Jump to content
Thank you for illustrating my point. If things like this happened 2.5m times a year Fox News would report every last one of them…..as would AM talk radio, the NRA and on and on. Good for the guy with the gun BTW.
Ken-the study shows absolutely nothing. Obama requiring the study is simply showboat politics trying to skirt the House's ban on CDC research into gun violence. If we as a nation want to know the impact of guns in our society, why ban the CDC from conducting research? If there are so many occurrences of guns stopping crimes, why are they not reported by gun advocates such as talk radio and Fox? I read your link. The study "proposes priorities for research to improve understanding…" and "not asked to consider sources of funding to carry out research agenda." There is not scientific evidence that firearms are used 1.75m….. There are estimates and the validity of those estimates has not been demonstrated so any statistical means that uses them is no more valid than the original "estimate." Therefore, it is not obvious, but conjecture.
Brian-I am not advocating guns laws. Actually, I see them as the theater of the absurd. If you look into why present "gun laws" are not enforced, look no further than the influence of the NRA and (mostly) republicans in the house. Most "guns laws" are made ineffective (I'm not saying they would be effective in any case) by lack of funding and limitations placed on them by bills and riders on bills back by NRA congress folks with the intent of gutting any enforcement.
I won't get into the 2nd or the constitutiion for that matter as that is an area I doubt we would ever find common ground on. We do have common ground on gun laws in that more laws won't make anyone safer. Everybody is a law abiding gun owner until their not. Everybody is sane enough to own a gun until their not. Unfortunately, we don't find out until they're not and folks are dead. The violence we see is the American culture and until that changes these shootings and other gun violence will continue…..and any of us could become victims regardless of our personal arsenal. A "miss" doesn't know that you own an AR-15 and doesn't care. Lastly, re: the Bundy's. I don't think you would have felt they endangered only themselves if you would have been at either stand-off. I was abt 20 miles from the first one and talked with die hard gun owners that were there and nobody felt safe, nobody. There are a lot of "Bundy's" out there.
Until we admit that weapons sales (both home and abroad) are a HUGH part of our economy and our mindset, the violence will continue……
Ken-first off, this was not a report on research generated by the CDC. Our Repub Hse made sure the CDC can not conduct research on the impact of guns in the US by explicitedly excluding such reseach from the CDC budget. What you sourced was a collection of past studies conducted by private entities. I tried reading the actual report and unfortuantely you have to buy it. I also researched who did the "study"-National Reseach Council and Institute of Medicine. Both are private with private funding and I was unable to see who funds their "research" on gun violence. I was unable to determine where any of their their funding comes from. The Feds simply paid for them to put together a report that was distributed by the CDC. Lastly, I would challenge the objectivity of CNS news reports. (as I would CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc)
Enough on that. I do wonder if you subscibe to the NRC, IofM or the CDC findings on global climate change as adherently as you promote their "gun violence study"?
Brian-I appreciate your point. I just pointed out that your example shows absolutely nothing with regard to everyone holding providing a measure of safety. I'm not so sure we haven't returned to the wild west. The Bundy's and the current Sagebrush Rebellion come to mind. Research threats against BLM/FS employees for some more "wild west" examples. I notice you didn't challenge my comments on gun use proficiency by the average gun holder or what happens to shots that miss. When I hear of trained police firing 80+ shots in a situation and the criminal being hit 7 or so times, I always wonder what happened to the 50+ misses? Orlando may be a perfect example of this. The report hasn't come out, but I have to wonder what happened to all those police misses.
Brian-your point is? Your example is like commenting on a church's attendance and pointing out how amazing it is that everyone believes in God and prays. I wonder what would have happened if there were just 2 random shooters in the crowd in different locations. In my years of hunting I realized a few things. 1-shooters miss as often as they hit, 2-those shots that miss do hit something. These 2 factors are my concern. I lived in a little CO town where just about everyone carries. I would trust maybe a 3rd of them to hit their target most the time. The rest of them couldn't hit the broad side of a barn on the best of days. I suspect this is the norm for folks that carry in the US. Tie into this the "buck fever" phenom and I wouldn't want to be in the same county when the shooting starts.
I really enjoy following these discussions and actually learn something from time to time. I also read some things that just don't sound right. Brian asserts that guns save foks from crimes 2.5 million times a year. Didn't quite sound right so I looked up his first 3 examples-Pearling Miss-1997, SLC-2012, Grundy, VA- 2002. It seems if it happens 2.5 mil times a year, more recent examples would be easy to find and gun advocates (Fox News, AM talk radio) would celebrate each event and the NRA would have it plastered all over the country.
Ken keeps asking if everyone having a gun is so unsafe, why are gun ranges one of the safest places to be. Comparing gun ranges to concerts and clubs fails to take into account the demographics of the crowd, the varied purposes of attendance, the presence (or absence) of alcohol/drugs, the motivations of the attendees, etc. Talk about apples and oranges.
I once had a boss that would say"don't tell me why it can't happen, tell me how you are going to make it happen." One of the easiest things in the world to do is to come up with why something is not possible. Anyone can do that. How about coming up with workable, effective solutions. (disclosure-I am a gun owner, a hunter and a progressive. Go figure!)
So when a mass murderer eats their victims, imprisons young women for their pleasure, bombs a Fed building, etc they should be considered ideological terrorist, not criminals. A lot of what ISIS does (beheading, etc) is to get a reaction from the West….and they get it. If reports are to be believed, most new recruits do not practise Islam and are not there for the Jihad. They are poor, disenfranchised, angry youth that have found a way to channel their anger, make a living, and feel important. They could give two twits about Islam. By using any degrading term with the term Islamic is to feed into what ISIS wants- which is to bankrupt the West by creating a never ending, never winable war. Are there a few "true believers" in ISIS…of course. Are they using the religion for political and economic gain…you bet they are. Are they turning the West against the ME…unfortunately yes. That doesn't make them soldiers or warriors, it makes them criminals. On another note, are implied insults really necessary? Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I have my head in the sand, I'm ignorant or any other implication you may have wanted to make. It simply means I see the world in a different light than you do. Maybe the reality lies somewhere between our views.
I heard something by a retired gerneral (sorry, don't remember name) that addresses the term and why it is to be avoided. By using the term Islamic, you are validity that it is a religious war against the West, thus they are warriors. This is an insult to true soldiers/warriors and those that practise the true Islamic faith. They are criminals and should be treated as such and not given the honored status of soldiers/warriors. Something to think about.
I try to stay out of these discussions, but you continue to use the safety of a gun range as a comparison to concerts and now a dance club in an attempt to show that when everyone has guns, the area is safer. You are very smart and must know that these comparisons are absurd. You have not taken into account the purpose of the gathering, the demographics of the folks attending the gathering, the presence of (or lack of) alcohol/substances, the motivations of those at the gathering, and on and on. Pls make you case on valid grounds instead of abusrd comparisons. (btw-I am a gun owner and long time hunter-and also a progressive)
When you state violent crimes against honest citizens you are making that judgement. You are simply pulling the switch with a jury. In your mind you are determining who is an honest citizen and who is not. Juries are fooled, some laws are unjust, some arrest are erroneous. Your black and white view of criminality is indeed you passing judgement whether you want to admit it or not.
And you can seperate the "good" from the "evil"? You can determine which laws are just and which aren't? "Honest" from "dishonest"? Justified from not justified? If you can, you are a much better man than I am or ever can dream of being. I think the Christian Jesus was the only one I know of that was capable of such judgements, and even with him I'm not so sure.
Last login: Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |