Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1)

[Lumpy]

Students disarm gunman- get suspended.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/02/high-school-student-disarms-gunman-gets-suspended/

The school’s referral slip said he was given an “emergency suspension” for being involved in an “incident” with a weapon.

[Double_Foolscap]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Here it is! GunFail VII, now featuring a photo of our very own Kable.

Daily Kos

Russell Brand’s really let himself go.

[Lumpy]

2nd grader suspended for gun-shaped pastry:

Anne Arundel second-grader suspended for chewing his pastry into the shape of...

[Kable]

@Lumpy

2nd grader suspended for gun-shaped pastry:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/anne-arundel-second-grader-suspended-for-chewing-his-pastry-into-the-shape-of-a-gun/2013/03/04/44c4bbcc-84c4-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html

From the link

“In my eyes, it’s irrelevant; I don’t care who he pointed it at,” Welch said. “It was harmless. It was a danish.”

“I feel this is just a direct result of society feeling that guns are evil and guns are bad . . . and if you make your pastry into a gun, you’re going to be the next Columbine shooter,” Welch said."

Classic!

[Ethilrist]

So, it’s more of a Stupid Poptart News of the Day thing.

[Lumpy]

Man charged with reckless handling of a firearm for taking Biden’s advice:

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/crime/man-charged-for-firing-gun-in-home

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

You made a specific claim based upon apparently nothing more than pulling shit out of your ass. Or someone else’s. It is clear you have no idea what you’re saying.

So now you’re arguing about semantics? The question we are trying to address is whether it is underestandable why the NRA would object to CDC research of gun violence.

We have already established the NRA isn’t anti-knowledge as you and your fellow travellers claim because they have not done anything to ban research anywhere except at the CDC. Or is this still up in the air?

We have already established that one of the CDC parent organization’s goals is to reduce gun ownership by 25% by 2000 (didn’t work out so well for them).

We have established that the CDC report equated correlation to causation in a way that wouldn’t pass muster on the great debates forum but somehow gets published by the CDC anyway.

So your objection is that I used the phrase peer review too loosely to include professional contemporaneous criticism instead of during the editorial process?

So you asked

Show me how the CDC is biased. Show me where they’ve called for a ban. Show me how they are not academic. Show me where they lack neutrality.

I think I have shown you why people think the CDC is biased. I’ve shown you where the person in charge of the research thinks a ban would be appropriate. I’ve shown why people think their research is so flawed. I’ve shown you why people think they lack neutrality. I’m not saying that there might not be other explanations for these things but I think you can understand why people who value their second amendment rights would oppose CDC research into gun violence.

Those are opinion pieces from people with no greater actual credibility than you yourself.

Or you for that matter. The articles cite others and they cite the CDC organization or did you miss the part where one of the stated goals of the CDC parent organization is to reduce gun ownership by 25% by 2000? Some people might say they already have an answer before they have asked the question.

If you don’t know what it is, how can you know whether or not it has anything to do with gun violence. It is the American Society of Criminology, dummy. It was referenced in one of your own cites.

I didn’t know whether it had anything to do with gun violence, thats why I asked. “I’m not sure what the ASC has to do with researching gun violence. BTW what is the ASC?” I’m sorry, but I doubt most of the people following this thread knew what ASC stood for, your entire argument seems to have devolved into calling me names.

I’m sorry you’re so butthurt about losing the gun control debate but you’re not doing yourself any favors. If your side of the debate had been more rational, we could be talking about universal licensing and registration right now but instead we are discussing whether the “universal” background check is going to involve anything more than gun shows. And forget about a national registry. How does it feel to let an opportunity for real and lasting change slip through your fingers because your side pursued a retarded AWB?

I’m quite certain I never said they shut down all research. Do you have to resort to outright lies at this point? May as well, I suppose.

I’m sorry, you’re right you said they opposed it, not shut it down.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16036935&postcount=705

OK, so then do you still think the NRA opposes all independent research? Or does the CDC comprise the universe of independent research?

However they did stop the major portion of federal funding from going to the federal agency tasked to the study of such topics.

It was $2.6 million. There are other government agencies that do research on gun violence. The NRA didn’t have any objection to any of them. I’ll be the first to say that the NRA is run by a bunch of gun nuts but people keep trying to make it sound like the NRA opposed CDC research because they don’t want anyone to learn anything about gun violence because then the jig would be up. They opposed CDC research because they found the way the CDC did the research to be objectionable.

@elucidator

What does that even mean? What “pains” would you recommend? What preset conditions must be applied so that you are assured?

