|
point of return posted:Especially because the majority of victims are the same person as the perpetrator.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
point of return posted:Especially because the majority of victims are the same person as the perpetrator. I figured someone would make that point. I was more alluding to the seemingly widespread fantasy that you are going to have time for a movie style shootout with your attacker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:I figured someone would make that point. I was more alluding to the seemingly widespread fantasy that you are going to have time for a movie style shootout with your attacker. http://kxan.com/2015/01/14/texas-gun-owners-re-enact-charlie-hebdo-massacre/ PLANO, Texas (CNN/KTVT) — Some Texas gun owners decided to stage a re-enactment of the Charlie Hebdo office massacre. They wanted to see what might have happened if the victims had their own guns. Two actors playing gunmen enter quietly. They’re on a set designed to look like the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris. But unlike the terrorist attack that killed 12 people, in this exercise, volunteers are taking turns in the role of an armed civilian inside. “He started shooting, and I started shooting,” said gun owner Linda Cruz. Time and time again, that armed civilian dies — shot by a round that marks him or her with paint. In only two cases, they were able to take out one of two gunmen in the process. “It’s interesting to see how people react under stress,” said gun owner Nick Leghorn. “It’s not what you’d expect people do.” A group called The Truth About Guns organized the simulation, hoping to learn how things might have been different in Paris — or any other mass shooting. “It’s the one people are Monday-morning-quarterbacking at the moment,” said Leghorn. Parks Matthew is a father of four and was curious to see what instinct would kick in. “If I’m in a movie theater and someone pulls a gun, what am I going to do?” he said. “I know now I’m not going to just fall on my kids and protect them; I need to advance on the threat.” He walked away armed with a little more information. “Still got killed, but did better than I thought I would,” said Matthew. In the end, only one of the 12 volunteer victims in the exercise survived. And it was because she ran away. No one was able to take out both mock shooters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to calls for making yet another ultimately futile attempt at passing new restrictions on semi-automatic rifles when the TV shooter (and most of those who commit gun violence, for that matter) used a pistol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:But doesn't America disqualify itself from having an opinion on research and comparative study of gun violence being used in the debate because they banned it? There is no ban on gun violence data collection. The FBI and CDC publish numbers every year. The ban is on using federal money to fund partisan research.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There is no ban on gun violence data collection. The FBI and CDC publish numbers every year. The ban is on using federal money to fund partisan research. What? Prove this. quote:“Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.” http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx quote:Research on the prevention of firearm-related injury, supported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and coordinated within CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), has come under attack from Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee initially rejected Rep. Dickey's attempt to eliminate the $2.6 million dedicated to CDC firearm-injury research. However, Mr. Dickey prevailed in the full Appropriations Committee. The Dickey amendment would transfer the $2.6 million to regional health education centers. This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA. The NRA has taken the position that firearm-related injury research at the CDC amounts to 'antigun' political advocacy and has also attacked the quality of this research. However, research proposals submitted to CDC are subject to a peer review process that follows standard practices. APA's Public Policy Office (PPO) has distributed accurate information to Congress on the nature of CDC-supported firearm-injury research and is advocating against the Dickey amendment. The only one's who think its partisan is the NRA. Who loudly pushed to FULLY DEFUND THE CDC if they allowed research on Gun Violence. The Surgeon General was bashed for declaring gun violence a public health issue. I think you are defining partisan as 'Anything anti-Gun' which literally means any negative study, or any study at all, into gun violence, counts as partisan. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There is no ban on gun violence data collection. The FBI and CDC publish numbers every year. The ban is on using federal money to fund partisan research. What the data shows conflicts with my opinion therefore it is partisan. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
The language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill that everyone claims banned gun violence research is: "That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." (Pg 245.) The CDC's interpretation is: "In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms." Nothing in that passage bans research, just advocacy. It was put in place because some researchers receiving money from the CDC were in fact engaged in advocacy. There is no law against state and private agencies researching or promoting whatever they want. VVV EDIT: I believe that would be covered under the anti-lobbying act. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Technically speaking that reads like it's only a ban on gun control advocacy, so if you want to use federal funding to advocate "you get a gun, and you get a gun, everybody gets a gun" I guess that's OK. I could be wrong, however.