more sandy hook questions.

[tjts1]

Lemme chime in... There are people with a lot of money and influence who want to see certain changes occur in this nation...they are cut-throat and don't give a damn about what the cost is, even if it is the lives of children (because it's not their own children that will be sacrificed)... The pull strings behind the scenes and pay ppl off to do things, say things in the media, or keep their mouths shut about things.

Yup. And these people are called

One of the most powerful lobby groups DC.

[2761377]

Yup. And these people are called

One of the most powerful lobby groups DC.

er, McFly- it's your people who want to change things. The NRA wants to maintain the status quo.

[tjts1]

er, McFly- it's your people who want to change things. The NRA wants to maintain the status quo.

Thats true and its going to take a lot of money to maintain the status quo when the majority of people are demanding change.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/15/poll-majority-of-americans-support-gun-control-assault-weapons-ban/

[2761377]

lol- a link to a msnbc story is as smart as linking fox news. try wikipedia next time- it has more credibility

[tjts1]

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/01/texmessage-poll-shows-texans-favor-assault-weapons-ban/

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2013/01/poll-shows-wide-support-among-californians-assault-weapon-sales-ban

http://times-news.com/local/x503833961/Poll-Maryland-voters-support-assault-weapons-ban

http://www.golocalprov.com/news/poll-most-rhode-islanders-support-ban-on-assault-weapons/

http://citizensvoice.com/news/poll-pa-voters-want-assault-weapons-banned-1.1437423

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20130124-NEWS-130129853

http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/New-Yorkers-Support-Assault-Weapons-Ban-Poll-Says-187302951.html

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-13/news/bs-md-gun-poll-20130113_1_support-capital-punishment-penalty-gun-control

http://www.therepublic.com/view/stor...n-Control-Poll

http://lakeville.patch.com/articles/poll-sheriff-supports-an-assault-weapons-ban-where-do-you-stand

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/17923449-452/gun-control-has-public-support.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...aws-86262.html

[mar1t1me]

er, McFly- it's your people who want to change things. The NRA wants to maintain the status quo.

Of course, that assumes that the status quo is a good thing.

The NRA has removed itself from the mainstream. After lobbying for legislators to essentially make it impossible for existing gun laws to be enforced, it then decries attempts at more effective laws claiming there are plenty of gun laws already on the books, so more are not necessary. It is making ludicrous claims out of desperation. Their new bleat, which is "more guns = more safety" is such a logical fallacy as to be laughable. Just as we have seen with the cases of Keith Ratliff and Chris Kyle, being surrounded by guns, and being proficient in their use is no guarantee of safety. In fact, ownership of guns is correlated with a greater, not lesser likelihood of being injured or killed by gunfire. The actual data suggests that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a family member than to be used against an intruder.

The NRA successfully lobbied to prevent law enforcement from tracking gun serial numbers, from requiring gun dealers to keep an accurate inventory of their stock, and influenced legislators to reduce the crime of falsifying gun records by dealers from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Hilariously, Todd Tiahrt, the very man whose efforts in 2003 rendered the ability of the BATF to enforce existing laws impotent, recently called for the more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, further stating that state and local authorities should not be involved. Who does he suggest? Why the BATF, of course.....the very agency he helped to neuter.

If this is the status quo, I, and apparently lots of other Americans, want no part of it.

[decay]

Ok but at least you agree with the dumb dick head part if all one is capable of is insulting someone.

wrong again.

you can't even correctly describe your conspiracy theory as a "false flag" operation, which is what you mean, rather than "hoax".

maybe if you give your ideas a little more bake time, they'll be worth addressing, but right now, they aren't well-formed enough to address; so that leaves us with only your shortcomings as a person to discuss. dumbfuck.

[mar1t1me]

maybe if you give your ideas a little more bake time, they'll be worth addressing, but right now, they aren't well-formed enough to address; so that leaves us with only your shortcomings as a person to discuss. dumbfuck.

I find this highly unlikely.

[z31maniac]

Of course, that assumes that the status quo is a good thing.

