CDZ Gun Control

[Wry Catcher]

"My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."

You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.

As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.

The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.

Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.

See: I found great synonyms for "inviolate" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I object. I have posted exactly what I believe will reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should never own or possess one. I've done so a number of times and each time my comments have resulted in ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

So that is what you want? Reduce the number of guns which are in the wrong hands? OK. By statute? How will that work, exactly?

I think the SC have done a reasonable job with regards to balancing gun rights and gun control. Blanket bans are unconstitutional. Reasonable regulations are not. Your fundamental right to own a gun is inviolate, but it entails responsibilities and consequences In other words, nothing in the constitution is an impediment to dealing with gun violence.

The people who shouldn't have guns in their hands are principally depressed people and alienated people. That's the problem, and that's where the resources should be used. I don't see how gun violence of these kinds can be impacted by laws. It can be addressed to some extent with education and innovation, but I wouldn't rule out public opinion reaching a tipping point. People may come to think of gun violence as a public health issue.

MAY come to think of gun violence as a public health issue?

A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year

Q. Now why would people begin to think such a thing?

[Solyndra? Chump change! And yet for how long was this a hot issue for so many who post on this message board]

A. Propaganda

Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look - what's going down? Propaganda strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid, guns will be taken away.

 

[Abatis]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical.

Cry me a river.

What's "moot" are your ideas that you choose to maintain in the face of argument that you can not rebut.
What's hypothetical is the thought that a gun control advocate would ever engage in "honest discussion"

Let's remind you of your OP statement:

____________________________

"What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?
The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.
Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.
I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.
I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong."
____________________________​

I have proven the majority of what you have argued in this thread to be incorrect, dishonest or made badly.
I purposely made my arguments in a sincere, detached, exactingly point by point manner without tangents or derailments or personal attack on your intelligence or character (but I did receive insults from you).
I would love to have an honest discussion on the history of gun controls in this country but that does not mean the discussion begins from the perspective that their simple existence proves their constitutionality.
I have been looking for honest discussion from gun control advocates since 1993, when I first began on-line debate back on USENET in talk.politics.guns. It could be found to some degree back then, but back then the case law was on your side; I was arguing the "losing" individual right side . . .
Your bragging that you are not intimidated sounds hollow given your flaccid surrender.
I proved all your OP points wrong in POST 170 and you have yet to rebut anything I wrote.
I have been nothing but respectful, calm and reasoned and you have virtually ignored me (or given me flippant remarks).
You began this thread asking for exactly what I have provided and now that you actually received it, you are running away.

No. I chose to walk away from personal attacks, non sequiturs and the closed minds of obsessives.

Since I am none of the above what is your excuse for not engaging in a "honest discussion" with me?

That you chose to ignore the following (POST #237) speaks volumes about your lack of intellectual integrity. You can not even allow yourself to quote it let alone address it or answer my question or explain your justification. I said:

Would any controversy or confusion remain in your mind if you were to accept the foundational principle that the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment?

Seriously, explain why, and justify how you stand in such stark opposition to 140 years of SCOTUS telling you that the right to arms is a pre-existing right and thus does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

To finally accept that maxim avoids so much self-imposed confusion. It makes it impossible to be confused by what words "mean" or expending all that useless energy inventing conditions and qualifications on the right, from text the right in no manner depends upon.

See, if the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution, the right can not be said to be conditioned by, qualified upon or dependent upon any entity / structure that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (the organized militia, well regulated or not).

Understand and accept that or you can continue stumbling in self-imposed blindness profoundly confused by things that have never been reality.​

You are just one more in a long list of anti-liberty gun haters who have deluded themselves into feeling their arguments are logical and reasoned but in reality they are based entirely in emotion. Because your positions are actually emotional constructs, any challenge to you to explain or defend your positions is perceived as either a personal attack or the ranting of an unhinged, gun obsessed fanatic -- just so you can justify dismissing the argument and not disturbing your fantasy.

I would feel sorry for you if you and your ilk were not such an immediate threat to the concepts of liberty and justice.


.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical.

Cry me a river.

What's "moot" are your ideas that you choose to maintain in the face of argument that you can not rebut.
What's hypothetical is the thought that a gun control advocate would ever engage in "honest discussion"

Let's remind you of your OP statement:

____________________________

"What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?
The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.
Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.
I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.
I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong."
____________________________​

I have proven the majority of what you have argued in this thread to be incorrect, dishonest or made badly.
I purposely made my arguments in a sincere, detached, exactingly point by point manner without tangents or derailments or personal attack on your intelligence or character (but I did receive insults from you).
I would love to have an honest discussion on the history of gun controls in this country but that does not mean the discussion begins from the perspective that their simple existence proves their constitutionality.
I have been looking for honest discussion from gun control advocates since 1993, when I first began on-line debate back on USENET in talk.politics.guns. It could be found to some degree back then, but back then the case law was on your side; I was arguing the "losing" individual right side . . .
Your bragging that you are not intimidated sounds hollow given your flaccid surrender.
I proved all your OP points wrong in POST 170 and you have yet to rebut anything I wrote.
I have been nothing but respectful, calm and reasoned and you have virtually ignored me (or given me flippant remarks).
You began this thread asking for exactly what I have provided and now that you actually received it, you are running away.

