If you love the kids, you’ll arm the teachers!

[jomar]

Those "unbiased studies" you're referring to were bought an paid for by ANTI GUN groups or groups with an anti-gun agenda for political purposes.

There are no "unbiased" participants in this debate. The data shows what it shows. EVERYTHING ELSE is a projection from that data. Based on the data, gun control doesn't work because it doesn't target the root of the problem. All it does is shift the problem into other categories and claim that "GUN violence" went down while ignoring the FACT that other types of violence rose. Thus the conclusion is not accurate and those who support it delude themselves.

Your personal anecdotes are meaningless in the overall debate because they are personal choices, not argumentation.

You misunderstood the words in my post in the beginning. Not my problem if your reading comprehension is lacking. Trust me, if I call you names you won't have to wonder if I mean them or not.

You saying a thing doesn’t make it true. Despite your claim, of course there are unbiased gun studies because some folk want to, you know, do research and follow the data...unlike Lott, whose biased and flawed research you cited and are still clinging to, it seems.

You seem entrenched in your view that guns and gun control don’t factor into gun violence and mass shootings...is that so?

 

[bestone4ever]

And more useful as the NRA has ZERO to do with any of these shootings.

The NRA affords protections through lobbying. They are certainly not responsible for individual shootings but their influence has had a negative effect on the Country, IMO.

 

[cherries_on_snow]

No teacher works 60 hr weeks, that’s quite a sharkjump, even for you LOL

I typically work 55 hours per week. I spend half of my off time researching and doing required professional development coursework.

 

[cherries_on_snow]

The NRA affords protections through lobbying. They are certainly not responsible for individual shootings but their influence has had a negative effect on the Country, IMO.

The real money the NRA protects is made from thousands of guns trafficked to El Salvador and the like. Our lax gun laws make it easier for straw man buyers to enable horrific gang violence just south of us.

The NRA lobbies for wealthy weapons manufacturers. They would not give a toss if school shootings tripled. They are all about the blood money.

 

[bestone4ever]

The real money the NRA protects is made from thousands of guns trafficked to El Salvador and the like. Our lax gun laws make it easier for straw man buyers to enable horrific gang violence just south of us.

The NRA lobbies for wealthy weapons manufacturers. They would not give a toss if school shootings tripled. They are all about the blood money.

Are you trying to tell us that a poor 14-year-old kid from the inner city didn't smuggle the gun into this country all by himself?!

 

[Sean]

Like I said, for every study you can find saying that guns are the problem I can cite to one that says differently. Like this:

Short article

Based on research, the data suggests that availability of guns doesn't contribute to mass shootings or killings. It is a factor because without the weapon being obtainable the killing wouldn't occur in that fashion. But, it is not the gun that causes the killing. Nor would removing that method end the shootings because the killers would change the way they execute their plan rather than stop.

The alternative methods the killers would/could use would have more destructive power and would cause more deaths and casualties than a single person with a firearm can achieve.

This is what the data shows without manipulation or political posturing. Nor does it suggest (as some here will instantly claim) that we "accept" the death toll because we like our guns. What it says is that there is a valid substantiated reason for these events and we are not talking about, or doing anything about, it.

Where's your counterpoint? Or are you just going to go directly to name calling?

Ahahahahahahahahahaha! John Lott. Classic. Dude made up his research, lied about it, his own colleagues disowned him in court then he made up alts on the internet to say what a great guy he was. That's hilarious. I love gun nuts citing Lott.

 

[Sean]

Those "unbiased studies" you're referring to were bought an paid for by ANTI GUN groups or groups with an anti-gun agenda for political purposes.

There are no "unbiased" participants in this debate. The data shows what it shows. EVERYTHING ELSE is a projection from that data. Based on the data, gun control doesn't work because it doesn't target the root of the problem. All it does is shift the problem into other categories and claim that "GUN violence" went down while ignoring the FACT that other types of violence rose. Thus the conclusion is not accurate and those who support it delude themselves.

Your personal anecdotes are meaningless in the overall debate because they are personal choices, not argumentation.

You misunderstood the words in my post in the beginning. Not my problem if your reading comprehension is lacking. Trust me, if I call you names you won't have to wonder if I mean them or not.

The US murder rate is four times that of any other first world country, Tim.

 

[Wrong Element]

Well, that was interesting.

To paraphrase a reporter some time after Sandy Hook, the gun debate was over once America decided killing children was acceptable.

Sandy Hook was pretty much where I gave up. That was the lovely thread where busybody said he hoped my family would die in a mass shooting. The debate rarely gets elevated much beyond that.

 

[Sean]

Sandy Hook was pretty much where I gave up. That was the lovely thread where busybody said he hoped my family would die in a mass shooting. The debate rarely gets elevated much beyond that.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was it. Twenty dead little kids and the righties didn't give a fuck.

