested in research on firearm injuries the previous year.

Passed by a Republican-dominated Congress, the NRA-backed ‘Dickey Amendment’ stated that “[n]one of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” While the amendment doesn’t explicitly ban research on gun violence, the deliberately vague wording — combined with an onslaught of harassment of researchers — had a chilling effect on scientific progress, effectively ending all federal research programs related to gun violence. As Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, put it: “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA.”


The Dickey Amendment, passed in 1996, prohibited federal funding for any research that could be construed as advocating for or promoting gun control. It was accompanied by a $2.6 million cut to the CDC’s budget — the exact amount the agency had invested in research on firearm injuries the previous year. (Image Credit: U.S. Government Publishing Office)
“Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear,” Dr. Kellerman wrote in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. “But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency’s funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”

It’s important to note that the freeze on funding doesn’t just impact federal agencies — it applies to federally-funded researchers everywhere. At universities and medical centers nationwide, where research is highly dependent on federal grants, published studies on gun violence dropped off dramatically after the passage of the Dickey Amendment — by about 60% between 1996 and 2010 — while federally funded gun violence research dropped by approximately 96% during the same period. Furthermore, CDC officials say the funding freeze and subsequent lapse in gun violence research caused lasting damage to the field. After funding was cut off, leading researchers moved on to other areas of study that were still supported by the government, and some researchers even discouraged students from specializing in gun violence research because of the lack of funding. Although private violence prevention agencies continued to support research on gun violence, they were unable to produce or analyze nationwide data on gun violence without the work of institutions like the CDC.

The amendment — and the message it sent to scientists — also had the effect of making gun-related research questions controversial even for studies not funded by the government, as scientists feared such research would be held against them if they applied for federal grants in the future. According to a 2017 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, gun violence was the least-researched cause of death in the U.S. and the second-least funded cause of death over the past decade.

“As a result of [the Dickey Amendment], many, many people stopped doing gun research, [and] the number of publications on firearm violence decreased dramatically,” Dr. Fred Rivara, a professor of Pediatrics and Epidemiology at the University of Washington at Seattle Children’s Hospital, and a co-author of the 1993 NEJM study, told PRI’s The Takeaway. “It was really chilling in terms of our ability to conduct research on this very important problem.”

Silencing The Science of Gun Violence Prevention

Over the last two decades, Republicans have exploited the Dickey Amendment to argue their case that gun violence is not a public health issue — a view that stands in stark contrast to the position of professional medical and public health organizations, at least 52 of which have independently urged lawmakers to treat gun violence as a pressing public health epidemic. Despite this overwhelming consensus from the scientific community, congressional Republicans actually expanded the scope of the Dickey Amendment to apply to the National Institutes of Health in 2011, after Dr. Douglas Wiebe, an epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, authored a 2009 NIH study that confirmed a significant association between gun possession and gun assault.

In 2013, following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Obama called on the CDC to resume funding for research into the causes of gun violence. He also asked on Congress to give the CDC $10 million so they could carry out such research, but Congress has not allotted any of those funds in subsequent budgets. While the CDC developed a plan to use this funding on studies addressing firearm injury prevention and control, the agency’s research agenda remains frozen due to congressional inaction. Most recently, in the wake of the 2015 Charleston church shooting, the GOP-controlled Appropriations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an amendment that would have lifted the federal funding freeze. Former House Speaker John Boehner defended the lack of government research, saying “a gun is not a disease.”

Notably, we heard the exact same argument back in the middle of the 20th century, when motor vehicle accidents were responsible for killing more than 50,000 Americans a year. The common wisdom, as told by carmakers, was that automobile fatalities were the fault of individual drivers — in other words, ‘cars don’t kill people; drivers kill people.’ This assertion was ultimately shown to be false, but we only discovered the truth after years of rigorous injury prevention and control research conducted by scientists at the CDC. Contrary to the claims of the automobile industry, vehicle design was found to be just as much to blame for high fatality rates as bad drivers. Researchers also discovered that motor vehicle deaths could be significantly reduced with simple safety devices such as air bags and seat belts, as well as road design features such as median barriers. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 mandated many of these improvements. It also marked the start of a decades-long federal effort to better understand automobile and highway safety through systematic data collection and analysis. As a result of these studies — and the policies that grew out of them— the motor vehicle fatality rate per mile traveled has fallen 80 percent since 1966.

The insights that emerged from this line of research formed the foundation of the public health approach to injury prevention, an evidence-based model that incorporates 1) ongoing surveillance and monitoring of trends in injury-related morbidity and mortality; 2) identification of risk and protective factors; 3) continuous evaluation and development of prevention strategies; and 4) dissemination of the most efficacious strategies for reducing the incidence and burden of injuries. In addition to motor vehicle safety, this basic model has been applied successfully to reduce the public health burden of intentional and unintentional causes of injury, including poisonings, drownings, child and elder abuse, dating violence, and sexual violence.


The public health model of injury prevention, which was developed based on studies of motor vehicle crashes, could also be applied to reduce the public health burden of gun violence — but it’s not, thanks to a two-decade-old amendment that froze federal research on gun violence prevention. (Image Credit: U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention)
We could use the same injury prevention model to study gun violence and reduce its massive public health impact. But unlike car manufacturers, the gun industry — led by the NRA — has been successful in their efforts to suppress scientific inquiry into gun violence and potential approaches to prevention. Moreover, while certain federal agencies like the ATF collect basic data on criminal uses of firearms, prohibitions on data-sharing have stymied scientific research on the subject. For example, as Jennifer Mascia explained in The Trace, the ATF is prohibited from “releasing crime-gun trace data to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor — leaving academics and researchers without easy access to valuable data.”

The end result is that many fundamental questions about gun deaths and injuries, such as how many Americans are shot each year, remain unanswered, and we lack the data to establish basic parameters like the magnitude, scope, characteristics, and consequences of firearm violence. That’s important, as public health professionals rely on this type of data to identify risk and protective factors, as well as to develop effective violence prevention strategies. Insufficient research also makes it difficult for policymakers, even in states with strong firearm laws like Massachusetts and California, to know which laws will be effective, since there’s very little data for evaluation. This has meant in practice that “there is no scientific consensus on the best approach to limiting gun violence,” the New York Times reported in a 2011 article, “and the NRA is blocking work that might well lead to such a consensus.”

Even former Congressman Dickey — the Republican who wrote the original provision banning gun violence research — has recanted and urged Congress to repeal the ban, writing in an op-ed that, unlike researchers studying car accidents or infectious disease, “U.S. scientists cannot answer the most basic question: what works to prevent firearm injuries?”

If, as the NRA claims, more guns lead to less crime, why are they opposed to funding studies that could back up their assertion? The very thought is apparently enough to terrify the NRA, which is why they’ve gone to such extreme lengths to suppress this line of research and any policies that might grow out of it.

“If there is no research, it is harder to make suggestions for policy reform,” Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis, told the Huffington Post. “And if you have a vested interest in stopping policy reform, what better way to do it than to choke off the research? It was brilliant and it worked. And my question is how many people died as a result?”

We didn’t have to ban automobiles to cut motor vehicle fatalities — and we don’t have to ban guns to reduce gun-related deaths. What we do need, however, is a willingness to objectively examine the causes of gun violence — and elected leaders who care enough about American lives to go where the data lead.
https://medium.com/@RVAwonk/how-the-nra ... a4e537c29e


Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Karmamatterz » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:33 pm

I also find it somewhat ironic that the guy complaining about ideologues is the guy posting stuff from far right anti-feminists and anarcho-capitalists. You have gone out of your way to blame everything except the kitchen sink and guns for the epidemic of gun violence in the US. Maybe you should consider your own ideological blinders.


Both sides (or more) need to be looked at. You sure as heck aren't going to post an opposing view. I for one am not a fan of echo chambers. To find truth one must be willing to look at more than one angle/perspective. As uncomfortable as it might be for you, it is information to consider. Far right....hahahahahahaha...I keep telling you Dr. Evil, you ARE a funny guy! :rofl2

Do you actually believe that just because someone posts a bit of info for a source that they identify with ALL of what that source represents? If a neo-Nazi said it was raining outside, and you're buddy agreed it was raining outside would you get our phat paintbrush out to slop some paint on your buddy and call him a Nazi?

Anti-(...........) you can fill in the blank. First on my list would be anti-politically correct. I'm not sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. But since when is democracy supposed to be easy? Oh, I forgot, do you even believe democracy is a good thing? I am a very tolerant person and believe people should respect other's values and opinions even if you disagree with them. Do you? Just because you disagree with someone it doesn't make the other person a monster. Monsters do exist, both on the extreme right and left. But not everybody is a monster.
User avatar
Karmamatterz
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby DrEvil » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:15 pm

Karmamatterz » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:33 pm wrote:
I also find it somewhat ironic that the guy complaining about ideologues is the guy posting stuff from far right anti-feminists and anarcho-capitalists. You have gone out of your way to blame everything except the kitchen sink and guns for the epidemic of gun violence in the US. Maybe you should consider your own ideological blinders.


Both sides (or more) need to be looked at. You sure as heck aren't going to post an opposing view. I for one am not a fan of echo chambers. To find truth one must be willing to look at more than one angle/perspective. As uncomfortable as it might be for you, it is information to consider. Far right....hahahahahahaha...I keep telling you Dr. Evil, you ARE a funny guy! :rofl2


Why would I make an argument by posting stuff I think is wrong? Truth isn't always in the grey zone between two extremes, that's just what the dumb ass talking heads on TV want you to believe. If someone says 2+2=4 and someone else says 2+2=5 the truth isn't somewhere in the middle.

I keep saying that I think the truth is that you have too many guns and too lax gun laws and that's why you have so many shootings, you keep disagreeing with that while throwing out strawmen, engaging in rampant whataboutism and telling me to go fuck myself. Seriously, why do you think these school shootings are happening, and why only in the US? Spell it out.

Do you actually believe that just because someone posts a bit of info for a source that they identify with ALL of what that source represents? If a neo-Nazi said it was raining outside, and you're buddy agreed it was raining outside would you get our phat paintbrush out to slop some paint on your buddy and call him a Nazi?


Yes, obviously. Every single word that ever came out of a Nazi's mouth is a blatant lie. Every. Single. Word. :roll:

I took issue with you posting PragerU because they are an ultra conservative, anti-feminist far right group. Their whole youtube channel is an alt-right MRA wet dream and they're not exactly known for being objective. If that and the Austrian "fuck you I've got mine" school of economics (Mexico, a country with high levels of poverty and corruption and an incredibly violent drug war raging has high murder rates. I'm shocked!) is the best you can come up with to support your position then I think you should reconsider your position. Maybe it really is as simple as lots of guns + lax gun laws = lots of shootings.

Anti-(...........) you can fill in the blank. First on my list would be anti-politically correct. I'm not sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. But since when is democracy supposed to be easy? Oh, I forgot, do you even believe democracy is a good thing? I am a very tolerant person and believe people should respect other's values and opinions even if you disagree with them. Do you? Just because you disagree with someone it doesn't make the other person a monster. Monsters do exist, both on the extreme right and left. But not everybody is a monster.


I respect your right to believe whatever you want. I respect your right to think that the breakup of the traditional family unit is one of the reasons you have so many mass shootings, but I strongly disagree with the idea itself because I think it's wrong. Every other developed country has the same issues minus the shootings. The one thing you have that others don't is a shitload of guns.

And clearly being for stricter gun laws means I oppose democracy. That's a given.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Jerky » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:30 pm

Just popping in here to say that I'm standing behind Dr Evil like Billy Zane in Zoolander.

J.
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby Iamwhomiam » Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:06 am

Kama, I'm crashing fast, so this will be brief. You wrote, "Both sides (or more) need to be looked at."

This is true, but you should be well aware of the source of your reference material and be able to recognize what is clearly propaganda, regardless, and refrain from subjecting others to its messaging. Always, consider the credibility source and how the material will be received, and whether it truly supports the argument and point you're trying to make.