No. I chose to walk away from personal attacks, non sequiturs and the closed minds of obsessives.

Since I am none of the above what is your excuse for not engaging in a "honest discussion" with me?

That you chose to ignore the following (POST #237) speaks volumes about your lack of intellectual integrity. You can not even allow yourself to quote it let alone address it or answer my question or explain your justification. I said:

Would any controversy or confusion remain in your mind if you were to accept the foundational principle that the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment?

Seriously, explain why, and justify how you stand in such stark opposition to 140 years of SCOTUS telling you that the right to arms is a pre-existing right and thus does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.

To finally accept that maxim avoids so much self-imposed confusion. It makes it impossible to be confused by what words "mean" or expending all that useless energy inventing conditions and qualifications on the right, from text the right in no manner depends upon.

See, if the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution, the right can not be said to be conditioned by, qualified upon or dependent upon any entity / structure that is itself, entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence (the organized militia, well regulated or not).

Understand and accept that or you can continue stumbling in self-imposed blindness profoundly confused by things that have never been reality.​

You are just one more in a long list of anti-liberty gun haters who have deluded themselves into feeling their arguments are logical and reasoned but in reality they are based entirely in emotion. Because your positions are actually emotional constructs, any challenge to you to explain or defend your positions is perceived as either a personal attack or the ranting of an unhinged, gun obsessed fanatic -- just so you can justify dismissing the argument and not disturbing your fantasy.

I would feel sorry for you if you and your ilk were not such an immediate threat to the concepts of liberty and justice.


.

I stopped reading after this sentence:

'I have proven the majority of what you have argued in this thread to be incorrect, dishonest or made badly"

I do have a question. When you post under the non de plume PoliticalChic do you wear women's clothes, makeup and a wig?

 

[Abatis]

I stopped reading after this sentence:

'I have proven the majority of what you have argued in this thread to be incorrect, dishonest or made badly"

Of course you stopped reading, your incorrect positions must be maintained and insulated from contradictory information and your bruised ego must be nurtured.

Heaven forbid you were to go back and pick out ONE statement of mine and layout your defense of your position or prove me wrong.

I do have a question. When you post under the non de plume PoliticalChic do you wear women's clothes, makeup and a wig?

And just as I spoke about directly above, all you are adept at is personal attacks on my character!

I do not have now nor have I ever had any other account here or anywhere I post.

 

[2aguy]

"My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."

You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.

As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.

The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.

Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.

See: I found great synonyms for "inviolate" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I object. I have posted exactly what I believe will reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should never own or possess one. I've done so a number of times and each time my comments have resulted in ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

So that is what you want? Reduce the number of guns which are in the wrong hands? OK. By statute? How will that work, exactly?

I think the SC have done a reasonable job with regards to balancing gun rights and gun control. Blanket bans are unconstitutional. Reasonable regulations are not. Your fundamental right to own a gun is inviolate, but it entails responsibilities and consequences In other words, nothing in the constitution is an impediment to dealing with gun violence.

The people who shouldn't have guns in their hands are principally depressed people and alienated people. That's the problem, and that's where the resources should be used. I don't see how gun violence of these kinds can be impacted by laws. It can be addressed to some extent with education and innovation, but I wouldn't rule out public opinion reaching a tipping point. People may come to think of gun violence as a public health issue.

MAY come to think of gun violence as a public health issue?

A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year

Q. Now why would people begin to think such a thing?

[Solyndra? Chump change! And yet for how long was this a hot issue for so many who post on this message board]

A. Propaganda

Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look - what's going down? Propaganda strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid, guns will be taken away.

The gun violence tab is created by career criminals, who murder other career criminals. If you want to make them pay restitution for their crimes…go for it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I stopped reading after this sentence:

'I have proven the majority of what you have argued in this thread to be incorrect, dishonest or made badly"

Of course you stopped reading, your incorrect positions must be maintained and insulated from contradictory information and your bruised ego must be nurtured.

Heaven forbid you were to go back and pick out ONE statement of mine and layout your defense of your position or prove me wrong.

I do have a question. When you post under the non de plume PoliticalChic do you wear women's clothes, makeup and a wig?

And just as I spoke about directly above, all you are adept at is personal attacks on my character!

I do not have now nor have I ever had any other account here or anywhere I post.

Your character is flawed, that does not equate to a personal attack, it is a statement of facts. You also lack a sense of humor, social skills and take yourself way to seriously. Thus, you appear to be a clone of PoliticalChic.

 

[2aguy]

I stopped reading after this sentence:

'I have proven the majority of what you have argued in this thread to be incorrect, dishonest or made badly"

Of course you stopped reading, your incorrect positions must be maintained and insulated from contradictory information and your bruised ego must be nurtured.

Heaven forbid you were to go back and pick out ONE statement of mine and layout your defense of your position or prove me wrong.

I do have a question. When you post under the non de plume PoliticalChic do you wear women's clothes, makeup and a wig?

