Despite the loss, Pop had a great message, IMO

[ElNono]

Of course we do that with pools because nobody is ever going to advocate taking them all away. I don't see Presidential candidates wanting pool makers to be responsible for the drownings in a pool. Numerous proven ineffective policies with the end goal to ultimately take guns away. Of course people are going to take actions to protect their rights.

You're going to continue to have ineffective policies on anything if you flat out ban research on it, tbh... we went through something similar with cigarettes for decades, until we were able to, more or less, rein it in. Did cigarettes get banned or confiscated? no, but now we have some common sense policies based on actual research and science that has given us positive results in that area. There's no room for "well, in the 60's we used to smoke in school and it was normal" when you can move from anecdotal to actual fact finding.

[Nathan89]

You're going to continue to have ineffective policies on anything if you flat out ban research on it, tbh... we went through something similar with cigarettes for decades, until we were able to, more or less, rein it in. Did cigarettes get banned or confiscated? no, but now we have some common sense policies based on actual research and science that has given us positive results in that area. There's no room for "well, in the 60's we used to smoke in school and it was normal" when you can move from anecdotal to actual fact finding.

Ineffective/malicious policies are not being proposed because the CDC lacks funding. They are being proposed because they have different goals. Or just about being tough on guns with the spin of it being a plus for the public. Sort of like being tough on crime was able to rally up the American people and often it was a huge negative. That was and still is irrelevant because it sounds good regardless of the effectiveness. Now you have that same logic behind proven ineffective policies by politicians on the left. They know they are ineffective but they don't care because they can rally up the base behind it just like "tough on crime" use to rally up the vast majority of Americans. On top of that they know even the majority of their base doesn't like the extreme option of banning guns. So they get that plus of continuously chipping away at gun usage and continued extreme narrative in route to the ultimate goal of banning all guns.

If it's about saving lives then they should be all on board to banning alcohol. They aren't. It's about rallying up the base but they won't say "ban guns" because the majority of the base doesn't agree with that. So they'll propose the ineffective policies because in sounds good like "tough on crime". And that pretty clear when the Presidential candidate is proposing to hold gun manufactures responsible for crimes committed with their guns.

"By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. "

"Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.6fb7e3d68d11

But narrowly tailored effective policies from the Presidential candidate is not what we got. We got divisive and ineffective policies to rally up the base.

[Isitjustme?]

Ineffective/malicious policies are not being proposed because the CDC lacks funding. They are being proposed because they have different goals. Or just about being tough on guns with the spin of it being a plus for the public. Sort of like being tough on crime was able to rally up the American people and often it was a huge negative. That was and still is irrelevant because it sounds good regardless of the effectiveness. Now you have that same logic behind proven ineffective policies by politicians on the left. They know they are ineffective but they don't care because they can rally up the base behind it just like "tough on crime" use to rally up the vast majority of Americans. On top of that they know even the majority of their base doesn't like the extreme option of banning guns. So they get that plus of continuously chipping away at gun usage and continued extreme narrative in route to the ultimate goal of banning all guns.

If it's about saving lives then they should be all on board to banning alcohol. They aren't. It's about rallying up the base but they won't say "ban guns" because the majority of the base doesn't agree with that. So they'll propose the ineffective policies because in sounds good like "tough on crime". And that pretty clear when the Presidential candidate is proposing to hold gun manufactures responsible for crimes committed with their guns.

"By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. "

"Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.6fb7e3d68d11

But narrowly tailored effective policies from the Presidential candidate is not what we got. We got divisive and ineffective policies to rally up the base.

You're a stupid person who thinks he's smart

[DMC]

I like Pop. This just keeps him from having to say the same boring ass basketball lines over and over. He hates that . Give more effort, rebound the ball, cut hard, pass crisp, find the open shooter, take the open shot, keep your mind in the game, etc...


This is like a vacation to him.

[Nathan89]

You're a stupid person who thinks he's smart

Thanks for your meaningless input. Certainly the contribution of someone with great intelligence.

[HarlemHeat37]

Kawhi and Pop not getting along, only a few months after Aldridge and Pop clashed..add it to the list..

This old white man says all the right things, but he just can't relate to young Black Americans, tbh..

