Despite the loss, Pop had a great message, IMO

[DAF86]

There is no factual basis to say that is how all civilians react. None what so ever. The fact is the list of people in this country who have used guns to successfully defend themselves is not a short one and recent history shows us that even unarmed people are willing to confront armed terrorist. When you say gun fantics you have this picture in your mind of a bunch of neckbeards sitting in a bunker drinking beer and telling what they would have done is them "damn towel heads" tried to get them. That couldn't be further from the truth. The vast majority of gun owners in this country are just every day responsible law abiding citizens. Concealed carry ups the bar quite a bit and a lot of people will have a fair amount of range time and training if they decide to go that route. Your weapon is only as good as the person carrying it. FYI most of the guys I work with can out shoot the officers we work with by a great deal.

I totally agree with you that a little screwball kid can do infinitely more damage with a gun. No question, but the guns have always been here and the reality is they are far more difficult to get now than they have ever been. So what's different? From my perspective two parties bear the lions share of the blame. Our media is one of them. We have these media freenzies that to an extent they turn into a sick celebration of the horrendous event. And the louder it gets the more it helps to further purputrate the very idea all the talking heads are condeming. But it isJoe Q public who are ultimately the ones who tune in. It doesn't matter if they are liberal or conservative, they are all watching.

By "gun fanatics" I just meant "people that use guns a lot". I don't why you painted all that crazy scenario about what you thought I meant with that, tbh. :lol

[Spurtacular]

I think Gregg is gonna be alright; his accomplishments alone will get him an hour with someone. Out of curiosity, what do you contribute that would garner a 30 for 30?

Nah. That's Timmy's video. He just came along for the ride.

[Spurtacular]

Pop feeling extra Liberal today with Obama's painting being unveiled :lol

Pop never struck me as a liberal back in the day. While I don't don't doubt he has rolled some in that direction, I think he is trying to make his own legacy now. He knows the NBA and the associative media won't be pimping conservative white dudes at the end of the day.

[Spurtacular]

https://media.giphy.com/media/ylyUQlSKrT5rwoP2wg/giphy-downsized-large.gif

Who in government is a theocrat?

[Brazil]

Whatever you have to tell yourself there Mr Really Educated.

your capitulation is duly noted pos


I am quickly getting the impression that your MO is to avoid avoid avoid so you don't have to actually respond to the conversation. If that is the quite educated method then you might want to kindly ask for your money back.

Still thinking you are the one hitting a nerve ? :lol

after 14 years you finally found something to post about on this board.. Grats.. and you’re welcome red neck clown

:cry I just speak one language but I traveled a lot... that makes me a specialist of what a great country is :cry Murica :cry

[Atl Spur]

Nah. That's Timmy's video. He just came along for the ride.

Two people can have success that piggy backs and/or is intertwined with one another's accomplishments. Giving credit to his players has always been a constant.

[SequSpur]

I don't give a shit about Pop's message. When is this dumb ass going to realize we want to watch a team win or at least make fucking trades rather than rolling with guards that suck balls and bigs that play like fucking guards. I don't give a shit about his message honestly.

[Nathan89]

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

If you want to take away guns because it's dangerous then you should also want to take away alcohol tbh. They aren't saying anything though because they like alcohol. The fact that the only variable(from their perspective) that changes is "like" or "unlike" really pisses me off tbh. So fucking selfish.

[spurraider21]

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

If you want to take away guns because it's dangerous then you should also want to take away alcohol tbh. They aren't saying anything though because they like alcohol. The fact that the only variable(from their perspective) that changes is "like" or "unlike" really pisses me off tbh. So fucking selfish.
the parkland students would have been much safer if cruz had some vodka and a car rather than an AR-15

[Chris]

the parkland students would have been much safer if teachers,coaches, or vets were there with a gun to stop Cruz.

fify

[spurraider21]

fify
or if he had a less lethal weapon than an AR-15

[Chris]

or if he had a less lethal weapon than an AR-15

What's stopping Cruz from going into Mexico and getting an AR-15 then? You haven't thought this ban thingy out. I have. You would have to ban the entire North and South American continents and then screen every boat that comes to our shores for AR-15's. Gun control/bans is a dumb argument filled with holes.

