Gun Control is Completely Useless.


spilledthebeer
#10471
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

Dude it is not anyone else's responsibility to read your posts. It is up to you to make us want to read your posts and your annoying style gets in your way of that. clearly, you need to stop making excuses for your assholery.




================================================== ================================================== ====


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The LIE-beral LIES Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!


POOR STUPID BONDO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


He thinks his B.S. will baffle me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!


Bondo - both you and CBC media stand ACCUSED - AND CONVICTED of telling LIES about "Fair Use" policy related to political



comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Both you and CBC have used a twisted and entirely DISHONEST interpretation of fair use- and you have done so ONLY to SILENCE



and CENSOR CRITICS whose arguments you do not agree with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Your debating methods are ENTIRELY DISHONEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And in the STANDARD HYPOCRITE LIE-beral style you have run through all the usual attempts to LIMIT FREE SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First you offered a barrage of Fake News that was picked apart and brushed aside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Then you started making legfal noises about your LYING "fair use" interpretation and THAT CRAP was defeated with quotes from a



Cdn LAW PROFESSOR which has exposed both you and CBC media as DELIBERATELY LYING ABOUT FAIR USE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And now you are just blathering about how it is my obligation to make you want to read my posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And then you WHINE on about how ANNOYING MY POSTS ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



OF COURSE MY POSTS ARE ANNOYING TO YOU FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You are a LIE-beral and ALL your LIE-beral polices are being EXPOSED as costly FAILURES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE IF YOU DID ENJOY MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


All this is to POINT OUT WHY ALL LIE-beral policy is in such ugly DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!


You are simply wrong about MANY THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
 
spilledthebeer
#10472
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

================================================== ================================================== ====


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The LIE-beral LIES Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!


POOR STUPID BONDO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


He thinks his B.S. will baffle me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!


Bondo - both you and CBC media stand ACCUSED - AND CONVICTED of telling LIES about "Fair Use" policy related to political



comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Both you and CBC have used a twisted and entirely DISHONEST interpretation of fair use- and you have done so ONLY to SILENCE



and CENSOR CRITICS whose arguments you do not agree with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Your debating methods are ENTIRELY DISHONEST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And in the STANDARD HYPOCRITE LIE-beral style you have run through all the usual attempts to LIMIT FREE SPEECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First you offered a barrage of Fake News that was picked apart and brushed aside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Then you started making legfal noises about your LYING "fair use" interpretation and THAT CRAP was defeated with quotes from a



Cdn LAW PROFESSOR which has exposed both you and CBC media as DELIBERATELY LYING ABOUT FAIR USE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And now you are just blathering about how it is my obligation to make you want to read my posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And then you WHINE on about how ANNOYING MY POSTS ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



OF COURSE MY POSTS ARE ANNOYING TO YOU FOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You are a LIE-beral and ALL your LIE-beral polices are being EXPOSED as costly FAILURES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE IF YOU DID ENJOY MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


All this is to POINT OUT WHY ALL LIE-beral policy is in such ugly DISGRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!


You are simply wrong about MANY THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !








================================================== ================================================== =


Hey Bondo- because you are such a SLOW LEARNING TYPE -here is a repeat of the article which EXPOSES BOTH you and CBC



as Fair Use LIARS!!!!!!






Here is an older article illustrating civil service union Hog greed and just how much support they are prepared to give to LIE-berals in exchange for gravy. With some comments of my own in brackets):

Hubert Lacroix, the president of the CBC, recently placed the future of the Canada’s national public broadcaster on the electoral map with comments aimed at sparking a renewed debate on future funding models. Lacroix disputed claims that low ratings are to blame for the CBC’s financial struggles, instead pointing to the need to consider alternative fee schemes, including new levies on Internet providers or supplementary charges on television purchases.

(So greedy CBC Hogs want to pick the pockets of other businesses in order to salvage their own suddenly shaky place on the LIE-beral gravy train! Why should internet providers be made to pay because their viewers and users have chosen to TURN OFF CBC tv and radio? And considering how widely and rapidly the CBC article mocking the LIE-beral MyDemocracy website as “a box of doughnuts” circulated- it is entirely CLEAR that Cdns will listen to CBC IF it ever finds anything else relevant to say! And that is the trouble- CBC is so busy spouting LIE-beral propaganda that it as NOTHING REAL to say!)

While disagreement over CBC funding is as old as the broadcaster itself, the more uncomfortable discussion for the CBC is its coverage of the 2015 election campaign — particularly its approach to national debates and political party advertising — which raises troubling questions about its relevance in the current media environment.

(Meaning the 2015 federal election that brought Our idiot Boy Justin to power- which featured regular media efforts to smear Conservatives and aid Our idiot Boy and his moronic minons!)

Most would agree that the CBC features an excellent group of reporters and boasts insightful analysts for its panel discussions. However, rather than working to make itself an invaluable resource for the election, the CBC has been unnecessarily restrictive in its broadcasting choices and in the use of its content.

The problem is obvious- CBC DOES NOT WANT informed voters- it wants LIE-beral voters! It jumped on the MyDemocracy website as a one off chance to temporarily show its faux impartiality- about a subject that other media was so scornful of that CBC felt compelled to jump on the band wagon in an effort to cover its own ass!)

The most puzzling decision has been its refusal to broadcast debates hosted by other organizations. The CBC may be disappointed with the debate approach adopted by the political parties in this campaign, but that does not change the sense that if the national public broadcaster does not air programs in the national public interest, it calls into question the very need for a public broadcaster. Indeed, the CBC seems to have cut its nose off to spite its face by doing its best to prove its critics right.

(CBC is being typically Hoggish in refusing to accept debate programing that it did not produce and does not approve of because it does not contain LIE-beral bias! LIE-berals consider suitable debate to be a series of easy questions lobbed gently at them so they can knock it out of the park! Real debate with actually facts is something LIE-berals increasingly SHUN! CBC recognizes- as all Hogs do- that LIE-beral victory- meaning MORE GRAVY- is also a win for CBC- thus CBC DOES NOT WANT any critical examination of LIE-beral policy- for fear of discovering the ROT at its heart!)

The CBC’s odd coverage choices are not limited to the missing debates. Its use of video clips from the debates has also been unnecessarily restrictive. For example, before analyzing the recent Munk debates on the “At Issue” panel, host Peter Mansbridge warned viewers that “we are limited with the excerpts with the amount we are allowed to show.” A similar warning preceded the discussion at other debates.

Yet the reality is that there was no need to be restrictive in the use of video clips. Canadian copyright law permits the use of copyrighted works without permission as part of the fair dealing clause. News reporting is one of the enumerated purposes and even expanded clips would easily qualify under a fair dealing analysis.

(So CBC lied about its policy of deliberately limiting public debate!)

(HEY THERE JAMES BONDO- I DO HOPE YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD about using news clips and such AS THIS DOES MAKE YOU LOOK A FOOL!!!!! And it works for print media as well so long as the real author is given full credit as I always DO! And there is a further issue I am careful with- and that is NOT to put words into the mouth of another writer- it is for this reason that I always make it known that my comments are in brackets when I add words to an article!)

All news organizations are free to use as much of the video from debates as necessary to highlight key moments and positions of each leader. To suggest that the law creates significant limits on the ability to show debate clips is inaccurate.

In fact, the CBC’s misreading of the law is not limited to the use of clips within its news broadcasts.

Just prior to the election call, it asked YouTube and Facebook to remove a Conservative campaign advertisement that used clips from a CBC interview with Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. To support its takedown claim, the CBC argued that “no one – no individual candidate or political party, and no government, corporation or NGO – may re-use our creative and copyrighted property without our permission. This includes our brands, our talent and our content.”

That too is wrong.

(OH? MORE CBC/LIE-beral censorship and deliberate mis-representation of law and facts? And it relates to CBC being wrong about its crap on a paying site! Copyright law covering political comment on a FREE/NON profit site like this is even LOOSER! You have made yourself look foolish as usual!)

The law features important limitations on the rights of all copyright holders and all media organizations regularly rely on them in their reporting. The limits of copyright extend to campaign commercials and there is little that the CBC- or anyone else- can do about it.

