The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

[waldo]

You are calling someone a "US Wannabe", right after you have used many US graphs, charts, etc, to make a point? Interesting, now where are your many backers? Azzholes and wannabes are your ammo? Now i understand why Colpy has described you as being not very intelligent. Carry on.

here's a clue for ya... twasn't I that had a meltdown cause he thought a certain comparative graph was unfair to the U.S. Gun Culture he so covets... twasn't I that took the discussion towards a pointed U.S. focus... twasn't I throwing down the U.S. pro-gun talking points. Twasn't I! As for ammo, I simply replied to your post content... perhaps you should actually read what you wrote before getting so "high-horsed", hey! Of course, you're nothing but a purposeful shyte disturber... offering nothing subject thread related... just throwing down your insults while you troll away.

 

[skookumchuck]

here's a clue for ya... twasn't I that had a meltdown cause he thought a certain comparative graph was unfair to the U.S. Gun Culture he so covets... twasn't I that took the discussion towards a pointed U.S. focus... twasn't I throwing down the U.S. pro-gun talking points. Twasn't I! As for ammo, I simply replied to your post content... perhaps you should actually read what you wrote before getting so "high-horsed", hey! Of course, you're nothing but a purposeful shyte disturber... offering nothing subject thread related... just throwing down your insults while you troll away.

No large number of persons jumping to your defense? You were the one entering the thread and telling everyone except flossie off. Making excuses and throwing out "not me", um ok. You are certainly not worth my looking for swear words. Goodbye.

 

[Colpy]

Waldo wrote:

Colpy, perhaps one of your posse lappers will answer the question you refuse to answer.

as published in the American Journal of Public Health: The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010

a "robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates"

Sorry Buddy.

They are lying to you. i don't give a fvck who they are, they are fudging the numbers. The CDC has done this before, with Dr. Kellerman. They have an agenda.

Proof?

Percentage of Gun Owners for Each State

Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

States with highest rates of gun ownership:

1. Wyoming: 59.7% gun ownership rate. Murder rate 2.9 per 100,000

2. Alaska: 57.87% gun ownership rate. Murder rate 4.6 per 100,000 (slightly high)

3. Montana: 57.7% gun ownership rate. Murder rate 2.2 per 100,000

4. South Dakota - 56.6% gun ownership rate. Murder rate 2.4 per 100,000

5. West Virginia - 55.4% gun ownership rate. Murder rate 3.3 per 100,000

6. Mississippi - 55.3% gun ownership rate. Murder rate 6.5 per 100,000 (oops, a bad one!)

7. Idaho - 55.3% gun ownership rate. Murder rate 1.7 per 100,000

8. Arkansas - 55.3% gun ownership rate. Murder rate 5.4 per 100,000 (not so good)

9. Alabama - 51.7% gun ownership rate. Murder rate 7.2 per 100,000 (bad!!)

10. North Dakota - 50.7% gun ownership rate. Murder rate 2.2 per 100,000

United States national rate; 4.5 per 100,000
Average 10 top gun owning states: 3.8 per 100,00

You are being lied to.

Learn to THINK FOR YOURSELF.

 

[waldo]

No large number of persons jumping to your defense? You were the one entering the thread and telling everyone except flossie off. Making excuses and throwing out "not me", um ok. You are certainly not worth my looking for swear words. Goodbye.

no need for you to keep repeating yourself... I get that you validate your posts, your presence here, by how many of the ClubHouse trolling Bro's join in! :mrgreen:

The CDC has done this before, with Dr. Kellerman. They have an agenda.

You are being lied to.

Learn to THINK FOR YOURSELF.

the CDC has an agenda? You said the same thing earlier in regards the OECD... and then the UN. At least this time, so far, you haven't played your conspiracy card against the CDC (as you did with the OECD/UN). And, of course, you showed your hypocrisy by, in turn, subsequently finding UN data you thought was 'Colpy worthy'... but then it blew up on ya, right? In any case, you're doing the same here in your latest throwdown - using unqualified murder-rate data to compare/reference to gun numbers. You sure like to throw out data you don't care for... like gun related suicide data, like unintentional gun death data... while at the same time continuing to manipulate murder data without qualification. I'd say you shouldn't think so much for yourself... but we both know you're simply parroting from your playbook, right?

 

[Colpy]

no need for you to keep repeating yourself... I get that you validate your posts, your presence here, by how many of the ClubHouse trolling Bro's join in! :mrgreen:



the CDC has an agenda? You said the same thing earlier in regards the OECD... and then the UN. At least this time, so far, you haven't played your conspiracy card against the CDC (as you did with the OECD/UN). And, of course, you showed your hypocrisy by, in turn, subsequently finding UN data you thought was 'Colpy worthy'... but then it blew up on ya, right? In any case, you're doing the same here in your latest throwdown - using unqualified murder-rate data to compare/reference to gun numbers. You sure like to throw out data you don't care for... like gun related suicide data, like unintentional gun death data... while at the same time continuing to manipulate murder data without qualification. I'd say you shouldn't think so much for yourself... but we both know you're simply parroting from your playbook, right?

Ahh....deal with the data, Buddy. I mean the unadjusted data I gave you, that proves the CDC "study" is actually a study in manipulating data..............

They undoubtedly did the same thing the UN did with the OECD numbers..................weighted or eliminated data to reach a foregone conclusion............in this case used "gun murders", as if people murdered with knives, hammers, poison, garottes, fists, feet etc were less dead somehow than those shot to death.

It is called "creative book keeping". :icon_smile:


Obviously, more guns does not mean more murder............that is what real numbers show, be it international or state-to-state.


Learn to think for yourself.

I await your storm of irrational ranting and posts of other people's research (and I use the term "research" loosely.)

Why do you think the CDC were banned from doing gun research for 17 years?

CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage - ABC News

Oh, I can't wait to hear you tell me about how ABC News is am impartial observer....lol

:lol::lol::lol:

Colpy, if I were you, I'd be getting a helluva laugh out of this thread.

Seriously, who gives a fukk !

:lol:

Yeah, he kinda frustrated me there for awhile.....then I came to the realization he is actually the Village Idiot........and I now just pat him on the head and gently correct him. I do not believe he has the intellectual capacity to understand the simplest concepts, but I like to prevent other readers from being misled.

And yeah, he is kinda fun after you realize how completely incompetent he really is.......

For example:

Waldo, do you believe in the "right to die"?

 

[waldo]

Ahh....deal with the data, Buddy. I mean the unadjusted data I gave you, that proves the CDC "study" is actually a study in manipulating data..............

again, all you did in your latest fail is to once again present unqualified murder data and use it to compare back against gun related data. You keep doing this and you keep thinking... believing... there's nothing wrong with that. And again, in relation to that same move of yours (now done at least 3 times in this thread), I specifically asked you the question you refuse to answer... the question you're running away from! Talk about YOUR manipulation of data!

They undoubtedly did the same thing the UN did with the OECD numbers..................weighted or eliminated data to reach a foregone conclusion.

It is called "creative book keeping".

Learn to think for yourself.

again, yet again, you refer to 'that article/that graphic' as "the UN"... just how many times do I have to keep telling you the UN had nothing to do with that article/graph? This is at least the 5th time now that I'm highlighting you doing this. And yet you continue. As I said, the author of that article/graph used the UN collected/hosted data and selected OECD specific country data from that. As I advised you, if you truly want to target the UN, you need to target the sources of their hosted data... and I provided you those sources... you know, like country specific police forces, government agencies, etc..

and the, as you label it, "foregone conclusion" that resulted in your mega-meltdown earlier in this thread was what? That the influence of the U.S. Gun Culture was highlighted? (note: if you whine/wail about the absence of Mexico... note the article/graph exemption caveats as apply to Mexico... if you still persist in whining/wailing, I will simply post the graphic I altered to include Mexico. You know, show your nonsense for exactly what it is). Here ya go:

Why do you think the CDC were banned from doing gun research for 17 years?

CDC Ban on Gun Research Caused Lasting Damage - ABC News

Oh, I can't wait to hear you tell me about how ABC News is am impartial observer....lol

is it your premise the "CDC banning" was because the CDC did something improper/wrong? Your own link highlights it was the U.S. National Rifle Association (NRA), in 1997, that lobbied the U.S. Congress to set up a federal funding restriction on gun research. "Cold Dead Hands", right Colpy? Hot damn... the NRA lobbied to reduce research on guns in the U.S.! Go figure.