These topics you've been focusing on are peripheral, rather than central to the thread's topic. Please initiate those discussions by starting another thread, if you feel they're being neglected being discussed here.

The point of someone using the term "toxic masculinity" was merely an attempt to say these troubled youths have a perverted understanding of what it means to be "manly."

In my earlier post I mentioned I felt surprised by your comment as much as I would hearing someone say a woman's attire prompted her rape. But I didn't fully explain.

It is not sex per se that a rapist is concerned with, but power. These dysfunctional youth who choose to commit mass murder are exercising their power over their victims. And even though they remain weak in mind, body and spirit, their power is real.

Unfortunately, as we all know, a gun can turn an otherwise cowed wimp into a lethal force.

Unlike Nikolas Cruz, Stephen Paddock and Kyle Huff had no mental health issues and no drugs whatsoever in their systems and both committed suicide immediately after their rampage, having had the final word with no one to answer to, and no retribution to pay for their gross transgression.

Edit to add:
I wrote this above and it has been haunting me all day:
"The point of someone using the term "toxic masculinity" was merely an attempt to say these troubled youths have a perverted understanding of what it means to be "manly."

Ugh! Not "...to be "manly", as that word's open to wide and varied interpretation, but to be an adult male.
Last edited by Iamwhomiam on Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby 82_28 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:17 am

Fuck yer gunz karma. There is nothing good that comes from them whatsoever. It is the epitome of "slippery slope" apologia. An impossible task, but the world rid of implements intended to do nothing but end the lives of those who did not ask for it must fucking happen. I do not understand how one can even diplomatically defend their existence (other than that they are physically in existence and always will be) and not be fully positive in getting rid of them in equal parts enthusiasm. If you, karma, intended to form a perfect habitat would you introduce guns?

No, bro. I do not think you would. Why is it such anathema to fucking people such as yourself who espouse having a "relationship" with a series of pipes, some plastic and some wood and incendiary substances that make you so unreachable? Like seriously. I for instance love lighting off fireworks. That is until I saw my dogs and cats run and cower in fear. I still love lighting off the irresistible firework. But I err on the side of fear. I do not know what it will cause in the emotions of beings nearby.

Guns are made to kill chief. Nothing more and nothing less. Thus, they must be destroyed all at once along with capitalism and forgotten about to create a reality where it is impossible to ever kill, hurt, exploit anyone or anything ever.

I think you're going to find a lot of holes in my logic and yet agree with it 100%. Quit fucking making excuses for a fucking travesty of commonsense. If you see a gun. Report it and have it confiscated. Attrition.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby PufPuf93 » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:45 am

The school shooting epidemic is a copy-cat phenomena since Columbine, a go to consideration of pathological adolescent angst. Unfortunate.

Regards the gun issue there is no rational reason for assault weapons such as AR-15s being readily available. The idea of arming school teachers is insanity.

I was raised in a gun culture but decided not to hunt nor shoot age 17. I own four guns that are family keep sakes, given me before my disappointing to folks rejection of shooting and hunting. I had more family guns but most were stolen by a man in his 80s who was a friend of my father. He asked me about them and I showed him and told him my intent to give them to a local historical society. He said that he would like to perform some maintenance and then would not give them back to me. I also showed "Cleo" my maternal grandfather's shotgun that had been given me age 12 when he passed away in 1964. It was kept in a separate area from my Dad's guns but "Cleo" managed to switch out my grandfather's 16 gauge for a lesser 12 gauge that was my Dad's (these thefts occurred 6 or 7 years ago). These were collector type guns from the 1880s to 1960, many were nice hunting guns as my grandfather owned and operated a hunting and fishing resort for 40 years and my Dad had gone to work for him as a guide age 15. The older guns were tools in that my family literally lived on the frontier; access was only by mule, horse, or foot until 1921.