[Nathan89]

the parkland students would have been much safer if cruz had some vodka and a car rather than an AR-15

Disregard 10,265 deaths just like that, huh? Like I said the only changing variable is that you like alcohol and not guns. Selfish.

[spurraider21]

What's stopping Cruz from going into Mexico and getting an AR-15 then? You haven't thought this ban thingy out. I have. You would have to ban the entire North and South American continents and then screen every boat that comes to our shores for AR-15's. Gun control/bans is a dumb argument filled with holes.
if he had a less lethal weapon than an AR-15, the kids would have been safer

[spurraider21]

Disregard 10,265 deaths just like that, huh? Like I said the only changing variable is that you like alcohol and not guns. Selfish.
the difference between number of drunk drivers and shooters is also a changing variable.

i think the number of drunk driving deaths would increase if we made drunk driving legal and allowed people to have open alcohol containers in the car. just because those rules dont eliminate drunk driving deaths, that doesn't mean they're ineffective or wasteful

[cd98]

the parkland students would have been much safer if cruz had some vodka and a car rather than an AR-15

Just throwing it out there, but is the goal fewer over all deaths or fewer mass killings. I think an AR-15 ban may reduce some mass killings or at least lower the death toll in a mass shooting, but it wouldn’t dent the overall death toll related to guns. To lower the death toll, you’d probably need to ban handguns. But if you ban either, aren’t there enough guns out there that it would be impossible to take them off the streets, especially given the black market? If there is a demand for AR-15s, there will always be a supply on the black market.

[spurs10]

the difference between number of drunk drivers and shooters is also a changing variable.

i think the number of drunk driving deaths would increase if we made drunk driving legal and allowed people to have open alcohol containers in the car. just because those rules dont eliminate drunk driving deaths, that doesn't mean they're ineffective or wasteful
:bobo Absolutely!

[Nathan89]

Comical how the root difference is seemingly a selfish perspective but they are convinced the difference is intelligence or being more caring of other people. No, that's absolutely not the case. For the record I am for alcohol and guns. I own zero guns and barely consume alcohol. One just has to understand you can't force/control other peoples lives especially not for fringe statistics. All in the name of virtue signaling and the result of media narrative I guess.

[Chris]

Just throwing it out there, but is the goal fewer over all deaths or fewer mass killings. I think an AR-15 ban may reduce some mass killings or at least lower the death toll in a mass shooting, but it wouldn’t dent the overall death toll related to guns. To lower the death toll, you’d probably need to ban handguns. But if you ban either, aren’t there enough guns out there that it would be impossible to take them off the streets, especially given the black market? If there is a demand for AR-15s, there will always be a supply on the black market.

:bobo

[spurraider21]

Comical how the root difference is seemingly a selfish perspective but they are convinced the difference is intelligence or being more caring of other people. No, that's absolutely not the case. For the record I am for alcohol and guns. I own zero guns and barely consume alcohol. One just has to understand you can't force/control other peoples lives especially not for fringe statistics. All in the name of virtue signaling and the result of media narrative I guess.
I don't want to ban alcohol :lol

Are you suggesting legalizing drunk driving? :lmao

[bic50]

But why the ar15?

[tholdren]

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

If you want to take away guns because it's dangerous then you should also want to take away alcohol tbh. They aren't saying anything though because they like alcohol. The fact that the only variable(from their perspective) that changes is "like" or "unlike" really pisses me off tbh. So fucking selfish.

That statistic is not real. Just so you know. Alcohol related only means that ANYONE involved in the wreck had alcoohol.

