HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Assault Weapons Ban suppo...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:18 AM

Assault Weapons Ban supporter wins presidency, crushing NRA-backed right-winger!!!

Hopefully, this will help put to rest the right-wing meme that the only "real Americans" are gun-obsessed conservative white males from Red States, and that trying to do anything about the gun violence epidemic -- or even mentioning gun control -- is a political loser.

156 replies, 13112 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 156 replies Author Time Post
Reply Assault Weapons Ban supporter wins presidency, crushing NRA-backed right-winger!!! (Original post)
DanTex Nov 2012 OP
sarisataka Nov 2012 #1
glacierbay Nov 2012 #4
ThatPoetGuy Nov 2012 #5
sarisataka Nov 2012 #64
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #109
sarisataka Nov 2012 #116
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #119
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #112
ThatPoetGuy Nov 2012 #120
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #127
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #128
OriginalGeek Nov 2012 #8
jeepnstein Nov 2012 #2
trouble.smith Nov 2012 #125
hack89 Nov 2012 #3
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #6
Yavapai Nov 2012 #31
Simo 1939_1940 Nov 2012 #88
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #114
krispos42 Nov 2012 #7
slackmaster Nov 2012 #9
Kolesar Nov 2012 #10
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #11
Kolesar Nov 2012 #19
gejohnston Nov 2012 #25
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #26
slackmaster Nov 2012 #94
slackmaster Nov 2012 #16
DanTex Nov 2012 #15
slackmaster Nov 2012 #17
DanTex Nov 2012 #20
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #22
DanTex Nov 2012 #33
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #34
DanTex Nov 2012 #40
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #43
DanTex Nov 2012 #50
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #55
DanTex Nov 2012 #59
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #65
DanTex Nov 2012 #70
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #73
DanTex Nov 2012 #74
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #76
DanTex Nov 2012 #80
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #83
DanTex Nov 2012 #89
hack89 Nov 2012 #95
DanTex Nov 2012 #99
hack89 Nov 2012 #100
DanTex Nov 2012 #101
hack89 Nov 2012 #102
DanTex Nov 2012 #103
hack89 Nov 2012 #104
DanTex Nov 2012 #105
hack89 Nov 2012 #106
DanTex Nov 2012 #107
hack89 Nov 2012 #110
DanTex Nov 2012 #111
hack89 Nov 2012 #113
DanTex Nov 2012 #118
hack89 Nov 2012 #126
beevul Nov 2012 #129
hack89 Nov 2012 #134
beevul Nov 2012 #136
Glaug-Eldare Nov 2012 #141
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #121
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #115
hack89 Nov 2012 #35
glacierbay Nov 2012 #38
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #45
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #42
DanTex Nov 2012 #47
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #53
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #117
EX500rider Nov 2012 #97
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #122
Glassunion Nov 2012 #12
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #14
MicaelS Nov 2012 #13
DanTex Nov 2012 #18
MicaelS Nov 2012 #23
glacierbay Nov 2012 #27
DanTex Nov 2012 #28
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #30
DanTex Nov 2012 #36
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #41
DanTex Nov 2012 #46
glacierbay Nov 2012 #51
DanTex Nov 2012 #56
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #60
DanTex Nov 2012 #66
glacierbay Nov 2012 #61
DanTex Nov 2012 #67
glacierbay Nov 2012 #69
DanTex Nov 2012 #71
glacierbay Nov 2012 #77
DanTex Nov 2012 #79
glacierbay Nov 2012 #84
DanTex Nov 2012 #91
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #58
DanTex Nov 2012 #63
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #68
DanTex Nov 2012 #72
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #75
DanTex Nov 2012 #78
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #81
glacierbay Nov 2012 #86
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #92
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #139
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #148
DanTex Nov 2012 #87
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #130
GreenStormCloud Nov 2012 #143
Glaug-Eldare Nov 2012 #142
glacierbay Nov 2012 #44
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #49
DanTex Nov 2012 #54
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #57
hack89 Nov 2012 #39
rl6214 Nov 2012 #52
gejohnston Nov 2012 #24
DanTex Nov 2012 #29
gejohnston Nov 2012 #32
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #37
DanTex Nov 2012 #82
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #85
DanTex Nov 2012 #93
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2012 #123
gejohnston Nov 2012 #21
rl6214 Nov 2012 #48
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #62
DanTex Nov 2012 #98
slackmaster Nov 2012 #138
EX500rider Nov 2012 #144
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #90
DanTex Nov 2012 #96
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #124
Atypical Liberal Nov 2012 #133
Tuesday Afternoon Nov 2012 #108
discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #132
discntnt_irny_srcsm Nov 2012 #131
hack89 Nov 2012 #135
slackmaster Nov 2012 #145
aikoaiko Nov 2012 #137
Eleanors38 Nov 2012 #140
Glassunion Nov 2012 #147
Glassunion Nov 2012 #146
ellisonz Nov 2012 #149
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #150
ellisonz Nov 2012 #151
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #153
IvanKilmensky Nov 2012 #152
Decoy of Fenris Nov 2012 #154
hack89 Nov 2012 #155
fightthegoodfightnow Nov 2012 #156

Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:29 AM

1. Democrat beats Republican

and I would venture 99.8% of the pro-2A supporters here voted for the winner. (Likely a few trolls will vanish)

Gun control is not the be-all-end-all issue, I would venture it is not even top three for the majority of us. At the risk of speaking for others, we strongly support individual rights, RKBA among them, but liberal economic and social positions are more important, barring a direct assault on individual rights.
Should there be an attempt at a new AWB, the pro-2A members will vigorously oppose it, yet at the end of the day will still be Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:41 AM

4. I can pretty well guarantee that any new AWB

 

would never see the light of day in the Repuke controlled House, and Sen. Majority Leader Reid, himself a strong 2A supporter and an opponent of the AWB, will never let it come up for a vote.
So, our OP can gloat all he wants, nothing has changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:52 AM

5. You are actually the first I have seen who has made any statements like these:

"we strongly support individual rights, RKBA among them, but liberal economic and social positions are more important, barring a direct assault on individual rights." (Emphasis mine.)

In my years here on DU, I have seen so many people of the pro-gun persuasion gloating when Democrats are defeated or found to be corrupt. I don't agree with your 99.8% assessment -- I doubt it was even 50% -- but it is truly wonderful to see people taking your stance here. It is truly welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:09 PM

64. It is often overlooked

by both sides.
All of us, pro and anti, believe all rights have limits. We just like to have little discussions as to where those limits lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #64)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:34 PM

109. it is Not that rights have limits, it is That rights have Responsibilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #109)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:05 PM

116. I like that phrasing better

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #116)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:08 PM

119. thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:43 PM

112. Then you haven't been looking...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #112)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:09 PM

120. Yes I have. And I've seen your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #120)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:46 PM

127. You've either got a memory problem, or your pants are on fire. Which is it?

Mind you, this is from only one thread. The first two are mine, so your slur against me is demonstrably false:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584#post50
No point in donating money to people that piss on the President, while accepting Mitt's AWB.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584#post60
I can't speak for GSC, but I'm certainly voting Obama in November.

And your swipe at other DUers is just as phony:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584#post44
Star Member Atypical Liberal (4,889 posts)
44. If I was a single-issue voter, I would not have voted for Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584#post63
GreenStormCloud (8,382 posts)
63. I'm not a single issue voter.

I reserve the right to gripe about positions he has taken, while agreeing with other ones.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #120)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:59 PM

128. You also seem to have missed these threads started just yesterday

Protip: Spend less time spreading "Truth", and more time seeking truth...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117284984
Pro Second Amendment progressive votes Obama...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117285047
Once again, I just voted for Barack Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:20 PM

8. That pretty much sums up where I'm at

so you speak just fine for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:39 AM

2. I have to go buy a holster this afternoon.

My local gun shop will probably look like WalMart on Christmas Eve. Why do I always wait until the last minute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:30 PM

125. Just bought an Akers flatsider and a desantis miniscabbard

 

they're both really nice but the Akers is extremely nice. It took me 2 months to get it actually which sucked but the quality is just outstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:41 AM

3. I am as happy as you are to see the President reelected.

It was an enjoyable night - what made it extra pleasurable was watching how concerned/excited my 14 year old son got watching the election returns. He is going to be a political junkie like his dad!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 11:54 AM

6. I'm happy that President Obama won.

 

I voted for him, and every other Democrat on my ticket, save one.

But don't make the mistake of thinking that just because there are bigger fish to fry right now than the second amendment that people suddenly are willing to let it be ridden over roughshod.

Right now a lot of people, like myself, are willing to risk the second amendment because there are much bigger problems to face and it is unlikely that any legislation can get passed on the issue anyway.

But if politicians start pushing anti-gun legislation and you may find that you are wrong about gun control not being a political loser. I will not support a politician from any party who actively works to undermine the second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:22 PM

31. I agree 100% with Atypical Liberal

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:03 PM

88. Every word of this post speaks to my actions and sentiments. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:44 PM

114. +10- I can't disagree with a word of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:02 PM

7. If it's such a political winner...

...why didn't the congress pass a new, permanent AWB before the 2010 elections? You know, to stem the tide of the Tea Party?

Why wasn't this a huge pillar of his campaign?

Face it, it's not a topic people run on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:38 PM

9. There is no "gun violence epidemic" - That is a myth being pushed by authoritarian extremists

 

Rates of violent crime in this country have been dropping for about 20 years.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:44 PM

10. Mass murder by firearms is up...eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:46 PM

11. No it isn't; it's just more reported by the media. Mass murder is indeed down. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Kolesar (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:16 PM

25. it doesn't say it is up either.

it says it is the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:18 PM

26. Your own link states that the number of mass murders are the same.

Methinks you only read the headline and rushed back here to post. Next time, might I suggest -reading- your own article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:22 PM

94. The headline on that piece is disingenuous. "Not down" does not mean the same as "up."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:54 PM

16. The Washington Post recently cited some actual research that debunks that claim

 

...The statistics on mass murder suggest it is a phenomenon that does not track with other types of violent crime, such as street violence. It does not seem to be affected by the economy or by law enforcement strategies. The mass murderer has become almost a stock figure in American culture, someone bent on overkill — and, so often, seemingly coming out of nowhere.

The United States experienced 645 mass-murder events — killings with at least four victims — between 1976 and 2010, according to Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox. When graphed, these incidents show no obvious trend. The numbers go up and down and up again. The total body count: 2,949....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/colorado-shootings-add-chapter-to-long-unpredictable-story-of-us-mass-murder/2012/07/24/gJQAK6Xe7W_story.html

The trend isn't downward as has been those of most types of violent crime - But it also isn't increasing. There is no "epidemic."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:53 PM

15. Actually, it's a statistical reality recognized by leading public health experts.

For example:
Private Guns, Public Health

David Hemenway



The first complete picture of the public-health approach to gun violence, and a commonsense plan for ending this American epidemic


Description

On an average day in the United States, guns are used to kill almost eighty people, and to wound nearly three hundred more. If any other consumer product had this sort of disastrous effect, the public outcry would be deafening; yet when it comes to guns such facts are accepted as a natural consequence of supposedly high American rates of violence.

Private Guns, Public Health explodes that myth and many more, revealing the advantages of treating gun violence as a consumer safety and public health problem. David Hemenway fair-mindedly and authoritatively demonstrates how a public-health approach-which emphasizes prevention over punishment, and which has been so successful in reducing the rates of injury and death from infectious disease, car accidents, and tobacco consumption-can be applied to gun violence.

Hemenway uncovers the complex connections between guns and self-defense, gun violence and schools, gun prevalence and homicide, and more. Finally, he outlines a policy course that would significantly reduce gun-related injury and death.

http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=17530

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:55 PM

17. Whatever anyone else says, the FBI's hard numbers show crime rates decreasing

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:02 PM

20. And we still have 30,000 gun deaths a year.

A far higher rate than any other first-world nation. That's about twice as many Americans as died in the worst single year of Vietnam, and about three times as many as 9-11, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined.

The fact that there were 30,001 gun deaths the year before doesn't mean it is not an epidemic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:09 PM

22. A tiny number in America's population.

30,000 deaths include homicides, justifiable homicides, accidental homicides, suicides, "death by cop"... It's a false number, and I'm certain you know it. Likewise, 30,000 people a year, no matter how you try to swing it, is tiny. Minuscule. It sounds big on paper, but when you're talking a percentage so small as to be statistically insignificant, it's hard to understand why you even keep throwing it around.

Likewise, even assuming your 30k number is solid and not being used for a moral argument instead of a factual one, that still means that for every gun death, there are ten thousand gun deaths that -do not- happen. That's above and beyond almost any margin of error for scientific basis as a percentage, and those numbers certainly do not speak of an "Epidemic".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #22)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:26 PM

33. Wow. 30K deaths per year is "miniscule".

We haven't had 30K deaths in war in any year since WW2. The worst year of Vietnam was about 16K US deaths. I wasn't alive back then, but I'm pretty sure that nobody in their right mind would describe the toll from Vietnam as "miniscule".

Posts like this are great. Anyone who thinks that gun fanatics are not loony extremists simply needs to watch you try to pretend that 30,000 deaths per year is no big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:30 PM

34. Evade, evade, "Moral high ground", evade.

I wasn't expecting anything less. You're using the same argument as the "Think of the children!" people arguing against abortion, and providing nothing to back yourself up. Do you have anything of substance, or are you going to continue to hurl non-issues around?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:36 PM

40. Evade what?

You are suggesting that 30K deaths per year is not a big deal: "miniscule" in your words. This is an idiotic statement -- the only way you can think that 30K per year is "miniscule" is if you also believe the death toll from Vietnam was miniscule as well.

I am confident that anyone who reads these posts of yours will see your fringe extremism for what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:41 PM

43. It is statistically insignificant; you know that.

Likewise, you know that is what I meant, and I know you're no idiot; you are feigning ignorance after being called out on a logical fallacy to avoid admitting your fault. I have shown your error and you refuse to engage in any way other than avoiding and willfully misinterpreting my point. We're done here, at least in this subthread; You are wrong and I have shown you that. There is little else I can do here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:50 PM

50. That is not true at all.

What "logical fallacy" are you talking about? My point is that you can only consider the impact of gun violence to be "miniscule" if you also consider the impact of Vietnam to be "miniscule". In fact, statistically, gun violence is much worse that Vietnam.

So which is it? Either Vietnam was no big deal, or gun violence is a big deal.

Or else you are going to ignore this point once again.

My money is on you ignoring the point. That's what pro-gunners tend to do when they have no answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #50)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:56 PM

55. Vietnam was -not- a big deal in terms of casualties.

We use Vietnam as a benchmark for war casualties when in point of fact, the only reason we do so is because of massive civilian distress over reported numbers of casualties. Likewise, that point is further illuminated by massive media coverage of the war itself, and because deaths in Vietnam were a direct result of governmental action and offered further pressure by essentially being a proxy war.

(Point of note to the inevitable jury: I am not saying that the Vietnam war, and it's associated veterans, are in any way insignificant; I am addressing the point as was requested by DanTex.)

Vietnam was, for all intents and purposes, a brushfire war made moreso by technological and social advances that highlighted the inefficiency of the armed forces and the general debacle that the entire war became. Vietnam was a mirror for the government and it's faults, made public by massive media coverage and the subsequent outcry only further cemented Vietnam's status. Without the media covering the war, there is a good chance that Vietnam would be nearly forgotten, on par with, or less than, Korea.


Point addressed, answered, and dismissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #55)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:04 PM

59. Interesting. I see that even you understand that what you are saying is so preposterous

that you felt the need to put in a jury disclaimer.

I think that most people would agree with me that Vietnam actually was a very big deal in terms of casualties. That it was a senseless waste of lives. And those people also understand that we do have a gun violence epidemic, and it is a big deal.

But, I will concede, for those of you who think Vietnam was no big deal, maybe to you the fact that guns kill as many Americans every two years than died in all of Vietnam is no big deal either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #59)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:11 PM

65. No, I just figured you'd alert and, failing that, run to Meta to cry about it.

Call it "Watching my ass."

Most people would agree that Vietnam was a big deal because society conditions a moralistic empathy response when an established majority deems an object or an event morally reprehensible. It is ingrained and taught into us, but it is not natural, and in discussions of number of deaths, that empathetic response does not hold water nor should it be a marker of social policy or change. You know this, you're just hiding atop your Hill of Moral High Ground.

The simple fact that 155,000 people die worldwide every day... EVERY day... more than 10x the number of yearly gun homicides, proves that your insignificant number is just that; insignificant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #65)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:20 PM

70. So we're back to "lots of people die -- 30,000 more is no big deal".

That's fine, and I think this thread has been a great demonstration of just the extremes you have to go to pretend that there is no gun violence epidemic in this country. Basically, you have to take the absurd stance that the casualties from Vietnam were not a big deal. I think it's great that you actually came out and said that.

As I pointed out below, the term "statistically significant" makes no scientific sense at all in this context. If you think that anything that affects less than 1 in 20 people is statistically insignificant then you are more clueless than I gave you credit for. Whether something is significant is a value judgement. I happen to think that the casualties from Vietnam were significant, and I think most people would agree.

On a side note, I would encourage you to visit the Vietnam memorial in DC. It might make you rethink how easily you can just dismiss 60,000 dead Americans as no big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #70)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:27 PM

73. I think the thread has been enlightening as well.

You have proven that despite all odds, you will ignore science on both the meta and statistical level to justify your own worldview. Likewise, when confronted with a view that is not your own, you struggle and flounder until you can find a label to pin on them, and then run from the discussion. That, my friend, makes you a bigot.

The biggest mistake you've made in this thread is two words: "I think". What you think doesn't matter when discussing policy changes. Only numbers matter, and you ignore the ones that don't fit your narrative. A suggestion: Stop thinking, start reading.


I've been to the Vietnam memorial several times. It does sadden me, but at the same time, it gives me hope that in the future, hopefully people can look back to our history and tell their children why wars were so horrifically pointless, with only a few exceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #73)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:32 PM

74. Ignore what science? Are you just making things up?

As I've pointed out, you have no idea what statistical significance means. Here's a hint: it doesn't mean "not very much".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #74)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:35 PM

76. You asked what statistical insignificance was.

I told you what statistical significance was, because statistical insignificance technically doesn't exist; it's a nonsense term, for the most part, but used in common parlance regardless.

And the science is this: For every gun that kills, ten thousand guns do not kill. You want to punish the ten thousand that do not, instead of the one that does. Your thoughts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #76)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:48 PM

80. You are making less and less sense every post.

I told you what statistical significance was, because statistical insignificance technically doesn't exist; it's a nonsense term, for the most part, but used in common parlance regardless.

This sentence is pretty incoherent. Statistical significance is a scientific concept. It is not a nonsense term. I'm not sure what you mean by "statistical significance technically doesn't exist".

The problem is that the scientific meaning of statistical significance makes no sense in this context. What you actually mean is simply that the 30,000 gun deaths per year is "insignificant". To which I replied, in that case surely the death toll from Vietnam is also insignificant in your eyes, since it is much smaller than the number of annual gun deaths here in the US.

And the science is this: For every gun that kills, ten thousand guns do not kill. You want to punish the ten thousand that do not, instead of the one that does. Your thoughts

Ummm, yeah, so that's not actually "science". That's a value judgement. The fraction of guns that are used to kill is basically a nonsense statistic -- where you just divide one number by another "just 'cause". If you look at the overall death toll from guns it is staggeringly large. The fact that most guns don't kill anyone is hardly relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #80)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:54 PM

83. Your argument is: Guns kill. While true, it's also false.

Guns are -capable- of killing. Simply because an object is capable of killing someone does not designate that object's purpose.


More to point: You are advocating restriction or denial of an object because an insignificant number of people are harmed by them each year, yet you ignore the fact that the vast majority (We're talking 99.99%) of firearms do not take a life. Methinks your ignorance is showing, friend.

And finally: Might I suggest remedial English classes? " Statistical significance is a scientific concept. It is not a nonsense term." Your own quote shows me saying "Statistical insignificance technically doesn't exist."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #83)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:07 PM

89. Umm... no, that's no my argument.

My argument is that 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence. You happen to think that is an "insignificant" number, which is a little odd, because I have yet to meet anyone of sound mind who thinks that the number of Americans killed in Vietnam is insignificant, and yet the death toll from Vietnam in its worse year was less than half of the death toll from guns.

It's really pretty simple. At the end of the day, it is impossible for any clear-thinking person to deny that the annual number of gun deaths is "insignificant".

You made some bizarre departure into pseudoscience, and you demonstrated very clearly that you don't have the first clue what "statistical significance" (or "statistical insignificance" LOL!) means. I'm not sure why you did that. It was certainly amusing. But it didn't change the argument at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #89)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:23 PM

95. Are suicides a gun problem or a mental health problem?

can you show a link between suicide rates and gun ownership rates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #95)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:33 PM

99. It is both. Why can't pro-gunners understand the concept that there

are multiple factors at play?

And, yes, there is plenty of evidence linking gun ownership to suicide. Here are some resources from the Harvard School of Public Health.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #99)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:37 PM

100. So lets treat it as a mental health problem

through healthcare reform.

It is hard to see how any gun laws will have an impact on suicides short of restricting access to guns to a huge swath of Americans.

My question was whether increased access to guns results in higher suicide rates. Have gun suicide rates steadily increased over the decades that gun ownership rates have increased?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #100)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:42 PM

101. How about we address both?

As to your question, over the last two decades gun ownership rates have actually decreased -- they peaked in the early 90s. I would suggest you read some of the studies from that HSPH site I linked to and inform yourself on the topic, rather than just repeating what you read on gun blogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #101)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:54 PM

102. So what gun law would significantly decrease suicides? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #102)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:56 PM

103. For example, waiting periods.

Safe storage laws. Mental health screening prior to acquiring a gun or gun license. And generally any laws discouraging irresponsible gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #103)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:12 PM

104. The mental health screening would be blatantly unconstitutional

you can't lose your civil rights in a subjective, non-judicial process. It is also way too broad - it will never pass strict scrutiny.

Besides - mental health professionals are not stupid. If they routinely said no then no one would go to them and the gravy train would end. It would be no different than doctors writing prescriptions for "medical" marijuana. It won't take long before websites recommending which doctors to avoid are up and running.

Don't see waiting periods having a major impact. If the suicide is impulsive then the likely hood of other means being close at hand are very high. If not impulsive, then the waiting period is irrelevant.

Safe storage laws are irrelevant if the person committing suicide has the key or the combo. Besides, such laws are unenforceable - short of routine household inspections, how do you know what storage I have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #104)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:21 PM

105. According to Scalia, maybe.

And it's also no surprise that you don't think any gun laws would have any beneficial effect. You are one of our resident pro-gun extremists. Public health researchers and gun violence experts have a different opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #105)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:24 PM

106. Not willing to actually discuss my points? What at shock

it is clear what you are up to - paint all pro-gun Dems as RW extremists so you can get this forum shut down.

Not going to work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #106)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:28 PM

107. I was talking about the extent of the gun violence epidemic when you entered the conversation.

I've pointed you to a website with plenty of resources about guns and suicide, but instead of reading them, you are making some idiotic "points" like the idea that mental health screenings wouldn't work because the mental health professionals would somehow become corrupted, or that not having a gun around wouldn't stop impulsive suicides, which runs contrary to what many studies have found -- studies that you would have read if you checked the HSPS web site.

If you decide to educate yourself on the topic like I recommended and come up with something intelligent to say, I'd be happy to discuss. What you are doing is simply typing whatever first comes to mind to have some excuse for opposing any kind of common sense gun law, no matter how dumb. Not interested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #107)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:36 PM

110. You conflate two separate issues to support your anti-gun bias

the solution to suicides is proper mental health care. That is my solution. It is one that will not only fix this problem but many others.

You don't like guns. We get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #110)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:40 PM

111. No I don't. I simply report the true extent of the death toll from guns.

There is no "solution" to suicides. There are certain measures that can reduce suicide rates. One of them is sensible gun laws.

You continue to refuse to listen to experts in the field, instead going with gun bloggers and NRA talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #111)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:43 PM

113. You converted a complex phenomena into a black and white cartoon with guns as the main villain

with a simple one size fits all solution - "rational gun laws."

There is a reason gun control is a smoking ruin in America - people like you and their "logic" are a big reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #113)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:07 PM

118. Actually, that is exactly what you are doing.

I have repeatedly pointed out that guns are just one of many factors. I say this over and over. You are the one that goes to absurd extremes to pretend that gun availability has nothing to do with suicide, even so far as to ignore all the studies and the experts on suicides. Anything to defend your pro-gun ideology.

As for why the gun lobby has been successful in the US thus far, here the answer is the same as why the oil lobby has succeeded in blocking any action on global warming. The right-wingers in the US are further to the right than what you find in most other countries. Like you, they ignore science and empirical evidence and are driven almost entirely by ideology, an ideology which places a lot of importance on "gun rights". The pro-gun movement is not based on intelligence or logic, it is based on ignorance. Just look at it's leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #118)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:40 PM

126. As long as gun deaths continue to decline like they have for the past 30 years

I feel confident that we are on the right path. You have never been safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #106)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:12 PM

129. Just to be clear, hack, I have a couple questions.

You were called "one of our resident pro-gun extremists" by Dantex.


Since hes already decided what you are, I would like to know, just for the record, of the current gun laws, which do you support, and which do you wish to see eliminated?

I think the answers to those questions may be quite illuminatng, and demonstrative of just how low our friend sets the bar when it comes to defining what constitutes " pro-gun extremists".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #129)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:32 PM

134. I support all existing laws

I would support background checks for private sales.

I would like to see national reciprocity for CCW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #134)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:34 PM

136. Elegant proof...

Elegant proof that our friend there defines "pro-gun extremist" as anyone disagreeing with him on the guns issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #104)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:44 AM

141. Start taking rights away from the sick,

and the sick will get better at hiding it. There are too many negative consequences to seeking care already. If a sick person is afraid of the doctor (or his records, or his bills), he can be become very good at concealing his problems from the only people who can help him. Trust me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #99)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:12 PM

121. There's also plenty of evidence that shows gun ownership doesn't matter.

ALL of the following list of countries have two things in common: 1) Stricter regulations on gun ownership than obtain in the US, and 2) A higher suicide rate than the United States...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate


South Korea
Japan
Belgium
Finland
France
Austria
Czech Republic
New Zealand
Sweden
Cuba
Norway
Denmark
Ireland

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #55)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:53 PM

115. Correct. Compare it to the Civil War and both world wars and see.

For example, World War 1 had twice as many US deaths in +/- two years as Vietnam had in twenty...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:33 PM

35. Half of the number reflects a mental health issue

solved by health care reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:35 PM

38. Ok

 

take away the suicides, justifiable homicides, suicide by cop, and accidental shootings and then what are number of actual criminal homicide numbers? And of those numbers, how many are thug on thug? Now, how many of those murders are drug related?
In the context of the population of the US, it is statistically insignificant and you damn well know that's what he meant.
Nice try at trying to demonize a fellow member, but that's what we've come to expect of you here.
Now go running to Meta and start a thread on how heartless we are here, after all, that's you M.O.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:42 PM

45. Exactly. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:40 PM

42. Any time you include suicides in this discussion you've just lost the debate.

 

I'm not interested in any discussion about policies that affect me because other people decide to kill themselves.

There are many easy, effective ways to kill yourself if you are bent on doing so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:47 PM

47. Why is that?

Public health experts include suicides when they discuss the gun violence epidemic. Guns are far more lethal than other suicide methods, and also easier. Studies on suicide have repeatedly found that access to a gun is a significant contributing factor to suicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:55 PM

53. Because I'm not going to allow what someone chooses to do to themselves affect ME.

 

Why is that?

Because I'm not going to allow what people choose to do to themselves be used as an excuse to enact policies that affect ME.

Especially when people who commit suicide one way can easily do so another way.

Public health experts include suicides when they discuss the gun violence epidemic.

Good for them. I don't. The only violence I care about is when someone victimizes someone else. What you choose to do to yourself is your own business.

Guns are far more lethal than other suicide methods, and also easier.

Of course guns are lethal, especially at point-blank range on a non-moving target. I have heard that most suicides are cries for help where the person does not really intend to kill themselves. I submit that people who use a gun are really serious about the endeavor.

Someone that serious about the endeavor can easily find another, equally effective method to kill themselves.

Studies on suicide have repeatedly found that access to a gun is a significant contributing factor to suicide.

Fine. I still am not interested in any policy decisions that affect me because of the actions people choose to do to themselves. My same rationale applies to why I think drugs should be legal. If people choose to do things harmful to themselves, that's their choice, the ultimate freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #47)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:07 PM

117. Then why do these countries with stricter gun laws have higher suicide rates than the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

South Korea
Japan
Belgium
Finland
France
Austria
Czech Republic
New Zealand
Sweden
Cuba
Norway
Denmark
Ireland

ALL have a higher suicide rate than the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:30 PM

97. "And we still have 30,000 gun deaths a year."

Suicides (more then 1/2 of your 30,000) are not "gun deaths" but suicides.

Do you count people who jump off buildings as "building deaths"?
Intentional carbon monoxide suicides as "auto deaths"?
I bet not.

And this statement:
"If any other consumer product had this sort of disastrous effect, the public outcry would be deafening."

That include cars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #97)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:15 PM

122. He doesn't give a shit about non-gun suicides or traffic deaths- they don't help his case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:48 PM

12. Why the hell does my wife's b-day have to be after an election?

Do you realize the lines that I'm going to have to deal with to get her the present she wants?

*Disclaimer - No offense to "wimpy ass middle class white guys"*

I'm gonna have a bunch of wimpy ass middle class white guys pacing around the gun shop looking to buy an "Obama is gonna ban em, I gotta get one now!" rifles, scooping up whatever is on the shelf, standing in front of me that I have to deal with to get my wife what she wants for her b-day.

Damn it!

On the bright side, Obama is supporting jobs and creating wealth for the small business owner, and that makes me smile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:51 PM

14. You might get some killer sales.

The local gun store is offering "gun-grabber" sales (their quote, not mine), and other savvy gun shops might be willing to use this to their advantage, and if you can cash in on the right-wing hysteria at a time when buying prices are lower, why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:49 PM

13. Plenty of "real Americans" own guns and voted Democrat.

Evidence is right here in this group.

I voted straight Democratic ticket in Tarrant county 2 weeks ago.

Only people with your mindset, and who have the delusions of being a Zampolit, seem to think they get to define who is and isn't a Democrat, simply on the basis of whether or not their own guns.

You pretty much made it clear that anyone who owns guns isn't a "Real Democrat".

The pro-gun position is comparable to things like global warming denial and militarism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 12:58 PM

18. Actually, what I made clear is that pro-gun extremism is comparable to things

like global warming denial and militarism. I said nothing about people who own guns. A lot of "gun rights" extremists would like to pretend that all gun owners agree with their right-wing agenda, but in fact, surveys show that most gun owners favor common sense gun laws that the NRA crowd would reject as draconian.

When the RW idiots were taking turns trying to "debunk" of the poll data that showed Obama as a clear favorite, it reminded me a lot of discussions I've had here in the gungeon, where the gun fanatics seem insistent on ignoring the scientific evidence when it comes to gun violence, and instead relying on "debunkings" written in gun blogs or NRA press releases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:11 PM

23. The whole point of your framing of the debate of

"The scientific evidence when it comes to gun violence" is that it is an attempt to change the debate from one of personal rights to one of public health, so you can do an end run around the legislative system. And gun owners are not going to let that happen.

Since you and your fellow Gun Prohibitionists know you will never get the blanket ban you want on semi-automatics and / or handguns passed through direct means, that means your only other method is to completely re-frame the debate on other terms, which you hope will be more favorable to your side.

In that respect, you are just like the RW Anti-Choice people, who know they can not ever get their "Human Life Amendment" passed, thought they have trying since Reagan. So they have been chipping away at the Right to Chose by incremental and underhanded stealth tactics for the last 30 years. And unfortunately they have been very successful. We don't plan to let you repeat their success.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:18 PM

27. Absolutely right

 

After the AWB ban in 94, gun owners have vowed to never let it happen again, The modern NRA is a direct result of the Brady Org stupidity, they thought, wrongly, that we would just take it and not fight back, that had to be the biggest miscalculation of the decade.
Turns out the Brady's were their own worse enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:19 PM

28. It is a public health issue.

30,000 people die every year from gunshot wounds. That's an enormous number. We haven't lost that many Americans in a year of war since WW2.

Like I pointed out above, surveys show that most gun owners support common sense gun laws. Wait, let me guess: you don't believe in polls unless they are "unskewed" LOL. The loony rhetoric about "Gun Prohibitionists" and the like that you find in the gungeon is restricted to a small and primarily fringe-right-wing part of the population, and not all gun owners. For you to try and pretend that all "gun owners" are on board with your right-wing agenda is the same as Mitt Romney trying to pretend that all "small business owners" support tax cuts for the top 1%.

The gun lobby is well funded and the NRA has been doing an effective job pushing the will of a fringe minority to the detriment of general good. But they went "all in" this election, and got clobbered. It's time for sanity to return to the gun debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:21 PM

30. It's not an enormous number; stop dodging.

It's one percent of one percent of one percent of the population, including deaths by cops and suicide and accident.. For every death with a gun, there are ten thousand guns that do not kill, as I pointed out above but you may have not noticed yet.

Gun violence is not an epidemic, no matter how much you wish it was otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:33 PM

36. Yes, it is an enormous number.

There is a reason that public health experts are in near-universal agreement that gun violence is an epidemic, whereas the people who deny this are primarily NRA lobbyists and right-wing gun bloggers.

And the thing is, the fact that gun deaths occur at young ages relative to many diseases means that it's impact on life expectancy is further amplified. I made an OP about this a while back. The average American's life expectancy is shortened by a ful 104 days due to guns. As a point of comparison, lung cancer reduces life expectancy by 197 days.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117251262

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:38 PM

41. And poisoning takes 66 days off.

And motor vehicles take off 160-odd. Everything we do takes off days of our lives, and very little will ever change that. Your own study admits that gun control is inconclusive in altering the firearm life expectancy impact, and admits such further on down.

I'm failing to understand your point, if only because your own study contradicts the notion that firearm control will change anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:44 PM

46. Poisonings and car accidents are big problems also.

I gotta say, of all the dumb things I've heard in the gungeon, "people will die of other things anyway" might take the cake!

The point, of course, is that the US is the only first-world nation with epidemic levels of gun violence like this. Guns are nothing like, say, cars, which are an essential part of the economy and everyday life. There is no reason that we as a society should tolerate these extreme levels of gun violence, simply to appease a small extremist minority that rejects common sense gun laws that could get our rates of gun violence in line with the rest of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #46)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:53 PM

51. Epidemic according to whom?

 

Firearms violence is statistically insigficant when put in the context of what our population is, take away the suicides, which is a mental health issue, take away the justifiable homicides, take away the accidental shootings and what's left, the majority of homicides are thug on thug mostly related to the drug trade, end the war on drugs, and that number would drop significantally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:58 PM

56. According to public health experts on gun violence.

I have no idea what you mean by "statistically insignificant". It seems to me that what you mean is simply that you don't personally think it's a big deal. Gee, there's a surprise! A gun fanatic doesn't think gun violence is a big deal, whoddathunkit!?!?

Do you think that the toll taken on Americans by the Vietnam war was "insignificant"? Because the death toll due to guns is twice as high every year as the single worst year of Vietnam.

So either Vietnam is no big deal, or gun violence is a big deal. There is no middle ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:06 PM

60. Statistically significant:

Set of data large enough to represent the phenomenon or population being studied. By convention, a finding is called statistically significant if the probability of its occurrence purely by chance is less than 1 in 20 (five percent).


Therefore, gun violence is not statistically significant. According to, ya know, fuckin' SCIENCE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #60)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:13 PM

66. LOL. That was a serious clueless post.

The term "statistical significance" is generally used in the context of statistics to indicate that a phenemenon observed could not have occurred by chance alone.

It makes absolutely no sense at all to say that gun violence is not "statistically significant". The fact that it affects less than 1 in 20 people does most definitely not make it statistically insignificant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #56)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:07 PM

61. You completely missed my point.

 

I never said that I don't think it's a big deal, I deal with it every day. And take you gun fanatic talking point and place it where, you get the idea.

Vietnam was a big deal to me, I served 2 tours and it took a big toll on me mentally, so don't even go there.
The firearm violence in this country is a big deal, but when looked at in the context of the population, the numbers are statistically insignificant, and you damn well know that's exactly what I meant, but you just have to get your cheap shots in don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #61)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:16 PM

67. Well, you probably want to talk to your buddy Decoy.

Apparently he thinks that the death toll from Vietnam was -- and I quote -- "not a big deal".

My point is simply that the death toll from guns is twice as large as the worst year of Vietnam. Whether you consider that significant or not is a value judgement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #67)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:20 PM

69. How many time do I have to explain what I'm saying?

 

The firearms death in the country is a big deal personally to the people it affects, but when put in context of what the US pop. is, it is STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.
I don't know how I can explain it any simpler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #69)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:23 PM

71. It depends what you mean by "statistically insignificant".

As I pointed out above, the scientific term "statistical significance" makes no sense in this context. The fact that you put it in boldface caps doesn't change that.

What you really mean that only a small fraction of people are killed by guns. Whether that is significant or not is a value judgement. Apparently to you, the 30,000 people who are killed every year by guns are an insignificant number. The total number of Americans who died in Vietnam is around 60,000. Is that an insignificant number too?

To me, both Vietnam and gun violence represent huge and senseless loss of human life, and I would never describe either as insignificant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #71)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:35 PM

77. I've explained myself in the simplest terms I can

 

if you don't get it, than you never will, everyone else here, I suspect, gets it, so that leaves me to believe that you're here for one thing and one thing only, to stir up shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #77)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:42 PM

79. You have done no such thing.

I explained to you that the scientific meaning of "statistical significance" makes no sense in this context, and your response is to put it in boldface caps, as if that somehow substitutes for the utter incoherence of the argument you are making.

You might think that gun violence is insignificant, in which case you probably also think that the casualties from the Vietnam war are insignificant, because gun violence is worse. But I don't think many people outside the NRA bubble would agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #79)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:55 PM

84. You seem to have a big problem telling the truth

 

I said that firearms violence is a significant problem to those directly affected, but when put in the context of what the pop. of the US is, the number is statistically insignificant.

In other words, the % is miniscule, I think it's something like 1/2 of 1%, that would make the number statistically insignificant.
I care about the number of shootings, I deal with it quite frequently, so don't you ever suggest that I don't care. I care far more than you do because I see it up close and personal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #84)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:12 PM

91. Again with the boldface...

As I said before, you don't seem to have the first clue what "statistically insignificant" means, and you are trying to compensate with font effects.

What you really mean is not "statistically insignificant" but "small", which is a value judgement. You are just using the term "statistically insignificance" to try and dress up your value judgement in pseudoscientific language, but ultimately all you are saying is that you think that 30,000 gun deaths per year is a "small" number of gun deaths.

It's a bit grotesque that anyone would describe 30,000 needless deaths as a "small" number -- the total number of Vietnam casualties is 60,000, would anyone in their right mind describe that as "small"? -- but after reading the gungeon for while, very few things that gun fanatics say surprise me any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #46)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:03 PM

58. There is -every- reason to tolerate said "Extreme" levels.

Civil liberties are not something to be done away with, and to suggest otherwise is the direct antithises of liberal and democratic lines of thought. The difference between America and the rest of the "First world countries" in regards to homicide rate is that America, moreso than the rest of the countries considered first world, consists of massive geographical, class-based and race-based differences. Looking through the list of some other first world countries, America stands out and alone as far as diversity among said lines go; the class lines are deeper, the race lines are stronger, the geographical divide is similarly massive, and only in America do you find urban centers as populous and densely packed, which brings up the psychological and social aspects of humankind living in close proximity. The comparison, while idealistic and perhaps almost naive, between first world countries and America cannot hold up given even a moderate amount of scrutiny of the overall composition and makeup of the country as a whole.

But I'll state my first sentence again, because it's important.

Civil liberties are not something to be done away with, and to suggest otherwise is the direct antithises of liberal and democratic lines of thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #58)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:09 PM

63. No there isn't. Not even close.

Guns have basically nothing to do with civil liberties. Just tossing around the word "liberty" isn't a very persuasive argument.

Gun policy is a question of recreation, hunting, self-defense, and public safety. And if you look at where we are versus where the rest of the world is, it is pretty much impossible to argue that we are doing fine. The fact is, we have a gun violence epidemic that is unique in the first-world, and no amount of "gun rights" absolutism can justify it. It is a senseless waste of human life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #63)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:20 PM

68. Allow me to refresh your memory.

"Civil Liberties: noun First Amendment guarantees, First Amendment Rights, freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, fundamental individual rights, guarantees from the Bill of Rights, human rights, individual rights, right to life, right to peacefully assemble, right to petition government for redress, right to privacy, right to property, right to worship "


Now, let's take a look at your statement about "Public safety". Let's see where that falls on the political spectrum...

Liberalism (by JFK: ) "someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties"

Now... Either JFK hated the Bill of Rights, or you are wrong again...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #68)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:27 PM

72. Just because you say guns are a civil right doesn't make it true.

And putting it in boldface doesn't make it true either. The fact is, guns have pretty much nothing to do with freedom, or with participating in a democratic society, or anything of the kind. The idea that guns are a civil liberty is mainly restricted to right-wing Americans.

Freedom of speech, religion, expression, the press, etc., all of these are very fundamental rights without which it is pretty much impossible to have a free and functional democracy. Guns are mostly a matter of public safety, self-defense, recreation. In fact, trying to pretend that guns are an essential civil liberty trivializes the whole notion of civil liberties. It's sort of like the whole "freedom fries" thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #72)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:33 PM

75. Then by your argument...

"The blacks vote? Eh, we can do without that."


You don't get to cherry-pick civil rights and liberties that you do or do not agree with. That's not the way a functioning government works. Civil rights and civil liberties are set down in the foundations of government of a country at it's origin, and while the definitions may change over time, they remain.

Let me pose this to you:

Let's say you are a woman seeking a morning after pill. The pharmecist will not sell it to you. Who's morals are right?

You are a woman wanting an abortion. The government does not allow it. Who's morals are right?

You are either universally for individual freedom to exercise rights and choices in personal lives, or you are not.

Which are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #75)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:39 PM

78. What? Now you're saying I don't want blacks to vote?

Let's try and keep our eyes on the ball.

Guns have nothing to do with civil liberties, and they certainly have nothing at all to do with racial discrimination. Here's the thing: something isn't automatically a civil liberty just because you want it to be. Guns have nothing to do with maintaining a free society or a functioning democracy. They are not a fundamental right. They have nothing to do with abortions, or privacy, or birth control, or speech.

It is a matter of public safety, self-defense, and recreation. Trying to pretend that gun rights are basic civil liberties trivializes the truly important rights, like speech, fair trials, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #78)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:49 PM

81. They are basic civil liberties as outlined by the Constitution.

Given your lack of essential reading comprehension education, I don't see how you can understand this short of making it very simple, so I'll do just that.

Constitution outlines civil liberties. It does not grant them; they are considered natural simply by being American.

Constitution also says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So even IF you're right (and you're not), the Ninth Amendment would cover any exclusion based on the Bill of Rights itself.


I can't make it any simpler, friend. If I had to dumb it down further, I wouldn't know how to type.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #81)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:00 PM

86. Let's face the truth here

 

All he's doing here is troll hunting, he's hoping to get one of us to say something that he hopes will get a post hidden and possibly get what he terms, RW trolls, banned.

He's so obvious, it's kinda funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #86)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:13 PM

92. Thanks, brother.

I was beginning to waver there a bit. The little bugger's like a prick that just won't heal. Took your insight to get me to realize what he was up to, and I thank you for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #86)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:31 AM

139. Whoo-WEEE! Got that right. Bull in da ring.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #86)


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #81)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:00 PM

87. The second amendment is about militias if that is what you mean.

Unless you're going selling that Scalia nonsense -- sorry, I'm not buying.

Your silly grade-school understanding of civil liberties is very amusing, but unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that guns have basically nothing to do with fundamental civil rights. The only people who really think of guns as a fundamental right are right-wing Americans. There is no philosophical justification for elevating "gun rights" alongside things like free speech and fair trials, without which a free society and a functioning democracy are impossible.

Gun policy is about things like public safety and self-defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #87)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:13 PM

130. By your lights, President Obama has a "silly grade-school understanding of civil liberties"

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/president-obama-we-must-seek-agreement-on-gun-reforms/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land.


Now, do we believe our President, the leader of our party, a guy who edited the Harvard Law Review and lectured at the U. of Chicago- or some Internet Tough Guy who spouts the following?

Your silly grade-school understanding of civil liberties is very amusing, but unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that guns have basically nothing to do with fundamental civil rights. The only people who really think of guns as a fundamental right are right-wing Americans. There is no philosophical justification for elevating "gun rights" alongside things like free speech and fair trials, without which a free society and a functioning democracy are impossible.


Tighten those shoelaces, as the walk back for you will be a long one....




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #87)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:23 AM

143. That horse is dead. You can quite beating it.

You side has lost that argument. It is now settled law and very unlikely to be reversed by a future court. Stare decisis covers it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #78)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:58 AM

142. Now THAT's a load.

I'll use Maryland as my example, because it's quite convenient. From 1634 to 2012, virtually every single gun control law passed by our legislature has been targeted DIRECTLY at blacks. Before the 14th, carry and ownership were off limits to all blacks, slave AND free. After the 14th, the law was rewritten to restrict carry on the subjective basis of "apprehended fear," which, as in other Southern states, was never meant to be applied against whites. The carry permit law was passed immediately after racial violence DC and Baltimore, when the legislature wanted a more concrete standard for preventing blacks from carrying. Then the '88 handgun roster was rolled out, a direct analogue to the Klan-backed "Army and Navy Model" laws restricting ownership of handguns to expensive models already owned in huge numbers by relatively wealthy whites. Just this year(!), Attorney General Doug Gansler testified before a U.S. District Court that it is dangerous to allow people in the state's two majority-black jurisdictions to obtain carry permits without that subjective "good and substantial reason," which notably includes campaign donations from wealthy businessmen. Gun control is dripping with race fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:41 PM

44. And the #1 reason

 

for the firearms death among young people is the drug trade, thug on thug, how are law abiding gun owners responsible for that? And what laws, other than a total ban, which wouldn't work anyway, would stop this "epidemic"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:49 PM

49. Let's look at some more reaslistic numbers, shall we?

 

Let's break these numbers down, shall we?

From WISQARS:

HOMICIDES BY FIREARM:
2001 11,348
2002 11,829
2003 11,920
2004 11,624
2005 12,352
2006 12,791
2007 12,632
2008 12,179
2009 11,493
2010 11,078

SUICIDES BY FIREARM:
2001 16,869
2002 17,108
2003 16,907
2004 16,750
2005 17,002
2006 16,883
2007 17,352
2008 18,223
2009 18,735
2010 19,392

Paints a little bit of a different picture, doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:55 PM

54. Thanks for the stats.

Roughly speaking, we are at 10,000 gun homicides and 20,000 gun suicides, plus maybe 500 accidental gun deaths per year, so about 30,000 gun deaths per year.

Like I said, about twice as many gun deaths per year as the single worst year of Vietnam for Americans. Even if you argue, contrary to what the top public health and suicide experts believe, that "suicides don't count", just gun homicides alone kill about as many Americans per year as died in Vietnam on average.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #54)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:59 PM

57. No problem.

 

Suicides don't count, in that I'm not going to allow the government to enact policies that impact me because of what people choose to do to themselves. Victimless crimes are not crimes, and I'm not going to pay the price for their decisions.

Yes, it is a shame we have roughly 10,000 gun homicides every year. I suspect a significant portion of these are due to the illegal drug trade. But the sad fact is so long as we live in a free society where virtually everyone has access to the tools to protect themselves from violence there will be some people who use them to cause violence. That's just the way it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:35 PM

39. It is a mental health issue (suicides) and a criminal justice issue (violent crimes)

two separate issues.

What common sense gun law do you propose to address suicides?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:54 PM

52. You can keep screaming and stomping your feet as much as you want

 

"It is a public health issue."

NO, it's not, it's a criminal violence issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:13 PM

24. Not quite, you are about the only one that actually thinks

Hemenway is a leading expert on something. In reality, he just isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:21 PM

29. The Harvard School of Public Health also thinks so.

As do the top scholars from Johns Hopkins, UCDavis, UPenn, etc. It's the scientific community versus right-wing bloggers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:26 PM

32. not quite, it is a couple of ideolouges and departments who get grants from from

ideologues at those fine schools. There are serious scholars who receive no such grants and publish in peer review journals who are hardly right wing bloggers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:33 PM

37. Odd. "Public Health Law Research" finds all of his proposals inconclusive.

Likewise, after checking a few of the studies, it appears that some of his work is marred with potential bias and may be unreliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:52 PM

82. LOL. "after checking a few studies"

This from the same person who has no clue what statistical significance means? So according to your "expert" judgement, the studies from the Harvard School of Public Health, JHopkins, UCDavis, etc. are "marred with potential bias" and "unreliable".

This is just a hunch, but were you one of the people from that "unskewedpolls.com" thing by any chance? Because your combination of statistical ignorance and certainty that the studies are biased against you is very familiar...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #82)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:57 PM

85. I said some of HIS studies were biased.

Not theirs, per se, and not all of them by any stretch. The samplings and data analysis show debatably skewed results based on location and survey analysis. I'm not talking about the results, but the method of sampling, et cetera.

I've never heard of Unskewed Polls. Can you elaborate?

And I am not certain of anything regarding the studies, and I said as much. You're distorting again, twisting in the wind because I've caught you on a pike and you have no idea how to escape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #85)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:18 PM

93. Of course: "the studies are biased".

unskewedpolls.com was a website put up by some right-wingers who didn't like that the presidential polls had Obama ahead.

Kind of like you, who don't like the results of the studies from the Harvard School of Public Health, so you are mumbling something about "skewed results" and "method of sampling" -- anything you can think of to deny the politically inconvenient scientific evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:23 PM

123. Repeatedly asserting is not "making clear", no matter how *you* feel about the subject.

And btw, I'm perfectly willing to compromise with you and others of your ilk-

I'm quite happy to watch you say what you will here, while we strive to keep your record of legal losses intact.
So far, things are going our way and we fully intend to keep it so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:04 PM

21. You didn't notice the two NRA supported Dems speaking at the DNC?

One of them actually mentioned Mitt raising gun license fees?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 01:49 PM

48. All that means is there will be a HUGE run on guns and ammo, stimulating the economy

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 02:08 PM

62. Weak argument

 

Obama hasn't exactly been anti-gun.

Nor did guns feature prominently in this election (neither candidate mentioned them much at all really).

This wasn't a vote for/against gun control.

It was a vote about the economy, taxes, the environment, women's rights, etc etc etc.

You may as well argue that this election proved Americans will only vote for candidates that own Portuguese water dogs.

/Bo came up in the campaign as often as gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #62)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:31 PM

98. The NRA sunk millions into the election, calling Obama the most anti-gun president ever.

When Obama mentioned the AWB, a bunch of gun fanatics on this very board started talking about how many votes this was going to cost and what a big mistake it was.

And yet Obama won, along with many other candidates the NRA was targeting. It's time to get over the idea that gun control is a third rail, and start to do something about the 30,000 people who die every year from gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #98)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 07:45 PM

138. They wasted their money

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #98)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:27 AM

144. "and start to do something about the 30,000 people who die every year from gun violence"

People who die from self inflicted wounds by suicide are no more victims of gun violence the people who jump off bridges are victims of "bridge violence" but i am guessing you will ignore that fact and not respond?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:12 PM

90. Given Glacierbay's statement upthread, I agree.

You are trolling solely in an attempt to get other DUers banned.

I have answered your questions, countered your arguments, proved you wrong on numerous (read; all) counts, and thoroughly demolished any arguments you've tried to make. Your points are weak at best and nonsense at worst, not supported by science, statistics or polling, yet despite all evidence to the contrary, you maintain your narrow worldview and insist on denying rights of others based on your personal petty vendettas. You are wrong, you know it, and you cannot stand it, so you seek to tear others down with you. I will no longer indulge your bigotry, and although we may disagree, I do wish you a good day otherwise.

Good day to you, sir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #90)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 03:29 PM

96. Hey, if you want to ignore the numbers, that's up to you.

There are in fact 30,000 people killed by guns every year in the US. This is data from the CDC. The worst number of US casualties in any year of Vietnam was about 16,000. This is also not really under dispute.

If you think that the number of casualties during Vietnam is a small and insignificant number, that's a value judgement that you are free to make. But, outside of a few hardcore pro-gun extremists, people of sound mind will agree that the death toll from Vietnam and therefore by comparison gun violence in this nation is staggering, which is why many top public health experts have correctly described gun violence in America as an epidemic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 05:28 PM

124. Actually it's 30,000 people killed by people.

And better than half of them intentionally killed themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #96)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:22 PM

133. You insist on holding others responsible for their own actions.

 

There are in fact 30,000 people killed by guns every year in the US.

And over half of those are suicides. You know this, but you keep parroting the 30K number to try and overstate your case.

I'm not going to let suicide - the actions people take against themselves - be used as an excuse to formulate government policies that affect me.

THAT is why suicides are irrelevant. Not because they aren't tragic, but because suicide has absolutely no bearing in the discussion of firearm policy.

The easiest way to kill yourself is to tie a piece of rope around your doorknob and your neck and sit down. But I'm not up for banning ropes or doorknobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 04:31 PM

108. you sound like a one issue voter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #108)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:22 PM

132. Ouch

That'll leave a mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:20 PM

131. Not only that but...

...the market responded to the news.

STURM RUGER & CO INC up 6.81% today to $47.68 and for owners of record 9 November a $2.72/share dividend.

SMITH & WESSON HLDG CORP up 9.62% today to $10.37 but down a penny in after hours trading.


Can you say MONEY? Sure ya can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:33 PM

135. What other "epidemic" has seen a 50 percent drop in mortality? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #135)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:35 AM

145. AIDS

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 06:51 PM

137. Let's review what the President actually said about the AWB, shall we?


From the last debate:

MS. CROWLEY: Because what I want to do, Mr. President — stand there for a second, because I want to introduce you to Nina Gonzales, who brought up a question that we hear a lot, both over the Internet and from this crowd.

Q: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, we’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment. And I believe in the Second Amendment. You know, we’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency where I’ve had to comfort families who’ve lost somebody, most recently out in Aurora. You know, just a couple of weeks ago, actually probably about a month, I saw a mother who I had met at the beside of her son who had been shot in that theater.

And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some time, and we said a prayer. And remarkably, about two months later, this young man and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good as new. But there were a lot of families who didn’t have that good fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn’t survive.

So my belief is that A, we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.


That tepid half sentence is the only verbal support I've seen from the President in the last four years. I'm pretty sure he is going to continue to treat the AWB and other guns bans as bad ideas for the next four years. Heck, his stated "goal", such as it is, is simply to reintroduce -- not pass -- an AWB.

I'm delighted that President Obama won, but gun controllers didn't. In fact, gun controllers seeking an AWB probably would have done better with Mittens because he would have needed to move tot he center.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 08:37 AM

140. Better title: AWB-supporter beats AWB-voter. There. All fixed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #140)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:46 AM

147. Touché

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:45 AM

146. I over reacted in post #12

Went to pick up my wife's brithday present.

No lines, no waiting, no shortages of anything. I had pleanty of time to shop and decide what to get her, and a can of ammo for the range this weekend. She will be quite pleased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:29 PM

149. GOP/NRA CABAL = LOOOOOOOOSSSSEEEERRRRS!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #149)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 02:45 PM

150. Algebra? o.O

GOP divided by NRA CABAL equals... Caps lock? I'm not certain I follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #150)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:17 PM

151. "I'm not certain I follow."

Then you probably shouldn't have skipped arithmetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #151)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:24 PM

153. That's not arithmetic, it's algebra.

non-numeric variables resulting in a non-numeric product makes for poor algebra no matter how you cut it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:21 PM

152. furthering to polarize the country i see

>mitt romney passed an assault weapons ban
>Obama gives no fucks either way
you are giving liberals and democrats a bad reputation by being so uninformed and arrogant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IvanKilmensky (Reply #152)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 03:30 PM

154. You'll get used to it. He's a proud bigot when it comes to guns.

Just learn to roll with the punches, and don't let him bait you into getting PPR'd. No matter how many facts or studies you hit him with, he'll just ramble off of his list of talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 04:22 PM

155. What exactly has Obama done about the gun violence epidemic?

Nothing in his first term. Nothing during the campaign. Why are you so hopeful? Have you forgotten that Harry Reid still runs the Senate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Original post)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:18 AM

156. BRAVO

Thanks for posting.

WELL SAID.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread