Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1)

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Kable

I know, the head in the sand technique is typical of your kind.
You’re welcome, here’s another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXg1qYNU5RA

How come so many of these victims are elderly?

Thanks for another stupid post!

You are really contributing to this thread, pointing how how some gun fetishists such as yourself are stupid. I would think that responsible gun owners are quite pissed off at you.

[Lumpy]

Teacher reacts hysterically to photo of bb gun on student’s camera:

Examiner is back - Examiner.com

[Lumpy]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Thanks for another stupid post!

You are really contributing to this thread, pointing how how some gun fetishists such as yourself are stupid. I would think that responsible gun owners are quite pissed off at you.

A person shot an intruder who broke into their home. How’s that gun fetishism?

[Gyrate]

@Lumpy

A person shot an intruder who broke into their home. How’s that gun fetishism?

It’s not. I suspect that what EP is referring to is Kable’s other posts and behavior, including his strange kneejerk tendency to post links to examples of people using guns in a responsible manner in a thread devoted to examples of people using guns in an irresponsible manner, as if the two will somehow cancel each other out in some sort of matter-antimatter way. It’s either a weird compulsion or he’s arguing with posters the rest of us can’t see, posters who are claiming that guns are never used responsibly.

[Kable]

@Gyrate

It’s not. I suspect that what EP is referring to is Kable’s other posts and behavior, including his strange kneejerk tendency to post links to examples of people using guns in a responsible manner in a thread devoted to examples of people using guns in an irresponsible manner, as if the two will somehow cancel each other out in some sort of matter-antimatter way. It’s either a weird compulsion or he’s arguing with posters the rest of us can’t see, posters who are claiming that guns are never used responsibly.

Home invaders were so intimidated by the sight of an “ASSAULT RIFLE” they immediately fled with no shots fired. The gun wasn’t even loaded…

...but it served it's purpose just the same.

[elucidator]

How do you know they wouldn’t have run just being aware that there were people there?

[Lumpy]

@Gyrate

It’s not. I suspect that what EP is referring to is Kable’s other posts and behavior, including his strange kneejerk tendency to post links to examples of people using guns in a responsible manner in a thread devoted to examples of people using guns in an irresponsible manner, as if the two will somehow cancel each other out in some sort of matter-antimatter way. It’s either a weird compulsion or he’s arguing with posters the rest of us can’t see, posters who are claiming that guns are never used responsibly.

I see. The thread title is “Stupid Gun news of the day”, so I think posting about people stupidly overreacting to anything gun-like would count.

[Kable]

@elucidator

How do you know they wouldn’t have run just being aware that there were people there?

Sure elucidator! All gun owners are evil and all intruders are really victims of society. And instead of using a shotgun to thwart her rapist…

Woman With Shotgun Kills Rapist in Self-Defense (MO)

…this lady should have just wet her pants to gross him out.

[jasg]

@Gyrate

It’s not. I suspect that what EP is referring to is Kable’s other posts and behavior, including his strange kneejerk tendency to post links to examples of people using guns in a responsible manner in a thread devoted to examples of people using guns in an irresponsible manner, as if the two will somehow cancel each other out in some sort of matter-antimatter way. It’s either a weird compulsion or he’s arguing with posters the rest of us can’t see, posters who are claiming that guns are never used responsibly.

This.

@Lumpy

I see. The thread title is “Stupid Gun news of the day”, so I think posting about people stupidly overreacting to anything gun-like would count.

That does count as stupid news - like your pastry and BB gun photograph news. Neither side has a lock on stupid.

YouTube videos, not so much…

[steronz]

@Kable

Sure elucidator! All gun owners are evil and all intruders are really victims of society. And instead of using a shotgun to thwart her rapist…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NJQK2BscIg

…this lady should have just wet her pants to gross him out.

So now you’re reposting things? It’s bad enough that this was 4 and a half years ago, but you’ve already posted that one here. You really suck at this “news of the day” concept.

[elucidator]

@Kable

Sure elucidator! All gun owners are evil and all intruders are really victims of society…

Didn’t say gun owners are evil. Didn’t say all intruders are victims. Asked you how you knew the gun was why they ran away. If there are going to be words in my mouth, I’d much prefer that they were mine, rather than yours. Because I don’t need any help, thanks.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Gyrate

It’s not. I suspect that what EP is referring to is Kable’s other posts and behavior, including his strange kneejerk tendency to post links to examples of people using guns in a responsible manner in a thread devoted to examples of people using guns in an irresponsible manner, as if the two will somehow cancel each other out in some sort of matter-antimatter way. It’s either a weird compulsion or he’s arguing with posters the rest of us can’t see, posters who are claiming that guns are never used responsibly.

You are correct in your analysis of my post. Kable is just being an amusing idiot, who thinks he is making a point - when in actual fact he is making a fool of himself.

