Author retracts and apologizes for story on NRA and CDC.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/marin/2009/08/i_was_dead_wrong_about_cdc_and.html

I wonder if we can expect the same integrity for the posters here who made many accusations concerning this story, somehow I doubt it.

David

[elleng]

1. Don't know about this particular story,

but I have seen quite a few apologies at DU recently.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[katandmoon]

3. Fuck the goddamn NRA. They still have more than enough to answer for.

Considering how many members of congress they have bought and paid for so they can promote their easy killing machines, and how distorted American society has become and how much blood is on their hands because of it, the word "integrity" does not belong in the same sentence with those money-grubbing, fear-mongering, threatening NRA thugs. Fuck 'em. The article was eminently believable and I make no apologies for believing. I'd believe plenty worse, because that's the NRA is -- lying death merchants promoting its own deadly version of Viagra.

[Jackson1999]

4. face palm n/t

[Statistical]

5. "The article was eminently believable and I make no apologies for believing."

So the need to believe is more important that accurate facts?

You have a lot in common with the fundies.

Love is blind and I guess for some people hate is too. Sad.

[The Doctor.]

14. Seen this quite a bit from many liberals;

There are certainly merits to responsible gun control, as with auto licensing and various other permits. But some people are so convinced of the absolute evil of guns that the only solution is to just 'outlaw them all'.

This is not only naïve, but it's the same unrealistic 'solution' those who wish to ban abortion seek.

Much like the anti-choice people, the gun-phobes demonize all gun owners and severely mis-characterize them. They don't like to have that pointed out.

[iverglas]

18. who are these people?

But some people are so convinced of the absolute evil of guns that the only solution is to just 'outlaw them all'.

And why are we talking about them?

Much like the anti-choice people, the gun-phobes demonize all gun owners and severely mis-characterize them.

Huh, well, I guess they're strangers, since I am sure you know that allegations of "hoplophobia", the hokey disease invented by a hokey "psychiatrist", are prohibited in this place.

So I would still have to ask: why are we talking about them?

Signed, confused ...



typo fixed

[The Doctor.]

26. Dear Confused,

My apologies for being unable to conform to whatever confabulation of communication criteria you require to understand what's been said, but I'll try my best. I'll appreciate your patience in this endeavor.

If you are a person who is afraid of guns for their own sake, I'm sorry; I cannot help you. I am not a behaviorist even though I've dealt in Abnormal Psychology.
If you are a person who is afraid of gun owners, then I would suggest you get to know some gun owners.
If you believe that gun owners cannot be 'Liberals', then I would entice you to explore 'DemocraticUnderground.com', where many Liberals are also gun owners.
If you believe that I've accused yourself, or any other DUer, of "Hoplophobia" as you describe it, then please show me the relevant excerpt and I'll humbly retract any statement I've made that cannot be justified.

Otherwise, if you could explain who the 'them' are that you refer to in your last interrogative, I'll do my best to explain... if I can.

I hope this clears thing up for you, and that through discovery we can both become less 'confused'.

-The Doctor.

[iverglas]

28. your disability seems to be different

My apologies for being unable to conform to whatever confabulation of communication criteria you require to understand what's been said

Perhaps you don't read well.

I asked a pretty easy question.

You said:

But some people are so convinced of the absolute evil of guns that the only solution is to just 'outlaw them all'.

And I said: Who are these people? And why are we talking about them?

You didn't connect my question: "And why are we talking about them?"
to the statement of yours that I quoted immediately before that question: "But some people are so convinced of the absolute evil of guns that the only solution is to just 'outlaw them all'."
?

How odd.

I feel uncomfortable treating you like a moron, but you requested clarification, so here goes:

Request: Otherwise, if you could explain who the 'them' are that you refer to in your last interrogative, I'll do my best to explain... if I can.

Reply: the people who "so convinced of the absolute evil of guns that the only solution is to just 'outlaw them all'."


I didn't ask you to make a whole further series of ignorant assertions.

If you believe that I've accused yourself, or any other DUer, of "Hoplophobia" as you describe it, then please show me the relevant excerpt and I'll humbly retract any statement I've made that cannot be justified.

I specifically said I did not believe that, since I would not make an accusation of rule-breaking without good reason, i.e. clear and convincing evidence.

I asked you whom you were talking about, and why.

You are now evidently talking about further (possibly included) sets of people:

a person who is afraid of guns for their own sake
a person who is afraid of gun owners

You seem to think there might be reason to believe that I am such a person, since I am the person to whom you have addressed your remarks, as "if you are". Since there is no reason in the universe to think that I am, what possessed you?


I hope this clears thing up for you, and that through discovery we can both become less 'confused'.

Well, if I was ever confused, I'm not now.

I still want answers, though. Because I'm not yet informed on these scores.

[The Doctor.]

35. If you want clarity, answer the questions.

It really isn't that hard. Why can't you do it?

[iverglas]

36. what the fuck is wrong with you?

You wrote a post. It said:

Seen this quite a bit from many liberals;

There are certainly merits to responsible gun control, as with auto licensing and various other permits. But some people are so convinced of the absolute evil of guns that the only solution is to just 'outlaw them all'.

This is not only naïve, but it's the same unrealistic 'solution' those who wish to ban abortion seek.

Much like the anti-choice people, the gun-phobes demonize all gun owners and severely mis-characterize them. They don't like to have that pointed out.

*I* asked *you* questions about that post.

YOU have yet to answer them.

You have not asked me any questions, let alone any that require answering before I get answers to mine.

It really isn't that hard.
Why can't you do it?



html fixed

[The Doctor.]

42. The question you asked was answered before you asked it.

"But some people are so convinced of the absolute evil of guns that the only solution is to just 'outlaw them all'.

THOSE are the people I am talking about. Did you want names and addresses?

"Some Liberals" are like that. Thankfully not many.

Did that clear things up? If not, try to follow the formula I laid out for seeking clarity.

[iverglas]

43. yes please

"But some people are so convinced of the absolute evil of guns that the only solution is to just 'outlaw them all'.

