The NRA Finally Responds With Its "Meaningful Contributions"

[Patroklos]

Its disengenuous, especially if you don't call attention to it during an ongoing conversation.

There is even a nifty "reason for editing" function for this purpose.

It makes no matter, his positions are irredeemable in this arguement, it's just another indication of the weakness of his arguement.

 

[peter grimes]

Forma edited whole paragraphs into his posts after they had already been directly replied to.

The history of edits that I see indicate that you also edited things about 15 or 20 minutes after they were intially posted.

Good Forum Behavior is to clearly mark edited content and leave the original - sometimes with a strike-through, or some other method of showing the reader what's what.

I encourage both of you to employ that practice.

Meanwhile, I still haven't seen a response from you regarding my post #203:

Spoiler me :

Thanks for proving once again hou have no genuine concern for stopping gun violence, it's just an excuse for your normal tired axe grinding.

[snip]

Whatever floats your boat Forma, but again more proof preventing gun violence means nothing to you.

Well, if you're honestly interested in preventing gun violence then you'd be calling for severe restrictions on gun and ammo purchases, heavy taxes on them, and a national registry and tracking system.

source: http://www.vpc.org/studies/moreguns.pdf

the common focus on gun deaths as a marker to illustrate America’s “gun problem” obscures an alarming trend. The number of persons who suffer nonfatal gunshot injuries―that is, who are shot but do not die―has risen over the same period. As graphically demonstrated by the chart below, this means simply that more people are being shot by guns every year. In other words, America’s gun problem is getting worse, not better. More guns means more shootings.

advances in emergency services―including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers―as well as better surgical techniques have suppressed the homicide rate. They concluded that “…without these developments in medical technology there would have been between 45,000 and 70,000 homicides annually the past 5 years instead of an actual 15,000 to 20,000.”4

One question that remains unanswered is whether advances in care will outpace advances in gun lethality as the gun industry continues to militarize the civilian market with highcapacity semiautomatic pistols, assault rifles, and high-caliber sniper rifles.10
“Many of the victims now have multiple gunshot wounds…,” then-District of Columbia police chief Charles H. Ramsey observed in 2003. “The criminals also use high-caliber, high-powered weapons.”11

 

[Patroklos]

I responded to it already, and you have to tell us why any of that would work.

And it appears you don't understand percentages, or rather your source is disingenuous in their choice not to include them.

 

[JollyRoger]

Saved for a future edit. Edited

 

[El_Machinae]

Remember ecofarm? man, that guy would edit the hell out of his posts! It was sooooo aggravating, but so schtick!

 

[Patroklos]

Yes, it was, and he did it on apolyton too.

BTW, I would like to point out that the numbers PG is using have one very important caveat he, but more probably his source, are failing to tell you. They include suicides.

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[4] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[5] Just over half of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[6] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 suicide deaths, and 12,632 (40.5%) homicide deaths.[7]

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

 

[peter grimes]

I responded to it already, and you have to tell us why any of that would work.

And it appears you don't understand percentages, or rather your source is disingenuous in their choice not to include them.

You did? I don't see anything that could be taken as a response, except for this ambiguous post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12104899&postcount=205][/url]
Nope, none of those things are required, they are just the go to solutions for authoritarian such as Forma who live in a world of hysterical fear.

Also, none of the three things you stated would have had any impact on Columbine, VA Tech, or Sandy Hook. Your solutions need to have some relevance to the problem you are trying to stop.

This follows directly a post by Downtown, which is one source of the ambiguity. The other source is the fact that you don't back up your assertions with anything pulled from reality - you know, like how all the weapons that were used in each of the specific instances you cite were purchased legally - AND, that the main thrust of my post is that most gun deaths in the US don't come from mass shootings but from targeted murders - something that a reduces access to guns would directly curb.

But you keep avoiding this point.