[ElNono]

Ineffective/malicious policies are not being proposed because the CDC lacks funding. They are being proposed because they have different goals. Or just about being tough on guns with the spin of it being a plus for the public. Sort of like being tough on crime was able to rally up the American people and often it was a huge negative. That was and still is irrelevant because it sounds good regardless of the effectiveness. Now you have that same logic behind proven ineffective policies by politicians on the left. They know they are ineffective but they don't care because they can rally up the base behind it just like "tough on crime" use to rally up the vast majority of Americans. On top of that they know even the majority of their base doesn't like the extreme option of banning guns. So they get that plus of continuously chipping away at gun usage and continued extreme narrative in route to the ultimate goal of banning all guns.

If it's about saving lives then they should be all on board to banning alcohol. They aren't. It's about rallying up the base but they won't say "ban guns" because the majority of the base doesn't agree with that. So they'll propose the ineffective policies because in sounds good like "tough on crime". And that pretty clear when the Presidential candidate is proposing to hold gun manufactures responsible for crimes committed with their guns.

"By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. "

"Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.6fb7e3d68d11

But narrowly tailored effective policies from the Presidential candidate is not what we got. We got divisive and ineffective policies to rally up the base.

The CDC is forbidden by law to research gun violence. At least have the decency to read my posts before answering. I get it, you're not really interested in any other angle. That's your choice.

Plus you tack an opinion piece when I argued that what we need are fact-based research. Plenty of opinions around, tbh, that's obviously not getting us anywhere.

I don't care about the political angle. I'm sure there's plenty of people on both sides ready to use the fresh dead to make a political point. Underlying that, there's an actual problem that affects society and needs to be seriously looked at, IMO, without wearing partisan glasses.

[Nathan89]

The CDC is forbidden by law to research gun violence. At least have the decency to read my posts before answering. I get it, you're not really interested in any other angle. That's your choice.

Plus you tack an opinion piece when I argued that what we need are fact-based research. Plenty of opinions around, tbh, that's obviously not getting us anywhere.

I don't care about the political angle. I'm sure there's plenty of people on both sides ready to use the fresh dead to make a political point. Underlying that, there's an actual problem that affects society and needs to be seriously looked at, IMO, without wearing partisan glasses.

I read your post. It suggested that absurd policies were the result of the CDC ban and a comparison to cigarettes. I countered that with research showing that the policies are ineffective. There are areas that could make a difference but aren't talked about because they don't rally up the base.

Yeah, an opinion based on analyzing research.

Sure, it should be investigated. I'm not arguing it shouldn't. I was just stating why that would come into existence. It's not hard to understand. Also countering your point of that being a reason for proven ineffective policies. The proclivity to push those policies is indeed the reason why people would go to extremes like that to defend their rights.

Meanwhile thousands dead from drunk driving every year and not a peep. This isn't about saving lives. It's about rallying the base.

[ElNono]

I read your post. It suggested that absurd policies were the result of the CDC ban and a comparison to cigarettes. I countered that with research showing that the policies are ineffective. There are areas that could make a difference but aren't talked about because they don't rally up the base.

Yeah, an opinion based on analyzing research.

Sure, it should be investigated. I'm not arguing it shouldn't. I was just stating why that would come into existence. It's not hard to understand. Also countering your point of that being a reason for proven ineffective policies. The proclivity to push those policies is indeed the reason why people would go to extremes like that to defend their rights.

Meanwhile thousands dead from drunk driving every year and not a peep. This isn't about saving lives. It's about rallying the base.

No, bro, actual law results in the CDC being impaired to actually do research. This type of sociological research takes years, maybe decades. The mere fact that an agency that happens to be in charge of researching that kind of stuff is banned from doing so, is just absurd. It's the same stupid ban on researching weed. If there's any good qualities to it (and I'm not saying there are, one way or another, we don't know), we're missing out strictly on dogma and moral outrage.

I read the entire article you posted. It's respectable like any opinion, but difficult to agree or disagree with because there's simply nothing to reference against, and that's the problem with most opinions on a subject that needs a lot less opinion and a lot more research.

I also disagree with 'not a peep from drunk driving'. We have regulations in place, stiff fines, DUI controls, removal of your privilege to drive for repeat offenders, and you still can go to a liquor store and buy alcohol (ie: nobody got a drink confiscated in their homes or alcohol outright banned, at least since the prohibition). Fact is, drunk driving fatalities have been cut in half since 1970 (here).

I'm not even arguing there's a silver bullet out there for this, but if we don't even actively look for a solution, we can't expect to find one, tbh.