Earlier my BIL who was a 20 year Chief of Police at the time, removed the same guns from my Dad's home while my Dad was in hospice and checked them into the evidence locker at the PD. My Dad was angry over what had been removed from his home. My BIL was slick in that he inventoried the guns and took what he wanted that never made it into the inventory nor evidence locker. One of the guns was an SS Officers Lugar he had brought back from WWII. He had tried to give it to me and I had told him that I would give it to the BIL (who had been the only one interested in the gun) as a special gift from Dad when he was gone. Instead the asshole stoled it. What he also took was my Dad's gold. We were a historic California gold rush family (I live on part of my great grandfather's mine now) and my Dad took recovered gold from a sand and gravel operation in the 1950s to 1970s that was kept safely in a fruit box under his bed. Three pint canning jars of gold were inventoried into the evidence locker as three "bottles" which on recovery were 1 oz. vials. What a creep. My Dad did not trust the BIL but I had thought it was mostly because they had turned into "Promise Keeper" style Christians and we were far from raised that way. Was I ever wrong about the guy. Have not had a mutual conversation with that sister since the day before our father died in 1996. Then they kept me in court until 2000. Guns Christianity Creeps.

Guns turn the most otherwise reasonable person creepy in most cases. Guns are far more likely to hurt someone by accident than to actually cause any benefit. I support the 2nd Amendment but conditions and guns are far different today.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:33 am

Dick's Sporting Goods, one of the U.S.'s largest sports retailers, will stop selling assault-style rifles and require gun buyers to be 21


Pence needs a steady supply of kids to sacrifice on his 2nd Amendment altar.

Pence: Abortion will end in U.S. 'in our time'
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/37 ... n-our-time


Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:32 pm

Burnt Hill » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:48 pm wrote:
stillrobertpaulsen wrote:(I'm sure HMW would have put out an OP on the memetic connection with JFK)


What an impact HMW had on my thinking here.
And i had to worry a bit about viral schizophrenia when I realized I used it out side of here.
Hugh was wrong about a lot of things,
But he was right about everything.
* okay not everything. But a lot of important things.
shoot now that I have a disclaimer I want to delete the post.


No, I'm glad you didn't delete the post, Burnt Hill. I think HMW has been gone from RI for at least 4 years now, but he certainly made an impact on how I view the world too. As soon as I heard the shooting was at a place called Parkland, my mind immediately - as a result of my exposure to the world of keyword hijacking courtesy of Hugh Manatee Wins - zoned in on how Parkland Hospital in Dallas was where JFK was taken after the assassination in Dealey Plaza, and where his body, after doctors observed the entry wound in his throat and exit wound in the back of his head, was illegally taken by the Secret Service for the controversial Bethesda autopsy. 55 years later, "they" are still using Parkland to fuck with us, although I'm sure Hugh would have provided even more details to mull over.

Yes, he was right about a lot of important things. The one thing he consistently got wrong that drove me crazy was how "they" in his mind morphed 99% of the time into the CIA. Which I wouldn't have minded too much, lots of people have their favorite boogeyman (I have to watch out for that myself sometimes where Gladio ops are concerned) but he would consistently take that argument into other threads besides his own and use his CIA obsession to hijack that thread. That was really the one thing about him that bugged me, but I still miss him.

Speaking of hijacking threads, I better shut the hell up now!

:backtotopic:
"Huey Long once said, “Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism.” I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."
-Jim Garrison 1967
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: California
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby DrEvil » Fri Mar 02, 2018 4:47 pm

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03 ... ing-state/

During NRA conventions, gun injuries drop 20% nationwide—63% in hosting state

Researchers say it shoots holes in the argument that untrained users cause accidents.

Beth Mole - 3/2/2018, 9:17 PM

When gun enthusiasts gather for the National Rifle Association’s annual conventions, rates of gun-related injuries and deaths drop by 20 percent nationwide—and a whopping 63 percent in the hosting state—according to an analysis published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The finding was based on an analysis of insurance data on gun injury rates during NRA conventions from 2007 through 2015, as well as rates three weeks before and three weeks after each of the conventions. The researchers behind the work—health policy expert Anupam Jena, MD, PhD of Harvard Medical School and economist Andrew Olenski of Columbia University—also looked at crime rates during those times.

