- Thank you to our founding fathers for adding the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. - Thank you to the NRA for lobbying a defense of the 2nd Anendment. - Thank you to a soggy ass Congress for not finding a way to appeal the 2nd Amendment And yes, we really do know these incidents happen all the time.
the irony is that trump is the president who actually called for confiscating guns without a court order. no democrat president ever said anything close to that. as far as that video, i would have shot that a**hole after he sucker punched that woman. the gun owner showed a lot of restraint there.
Negative. Although there is hope. I mean really, it should not shock you that pretty much any research that could possibly cast doubt on gun ownership as a universal positive is attacked as "promoting gun control". 1) I'd rather a non-partisan group do it 2) Even if their budgets are higher than the CDC was ever allowed to have (citation needed btw), that's merely an argument for increasing the CDC budget Yes, but you dropped a blanket statement. Conflict + gun = peaceful resolution. Which is simply not a universal, not even close. If you're threatened with deadly violence and need protection, then yeah, that's what a gun is for. She had to pull a gun, and had every right and reason to use it when she did. I have an elderly mother whose only viable means of self defense is a handgun. This does not mean I think everyone should have one, be allowed to have one, be able to get one with extreme ease, or be able to get any kind of handgun. Bringing it full circle, I'd love it if we had a government that was interested in actually figuring out the details and studying the nuance of these factors to increase the utility and positive outcomes for gun incidences and ownership in America. But hey hey hey, NRA. We got a profit to make, bois!
You posted an article from 2017 saying it is a problem, an article from 2018 the day it was addressed in the spending bill but still complaining. Nothing I posted was false. I'd rather not pay for advocacy against my affirmed personal rights. Seems we found an impasse there. Check the budgets, then check budgets of CDC for advocay on the issue. Possibly get involved or knowledgeable about lobbying groups on the issue outside of the NRA? There are many. Handgun restrictions are not something the public is willing to accept. It is also specifically been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. This is why the argument has shifted away from handguns. Also I don't really want the CDC producing propaganda for legislation. The NRA only has power because it has voters and people who write and call representatives. Joe Barton is a seventeen term member and has made out like a bandit with a total of 60K. wow.
You don’t have to trust me, it’s easily verified. I posted a few extra videos, the rest is on you to do your own research.
The CDC surveyed dozens of states in the 1990's. The analysis of the results are available. The number is likely in the hundreds of thousands to millions of incidents. This completely dismisses millions of people choosing to arm themselves for their own security. The number of permits has exploded.
One could also read the recent RAND report on gun policy that provides a detailed assessment of the studies that have been done. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2088.html The report reviews the known literature. Defensive gun use and it’s net effect on society is very difficult to estimate — there are no reliable figures for it, and these YouTube clips don’t really help all that much. Somewhat related, the report does point out that there is moderate evidence that stand your ground laws result in an increase in total homicide rate.
Not false, but misleading and disingenuous. "They are simply not allowed to use research funds that 'advocate or promote gun control.'" It should not shock you that pretty much any research that could possibly cast doubt on gun ownership as a universal positive is attacked as "promoting gun control". This means that, effectively, the CDC can't research gun violence... unless they conduct research in such a way that there is no possible way the outcome of the studies could be anything but positive reinforcement for gun use and ownership. The door is cracking slightly open for gun research to continue, but it's a long road home. LOL. See above. No, u. 1) OK. And? That's not really an argument. 2) This is a gross oversimplification. We clearly do have restrictions on (hand)guns in some form or another. This has never and should never stop any one from advocating or arguing for changing the law before. You're tipping your hand again. You've already drawn a conclusion (guns = good) and are working backwards to justify it. In order to conduct proper research, you have to be open to the possibility that the data may not agree with you. You clearly are afraid of that possibility, and so you treat any research into the subject as "advocacy". This reminds me of the cigarette lobby trying to ban studies into the effects of their products. Sure, firearms may be a net positive, but we'll never know if we can't actually study the damned things. You can claim the CDC has basically closed the book on gun research and that there's nothing left to prove, I say that's a load of bunk. There's the real impasse. When I bring up money, I bring it up from the perspective of the gun manufacturers, not Congressmen. It's a hell of a business model. Seek out anxious people and pump them full of fear and paranoia. Mooslims, MS13, thugz, the deep state! Then sell them the 'cure' in the form of a gun. I mean, it's elementary. Follow the money my dudes. Maybe, just maybe, these folks really don't have your best interest or the country's best interest at heart.
Any problems you could have had in the dickey amendment were addressed by Trump this year. I have already looked up the budget for the combined anti gun lobby. You would be better to be curious yourself. This represents the reason why the pro-gun lobby consistently wins. Anti 2A people are not very interested in the topic. Pro-2A people care far more. I don't treat any research as advocacy, I am directly quoting the Dickey Amendment. "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control" This is the spending that is restricted. Please follow the money yourself. The NRA-ILA is largely funded by people like me. They threw the gun industry under the bus in 2004 in favor of gun owners. You seem to jump in, ask for citations, then ignore them. I think this is the third time you have done this. How do you see this going forward? Handgun bans are unconstitutional. If this advocacy you want claims handguns = bad, banning them will still be unconstitutional. I fail to see your endgame.
You made the claim, so I asked for proof. Still waiting. Beyond that, like I said, it doesn't really prove anything. Ya. U do. You made that outright assumption several times already. I already elucidated on how this is used to chill gun research as a whole. The NRA-ILA does not have to disclose its donors, correct? I have no doubt that with their membership numbers that a huge chunk of all of their revenue comes from individuals, but to think that the people who absolutely positively benefit the most from the NRA's activities (gun manufacturers) don't have a huge amount of cash flowing to them is difficult to believe, to say the least. Hell, if I manufactured guns I'd be busting green nut all over the NRA. They're my best marketing vehicle. You made a claim. I asked for proof. You said you had it, then none was provided. Not sure what you're b****ing about. LOL. There you go again assuming "research = advocacy". The constitution (theoretically) can be changed (as can SC justices) I want laws on the books that result in the most amount of good for humankind. That's my endgame.
Use your google box. Providing you with citations in the past has proven not to move conversations forward. It's just a win-win that cost you no effort. If discussion had come in the past from citations (like any discussion) I would be more willing. It's a great strategery. Ignore all question, ask the other person more. Demand citations, provide none of your own or address problems with outdated articles posted. Probably no winning move against it.
Citation needed on this one too. Lulz. Not really, I only did it to you once for a very dubious claim, which I then acknowledged and proceeded to poke holes in your argument. Do you expect that once you provide a citation that the argument your citation rests upon will not be challenged? That's not how this works. FYI - To save you precious finger taps, don't bother providing a citation for your above claim (private groups money vs. CDC research money) because like I said, it doesn't really advance your argument or hinder mine.
Naw you just said "selection bias" then made a salty quip about contacting hannity. you can't really poke holes in a government agency source as this is basically what you are asking for now. As we can now see, the citation was not at all needed because you didn't really care. Was just a tactic. which is the point. if anti gun people cared, they might start having success.
It's not that I didn't care, it's just that it didn't really matter. At least in this instance, it mattered moreso before, but there were still plenty of gaps left in your reasoning/argument. You shouldn't get so butthurt about being asked to provide sources when you say something very specific that you are using to buttress an argument.