[Kable]

@elucidator

Didn’t say gun owners are evil. Didn’t say all intruders are victims. Asked you how you knew the gun was why they ran away. If there are going to be words in my mouth, I’d much prefer that they were mine, rather than yours. Because I don’t need any help, thanks.

I know, you don’t always like to say what you think, but I get your vibe.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@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.

Does it have to be federal?

The guy that wrote this report Front Matter | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review | The National Academies Press doesn’t seem to think that he NRA has choked off all research. Once again, there is a lot of hysteria about the NRA shutting down science when all they’ve done is shut down research by an organization that they view as being biased. And ONCE AGAIN, I disagree with the notion of shutting down CDC research, I think they only hurt themselves if they issue bad reports.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cdc-politics-affected-gun-violence-research/nTZnf/

This article seems to indicate that the DoJ funds or conducts research.

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

This is nonsense. I’ve given no definitions. It’s very simple. You said:
Provide a cite to this CDC report.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.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=article

This seems to be the article that people are bothered by.

Here is some of the contemporaneous criticism of the article:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=letters

The article is also cited by subsequent articles that sometimes question whether the correlation is good evidence of causation (that is the thing I am saying would never fly here. If I showed correlation between gun ownership and someone in the household dying by gun and concluded that the presence of guns in the home caused those deaths, I would get a few :dubious::rolleyes: thrown my way).

I’m surprised that you were not familiar with the article, you seem to be better versed on this issue than I am.

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.

Sorry I’m too stupid to click on the hyperlink and then click on the footnote to the hyperlink that links to a 487 page document to find the offending language. Only I was looking for the cite in footnote 5 not 6. But thanks anyways. I’ll try not to be so stupid next time :rolleyes:

Why should I have the sources for your claims at my fingertips?

I’m just a layman, I’ve never presented at the ASC so I figured someone as knowledgable as you probably already knew all this and only needed to be reminded.

I’m sorry if I misused the phrase peer review to mean contemporaneous criticism of the article. But your criticism of these tangential issue (of whether I used the phrase peer review correctly) is just muddying the waters on the basic premise that the NRA is not trying to shut down all research and they had specific reasons for being offended by the study. People can read the article and the responding letters and articles for themselves and decide if the article seems neutral to them or if the authors seem to have an agenda.

In the end, I have no personal objection to research on this topic, its not like the NRA is defenseless, they can write articles too and they can perform studies as well.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@DA

The guy that wrote this report Front Matter | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review | The National Academies Press doesn’t seem to think that he NRA has choked off all research.

The “guy”? That report was produced by a committee. Did you even look at it? According to the index, the NRA is referenced three times. None of those references indicates any position as to whether the NRA has choked off research. Where are you getting the evidence for your assertion from?

In fact, contrary to your position, the report you cited states (bolding mine):

If policy makers are to have a solid empirical and research base for decisions about firearms and violence, the federal government needs to support a systematic program of data collection and research that specifically addresses that issue. Adverse outcomes associated with firearms, although large in absolute numbers, are statistically rare events and therefore are not observed with great frequency, if at all, in many ongoing national probability samples (i.e., on crime victimization or health outcomes). The existing data on gun ownership, so necessary in the committee’s view to answering policy questions about firearms and violence, are limited primarily to a few questions in the General Social Survey. There are virtually no ongoing, systematic data series on firearms markets. Aggregate data on injury and ownership can only demonstrate associations of varying strength between firearms and adverse outcomes of interest. Without improvements in this situation, the substantive questions in the field about the role of guns in suicide, homicide and other crimes, and accidental injury are likely to continue to be debated on the basis of conflicting empirical findings.

@DA

Once again, there is a lot of hysteria about the NRA shutting down science when all they’ve done is shut down research by an organization that they view as being biased.

Apparently you continue to fail to understand the cite in the JAMA article – the limitations placed on CDC were also placed on NIH. Do you understand that point? The NIH is different from the CDC.

@DA

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cdc-pol...esearch/nTZnf/

This article seems to indicate that the DoJ funds or conducts research.

What? The only place in that article related to your assertion is this part:

@DA’s AJC article

Today, he said, some private foundations and the U.S. Department of Justice fund work on gun violence, but it’s a fraction of what existed before the mid-90s.

“I have to acknowledge that the (NRA) strategy of shutting down the pipeline of science was effective,” said Kellermann, who later moved on to the RAND Corp. “It is almost impossible today to get federal funding for firearm injury prevention research.”

That quote really doesn’t seem to help your argument. I have to wonder, again, if you’re reading your own cites.

@DA

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...1506#t=article

This seems to be the article that people are bothered by.

There is no language in that article that is remotely unacceptable in terms of ascribing cause. Furthermore, the only time that the word “cause” is used in regards to the relationship between variables in the study, it is this sentence:

@Kellermann article

Third, it is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide – i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have acquired a gun in response to a specific threat. If the source of that threat subsequently caused the homicide, the link between guns in the home and homicide may be due at least in part to the failure of these weapons to provide adequate protection from the assailants.

They are describing a hypothetical alternative explanation of the association that they observed, which is perfectly acceptable.

This is a peer reviewed journal. This is also not a CDC report, which is what you’ve been claiming. It’s a New England Journal of Medicine article, albeit one based on work funded by the CDC.

@DA

I’m surprised that you were not familiar with the article, you seem to be better versed on this issue than I am.

I’m familiar with many articles on the topic. How am I to know which one you are referring to until you cite it?

[Cartooniverse]

@jasg

Walmart seems to attract the finest in armed customers.

Is this defensive or offensive gun use?

Neither. It’s Florida. She is covered by the Squat Your Ground Law.

[Gyrate]

@Kable

Home invaders were so intimidated by the sight of an “ASSAULT RIFLE” they immediately fled with no shots fired. The gun wasn’t even loaded…

...but it served it's purpose just the same.

THE VOICES AREN’T REAL, KABLE! THEY’RE ONLY IN YOUR HEAD! START TAKING YOUR MEDICATION AGAIN! YOUR MOTHER IS WORRIED ABOUT YOU!

@Kable

I know, you don’t always like to say what you think, but I get your vibe.

Like I said: responding to imaginary posts no one else can see.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

The “guy”? That report was produced by a committee. Did you even look at it?

Who gives a shit? Why does that matter?

According to the index, the NRA is referenced three times. None of those references indicates any position as to whether the NRA has choked off research. Where are you getting the evidence for your assertion from?

From the frequent reference to the large amount of data that is available. How is so much data available at the same time that the NRA is choking off research?

In fact, contrary to your position, the report you cited states (bolding mine):

So, not every issue has been researched. Is that unique to gun research?

“Empirical research on firearms and violence has resulted in important findings that can inform policy decisions. In particular, a wealth of descriptive information exists about the prevalence of firearm-related injuries and deaths, about firearms markets, and about the relationships between rates of gun ownership and violence.”

bolding mine

Apparently you continue to fail to understand the cite in the JAMA article – the limitations placed on CDC were also placed on NIH. Do you understand that point? The NIH is different from the CDC.

Are they not members of the same organization?

And frankly WTF does it matter? The NRA hasn’t shut down all research, they just don’t like doctors doing research on gun violence from a public health perspective. So what?

What? The only place in that article related to your assertion is this part: That quote really doesn’t seem to help your argument. I have to wonder, again, if you’re reading your own cites.

Wait, you cite a sentence that states the DoJ funds outside research (without any sort of objection from the NRA) and that doesn’t support my position? Why? because the DoJ doesn’t do as much of it as you or the authors of that article would like?

There is no language in that article that is remotely unacceptable in terms of ascribing cause. Furthermore, the only time that the word “cause” is used in regards to the relationship between variables in the study, it is this sentence: They are describing a hypothetical alternative explanation of the association that they observed, which is perfectly acceptable.

This is a peer reviewed journal. This is also not a CDC report, which is what you’ve been claiming. It’s a New England Journal of Medicine article, albeit one based on work funded by the CDC.

Did you read the letters? I’m not coming up with this stuff on my own. There was contemporaneous criticism of this study at the time it was published and the criticism outline a lot of the reason why the NRA went after the CDC.

I’m familiar with many articles on the topic. How am I to know which one you are referring to until you cite it?

Its the one that people seem to frequently cite as the precipitating factor for the factor for the ban.

If it helps at all, I think the ban is a horrible idea. I understand why the NRA would do it but I don’t agree with it. I have friends and family that work at the CDC and they are all doctors and doctors have a particular perspective when it comes to things that kill people.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

Damuri Ajashi, you’re just wasting my time now. Even the cites you’ve brought make clear that the NRA has exerted its influence to severely restrict research on firearms violence.

I think the truth is that you heard a bunch of allegations from gun-types, repeated them here, struggled to find foundation for the claims when they were called into question, don’t really understand the issues, and have sadly chosen to fall back on a very hard-headed strategy of deception and obfuscation of the matter.

[Kable]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Damuri Ajashi, you’re just wasting my time now. Even the cites you’ve brought make clear that the NRA has exerted its influence to severely restrict research on firearms violence.

I think the truth is that you heard a bunch of allegations from gun-types, repeated them here, struggled to find foundation for the claims when they were called into question, don’t really understand the issues, and have sadly chosen to fall back on a very hard-headed strategy of deception and obfuscation of the matter.

Dumb Liberal Explains why Gun Ownership Should be illegal