|
Post by megop on Mar 6, 2018 4:57:57 GMT
Sigh.
If one looks at the wide body of studies from the CDC from the safety of some seriously mundane activities, for the life of me I do not understand why it is somehow different regarding firearms. To me the fear is not what the CDC finds, because sorry, from my chair, they are pretty darn scientific regarding their studies, but what legislators will do with the findings. Decisions need to be made on data even if we would still keep all gun laws exactly the same because studies provide management and response answers. Fear of what the studies show is exactly why we have the government we have. Maddening to me. Study the data. If we determine a level of acceptance politically, so be it. But for goodness sake, we need to know some root causation and steps to correct. I would think we all would be interested in that. Yes, I know, I'm a geek freak, but this stuff drives me batty.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 6, 2018 11:38:28 GMT
Sigh. If one looks at the wide body of studies from the CDC from the safety of some seriously mundane activities, for the life of me I do not understand why it is somehow different regarding firearms. To me the fear is not what the CDC finds, because sorry, from my chair, they are pretty darn scientific regarding their studies, but what legislators will do with the findings. Decisions need to be made on data even if we would still keep all gun laws exactly the same because studies provide management and response answers. Fear of what the studies show is exactly why we have the government we have. Maddening to me. Study the data. If we determine a level of acceptance politically, so be it. But for goodness sake, we need to know some root causation and steps to correct. I would think we all would be interested in that. Yes, I know, I'm a geek freak, but this stuff drives me batty. 👍
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 6, 2018 16:02:44 GMT
Sigh. If one looks at the wide body of studies from the CDC from the safety of some seriously mundane activities, for the life of me I do not understand why it is somehow different regarding firearms. To me the fear is not what the CDC finds, because sorry, from my chair, they are pretty darn scientific regarding their studies, but what legislators will do with the findings. Decisions need to be made on data even if we would still keep all gun laws exactly the same because studies provide management and response answers. Fear of what the studies show is exactly why we have the government we have. Maddening to me. Study the data. If we determine a level of acceptance politically, so be it. But for goodness sake, we need to know some root causation and steps to correct. I would think we all would be interested in that. Yes, I know, I'm a geek freak, but this stuff drives me batty. In general most rational people will go along with their detailed reports/studies.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:32:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 18:51:28 GMT
Sigh. If one looks at the wide body of studies from the CDC from the safety of some seriously mundane activities, for the life of me I do not understand why it is somehow different regarding firearms. To me the fear is not what the CDC finds, because sorry, from my chair, they are pretty darn scientific regarding their studies, but what legislators will do with the findings. Decisions need to be made on data even if we would still keep all gun laws exactly the same because studies provide management and response answers. Fear of what the studies show is exactly why we have the government we have. Maddening to me. Study the data. If we determine a level of acceptance politically, so be it. But for goodness sake, we need to know some root causation and steps to correct. I would think we all would be interested in that. Yes, I know, I'm a geek freak, but this stuff drives me batty. It's different when they repeatedly say things like "this is the outcome we want and now we'll work to make the research show that".
|
|
|
Post by *KAS* on Mar 6, 2018 19:05:18 GMT
The discount was ONLY for NRA members to purchase a full fare ticket at the Delta group rate to the NRA National Convention. That’s it. They chose not to continue to offer it. Most coupons have expiration dates. It’s just not a big deal that people tried to blow up into something it isn’t.
This was extremely short-sighted on the part of our Lt Governor (who is running for Governor) and Governor (who is on his way out). Delta is the largest private employer in our state, and contributes more than $300 million to our state economy. Not to mention the effect this will have on future business considerations. I’m angry and embarrassed by our elected officials. It can't be both a big enough deal to have a nationwide boycott of them if they don't do it and then claim it's no big deal when they do it and people object. It's one or the other. (not addressed to you KAS, just a general disclaimer) My stance on that in no way suggests that I'm in any kind of agreement with the GA lawmakers. "Not a big deal" I'm referring to is the discount that was offered to begin with. A group rate off of a full fare price on a flight to one convention that all of 13 people used last year is NOT A BIG DEAL. The fact that the NRA is leading a boycott (I assume? I don't know anybody that is boycotting Delta here in GA, though maybe there are some people) is a joke to me. And that SOME people are calling this a 'constitutional right' is absurd to me. But then, I suspect people who don't know the different between the 2nd amendment and a discount on one airline ticket for being a member of a group, probably aren't flying Delta all that often to begin with.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:32:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 19:28:58 GMT
It can't be both a big enough deal to have a nationwide boycott of them if they don't do it and then claim it's no big deal when they do it and people object. It's one or the other. (not addressed to you KAS, just a general disclaimer) My stance on that in no way suggests that I'm in any kind of agreement with the GA lawmakers. "Not a big deal" I'm referring to is the discount that was offered to begin with. A group rate off of a full fare price on a flight to one convention that all of 13 people used last year is NOT A BIG DEAL. The fact that the NRA is leading a boycott (I assume? I don't know anybody that is boycotting Delta here in GA, though maybe there are some people) is a joke to me. And that SOME people are calling this a 'constitutional right' is absurd to me. But then, I suspect people who don't know the different between the 2nd amendment and a discount on one airline ticket for being a member of a group, probably aren't flying Delta all that often to begin with. I was referring to the boycott called for of companies that won't cut ties with the NRA. The NRA is not calling for any boycotts. That's what I was referring to when I said: "It can't be both a big enough deal to have a nationwide boycott of them (NRA) if they don't do it and then claim it's no big deal when they do it (stop the discount) and people object. It's one or the other." And no one is calling the discount a 'constitutional right', they're referring to the right to bear arms.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:32:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 22:15:50 GMT
Sigh. If one looks at the wide body of studies from the CDC from the safety of some seriously mundane activities, for the life of me I do not understand why it is somehow different regarding firearms. To me the fear is not what the CDC finds, because sorry, from my chair, they are pretty darn scientific regarding their studies, but what legislators will do with the findings. Decisions need to be made on data even if we would still keep all gun laws exactly the same because studies provide management and response answers. Fear of what the studies show is exactly why we have the government we have. Maddening to me. Study the data. If we determine a level of acceptance politically, so be it. But for goodness sake, we need to know some root causation and steps to correct. I would think we all would be interested in that. Yes, I know, I'm a geek freak, but this stuff drives me batty. It's different when they repeatedly say things like " this is the outcome we want and now we'll work to make the research show that". That is an urban myth spread by the NRA. But wait a minute, now that I think about it, the bolded part is actually being done. By the gun NRA advocate doctors that write the reports dismissing the few real studies done on gun violence including the one done by Kellerman.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 6, 2018 22:27:37 GMT
The Congressman in Georgia is all about killing off Delta, sounds like a boycott to me...and why? Because Delta canceled something that they are entitled to with their business.
But no—leave it to the conservative Congressman to go for the jugular, with his words and against against Delta.
It’s only okay to do that if you’re conservative/republican.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 6, 2018 22:34:04 GMT
What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on GunsThey weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different. HEATHER SHER FEB 22, 2018 POLITICS In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal. ** I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a swat team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange. With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care. ** Banning the AR-15 should not be a partisan issue. No consensus may exist on many questions of gun control, but there seems to be broad support for removing high-velocity, lethal weaponry and high-capacity magazines from the market, which would drastically reduce the incidence of mass murders. Every constitutionally guaranteed right that we are blessed to enjoy comes with responsibilities. Even our right to free speech is not limitless. Second Amendment gun rights must respect the same boundaries. ** As a radiologist, I have now seen high-velocity AR-15 gunshot wounds firsthand, an experience that most radiologists in our country will never have. I pray that these are the last such wounds I have to see, and that AR-15-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are banned for use by civilians in the United States, once and for all. Much more at link: www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/Who better to listen to than a doctor/radiologist who has seen the damages?
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,584
Jun 26, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
|
Post by jayfab on Mar 6, 2018 22:55:47 GMT
What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on GunsThey weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different. HEATHER SHER FEB 22, 2018 POLITICS In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal. ** I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a swat team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange. With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care. ** Banning the AR-15 should not be a partisan issue. No consensus may exist on many questions of gun control, but there seems to be broad support for removing high-velocity, lethal weaponry and high-capacity magazines from the market, which would drastically reduce the incidence of mass murders. Every constitutionally guaranteed right that we are blessed to enjoy comes with responsibilities. Even our right to free speech is not limitless. Second Amendment gun rights must respect the same boundaries. ** As a radiologist, I have now seen high-velocity AR-15 gunshot wounds firsthand, an experience that most radiologists in our country will never have. I pray that these are the last such wounds I have to see, and that AR-15-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are banned for use by civilians in the United States, once and for all. Much more at link: www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/Who better to listen to than a doctor/radiologist who has seen the damages? Exactly. I've posted this same article a few times here and on fb. There's no arguing with it. Thanks for posting it again, it needs to be repeated over and over since some people just don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 6, 2018 22:58:52 GMT
Sorry.......
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Mar 6, 2018 23:00:11 GMT
Sigh. If one looks at the wide body of studies from the CDC from the safety of some seriously mundane activities, for the life of me I do not understand why it is somehow different regarding firearms. To me the fear is not what the CDC finds, because sorry, from my chair, they are pretty darn scientific regarding their studies, but what legislators will do with the findings. Decisions need to be made on data even if we would still keep all gun laws exactly the same because studies provide management and response answers. Fear of what the studies show is exactly why we have the government we have. Maddening to me. Study the data. If we determine a level of acceptance politically, so be it. But for goodness sake, we need to know some root causation and steps to correct. I would think we all would be interested in that. Yes, I know, I'm a geek freak, but this stuff drives me batty. I love you. 💕
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 7, 2018 1:03:49 GMT
Sigh. If one looks at the wide body of studies from the CDC from the safety of some seriously mundane activities, for the life of me I do not understand why it is somehow different regarding firearms. To me the fear is not what the CDC finds, because sorry, from my chair, they are pretty darn scientific regarding their studies, but what legislators will do with the findings. Decisions need to be made on data even if we would still keep all gun laws exactly the same because studies provide management and response answers. Fear of what the studies show is exactly why we have the government we have. Maddening to me. Study the data. If we determine a level of acceptance politically, so be it. But for goodness sake, we need to know some root causation and steps to correct. I would think we all would be interested in that. Yes, I know, I'm a geek freak, but this stuff drives me batty. It's different when they repeatedly say things like "this is the outcome we want and now we'll work to make the research show that". I'm sorry, but one person saying that, doesn't make it so in my mind. The level of people involved, the absolute scientific best practice care and ad nauseum peer reviews the CDC takes within their studies, and I speak from a bit of personal experience here as the organization where I work was actually involved in one, any notion of results skewing in favor of an agenda would just not get into the final product. The CDC's effectiveness absolutely relies on their studies being above reproach which is why many are always involved with a myriad of checks and balances. Fine if you continue to believe what you believe as proof. My experience and logic tells me otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 7, 2018 1:14:48 GMT
"Not a big deal" I'm referring to is the discount that was offered to begin with. A group rate off of a full fare price on a flight to one convention that all of 13 people used last year is NOT A BIG DEAL. The fact that the NRA is leading a boycott (I assume? I don't know anybody that is boycotting Delta here in GA, though maybe there are some people) is a joke to me. And that SOME people are calling this a 'constitutional right' is absurd to me. But then, I suspect people who don't know the different between the 2nd amendment and a discount on one airline ticket for being a member of a group, probably aren't flying Delta all that often to begin with. I was referring to the boycott called for of companies that won't cut ties with the NRA. The NRA is not calling for any boycotts. That's what I was referring to when I said: "It can't be both a big enough deal to have a nationwide boycott of them (NRA) if they don't do it and then claim it's no big deal when they do it (stop the discount) and people object. It's one or the other." And no one is calling the discount a 'constitutional right', they're referring to the right to bear arms. I'm having a hard time understanding your point, so maybe I'm off base here. I fail to see how a boycott of companies who won't cut ties with the NRA is any different than exercising the right to bear arms? It's free speech and exercise of commerce, exactly what the NRA enjoys. Fedex refused to cut ties. That's their choice. Just as it is the choice of the NRA to use Fedex over UPS in their business dealings. Associations and businesses choose this type of back and forth activity daily. So companies are boycotted. Why should that concern the NRA so much? They feel attacked? Their rights threatened? Delta is just exercising their rights to choose as a corporate entity. Actually, when I think about it, I think this type of back and forth is exactly what keeps radical thought in check within our political system.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:32:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 5:42:58 GMT
What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on GunsThey weren’t the first mass-shooting victims the Florida radiologist saw—but their wounds were radically different. HEATHER SHER FEB 22, 2018 POLITICS In a typical handgun injury, which I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ such as the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, gray bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.I was looking at a CT scan of one of the mass-shooting victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, and was bleeding extensively. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle that delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. Nothing was left to repair—and utterly, devastatingly, nothing could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal. ** I have seen a handful of AR-15 injuries in my career. Years ago I saw one from a man shot in the back by a swat team. The injury along the path of the bullet from an AR-15 is vastly different from a low-velocity handgun injury. The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat traveling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care. ** Banning the AR-15 should not be a partisan issue. No consensus may exist on many questions of gun control, but there seems to be broad support for removing high-velocity, lethal weaponry and high-capacity magazines from the market, which would drastically reduce the incidence of mass murders. Every constitutionally guaranteed right that we are blessed to enjoy comes with responsibilities. Even our right to free speech is not limitless. Second Amendment gun rights must respect the same boundaries. ** As a radiologist, I have now seen high-velocity AR-15 gunshot wounds firsthand, an experience that most radiologists in our country will never have. I pray that these are the last such wounds I have to see, and that AR-15-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are banned for use by civilians in the United States, once and for all. Much more at link: www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/Who better to listen to than a doctor/radiologist who has seen the damages?
How about seeing for yourself? This is the path of a bullet from a handgun. If the displaced tissue in the path of an AR 15 is going to be damaged or killed, is that tissue that's so horrifically displaced by a handgun somehow magically NOT going to be damaged or killed? If a direct hit to a liver from an AR 15 is going to smash it like a watermelon, how do you think what you just watched from a handgun is going to somehow leave that liver magically intact despite what you see happens to everything in the handgun's bullet path? Something's not adding up here with the surgeon's claim. Just for reference, the VA Tech shooter killed twice as many as the most recent Parkland one. With handguns.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:32:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 5:55:19 GMT
It's different when they repeatedly say things like "this is the outcome we want and now we'll work to make the research show that". I'm sorry, but one person saying that, doesn't make it so in my mind. The level of people involved, the absolute scientific best practice care and ad nauseum peer reviews the CDC takes within their studies, and I speak from a bit of personal experience here as the organization where I work was actually involved in one, any notion of results skewing in favor of an agenda would just not get into the final product. The CDC's effectiveness absolutely relies on their studies being above reproach which is why many are always involved with a myriad of checks and balances. Fine if you continue to believe what you believe as proof. My experience and logic tells me otherwise. But, that's just it, it wasn't just one. 1. Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” 2. His successor Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.” He went on to tell the Washington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.” 3. In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC that concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. The research provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in the crimes in the study belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home. 4. In 1995 the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter told its readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.” Appearing on the same page as the article pointing the finger at gun owners for the Oklahoma City bombing were the words, “This newsletter was supported in part by Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." I appreciate you sharing your experience and have no reason to doubt the integrity of the research as you witnessed on one research project, but the above problems are some of what led to Congress cutting the funding and then only reinstated it with the caveat that they not approach the research in this way anymore. The CDC caused that, not Congress or the NRA. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:32:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 6:05:28 GMT