With its rejection of the national debates, its limited use of debate clips and its attempts to limit re-use of its broadcast content, Canada’s national public broadcaster has marginalized itself during the election campaign at the very time that it could be demonstrating its relevance to the national political coverage.

(Worse- CBC has been caught deliberately trying to stack voter choice! Just as Our idiot Boy is trying to take over and paralyze our parliament with his idiot electoral reform!)

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.

(Geist has done us a favour by illustrating the ugly bias that CBC is trying to hide!)
 
JamesBondo
#10473
Sorry stb, I don't read or watch anything from CBC. It is your responsibility to convince me otherwise. unfortunately for you 'hahahaha!!!!!!!!' is not working for you. clearly you need to put more effort into it or wait for a slow day where I might read it.
 
Hoid
#10474
US gun deaths reach record high in 2017

...39,773 people died by guns in 2017, which is an increase of more than 10,000 deaths from the 28,874 in 1999. The age-adjusted rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017....

https://www.theroot.com/gun-deaths-i...gun-1831080159
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#10475
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

US gun deaths reach record high in 2017
...39,773 people died by guns in 2017, which is an increase of more than 10,000 deaths from the 28,874 in 1999. The age-adjusted rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017....
https://www.theroot.com/gun-deaths-i...gun-1831080159

Well, that's 'cause not enough of them are armed. If each and every American over the age of six is slingin' a shootin' iron on his hip, that death rate will go magically down.

Guaranteed!

NRA Cerified! ®
 
Hoid
#10476
The article has it right. There is no solution forthcoming from the gun lobby.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#10477
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

The article has it right. There is no solution forthcoming from the gun lobby.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


My emphasis.


You have to deal with that first.


Then deal with the ensuing civil war.


Meanwhile, deal with the fact that over 60% of those deaths were voluntary.....in other words, suicide.


You can also deal with the fact that guns are used at least several hundred thousand times a year in the USA for self defence, 19 times out of 20 with no shots fired.


There is no easy solution, in fact there is no solution at all.
 
Hoid
#10478
As I said, solutions are not part of the gun lobby language.
 
JamesBondo
#10479
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

As I said, solutions are not part of the gun lobby language.

What solution do you propose, Hoid?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10480
Got a new .45-70 lever action. TON of fun to shoot.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#10481
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Got a new .45-70 lever action. TON of fun to shoot.

Oh, cool!

... a solution to gun violence!
 
Colpy
Conservative
#10482
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Got a new .45-70 lever action. TON of fun to shoot.


Cool.


Marlin?


A buddy had a .444 Marlin, a very nice rifle.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#10483
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

As I said, solutions are not part of the gun lobby language.


Nor are they part of the rational debate, because there is not a solution that does not require repression of the people.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10484
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Cool.
Marlin?
A buddy had a .444 Marlin, a very nice rifle.

Yup.
 
Hoid
#10485
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Nor are they part of the rational debate, because there is not a solution that does not require repression of the people.

yes solutions to problems are for other people to worry about.
 
JamesBondo
+1
#10486
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

yes solutions to problems are for other people to worry about.

again, what do you have for a solution?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10487
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Oh, cool!
... a solution to gun violence!

As good as any of the half-added "solutions" offered so far.
 
JamesBondo
#10488
can't we just outlaw guns like we did with alcohol? Surely that would work?
 
spilledthebeer
#10489
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

Sorry stb, I don't read or watch anything from CBC. It is your responsibility to convince me otherwise. unfortunately for you 'hahahaha!!!!!!!!' is not working for you. clearly you need to put more effort into it or wait for a slow day where I might read it.