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill that everyone claims banned gun violence research is: "That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." (Pg 245.) The CDC's interpretation is: "In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms." Nothing in that passage bans research, just advocacy. It was put in place because some researchers receiving money from the CDC were in fact engaged in advocacy. That doesn't make it partisan, however, the NRA and Legislative branch made a subtle hint that they would defund an entire agency if their reports showed negative effects from firearms. I'm sorry, that's not partisan. THIS. This is partisan. From the party that has a legacy of having poor views of science, yet suddenly they know what is scientific and what is not? quote:A Second Amendment rights advocate, in 1996 Dickey responded to a perceived bias on the part of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), whose research on firearm injuries and fatalities in the US was seen by Conservatives to be motivated more by pro gun-control politics rather than pure science.[3] Dickey successfully passed an amendment to eliminate $2.6 million from the CDC budget, reflecting the amount the CDC had previously spent on gun research. And rather ironically: quote:Following the mass shooting in Aurora, CO, Dickey publicly reversed his position on gun violence research, regretting that he had served as "the NRA’s point person in Congress" to suppress valid and valuable work, and called for new scientific research in the field. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That doesn't make it partisan, however, the NRA and Legislative branch made a subtle hint that they would defund an entire agency if their reports showed negative effects from firearms. Regardless, "a lobbying group said some things, and then their ally put some fairly benign language in an appropriations bill" is a biiiiiig walk back from, "America banned research on gun violence," which is what Rakosi (and others) have asserted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Okay but for real though, everyone asks if there's a bat signal in TFR or something and that's probably true idk I don't really post there often these days. But TBQH I luuuurrrve jumping into gun control in D&D because folks get so. loving. salty. over it in a way they just don't about almost any other issue. I'm not sure if I can really explain how it's different than normal bitching but it just is. I know you know what I'm talkin' 'bout. That and the powerlessness.  gently caress the rest of the developed world, victimless crimes in general are on the way out in the land of the free versus like 50 years ago and if you don't like you can d/w/i. Powerlessly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:42
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That money was restored with the final passage of the bill, although it was earmarked for community health initiatives. It was earmarked for traumatic brain injury research. C'mon man. quote:The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” ... quote:Stephen Teret, founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, estimated that the amount of money available for firearms research was a quarter of what it used to be. With so much uncertainty about financing, Mr. Teret said, the circle of academics who study the phenomenon has fallen off significantly. I think you need to re-think what counts as partisan if a group that openly advocated that Obama was a Muslim and promoted other wacko conspiracy theories including that Obama was going to come seize all firearms gets to decide what sort of community violence issues the CDC can and cannot talk about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:But TBQH I luuuurrrve jumping into gun control in D&D because folks get so. loving. salty. over it in a way they just don't about almost any other issue. I'm not sure if I can really explain how it's different than normal bitching but it just is. I know you know what I'm talkin' 'bout. That and the powerlessness. "Guns are just tools like a stapler or a butt plug okay. Plus, I feel safer carrying a firearm whenever a group of 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:It was earmarked for traumatic brain injury research. C'mon man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:"Guns are just tools like a stapler or a butt plug okay. Plus, I feel safer carrying a firearm whenever a group of It's not salty if you're not powerless. At least it's not the same kind of salt. Just my hot take.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Apologies, TBI. Anyway, it doesn't say anywhere that the NRA has a veto over CDC publications and research, just that they provide information to the NRA about what research they are doing. Which the NRA would probably FOIA if they didn't. No, they don't have OFFICAL Veto powers. They have defacto Veto powers. Because the CDC is afraid of having millions chopped out of their budget, or even their entire budget axed if they pissed of the NRA. How is that NOT a veto? Its hilarious that we can sit and talk about the dangers of partisan gun violence research, but a partisan pro-gun group can bark and growl their way into getting congress to threaten research institutions that conduct studies contrary to their wishes. Its not a matter of making the information 'available' to the NRA. The CDC wants to know how they will react so that they can cut ties ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
I will vote for any politician who promises to take away everyone's guns and to put all registered republicans and independents into loving camps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:http://kxan.com/2015/01/14/texas-gun-owners-re-enact-charlie-hebdo-massacre/ That's Foghorn, a TFR goon. Can he be trusted?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Okay but for real though, everyone asks if there's a bat signal in TFR or something and that's probably true idk I don't really post there often these days. I don't know what it is either, but yeah it's fun. The GBS thread is even more ridiculous because you can just act like a total rear end. Also I love these mechwarrior analogies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
All that really should be said about guns and gun ownership is this: "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side."
