lol @ "gun-worshipping culture" from the Slate piece. 2 peer reviewed papers from a criminologist along with an easy to understand article. Take it where you want it.
I honestly don't know why I'm responding to you, I generally simply ignore you, but this post in and of itself isn't as bad as your standard fare.
I was providing food for thought as I mentioned below the post (and the statistics I claimed initially).
You then go own to post three links ... all of which are articles authored by ... the same person. Shocker. In fact, in your own third link there is an addendum to the opinion piece where the authors that Kleck is criticising respond and, well, I'll just quote them:
We're trying to have a reasonable discussion here and you tripled down with Gary Kleck? Really? In hindsight, maybe this post is as bad as your standard fare.
I may disagree with SlowSpyder on a number of points, as I have done in other threads, but he's, by all accounts in my limited interaction, a reasonable guy who presents a reasonable argument has the discussion as a gentleman.
lol @ "gun-worshipping culture" from the Slate piece. 2 peer reviewed papers from a criminologist along with an easy to understand article. Take it where you want it.
Awww, tell you what, just keep on pushing your pro-gun control agenda, keep on pushing more and varied restrictions on firearms, I welcome it since it's the biggest winning issue for conservatives there is.Should I bother asking what your view on anthropomorphic climate change is given the overwhelming scientific literature in peer reviewed journals from multiple authors (unlike your single author who has been fairly well debunked)? (I already know the answer, you don't have to respond)
To be fair, a relatively substantial part of my living is reading peer reviewed literature. I'm sitting next to a few stacks of peer reviewed journals right now. I also provide an epidemiology lecture series annually. But sure, we can talk about how valid Gary Kleck is if you'd like (really though, we won't).
High likelihood I'll go back to ignoring you at this point, but I did at least have a glimmer of hope for reasonable discussion. Feel free to claim that as victory, it really won't bother me. I am disappointed, though.
Ah the old literacy test to vote. Tell you what if you can get a 100% in 10 minutes with me grading and we'll consider your voting idea.I'd like to see the same for voting. Good luck on that.
Although we do not yet know exactly how guns affect us, the notion that more guns lead to less crime is almost certainly incorrect. The research on guns is not uniform, and we could certainly use more of it. But when all but a few studies point in the same direction, we can feel confident that the arrow is aiming at the truth—which is, in this case, that guns do not inhibit crime and violence but instead make it worse.
We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones (18,30), although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record and, especially, a deeper understanding of the role of hurricanes in the general circulation of the atmosphere and ocean, even in the present climate state.
Toddlers can't walk and pick their noses at the same time. How are we supposed to turn them into a well regulated militia?...a well regulated militia.
Could turn 'em into politicians, can't be much worse than what we have.Toddlers can't walk and pick their noses at the same time. How are we supposed to turn them into a well regulated militia?
Interesting statistics, though I am not sold on them taking enough into account while looking at guns in a vacuum. But regardless ,I think they really don't have much relevance to be honest. Wherever the truth lies, we've decided guns are a freedom that is worth keeping around despite the risks and possible cost to society. And we know that guns kill us in far less numbers than other things that no one care about. Until the left cares about stopping other bigger killers, lower hanging fruit that do more harm, the gun debate will continue to look like nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. But that is what politics have devolved into the last few decades, if the right is for it the left must be against it and vice versa.
"Until the left cares about stopping other bigger killers, lower hanging fruit that do more harm, "
You mean like having a good healthcare system? Before Obamacare, 44k people died a year because of a lack of health insurance based on a harvard study, but the right is intent on disabling our healthcare system.
Sure, that could be an example of something they do care about. There are other freedoms that kill us far more than guns, though, and no one really cares.
There are more guns than cars and trucks in the states...
I know it won't be popular opinion on this site which tends to be left-leaning, but I think that's great.
It's great toddlers are shooting other toddlers?
No, that's unfortunate and I wish there was a cure for stupidity. But as with any freedom we can point to bad outcomes due to that freedom's existence, that doesn't mean we should scrap the freedom or keep restricting it.
An inane reply as always. Your idiocy knows no bounds. Pull your head out of your ass for a change and provide some real input instead of your ignorant ramblings of a leftist. Fucking idiots in this world.YES! And that's why we shouldn't do anything at all!
Building on this stellar logic, we should eliminate driving tests, driver licenses, red lights and stop signs, because even with all these, folks, we still have bad drivers.
However, voting and Mexicans are totally exempt from this logic. Multiple levels of needless harassment and a wall will totally work, especially that not at all expensive 20 foot wall. What was good enough for the East Germans in Berlin is good enough for us! Plus, Trump intel reports that Mexico has yet to achieve 21 foot ladder technology.
A government's first priority is to protect its people, even form themselves.
I 100% disagree, and I would argue our constitution does as well.
That's a slippery slope though, people aren't sheep to be herded until their usefulness runs out, they're free thinking individuals. 'Protecting someone from themselves' ends at age 18 imo. Now protecting people from others' stupidity? Sure. Whether that leads to a gun ban will be up to the future though.A government's first priority is to protect its people, even form themselves.
I guess General Wellfare doesn't include accidental shooting?
That's a slippery slope though, people aren't sheep to be herded until their usefulness runs out, they're free thinking individuals. 'Protecting someone from themselves' ends at age 18 imo. Now protecting people from others' stupidity? Sure. Whether that leads to a gun ban will be up to the future though.
73k accidental gun injury and 33k death due to injury by firearms is not a big enough dent on General Wellness?
I am not talking about taking away guns, rather limit their wanton damage.
... not really, no.73k accidental gun injury and 33k death due to injury by firearms is not a big enough dent on General Wellness?
Anyone who complains about gun ownership, yet has no issue with drinking, smoking (even 'responsibly'), or not maintaining health via diet/exercise is being entirely hypocritical. I state this as both a gun owner, and someone who enjoys alcohol.An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. The first is tobacco, and the second is poor diet and physical inactivity.