================================================== ================================================== ====


AS I have often said- a LIE-beral is a person who is willing to BANKRUPT US ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Just so long as the LIE-beral is allowed to avoid admitting he is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


POOR BONDO - you are so pathetic as you wriggle like a WORM ON A HOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Trying desperately to PRETEND you did not see the verdict of the CDN LAW PROFESSOR that clearly indicates that you and CBC



are deliberately CHEATING on "fair use" interpretation to CENSOR Critics of LIE-beral policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Stupid LIE-berals get CAUGHT LYING and their ONLY DEFENSE is MORE lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
JamesBondo
#10490
Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

================================================== ================================================== ====
AS I have often said- a LIE-beral is a person who is willing to BANKRUPT US ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, they value equality of outcome so much they are prepared to compromise equal rights and equal opportunity


Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

Just so long as the LIE-beral is allowed to avoid admitting he is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just like the way you avoid admitting that I am not a liberal.It makes you look like a dumbass.



Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

POOR BONDO - you are so pathetic as you wriggle like a WORM ON A HOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you seem to think that i should defend liberals, dumbass.

Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

Trying desperately to PRETEND you did not see the verdict of the CDN LAW PROFESSOR that clearly indicates that you and CBC

Well you jave to admit that you have a way of flying off the handle and ranting about anything and everything. If you want a serious descussion, you might want to be more serious.

Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

are deliberately CHEATING on "fair use" interpretation to CENSOR Critics of LIE-beral policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is rediculous, I don't want to censor you, I just want to take away your capslock key.


Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

Stupid LIE-berals get CAUGHT LYING and their ONLY DEFENSE is MORE lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that reminds me of how you continue to lie about me being a liberal. clearly, you can not dish in what you can dish out.

Quote: Originally Posted by spilledthebeer View Post

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you have a method for determining the correct number of haha in your post? Please share so we can have a better sense of whether you are understating or overstating your joy
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#10491
LOL Is it ever. (the ignore button) However, with the responses to voicing displeasure with posting style instead of just using the button it is destroying the whole forum.
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#10492
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

US gun deaths reach record high in 2017

...39,773 people died by guns in 2017, which is an increase of more than 10,000 deaths from the 28,874 in 1999. The age-adjusted rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017....

https://www.theroot.com/gun-deaths-i...gun-1831080159

Yes ....ever since the funding was taken away from the CDC who didn't know this was done solely to hide the mounting slaughter that guns produce?? After all, it was the sole institution ALL stats on deaths and wounding by guns were forced to report to. I believe, just me?, most humans are too immature to solve problems without resulting to violence ....either vocal rhetoric or physical abuse. Add virtually no decent gun laws, it is painfully obvious what the results are in the US.

The Canadian gun laws are fine. Now we have to better police the illegal guns smuggled into the country.
Last edited by bluebyrd35; Dec 16th, 2018 at 12:50 PM..
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1
#10493
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

Yes ....ever since the funding was taken away from the CDC who didn't know this was done solely to hide the mounting slaughter that guns produce?? After all, it was the sole institution ALL stats on deaths and wounding by guns were forced to report to. I believe, just me?, most humans are too immature to solve problems without resulting to violence ....either vocal rhetoric or physical abuse. Add virtually no decent gun laws, it is painfully obvious what the results are in the US.

The Canadian gun laws are fine. Now we have to better police the illegal guns smuggled into the country.


What you fail to understand is why the CDC lost funding.


One reason: Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who used CDC funding to produce a studty claiming "a gun kept in the home for defense is 43 times more likely to kill a friend, acquaintance or family member than a criminal attacker"


The claim is both misleading, and the research so tainted that the results are simply lies.


For instance:


Kellerman counted suicides.


Kellerman did not count incidents in which criminal were driven away without a shot being fired (as happens over 90% of the time in defensive gun use)


Kellerman counted rival drug dealers killed in gang wars as "acquaintances"


Kellerman simply eliminated counties from the study in which the (already twisted) stats did not bear out his conclusion.


Yeah.


What they did was banned the CDC from using the peoples' money to lie and undermine support for the constitution.


Good for them.


BTW, that doesn't stop other gov't agencies (such as the Dep't of Justice), universities, or private entities from doing studies, and there are dozens, if not hundreds of them out there.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#10494
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

US gun deaths reach record high in 2017

...39,773 people died by guns in 2017, which is an increase of more than 10,000 deaths from the 28,874 in 1999. The age-adjusted rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017....

https://www.theroot.com/gun-deaths-i...gun-1831080159



This would be easily explained by the increase in the number of assholes since 1999 plus the fact the lucky ones are living longer, which gives them more exposure to getting shot!
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#10495
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

This would be easily explained by the increase in the number of assholes since 1999 plus the fact the lucky ones are living longer, which gives them more exposure to getting shot!

So therefore, the murder rate in the United States, which is 10 to 20 times that of the rest of the Western countries is attributable to the huge number of assholes living there?

Interesting theory.
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#10496
posted by Colpy:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."I

Decent gun contol does not infringe. Accept that "Arms" or "a well regulated militia and security of a free state" has not changed...ie Arms in past times could mean anything from a single shot rifle to a pitch fork now means anything from a nuclear bomb to a baseball bat; just as a" WELL regulated Militia" now means in most of the world, a country's army and that a "militia" of previous times meant a small force formed by local towns. This discription now bears more resemblance to a town's police force or a country's army, It certainly was not meant to portray a bunch of gun owners walking around with guns in their pockets with no order or purpose other than to serve a personal ego boost.
 
bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#10497
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

What you fail to understand is why the CDC lost funding.


One reason: Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who used CDC funding to produce a studty claiming "a gun kept in the home for defense is 43 times more likely to kill a friend, acquaintance or family member than a criminal attacker"


The claim is both misleading, and the research so tainted that the results are simply lies.


For instance:


Kellerman counted suicides.


Kellerman did not count incidents in which criminal were driven away without a shot being fired (as happens over 90% of the time in defensive gun use)


Kellerman counted rival drug dealers killed in gang wars as "acquaintances"


Kellerman simply eliminated counties from the study in which the (already twisted) stats did not bear out his conclusion.


Yeah.


What they did was banned the CDC from using the peoples' money to lie and undermine support for the constitution.


Good for them.


BTW, that doesn't stop other gov't agencies (such as the Dep't of Justice), universities, or private entities from doing studies, and there are dozens, if not hundreds of them out there.

That is not my understanding nor the complete story. The government took away the funding of the CDC for gun stats in the exact amount of the cost of its research into gun violence because of the NRA's lobbying. It seems than even though there was not reporting of stats on deaths by guns they turn out to be even worse than anticipated!!

As far as suicides go...Of course they would be higher because of not enough attention given to mental health. Without such easy access to guns, many attempted suicides would not be fatal and perhaps many given a better chance at a better life.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/h...earch-cdc.html
Last edited by bluebyrd35; Dec 16th, 2018 at 03:25 PM..
 
Hoid
#10498
Supporters of stricter controls on firearms are preparing to mount a multistate push to close loopholes and restrict access for those who pose a risk to themselves and others, reflecting a new focus for a movement long pilloried as nothing more than gun-grabbers.

Legislators in several states said they plan to introduce bills this year to ban devices like bump stocks and so-called ghost guns and to expand background checks.

The movement also hopes to give police and courts the authority to take guns away from those who pose a danger, measures known as extreme risk protection orders or “red flag” laws.

“We’re not sitting around waiting. We’re taking action,” Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo (D) said in an interview.

The push for new gun safety legislation comes after Democrats made big gains in state legislatures across the country.

States like Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Maine — all states where Democrats gained enough seats to wrest control of all levers of state government — are likely to be at the forefront of new gun legislation.

Few states plan a more ambitious approach than New York, where Democrats won control of the state Senate — and with it, complete control of state government for only the second time in two generations.

Democrats there are now planning bills to ban bump stocks and 3D-printed weapons, create a gun violence research center within the State University of New York system and expand the reach of hate crime bills, among other proposals.

"With Republicans controlling our Senate, they have resisted a lot of the common sense proposals that have gotten more traction in other parts of the country," said New York state Sen. Brian Kavanagh (D), who is sponsoring several measures this year. "Republicans had a one-seat majority, and they used it very effectively to block things."

Gun safety backers point to public polling that shows a new appetite for stricter controls, especially in the wake of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 people dead.

A wave of student activism after the shooting even prompted Florida’s conservative governor and legislature to pass new gun safety measures.

“People are horrified by the mass shootings, but really more just gun violence more generally,” said Brian Egolf, the Democratic Speaker of the New Mexico state House.

“We’re just no longer willing to have laws that are lax and that let the flow of illegal firearms go unrestrained and unrestricted.”

And the National Rifle Association (NRA), which has faced funding shortfalls in recent months, was less active in this year’s midterm elections than they had been in previous election cycles.

“The NRA-endorsed candidates didn’t do so well in congressional elections this year,” said Loretta Weinberg (D), a New Jersey state senator who has pushed gun safety bills in previous years. “That shows the stranglehold is starting to diminish.”

An NRA spokeswoman did not return an email seeking comment.

Those who study the contentious debate around gun politics say gun control advocates have evolved in recent years.

Groups like the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Everytown for Gun Safety are focusing less on measures to ban specific types of weapons and more on legislation that prohibits specific people from possessing those weapons.

“There’s been a real sea change in the last five or six years in the policy strategies of gun violence prevention groups,” said Kristin Goss, a political scientist at Duke University. “The gun violence prevention movement has really zeroed in on a small handful of bills that they are going to go state to state and push.”

Chief among the safety measures likely to advance this year are the red flag laws, designed to allow authorities to take guns away from those who pose an imminent danger to themselves or others.

Eight states enacted red flag laws in 2018, according to the Giffords Law Center, and legislators in New York, New Mexico, Maine, Colorado, Nevada and Pennsylvania are likely to consider their versions in 2019.

Eight states banned bump stocks, devices that simulate automatic fire, in the wake of an attack on a concert venue on the Las Vegas Strip in 2017 that left more than 50 people dead.

Next year, legislators in New York, Oregon, Maryland and Delaware say they plan to take up similar bills.

And three states — New Mexico, Maryland and Pennsylvania — will consider closing loopholes that allow some private sales to take place without conducting a background check.

“Any time money and guns are changing hands, there would be a background check. So it’s not just gun shows, it’s internet sales, Craig’s List, et cetera,” Egolf said. “We’ll join the rest of the states that have universal background checks.”

Several states are also considering creating research centers dedicated to studying firearms as a public health threat.

Congress has blocked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting research into gun violence for more than 20 years, but states are beginning to fill the gap.

In 2017, California created the first state-funded research center, at the University of California-Davis.

This year, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) rolled out $2 million in funding for a similar center at Rutgers University.

Legislators in Oregon, New Mexico, Washington, Hawaii and New York are all contemplating creating research centers of their own.

"There's a lot of places where this conversation has been viewed as a non-starter where there's much more interest in moving forward with sensible proposals," said Kavanagh, who also heads the group American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention.

Gun rights advocates are making progress on their own slate of legislative proposals, including many measures aimed at allowing gun owners to carry firearms in more public places.

Twelve states currently allow gun owners to carry weapons without a concealed firearms permit. Legislators in Iowa, Texas, Virginia and North Carolina are likely to introduce similar versions next year.

Republican legislators in Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa and North Carolina are also likely to consider measures that allow more gun dealers to make sales without conducting a background check.

Federal law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks, but it does not require unlicensed dealers to do so, a loophole gun safety advocates have targeted for years.

In the last year, legislators in 27 states passed a total of 67 new gun control and safety laws.

Most of those states are under Democratic control, but Republican governors in 15 states — including conservative bastions like Oklahoma, South Dakota, Nebraska and Utah — signed at least some measures backed by gun safety groups.

“I have never been really optimistic on a national level. We have been able to do things in New Jersey that obviously needs to be part of a bigger picture. But for the first time, I’m beginning to feel optimistic,” Weinberg said.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#10499
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

So therefore, the murder rate in the United States, which is 10 to 20 times that of the rest of the Western countries is attributable to the huge number of assholes living there?

Interesting theory.


I'm sorry, but your stats are bullshit.


There are countries, as I have pointed out repeatedly, that are both advanced and have worse murder rates than the USA.


In fact, even the recently rising US murder rate is below the world average.


And there are many countries on the UN list of high or very highly developed nations that have murder rates higher than the USA.


Check your "facts"
 
JamesBondo
#10500
109th in the world.