And just as I spoke about directly above, all you are adept at is personal attacks on my character!

I do not have now nor have I ever had any other account here or anywhere I post.

Your character is flawed, that does not equate to a personal attack, it is a statement of facts. You also lack a sense of humor, social skills and take yourself way to seriously. Thus, you appear to be a clone of PoliticalChic.

Yes…..you have nothing so you attack.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I stopped reading after this sentence:

'I have proven the majority of what you have argued in this thread to be incorrect, dishonest or made badly"

Of course you stopped reading, your incorrect positions must be maintained and insulated from contradictory information and your bruised ego must be nurtured.

Heaven forbid you were to go back and pick out ONE statement of mine and layout your defense of your position or prove me wrong.

I do have a question. When you post under the non de plume PoliticalChic do you wear women's clothes, makeup and a wig?

And just as I spoke about directly above, all you are adept at is personal attacks on my character!

I do not have now nor have I ever had any other account here or anywhere I post.

Your character is flawed, that does not equate to a personal attack, it is a statement of facts. You also lack a sense of humor, social skills and take yourself way to seriously. Thus, you appear to be a clone of PoliticalChic.

Yes…..you have nothing so you attack.

I have nothing, Oh woe is me.

 

[Elvis Obama]

"My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."

You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.

As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.

The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.

Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.

See: I found great synonyms for "inviolate" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I object. I have posted exactly what I believe will reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should never own or possess one. I've done so a number of times and each time my comments have resulted in ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

So that is what you want? Reduce the number of guns which are in the wrong hands? OK. By statute? How will that work, exactly?

I think the SC have done a reasonable job with regards to balancing gun rights and gun control. Blanket bans are unconstitutional. Reasonable regulations are not. Your fundamental right to own a gun is inviolate, but it entails responsibilities and consequences In other words, nothing in the constitution is an impediment to dealing with gun violence.

The people who shouldn't have guns in their hands are principally depressed people and alienated people. That's the problem, and that's where the resources should be used. I don't see how gun violence of these kinds can be impacted by laws. It can be addressed to some extent with education and innovation, but I wouldn't rule out public opinion reaching a tipping point. People may come to think of gun violence as a public health issue.

MAY come to think of gun violence as a public health issue?

A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year

Q. Now why would people begin to think such a thing?

[Solyndra? Chump change! And yet for how long was this a hot issue for so many who post on this message board]

A. Propaganda

Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look - what's going down? Propaganda strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid, guns will be taken away.

Buffalo Springfield!

What could be a "tipping point"? Who knows? What was the tipping point with regards to same sex marriage? That happened with extraordinary rapidity. There are, of course, many theories as to why that happened, and I have my own theory, but the fact that it happened is more germane than the reasons why it happened. Sandy Hook was an event that many thought might cause enough public outcry to give cowardly politicians the cover they would need to defy the NRA. It didn't. The 2012 election results should have given cowardly politicians the knowledge that NRA ratings do not make or break a politician, but it didn't

That doesn't mean that it can't happen. Science will have its day. When someone tells me the CDC is "anti-gun", there is nothing more to say. You're talking to a paranoiac who believes that the government fears his popguns. Someone who believes that he poses the same threat to the government that local militias posed in the 1700's That is not a widely held opinion. It's just common on forum boards.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but the problem is not being properly defined. You can't achieve anything without a precise definition of the problem you are attempting to solve. You're talking about a problem that is a detriment to America's soft power. If you're the mother of an English employee of a multi-national corporation and you've just come back from the cinema where you saw Chiraq, to hear that your son had been transferred to the Chicago office, how would you respond? We appear barbaric to the rest of the world. If these deaths were due to any other cause, it would be treated as a public health issue.

The problem is not guns, it's death. We have these horrible statistics. to contend with. Statistics that cause the rest of the world to shake their heads in amazement and contempt. Mass shootings and accidental death is a drop in the bucket of these statistics. The problem is concentrated in suicides and the inner cities. If we want to appear civilized to the rest of the world we need to address those issues. We need to emphasize public health, not gun control. We need to marshal public opinion, not divide it.

 

[2aguy]

"My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."

You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.

As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.

The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.

Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.

See: I found great synonyms for "inviolate" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I object. I have posted exactly what I believe will reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should never own or possess one. I've done so a number of times and each time my comments have resulted in ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

So that is what you want? Reduce the number of guns which are in the wrong hands? OK. By statute? How will that work, exactly?

I think the SC have done a reasonable job with regards to balancing gun rights and gun control. Blanket bans are unconstitutional. Reasonable regulations are not. Your fundamental right to own a gun is inviolate, but it entails responsibilities and consequences In other words, nothing in the constitution is an impediment to dealing with gun violence.

The people who shouldn't have guns in their hands are principally depressed people and alienated people. That's the problem, and that's where the resources should be used. I don't see how gun violence of these kinds can be impacted by laws. It can be addressed to some extent with education and innovation, but I wouldn't rule out public opinion reaching a tipping point. People may come to think of gun violence as a public health issue.

MAY come to think of gun violence as a public health issue?

A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year

Q. Now why would people begin to think such a thing?

[Solyndra? Chump change! And yet for how long was this a hot issue for so many who post on this message board]

A. Propaganda

Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look - what's going down? Propaganda strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid, guns will be taken away.

Buffalo Springfield!

What could be a "tipping point"? Who knows? What was the tipping point with regards to same sex marriage? That happened with extraordinary rapidity. There are, of course, many theories as to why that happened, and I have my own theory, but the fact that it happened is more germane than the reasons why it happened. Sandy Hook was an event that many thought might cause enough public outcry to give cowardly politicians the cover they would need to defy the NRA. It didn't. The 2012 election results should have given cowardly politicians the knowledge that NRA ratings do not make or break a politician, but it didn't

That doesn't mean that it can't happen. Science will have its day. When someone tells me the CDC is "anti-gun", there is nothing more to say. You're talking to a paranoiac who believes that the government fears his popguns. Someone who believes that he poses the same threat to the government that local militias posed in the 1700's That is not a widely held opinion. It's just common on forum boards.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but the problem is not being properly defined. You can't achieve anything without a precise definition of the problem you are attempting to solve. You're talking about a problem that is a detriment to America's soft power. If you're the mother of an English employee of a multi-national corporation and you've just come back from the cinema where you saw Chiraq, to hear that your son had been transferred to the Chicago office, how would you respond? We appear barbaric to the rest of the world. If these deaths were due to any other cause, it would be treated as a public health issue.

The problem is not guns, it's death. We have these horrible statistics. to contend with. Statistics that cause the rest of the world to shake their heads in amazement and contempt. Mass shootings and accidental death is a drop in the bucket of these statistics. The problem is concentrated in suicides and the inner cities. If we want to appear civilized to the rest of the world we need to address those issues. We need to emphasize public health, not gun control. We need to marshal public opinion, not divide it.

When someone tells me the CDC is "anti-gun", there is nothing more to say.

This article highlights the people running the CDC and their anti gun agenda....it goes into a great deal of detail on the biased research...

Public Health Pot Shots

Contrary to this picture of dispassionate scientists under assault by the Neanderthal NRA and its know-nothing allies in Congress, serious scholars have been criticizing the CDC's "public health" approach to gun research for years. In a presentation at the American Society of Criminology's 1994 meeting, for example, University of Illinois sociologist David Bordua and epidemiologist David Cowan called the public health literature on guns "advocacy based on political beliefs rather than scientific fact."

Bordua and Cowan noted that The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association, the main outlets for CDC-funded studies of firearms, are consistent supporters of strict gun control. They found that "reports with findings not supporting the position of the journal are rarely cited," "little is cited from the criminological or sociological field," and the articles that are cited "are almost always by medical or public health researchers."

Further, Bordua and Cowan said, "assumptions are presented as fact: that there is a causal association between gun ownership and the risk of violence, that this association is consistent across all demographic categories, and that additional legislation will reduce the prevalence of firearms and consequently reduce the incidence of violence."

They concluded that "ncestuous and selective literature citations may be acceptable for political tracts, but they introduce an artificial bias into scientific publications. Stating as fact associations which may be demonstrably false is not just unscientific, it is unprincipled." In a 1994 presentation to the Western Economics Association, State University of New York at Buffalo criminologist Lawrence Southwick compared public health firearm studies to popular articles produced by the gun lobby: "Generally the level of analysis done on each side is of a low quality. The papers published in the medical literature (which are uniformly anti-gun) are particularly poor science."

As Bordua, Cowan, and Southwick observed, a prejudice against gun ownership pervades the public health field.

Deborah Prothrow-Stith, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, nicely summarizes the typical attitude of her colleagues in a recent book. "My own view on gun control is simple," she writes. "I hate guns and cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."

Opposition to gun ownership is also the official position of the U.S. Public Health Service, the CDC's parent agency. Since 1979, its goal has been "to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership," starting with a 25 percent reduction by the turn of the century.

Since 1985 the CDC has funded scores of firearm studies, all reaching conclusions that favor stricter gun control. But CDC officials insist they are not pursuing an anti-gun agenda. In a 1996 interview with the Times-Picayune, CDC spokeswoman Mary Fenley adamantly denied that the agency is "trying to eliminate guns." In a 1991 letter to CDC critic Dr. David Stolinsky, the NCIPC's Mark Rosenberg said "our scientific understanding of the role that firearms play in violent events is rudimentary." He added in a subsequent letter, "There is a strong need for further scientific investigations of the relationships among firearms ownership, firearms regulations and the risk of firearm-related injury. This is an area that has not been given adequate scrutiny. Hopefully, by addressing these important and appropriate scientific issues we will eventually arrive at conclusions which support effective, preventive actions."

Yet four years earlier, in a 1987 CDC report, Rosenberg thought the area adequately scrutinized, and his understanding sufficient, to urge confiscation of all firearms from "the general population," claiming "8,600 homicides and 5,370 suicides could be avoided" each year. In 1993 Rolling Stone reported that Rosenberg "envisions a long term campaign, similar to [those concerning] tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace." In 1994 he told The Washington Post, "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned."