They found no significant change in crime rates despite the dip in injuries. They also noted that the largest drops in firearm-related injuries during NRA conventions were in men, the southern and western areas of the country, and in states with the highest levels of gun ownership.

Though the analysis can only provide a correlation—not causation—Jena and Olenski suggest it may refute a common argument among gun proponents. That is, that gun accidents happen primarily in the hands of inexperienced users and that practice and training—promoted by the NRA—can greatly reduce or eliminate safety concerns and accidents, which affect thousands each year. In 2014, for example, there were 461 unintentional firearm deaths and 15,928 unintentional, non-fatal injuries, 1,960 of which involved youths.

In their analysis, Jena and Olenski concluded that the findings:

“...are consistent with reductions in firearm injuries occurring as a result of lower rates of firearm use during the brief period when many firearm owners and owners of places where firearms are used may be attending an NRA convention. Our results suggest that firearm-safety concerns and risks of injury are relevant even among experienced gun owners.”


In a statement to CNN, NRA's director of public affairs, Jennifer Baker, called the study “absurd.” She continued: "This study is another example of when data and numbers fly in the face of logic and common sense.”

Baker went on to note that only a small fraction of the country’s gun owners—a group that totals about a third of Americans—attend the NRA’s annual conventions. She questioned how such a relatively small number of gun owners could explain such large decreases in injuries.

In a response to CNN, co-author Jena emphasized that the study was not designed to explain the cause of the drops. But he speculated that gun owners who attend NRA conventions may be those who tend to use their guns more frequently than non-attending owners.

Moreover, he and Olenski noted a potential domino effect from the convention disrupting other group events or trips involving firearms and venues, such as shooting ranges and hunting grounds, where owners may temporarily close up to attend the convention. Last, the researchers noted that many NRA convention goers travel long distances to attend, potentially helping to explain the nationwide declines. For instance, 60 percent of the 81,000 NRA members attending the 2017 convention ventured more than 200 miles to get there.

Other researchers were accepting of the analysis and its conclusions. Stephen Hargarten, chairman of emergency medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, was not involved in the study and told Reuters that it “passes the sniff test.” Hargarten added that “it makes sense that decreased exposure and decreased usage would result in fewer events.”

Nationally, the study found that baseline injury rates dropped from 1.5 per 100,000 people during control periods to 1.2 per 100,000 during NRA conventions. It also found that declines in injuries were larger within hosting states, dropping from 1.9 per 100,000 to 0.7 per 100,000 during the conventions. The conventions included in the study from 2015 back to 2001 were held in: Nashville, Indianapolis, Houston, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Phoenix, Louisville, and St. Louis.

NEJM, 2018. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1712773 (About DOIs).
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby PufPuf93 » Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:21 pm

stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:32 am wrote:
Burnt Hill » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:48 pm wrote:
stillrobertpaulsen wrote:(I'm sure HMW would have put out an OP on the memetic connection with JFK)


What an impact HMW had on my thinking here.
And i had to worry a bit about viral schizophrenia when I realized I used it out side of here.
Hugh was wrong about a lot of things,
But he was right about everything.
* okay not everything. But a lot of important things.
shoot now that I have a disclaimer I want to delete the post.


No, I'm glad you didn't delete the post, Burnt Hill. I think HMW has been gone from RI for at least 4 years now, but he certainly made an impact on how I view the world too. As soon as I heard the shooting was at a place called Parkland, my mind immediately - as a result of my exposure to the world of keyword hijacking courtesy of Hugh Manatee Wins - zoned in on how Parkland Hospital in Dallas was where JFK was taken after the assassination in Dealey Plaza, and where his body, after doctors observed the entry wound in his throat and exit wound in the back of his head, was illegally taken by the Secret Service for the controversial Bethesda autopsy. 55 years later, "they" are still using Parkland to fuck with us, although I'm sure Hugh would have provided even more details to mull over.