THOSE are the people I am talking about. Did you want names and addresses?

Or some other minimal proof of their existence -- AND of their relevance to our discussion here, if they exist.

So we've come full circle around your mulberry bush.

Do you plan to continue in the same direction, or maybe dance counterclockwise this time?

[The Doctor.]

44. So I have to give you names and addresses of the people I've talked to

who've been rabid 'ban 'em all and round 'em up' anti-gun types?

You're really saying that such people do not exist?

1) I won't be giving out other names I post under on other sites to a potential stalker.
2) Yes, these people are real, and you can find them everywhere.

Try here;

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.11.6.21654.1217.html
On that one, the guy gives his name and submits a piece titled; "Ban all Guns Now!"

Just so you know, he's not the only one.

http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=91456

That guy claims that "Gun owners are all murderers." - Kind of in line with my original point you responded so incredulously to.

Then there's this;

http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?p=751496#post751496

Apparently, this particular character claimed that rapes and murders are committed by legal gun owners.
There are thousands of these people... at least.

I'm glad that I could help relieve you of some of your ignorance. In the future, instead of badgering someone who's simply stated his experience, you might try using 'teh Google'. Also, be clear what you're asking for from the get-go. That saves a great deal of time and silliness.

I like dancing, but not with someone who steps on their own toes.

Good night.

[iverglas]

49. forgive me, but

Your claim was: some people are so convinced of the absolute evil of guns

If I go clicking around your links, will I find such people? Why not just put your substantiation here where it belongs?

I did click on one at random: the beyondunreal one. And you did see what it said about the screed reproduced in a post on that discussion board:

P.S.: I saw this on the 'net, and I just knew I had to post it
and watch the carnage. Don't kill me!

Well, I can't find it on the net. Way to go there. Great substantiation.

What do I care what random people on the internet say, anyway? Hint: I don't.

My other question was what relevance such people and what they might say have to the discussion here.


At this point, it's pretty clear that the only possible answer is:

Nobody relevant to anything under discussion here falls within the description in the bizarre statment in your first post, and you just thought you'd smother everybody in straw.



typo fixed

[The Doctor.]

57. Yes, they are. If you don't want to explore the vast world of opinion of the internets,

then I can't help you. I made a comment on how there are a number of people who aren't rational. Now you are flailing hopelessly.

Your question was not in the least bit relevant, as it presumed no such people existed.

Your contribution has been weighed, measured, and found deeply in want.

Your toes must be sore from your stepping on them.

From here, I will only allow you to crush yourself. Please... just stop.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. Surely you remember the poster that thought guns themselves were evil.

[X_Digger]

47. Joe_Steel, I believe.. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. The funniest thing is that iverglas has responded to their posts.

Then she acts like they don't exist.

[iverglas]

50. this Joe Steel?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=198621

Here, I'll make it easy:



Ooooh. And look what my response to one of his posts was:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196970&mesg_id=197101

iverglas
Mon Jan-12-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #42

46. I'm sorry, but

Guns are inherently evil.

is really a very odd thing to say.

It's actually the sort of thing that firearms control advocates are constantly alleged to think, ridiculous though it is, and your post provides a convenient hook for people who choose to portray firearms control advocates as thinking such bizarre things to hang their future allegations on.

and what follows.

:rofl:

Damn, I wish I could enlarge those idiotfacethingies to express the true level of my hilarity.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. So when wondered if these people actually exist, what Joe Steel momentarily slipped your mind?

We all know how "honest" you are after all.

[iverglas]

53. Joe Steel doesn't exist

and he existed only for a brief time, such as he ever did, and as you can see, I never fell for the game. Not that time, or the many other times it's been played. I do just have to be circumspect, you know. The post I quoted there, when dampened with lemon juice and held up to a mirror, said:



I'll try to make it a little easier to understand next time.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. How nice after he so vociferously argued for your pet cause, deny his existence.

[iverglas]

55. if you want to play dumb, Dave

I won't stand in your way.

G'day to you now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. This from the queen of playing dumb. Your humor has improved.

[The Doctor.]

71. So... the people that believe 'guns are evil' don't exist when they post?

Or is it only after they are banned?

I'll be fair to you here; It's quite possible there was a pro-gun nutjob posting as a pseudo uber-liberal who was uncovered and TS'd. But the fact is that these people exist. It's not as common as on the left as the right, but I can assure you that there really are some left-wing fundamentalists out there.

I apologize for any earlier misunderstanding, but that was always and only my point in this thread.

Now could you please explain to me just WTF that thing on the right thinks it is? A 'sheep in wolf's clothing' isn't much of a sheep at all. Ah... I think the message is clever.

[iverglas]

72. you got it

It's quite possible there was a pro-gun nutjob posting as a pseudo uber-liberal who was uncovered and TS'd.

"a"???

:rofl:

This place is infested with them. (Not that I'd associate the position you describe as "liberal" of any sort, but then, "liberal" is an incomprehensible word to me in our context. I'm an uber-social democrat, and that doesn't involve screeching for guns to be banned.)

The odd one sticks around. And, er, converts. Without fanfare or ado.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=142566&mesg_id=142792

And the posts that follow.


A 'sheep in wolf's clothing'

I got tired of the parable of the wolves and the sheep, and decided things needed depicting the way they really are.


My co-vivant will loudly announce at the drop of a hat that all guns should be confiscated and all gun owners rounded up and told that if they don't turn them over, they will be shot. Pleasing though the fantasy might be, he's a city boy who hasn't thought it through. Not all gun owners, even here in Canada, are right-wing scum, or gun militants, or Stephen Harper supporters. Or present any significantly elevated risk to themselves or anyone else. Some have farms with livestock and crops that need protecting, some live in remote areas with problematic wildlife (no more, percentage-wise, here than in the US, but some, and even in non-remote places there can be such problems), some work in the tourism industry and are employed as hunting outfitters and guides and whatnot (and some communities depend on that trade for their economic survival), some are First Nations members engaged in hunting as a way to practise and preserve their traditions and culture (as are some non-Aboriginal people), some people hunt for sustenance or just for recreation (as my mum put it the other day, that's fine: I just wouldn't want to live with one of them; hunting is a legitimate practice, but I have my druthers). And some people engage in sports shooting for recreation (also perfectly legitimate, just no reason to keep handguns, especially, in a home).

I've tried to explain these things to him ... but he's too busy changing the cat boxes to worry about something that is as much of a non-issue as all of this. The only actual issues regarding firearms in Canada are:
- accessibility of handguns, which needs a stop put to it;
- attempts by the far right wing to kill the firearms registry, or if can't do that, gut it by removing long arms from its coverage, and these aren't going to happen, although exemption by what you would call "executive order" is undoing some of the work.

If he wandered in here, you could all have a field day with him. He wouldn't give a shit. I'd try to bring him up to speed if there were any reason to, but like I said, non-issue. He'll support political proposals to eliminate private handgun possession, and oppose proposals to eliminate or undermine the firearms registry, and other than that, who cares what he thinks?

Like the anti-abortion crew. As long as they aren't proposing or supporting proposals to deny women the exercise of reproductive rights, who cares what they think? They can think women who have abortions should be lined up and shot too, but if they acknowledge that outlawing abortion is not permissible and don't do anything that would prevent access, I don't care what they think.

I probably know other people who feel the same way. But who cares? NOBODY is proposing, let alone seriously, that all firearms be outlawed and confiscated. Joe Who can maunder on and say this oughta be done, on an internet board, even sincerely. Who the hell cares?

[The Doctor.]

73. That was one of the most dizzyingly delightful posts I've ever read!

Yeah... sometimes I make blatantly obvious assumptions. 'Whatta shock'.

A little secret; I would love to see a ban enacted in the US for two reasons;

1) It would likely prove tragic, but I'd be academically curious either way.

2) I'm ridiculously adept with bladed weapons... I'd only have to fear the criminals with guns... and not all of them.

The notion that more innocent people could die is very disconcerting. It's been laid out that the number of Defensive Gun Uses in the US is in the millions per year. That should give pause to any rational person.

My solution for gun violence?

Decrease poverty, increase education.


Even though I've never truly considered myself a liberal, it's that liberal philosophy that makes the most fucking sense.

It'll be nice to see it through with people like yourself.

What do you drink?

[iverglas]

74. Cinzano, and I've been out for about 2 months

Or some Russian vodka with vegetable juice and celery salt.

Or a Manhattan.

Oh, hell, white Havana club and no-sodium soda with lime, if we're feeling Cuban.

All there's been in the house for some time is the odd spot of beer, and that's not what hits my spot after a long day's work. Which I have done today, and am not finished yet ...

[The Doctor.]

75. Oh dear sweetheart....

'Vegetable juice and celery salt'?

Nonononononono!!!!!

Ok, here's how it's done;


1 quart of veggie (tomato) juice.
1 teaspoon of celery salt.
1/2 teaspoon of horseradish.
2 tablespoons of Au Jus.
1 tablespoon of Worcestershire sauce
1 pinch of cumin.
1 pinch of chili powder.
1 pinch of onion powder.

I can't tell you how many contests I've won with that. Try it.

The rest?

I'll be happy to join ya!

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

76. you clearly don't work as long days as I do

If you think I have time for that before falling on the chesterfield.

I do like my horseradish though. May be worth a try. What the hell is Au Jus? Some yuppie variety of Oxo? (I couldn't do it, I'm afraid. I actually speak French, and this perversion of the language would make my brain hurt as I drank it.)

Unfortunately, I don't do the domestic delicacy. Things that breathe water make me puke.



Oh look, à deux.

http://www.makefive.com/categories/experiences/dining/top-5-favorite-cocktails

The Magical marriage of Tomato juice, Clam Juice and Vodka. A Caesar, sometimes referred to as a Bloody Caesar, after the similar Bloody Mary, is a cocktail popular mainly in Canada. It typically contains vodka, clamato (a blend of tomato juice and clam broth), Worcestershire sauce and Tabasco sauce, and is served on the rocks in a large, celery salt-rimmed glass, typically garnished with a stalk of celery and wedge of lime.

I've had to correct a few grammatical errors in there or I would have been embarrassed to post it.

Now if only I could remember which one has two "r"s ... embarrassed or embarassé (which doesn't even mean the same thing). ... Aha. Got it right this time.

[The Doctor.]

78. Ah... mon français, c'est horrible!

C'est quinze ans depuis j'ai visitez á France.

Maintenent; I really need to brush up. :D

Au jourd'hui; I am just a humble mixologist with a panoply of delectibles.

The Beef Broth is the secret key to a brilliant Bloody Mary... in lieu of Au jus. Just don't serve to a vegetarian.

I'm going to go make a 'Summer Rain' right now... want one?

[iverglas]

80. I'll google it

Meanwhile I think I'll go home and have a beer with my jerk chicken caesar salad sandwich. Some local brewery. Comes in a browny-yellow box. No idea what it's called, only ever had about three of them. If I'm there when beer is being bought, and if it's the LCBO rather than the Brewers' Retail, I go for the cider. Brit, though, none of the Canadian crap. Actually, I spent my law school days drinking Quebec cider, which was quite fine, but they don't seem to make it anymore. Once the drink of the trendy, now the drink of yer grandma, I suppose. Oh, I know. Now they make it into ice cider, to compete with ice wine. And it is revolting.

In any event, I have to say, I have had absolutely enough summer rain for this year, ta very much. It actually didn't rain today, so one day without it will be fine.

[paulsby]

59. it's postmodernism idiocy

truth is a metanarrative.

it doesn't matter what the objective facts are, if they don't fit into the correct political frame.

[Tejas]

6. Thank you for not owning a firearm.

[davepc]

7. Good for you. Don't let truthiness get in the way of facts.

[Tim01]

8. Ha ha. Wow, you do get so very emotional don't you? Must be hard to think like that. nt

[rd_kent]

10. Very moving and emotional, add some rationality to it and there may be a point.

Yet even in the face of a retraction and admission of falsifying data, you blindly carry on. Sounds alot like a religious zealot confronted with scientific facts.

[Jackson1999]

11. This attitude encapsulates the problem with anti-gunners.

I used to be like you. I supported pretty much all gun control efforts and assumed the NRA was lying about everything. Then one day I decided to actually research the "facts" about assault weapons. That was the first time I realized that gun control groups were basing their arguments on scare tactics rather than facts. Over the next few years, I continued to not take statements from either side at face value and research them myself. Today I am a strong liberal Democrat who supporter of RKBA.

I find anti-gunners as a whole base their opinions on emotion rather than facts. They are either incapable of, or refuse to do any critical thinking-they just follow the party line. I imagine a lot in group have had similar experiences.

I am also the person who first outreached to the reporter showing her the error of her ways. We wont change her mind about guns, but you can bet your bottom dollar that she is going to do some research before she accepts a statement by VPC at face value.

[iverglas]

19. "I used to be like you."

Suuuuure you did ...


I find anti-gunners as a whole base their opinions on emotion rather than facts. They are either incapable of, or refuse to do any critical thinking-they just follow the party line.

Huh. So you were an irrational moron??

And so anybody who disagrees with you now are irrational morons.

Hmm. Logic needed here. Not to mention civility.

But hey. Feel free to substantiate your insults.

[Jackson1999]

39. What I said was...

That I used to accept what the Democratic leadership and the media told me on the gun issue. However, after looking at the issue critically, and sourcing back the claims on both sides, I realized that much of what I was being told was not true. I changed my position.

[iverglas]

40. you thought I was confused?

What I said was...
That I used to accept what the Democratic leadership and the media told me on the gun issue.

Good for you.

Now how does this make you "like" the person you were addressing, or anyone else?

That was your claim. That the person you were addressing speaks the Baaaa language.


However, after looking at the issue critically, and sourcing back the claims on both sides, I realized that much of what I was being told was not true. I changed my position.

Sez you.

[spin]

24. Possibly why the anti-gun group has lost ground in the last few years...

I'm sure that through the years, many liberal anti-gun Democrats have argued with gun owners who were acquaintances and state "Why do you need a machine gun to hunt.", or "handguns are only designed for killing".

It's easy for a handgun owner to point out the falsehood in these arguments. I have had a couple of discussions of this nature with co-workers in the past. It was fun to point out that semi-auto assault weapons were not machine guns and that people do not hunt with machine guns. I would invite my co-worker to come to the range if he felt handguns were only designed for killing. Since I live in Florida, where firearms are common, other pro-gun co-workers would often join in the conversation.

We had access to the internet at work, so I could quickly back up my statements with facts. (The company I worked for didn't mind us using the net as long as you avoided porn sites.)

But since a lot of co-workers were interested in target shooting and hunting, many conversations at break would involve shooting. Several co-workers joined the range I belonged to, bought handguns, and became regular shooters. Several started to reload their own ammo.

But I did point out to the anti-gun co-workers that the media was simply lying to them about the facts. Once they realized that I was telling the truth, they were not happy with the bullshit they had been fed. Not all changed their view, but at least they learned to do their own research and not trust groups such as the Brady Campaign.

There are good arguments for banning or restricting certain firearms that can be presented just as there are good arguments against banning or restricting firearms. Lying or exaggeration is not necessary and is counter productive to the discussion. That goes for both sides. The NRA-ILA promotes fear to further their goals, just as the Brady Campaign distorts the facts to promote their agenda.

We see the same thing on many other issues. The whole effort to stop the revamping of our heath care system is distorted with lies and deceit by the Republicans and the media. Any fair analysis of the facts sow that we DO NOT have the best health care system in the world and that single payer health care is far better then the profit driven system we have today.

[iverglas]

29. certainly numbers have dwindled in this place

I've noticed quite the exodus of intelligent, progressive individuals from DU overall, and a major influx of opinion-spouting, ignorant, illiberal idjits. You have too then?

[spin]

37. In the Gungeon I believe I've seen more intelligent, progressive...

individuals posting.

But then I believe that the concept of allowing honest citizens to own firearms for target shooting, collecting and self defense is very liberal and progressive.

Overall on DU in the relatively short time I have posted, I believe that as Americans became more and more dissatisfied with the eight years of the Bush the Junior's administration many posters migrated from conservative forums to DU.

My contention is that lying to people to gain their support may work in the short term, but will proved costly over the long term. Obviously, the Bush administration was far less than honest in the excuses and the reasoning for the Iraq invasion. One day we may know the true extent of the lies, but what we see is probably only the tip of an iceberg.

Many people also became disgruntled with the Republican Party especially when the Republican favoritism of capitalism without regulation (uncontrolled greed) resulted in the current economic mess we find ourselves in. Since there are only two significant political parties in the United States, middle of the road Republicans started to support the Democratic Party.

My biggest disappointment now is the reform of health care fiasco we see happening. I believe that Obama is wise enough to understand that the real solution to health care is a single payer system. Unfortunately, corporations run our country and own our politicians and the media. The lies we are being fed to preserve the profits of the medical insurance industry are unbelievable, but our media refuses to publish the truth.

Sad.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. Priceless. You honestly can't make this shit up.

[Jackson1999]

13. Please give me one example over the past 50 years....

Where the NRA pushed through legislation that made it easier to buy a gun.

[proteus_lives]

15. Wow.

:eyes:

[virginia mountainman]

45. This is why we win.....

Classic example of bed wetting. And pride in a "believable" article that was fabricated...

Even after the article writer retracts it as falsehood, katandmoon makes NO apologies for believing it, and states that she is ready to "believe plenty worse"

Folks, we are WINNING!!!!

When the Anti's are clammoring for most falshoods to belive, and does not care that they are falshoods. They show just how weak their case is.

Lets Continue our march for Civil Rights!! And redouble our efforts!

[fedupinhouston]

91. Could you please clarify for me...

1) Which members of Congress have been bought and paid for?
2) When exactly is the investigation to begin? Bribing and accepting bribes are illegal.
3) What "easy killing machines" does the NRA make?
4) Explain to me how a non-profit organization can be money-grubbing?
5) Do you have an example of any NRA employee threatening anyone? Remember, that is considered assault at the very least.
6) Now that the article has been admitted wrong by the author, will you be reconsidering your position, or is belief all that matters regardless of fact?
7) Could you present a single lie from the NRA?
8) Could you present proof that the NRA is made up of "death merchants"
9) Are you aware of the membership of the NRA?
10) When are you making the FDA aware of this deadly erectile dysfunction medication being manufactured and sold by the NRA?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

95. I finally figured out what you are so bitter about.

[rd_kent]

9. Finally, some honesty from one of the gun grabbers.

Hope we see some of that here, but most likely not.

[proteus_lives]

16. Crickets.....

"I wonder if we can expect the same integrity for the posters here who made many accusations concerning this story, somehow I doubt it."

Don't hold your breath FMD. Antis can't deal with challenges to their orthodoxy.

[iverglas]

17. as for myself

I still haven't figured out what the issue was exactly.

The fact is that the CDC has been in a straightjacket for some years when it comes to collecting data relating to firearms.

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/194/Guns-Injuries-Fatalities.html
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1767/Guns-Injuries-Fatalities-WHAT-KNOWN-ABOUT-FIREARMS-INJURIES.html

State and local health departments report that they lack the funding to conduct a thorough surveillance of firearms injuries. To investigate how many health agencies conduct surveillance, Roger Hayes and colleagues carried out a survey of all fifty state health departments, as well as the city and county health departments of the fifty largest urban areas. The report is titled Missing in Action: Health Agencies Lack Critical Data Needed for Firearm Injury Prevention (Chicago: The HELP Network, 1999). The survey reports that thirty-one states (62%) maintain some type of firearm injury surveillance, but nineteen (38%) do not. More than one-half of the states (56%) track mortality data, 30% track hospital data, and 38% track the type of firearm. Twenty-six percent of the states track circumstances. Only 18% issue a report. According to the HELP report, the lack of funding and staffing were the main obstacles to adequate surveillance.

According to the survey, about one-half of the city and county health departments collected data on firearm injuries and deaths. Less than one-quarter collected information on firearm types involved in injuries or on the circumstances, and 35% issued a report. The lack of funding and staffing were the reasons cited by health departments for not collecting data.

Concerned about the lack of firearms injury data, the CDC in September 2002 awarded $7.5 million to six states (New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, South Carolina, and Virginia) to develop the nation's first comprehensive system for collecting data about violent deaths, the National Violent Death Reporting System. In 2004 the U.S. Congress granted $3.7 million to continue implementing the system.

... A 2002 study carried out by the HELP Network, Disabilities from Guns: The Untold Costs of Spinal Cord and Traumatic Brain Injuries (Chicago: The HELP Network, 2002), examined the consequences of nonfatal firearm injuries and underscored "the critical need for a national, centralized data collection system to track their long-term after-effects."

I'm not surprised that a reporter not versed in the very complex issues involved misinterpreted some aspect of the problem.

As I recall, the actual issue that prompted the column was a school board official's inability to find any data source anywhere that tracked shootings in which his students were victims.

Any progress on that one?


I know we don't like to talk about the wide-ranging costs of firearms violence here in the Guns forum. Never mind the spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries suffered by people who don't bother to die. The important thing is ... lemme see. As I recall, there are two important things. People don't commit homicide with long guns, except when they do; and concealed firearm permit holders don't commit as many crimes as people with criminal records. I think I've got that right. Oh, and if people didn't use guns to "defend" themselves, there would have been a couple of hundred thousand more homicides in the US in the last few years than there actually were ... because homicidal criminals only pick people with pistols in their pockets to try it on with ...

I think that about sums it up.

[TPaine7]

21. Drivel of the least honest sort

I know we don't like to talk about the wide-ranging costs of firearms violence here in the Guns forum. Never mind the spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries suffered by people who don't bother to die. The important thing is ... lemme see. As I recall, there are two important things. People don't commit homicide with long guns, except when they do; and concealed firearm permit holders don't commit as many crimes as people with criminal records. I think I've got that right. Oh, and if people didn't use guns to "defend" themselves, there would have been a couple of hundred thousand more homicides in the US in the last few years than there actually were ... because homicidal criminals only pick people with pistols in their pockets to try it on with ...

This post is permeated with untruths.

I only have time to address one. It is a silly argument that you love to repeat, in spite of its obvious invalidity--invalidity which has been carefully explained to you at least twice:

We all recall the ludicrous figures achieved by some surveys,... with respondents claiming to have averted death in multiple times more situations than there are actual homicides in the US in a year, etc. etc. etc.{--iverglas}

I answered this frail argument here:

Of course the data would show that, even if collected by an omniscient, infallible observer. Thugs often put their victims in fear of their lives so that they can obtain their objectives. Think about a few crimes:

1) Carjacking
2) Rape
3) Armed robbery

If the felon could get {you} to give him what he wanted without putting you in fear of your life (or at least in fear of serious bodily injury) there would be no crime. It wouldn't be a carjacking; it would be a car borrowing or the generous gift of a car. It wouldn't be rape; it would be seduction. It wouldn't be armed robbery; it would be panhandling.

Those aren't crimes. They wouldn't show up on official records. They wouldn't show up in surveys. They wouldn't even show up on our omniscient, infallible observer's crime records.

Now in some people's thinking, the fact that most of the people who are put in legitimate, rational fear for their lives aren't actually killed is very significant in indicating proper gun policy. I disagree....

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=237532&mesg_id=237689

You know this argument is frail, pathetic, and bogus. Why do you keep repeating it? Are you hoping it will confuse people who haven't thought it through clearly and they will be tricked into thinking it actually has merit?

Why not be honest and use arguments for gun control that aren't so full of holes (assuming such arguments exist)?

[iverglas]

22. think about the fact

that all I did was extrapolate from the survey responses ... EXACTLY as the authors of the report based on the survey did themselves.

If I don't get to do it, they don't either. Their "conclusions" from the data, regarding "defensive gun uses" in the entire population, are wholly insupportable.

All I did was make that fact ludicrously obvious!

I'm not going to bother rereading your drivel.

The survey didn't ask about "fear for their lives".

It asked whether they BELIEVED that a death would or would probably have resulted had they not pulled out their popguns.

[TPaine7]

23. Kleck himself conceded that not all of the people who believed

they were in mortal danger would have been killed. As I recall, he used a rough estimate of 1/10 to compare to the actual homocide rate. His statement was completely and utterly consistent with my argument.

This is precisely what one would expect. Felons put people in legitimate fear for their lives in order to gain cooperation. Most do not intend to kill anyone, some even use unloaded or fake guns. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what the victim has a perfect right to believe and do in that situation. Every sane person knows that. A citizen in that situation has no more obligation to play the reverse lottery than a police officer in that situation.

The survey didn't ask about "fear for their lives".

It asked whether they BELIEVED that a death would or would probably have resulted...

Leave it to you to pretend that being in fear for one's life and believing that death would probably result except for defensive gun use are very different things from a practical standpoint.

Furthermore, as you emphatically state, the survey was about what the victims "BELIEVED." You are fallaciously conflating that with what would have actually happened but for the DGUs:

Oh, and if people didn't use guns to "defend" themselves, there would have been a couple of hundred thousand more homicides in the US in the last few years than there actually were...

This is sophistry. You intentionally and repeatedly conflate BELIEF and REALITY. That may serve your purposes, but it is incorrect, no matter how legitimate and reasonable the belief of each victim. And you know it.

[iverglas]

27. "a rough estimate of 1/10"

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230941&mesg_id=231367

Allow me to quote myself.

Of course, what does contradict the ludicrous 2,000,000 figure is he seems not to have noticed that the respondents who reported over 15% of those incidents believed that someone would probably have died had they not used a firearm to avert the crime/death.

There would have been THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND more homicides during the time period than there were, if that were the case. (There are actually, very roughly, about 15,000 homicides a year in the US.)

So okey dokey! Let's take 1/10 of them! THIRTY THOUSAND. Yes, folks, 30,000 more homicides than there actually were.


Furthermore, as you emphatically state, the survey was about what the victims "BELIEVED." You are fallaciously conflating that with what would have actually happened but for the DGUs:

Nope. Not I.

I'm talking about the utter nonsense of believing ANYTHING extrapolated from the puny numbers in that moronic survey.

What the "belief" figure does is put the lie to the whole thesis. If these people believed a death would have resulted had they not flashed/fired their gun, nothing they said is deserving of any credence whatsoever, for starters. And then extrapolating anything they said to the general population is - how does that go? - sophistry of the first water.

Not just death and the subjective assessment of the probability thereof, dear.

2.5 million "defensive gun uses" a year.

How many people actually are victims of officially recorded crimes every year? This table:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
seems to tell us that in the US in 2006 there were 11,401,313 crimes against the person + crimes against property in the US in 2006:
- 1,417,745 person
- 9,983,568 property.

And somebody wants us to believe that there might have been another million or two had people not been flashing or firing firearms?

The property offences shown there aren't the kind generally committed when the victims are even in the vicinity -- theft, burglary, vehicle theft. If people are there, they tend to fall into the "robbery" category, and get included in the violent/against the person numbers.

Well I'm not that gullible! You be if you like. Just don't anybody be offering up their gullibility as anything persuasive of anything.

These are the people whose survey responses we are supposed to be using as the basis for worshipping at the altar of guns! And you're telling me we shouldn't pay any attention to what they said?? Well Hallelujah, I'll join you in that.

[TPaine7]

30. Are you just playing stupid?

I'm beginning to doubt it.

What the "belief" figure does is put the lie to the whole thesis. If these people believed a death would have resulted had they not flashed/fired their gun, nothing they said is deserving of any credence whatsoever, for starters. And then extrapolating anything they said to the general population is - how does that go? - sophistry of the first water.

Felons put people in legitimate fear of their lives for various reasons. I've explained why in detail. Anyone with an IQ over 70 should be able to follow the logic. This is perfectly logical and consistent, your hand waving and BS notwithstanding.

It hardly matters whether you are too stupid to see that the people put in legitimate fear for their lives will be some multiple of the people who would actually be killed but for a defensive gun use, or whether you are too biased. But for any rational reader, the fact that the survey would indicate many times more people in fear for their lives than those actually killed (or those who would have actually been killed) is not a problem in the real world. It definitely doesn't "put the lie to the whole thesis"--whatever that might mean.

And if Kleck was off in his 1/10 remark, so what? As I recall, he said something like "if only one in ten of the victims who thought they would be killed were correct..." It wasn't exactly an authoritative estimate. The purpose of the study was not to estimate what percentage of DGUs would have actually been murder victims but for their gun use. If Kleck undertook such an effort, his findings might be more to your liking.

[iverglas]

31. snork

The Spin Around, from PlayWell

:rofl:

[TPaine7]

32. Not playing at all, I see...

You are what you appear to be.

PS: You got my race wrong, you old battle axe.

[iverglas]

33. oh dear

You thought that was supposed to be you?

I was merely offering you a tool to assist you in your endeavours.

The label wasn't "Master Paine", it was "The Spin Around". That's the name of the tool.

Still the centre of the universe, I see.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=30&q=adolescent+%22center+of+the+universe%22&btnG=Search&meta=

[TPaine7]

34. Whatever you say, old woman. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Imagine Iverglas acting as if she is somehow confused now that she is faced with facts.

[jody]

20. Gun-grabber beetles get hysterical over a new patty aka lie to roll around but I don't expect any of

them to apologize for their hysterical rants after going off on the CDC article.

[spin]

25. I love those cartoons. (nt)

[raimius]

41. I'm happy.

Retractions should be made any time incorrect information is published.

+1 for fact checking and honesty.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. I would like thank those gun control activist who continued to display their lack of integrity.

[TPaine7]

58. It is convenient, isn't it Dave?

It helps honest anti-gun folks to question their beliefs. And that's all it takes--honest questioning.

[rd_kent]

63. Honest questions do not get honest answers here by the gun grabbers.

Its always a twist, dance or jump to something irrelevant or off topic. Ever notice how post showing how gun laws work never get much attention?

[Euromutt]

60. Props to Ms Marin for acknowledging the error

We can also hope that the next some anti-gunner feeds her or one of her co-workers a blatant falsehood like that one, they'll be a bit more skeptical about its veracity.

[iverglas]

61. anybody remember what the piece was ABOUT?

It was ABOUT a Chicago school board official trying to get information about shootings of his students.

The piece veered off when the author apparently didn't figure out how to get other info out of the reporting system.

The fact appears to remain that there is no system for compiling and reporting firearms injuries in the United States. A school board official wants to find out about shootings of his students, information that would be more than useful to a school board concerned about its students' welfare. And can't.

The CDC has decried this fact, when it remarked on the "absence of evidence" for determining the effectiveness of firearms legislation.

How can public policy be made and assessed if THERE ARE NO FACTS AVAILABLE for doing that??

Does anybody care?

Didn't think so.

[Jackson1999]

62. Not quite...

The article started with a school board member wanting to find out how many Chicago students had been shot. She can find that out from the Chicago PD Web site.

Details of firearm deaths are tracked nationally. They are tracked for homicide or suicide, accident, and by age.

As the reporter said in an email to me. "You are absolutely correct and I was absolutely wrong."

[iverglas]

65. why don't you let her know that?

The article started with a school board member wanting to find out how many Chicago students had been shot. She can find that out from the Chicago PD Web site.

I'm sure she'll be grateful for your further assistance, and credit you when she writes a piece telling the school board CEO he's just a big old moron.

[Jackson1999]

66. Actually, I did.....

I am the one who got her to print the retraction. She was honest enough to admit she was wrong and had been misled.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x245272


There is nothing wrong with admitting you are wrong about something.

[iverglas]

68. can you try to follow the thread, please? (ed)

I pointed out that the origin of the piece was in the school board CEO's statement that he was unable to find data about shootings of his students.

You said, in your post right before the one I am replying to, that he could find that info on the Chicago police website.

Now, I'm not actually persuaded that you're right, given that he apparently looked high and low for such data, but perhaps you are.

I then suggested that you point this out to the person who wrote the piece, since you seem to have her ear.

Just think: you'd actually be performing a service that might benefit the public, instead of just catching a journalist in an obviously good faith error. (I'll bet you never ever make mistakes in your work. Conversely, I'm sure I made at least one so far today in mine.)

But hey, even more importantly, you might get to prove somebody else wrong about something. I would think that would be too much temptation to resist.


edit -- here is the relevant passage:

Is NRA part of the problem in counting the shootings? Sun Times (Carol Marin)
"I could tell you exactly how many schools we closed, how many children had the H1N1 virus," he said Tuesday from his office in Washington. But not how many Chicago kids getting shot. Or data to compare Chicago with other cities. "No one, literally, could tell me anything," Duncan said.

I doubt that the Chicago police website will give him date to compare Chicago with other cities.

[JonQ]

64. Hmm, make a blatantly wrong statement

that you know to be wrong (or could have found with minimal effort) simply because it makes the point you are pushing. Wait until it sinks in and becomes fact, then offer a 4 sentence apology much later after people have moved on and forgotten the article (but remember the point you were making; NRA = evil).

Breaking news: obama found to be al qaeda agent, born in somalia to illegal immigrants who hated america!

And four weeks later I'll write that maybe that wasn't the entire truth and I am very sorry.

[Jackson1999]

67. Agreed. If you google news "NRA CDC"......

The first link is "Is NRA part of the problem in counting the shootings?" If you click on it, it is dead, of course. It would have been better if she put her apology on that link. Instead, she posts it to another section and has it closed for comments.

I don't want to beat up on her too much on that right now, however. I'll take her admitting she was wrong as a small victory for now.

I think the bigger victory, however, is that she probably learned her lesson about the VPC. As you probably know, their strategy is to come out and say something totally untrue, with the (correct) assumption that no matter how outrageous a lie, there will be some people who believe it. The other strategy is to use language that they KNOW will be misrepresented when repeated (kind of like the telephone game). "90% of guns traced in Mexico come from the US" becomes "90% of the guns in Mexico come from the US", and "3,000 children and teens are killed by gun violence" becomes "3000 children are killed by gun violence."

One of the big differences now vs. 1994 is the Internets. I used to be pro-gun control and accept such statements, relying on the media to vet the info. Now, of course, I realize how wrong I was.

[iverglas]

69. are you finding her the data she was looking for?

Post 68. She and the school board CEO will be most grateful for your expert assistance, I'm sure.


It's damned lucky we got it copied here in extenso while we could, eh?

And so the CDC's effort to exhaustively investigate gun-related injuries was met with intense NRA lobbying that, not surprisingly, fueled Congress' unwillingness to fully fund the CDC's continued research.

Did you manage to prove her wrong on that one yet?

[SteveM]

84. "Closed for comments" is a common practice at gun-control sites (nt)

[iverglas]

85. I like Miss Vicky's potato chips

I'll leave you to figure out how that's relevant here.

You seem to know how your statement is relevant to an item that appeared on a NEWSPAPER website.

Damned if I do.

Not that I'm surprised or concerned that gun control sites close their pages for comment. Who needs to have their website polluted with vomit from the gun militant brigade?

[SteveM]

87. Because, like your reasoning, they are so thin?

Really, gun-control sites can't handle sound argument. They know that. So do you.

[iverglas]

70. what the story was really about

You see, I'd read the whole piece, not just the red herring bit reporduced by Jackson## in his post here in the Guns forum.

Someone else did too, and posted the relevant bits in another forum of DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x469087
(with my emphases)

villager
Wed Aug-05-09 07:35 PM
Original message

Is NRA part of the problem in counting the shootings? (NRA undermining accurate gun violence stats)

s NRA part of the problem in counting the shootings?