Stupid money grab stat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol-related_traffic_crashes_in_the_United_States

That is, if i was your dd and i wrecked the car with you in it and someone died, that would be considered an alcohol related fatality.

[spurraider21]

Just throwing it out there, but is the goal fewer over all deaths or fewer mass killings.
why not both? i think the mass shootings are their own problem because of the randomness of the victims. there's no way to really avoid them except for staying in a bunker.


I think an AR-15 ban may reduce some mass killings or at least lower the death toll in a mass shooting, but it wouldn’t dent the overall death toll related to guns.
true. most gun deaths happen with handguns, as those are significantly more common in the more typical murders where the killer knows the victim personally. if you want to kill your ex-wife or something, or if a drug dealer wants to kill a rival, a handgun is probably the easiest way to do that. i don't think we can really legislate that away without a massive gun confiscation which is probably unconstitutional. i dont see why we shouldn't at least aim to reduce senseless and seemingly motive-less mass shootings. just look at vegas. there's no way it should be legal for a person to own that much destructive capability


To lower the death toll, you’d probably need to ban handguns.
yeah, talked about that above. i think murder in the greater scheme of things is closer to impossible to legislating away. but why not at least focus on an issue that we CAN work to mitigate? like random mass shootings


But if you ban either, aren’t there enough guns out there that it would be impossible to take them off the streets, especially given the black market?
yes, part of the problem is not only the ease of acquiring these guns legally, but also because we have a massive availability of guns in general. there are 100 million guns in this country. it's an insane number. the US has the most guns per capita on the planet and there isn't a close second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

that's why i said the only way we're going to legislate away gun violence altogether is with confiscation, but i don't see that happening. but we can decrease it by at least not making it legal to acquire one. why do people feel secure having a gate in front of their house and a locked door if a burglar can jump the gate and break in? it's a deterrence. a hurdle. maybe that buys time for the system to flag somebody as a threat.


If there is a demand for AR-15s, there will always be a supply on the black market.
where is the supply in Australia, Japan, or England?

by this logic we shouldn't make anything illegal to own. like at all.

[spurraider21]

But why the ar15?
the AR-15 is an incredibly common choice when it comes to mass shootings... i would definitely increase the scope to other "AR-15 type guns" aka semi automatic rifles

[Nathan89]

the difference between number of drunk drivers and shooters is also a changing variable.

i think the number of drunk driving deaths would increase if we made drunk driving legal and allowed people to have open alcohol containers in the car. just because those rules dont eliminate drunk driving deaths, that doesn't mean they're ineffective or wasteful

My original comment started with "If you want to take away guns..." aimed at people that want to ban guns. Your comments seemingly don't pertain to what my point was at all.

[spurraider21]

My original comment started with "If you want to take away guns..." aimed at people that want to ban guns. Your comments seemingly don't pertain to what my point was at all.



you compared drunk driving to shooting people.

[bic50]

the AR-15 is an incredibly common choice when it comes to mass shootings... i would definitely increase the scope to other "AR-15 type guns" aka semi automatic rifles
What other ar15 type guns are there?

[spurraider21]

What other ar15 type guns are there?


the AR-15 is an incredibly common choice when it comes to mass shootings... i would definitely increase the scope to other "AR-15 type guns" aka semi automatic rifles

[Nathan89]

That statistic is not real. Just so you know. Alcohol related only means that ANYONE involved in the wreck had alcoohol.

Stupid money grab stat

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol-related_traffic_crashes_in_the_United_States

That is, if i was your dd and i wrecked the car with you in it and someone died, that would be considered an alcohol related fatality.

I'll have to look into it further.

The top part of the wiki says what you said.

Then:

"Nationally, 31% of all drivers involved in fatal accidents during 2013 are known to have been intoxicated (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunkenness) according to the blood alcohol concentration (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_concentration) (BAC laws) of their state.[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol-related_traffic_crashes_in_the_United_States#cite_ note-5) This number is based on a systematic examination of the official records of each and every accident involving a fatality during that year in the US.[citation needed (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] However, a majority of fatalities resulting from car accidents involving alcohol are from sober drivers who are hit by drunk drivers."

One would expect that bolded sentence to hammer home the point but it doesn't. It falls squarely in what most would think the data would gather.

[Nathan89]

you compared drunk driving to shooting people.

No, I did not. Which is why your comments don't seem to pertain to the point I was making.

[bic50]

There are semi auto rifles that aren't ar15 style

[tholdren]

I'll have to look into it further.

The top part of the wiki says what you said.

Then:

"Nationally, 31% of all drivers involved in fatal accidents during 2013 are known to have been intoxicated (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunkenness) according to the blood alcohol concentration (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_concentration) (BAC laws) of their state.[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol-related_traffic_crashes_in_the_United_States#cite_ note-5) This number is based on a systematic examination of the official records of each and every accident involving a fatality during that year in the US.[citation needed (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] However, a majority of fatalities resulting from car accidents involving alcohol are from sober drivers who are hit by drunk drivers."

One would expect that bolded sentence to hammer home the point but it doesn't. It falls squarely in what most would think the data would gather.

That too is also almost impossible to say as bac neither hinders nor improves your driving at any specific content, nor does bac readings offer immediate and accurate depiction of your bac while driving.

Again, the bold is a vague representation of misleading data.

[Nathan89]

That too is also almost impossible to say as bac neither hinders nor improves your driving at any specific content, nor does bac readings offer immediate and accurate depiction of your bac while driving.

Again, the bold is a vague representation of misleading data.

Looking at the very next sentence after the paragraph I posted:

"The higher number (about 40%) commonly reported refers to accidents defined as alcohol-related as estimated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."

It seems to suggest my number was correct based on a BAC level defined by law(you can debate the significance of that). But the 40% seems to to be relevant to what you were originally talking about with passengers and whatnot. As you can see it higher than the 31% quoted in the last paragraph I posted which was similar to the number I posted earlier(29%). And the source for the 40% is the same source for the top portion of the wiki that includes what you were originally discussing.

[tholdren]

Looking at the very next sentence after the paragraph I posted:

"The higher number (about 40%) commonly reported refers to accidents defined as alcohol-related as estimated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."

It seems to suggest my number was correct based on a BAC level defined by law(you can debate the significance of that). But the 40% seems to to be relevant to what you were originally talking about with passengers and whatnot. As you can see it higher than the 31% quoted in the last paragraph I posted which was similar to the number I posted earlier(29%). And the source for the 40% is the same source for the top portion of the wiki that includes what you were originally discussing.

As estimated. So they inflate the numbers, use confusing terminology, then estimate? Lol. Ok. Some real sound evidence you got there

[cd98]

why not both? i think the mass shootings are their own problem because of the randomness of the victims. there's no way to really avoid them except for staying in a bunker.


true. most gun deaths happen with handguns, as those are significantly more common in the more typical murders where the killer knows the victim personally. if you want to kill your ex-wife or something, or if a drug dealer wants to kill a rival, a handgun is probably the easiest way to do that. i don't think we can really legislate that away without a massive gun confiscation which is probably unconstitutional. i dont see why we shouldn't at least aim to reduce senseless and seemingly motive-less mass shootings. just look at vegas. there's no way it should be legal for a person to own that much destructive capability


yeah, talked about that above. i think murder in the greater scheme of things is closer to impossible to legislating away. but why not at least focus on an issue that we CAN work to mitigate? like random mass shootings


yes, part of the problem is not only the ease of acquiring these guns legally, but also because we have a massive availability of guns in general. there are 100 million guns in this country. it's an insane number. the US has the most guns per capita on the planet and there isn't a close second. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

that's why i said the only way we're going to legislate away gun violence altogether is with confiscation, but i don't see that happening. but we can decrease it by at least not making it legal to acquire one. why do people feel secure having a gate in front of their house and a locked door if a burglar can jump the gate and break in? it's a deterrence. a hurdle. maybe that buys time for the system to flag somebody as a threat.


where is the supply in Australia, Japan, or England?

by this logic we shouldn't make anything illegal to own. like at all.

England, Japan, and Australia don’t have the same amount of guns in their country and they don’t have the gun culture that the US has. I could easily see a black market for guns (I’m sure there already is one for banned firearms). Whether there is enough demand for AR-15s if banned that the black market would still make them accessible is an open question, I don’t know.

[cd98]

you compared drunk driving to shooting people.

The common comparison is the gun vs the swimming pool. Swimming pools are way more dangerous than guns, but no one thinks about eliminating swimming pools. Certainly there are safety measures for pools, for example now days they don’t have deep ends and diving boards. I don’t know how much those have changed the drowning numbers. But there are regs on guns too. I don’t know. I’m just riffing. I’ve never owned a gun, but I also think you tread lightly when limiting rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I’ll be curious to see if any gun limit legislation gains any steam.

[Nathan89]

BAN SWIMMING POOLS! THEY ARE DANGEROUS!

Media hasn't pushed that narrative quite yet.

[BackHome]

The only way to eliminate from this happening again is your going to have to harden all schools. So that means multiple layers of armed guards at every school. This is the world we live in for better or worse I do not see things getting better any time soon.

[ElNono]

tbh, if it brings the murder rate down in Chicago, I'm all for taking away guns from black people...

And before somebody calls me racist, I have two black friends, and actually had 3 until last year when one of them passed away in jail...

but, srsly, if we go by murder rate or death rate, we should dissolve the TSA tomorrow...

[ElNono]

The common comparison is the gun vs the swimming pool. Swimming pools are way more dangerous than guns, but no one thinks about eliminating swimming pools. Certainly there are safety measures for pools, for example now days they don’t have deep ends and diving boards. I don’t know how much those have changed the drowning numbers. But there are regs on guns too. I don’t know. I’m just riffing. I’ve never owned a gun, but I also think you tread lightly when limiting rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I’ll be curious to see if any gun limit legislation gains any steam.

The difference here is intentional vs unintentional. drowning deaths are largely unintentional, whereas gun crimes are largely intentional. Same applies to the difference between knife and gun. Accidents with knives are way, way more numerous than actual intentional deaths by knife.

The reality is that guns are the weapon of choice at this time to inflict intentional damage. Otherwise we would've already armed our law enforcement and military with swimming pools.

[offset formation]

The difference here is intentional vs unintentional. drowning deaths are largely unintentional, whereas gun crimes are largely intentional. Same applies to the difference between knife and gun. Accidents with knives are way, way more numerous than actual intentional deaths by knife.

The reality is that guns are the weapon of choice at this time to inflict intentional damage. Otherwise we would've already armed our law enforcement and military with swimming pools.

And in mass shootings, specifically the weapon of choice is the AR-15.

[bic50]

And in mass shootings, specifically the weapon of choice is the AR-15.
What other mass shooting were done with ar15?

[offset formation]

What other mass shooting were done with ar15?

Pretty much all of the recent ones.

[Nathan89]

but, srsly, if we go by murder rate or death rate, we should dissolve the TSA tomorrow...

Definitely. The TSA isn't even effective at what they do.

[Nathan89]

Intentional vs unintentional is irrelevant. Apparently the politicians are responsible for the deaths for allowing people to have guns. They therefore are responsible for the drownings in swimming pools for allowing people to own swimming pools. A known dangerous product. How they sit idle while 3,536(not sure of the portion in pools) fatal unintentional drownings occurs per year is beyond me.?

[ElNono]

Intentional vs unintentional is irrelevant. Apparently the politicians are responsible for the deaths for allowing people to have guns. They therefore are responsible for the drownings in swimming pools for allowing people to own swimming pools. A known dangerous product. How they sit idle while 3,536(not sure of the portion in pools) fatal unintentional drownings occurs per year is beyond me.?

I posted this in the politics forum, but it bears repeating...

Honestly, I'm not even anti-gun or any of that, but politicians are responsible for things like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

still surviving in this day and age, tbh... If anything, conducting research and trying to understand or dig deeper on this problem is one thing we can certainly do. We do that with pools, btw, the CDC is certainly allowed to research drownings (see: here (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6319a2.htm))

not even blaming team blue or red for this, it doesn't survive this long if the knuckleheads are not on both sides.

[ElNono]

Oh, and intentional vs not, actually does matter when it comes to laws. The US bans a plethora of items when their primary use is to commit crimes (see DMCA and circumvention devices). Heck the VCR (RIP) was almost banned in it's inception due to the movie studios arguing it's primary use was for copyright violation (time shifting won that battle).

[Nathan89]

The primary use of guns is not to commit crimes.

[Nathan89]

I posted this in the politics forum, but it bears repeating...

Honestly, I'm not even anti-gun or any of that, but politicians are responsible for things like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

still surviving in this day and age, tbh... If anything, conducting research and trying to understand or dig deeper on this problem is one thing we can certainly do. We do that with pools, btw, the CDC is certainly allowed to research drownings (see: here (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6319a2.htm))

not even blaming team blue or red for this, it doesn't survive this long if the knuckleheads are not on both sides.

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.

[Isitjustme?]

What's stopping Cruz from going into Mexico and getting an AR-15 then? You haven't thought this ban thingy out. I have. You would have to ban the entire North and South American continents and then screen every boat that comes to our shores for AR-15's. Gun control/bans is a dumb argument filled with holes.

awesome read, where can i subscribe to your newsletter?

[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 shit just keeps him from having to say the same boring ass basketball lines over and over. He hates that shit. 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.

:lol 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.

:lol 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 (https://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=24)).

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 fucking 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 (https://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=24)).

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 fucking 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 Constitutional 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 nutshell,
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 Constitutional 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 fucking 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 fucking 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://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/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://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/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 shit 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 shit 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_of_massacres_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 competition 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_of_massacres_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_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate



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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

[Nathan89]

[/B]


List of countries by firearm-related death rate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate



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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

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?

[ceds]

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?

what fucking knee jerk reaction are you talking about....USA currently have a massacre every couple of months and have more guns then they do people.

less guns = less deaths... pretty simple

he automatics & snipers owners/lovers have no legit argument and the 2nd amendment can & will be changed eventually (i hope).


Dont just look at Australia there are many examples that show gun control works.

Alcohol & cigarette related deaths are self inflicted....it's not like you can take a slab of beer to a school and cause a massacre.

[Brunodf]

People actually falling for the guns kill people narrative in 2k18 :lol

they always bring up the massacres but they never mention that 90% of them are with illegal guns :lol

I find even funnier that the people who think that drugs should be legal because they cant stop people from using them anyway are the same that think making guns illegal will stop criminals from acquiring guns :lol

[bic50]

what fucking knee jerk reaction are you talking about....USA currently have a massacre every couple of months and have more guns then they do people.

less guns = less deaths... pretty simple

he automatics & snipers owners/lovers have no legit argument and the 2nd amendment can & will be changed eventually (i hope).


Dont just look at Australia there are many examples that show gun control works.

Alcohol & cigarette related deaths are self inflicted....it's not like you can take a slab of beer to a school and cause a massacre.
Doubt it'll be changed much at all. What sniper and automatic owners? Automatic weapons are illegal

[cd98]

https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

More food for thought on mass shootings and the fact that schools are arguably safer now than in the 90s.

[tholdren]

https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

More food for thought on mass shootings and the fact that schools are arguably safer now than in the 90s.

Did you not read that?

[cd98]

Did you not read that?

Ugh yeah, I summarized the title.