 

[Berzerker]

All this is much like 9/11. It is just another excuse for the real "Orwellian" authoritarians to exercise even more control over our daily lives.

you dont want more controls because of this tragedy?

 

[JollyRoger]

Wait, I thought Ecofarm changed his user name, but not his avatar.

 

[peter grimes]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

Well this is going to be interesting - an open source real time catalogue of deaths from gun violence in the US.

Of course, this doesn't tally the gun injuries that my post addressed above - something that I haven't heard a single pro-weapon advocate address.

Remember - as far as we know, the rates of gun injuries have been rising in correlation with the increasing absolute number of guns in circulation. I have yet to see anything that refutes this, but of course I'm open to sources.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wait, I thought Ecofarm changed his user name, but not his avatar.

I have no idea, but I think he's gone.

 

[peter grimes]

Yes, it was, and he did it on apolyton too.

BTW, I would like to point out that the numbers PG is using have one very important caveat he, but more probably his source, are failing to tell you. They include suicides.



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

I'm not sure why you think it's relevant to remove suicides from the overall rate of gun violence. Personally, I'm in favor of informed right-to-end-life. But I easy access to weapons like guns excludes the caveat of 'informed'. It's all to easy to grab-a-gun when you're in a pit of despair, leaving a mess for everyone else to deal with.

That's not healthy, it's a public health concern.

But whether you want to leave it in or not doesn't matter to the thrust of my posts - again, you seem to avoid the point!

Less access to firearms = fewer deaths.

 

[JollyRoger]

We all die, whether by firearm or not.

 

[El_Machinae]

Just because 93% of people have died so far, it doesn't mean it's a guarantee!

 

[kochman]

A police officer at every single school?

What's so bad about this?
It is at least as bad as the far left authoritarian gun grab brewing in Feinstein's head... and at least cops can stop crime IF they happen to be present, whereas laws punish crime.

Cops won't do much. There were very few, maybe two, at my middle and high schools, and if a shooter came in, they'd target the cops first. Plus shooters are in the habit of wearing armor nowadays.

Hell, why do we bother with cops at banks or anywhere, now that you mention it?

Yes, people in uniform, wherever they are, are the first target. That's part of the job. They are also trained for these situations. Their active presence places is a HUGE deterrent...
Laws, on the other hand, haven't proven much of a deterrent to criminals.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm beginning to suspect that many pretending to have a gun fetish actually have a uniform fetish and want to expand the chance for eye candy.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm beginning to suspect that many pretending to have a gun fetish actually have a uniform fetish and want to expand the chance for eye candy.

like this?

 

[Patroklos]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

Well this is going to be interesting - an open source real time catalogue of deaths from gun violence in the US.

Does it control for suicides?

Of course, this doesn't tally the gun injuries that my post addressed above - something that I haven't heard a single pro-weapon advocate address.

Not only did I address it, I showed it doesn't even exist. More accurately I pointed out the mathematical shell game your sours was using, namely that use raw numbers but made no allowance for any other variable. In this instance the most important being population growth from 20004-2012. From Wiki the population went from 293M to 304M, or 5.3%. Your sours shows that the increase in total gun shots(the only statistic that matters concerning gun control), an increase of 7.2% raw or a 2% increase since 2004. 2008 was a bit dicier, rising another 8% but clearly the article is completely ignored population increases, and the increase only holds up fort that year the increase between 2004 and 2005? 1%. 2004 and 2006? 3.2%. Again, 2007 was 2%, a DECREASE.

And that's not controlling for suicides, which we know increased during the recession, a phenomenon completely independent of gun availability (ie that's not going to keep anyone from offing themselves). In 2007 55.6% of fatal gun shots were suicides, which utterly destroys their methodology, your article not even mentioning suicides.

And just to put the icing on the cake, overall gun injuries, fatal and nonfatal are still far below 2000, a time when the assault gun ban was still in effect and gun ownership was far higher than now. Explain?

Remember - as far as we know, the rates of gun injuries have been rising in correlation with the increasing absolute number of guns in circulation. I have yet to see anything that refutes this, but of course I'm open to sources.

Actually no, that was only true from 2004-2006 and in 2008. Your own article shows that the incidents decreased in all other years included (2000-2004, 2007) despite increasing gun circulation (ie total guns owned, not people owning them which declined). That's BEFORE adjusting for population growth.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What's so bad about this?
It is at least as bad as the far left authoritarian gun grab brewing in Feinstein's head... and at least cops can stop crime IF they happen to be present, whereas laws punish crime.

Now there's some hypocritical far-right "authoritarian" humor for all to enjoy. Feinstein is advocating common sense measures that no rational adult living in a modern country should have any problem agreeing with.

Right-Wing Freaking Out About Dianne Feinstein's Gun Control Suggestions

Right-wing bloggers are apoplectic about proposals by California Senator Dianne Feinstein to control the use of deadly weapons. RedState uses her sensible ideas to claim "proof we are in a post constitutional republic." Alex Jones screeches that "the gun-grabbers are going for broke." WorldNetDaily warns that you better sign a petition to "keep your gun rights." Another headline shouts, "Feinstein lunges for our guns."

In fact, to get any news at all about what the senator is proposing, I'm practically confined to the spin on conservative websites. Google "Dianne Feinstein" guns and, with few exceptions, you get a compendium of anti-government paranoia. I wanted to see what they had to say at shotgunworld, another Google result, but stopped short when I saw, "This site may harm your computer." You may think guns protect you, but malware?

Feinstein's sensible proposal, par in almost every other civilized nation, calls for banning the sale, transfer, importation or manufacturing of military-style weapons and doing the same for magazines than can accept more than 10 rounds. And the 1994 assault weapon ban gets more teeth. But the Feinstein bill doesn't just go after gun owners; it also protects them by grandfathering weapons legally owned at the time her proposed law would be enacted. Grandfathered weapons would be subject to registration and background checks on the owners and any transferees.

Laws in other civilized nations where gun violence is low are similar to what Dianne Feinstein is proposing. Conservatives who claim to care about the safety and well-being of children, even those already-born, would be wise to show they mean it by agreeing to public policy steps that would protect all of us.

What pure unmitigated "gun-grabbing" evil!

OTOH putting an armed person in every single school isn't "authoritarian" at all.

 

[Patroklos]

I'm not sure why you think it's relevant to remove suicides from the overall rate of gun violence. Personally, I'm in favor of informed right-to-end-life. But I easy access to weapons like guns excludes the caveat of 'informed'. It's all to easy to grab-a-gun when you're in a pit of despair, leaving a mess for everyone else to deal with.

1.) Because if someone wants to commit suicide they are by some means, but if you can point me to a source that says lack of guns prevents suicide I will gladly take a look. Even if that is the case Thoth, it is still not the sa,e thing as criminally killing another person in either intent of social impact.

2.) the gist of every argument so far tabled supporting gun control is preventing harm to others, not owners.

3.) the restriction solutions presented don't limit the capability needed to commit suicide via guns. You can do that with a .22 pistol.

That's not healthy, it's a public health concern.

Absolutely, but not the same concern we are discussing in this thread. Guns are the most popular method for men, but poisoning is the most popular method for women. Men commit suicide more often than women, but It is true that women attempt far more often and fail, probably due to effectiveness difference between guns and poisoning.

But whether you want to leave it in or not doesn't matter to the thrust of my posts - again, you seem to avoid the point!

Less access to firearms = fewer deaths.

Explain 2000-2004.

OTOH putting an armed person in every single school isn't "authoritarian" at all.

Like those fascists directing traffic at those intersections? Or brown shirts taking those traffic accident reports?

The pre sense of police is not authoritarian in and of itself, its why they are there and what they are doing while there that determines that.

I am sorry you think the physical protection of children is authoritarian. I guess we are back to those Stalinist grocery stores...