Black Gunday

[D1B]

How many people here own guns, and if so, what do you own?

Hear that? It's the sound of popping conk boners in anticipation of responding to your question.

Here's Z, Grizzaholic, 93 and BDTGNFCK two minutes ago.

[YoUDeeMan]

Have a position, have a principle, and make a stand on it. It's sad when people talk about how awful it is that these things happen, and then talk generally (not propose or initiate, that would be too much work) about things we could do that ultimately wouldn't do anything to stop what we're seeing. It's disingenuous.

I believe this would be a good start http://www.propublica.org/article/repub ... e-research" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The NRA has vehemently fought to keep gun violence research from happening, and as this article states, owning guns, and gun violence research are not mutually exclusive.

quick ninja edit: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gu ... d=18909347" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
this abc article goes a little in to detail about how the cuts made back in 96' already have made a lasting impact.

Both articles are hilarious!

"David Hemenway, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who specializes in injury research, said he cannot "in good conscience" tell his students to pursue careers in gun violence research.

"Don't write your dissertation about guns because it's not going to get any money," said Hemenway, who is considered one of the top gun violence researchers in the country. "All this knowledge is not going to be worth it to them, which is sad."

"When we care enough about children to do something, are we going to let a single lobby overrun what the vast majority of people want?" Hemenway asked."'

How about, "when we care enough about our children, uhhh...never mind...we don't care because we want to earn more money."

All of the, "concerned" researchers who left the field seem FAR more concerned about how much money they want to earn rather than actually caring about the results (for which, apparently, and oddly for a researcher, they have, in advance, reached the conclusion that their research will drive results that will save the children - nothing like research with an agenda, huh?).

And then there is this...

"If you want to know the simplest things, we don't know," he said. "We're not sure even what percent of houses have guns."

Some studies claim 33 percent have guns, while others estimate up to 59 percent, he said.

"It's not a crucial thing, but you'd think we would know that," Hemenway said. "We really have no idea how many guns there are."


You've already decided that the information is not a crucial thing (and how did you decide that), but you want money to fund research to get you that information.


And finally, some say there is a ban on the CDC doing research on guns. Whoops!


The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC's budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.

'"It's worth pointing out that the language never specifically forbade the CDC from conducting the research," Wintemute said."


Yet BOTH of those article specifically say that Republicans have banned gun research.


Here is what is actually happening:

The 1997 appropriations bill stated, "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Congress also threatened more funding cuts if the gun research continued.

Want to study gun injuries? Go for it.

Want to advocate gun control? Nope.


One has an agenda...one doesn't.

[Peems]

^ I'm not going to quote because it's too blocky. The bill also cut 2.6 million from the CDC budget which was exactly the amount that was spent on gun violence research.

You really nitpicked the article, which is fine, but the point the articles were trying to make, is that people have left the research side of it because there is no funding. and there's also this quote which you left out
"Wintemute said it's become a tough field to enter because researchers worry about death threats, adding that he himself was threatened by gun manufacturer Bruce Jennings, who founded B.L. Jennings Firearms and Bryco Arms in California. It has since gone bankrupt.

"The work is very controversial," he said. "There are some very angry people out there."

Also the quote about not knowing how many guns are out there and it not being crucial, is the point. He mentions how he got shot down to add it to a survey that included questions about smoking, and drinking. People will do anything to hamper even the slightest information about guns.

[YoUDeeMan]

^ I'm not going to quote because it's too blocky. The bill also cut 2.6 million from the CDC budget which was exactly the amount that was spent on gun violence research.

You really nitpicked the article, which is fine, but the point the articles were trying to make, is that people have left the research side of it because there is no funding. and there's also this quote which you left out
"Wintemute said it's become a tough field to enter because researchers worry about death threats, adding that he himself was threatened by gun manufacturer Bruce Jennings, who founded B.L. Jennings Firearms and Bryco Arms in California. It has since gone bankrupt.

"The work is very controversial," he said. "There are some very angry people out there."

Also the quote about not knowing how many guns are out there and it not being crucial, is the point. He mentions how he got shot down to add it to a survey that included questions about smoking, and drinking. People will do anything to hamper even the slightest information about guns.

Abortion clinics get death threats. The President gets death threats. Schools get death threats.

Yet all of them keep going if they believe in their cause.

Researchers? Nope...there's a better gravy train to hop on. Care about the children? Eff it...show me the money!