 

[IG_88]

You should have been Ackbar or something. At least he was funny in his ineptitude.

LOL! Yes, because you're trying too hard to show off and you go after people you perceive as weak. Impressive, you are. <--- Star Wars reference, just for you.

Ackbar was a pretty good guy who made a tactical error. He will be missed.


You might think so and it's not a bad guess but no.

You might also think I and others don't know who you are. Reasonable enough assumption. But is it accurate? Only the Shadow knows. <----- Old timey radio reference just for you.

 

[bestone4ever]

Ackbar was a pretty good guy who made a tactical error. He will be missed.


You might think so and it's not a bad guess but no.

You might also think I and others don't know who you are. Reasonable enough assumption. But is it accurate? Only the Shadow knows. <----- Old timey radio reference just for you.

That's more of an Alec Baldwin reference. You could just ask if you'd like to know more about me.

 

[IG_88]

Yeah, Sandy Hook was it. Twenty dead little kids and the righties didn't give a fuck.

I don't believe you were surprised by that. You've been here plenty long enough to know better.

 

[IG_88]

That's more of an Alec Baldwin reference. You could just ask if you'd like to know more about me.

Shitty movie. The radio show was much better. Hence the reference.

No need to. Only talking to you now cuz most on here at the moment kinda suck.
I'll go back to filtering you out later.

 

[bestone4ever]

Ackbar was a pretty good guy who made a tactical error. He will be missed.


You might think so and it's not a bad guess but no.

You might also think I and others don't know who you are. Reasonable enough assumption. But is it accurate? Only the Shadow knows. <----- Old timey radio reference just for you.

Shitty movie. The radio show was much better. Hence the reference.

No need to. Only talking to you now cuz most on here at the moment kinda suck.
I'll go back to filtering you out later.

Used to post pics with my girl, forgot about this place for years, booted up an old desktop, found this place again, the end. You're all caught up.

 

[Rotadom]

I hope this is "FAKE NEWS"!

Man shows up to site of Santa Fe High School shooting with American flag, Trump hat and gun

https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ol-shooting-with-flag-trump-hat-gun/23438065/

 

[HisArpy]

You saying a thing doesn’t make it true. Despite your claim, of course there are unbiased gun studies because some folk want to, you know, do research and follow the data...unlike Lott, whose biased and flawed research you cited and are still clinging to, it seems.

Cite? Because the ONLY studies I know of are those that are either commissioned by political parties, the anti-gun groups, or the pro-gun groups. Even the CDC had it's funding removed because it was compiling data to fit the anti-gun narrative rather than doing the research from a neutral point of view.

There are NO "unbiased" gun studies out there. None. If you know of one, I'd like to read it. Mostly because in the nearly 3 decades I've been keeping up on this, I have yet to see one. Ever. From any source.

You seem entrenched in your view that guns and gun control don’t factor into gun violence and mass shootings...is that so?

No. Without guns, there is no GUN violence. This is the mantra the anti-gun crowd chant all day long. Except it's a false flag that focuses on GUN instead of VIOLENCE.

Is domestic violence less severe if the victim is beaten to death rather than killed with a gun?

Are bank robberies less a crime if the robber uses a note saying he has a bomb instead of pointing a gun at the cashier?

Is rape less damaging if done at the point of a knife?

Violence happens. That it sometimes happens with a gun doesn't alter the fact that violence happens. Saying that THE GUN is what causes it is stupid. If you want to stop VIOLENCE then look at the source... the person who commits it. Not the tool he uses.

 

[Sean]

Cite? Because the ONLY studies I know of are those that are either commissioned by political parties, the anti-gun groups, or the pro-gun groups. Even the CDC had it's funding removed because it was compiling data to fit the anti-gun narrative rather than doing the research from a neutral point of view.

There are NO "unbiased" gun studies out there. None. If you know of one, I'd like to read it. Mostly because in the nearly 3 decades I've been keeping up on this, I have yet to see one. Ever. From any source.



No. Without guns, there is no GUN violence. This is the mantra the anti-gun crowd chant all day long. Except it's a false flag that focuses on GUN instead of VIOLENCE.

Is domestic violence less severe if the victim is beaten to death rather than killed with a gun?

Are bank robberies less a crime if the robber uses a note saying he has a bomb instead of pointing a gun at the cashier?

Is rape less damaging if done at the point of a knife?

Violence happens. That it sometimes happens with a gun doesn't alter the fact that violence happens. Saying that THE GUN is what causes it is stupid. If you want to stop VIOLENCE then look at the source... the person who commits it. Not the tool he uses.

The CDC were banned from doing gun studies because the NRA bribed enough pols to stop them.

 

[bestone4ever]

Cite? Because the ONLY studies I know of are those that are either commissioned by political parties, the anti-gun groups, or the pro-gun groups. Even the CDC had it's funding removed because it was compiling data to fit the anti-gun narrative rather than doing the research from a neutral point of view.