By Carol Marin

BY CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist

<snip>

We have lousy numbers on gun violence.

Why, in this sophisticated world of a data mining, where marketers can profile you within an inch of your life, can't we track victims of violence? Not only the dead ones, who tragically are easier to count, but the ones who are shot but don't die?

Could the answer, at least in part, be the massively powerful, heavily funded National Rifle Association?

Back in 1997, PBS' "Frontline" reported that when the respected Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta published a "mind-boggling report showing that the U.S. firearm-related homicide rate for children was 16 times higher than the combined rate for children in 25 other industrialized countries," the CDC was already firmly in the gunsights of the NRA.

And so the CDC's effort to exhaustively investigate gun-related injuries was met with intense NRA lobbying that, not surprisingly, fueled Congress' unwillingness to fully fund the CDC's continued research.

Kathleen Monahan, the former project director for the Illinois Violent Death Reporting System, puts it this way: "While firearms injuries are one of the leading causes of hospitalization and death for Americans, the CDC was prevented for years from investigating injuries and deaths due to firearms. This was always attributed to the NRA's power in Congress. This is well known among gun violence prevention researchers."

The NRA, for its part, makes no bones about its attempts to inhibit or limit research on gun violence.

"We've interjected ourselves when we think there would be biased, outcome-based research," Todd Vandermyde, the NRA's legislative liaison for Illinois, said Tuesday by phone. "We have anti-gun researchers with a bias from the git-go. . . . We don't think taxpayer dollars should be used . . . to drive an agenda to restrict law-abiding citizens access to firearms."

But restricting access to information? Not a problem.

The NRA's fearsome clout goes a long way to explaining why only 17 states are part of the CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System. Begun in 2002, it ran out of funding by the time Illinois applied in 2004. Private money from the Joyce and MacArthur foundations came to Illinois' rescue as it tried to examine gun violence. Still that money covers only three counties.

"Information is the gun lobby's enemy," said Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center, based in Washington.

<snip>

So congratulations, Jackson##.

You have managed to stifle discussion of these issues in the press.

I know you're proud.

[TPaine7]

77. Why the NRA opposed funding the CDC's "investigation"

As I explained to iverglas long ago, the CDC was (and almost certainly still is) staffed by crusaders who wanted to work outside their specialty--DISEASE--to further their political goals:

Two high CDC officials are quoted, one by the Journal of the American Medical Association the other by the Washington Post, saying that their goal was to build a case against firearms (one specified handguns).

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x168492#169193

See the posts after that one for more substantiation.

The NRA doesn't want funding to go to the Centers for DISEASE Control to build a case against guns. But honestly, would the Brady Campaign want money to go to NASA to build a case for liberal gun policies?

It helps to know the rest of the story.

[Jackson1999]

79. Give it up TPaine7

If you look a few messages up, you will see that, because I notified a journalist that she had faulty information, and that the journalist agreed and retracted the story, that I was "stifling" the debate.

It's not worth fighting over. Let her and her cats do what they want.

[TPaine7]

82. It's not really for her.

Hope springs eternal, but I think iverglas is the last person to ever change her mind on anything.

I answer her posts almost entirely for others. I didn't want her BS to go unchallenged. Someone might have been fooled.

[iverglas]

81. gee

I wonder whether that was because THEY KNEW WHAT THE FUCK THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.

Nah. Senior, respected professionals ... couldn't know what the fuck they were talking about.


The NRA doesn't want funding to go to the Centers for DISEASE Control to build a case against guns.

The NRA doesn't want the data being compiled and analyzed because it knows as well as the researchers do that THE ONLY OUTCOME would be a demonstration of the HEALTH RISKS associated with widespread access to firearms.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. "Kindly do not use our domestic situation and policies to grind your own axe on"

Sauce for goose, meet gander:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4007816&mesg_id=4008510

[iverglas]

86. kindly substantiate the allegation you are making

Snidey mealy-mouthed unintelligible suck, meet yourself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Easy- you use two standards for discussion depending on the subject

Strangely enough, I am with you concerning Canadian immigration policy. Some people misuse the asylum process, and
the laws that cover them need to be enforced better. At least here you recognize that there are both legitimate
AND phony applicants for asylum and distinguish between the two groups.

I notice you do not advocate wholesale elimination of the asylum process because some asylum seekers are phonies.

iverglas (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-10-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. I'm getting the joke now. ;)
Edited on Mon Aug-10-09 09:44 AM by iverglas
I do think that much anti-immigration sentiment is racist, regardless of how it is cloaked. (And I would note that I am no more appreciative of support for this Canadian policy from such quarters than I am of criticism of it based on uninformed kneejerk allegations of racism.)

Not very nuanced of them, and sometimes that accusation might be used with a broad brush. It would be too, too funny
if someone were to accuse you of being a 'dupe' of racists, and said policy was part of some sinister plot.

(And no, I do not think you are a racist, a dupe of racists, or that the sensible policy under discussion was part
of some "racist, right-wing" plot.)


Guess what, iverglas? I'm none too thrilled that much of the support for the Second Amendment come from a bunch of
scummy wingers who I would never agree with on much of anything else. I don't like it anymore than you like the
'support' of anti-immigrant racists.

I (and a bunch of other people here at DU)
have been diligent in pointing out that the keeping and bearing of firearms IS a natural right and has long
been practiced by working-class Americans of all colors and classes.

And for our troubles we get called GOP shills and worse by certain types of posters who are ignorant of history,
US Constitutional law, and the history of the Democratic Party. Frankly, I would say the self-disarming of much of what passes for the Left in this country is foolish, given the tenor of the raving coming from the American RW these days

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. That is priceless.

Almost as good as our resident gun grabber that I finally got to admit to being a paid consultant for the Joyce Foundation.

[iverglas]

93. huh

And I was a (poorly) paid advocate for refugee claimants.

Your point?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. That a gun grabber here worked for the Joyce Foundation.

Hope that cleared it up.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. Kick.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. Just for fun.

[Hoopla Phil]

96. Good to revisit. Some people can be shown the light.