As far as the funding goes...once again, they could have carved out funding...as long as it wasn't agenda driven. It is painfully obvious, in the quotes provided by your articles, and in your posts, that you aren't interested in a level discussion about guns. You want to gather evidence to support your cause...gun control.

[Peems]

Yes. Of course I am in favor of more gun control, I'm not hiding that. Clearly that is where we philosophically disagree. To me the argument should be to what extent should we have gun control, what laws do we enact? There is no simple cure-all, I can admit that. But the fact that this happens so regularly is where I get disgusted.
Also, I have come to the realization that nothing serious will EVER happen. When 20 children are killed and nothing major happens, the fight is already over.

[GannonFan]

It's the video games - I'm sure expandsos has something about the subliminal messages that are just peppered throughout those violent first person shooter games.

[DSUrocks07]

A more effective approach would be to ban muslims..

Or require firearm education and proof before purchase. Sorry, but obviously people can't be trusted with weapons. Let's at least attempt to educate people.

Sure, but voter education is oppressive and violate civil rights

[Ivytalk]

It's the video games - I'm sure expandsos has something about the subliminal messages that are just peppered throughout those violent first person shooter games.

I particularly liked the James Bond Goldeneye game. I pretended each bad guy was D1B. I got pretty good at it!

[GannonFan]

It's the video games - I'm sure expandsos has something about the subliminal messages that are just peppered throughout those violent first person shooter games.

I particularly liked the James Bond Goldeneye game. I pretended each bad guy was D1B. I got pretty good at it!

I suck at first person shooter games - I always preferred the two dimensional Atari games. Sports games only for me these days - just got NBA2K16 and I'm going to see if I can go 0-82 with the Sixers and draft Ben Simmons next year!

[Baldy]

How many people here own guns, and if so, what do you own?

Hear that? It's the sound of popping conk boners in anticipation of responding to your question.

Five (5) hours later and not one response.

[Grizalltheway]

Hear that? It's the sound of popping conk boners in anticipation of responding to your question.

Five (5) hours later and not one response.

Well no shit they're not going to do it now that he made fun of them.

[93henfan]

Five (5) hours later and not one response.

Well no shit they're not going to do it now that he made fun of them.

I responded before D1B even got to this thread. So did Baldy, right after me.

[Baldy]

Five (5) hours later and not one response.

Well no shit they're not going to do it now that he made fun of them.

D1B posted his ignorance 3.5 hours after the question was asked.
Not. one. response. (aside from me and 93 being smartasses)

[D1B]

Well no shit they're not going to do it now that he made fun of them.

D1B posted his ignorance 3.5 hours after the question was asked.
Not. one. response. (aside from me and 93 being smartasses)

Boldlie and 93 arguing they did not in fact beat off- priceless!

[YoUDeeMan]

How many people here own guns, and if so, what do you own?

I believe this would be a good start http://www.propublica.org/article/repub ... e-research" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From your, "good start" material (perhaps you should listen to the facts, instead of following your emotions):

"If you want to know the simplest things, we don't know," he said. "We're not sure even what percent of houses have guns."

Some studies claim 33 percent have guns, while others estimate up to 59 percent, he said.

"It's not a crucial thing, but you'd think we would know that," Hemenway said. "We really have no idea how many guns there are."


Even your own quoted material says your question is not necessary.

And, it is none of your business.

[YoUDeeMan]

Yes. Of course I am in favor of more gun control, I'm not hiding that. Clearly that is where we philosophically disagree. To me the argument should be to what extent should we have gun control, what laws do we enact? There is no simple cure-all, I can admit that. But the fact that this happens so regularly is where I get disgusted.
Also, I have come to the realization that nothing serious will EVER happen. When 20 children are killed and nothing major happens, the fight is already over.

Fantastic. You get disgusted...then emotionally respond with ideas to favor more gun control...when you do not have a single shred of evidence that better gun control would solve the problem.

And, of course, no one wants to study it without getting paid....but they care about the, "children."

And 20 children have been killed in bus accidents. Go out and demand everyone's money to be focused on getting seat belts in all buses (without knowing whether seat belts would limit children's deaths in buses).

It is a very good bet that at least 20 (that is only 7,300) American born children each day will grow up to be displaced in some job by some immigrant...causing that once innocent child to potentially get divorced (which impact the next generation of children), go on welfare (negatively impacting government expenditures), get depressed(more drain on Obamacare), and angry (possible violence, alcoholism, etc.), and a whole host of bad things. Unless want to wreck the future lives of 20 of our children every day, go out and demand that we shut down our borders.

Hey, this is fun!

[dbackjon]

A more effective approach would be to ban muslims..

That would have helped in Colorado Springs and Charleston, right?


Dumbass.

If you want to ban all religions - now your talking.

[Peems]

Yes. Of course I am in favor of more gun control, I'm not hiding that. Clearly that is where we philosophically disagree. To me the argument should be to what extent should we have gun control, what laws do we enact? There is no simple cure-all, I can admit that. But the fact that this happens so regularly is where I get disgusted.
Also, I have come to the realization that nothing serious will EVER happen. When 20 children are killed and nothing major happens, the fight is already over.

Fantastic. You get disgusted...then emotionally respond with ideas to favor more gun control...when you do not have a single shred of evidence that better gun control would solve the problem.

And, of course, no one wants to study it without getting paid....but they care about the, "children."

And 20 children have been killed in bus accidents. Go out and demand everyone's money to be focused on getting seat belts in all buses (without knowing whether seat belts would limit children's deaths in buses).

It is a very good bet that at least 20 (that is only 7,300) American born children each day will grow up to be displaced in some job by some immigrant...causing that once innocent child to potentially get divorced (which impact the next generation of children), go on welfare (negatively impacting government expenditures), get depressed(more drain on Obamacare), and angry (possible violence, alcoholism, etc.), and a whole host of bad things. Unless want to wreck the future lives of 20 of our children every day, go out and demand that we shut down our borders.

Hey, this is fun!

Buses and guns are not similar. I like all your hypotheticals too, and I sure do love how we jumped all the way to the immigrants!!

"Gun ownership isn't some inalienable right granted by God. Remember, the Constitution was written by men coming out of a long and bloody war near the end of the 18th century. It was written for their time.

It also included the "right" to own a human being.

Things change.

Folks evolve.

I want a voluntary federal buyback program for firearms, with hunting weapons and vintage/historic weapons exempt. I want the sale of weapons to be even more tightly controlled than the sale of Xanax and other controlled substances. I want advertising for firearms to be as regulated as DTC (direct to consumer) advertising for pharmaceuticals ("May cause shortness of breath, long-lasting boners, etc.") We can do all of this. It'll likely create jobs, believe it or not: regulators, educators, enforcers.

It will not end murder. It won't end rape or robbery either. It will make it harder to commit those crimes. There will be a black market for guns as there is for any coveted item in a capitalist society. (And I'm not anti-capitalism, btw. I'm a big fan! Sorry, hippies. I do love you guys, by the way, you're very nice people with good instincts.)

Continuing education credits for gun owners should be required, just as they are with medical professionals.

When you have a greater ability to take a human life, you have a greater responsibility to prove your fitness to wield the tools that may create that end."

[93henfan]

You'd be better off placing those draconian restrictions on automobiles first, since they kill more people than guns.

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

You'd be better off placing those draconian restrictions on automobiles first, since they kill more people than guns.

May I add breeding to this list of stuff to restrict?

[CAA Flagship]

You'd be better off placing those draconian restrictions on automobiles first, since they kill more people than guns.

May I add breeding to this list of stuff to restrict?

No. But you can add popped collars to the list.

[93henfan]

You'd be better off placing those draconian restrictions on automobiles first, since they kill more people than guns.

May I add breeding to this list of stuff to restrict?

Over 55 million people died of heart failure last year, but do you see anyone addressing that elephant in the room? We were all born with defective hearts! How much money is being put into this problem?

[Grizalltheway]

May I add breeding to this list of stuff to restrict?

Over 55 million people died of heart failure last year, but do you see anyone addressing that elephant in the room? We were all born with defective hearts! How much money is being put into this problem?

Actually a shit ton of money has gone into heart research, health, etc. Didn't you used to work for NHS?

[93henfan]

You'd be better off placing those draconian restrictions on automobiles first, since they kill more people than guns.

May I add breeding to this list of stuff to restrict?

And yes. 55 million deaths on earth last year. 131 million births.

Houston, we have a problem.

[93henfan]

Over 55 million people died of heart failure last year, but do you see anyone addressing that elephant in the room? We were all born with defective hearts! How much money is being put into this problem?

Actually a shit ton of money has gone into heart research, health, etc. Didn't you used to work for NHS?

No. I was a member of the National Honor Society though.