LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Umpqua

Sean said:
By debunked, you mean criticised by a right wing journal as opposed to passing peer review?
Click to expand...
Speaking of reading. In addition to not reading those five articles from Harvard, did you even read the parameters of the Philadelphia study?

You going to stand by that study?
 
Que said:
Speaking of reading. In addition to not reading those five articles from Harvard, did you even read the parameters of the Philadelphia study?

You going to stand by that study?
Click to expand...

So you think a right wing journal is more reliable than peer reviewed research?
 
It is like fucking whack-a-mole. Now we are going to do OMG!!! My gun might accidentally shoot mE!!!!!!!

If you or your loved one is the victim of a exceedingly rare accident with a deadly weapon, I feel no pity. Basic gun handling safety is simple. Treat every gun as if it is loaded do not aim it at anything you do not intend to kill.

Gun accidents are statistically irrelevant. Pools have a far higher incidence of fatal accidents.
 
Que said:
It is like fucking whack-a-mole. Now we are going to do OMG!!! My gun might accidentally shoot mE!!!!!!!

If you or your loved one is the victim of a exceedingly rare accident with a deadly weapon, I feel no pity. Basic gun handling safety is simple. Treat every gun as if it is loaded do not aim it at anything you do not intend to kill.

Gun accidents are statistically irrelevant. Pools have a far higher incidence of fatal accidents.
Click to expand...

That's because you're a piece of shit.
 
Sean said:
So you think a right wing journal is more reliable than peer reviewed research?
Click to expand...

You did read the peer-reviewed research on how 30% of all peer-reviewed research is fatally flawed?

Anyway, defend this:

Forbes that you didn't read said:
Here is what the study does: they matched shooting victims in Philadelphia to a “control group” by randomly calling Philadelphia residences shortly after the shooting occurs and trying to find someone with the same race, gender, and age as the victim.

The police department told them if the victim had a gun, and they asked whether the control group respondent had a gun. Then they used regression analysis to see if being in a possession of a gun made you more likely to be shot when compared to a control group of random Philadelphia residents.

They try to control for differences in circumstances by including variables that indicated whether the individuals were involved in drugs or alcohol at the time, whether they have had prior arrests, and other characteristics of the person and their situation at the time. But clearly even after including these measures all else is not equal. The study could not control for whether the individuals were in a situation where they thought they would be in danger. The study could not control for whether the individual was the kind of person who thought that someone they know may be planning on trying to shoot them. They could control for frequency of prior arrest, but not whether the individual was an active gang member.
Click to expand...
 
So you also agree that owning a gun can indeed open you to being the victim of a gun shooting. Excellent second step.

Oh how I wish I did not have a meeting @ 1:30......
 
Que said:
You did read the peer-reviewed research on how 30% of all peer-reviewed research is fatally flawed?

Anyway, defend this:
Click to expand...

I read it. What you have there is what we non retarded people call conjecture. And none of Forbes' "arguments" have any bearing on the statistics presented in the study.
 
Last edited:
Que said:
Oh, another whack-job that doesn't believe in evolution. Why do you hate science? Why didn't your God protect you from accidental gunshots?
Click to expand...

So if someone accidentally shoots and kills a loved one, you feel no pity for the victim's family and that makes me anti-Darwinism?

I doubt your post means what you meant it to say.

Lancecastor said:
Had to check that one, and it's true.

CDC:
Click to expand...

It says nothing about pool drownings, moron. Sheesh. You're flipping your stance just to disagree with Sean. How sad.
 
Pool, schmool....it's cool that nearly 8 times as many people accidentally drown per day than die accidentally by firearm.

Goes to show you that with more than 300 Million People, you can create a Big Death Stat for almost anything.

Plus, angry l'il shawn.
 
Lancecastor said:
Pool, schmool....it's cool that nearly 8 times as many people accidentally drown per day than die accidentally by firearm.

Goes to show you that with more than 300 Million People, you can create a Big Death Stat for almost anything.

Plus, angry l'il shawn.
Click to expand...

I'm not angry, groveller, I'm laughing at you. As usual.
 
Q-Bert and Lance seem to be having a really bad day on the Lit. At least Q was smart enough to log-off for a spell. Well, either that or he finally succumbed to the meth.
 
Disgustipated said:
Q-Bert and Lance seem to be having a really bad day on the Lit. At least Q was smart enough to log-off for a spell. Well, either that or he finally succumbed to the meth.
Click to expand...

Watching the groveller running around, wildly flailing his arms in some massively ineffectual attempt to land a punch on me, is the best fun I've had on Lit since Scotty vanished.
 
Unfortunately, the CDC is not the best source to go to when it comes to gun incidents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

Nor will it be anytime soon.

In 2013, some 34,000 Americans died from gunshot wounds. So Takeaway Washington Correspondent Todd Zwillich decided to ask House Speaker John Boehner why his party is trying to block research on gun violence.

“The CDC is there to look at diseases that need to be dealt with to protect public health,” Boehner said at a press conference last week. “I’m sorry, but a gun is not a disease. Guns don’t kill people — people do. And when people use weapons in a horrible way, we should condemn the actions of the individual and not blame the action on some weapon.”

But does the CDC research blame the public health issue of gun violence on the weapons themselves?

“The original concern from the National Rifle Association back in 1996, which Dr. Rivara mentioned, made that very implication,” says Zwillich. “The NRA complained to Congress that the CDC was using the results of its research to essentially advocate for gun control. They called it propaganda. And back at that time, Congress slashed the CDC’s funding by the exact amount that was used for gun-related public health research.”

Rivara and his team discovered that having a gun in the home is associated with a threefold increase in the risk of a homicide — they released this information in a series of peer-reviewed articles that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. The CDC both funded Rivara’s original research and stood by the findings.

But after Congress seemingly retaliated against the CDC for publishing Rivara’s findings, Zwillich says researchers with the agency have shied away from conducting gun research.

“There is other research that goes on at the CDC that does have to do with guns,” says Zwillich. “There is a National Violent Death Reporting System, which does record the causes of all violent deaths, including in domestic abuse, youth violence, and child abuse. If a gun is the cause, that’s recorded — it’s not like they ignore it entirely. But gun deaths and gun injuries as a public health issue, as Rivara said, are still basically anathema to CDC researchers and anyone who gets CDC funding, which is potentially millions of dollars.”

Many federally funded researchers are afraid how the interpretation of their data might be used — and used against them.

“Congressional prohibition, which was extended in this very vote that we’re talking about with that appropriations bill, prevents the CDC from advocating for any form of gun control,” says Zwillich. “Researchers are concerned that if they report the results of their data publicly and say, for instance, as Fred Rivara found in the ‘90s, that having a gun in the home makes you more likely to be injured than if you don’t have a gun in a home, then they’ll be accused by Congress of breaking the rules and advocating for gun control.”
Click to expand...
 
I always love the "Having a gun present increases the likelihood of gun death by X% or X times more likely!!"

LOL....no fucking shit guys. Did you know having standing water around increases your chances of drowning X %?

How about getting in a vehicle? What's that do for your odds for injury or death in a car accident? I bet being in a car on the road runs those odds up!! Not really sure though, better spend 200 billion on a research program to find out!

:rolleyes:
 
BotanyBoy said:
I always love the "Having a gun present increases the likelihood of gun death by X% or X times more likely!!"

LOL....no fucking shit guys. Did you know having standing water around increases your chances of drowning X %?

How about getting in a vehicle? What's that do for your odds for injury or death in a car accident? I bet being in a car on the road runs those odds up!! Not really sure though, better spend 200 billion on a research program to find out!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I wonder If every time there was a train accident or multiple fatality car crash, and the talking heads used it as a political talking point, would people jump on board there as well?

You know what... in a perfect world, I'd be all for gun control, but not until every world government disarmed, and we had a tried and true plan in place for world peace.

If someone can come up with and implement that, I'm all ears.
 
richard_daily said:
I wonder If every time there was a train accident or multiple fatality car crash, and the talking heads used it as a political talking point, would people jump on board there as well?

You know what... in a perfect world, I'd be all for gun control, but not until every world government disarmed, and we had a tried and true plan in place for world peace.

If someone can come up with and implement that, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
How many countries can you name that want to invade other countries and control their citizens by force?

I can name only one, myself.
 
richard_daily said:
I wonder If every time there was a train accident or multiple fatality car crash, and the talking heads used it as a political talking point, would people jump on board there as well?

You know what... in a perfect world, I'd be all for gun control, but not until every world government disarmed, and we had a tried and true plan in place for world peace.

If someone can come up with and implement that, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Probably would....the left would want to 'regulate' everyone into a plastic bubble and the RW would insist we start letting tweens drive F1 cars on public roads as the only thing that can stop road rage is a 12 y/o with 1400hp at their fingertips :cool:

I'm not even against some levels of gun control, at the very least there should be a basic competency licencing.

But what I really want is for everyone to get real.

Generally speaking.....

Anti gun folks (mostly LW) need to get real about the fact they live in M'uricuh....the land of 1911's and 44 mag's. They need to deal with the fact that until they repeal 2A they are really just pissing up a flag pole, for this lifetime anyhow.

If being in a gun free nation is really that important they need to just get the fuck out.

Pro gun folks? (largely RW) need to just admit that the shootings are fine and not too steep of a price to pay. Guns kill people, a whole shit ton of them, fucking own it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dhabidommetrix
Favorite strains for a submissive headspace?
Replies
1
Views
67
saintcero
saintcero
M
looking for a story
Replies
1
Views
139
StillStunned
StillStunned
A
Am i a weirdo freak?
Replies
6
Views
476
EmmAgain
EmmAgain
D
Weight Lose
Replies
24
Views
1K
ericalauren
ericalauren
Jw75766
Thoughts on testosterone supplements
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
LMWM321
L
Back
Top