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
katlington posted:These are all horrible ways to classify guns when you're worried about murders and spree killings. So is worrying about "assault rifles," when you consider what type of weapon kills the most.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:All that really should be said about guns and gun ownership is this: "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side." Good blaster didn't do Han much good when he met Vader, now did it? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Good blaster didn't do Han much good when he met Vader, now did it? Counterpoint: That time han solo fought the sword guy in indiana jones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Professor Tomtom posted:I will vote for any politician who promises to take away everyone's guns and to put all registered republicans and independents into loving camps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Handguns for some, miniature American flags for others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:So is worrying about "assault rifles," when you consider what type of weapon kills the most. Whenever you see a gun fanboy argue that we should not regulate whatever obscure tough guy cosplay accessory because it is used in so few crimes, ask yourself how they feel about regulating weapons that are used in hundreds of thousands of crimes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's Foghorn, a TFR goon. Can he be trusted? Not to mention the fact that the so-called "good guy with a gun" may make mistakes and shoot innocent people. Surprise, people may act irrationally in a chaotic situation. Oh wait all gun owners are expert marksmen whose nerves put dirty harry's to shame, I forgot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Not to mention the fact that the so-called "good guy with a gun" may make mistakes and shoot innocent people. Surprise, people may act irrationally in a chaotic situation. This is the thing that kills me. "Guys, I took a 6hr class and occasionally shoot paper targets in a controlled environment with ear and eye protection. Just try and shoot me, you loving thugs. Just like American Sniper said, you're either a wolf or a sheep." 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:This is the thing that kills me. Well if it's good enough for the cops. http://www.salon.com/2013/12/05/nypd_shoot_bystanders_unarmed_target_gets_charged_with_assault/ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/nyregion/bystanders-shot-by-police-face-uphill-fight-to-win-lawsuits.html quote:As the police closed in, the gunman drew his .45-caliber handgun, and two officers opened fire, discharging 16 shots in all. Ten people were hit: the gunman, who was killed, and nine pedestrians caught in the hail and ricochet of police bullets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:This is the thing that kills me. The people in those recreations knew what was going to happen before hand, too, and still weren't able to accomplish anything. Had it been an actual unexpected attack they would have been even less effective, if not an actual detriment. Assuming of course that they don't poo poo their pants and forget they even have a gun while panicking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
I think that people who want them should be able to get guns, with the exception of the gun nuts who should be herded into reeducation camps and assigned BB guns to wean them off from their addiction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:I bought a sword in a shopping mall in NC once when I was much younger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:Well if it's good enough for the cops. Police firearm competency is a joke. Also a separate issue. Private citizens have no business wielding instant-death-machines at all times, because their heroic armed rescuer bullshit is pure  fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Police firearm competency is a joke. Also a separate issue. Literally the most spergy of spergy Goon posts pales in comparison to these adults trying to justify owning a gun (in context of gun ownership in the whole cultural context, not individual anecdotes), and all the excuses for their fantastical justifications really outstrip most other things I've seen on these forums. It's on par with new-earth creationism, for me. Cognitive dissonance at it's best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Police firearm competency is a joke. Also a separate issue. Ah yes the ol "because I say so" defense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Ah yes the ol "because I say so" defense. You're the side on the defense, I think. Because you've not offered one argument for having guns unrestricted in the manner they are currently that can't be digested into nationalist "It's are rights!!!".
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Ah yes the ol "because I say so" defense. Instead of stamping your feet and crying that "nobody's going to tell ME what to do!" , why don't you provide some compelling reasoning for private citizens having unfettered access to incredibly lethal and concealable weapons?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:Ah yes the ol "because I say so" defense. Ultimately all laws are "because I say so", what's your point?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Victimless crimes are bad because I say so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:40
|
|