As Bordua and Cowan noted, one hallmark of the public health literature on guns is a tendency to ignore contrary scholarship. Among criminologists, Gary Kleck's encyclopedic Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991) is universally recognized as the starting point for further research. Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University, was initially a strong believer that gun ownership increased the incidence of homicide, but his research made him a skeptic. His book assembles strong evidence against the notion that reducing gun ownership is a good way to reduce violence. That may be why Point Blank is never cited in the CDC's own firearm publications or in articles reporting the results of CDC-funded gun studies.

 

[2aguy]

"My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."

You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.

As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.

The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.

Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.

See: I found great synonyms for "inviolate" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I object. I have posted exactly what I believe will reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should never own or possess one. I've done so a number of times and each time my comments have resulted in ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

So that is what you want? Reduce the number of guns which are in the wrong hands? OK. By statute? How will that work, exactly?

I think the SC have done a reasonable job with regards to balancing gun rights and gun control. Blanket bans are unconstitutional. Reasonable regulations are not. Your fundamental right to own a gun is inviolate, but it entails responsibilities and consequences In other words, nothing in the constitution is an impediment to dealing with gun violence.

The people who shouldn't have guns in their hands are principally depressed people and alienated people. That's the problem, and that's where the resources should be used. I don't see how gun violence of these kinds can be impacted by laws. It can be addressed to some extent with education and innovation, but I wouldn't rule out public opinion reaching a tipping point. People may come to think of gun violence as a public health issue.

MAY come to think of gun violence as a public health issue?

A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year

Q. Now why would people begin to think such a thing?

[Solyndra? Chump change! And yet for how long was this a hot issue for so many who post on this message board]

A. Propaganda

Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look - what's going down? Propaganda strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid, guns will be taken away.

Buffalo Springfield!

What could be a "tipping point"? Who knows? What was the tipping point with regards to same sex marriage? That happened with extraordinary rapidity. There are, of course, many theories as to why that happened, and I have my own theory, but the fact that it happened is more germane than the reasons why it happened. Sandy Hook was an event that many thought might cause enough public outcry to give cowardly politicians the cover they would need to defy the NRA. It didn't. The 2012 election results should have given cowardly politicians the knowledge that NRA ratings do not make or break a politician, but it didn't

That doesn't mean that it can't happen. Science will have its day. When someone tells me the CDC is "anti-gun", there is nothing more to say. You're talking to a paranoiac who believes that the government fears his popguns. Someone who believes that he poses the same threat to the government that local militias posed in the 1700's That is not a widely held opinion. It's just common on forum boards.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but the problem is not being properly defined. You can't achieve anything without a precise definition of the problem you are attempting to solve. You're talking about a problem that is a detriment to America's soft power. If you're the mother of an English employee of a multi-national corporation and you've just come back from the cinema where you saw Chiraq, to hear that your son had been transferred to the Chicago office, how would you respond? We appear barbaric to the rest of the world. If these deaths were due to any other cause, it would be treated as a public health issue.

The problem is not guns, it's death. We have these horrible statistics. to contend with. Statistics that cause the rest of the world to shake their heads in amazement and contempt. Mass shootings and accidental death is a drop in the bucket of these statistics. The problem is concentrated in suicides and the inner cities. If we want to appear civilized to the rest of the world we need to address those issues. We need to emphasize public health, not gun control. We need to marshal public opinion, not divide it.

Statistics that cause the rest of the world to shake their heads in amazement and contempt

Remember....the rest of the world routinely participates in mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.....while the "enlightened powers" of Europe and the rest of the world look on and do nothing.........

And it was Europe, not the United States, that marched 12 million innocent men, women and children into gas chambers. We are not talking a primitive place at the time of the mass murder, but the most advanced nations on earth with modern science, universities, philosophy, and democratic forms of government....

So before you get all preachy about us.....if you average the 12 million murdered by the Europeans this last 70 years since the war ended their murder rate is over 100,000 a year.......

And we stopped it. With guns.

 

[westwall]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical. The Congress which has in the past passed reasonable gun legislation ('68 gun act; Brady Bill) hasn't the balls to do the right thing; the money given to members of Congress will allow the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

We are destined to continue to read and listen to mass shootings, murders and accidental deaths, suicides, and the glory of an over armed citizenry whose members right to own / possess a gun can never be infringed until they commit an unconscionable act of violence against themselves or others.

There needs to be a discussion of ways to address mass shootings, murders, accidental deaths, and suicides that don't involve the direct regulation of firearms.

And yet I remember the NRA spokesperson suggesting that the rights of the mentally ill be infringed.

Why is it that you can never tell the truth? Why must everything be a lie with you? The NRA specifically said that they have no problem with mentally ill being relieved of their rights SO LONG AS THEY HAVE BEEN PROPERLY CLASSIFIED AND HAD THEIR FULL DUE PROCESS. What they are specifically refuting is the bullcrap from YOUR side that wants to declare every veteran a mental patient thus removing their rights with no due process.

My gosh, no wonder you guys are losing so bad. You lie every time you open your mouths!