There are NO "unbiased" gun studies out there. None. If you know of one, I'd like to read it. Mostly because in the nearly 3 decades I've been keeping up on this, I have yet to see one. Ever. From any source.



No. Without guns, there is no GUN violence. This is the mantra the anti-gun crowd chant all day long. Except it's a false flag that focuses on GUN instead of VIOLENCE.

Is domestic violence less severe if the victim is beaten to death rather than killed with a gun?

Are bank robberies less a crime if the robber uses a note saying he has a bomb instead of pointing a gun at the cashier?

Is rape less damaging if done at the point of a knife?

Violence happens. That it sometimes happens with a gun doesn't alter the fact that violence happens. Saying that THE GUN is what causes it is stupid. If you want to stop VIOLENCE then look at the source... the person who commits it. Not the tool he uses.

I would like to read these studies you speak of, learn why you deem them to be unsuitable, and then discuss our findings.

 

[HisArpy]

The CDC were banned from doing gun studies because the NRA bribed enough pols to stop them.

if funded again by Congress, would end a virtual 17 year ban which stipulates, quite appropriately, that none of CDC’s federal financing can be used to advocate or promote gun control…exactly what CDC was originally doing.

In 1996, the Congress axed $2.6 million allocated for gun research from the CDC out of its $2.2 billion budget, charging that its studies were being driven by anti-gun prejudice.
Forbes article

Government-funded research was openly biased in the 1990s. CDC officials unabashedly supported gun bans and poured millions of dollars into “research” that was, in fact, advocacy. One of the lead researchers employed in the CDC’s effort was quoted, stating “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” Another researcher said he envisioned a long-term campaign “to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”
Politico article

It wasn't the NRA. The CDC was doing EXACTLY what I said all gun studies have done. They started with a conclusion and then worked backwards to find evidence to support it and ignored evidence which refuted it.

This is in direct opposition to the 2013 CDC report commissioned by Obama which found:

Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.
CNS article

It wasn't the NRA bribing anyone. It was the fact that anti-gun agenda's were controlling the results and people got tired of fake data and phony conclusions that were provably false. Even the 2013 report has biased conclusions in it where they shade their findings one way or the other.

 

[Sean]

It wasn't the NRA. The CDC was doing EXACTLY what I said all gun studies have done. They started with a conclusion and then worked backwards to find evidence to support it and ignored evidence which refuted it.

This is in direct opposition to the 2013 CDC report commissioned by Obama which found:



It wasn't the NRA bribing anyone. It was the fact that anti-gun agenda's were controlling the results and people got tired of fake data and phony conclusions that were provably false. Even the 2013 report has biased conclusions in it where they shade their findings one way or the other.

Gosh, NRA prostitutes in congress claimed the CDC was an anti gun...thing.

 

[HisArpy]

I would like to read these studies you speak of, learn why you deem them to be unsuitable, and then discuss our findings.

Do your own research. Once you do that, THEN we can discuss the findings. Otherwise what you want me to do is spoon-feed you information so you can glance through it for nuggets to show your position is correct and mine is not while having no real understanding of the actual data or issue.

Read the studies. Here's a small start. There's LOTS more out there:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gun+violence+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Don't forget to track who wrote it and who paid for it. Eventually you'll start to see that some familiar names keep popping up.

 

[Sean]

Do your own research. Once you do that, THEN we can discuss the findings. Otherwise what you want me to do is spoon-feed you information so you can glance through it for nuggets to show your position is correct and mine is not while having no real understanding of the actual data or issue.

Read the studies. Here's a small start. There's LOTS more out there:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gun+violence+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Don't forget to track who wrote it and who paid for it. Eventually you'll start to see that some familiar names keep popping up.

What's the level of gun crime in the UK?

 

[HisArpy]

Gosh, NRA prostitutes in congress claimed the CDC was an anti gun...thing.

As if the words from the CDC scientists that they are the ones doing it have no meaning...

Christ on a cracker.

 

[lovecraft68]

If you love the kids you'll stop talking about gun control and stop blaming the NRA and GOP for teenage monsters capable of killing other kids like its a video game. This last animal was making damn bombs and planting them around the school...I suppose the NRA sold him the ingredients, taught him how to make them, where to put them? Instilled in him the desire to do this?

These kids are sick, this society is sick. It has nothing to do with guns, everything to do with shitty parents paying no mind to their kids and a society that never wants to take responsibility for anything

 

[HisArpy]

What's the level of gun crime in the UK?

AGAIN, it's a false flag narrative. GUN violence is VIOLENCE done with a gun. Take out the GUN part and you STILL HAVE violence. And guess what - the category you now classify it in isn't GUN VIOLENCE anymore but some other category like "violent crime". So the result is that you have FALSE DATA showing a reduction in GUN crimes while the data for OTHER crimes rises.

I already said this. And you missed it.