I am pretty assured right now. I don’t think the bias that existed at the time would surface today. The CDC should be acutely aware that their research will be subjected to review not only by their buddies at medical journals but by people who support second amendment rights and if their analysis is flawed or if their bias shows, then they will be called out for it.

@elucidator

Until the next one. It will happen, you know that, right? And again. Its like that Chinese torture with drops of water dripping onto your head. Except the water drops are bowling balls.

@Kable

Gun-grabbers are losing the initiative:

Americans Don't Want Gun Control Enough - Business Insider

Gun control advocates are losing the initiative because they let the gun grabbers take over the debate for them.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Damuri_Ajashi

So now you’re arguing about semantics? The question we are trying to address is whether it is underestandable why the NRA would object to CDC research of gun violence.

Look, either you can support the claim you made or you cannot. I’m guessing at this point you cannot. It’s not semantics.

We have already established the NRA isn’t anti-knowledge as you and your fellow travellers claim because they have not done anything to ban research anywhere except at the CDC. Or is this still up in the air?

Yes. You’ve established nothing - you’ve linked to opinions and claims made by other gun strokers. The problem is that you’re deluding yourself that they are telling you the truth.

For instance, see this piece in JAMA:

@JAMA

When other agencies funded high-quality research, similar action was taken. In 2009, Branas et al5 published the results of a case-control study that examined whether carrying a gun increases or decreases the risk of firearm assault. In contrast to earlier research, this particular study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Two years later, Congress extended the restrictive language it had previously applied to the CDC to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health.6

Bolding mine; the restrictions have been applied not only to the CDC, but also the NIH.

@DA

We have already established that one of the CDC parent organization’s goals is to reduce gun ownership by 25% by 2000 (didn’t work out so well for them).

No. Again, you’ve not cited this. You’ve cited other people claiming this. Can you cite the actual source?

@DA

We have established that the CDC report equated correlation to causation in a way that wouldn’t pass muster on the great debates forum but somehow gets published by the CDC anyway.

Here’s the specific thing that I’ve asked you to cite, and you’ve called “semantics” up above. Yet, you have the balls to list it as established at this point. Please quit being so deceptive and deceitful. Which “report” are you talking about. Please cite it specifically, and not an opinion piece stating just what you’ve stated here.

@DA

So your objection is that I used the phrase peer review too loosely to include professional contemporaneous criticism instead of during the editorial process?

My objection is exemplified by your own quote above. You keep making a claim, but dodging and weaving on citing that claim, but then stating that the claim is established. You’re not only a moron, you’re a lying moron.

@DA

It was $2.6 million. There are other government agencies that do research on gun violence. The NRA didn’t have any objection to any of them. I’ll be the first to say that the NRA is run by a bunch of gun nuts but people keep trying to make it sound like the NRA opposed CDC research because they don’t want anyone to learn anything about gun violence because then the jig would be up. They opposed CDC research because they found the way the CDC did the research to be objectionable.

From How the Government Stifled Gun Research, Discovery:

@Fred Rivera

“The net effect is that we don’t have any research going on in the public health sector about ways to prevent gun violence,” Rivara told LiveScience.

Multiple professionals, like Fred Rivera, are telling you that there is no meaningful gun research going on. Please cite your evidence that, to the contrary, other government agencies are doing research on gun violence. Please cite how much federal funding for gun research they have received.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Look, either you can support the claim you made or you cannot. I’m guessing at this point you cannot.

Not if I have to use your definitions.

You’ve established nothing - you’ve linked to opinions and claims made by other gun strokers. The problem is that you’re deluding yourself that they are telling you the truth.

the typical response to a cite is to either prove a countercite that proves that the cite is incorrect or to acquiesce. Just calling the the cite a bunch of lies is not how we normally rebutt cites around here.

For instance, see this piece in JAMA:

Bolding mine; the restrictions have been applied not only to the CDC, but also the NIH.

I’m not familiar with this report. Do you have a cite to the report?

No. Again, you’ve not cited this. You’ve cited other people claiming this. Can you cite the actual source?

If you want to undercut the cite then do so. Don’t just keep asking for cite after cite after cite.

Here’s the specific thing that I’ve asked you to cite, and you’ve called “semantics” up above. Yet, you have the balls to list it as established at this point. Please quit being so deceptive and deceitful. Which “report” are you talking about. Please cite it specifically, and not an opinion piece stating just what you’ve stated here.
My objection is exemplified by your own quote above. You keep making a claim, but dodging and weaving on citing that claim, but then stating that the claim is established. You’re not only a moron, you’re a lying moron.

While I find your accusations of being a lying moron compelling, I still can’t get over the fact that you are wrong. Why don’t you do some of your own research? After all you presented at the ASC so this stuff must be at your fingertips, right?

