Buried: Father at Newton Meeting who does not want more gun laws

[saveliberty]

Careful Spoonman, you have him cornered!

The facts are not on your side moron. Apparently math is your enemy as well. Repeat after me, gun control doesn't work on criminals and puts law abiding citizens at risk.

idk, he keeps changing his tune. whats up with that

Feelings overriding rational thought.

 

[AceRothstein]

nice back pedal. but the number of guns has more than doubled. as has the number of people who have them. as have the type of weapons changed to these deadly assault style weapons. according to your logic the numder of deaths should have risen too. but its declined. again, please explain and please explain why these proposed gun laws will make a difference. now it seem like you are telling me we don't need them

How am I back pedaling? You are stating that the assault weapons ban expiring in 2005 is the reason for the decrease in gun related homicides that began in 1993. That makes no sense.

I never said a ban always leads to a decrease in gun deaths. You can take a look at my previous posts throughout this thread. I also maintain that not having any gun laws isn't going to lead to fewer gun deaths as well as Mississippi and Louisiana show us.

again your facts are off. gun homicides increased from 1999 up to the point the assault weapons ban was lifted. more guns has not equaled more homicides. you keep telling me these statistics matter. do they or don't they? you can't use the argument well this state has lees deaths becasue they have less people in one argument and then discount that the the increase in guns and the lowering of gun deaths isn't relevent.

The number of homicides dropped ~50% from the early 1990's until the assault weapons ban was lifted. Since it was lifted it has continued to drop at a much lower rate, ~13%.

It is very difficult finding reliable homicide data separated by weapon. The best I can find is total homicides from the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

How do you still not understand the difference between a rate and a raw number? You can't compare states when one has more people than the other, you need to use the rate when comparing states. Do you have anything that proves that the drop in homicides is due to the increase in guns?

 

[AceRothstein]

Careful Spoonman, you have him cornered!

The facts are not on your side moron. Apparently math is your enemy as well. Repeat after me, gun control doesn't work on criminals and puts law abiding citizens at risk.

idk, he keeps changing his tune. whats up with that

Feelings overriding rational thought.

I'm the one showing statistics and you're the one calling names. Who's the one thinking rationally?

 

[tinydancer]

So?

There shouldn't be a single person in this entire country whose opinion on gun control, one way or the other, means a damn. It's an issue, like so many issues, requiring the individual to make up their own mind. Why don't you cut those puppet strings and become an individual?

What on earth does one person's opinion have to do with my OP?

I'm attacking the media for burying this part of the incident that happened at the meeting. My OP is strictly about how the media lies "by omission".

They don't give the whole story and instead of presenting the meeting as news, the media turned it into an "editorial".

And with a false narrative beginning with the editing of the first tape. Exactly like NBC did with Zimmerman.

My OP has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion on gun control. My applause was designed for this gentleman having the balls to state this opinion in a room that leaned towards gun control. He had guts.

With all due respect, you really should go back and read my first post.

The only reason a gun nut considers Sandy Hook a story of interest now is they can't get it through their heads that the gun violence people oppose isn't based on that one incident. You gun nuts can red herring and strawman until doomsday, but your opinions aren't going to fly in this country. The guns on our streets will continue to make this country have gun violence, so your effort is doomed. It's the public's awareness of unnecessary gun violence and their awareness of how the NRA types want nothing done that will dictate future policy.

Those stories aren't of much public interest, but your kind likes using everything to get your childish ways. Just paint a reverse L on your forehead to remind yourself of the final outcome, when you look at yourself in the mirror. Even if those politicians in the NRA's pocket succeed in stopping meaningful gun reform legislation at this moment in history, they aren't going to be around forever. Let's face it, time is not going to be on your side!

Stories about Newton aren't of much public interest? What planet were you on the past few days?

Every lib and their mother was screaming about the fake story that the father of a deceased child from Newton was "heckled" by 2nd Amendment individuals at this meeting.

It was all over the news. The liberal media was driving the anti gun agenda. Then MSNBC got caught out again doctoring a tape. And now the story is not news? No not at all.



My OP is dealing strictly with the media and their omission of another point of view at this meeting.

Pontificate in another thread if you can't stay on topic.

 

[saveliberty]

The number of homicides dropped ~50% from the early 1990's until the assault weapons ban was lifted. Since it was lifted it has continued to drop at a much lower rate, ~13%.

It is very difficult finding reliable homicide data separated by weapon. The best I can find is total homicides from the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

How do you still not understand the difference between a rate and a raw number? You can't compare states when one has more people than the other, you need to use the rate when comparing states. Do you have anything that proves that the drop in homicides is due to the increase in guns?

You want to use the assault ban lift as evidence it impacted the rate of gun use in murder? No relationship was established, just assumption on your part.