 

[2aguy]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical. The Congress which has in the past passed reasonable gun legislation ('68 gun act; Brady Bill) hasn't the balls to do the right thing; the money given to members of Congress will allow the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

We are destined to continue to read and listen to mass shootings, murders and accidental deaths, suicides, and the glory of an over armed citizenry whose members right to own / possess a gun can never be infringed until they commit an unconscionable act of violence against themselves or others.

There needs to be a discussion of ways to address mass shootings, murders, accidental deaths, and suicides that don't involve the direct regulation of firearms.

And yet I remember the NRA spokesperson suggesting that the rights of the mentally ill be infringed.

Why is it that you can never tell the teruth? Why must everything be a lie with you? The NRA specifically said that they have no problem with mentally ill being relieved of their rights SO LONG AS THEY HAVE BEEN PROPERLY CLASSIFIED AND HAD THEIR FULL DUE PROCESS. What they are specifically refuting is the bullcrap from YOUR side that wants to declare every veteran a mental patient thus removing their rights with no due process.

My gosh, no wonder you guys are losing so bad. You lie every time you open your mouths!

Exactly.......

 

[2aguy]

"My personal opinion is that gun rights are inviolate and that gun control, as it has been practiced to date, is ineffective."

You're entitled to your opinion, with the understanding that it is wrong.

As a fact of Constitutional law the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

And specific gun control measures have been effective with regard to their intended regulatory scope and purpose, where it is disingenuous to assail such measures because they haven't prevented criminal acts beyond that intended scope and purpose, as no one measure is a 'panacea' for the violence and crime related to guns.

The thread does serve a purpose to illustrate that there exists far too many unwilling to enter into good faith debate concerning the subject, too many who refuse to acknowledge settled and accepted facts of law, seeking instead to continue to propagate ridiculous lies and fallacies for some perceived partisan gain.

Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.

See: I found great synonyms for "inviolate" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I object. I have posted exactly what I believe will reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should never own or possess one. I've done so a number of times and each time my comments have resulted in ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

So that is what you want? Reduce the number of guns which are in the wrong hands? OK. By statute? How will that work, exactly?

I think the SC have done a reasonable job with regards to balancing gun rights and gun control. Blanket bans are unconstitutional. Reasonable regulations are not. Your fundamental right to own a gun is inviolate, but it entails responsibilities and consequences In other words, nothing in the constitution is an impediment to dealing with gun violence.

The people who shouldn't have guns in their hands are principally depressed people and alienated people. That's the problem, and that's where the resources should be used. I don't see how gun violence of these kinds can be impacted by laws. It can be addressed to some extent with education and innovation, but I wouldn't rule out public opinion reaching a tipping point. People may come to think of gun violence as a public health issue.

MAY come to think of gun violence as a public health issue?

A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year

Q. Now why would people begin to think such a thing?

[Solyndra? Chump change! And yet for how long was this a hot issue for so many who post on this message board]

A. Propaganda

Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look - what's going down? Propaganda strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid, guns will be taken away.

Buffalo Springfield!

What could be a "tipping point"? Who knows? What was the tipping point with regards to same sex marriage? That happened with extraordinary rapidity. There are, of course, many theories as to why that happened, and I have my own theory, but the fact that it happened is more germane than the reasons why it happened. Sandy Hook was an event that many thought might cause enough public outcry to give cowardly politicians the cover they would need to defy the NRA. It didn't. The 2012 election results should have given cowardly politicians the knowledge that NRA ratings do not make or break a politician, but it didn't

That doesn't mean that it can't happen. Science will have its day. When someone tells me the CDC is "anti-gun", there is nothing more to say. You're talking to a paranoiac who believes that the government fears his popguns. Someone who believes that he poses the same threat to the government that local militias posed in the 1700's That is not a widely held opinion. It's just common on forum boards.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but the problem is not being properly defined. You can't achieve anything without a precise definition of the problem you are attempting to solve. You're talking about a problem that is a detriment to America's soft power. If you're the mother of an English employee of a multi-national corporation and you've just come back from the cinema where you saw Chiraq, to hear that your son had been transferred to the Chicago office, how would you respond? We appear barbaric to the rest of the world. If these deaths were due to any other cause, it would be treated as a public health issue.

The problem is not guns, it's death. We have these horrible statistics. to contend with. Statistics that cause the rest of the world to shake their heads in amazement and contempt. Mass shootings and accidental death is a drop in the bucket of these statistics. The problem is concentrated in suicides and the inner cities. If we want to appear civilized to the rest of the world we need to address those issues. We need to emphasize public health, not gun control. We need to marshal public opinion, not divide it.

And more on the CDC biased research.....

When CDC sources do cite adverse studies, they often get them wrong. In 1987 the National Institute of Justice hired two sociologists, James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, to assess the scholarly literature and produce an agenda for gun control.

Wright and Rossi found the literature so biased and shoddy that it provided no basis for concluding anything positive about gun laws. Like Kleck, they were forced to give up their own prior faith in gun control as they researched the issue.



But that's not the story told by Dr. Arthur Kellermann, director of Emory University's Center for Injury Control and the CDC's favorite gun researcher. In a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine article, Kellermann and his co-authors cite Wright and Rossi's book Under the Gun to support the notion that "restricting access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate of homicide." What they actually said was: "There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view."


In a 1992 New England Journal of Medicine article, Kellermann cites an American Journal of Psychiatry study to back up the claim "that limiting access to firearms could prevent many suicides." But the study actually found just the opposite--i.e., that people who don't have guns find other ways to kill themselves.

At the same time that he misuses other people's work, Kellermann refuses to provide the full data for any of his studies so that scholars can evaluate his findings. His critics therefore can judge his results only from the partial data he chooses to publish. Consider a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study that, according to press reports, "showed that keeping a gun in the home nearly triples the likelihood that someone in the household will be slain there." This claim cannot be verified because Kellerman will not release the data. Relying on independent sources to fill gaps in the published data, SUNY-Buffalo's Lawrence Southwick has speculated that Kellermann's full data set would actually vindicate defensive gun ownership. Such issues cannot be resolved without Kellermann's cooperation, but the CDC has refused to require its researchers to part with their data as a condition for taxpayer funding.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Gun rights are inviolate, as are first amendment rights. That doesn't mean they are unconditional. The SC has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of reasonable gun restrictions. As far as the effectiveness of such restrictions goes, it's just nibbling around the edges of the problem.

The simple fact is that this discussion, and every other discussion I've seen on this topic, failed before it began. Everyone talking past one another, and no one defining what they want. I want to prevent unnecessary death. This has nothing to do with gun rights or the second amendment. It has nothing to do with the constitution. It has everything to do with a depraved indifference to human life on the part of far too many Americans and a willingness on the part of politicians to sell the control of this issue to the gun industry.

See: I found great synonyms for "inviolate" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I object. I have posted exactly what I believe will reduce the number of guns in the hands of those who should never own or possess one. I've done so a number of times and each time my comments have resulted in ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies.

So that is what you want? Reduce the number of guns which are in the wrong hands? OK. By statute? How will that work, exactly?

I think the SC have done a reasonable job with regards to balancing gun rights and gun control. Blanket bans are unconstitutional. Reasonable regulations are not. Your fundamental right to own a gun is inviolate, but it entails responsibilities and consequences In other words, nothing in the constitution is an impediment to dealing with gun violence.

The people who shouldn't have guns in their hands are principally depressed people and alienated people. That's the problem, and that's where the resources should be used. I don't see how gun violence of these kinds can be impacted by laws. It can be addressed to some extent with education and innovation, but I wouldn't rule out public opinion reaching a tipping point. People may come to think of gun violence as a public health issue.

MAY come to think of gun violence as a public health issue?

A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year

Q. Now why would people begin to think such a thing?

[Solyndra? Chump change! And yet for how long was this a hot issue for so many who post on this message board]

A. Propaganda

Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look - what's going down? Propaganda strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid, guns will be taken away.

Buffalo Springfield!

What could be a "tipping point"? Who knows? What was the tipping point with regards to same sex marriage? That happened with extraordinary rapidity. There are, of course, many theories as to why that happened, and I have my own theory, but the fact that it happened is more germane than the reasons why it happened. Sandy Hook was an event that many thought might cause enough public outcry to give cowardly politicians the cover they would need to defy the NRA. It didn't. The 2012 election results should have given cowardly politicians the knowledge that NRA ratings do not make or break a politician, but it didn't

That doesn't mean that it can't happen. Science will have its day. When someone tells me the CDC is "anti-gun", there is nothing more to say. You're talking to a paranoiac who believes that the government fears his popguns. Someone who believes that he poses the same threat to the government that local militias posed in the 1700's That is not a widely held opinion. It's just common on forum boards.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but the problem is not being properly defined. You can't achieve anything without a precise definition of the problem you are attempting to solve. You're talking about a problem that is a detriment to America's soft power. If you're the mother of an English employee of a multi-national corporation and you've just come back from the cinema where you saw Chiraq, to hear that your son had been transferred to the Chicago office, how would you respond? We appear barbaric to the rest of the world. If these deaths were due to any other cause, it would be treated as a public health issue.

The problem is not guns, it's death. We have these horrible statistics. to contend with. Statistics that cause the rest of the world to shake their heads in amazement and contempt. Mass shootings and accidental death is a drop in the bucket of these statistics. The problem is concentrated in suicides and the inner cities. If we want to appear civilized to the rest of the world we need to address those issues. We need to emphasize public health, not gun control. We need to marshal public opinion, not divide it.

Statistics that cause the rest of the world to shake their heads in amazement and contempt

Remember....the rest of the world routinely participates in mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing.....while the "enlightened powers" of Europe and the rest of the world look on and do nothing.........

And it was Europe, not the United States, that marched 12 million innocent men, women and children into gas chambers. We are not talking a primitive place at the time of the mass murder, but the most advanced nations on earth with modern science, universities, philosophy, and democratic forms of government....

So before you get all preachy about us.....if you average the 12 million murdered by the Europeans this last 70 years since the war ended their murder rate is over 100,000 a year.......

And we stopped it. With guns.

Well, congratulations! You beat the Bosch!

I make a point about America's soft power and you respond by calling me "preachy"? What have I got to do with it? All nations fight for prestige and influence. All countries respond to incidents which call another nation's character into question. Germany paid a huge price for the barbarity of their leaders. It still does. America also pays for its blunders. I didn't invent soft power and I don't have any influence about how French or English citizens feel about our gun violence problem.

Equating America's lust for tiny, little popguns to the massive US military effort in WWII is offensive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical. The Congress which has in the past passed reasonable gun legislation ('68 gun act; Brady Bill) hasn't the balls to do the right thing; the money given to members of Congress will allow the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

We are destined to continue to read and listen to mass shootings, murders and accidental deaths, suicides, and the glory of an over armed citizenry whose members right to own / possess a gun can never be infringed until they commit an unconscionable act of violence against themselves or others.

There needs to be a discussion of ways to address mass shootings, murders, accidental deaths, and suicides that don't involve the direct regulation of firearms.

And yet I remember the NRA spokesperson suggesting that the rights of the mentally ill be infringed.

Why is it that you can never tell the truth? Why must everything be a lie with you? The NRA specifically said that they have no problem with mentally ill being relieved of their rights SO LONG AS THEY HAVE BEEN PROPERLY CLASSIFIED AND HAD THEIR FULL DUE PROCESS. What they are specifically refuting is the bullcrap from YOUR side that wants to declare every veteran a mental patient thus removing their rights with no due process.

My gosh, no wonder you guys are losing so bad. You lie every time you open your mouths!

I'm a vet, and counseled vets in the early 1980's. I remember the jukebox in the EM Club (1967) playing "Sky Pilot" and "White Rabbit" over and over, and later combat vets - paranoid, drug and alcohol addled - rejected from treatment at the VA because they couldn't prove their problems were related to what they saw and did.

The NRA is a terrorist organization - that is the truth.

 

[westwall]

I surrender. The entire issue of gun control is moot. Moot because the reality of it is hypothetical. The Congress which has in the past passed reasonable gun legislation ('68 gun act; Brady Bill) hasn't the balls to do the right thing; the money given to members of Congress will allow the meme that more guns make America and American's safer from any event or any challenge.

The only sure things are death, taxes and a member of congress putting his or her job first, and the country and its citizens a distant second.

We are destined to continue to read and listen to mass shootings, murders and accidental deaths, suicides, and the glory of an over armed citizenry whose members right to own / possess a gun can never be infringed until they commit an unconscionable act of violence against themselves or others.

There needs to be a discussion of ways to address mass shootings, murders, accidental deaths, and suicides that don't involve the direct regulation of firearms.

And yet I remember the NRA spokesperson suggesting that the rights of the mentally ill be infringed.

Why is it that you can never tell the truth? Why must everything be a lie with you? The NRA specifically said that they have no problem with mentally ill being relieved of their rights SO LONG AS THEY HAVE BEEN PROPERLY CLASSIFIED AND HAD THEIR FULL DUE PROCESS. What they are specifically refuting is the bullcrap from YOUR side that wants to declare every veteran a mental patient thus removing their rights with no due process.

My gosh, no wonder you guys are losing so bad. You lie every time you open your mouths!

I'm a vet, and counseled vets in the early 1980's. I remember the jukebox in the EM Club (1967) playing "Sky Pilot" and "White Rabbit" over and over, and later combat vets - paranoid, drug and alcohol addled - rejected from treatment at the VA because they couldn't prove their problems were related to what they saw and did.

The NRA is a terrorist organization - that is the truth.

Bullcrap. You are more of a terrorist than The NRA could ever be. They are trying to maintain the Rights granted to us by the COTUS. You on the other hand are trying o dismantle those Rights. That makes you an "enemy, foreign, and domestic".

 

[Elvis Obama]

When someone tells me the CDC is "anti-gun", there is nothing more to say.

True, true. It is a waste of time, there is nothing more to say. The CDC is anti-death. Anyone who thinks they're anything else is wearing blinders.

 

[2aguy]

When someone tells me the CDC is "anti-gun", there is nothing more to say.

True, true. It is a waste of time, there is nothing more to say. The CDC is anti-death. Anyone who thinks they're anything else is wearing blinders.

Anyone who can read that article and the anti gun bias at the CDC is blind to the left wing nuts at the CDC.

 

[Elvis Obama]

When someone tells me the CDC is "anti-gun", there is nothing more to say.

True, true. It is a waste of time, there is nothing more to say. The CDC is anti-death. Anyone who thinks they're anything else is wearing blinders.

Anyone who can read that article and the anti gun bias at the CDC is blind to the left wing nuts at the CDC.

The CDC are doctors. Some doctors, like Ben Carson and Tom Coburn are right wing nuts. Some are left-wing. Do you routinely inquire about your doctor's political leanings?

Guns and Ammo praised the CDC's 2013 report, claiming it had "backfired" on the Obama Administration. The CDC's findings pleased neither the misguided advocates of gun control or the paranoiacs who occupy the opposite camp. Sounds objective to me. They recommended further study, but of course that won't happen, because of ignorance and cowardice. The Ignorant and cowardly have always fought science, and always lost. The CDC will win, in the end.