Yes, he was right about a lot of important things. The one thing he consistently got wrong that drove me crazy was how "they" in his mind morphed 99% of the time into the CIA. Which I wouldn't have minded too much, lots of people have their favorite boogeyman (I have to watch out for that myself sometimes where Gladio ops are concerned) but he would consistently take that argument into other threads besides his own and use his CIA obsession to hijack that thread. That was really the one thing about him that bugged me, but I still miss him.

Speaking of hijacking threads, I better shut the hell up now!

:backtotopic:


You never post a worthless thread PR.

HMW focused on the ability of the human brain to sweep together divergent pieces of info into a whole but HMW was prone to omit subsequent parsing and as you state pointing at CIA.

"Parkland" immediately sent my mind to Dallas and JFK as well.

The "hidden hands" or PTB or "deep state" is a term for me to describe actors that are occult, perhaps even not consciously working together, always to be a mystery and probably not that fixed but always with humanity through history and more so civilization.

But with modern technology, there are alphabet agencies with programs and marketing and political science people with agendas where propoganda is their method and skill set. The science is described and works and the fruits are abundant.

Evoke often.

When one looks at the media and public discourse over the gun issue in the USA, one hears phrases repeated often and the phrases in many cases are crafted for public imprint. One could almost conclude this is the main function 0f MSM. Repetition. Repetition that freezes minds and does as much to stifle discourse as inform or enlighten.

The PTB often do not want a resolution of an issue but feed on the turmoil. That the gun issue is deliberately created and fed may be a reason why the USA among modern industrial nations has a unique issue over guns. 2nd amendment. NRA. Stand your ground.
User avatar
PufPuf93
 
Posts: 1884
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:29 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby 82_28 » Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:00 am

I have to admit. The thought has crossed my mind. Get a gun. You know you can. I have held one in my had once. A 357 Magnum I was told. Before that I went out with some Mormon neighbor friends of ours and shot a .22 at clay pigeons. I have always just hated guns. I have gone paintballing in the the forest and it was fun. But it wasn't lethal. I got pissed at a friend of mine once for shooting me point blank during a "refereed" by some teenager battle. I had bruises up and down my unprotected self because of this.

I didn't let it slide in my mind for about a month. Probably about the length of time it took for the bruises to go away. I don't know. But, I saw in his face, a friend, a deep enjoyment in blasting me point blank with my hands up in surrender.

The thing with guns is when they are in your hands and you are manic or semi manic about whatever, it does not matter who is in front of you. I know the guy and I trust him. But hopped up on his adrenalin. He would have just as easily blown me away were the gun not a paint gun. He sprayed me point blank and then laughed about it.

The power of the small killing machine consumes one no matter how often they espouse the importance of teamwork.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:30 pm

I would not need a Nazi to tell me it was raining outside, nor would I seek to quote a Nazi about a trivial observation like that, nor would it be a specifically Nazi statement, nor would I use it as a way to render the Nazi somehow harmless, nor would I claim that the real-existing Nazi was somehow less harmful than the imaginary enemies of the right-wing heart, like "SJWs" or "PC tyranny."
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby American Dream » Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:56 am

TFN #2: Fun Control in the United Snakes

https://vimeo.com/258347367


As peeps in the United Snakes struggle through the aftermath of yet another senseless mass shooting, debates around gun control are once again heating up. But who to cheer for in this recurring battle of right-wing, gun-toting libertarians and latte-sipping liberals? In this sedition of The Fuckin' News, Stim gives us his hot take.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Guns (Yawn)

Postby elfismiles » Sun Mar 04, 2018 11:04 am

Thanks for the reminder of the Stimulator ... hadn't seen any of his vids in a looooong time. :partyhat

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDG73p ... cEVY_0xwWw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD9LcOafpo4

American Dream » 04 Mar 2018 13:56 wrote:
TFN #2: Fun Control in the United Snakes

https://vimeo.com/258347367


As peeps in the United Snakes struggle through the aftermath of yet another senseless mass shooting, debates around gun control are once again heating up. But who to cheer for in this recurring battle of right-wing, gun-toting libertarians and latte-sipping liberals? In this sedition of The Fuckin' News, Stim gives us his hot take.
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8511
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests