Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 21,499
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 21,499
Transcript and video here: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10810&updaterx=2013-10-06+12%3A02%3A00
DESVARIEUX: According to a recent study by the American Journal of Medicine, countries with the highest share of gun ownership actually have the highest firearms-related deaths.
Here to discuss the significance of this study is Ladd Everitt. He is the director of communications of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Thanks for being with us, Ladd. . .
Can you summarize the findings from The American Journal of Medicine about the relationship between firearm ownership and firearms-related deaths?
EVERITT: Yeah, well, they looked at a number of different states. It was a very far-reaching study, particularly for study this type, and they did find positive correlations in terms of the, you know, level of gun ownerships, less gun ownership in the home and communities, and then in terms of levels of gun homicide and also gun suicide. And that confirmed previous studies that we've seen in this area that showed similar findings.
DESVARIEUX: How does gun violence in the U.S. compare what other countries?
EVERITT: It's astronomically higher, particularly when you compare it to other developed countries and other high-income nations. You know, the pattern typically is the U.S. has a higher overall homicide rate, and then when you look specifically at the gun death rate, our gun death rate is typically astronomically higher than other democracies' and high-income nations'.
Coverage of the same study in the Guardian
High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds
Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.
Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.
The journal has fast-tracked publication of the study because of the shootings at the Washington navy yard. It was originally scheduled for later this week.
It follows an emotional appeal from a doctor at the trauma center in Washington where the victims of Aaron Alexis' random violence were taken. "I would like you to put my trauma center out of business," Janis Orlowski, chief medical officer at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, told reporters in the aftermath of the massacre. "I would like to not be an expert on gunshots. Let's get rid of this. This is not America."
Link to study: http://www.amjmed.com/article/PIIS0002934313004440/fulltext
Posted by BainsBane | Mon Oct 7, 2013, 03:06 PM (95 replies)
Just when you think the reprehensible organization that is the NRA couldn't get any lower, it sponsors a program on killing elephants. Thank goodness NBC Sports canceled it. But what possessed them in the first place?
NBC Sports Network Cancels NRA-Sponsored Elephant Hunting Show
NBC Sports Network is dumping the show that featured a guy shooting an elephant in the face. The show—hosted by NRA lobbyist Tony Makris—isn't being canceled for that episode with the elephant shooting, exactly (though that didn't help). Instead it's because Makris compared his critics to Hitler earlier this week. He said of his supposed critics: "And now they're shocked. And they said but they're so big and special and they're smarter. And I went, you know, Hitler would have said the same thing." That didn't go over well.
Only it turns out it had nothing to do with the horror of killing the magnificent elephant but that the host decided anyone who opposed killing elephants was just like Hitler.
NBC Sports' official statement:
Under Wild Skies will no longer air on NBC Sports Sports Network due to the program's close association with its host, whose recent comments comparing his critics to Hitler are outrageous and unacceptable. NBCSN will continue to air all of our other quality outdoor programming.
Link to story and video clip: http://deadspin.com/nbc-sports-network-cancels-nra-sponsored-elephant-hunti-1417367389?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+deadspin%2Ffull+%28Deadspin%29
Also on HuffPo
NBC Sports Network was forced to respond to a flurry of criticism this week, after the internet caught wind of a show that depicts safari hunting for big game in Africa.
On Sunday, an episode of the National Rifle Association-sponsored "Under Wild Skies" aired, showing NRA lobbyist and host Tony Makris shooting and killing an elephant, and then celebrating over champagne. The spectacle sparked vocal backlash, with criticism on social media and a petition at Causes.com that has since received more than 50,000 signatures.
In a statement released to the Los Angeles Times on Thursday, NBC Sports noted the legality of the hunt, but said it would take into account the sensitive nature of the content.
"We've listened to our viewers and will not air that particular episode of 'Under Wild Skies' again. We're also taking a close look at our internal standards as part of this process because this content should not have aired," the network said. "While this form of hunting is legal, we understand that many viewers find it objectionable. As a result we are taking an aggressive approach towards objectionable content within future episodes of 'Under Wild Skies' and other series."
Is there any doubt left that the NRA is the single greatest evil on the planet?
Posted by BainsBane | Mon Sep 30, 2013, 02:54 AM (33 replies)
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Sep 28, 2013, 09:28 PM (54 replies)
A recent, reactionary thread has led to a swarm of people claiming "all feminists aren't like that."
They are responding to blatant sexist posts comparing feminists to "school marms," by saying you're letting a few extreme examples determine your perception. No, what is happening is that you are talking to a defender of white male privilege.
Let's examine the "school marm" reference. A school marm is a teacher. She is informed. She corrects bad information. She interferes with the sexist's right to be stupid. Now, the right to be stupid is a jealously guarded one. It is highly irritating to sexists when we women demonstrate we know things. What they resent most, however, is when we confront them on their ignorance.
Consider why FEMEN was so popular among those who typically oppose women's rights. They were "hot chicks" picked by the Larry Flint of Russia, Victor Svyatski. They appeared topless, with slogans limited to three words written across their breasts. They didn't force European and American men to think about their privilege or the way in which sexism pervades all aspects of society. They were pretty and fun. Of course they were hand picked and run by a male Russian oligarch who refused to listen to the concerns of women in any of the local FEMEN chapters around the world, from places like Brazil to Tunisia. Brazilian FEMEN protesters were told they were too "chubby" and therefore didn't fit the image the group wanted to project. Muslim women were told their problems came from Islam itself rather than patriarchy.
Feminists are okay only as long as they don't challenge patriarchy and privilege. Demand the enforcement of EEOC law from the 80s, you're being preachy. Talk about violence against women and you're sexist because you fail to recognize that women's lives are secondary to men's. Guess what? This feminist doesn't give a rat's ass what you think about me. If your support for equal rights depends on how softly someone speaks to you, that tells me you don't support basic human rights at all. The sexists and misogynists can piss off back to the 15th century where they belong. I will continue to live in the 21st century.
Posted by BainsBane | Fri Sep 27, 2013, 10:58 PM (35 replies)
Human trafficking happens all over the world, including in the U.S. So we know about it, but what can we do to help? Victims who are rescued from their captors can't just return to regular life as though nothing happened. This is an amazing program that makes a difference.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Sep 25, 2013, 11:52 PM (21 replies)
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Sep 25, 2013, 07:45 AM (1 replies)
How many have heard misogynists complain that there is a double-standard, that if a man said the same thing a woman says about him something horrible would happen? So what would happen if a man mocked a woman? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Not only are they able to mock with impunity, they can insult and describe women as "sluts," "bitches," and "whores" with absolutely no repercussions, not even jury hides. Consider for a minute that the English language contains no similar insult for men. There is no gender specific term to insult a man's sexuality, to demean him as nothing but an object of sex, or to refer to him as less than human--a "bitch," a female dog.
Let's examine the true double standard. Look at the recent hide in this group for "misandry": a series of cartoons that make no mention of men as a whole, a particular group of DUers, or an individual member. Whereas calling women "attention whores" and "sluts" is allowed to stand. "Bitch" has become part of the common vernacular in English. The thoughtless tell us it means the words aren't sexist, when in fact it shows that misogyny is so deeply ingrained in American culture than too many are accustomed to cavalier, daily degradation of women.
The male persecution complex is entirely divorced from reality. It shows absolutely no understanding of history, anthropology, sociology, or any contemporary mode of analysis. Some decry the fact that feminists engage in "sociological analysis." Higher education is indeed a liberal conspiracy that might one day dislodge white male privilege. That is why education is crucial to empowerment. But some wedded to the past century--or even the 19th--prefer to avoid thinking altogether. How else could anyone so mindlessly maintain a view of the world--male exploitation at the hands of female privilege--entirely divorced from reality? This argument is the hallmark of extreme right-wing Men's Rights Association (MRA. or as I prefer to call them, MRAsma) dogma. Women's rights oppress men. Our efforts to achieve equality--whether political, economic, social, or cultural--are themselves seen as oppressive. MRAsmas see male privilege as entirely natural, so much so they see any challenge to it an attack on their very being, prompting them to lash out.
So yes, it's horrible that women's struggles have allowed us to participate in the public sphere, that we are able to enter the work force and earn 77 cents on the dollar to a man. It's economically unfair that many women use more medical resources than men and that agencies can't charge us more because our diabolical wombs give birth to babies. Somehow the fact that they are also the children of men entirely escapes the attention of those who whine about women taking up disproportionate medical resources. So yeah, "fuck every last one" of us. The hell with us for having the nerve to occupy the same planet with men and propagate the continuation of the human species. And mostly, fuck us for thinking we have the audacity to voice opinions. There is nothing MRAsmas hate more than women who disagree with them in public. The fact we think we deserve to be treated as actual human beings makes us "evil." The only good woman recognizes her inherent inferiority and doesn't let on the fact she reads or thinks. She lets you pretend you are actually smart because it's our job to prop up fragile egos. When we don't, we are "evil, dark, and whiny."
Posted by BainsBane | Tue Sep 24, 2013, 09:32 PM (27 replies)
POLL: Americans overwhelmingly approve of background checks for gun purchases
Do you favor or oppose background checks on potential gun buyers?
Source: CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
Date conducted: 1/14/2011 - 1/16/2011
Sample: 1,014 adults
Margin of error: +/- 3% pts
More About: CNN , Gun Control , Issue , Opinion Research
According to This Poll
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll finds that 94 percent of Americans approve of background checks for people attempting to buy a gun.
A more detailed but older poll from SEIU Daily KOS from last December
Posted by BainsBane | Fri Sep 20, 2013, 12:54 AM (13 replies)
Many of them oppose them and make false claims that all gun sales already go through background checks in an effort to deter people from acting. If that were true, why would the NRA devote so much money into defeating background check bills?
BTW, please click on the second link to accept the challenge about calling your representatives to demand expanded background check legislation.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Sep 18, 2013, 08:16 PM (130 replies)
It's amazing how you avoid reading any newspapers and magazines that show how people buy guns without background checks all the time. You know they do. The fact is that is exactly how you want it.
This is a colossal waste of time, like every discussion with you. So now you're on record opposing any and all background check legislation by insisting it isn't necessary. I knew you were spinning a big one to Loudly yesterday. I'm through with you.
Anyone who wants verification of your denial of evidence about gun trafficking to Mexico and federal research on guns can check my journal a few months back and entries will lead to those discussions. Here we have more evidence of your denials of reality.
If all gun sales already were subject to background checks, why would the NRA devote so much money to defeating background check legislation?
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Sep 18, 2013, 08:10 PM (1 replies)