From How the Government Stifled Gun Research, Discovery:Multiple professionals, like Fred Rivera, are telling you that there is no meaningful gun research going on. Please cite your evidence that, to the contrary, other government agencies are doing research on gun violence. Please cite how much federal funding for gun research they have received.

Fred Rivera didn’t say that there is no meaningful research going on, he said “any research going on in the public health sector about ways to prevent gun violence”

Are you sure I’m the lying moron that is being deceptive and deceitful? Or are you projecting?

[elucidator]

I think it would be perfectly OK if you cited ongoing federal research on issues of gun control that was not specific to the public health sector. You are not constrained, and are entirely free to point it out. I’m assuming, of course, that Hector agrees with such leniency, but I think that’s a pretty fair bet.

[jasg]

@lost4life

Vigilante shoots at shoplifter in Walmart parking lot, hitting several cars.

Walmart seems to attract the finest in armed customers.

Jilted shopper Tasered after struggle with deputy. “You’re not taking my gun,” she said.

A Florida woman is in jail on charges she threatened Walmart workers with a gun after the store refused her Internet dollar-off coupon.

Is this defensive or offensive gun use?

[levdrakon]

So much ado about the 2nd amendment, except for the “disciplined” part.

[Kable]

Shawnee Woman Thwarts Home Invasion

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Thanks Kable for keeping this thread at the top of the pit listings. I have not gone to your links, but given the thread title, I am assuming that they are all links to idiots who have done idiotic things with guns.

Thanks, and keep up the good work of alerting us to Stupid Gun News of the Day!

[elucidator]

That was kinda my fault, actually. I told him that if there were all that many defensive use of guns, he should be able to name a couple thousand, and if he could he wins.

I was kinda kidding around, I really didn’t think he’d take me seriously. Anyway, shouldn’t take more than about six months.

[jasg]

Are there any limits on number of YouTube links from a single thread?

[elucidator]

Gets it free with AOL.

[Gyrate]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Thanks Kable for keeping this thread at the top of the pit listings. I have not gone to your links, but given the thread title, I am assuming that they are all links to idiots who have done idiotic things with guns.

Thanks, and keep up the good work of alerting us to Stupid Gun News of the Day!

It’s gun news posted by a stupid person, so it counts.

[Kable]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I have not gone to your links…

I know, the head in the sand technique is typical of your kind.

Thanks, and keep up the good work of alerting us to Stupid Gun News of the Day!

You’re welcome, here’s another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXg1qYNU5RA

How come so many of these victims are elderly?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Not if I have to use your definitions.

This is nonsense. I’ve given no definitions. It’s very simple. You said:

@DA

We have established that the CDC report equated correlation to causation in a way that wouldn’t pass muster on the great debates forum but somehow gets published by the CDC anyway.

Provide a cite to this CDC report.

the typical response to a cite is to either prove a countercite that proves that the cite is incorrect or to acquiesce. Just calling the the cite a bunch of lies is not how we normally rebutt cites around here.

You keep citing uninformed opinions. When you make a factual claim, citing random other people making that claim is not helpful. Cite evidence of the claim. That’s how it’s supposed to be done around here.

@DA

I’m not familiar with this report. Do you have a cite to the report?

Hey dummy. See that underlined text that says “JAMA”? That’s called a hyperlink. You click on it, and it takes you somewhere else. In that somewhere else, you’ll see a bunch of superscripted numbers. You’re not familiar with looking at material that has such superscripts, but they are not exponents. They are citations. Number 6 is the citation you are claiming not to have seen. Look at the text down below the main body, find #6 and this will be the source for the claim.

@DA

If you want to undercut the cite then do so. Don’t just keep asking for cite after cite after cite.

You haven’t provided one cite, at least one that is not to someone else making the same claim. When you quote the US Public Health Service, you ought to be able to cite the source for that quote. What is the source for that quote?

While I find your accusations of being a lying moron compelling, I still can’t get over the fact that you are wrong. Why don’t you do some of your own research? After all you presented at the ASC so this stuff must be at your fingertips, right?

Why should I have the sources for your claims at my fingertips? The questions is, why don’t you?

@DA

Fred Rivera didn’t say that there is no meaningful research going on, he said “any research going on in the public health sector about ways to prevent gun violence”

What, are you claiming that there is research going on in the private health sector?

This whole “exchange” has been illuminating. I have learned that Damuri Ajashi are a deceitful poster who is not interested in actually engaging in discussion or debate. Rather, he prefers to unquestioningly repeat assertions that other gun advocates have made, and then obfuscate when asked to support those claims.