Sure, talking is the purpose of the forums. But if you're posting over and over and over and over about something being the problem, but have absolutely no solution or idea in how to fix it, then it's a bit like whining, or shouting at the rain, or impotent rage, etc.
NRA Hijinks
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
Sure, talking is the purpose of the forums. But if you're posting over and over and over and over about something being the problem, but have absolutely no solution or idea in how to fix it, then it's a bit like whining, or shouting at the rain, or impotent rage, etc.
You do the same , you keep on imposing on others for an answer to the gun problem, even though you admit its difficult finding one.
But I'm not claiming something has to be done. I respond to people who continually post what a big problem guns are, but yet have no solution. If you don't see the difference, I guess I can't say I'm surprised.
I suppose if you want to be technical, you could say they're whining, and I'm whining about them whining (or teasing them, or whatever). But now you're whining about me whining about them whining.
So you admit it is a problem but don't think something needs to be done. That means it's either not a problem or, if it is, then it's a negligible one. Thanks for clarifying.
Just for further clarification, there are problems that exist that we don't have workable solutions for. One can acknowledge a problem exists, but not support doing anything because the current "solutions" aren't solutions at all.
That's where I stand. I don't just want to "do some shit just to make me feel better" like you seem to want to do.
Not sure if this was posted in this thread earlier, but it's recent and I just read it. The evidence suggests that, as is typical, conservatives are more about what "ought to be" than what actually is.
Ban guns, end shootings? How evidence stacks up around the world
By John Donohue
Updated 2:50 PM ET, Thu August 27, 2015
(CNN)Vester Lee Flanagan II, formerly known as reporter Bryce Williams, on Wednesday killed two journalists on live television. He posted live updates to social media of video he shot of his killing of a reporter and a cameraman.
"June's mass shooting, in Charleston, renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented the tragedy. To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church: "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it."
"So far, however, the U.S. has not done "something about it."
"The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it's unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.
"The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.
"The gun culture's worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies -- including the federal government -- is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer who echoed the Tea Party mantra of taking back our country.
"I've been researching gun violence -- and what can be done to prevent it -- in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
"The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other "advanced countries" have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents -- even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.
The state of gun control in the U.S.
"Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.
"The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow earlier this month when the U.S. Supreme Court -- over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia -- refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
"The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.
"For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents -- this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands."
More >>
Ban guns, end shootings? How evidence stacks up around the world
By John Donohue
Updated 2:50 PM ET, Thu August 27, 2015
(CNN)Vester Lee Flanagan II, formerly known as reporter Bryce Williams, on Wednesday killed two journalists on live television. He posted live updates to social media of video he shot of his killing of a reporter and a cameraman.
"June's mass shooting, in Charleston, renewed the sporadic debates over whether gun control might have prevented the tragedy. To quote President Obama the day after the shooting in the AME Church: "At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it."
"So far, however, the U.S. has not done "something about it."
"The National Rifle Association (NRA), it seems, has so much power over politicians that even when 90% of Americans (including a majority of NRA members) wanted universal background checks to be adopted following the Newtown killings of 2012, no federal action ensued. Certainly, it's unlikely that any useful legislation will emerge in South Carolina.
"The NRA stranglehold on appropriate anti-crime measures is only part of the problem, though.
"The gun culture's worship of the magical protective capacities of guns and their power to be wielded against perceived enemies -- including the federal government -- is a message that resonates with troubled individuals from the Santa Barbara killer, who was seeking vengeance on women who had failed to perceive his greatness, to the Charleston killer who echoed the Tea Party mantra of taking back our country.
"I've been researching gun violence -- and what can be done to prevent it -- in the U.S. for 25 years. The fact is that if NRA claims about the efficacy of guns in reducing crime were true, the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate among industrialized nations instead of the highest homicide rate (by a wide margin).
"The U.S. is by far the world leader in the number of guns in civilian hands. The stricter gun laws of other "advanced countries" have restrained homicidal violence, suicides and gun accidents -- even when, in some cases, laws were introduced over massive protests from their armed citizens.
The state of gun control in the U.S.
"Eighteen states in the U.S. and a number of cities including Chicago, New York and San Francisco have tried to reduce the unlawful use of guns as well as gun accidents by adopting laws to keep guns safely stored when they are not in use. Safe storage is a common form of gun regulation in nations with stricter gun regulations.
"The NRA has been battling such laws for years. But that effort was dealt a blow earlier this month when the U.S. Supreme Court -- over a strident dissent by Justices Thomas and Scalia -- refused to consider the San Francisco law that required guns not in use be stored safely. This was undoubtedly a positive step because hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year, and good public policy must try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
"The dissenters, however, were alarmed by the thought that a gun stored in a safe would not be immediately available for use, but they seemed unaware of how unusual it is that a gun is helpful when someone is under attack.
"For starters, only the tiniest fraction of victims of violent crime are able to use a gun in their defense. Over the period from 2007-2011, when roughly six million nonfatal violent crimes occurred each year, data from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the victim did not defend with a gun in 99.2% of these incidents -- this in a country with 300 million guns in civilian hands."
More >>
No, a Harvard University study did not prove that areas with higher rates of gun ownership have lower crime rates.
http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/
In short, the purported 2007 Harvard "study" with "astonishing" findings was in fact a polemic paper penned by two well-known gun rights activists. Its findings were neither peer-reviewed nor subject to academic scrutiny of any sort prior to its appearance, and the publication that carried it was a self-identified ideology-based editorial outlet edited by Harvard students. The paper disingenuously misrepresented extant research to draw its conclusions, and researchers at Harvard (among which Kates and Mauser were not included) later objected to the paper's being framed as a "study" from Harvard (rather than a law review paper). The paper wasn't "virtually unpublicized research" (as BeliefNet claimed); rather, it was simply not deemed noteworthy at the time it was published due to the fact it was neither a study nor much more than a jointly-written editorial piece representing its authors' unsupported opinions.
For some reason, the intellectual rigor of gun supporters remind me of another so-called debate:
http://www.snopes.com/harvard-flaw-review/
In short, the purported 2007 Harvard "study" with "astonishing" findings was in fact a polemic paper penned by two well-known gun rights activists. Its findings were neither peer-reviewed nor subject to academic scrutiny of any sort prior to its appearance, and the publication that carried it was a self-identified ideology-based editorial outlet edited by Harvard students. The paper disingenuously misrepresented extant research to draw its conclusions, and researchers at Harvard (among which Kates and Mauser were not included) later objected to the paper's being framed as a "study" from Harvard (rather than a law review paper). The paper wasn't "virtually unpublicized research" (as BeliefNet claimed); rather, it was simply not deemed noteworthy at the time it was published due to the fact it was neither a study nor much more than a jointly-written editorial piece representing its authors' unsupported opinions.
For some reason, the intellectual rigor of gun supporters remind me of another so-called debate:
Last edited:
Oh, The Crime Prevention Research Center:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/gun-researcher-john-lott-offers-false-firearm-s/196621
I wonder if pro-smokers have a Tobacco Wellness Research Center...
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/gun-researcher-john-lott-offers-false-firearm-s/196621
I wonder if pro-smokers have a Tobacco Wellness Research Center...