[ceds]

Give me one good reason for sniper rifles to be legal in Texas?

Trumps idiotic response to arm teachers with guns is ing mind blowing

Gun nut culture

[Nathan89]

I also disagree with 'not a peep from drunk driving'. We have regulations in place, stiff fines, DUI controls, removal of your privilege to drive for repeat offenders, and you still can go to a liquor store and buy alcohol (ie: nobody got a drink confiscated in their homes or alcohol outright banned, at least since the prohibition). Fact is, drunk driving fatalities have been cut in half since 1970 (here).

I'm not even arguing there's a silver bullet out there for this, but if we don't even actively look for a solution, we can't expect to find one, tbh.

Nobody is screaming to ban alcohol. And that's not the long term goal. I consistently see people wanting to settle for middle ground with guns with the ultimate goal of banning in long term. I don't see any of that with alcohol.

We also have gun laws and stiff fines and penalties for misuse. Also gun fatalities have been on a massive decline as well.

There were solutions in that article and I don't think those solutions would qualify as gun control so the CDC would be fine to investigate.

[Nathan89]

Give me one good reason for sniper rifles to be legal in Texas?

Trumps idiotic response to arm teachers with guns is ing mind blowing

Gun nut culture

Arming teachers isn't necessary for an insignificant amount of murders on school property.

That being said finger print gun holsters makes having guns on campus not such a big deal.

[ElNono]

Nobody is screaming to ban alcohol. And that's not the long term goal. I consistently see people wanting to settle for middle ground with guns with the ultimate goal of banning in long term. I don't see any of that with alcohol.

We also have gun laws and stiff fines and penalties for misuse. Also gun fatalities have been on a massive decline as well.

There were solutions in that article and I don't think those solutions would qualify as gun control so the CDC would be fine to investigate.

The CDC needs the muzzle taken away from research into violent gun crime, period. There should be no reason to limit research. It might not bring any news, but it's worth a try, and it's much better than throwing hands up in the air and doing nothing.

Anybody looking for an outright ban of all weapons doesn't understand it would require a Cons utional amendment and that's never going to fly, tbh, no point in arguing with that people.

But it would be good to have a discussion based on actual fact finding and long term research instead of having these discussions about "if a good guy with a gun" or "if background checks this or that", etc every time there's an incident of this type.

[ceds]

Arming teachers isn't necessary for an insignificant amount of murders on school property.

That being said finger print gun holsters makes having guns on campus not such a big deal.

Your're missing the point.

Instead of banning the guns Trumps response is to arm teachers which just adds more fuel to the fire.

The response should be a total ban on semi's & tightening of controls like more progressive countries have done years ago.

Give me one good reason sniper rifles are legal?? protection for an enemy 4km away?? please

[Play Boban]

Kawhi is a Republican, which is why he hates poop and wants out tbh. And who can blame him with this Jane Fonda wannabe leading the team?

[SAGirl]

I only read the first page or so... but this thread is the season in a nuts ,
plus Kiwi having a Tiago-in-ATL season.

[ceds]

The CDC needs the muzzle taken away from research into violent gun crime, period. There should be no reason to limit research. It might not bring any news, but it's worth a try, and it's much better than throwing hands up in the air and doing nothing.

Anybody looking for an outright ban of all weapons doesn't understand it would require a Cons utional amendment and that's never going to fly, tbh, no point in arguing with that people.

it's called an amendment....of course a change can happen

prohibition....slavery etc...

[ElNono]

it's called an amendment....of course a change can happen

prohibition....slavery etc...

I didn't say it couldn't happen, I said it's not going to fly. You need 2/3 of the votes in both the Senate and the House, then it needs to be ratified by 3/4 of the States.

I don't know what country you're living in, or if you're extremely young, but there's better chances of turning water into gold than passing an amendment, especially on this polarizing topic, IMO.

[ceds]

I didn't say it couldn't happen, I said it's not going to fly. You need 2/3 of the votes in both the Senate and the House, then it needs to be ratified by 3/4 of the States.

I don't know what country you're living in, or if you're extremely young, but there's better chances of turning water into gold than passing an amendment, especially on this polarizing topic, IMO.

I'm an Aussie and have no idea about American politics so im not going to pretend to know.....i have been to Texas which was a total shock tbh

All i see is whats in world news which is Trump ing up in one way or another and a new gun massacre just about every month.