Then you deny an increase in gun ownership can lower homicide rates. You have a conflict there moron.

 

[saveliberty]

idk, he keeps changing his tune. whats up with that

Feelings overriding rational thought.

I'm the one showing statistics and you're the one calling names. Who's the one thinking rationally?

Showing statistics huh? That's what you call it? You are a moron, so it isn't name calling.

 

[AceRothstein]

The number of homicides dropped ~50% from the early 1990's until the assault weapons ban was lifted. Since it was lifted it has continued to drop at a much lower rate, ~13%.

It is very difficult finding reliable homicide data separated by weapon. The best I can find is total homicides from the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

How do you still not understand the difference between a rate and a raw number? You can't compare states when one has more people than the other, you need to use the rate when comparing states. Do you have anything that proves that the drop in homicides is due to the increase in guns?

You want to use the assault ban lift as evidence it impacted the rate of gun use in murder? No relationship was established, just assumption on your part.

Then you deny an increase in gun ownership can lower homicide rates. You have a conflict there moron.

I'm not the one who originally brought up the lifting of the assault weapons ban as the reason for the decrease, Spoonman did which was an assumption on his part. Do try to keep up. I pointed to the larger drop while the ban was in effect as an argument against his assertion that the lifting of the ban led to the drop.

 

[AceRothstein]

Feelings overriding rational thought.

I'm the one showing statistics and you're the one calling names. Who's the one thinking rationally?

Showing statistics huh? That's what you call it? You are a moron, so it isn't name calling.

Yeah, backing up my arguments with statistics, fuckface. You on the other hand haven't provided a coherent argument throughout this thread.

 

[wihosa]

When the media isn't just out and out lying blatantly, they are skewering the truth by omission.

Anyone see or hear any blazing headlines about this father? I bettcha didn't. I just found it.

YAY!

A third parent, however, disagreed, the Connecticut Mirror reports. "I believe in a few simple gun laws.

I think we have more than enough on the books," said Mark Mattioli, father of James, another 6-year-old victim.

"I don't care if you named it James' Law. I don't want it."



Newtown Dad 'Heckled' at Gun Hearing - Parents disagree over assault weapons ban

Well there you have it, if just one of the parents of the Newtown massacred children doesn't want new gun laws, well then.... How about the other nineteen children's parents?
Or how about that the vast majority of Americans who want new gun laws, like for instance background checks? Polls show anywhere from 95 to 90% support.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Well there you have it, if just one of the parents of the Newtown massacred children doesn't want new gun laws, well then.... How about the other nineteen children's parents?
Or how about that the vast majority of Americans who want new gun laws, like for instance background checks? Polls show anywhere from 95 to 90% support.

Then why aren't they passed ?

Why no EO just taking them outright ?

The massacred children would want Obama to act the same day if they could write a him a letter from their tiny coffins.

 

[Dubya]

What on earth does one person's opinion have to do with my OP?

I'm attacking the media for burying this part of the incident that happened at the meeting. My OP is strictly about how the media lies "by omission".

They don't give the whole story and instead of presenting the meeting as news, the media turned it into an "editorial".

And with a false narrative beginning with the editing of the first tape. Exactly like NBC did with Zimmerman.

My OP has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinion on gun control. My applause was designed for this gentleman having the balls to state this opinion in a room that leaned towards gun control. He had guts.

With all due respect, you really should go back and read my first post.

The only reason a gun nut considers Sandy Hook a story of interest now is they can't get it through their heads that the gun violence people oppose isn't based on that one incident. You gun nuts can red herring and strawman until doomsday, but your opinions aren't going to fly in this country. The guns on our streets will continue to make this country have gun violence, so your effort is doomed. It's the public's awareness of unnecessary gun violence and their awareness of how the NRA types want nothing done that will dictate future policy.

Those stories aren't of much public interest, but your kind likes using everything to get your childish ways. Just paint a reverse L on your forehead to remind yourself of the final outcome, when you look at yourself in the mirror. Even if those politicians in the NRA's pocket succeed in stopping meaningful gun reform legislation at this moment in history, they aren't going to be around forever. Let's face it, time is not going to be on your side!

Stories about Newton aren't of much public interest? What planet were you on the past few days?

Every lib and their mother was screaming about the fake story that the father of a deceased child from Newton was "heckled" by 2nd Amendment individuals at this meeting.

It was all over the news. The liberal media was driving the anti gun agenda. Then MSNBC got caught out again doctoring a tape. And now the story is not news? No not at all.



My OP is dealing strictly with the media and their omission of another point of view at this meeting.

Pontificate in another thread if you can't stay on topic.

Your post is a typical right-wing hack job. The media will cover what will sell. How much do you want to bet I can't find that story in what you call MSM. I know I can't find it on FOX, because they don't put much of their news online.

If you would have asked me if any of the parents would have that point of view, I would have certainly thought that all those parents wouldn't believe guns are connected to the violence. It's just common sense that people would have a variety of opinions, so why is that news?

Here is the story with CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/us/connecticut-sandy-hook-hearings/index.html

 

[Bfgrn]

When the media isn't just out and out lying blatantly, they are skewering the truth by omission.

Anyone see or hear any blazing headlines about this father? I bettcha didn't. I just found it.

YAY!

A third parent, however, disagreed, the Connecticut Mirror reports. "I believe in a few simple gun laws.

I think we have more than enough on the books," said Mark Mattioli, father of James, another 6-year-old victim.

"I don't care if you named it James' Law. I don't want it."



Newtown Dad 'Heckled' at Gun Hearing - Parents disagree over assault weapons ban

They always ignore the people who don't fit their agenda.

You folks are ignoring the majority of Americans and even NRA members who don't fit your agenda. And you can't even digest that the agenda of people calling for gun sense are not calling for taking away everyone's guns.

 

[Dubya]

When the media isn't just out and out lying blatantly, they are skewering the truth by omission.

Anyone see or hear any blazing headlines about this father? I bettcha didn't. I just found it.

YAY!

A third parent, however, disagreed, the Connecticut Mirror reports. "I believe in a few simple gun laws.

I think we have more than enough on the books," said Mark Mattioli, father of James, another 6-year-old victim.

"I don't care if you named it James' Law. I don't want it."



Newtown Dad 'Heckled' at Gun Hearing - Parents disagree over assault weapons ban

They always ignore the people who don't fit their agenda.

You folks are ignoring the majority of Americans and even NRA members who don't fit your agenda. And you can't even digest that the agenda of people calling for gun sense are not calling for taking away everyone's guns.

That is very true, though some of the changes I have proposed like universal renewable registration and a data base of ballistics tests on all rifled firearms aren't things generally proposed. In fact, I haven't heard anyone else propose doing that.

You are only one away from 10,000 posts.

 

[Bfgrn]

LOL ... I never look at any of that stuff...but I am over...

 

[OODA_Loop]

That is very true, though some of the changes I have proposed like universal renewable registration and a data base of ballistics tests on all rifled firearms aren't things generally proposed. In fact, I haven't heard anyone else propose doing that.

Yes cause a file with the serial number and a ballistic test will stop criminals.

Brilliant. Ever think if you are the only one thinking something your idea may very well be more fucked than you think ?

 

[tinydancer]

When the media isn't just out and out lying blatantly, they are skewering the truth by omission.

Anyone see or hear any blazing headlines about this father? I bettcha didn't. I just found it.

YAY!

A third parent, however, disagreed, the Connecticut Mirror reports. "I believe in a few simple gun laws.

I think we have more than enough on the books," said Mark Mattioli, father of James, another 6-year-old victim.

"I don't care if you named it James' Law. I don't want it."



Newtown Dad 'Heckled' at Gun Hearing - Parents disagree over assault weapons ban

Well there you have it, if just one of the parents of the Newtown massacred children doesn't want new gun laws, well then.... How about the other nineteen children's parents?
Or how about that the vast majority of Americans who want new gun laws, like for instance background checks? Polls show anywhere from 95 to 90% support.

It doesn't matter what anyone wants. Not even what the poor parents of the Newton tragedy. Not what Gabby Giffords wants. Not any of them. Sorry as I can be.

The Second Amendment stands.

I'm very sorry these people lost their children to an insane kid who couldn't buy a gun.

I'm very sorry that in Chicago murders with guns happen every day.

I'm sorry that today many children across the country will die in car crashes that involve drunk drivers.

I'm sorry that children die at the hands of their parents or caregivers on a daily basis.

All of the deaths that occur daily listed above are due to criminal actions.

None of those deaths occurred because someone was following a law already put in place.

Not one law could prevent any of those tragedies that take place daily.

 

[Spoonman]

How am I back pedaling? You are stating that the assault weapons ban expiring in 2005 is the reason for the decrease in gun related homicides that began in 1993. That makes no sense.

I never said a ban always leads to a decrease in gun deaths. You can take a look at my previous posts throughout this thread. I also maintain that not having any gun laws isn't going to lead to fewer gun deaths as well as Mississippi and Louisiana show us.

again your facts are off. gun homicides increased from 1999 up to the point the assault weapons ban was lifted. more guns has not equaled more homicides. you keep telling me these statistics matter. do they or don't they? you can't use the argument well this state has lees deaths becasue they have less people in one argument and then discount that the the increase in guns and the lowering of gun deaths isn't relevent.

The number of homicides dropped ~50% from the early 1990's until the assault weapons ban was lifted. Since it was lifted it has continued to drop at a much lower rate, ~13%.

It is very difficult finding reliable homicide data separated by weapon. The best I can find is total homicides from the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

How do you still not understand the difference between a rate and a raw number? You can't compare states when one has more people than the other, you need to use the rate when comparing states. Do you have anything that proves that the drop in homicides is due to the increase in guns?

except for the fact that from 1999 to 2005 they rose.

now again we have more than double the guns, we have a larger population, we have more people with guns, we have way more deadly assault weapons. all growth numbers. but we have one decline, the number of homicides by guns. yea, just like states that have more people and more guns would logically have an higher number of incidents - your argument - we should see the same corresponding numbers nationally where we have more guns, and more people. but we don't we see less incidents. your little proportions argument is blown out of the water

 

[Spoonman]

The number of homicides dropped ~50% from the early 1990's until the assault weapons ban was lifted. Since it was lifted it has continued to drop at a much lower rate, ~13%.

It is very difficult finding reliable homicide data separated by weapon. The best I can find is total homicides from the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

How do you still not understand the difference between a rate and a raw number? You can't compare states when one has more people than the other, you need to use the rate when comparing states. Do you have anything that proves that the drop in homicides is due to the increase in guns?

You want to use the assault ban lift as evidence it impacted the rate of gun use in murder? No relationship was established, just assumption on your part.

Then you deny an increase in gun ownership can lower homicide rates. You have a conflict there moron.

I'm not the one who originally brought up the lifting of the assault weapons ban as the reason for the decrease, Spoonman did which was an assumption on his part. Do try to keep up. I pointed to the larger drop while the ban was in effect as an argument against his assertion that the lifting of the ban led to the drop.

so by your logic, if the gun ban did cause a decrease in homicides, when it was lifted they should have risen again. but they didn't. they dropped. and they dropped in the presence of an ever increasing number of guns, number of gun owners and a proliferation of deadly assault weapons. so once again your argument is all washed up.

 

[AceRothstein]

again your facts are off. gun homicides increased from 1999 up to the point the assault weapons ban was lifted. more guns has not equaled more homicides. you keep telling me these statistics matter. do they or don't they? you can't use the argument well this state has lees deaths becasue they have less people in one argument and then discount that the the increase in guns and the lowering of gun deaths isn't relevent.

The number of homicides dropped ~50% from the early 1990's until the assault weapons ban was lifted. Since it was lifted it has continued to drop at a much lower rate, ~13%.

It is very difficult finding reliable homicide data separated by weapon. The best I can find is total homicides from the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics

How do you still not understand the difference between a rate and a raw number? You can't compare states when one has more people than the other, you need to use the rate when comparing states. Do you have anything that proves that the drop in homicides is due to the increase in guns?

except for the fact that from 1999 to 2005 they rose.

now again we have more than double the guns, we have a larger population, we have more people with guns, we have way more deadly assault weapons. all growth numbers. but we have one decline, the number of homicides by guns. yea, just like states that have more people and more guns would logically have an higher number of incidents - your argument - we should see the same corresponding numbers nationally where we have more guns, and more people. but we don't we see less incidents. your little proportions argument is blown out of the water

But the decrease from 1993 to 1999 was magnitudes greater than the decrease from 2005 to current. Maybe neither decrease had anything to do with the ban or lifting of the ban. I'm not the one stating that the ban being in place definitely led to a decrease like you are doing post ban. Also, there was no assault weapons ban in the 80's or 90's when murders skyrocketed.

Again, I've never called for a ban on guns but there just isn't a correlation between state weapons laws and murders. If more guns led to fewer murders, why does Louisiana continually lead the country in murder rate? They have the most lax gun laws in the country.

 

[AceRothstein]

You want to use the assault ban lift as evidence it impacted the rate of gun use in murder? No relationship was established, just assumption on your part.

Then you deny an increase in gun ownership can lower homicide rates. You have a conflict there moron.

I'm not the one who originally brought up the lifting of the assault weapons ban as the reason for the decrease, Spoonman did which was an assumption on his part. Do try to keep up. I pointed to the larger drop while the ban was in effect as an argument against his assertion that the lifting of the ban led to the drop.

so by your logic, if the gun ban did cause a decrease in homicides, when it was lifted they should have risen again. but they didn't. they dropped. and they dropped in the presence of an ever increasing number of guns, number of gun owners and a proliferation of deadly assault weapons. so once again your argument is all washed up.

But the massive jump in murders prior to the assault weapons ban are under the same national laws as today. Again, I'm not saying the ban was the reason for the decrease like you are saying the lifting of the ban was. I don't think the ban or lifting of it is the reason for Amy decrease or increase.