Yeah, he kinda frustrated me there for awhile.....then I came to the realization he is actually the Village Idiot........and I now just pat him on the head and gently correct him. I do not believe he has the intellectual capacity to understand the simplest concepts, but I like to prevent other readers from being misled.

And yeah, he is kinda fun after you realize how completely incompetent he really is.......

reads like you're still frustrated Colpy! I suggest you go shoot sumthin... :mrgreen:

 

[Colpy]

again, all you did in your latest fail is to once again present unqualified murder data and use it to compare back against gun related data. You keep doing this and you keep thinking... believing... there's nothing wrong with that. And again, in relation to that same move of yours (now done at least 3 times in this thread), I specifically asked you the question you refuse to answer... the question you're running away from! Talk about YOUR manipulation of data!

Wyoming........guns in over 59% of homes, the highest gun ownership rate in the USA. Guns everywhere. And yes, if I lived in Wyoming and wanted to kill someone, I would probably use a gun.....thus the gun murder rate in Wyoming is probably high.

So what?? What Wyoming's relative low murder rate of 2.9 per 100,000 proves without any doubt is that the presence of all those guns does not encourage murder. Which is why the manipulative control freaks that want to goose-step liberty right out the door won't talk about overall murder rates, only gun stuff.

When actually what the Wyoming numbers prove is guns have absolutely nothing to do with murder....if you instantly dissolved every gun in Wyoming, the murder rate would not drop by much at all.....it can't...it is already relatively low.

Thanks for trying though.

Oh, like to go through the murder rates of the 10 states with the LOWEST gun ownership in the USA??

No, you don't. Six out of 10 have higher murder rates than the national average.

again, yet again, you refer to 'that article/that graphic' as "the UN"... just how many times do I have to keep telling you the UN had nothing to do with that article/graph? This is at least the 5th time now that I'm highlighting you doing this. And yet you continue. As I said, the author of that article/graph used the UN collected/hosted data and selected OECD specific country data from that. As I advised you, if you truly want to target the UN, you need to target the sources of their hosted data... and I provided you those sources... you know, like country specific police forces, government agencies, etc..

So, provide a link. I always like to know who is lying to me....

And explaim why the graph is titled thusly:


2013 UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime)

and the, as you label it, "foregone conclusion" that resulted in your mega-meltdown earlier in this thread was what? That the influence of the U.S. Gun Culture was highlighted? (note: if you whine/wail about the absence of Mexico... note the article/graph exemption caveats as apply to Mexico... if you still persist in whining/wailing, I will simply post the graphic I altered to include Mexico. You know, show your nonsense for exactly what it is). Here ya go::mrgreen:

Yes Dear, I know you are too stupid to understand that removing data from a set to influence conclusions is cheating the result.........

If this thread was your roll of bridge tokens, this specific argument is the moment I realized exactly how stupid you really are.

is it your premise the "CDC banning" was because the CDC did something improper/wrong? Your own link highlights it was the U.S. National Rifle Association (NRA), in 1997, that lobbied the U.S. Congress to set up a federal funding restriction on gun research. "Cold Dead Hands", right Colpy? Hot damn... the NRA lobbied to reduce research on guns in the U.S.! Go figure.

That is absolutely correct.

The NRA, a civil rights group with almost 5 million members, went to Congress and showed that a CDC sponsored "researcher" was using extremely prejudicial methodology to create false conclusions to present to the people to try to encourage excessive gun regulation in violation of the Constitution, all paid for by the very people being lied to.........

The representatives of the people agreed, and took action.

Democracy working as it should.

 

[waldo]

Thanks for trying though.

lets recap: you manipulate unqualified murder data by using it to directly compare against gun data. You refuse to accept that gun violence is not on the decline... has not lessened. You've been provided reputable sources/data that shows gun related violence is on the rise. You trumpet a long-term declining gun murder rate... but you absolutely refuse to discuss possible influences contributing to that decline. You know, you refuse to discuss/accept that medical advances (like those associated with Iraq/Afghanistan war battlefield injuries) have helped to contribute to saving lives of those subject to gun violence... lives that typically would have been lost in the prior decade. You know, you refuse to discuss/accept that emergency/trauma process improvements have helped to contribute to saving lives of those subject to gun violence... lives that typically would have been lost in the prior decade. You've been provided reputable sources/data that speak to these medical advances and emergency/trauma process improvements contributing to a lessening of the gun murder rate. Of course, you have a most self-serving gunNuttery driven agenda to carefully craft your narrative... of course you do!

Once again, the title is:

2013 UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime)

that's right doofus! That's the source of the data for the graph... like you've been told now several times. You know how to find the article... I told you how. Of course, instead of actually doing that you choose to play out your derail/distract act - of course you do.

Yes Dear, I know you are too stupid to understand that removing data from a set to influence conclusions is cheating the result.........

what kind of stupid are you to continue to ignore the caveats that have been repeatedly highlighted for you? Geezaz, I even highlighted the caveat shown directly on the graph! :mrgreen: You refuse to accept your fail in missing it... and instead, you went on a multi-page fake outrage rant that "Mexico was being purposely removed" to highlight the comparative failing the U.S. Gun Culture holds in relation to all those other OECD countries.

That is absolutely correct.

The NRA, a civil rights group with almost 5 million members, went to Congress and showed that a CDC sponsored "researcher" was using extremely prejudicial methodology to create false conclusions to present to the people to try to encourage excessive gun regulation in violation of the Constitution, all paid for by the very people being lied to.........

The representatives of the people agreed, and took action.

Democracy working as it should.

:mrgreen: say what? The NRA is a "civil rights group"!!! Oh my... fly your U.S. wannabe flag Colpy! Fly it high.

I have to say, in the cursory googly look I've had, I didn't find anything to support your claim about a specific piece of research driving that NRA lobby of the U.S. Congress. I'm intrigued... can ya help a brother out here and provide a tad more info... sure you can!

 

[Colpy]

l
:mrgreen: say what? The NRA is a "civil rights group"!!! Oh my... fly your U.S. wannabe flag Colpy! Fly it high.

I have to say, in the cursory googly look I've had, I didn't find anything to support your claim about a specific piece of research driving that NRA lobby of the U.S. Congress. I'm intrigued... can ya help a brother out here and provide a tad more info... sure you can!

LOL!!

Not only is the NRA the very epitome of a civil rights group, as it defends the Bill of Rights, it has long been so.

Ask Robert K Williams, who credits the NRA with helping him and others arm Blacks in the late 50s, so they could defend themselves from white violence of the police and KKK. This after the NAACP abandoned them as "too radical".

Read the book:

http://www.amazon.ca/Negroes-Guns-Robert-F-Williams/dp/1614274118

Your education continues.................

 

[waldo]

Ask Robert K Williams, who credits the NRA with helping him and others arm Blacks in the late 50s

and so began 'black on black' violence! I kid Colpy, I kid...

7 Uncovered Quotes That Show How Far off the Rails the NRA Has Gone --- Top officials in the NRA once supported reasonable gun control laws.

The 143-year-old National Rifle Association has not always been like today's NRA, fighting every gun control law as if the essence of American freedom depends on every citizen owning a gun. What follows are a series of shocking quotes taken from various academic histories of the NRA by top officials within the organization supporting reasonable gun control laws.

1. “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” said NRA President Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praising state gun control laws in Congress. He testified before the 1938 federal gun control law passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

2. “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States,” NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth told Congress, shortly after Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy with an Italian military surplus rifle Oswald bought from a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine.

3. “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” said California Gov. Ronald Reagan in May 1967, after two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill. Reagan said guns were “a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”

4. “You do know that I am a member of the NRA and my position on the right to bear arms is well known,” Reagan said, speaking out in support of the 1994 Brady bill to create new background checks and a waiting period for gun buyers. “But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady Bill and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay.”

5. “To ‘keep and bear arms’ for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; ‘Saturday night specials’ [handguns] and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles,” said retired U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade magazine, in January 1990.

6. The Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime,” Burger told PBS’ News Hour in late 1991, referring to the NRA’s claim that the U.S. Constitution included a personal right to own guns.

7. “These people are crazy,” said Alan Gura, referring to NRA critics who said he’d ceded too much to gun control arguments when he successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2008 to overturn the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and establish a Second Amendment right to a handgun at home for self-defense. “I could have, if I wanted to, stood before the Court and said, ‘Yes, [the Amendment’s clause] shall not be infringed,’ means you would never have any gun laws, and of course need to all have machine guns in case we want to overthrow the government, and while we’re at it we should have rocket launchers and stinger missiles. And that would have probably made me very popular in some cabin somewhere out there in the woods… Of course, I would have lost 9-0.”

​

 

[DaSleeper]

Have yo noticed Colpy, that the idiot likes to ask questions of everyone but is not good at answering them...... deflect and move the goal posts is his M.O.

 

[Colpy]

and so began 'black on black' violence! I kid Colpy, I kid...

7 Uncovered Quotes That Show How Far off the Rails the NRA Has Gone --- Top officials in the NRA once supported reasonable gun control laws.

The 143-year-old National Rifle Association has not always been like today's NRA, fighting every gun control law as if the essence of American freedom depends on every citizen owning a gun. What follows are a series of shocking quotes taken from various academic histories of the NRA by top officials within the organization supporting reasonable gun control laws.

1. “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons,” said NRA President Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship who became a lawyer, praising state gun control laws in Congress. He testified before the 1938 federal gun control law passed. “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

2. “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States,” NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth told Congress, shortly after Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy with an Italian military surplus rifle Oswald bought from a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine.

3. “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” said California Gov. Ronald Reagan in May 1967, after two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill. Reagan said guns were “a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.”

4. “You do know that I am a member of the NRA and my position on the right to bear arms is well known,” Reagan said, speaking out in support of the 1994 Brady bill to create new background checks and a waiting period for gun buyers. “But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady Bill and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay.”

5. “To ‘keep and bear arms’ for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; ‘Saturday night specials’ [handguns] and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles,” said retired U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger in Parade magazine, in January 1990.

6. The Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime,” Burger told PBS’ News Hour in late 1991, referring to the NRA’s claim that the U.S. Constitution included a personal right to own guns.

7. “These people are crazy,” said Alan Gura, referring to NRA critics who said he’d ceded too much to gun control arguments when he successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in March 2008 to overturn the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and establish a Second Amendment right to a handgun at home for self-defense. “I could have, if I wanted to, stood before the Court and said, ‘Yes, [the Amendment’s clause] shall not be infringed,’ means you would never have any gun laws, and of course need to all have machine guns in case we want to overthrow the government, and while we’re at it we should have rocket launchers and stinger missiles. And that would have probably made me very popular in some cabin somewhere out there in the woods… Of course, I would have lost 9-0.”

​

Which is, of course, all bullshyte, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue we were talking about..........but heck, let's get into it.
Ted Nugent is a loudmouth. Amusing, but kinda obnoxious.........American gun owners are hardly at the back of the bus.

1. Mr. Frederick needed to read the Second Amendment.

2. Mr. Orth needed to read the Second Amendment.

3. Mr. Reagan needed to read the Second Amendment. And hey, I thought a progressive like yourself would support the Panthers' right to self defense. BTW, they were not charged, because what the did was not illegal. They HAD read the Second Amendment.

4. Mr. Reagan needed to read the Second Amendment. Although the Brady Bill, which required a background check, would probably pass muster as no infringmenton the right, especially now that that check is instant, without a waiting period.

5. “To ‘keep and bear arms’ for hunting????? Those words appear nowhere in the Bill of Rights. It ain't about duck hunting. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger needs to learn Reading Comprehension.

6. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger needs to learn Reading Comprehension.

7. The right is meant to ensure that the people have arms with which they are skilled. An individual does not practise and carry to ranges rocket launchers and stinger missiles as there projectiles are explosive, and practise is prohibitively expensive. Gura is an idiot to make the comparison.
BTW, Gura won the decision. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, according to the Supreme Court. They could decide no other way.

Machine guns you say?

And this is me:

Have yo noticed Colpy, that the idiot likes to ask questions of everyone but is not good at answering them...... deflect and move the goal posts is his M.O.

I am amazed. He really does not have a clue

 

[Colpy]

Why The Centers For Disease Control Should Not Receive Gun Research Funding - Forbes

Precis of the article: they set out to eradicate gun ownership, and lied to do so,.

Your education continues......

 

[mentalfloss]

The NRA is like Greenpeace for the right.

 

[DaSleeper]

So , now you're shilling for Waldo?

 

[waldo]

Which is, of course, all bullshyte, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue we were talking about..........but heck, let's get into it.

huh! It was you that claimed the NRA was a civil rights group... that Nugent graphic was simply offered to support your claim. :mrgreen: You can try to disavow Nugent but the problem for you is YOUR NRA has no shortage of Nugent types... your cadre of gunNutz is ripe full of Nugent types. Your gunNuttery base is rife with Nugent types.

it's quite telling that your weak-kneaded, simpleton responses to those quotes is to simple dismiss them as coming from persons without an understanding of the U.S. 2nd amendment... the U.S. constitution. And c'mon Colpy... how can you go up against St. Ronny Raygun? In the rare instances that you actually take on a true Canadian perspective, clearly you're a concern troll; all your claims about personally supporting gun licensing and background checks is a charade - they're nothing but weasel words! Your support for all that is American, clearly shows you want nothing more than to mirror the U.S. Gun Culture in Canada!

And this is me:

you look so proud! :mrgreen: perhaps a lil' more from Lonesome Earl & the Clutterbusters... I kid, Colpy... I kid!

It takes a cold dead hand to decide to pull the trigger
It takes a cold dead heart and as near as I can figure
With your cold dead aim you’re trying to prove your dick is bigger
But we know your chariot may not be swinging low

Cold dead hand - cold dead hand
Cold dead hand - cold dead hand
You’re a big big man with an little bitty gland
So you need something bigger just to fill
Your cold dead hand
​

Why The Centers For Disease Control Should Not Receive Gun Research Funding - Forbes

Precis of the article: they set out to eradicate gun ownership, and lied to do so,.

Your education continues......

I'm quite familiar with the author of your linked Forbes article... seems your guy, 'Larry Bell', has quite the reach as he's also the in-house Forbes denier on all that is GW/AGW/CC related. Of course, the guy is no scientist... he's never done any kind of scientific research, never published any related papers... clearly just the kind of guy deniers favour to challenge science and real legitimate scientists! I do find it interesting that your guy, somehow, manages to speak of Congress intervening without ever referencing the involvement the NRA had. That's quite the omission, wouldn't you say Colpy! Given what I've read from your denier guy in the past I wouldn't accept a damn thing in your linked article as having any basis in truth/reality.

the salient point, moving forward, is that the essence of your claim is that the U.S. CDC, almost 20 years ago, had designs on doing gun related research in favour of introducing gun control/restrictive measures. I could quite easily throw down reams of linked articles to dispute that (and I wouldn't even add in your lil piece of accompanying BullShyte that, "your education continues"! :mrgreen: )

of course, as of today... whether you admit it or not, even though U.S. President Obama, by executive order, removed the prior funding restrictions against the U.S. CDC, it still has not moved to do actual "gun research". Even 2 years after Obama's executive order. And to clear up one of those talking points you so like to parrot, there was no "BAN" on CDC "gun research" over the past almost 2 decades... there was a federal funding restriction. Of course, the NRA goal was realized and it had impacts on research well beyond the U.S. CDC. Mission accomplished, right Colpy... cause who needs studies on U.S. gun-related violence... cause who needs inconvenient information/data to attempt to make informed decisions.

the only initiative the U.S. CDC has undertaken since the Obama executive order, is to sponsor a study on the causes of gun violence... "on what to study"... on how to reduce the threat of gun-related violence. And, of course, it was the intense pressure from the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting that prodded the CDC into finally acting. Equally, of course that brought out the NRA, that brought out all the gunNutz, in force... cause information is a "scary thing", right Colpy? Again, no actual research was undertaken... again, it was simply a study, to attempt to understand what needed to be studied! Why would the NRA be against that... why would any thinking person be against that, hey Colpy? That study appeared in the prestigious U.S. National Academies of Science: Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

the paper focuses on 5 areas for potential/needed research:

- the characteristics of firearm violence,
- risk and protective factors,
- interventions and strategies,
- gun safety technology and
- the influence of video games and other media.
​

the paper is full of references highlighting areas of little or no data, little or no actual/true understanding... clearly a testimony to just how well the NRA's 1997 mission to quell investigation/research into gun-related violence has been! Well done NRA... cause information is "scary"!

as relates directly to this thread, to this thread's OP, one case example in the paper highlights the need for research into so-called defensive gun use (you know, "Good Guys With Guns"); an area where "both sides" of the debate use select data liberally to attempt to score points. This paper highlights there is no true/representative (and agreed upon) number to represent the actual number of defensive gun uses... clearly, an area of needed investigation/research. Why would anyone dispute that... why would anyone not want that formally studied in a rigorous and peer-reviewed / peer-challenged context? What is the NRA afraid of... what are you, Colpy, afraid of? Finding out the truth on actual defensive gun uses... Colpy, you're afraid of the/that truth... whatever it might be? Really? You're afraid of that... even with your machine-gun... you're afraid of that? :mrgreen:

 

[Colpy]

huh! It was you that claimed the NRA was a civil rights group...

As it is.

An organization defending individual rights as defined in the Bill of Rights is the very definition of a civil rights group.

And the NRA was on side with the civil rights movement for Blacks way before it was cool.

As was Carleton Heston.

The fact that the organization developed over time from its creation as a group dedicated to teaching the people how to use small arms is hardly surprising, nor is it a basis for criticism.

You can try to disavow Nugent but the problem for you is YOUR NRA has no shortage of Nugent types... your cadre of gunNutz is ripe full of Nugent types. Your gunNuttery base is rife with Nugent types.

:mrgreen:

I just said Nugent was a little obnoxious, and that one quote from him was incorrect, IMHO. I'm hardly throwing him under the bus. He is a law abiding defender of individual rights, and has every right to say what he thinks. I don't think a lot of NRA members are like him (very few rock stars) but I am not throwing him under the bus. He is just a little overblown.

it's quite telling that your.......... responses to those quotes is to simple dismiss them as coming from persons without an understanding of the U.S. 2nd amendment... the U.S. constitution.

:mrgreen:

For those of us than can read, that is simply obvious. Even the elitist dimwits of the Supreme Court had to acknowledge the right is an individual right.

And c'mon Colpy... how can you go up against St. Ronny Raygun? :mrgreen:

Personally, never cared for Reagan that much. I understand that he broke the back of the Soviet Union, but that kind of astounds me.........

h In the rare instances that you actually take on a true Canadian perspective, clearly you're a concern troll; all your claims about personally supporting gun licensing and background checks is a charade - they're nothing but weasel words! Your support for all that is American, clearly shows you want nothing more than to mirror the U.S. Gun Culture in Canada!

:mrgreen:

LOL! Delusional! You think you get to define what it is to be Canadian? This is too funny!

There is a Canadian gun culture.....or did you miss the long gun registry debate?

I grew up in a house full of guns........the vast majority of people I know have guns.

Oh, and the USA and Canada are two different countries, with two different constitutional foundations for their laws.

Really, I would have thought you grasped that by now.

 

[petros]

Women's Right too Colpy, more and more women are expressing their Right to arms and access to arms.

Hunting with your wife beats hunting with the guys any day. Cuddling under the straw with a woman and both opening fire on 30,000 snows can't be topped. The testosterone I give off is fresh, and the response very enjoyable later that day.

 

[Colpy]

I'm quite familiar with the author of your linked Forbes article... seems your guy, 'Larry Bell', has quite the reach as he's also the in-house Forbes denier on all that is GW/AGW/CC related. Of course, the guy is no scientist... he's never done any kind of scientific research, never published any related papers... clearly just the kind of guy deniers favour to challenge science and real legitimate scientists! I do find it interesting that your guy, somehow, manages to speak of Congress intervening without ever referencing the involvement the NRA had. That's quite the omission, wouldn't you say Colpy! Given what I've read from your denier guy in the past I wouldn't accept a damn thing in your linked article as having any basis in truth/reality.

:mrgreen:

Ahhh...you're not a scientist either, and you have a disturbing tendency to accept what you are told without question.

This is not a GW debate, but after this debate I have learned enough about you not to credit anything you say or believe.

Women's Right too Colpy, more and more women are expressing their Right to arms and access to arms.

Hunting with your wife beats hunting with the guys any day. Cuddling under the straw with a woman and both opening fire on 30,000 snows can't be topped. The testosterone I give off is fresh, and the response very enjoyable later that day.

Absolutely!

The fastest growing group of shooters.

My wife does not shoot or hunt, but loves to accompany me on grouse hunts......she sees them quicker than me and points them out. I call her my bird dog......

the only initiative the U.S. CDC has undertaken since the Obama executive order, is to sponsor a study on the causes of gun violence... "on what to study"... on how to reduce the threat of gun-related violence. And, of course, it was the intense pressure from the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting that prodded the CDC into finally acting. Equally, of course that brought out the NRA, that brought out all the gunNutz, in force... cause information is a "scary thing", right Colpy? Again, no actual research was undertaken... again, it was simply a study, to attempt to understand what needed to be studied! Why would the NRA be against that... why would any thinking person be against that, hey Colpy? That study appeared in the prestigious U.S. National Academies of Science: Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

the paper focuses on 5 areas for potential/needed research:

- the characteristics of firearm violence,
- risk and protective factors,
- interventions and strategies,
- gun safety technology and
- the influence of video games and other media.
​

the paper is full of references highlighting areas of little or no data, little or no actual/true understanding... clearly a testimony to just how well the NRA's 1997 mission to quell investigation/research into gun-related violence has been! Well done NRA... cause information is "scary"!

as relates directly to this thread, to this thread's OP, one case example in the paper highlights the need for research into so-called defensive gun use (you know, "Good Guys With Guns"); an area where "both sides" of the debate use select data liberally to attempt to score points. This paper highlights there is no true/representative (and agreed upon) number to represent the actual number of defensive gun uses... clearly, an area of needed investigation/research. Why would anyone dispute that... why would anyone not want that formally studied in a rigorous and peer-reviewed / peer-challenged context? What is the NRA afraid of... what are you, Colpy, afraid of? Finding out the truth on actual defensive gun uses... Colpy, you're afraid of the/that truth... whatever it might be? Really? You're afraid of that... even with your machine-gun... you're afraid of that? :mrgreen:

I wouldn't.....if it were not done under the authority of rabid anti-gunners with an agenda.

THEY LIE and cheat and manipulate data, and those who lean "progressive" really don't care.

And, as for CDC research, it is completely outside their mandate.

Let private individuals do the research.

 

[waldo]

An organization defending individual rights as defined in the Bill of Rights is the very definition of a civil rights group.

And the NRA was on side with the civil rights movement for Blacks way before it was cool.

isn't it telling that the so-called 'black militant movement' had the NRA actually calling for gun control! Oh my... apparently, that movement didn't quite fit the mold of a “well-regulated militia” that those fevered stalwarts of the U.S. 2nd Amendment so rally around! :mrgreen:

For those of us than can read, that is simply obvious.

you're a pompous windbag! There are tens of millions of Americans who don't hold to your (parroted) interpretation of the U.S. constitution's 2nd amendment. Throwing out your continual labeling of anyone who holds a different opinion than you (of your parroting), as being unable to read, as lacking comprehension abilities... that gets quite tired and lame and really highlights just how weak your understanding and positions are. The real pertinent point in any of this is just why the hell you rally around the U.S. flag/constitution so intensely... you're Canadian buddy! Get real!

LOL! Delusional! You think you get to define what it is to be Canadian? This is too funny!

There is a Canadian gun culture.....or did you miss the long gun registry debate?

I grew up in a house full of guns........the vast majority of people I know have guns.

I've not defined anything; however, I've clearly shown just how much you're entrenched in the American gun culture! You're so far 'into the weeds' you don't even realize your writing reads like you're a bloody American. Have some pride for your own country man... get over/beyond that U.S. wannabe self you project so intensely!

Oh, and the USA and Canada are two different countries, with two different constitutional foundations for their laws.

Really, I would have thought you grasped that by now.

you're asking if I... if I... grasp that!!! :mrgreen: I suggest you re-read this quote of yours a few times... let it sink in... and reflect on your self!