The NRA has removed itself from the mainstream. After lobbying for legislators to essentially make it impossible for existing gun laws to be enforced, it then decries attempts at more effective laws claiming there are plenty of gun laws already on the books, so more are not necessary. It is making ludicrous claims out of desperation. Their new bleat, which is "more guns = more safety" is such a logical fallacy as to be laughable. Just as we have seen with the cases of Keith Ratliff and Chris Kyle, being surrounded by guns, and being proficient in their use is no guarantee of safety. In fact, ownership of guns is correlated with a greater, not lesser likelihood of being injured or killed by gunfire. The actual data suggests that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a family member than to be used against an intruder.

The NRA successfully lobbied to prevent law enforcement from tracking gun serial numbers, from requiring gun dealers to keep an accurate inventory of their stock, and influenced legislators to reduce the crime of falsifying gun records by dealers from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Hilariously, Todd Tiahrt, the very man whose efforts in 2003 rendered the ability of the BATF to enforce existing laws impotent, recently called for the more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws, further stating that state and local authorities should not be involved. Who does he suggest? Why the BATF, of course.....the very agency he helped to neuter.

If this is the status quo, I, and apparently lots of other Americans, want no part of it.

I like reading your posts because you always present a well thought out and research position, but when it comes to gun control I have to disagree.

That 43x likely number, does that break down suicide vs domestic violence? Many quoted John Stewarts 30k+ gun violence death numbers recently, but when you do the research, you find that 75% of those were suicides..........twisting the numbers to fit an agenda, wouldn't you say?

And from the other thread that all the gun control opponents keep ignoring.

Have any statistics to back up your assumption that harsher penalties reduce crimes?

How has the 3 strike rule worked out in California?


How does any of the proposed legislation keep guns out of the hands of criminals vs law-abiding citizens? Pull up gun crime statistics in Chicago, D.C. and England after the ban of hand guns?

The "need" argument is bullshit as well. I don't need a 420hp 160mph muscle car to drive to work every day either, so find a fact-based argument instead of tired anecdotes and personal feelings.

[mar1t1me]

I like reading your posts because you always present a well thought out and research position

Thank you. That's a high compliment, indeed.

That 43x likely number, does that break down suicide vs domestic violence? Many quoted John Stewarts 30k+ gun violence death numbers recently, but when you do the research, you find that 75% of those were suicides..........twisting the numbers to fit an agenda, wouldn't you say?

According to revised research, it's true, that after adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) that the 43x number is high. However, there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups. Further, this risk was essentially entirely attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance with a handgun which was kept loaded and unlocked in the house.

All that to say that you or your family are more likely to die from the very firearms that were ostensibly purchased with protection in mind. To me, it's rather like a healthy person taking a drug everyday to try and protect from cancer that is 3 times more likely to result in their death than the cancer they are trying to prevent. We'd call such a person illogical....

...and if the gun is locked safely away, then it won't be much good as protection in the much ballyhooed "home invasion" type of event.

[mrsleeve]

...and if the gun is locked safely away, then it won't be much good as protection in the much ballyhooed "home invasion" type of event.

yet much more common than the even more "ballyhooed" school shootings

[z31maniac]

Thank you. That's a high compliment, indeed.



According to revised research, it's true, that after adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) that the 43x number is high. However, there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups. Further, this risk was essentially entirely attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance with a handgun which was kept loaded and unlocked in the house.

All that to say that you or your family are more likely to die from the very firearms that were ostensibly purchased with protection in mind. To me, it's rather like a healthy person taking a drug everyday to try and protect from cancer that is 3 times more likely to result in their death than the cancer they are trying to prevent. We'd call such a person illogical....

...and if the gun is locked safely away, then it won't be much good as protection in the much ballyhooed "home invasion" type of event.

Another good post, but again, address my own post I quoted.

[Kershaw]

lol- a link to a msnbc story is as smart as linking fox news. try wikipedia next time- it has more credibility

[j0oftheworld]

Sandy Hook actors singing @ the Superbowl!

[LSM3]

Sandy Hook actors singing @ the Superbowl!

I cant believe their alien overlords allowed them to do so!

If you move some letters around in Sandy Hook you get Andy Shook...

http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook

Coincidence? I THINK NOT!!!!

Signs are everywhere people. WAKE UP!!