[Nathan89]

I'm an Aussie and have no idea about American politics so im not going to pretend to know.....i have been to Texas which was a total shock tbh

All i see is whats in world news which is Trump ing up in one way or another and a new gun massacre just about every month.

Oh, explains why you think America should jump the gun over an insignificant statistic. Because that's what Australia did.

"The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gunlaws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the samedata have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does notappear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearmdeaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a meansto identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA didnot have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."

http://melbourneins ute.unimelb.ed.../wp2008n17.pdf

[ceds]

Oh, explains why you think America should jump the gun over an insignificant statistic. Because that's what Australia did.

"The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gunlaws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the samedata have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does notappear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearmdeaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a meansto identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA didnot have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."

http://melbourneins ute.unimelb.ed.../wp2008n17.pdf

we actually had ~10 massacres in years before port Arthur and none since the ban....Port Arthur was the final straw
You guys have Canada next door as an example that this works

It costs 35k on the black market to buy the same semi's you guys can get in wall mart for 1k

Aside from a drug war in the early 2000's it's been peaceful ever since.

The movement (protests) are starting to gain some traction in your country....it's a shame its going to take more massacres to force a change.

Can you give me 1 legit reason for a sniper rifle to be legal?

[Nathan89]

we actually had ~10 massacres in years before port Arthur and none since the ban....Port Arthur was the final straw
You guys have Canada next door as an example that this works

It costs 35k on the black market to buy the same semi's you guys can get in wall mart for 1k

Aside from a drug war in the early 2000's it's been peaceful ever since.

The movement (protests) are starting to gain some traction in your country....it's a shame its going to take more massacres to force a change.

Can you give me 1 legit reason for a sniper rifle to be legal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Here is you list of mass murders. There wasn't anything significant before the 35.

Thanks for not responding to anything I posted. Which is your knee jerk response debate-ably didn't even impact firearm and suicide rates in your country.

Yeah, movement of knee jerk reaction over insignificant statistics of mass murders. Sometimes they even talk about suicide by firearm which is also irrelevant. Australia has a similar suicide rate to America.

Why should a sniper rifle be illegal over alcohol? Why hasn't Australia banned alcohol? It causes many deaths. Probably because you can't fear monger over something that the vast majority of people like. It all boils down to a selfish perspective. I like X so we will keep X. I don't like Y so lets get rid of it.

[Nathan89]

On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued "Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons." Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own "truncheons or stabbing weapons."

Also your so called wonderful movement is in love with some recency bias without any perspective. Volunteering to be in the vulnerable position that the Jews were strategically placed in because of some insignificant statistic.

It would be like having a basketball shooting compe ion where 2/3's are taken on one side of the court and on the other side half court shots worth 6 million are taken. You have one defender that has to choose to guard the paint or the half court shot. You are the idiot guarding the paint. The is the insignificant mass murders you see today.

[ceds]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_Australia

Here is you list of mass murders. There wasn't anything significant before the 35.

Thanks for not responding to anything I posted. Which is your knee jerk response debate-ably didn't even impact firearm and suicide rates in your country.

Yeah, movement of knee jerk reaction over insignificant statistics of mass murders. Sometimes they even talk about suicide by firearm which is also irrelevant. Australia has a similar suicide rate to America.

Why should a sniper rifle be illegal over alcohol? Why hasn't Australia banned alcohol? It causes many deaths. Probably because you can't fear monger over something that the vast majority of people like. It all boils down to a selfish perspective. I like X so we will keep X. I don't like Y so lets get rid of it.

List of countries by firearm-related death rate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate



" off!! i like guns" That's the only argument you've got.

[Nathan89]

[/B]


List of countries by firearm-related death rate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate



" off!! i like guns" That's the only argument you've got.

That bolded part was about alcohol and why you don't see the outcry for banning alcohol even though numerous people die every year from it. Even a significant amount of innocent people via drunk driving. Yet you see the swiftness to ban it in Australia. It's because the majority people like alcohol and difficult to fear monger about it.

I don't own any guns.

The majority of fire arm deaths are from suicides and guess that rate similar between Australia and the US. Australia casualties from guns was already on a massive decline before the ban which is why they studies show no significant change from your knee jerk reactions.

Anyways why aren't you pushing a ban on alcohol? It cause many deaths in your country?