I was referring to the boycott called for of companies that won't cut ties with the NRA. The NRA is not calling for any boycotts. That's what I was referring to when I said: "It can't be both a big enough deal to have a nationwide boycott of them (NRA) if they don't do it and then claim it's no big deal when they do it (stop the discount) and people object. It's one or the other." And no one is calling the discount a 'constitutional right', they're referring to the right to bear arms. I'm having a hard time understanding your point, so maybe I'm off base here. I fail to see how a boycott of companies who won't cut ties with the NRA is any different than exercising the right to bear arms? It's free speech and exercise of commerce, exactly what the NRA enjoys. Fedex refused to cut ties. That's their choice. Just as it is the choice of the NRA to use Fedex over UPS in their business dealings. Associations and businesses choose this type of back and forth activity daily. So companies are boycotted. Why should that concern the NRA so much? They feel attacked? Their rights threatened? Delta is just exercising their rights to choose as a corporate entity. Actually, when I think about it, I think this type of back and forth is exactly what keeps radical thought in check within our political system. I agree with everything you said. I've always agreed with that. It was only in response to someone claiming that stopping the discount is no big deal. I'm just saying, if it's a big deal enough to insist on a boycott if they don't stop the discount, it's a big deal when you get the result you want. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 7, 2018 6:58:18 GMT
@mytnice said: “We're in total agreement here. I was speaking solely of the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads demonizing those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't?” Can you truly not see the difference between overworked, underfunded, and possibly over-legislated public agencies perhaps making mistakes, and a vastly wealthy lobbying group that deliberately uses its nearly limitless funds to bribe politicians to undercut their constituents’ wishes in order to block ANY regulation of the admittedly-quite-deadly product they sell? Unbelievable. Or head in sand. Your choice. Can you truly not see the difference between excuse, another excuse, and still another excuse and justification public agencies dismissal by extreme downplaying of actions by group you don't have a problem with even though they had over 40 chances to prevent this, and a vilifying label group that more vilifying descriptions to and still more vilifying descriptions to demonizing of actions in order to block demonizing description of something millions of others agree with but you don't regulation of the incorrect description of their purpose in order to vilify protecting the 2nd amendment.
Fixed that for you. Yes, you are unbelievable. Oh, bullsh*t. I know you like to doggedly make that same claim over and over again, but that doesn't make it true. There is no comparison between making an honest mistake, and deliberately blocking attempts to fix a broken situation. I'm not even making an argument here about whether those attempts are right or wrong. I'm just saying the intent is very, very different. Keep defending those assholes, though. I suppose it helps you sleep at night. For the love of God! That needs no attribution, since it was reported on by everyone including Left leaning sources. The only reason you're ever calling for attribution is so what I say can be dismissed based on the source. I've seen and experienced way too many times, so that's based on reality and experience. In this instance it won't work for you because as I said, it was reported by EVERYONE. I don't really care whether you feel put upon that no one trusts your far-right-wing fringe sources. It doesn't change the fact that you need to provide those sources anyway. *I* had not seen that information before, and *I* would have liked to see some context and more information. You people can dish it out, but you sure can't take it. Yes, I'm bitter.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:32:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 7:16:38 GMT
Can you truly not see the difference between excuse, another excuse, and still another excuse and justification public agencies dismissal by extreme downplaying of actions by group you don't have a problem with even though they had over 40 chances to prevent this, and a vilifying label group that more vilifying descriptions to and still more vilifying descriptions to demonizing of actions in order to block demonizing description of something millions of others agree with but you don't regulation of the incorrect description of their purpose in order to vilify protecting the 2nd amendment.
Fixed that for you. Yes, you are unbelievable. Oh, bullsh*t. I know you like to doggedly make that same claim over and over again, but that doesn't make it true. There is no comparison between making an honest mistake, and deliberately blocking attempts to fix a broken situation. I'm not even making an argument here about whether those attempts are right or wrong. I'm just saying the intent is very, very different. Keep defending those assholes, though. I suppose it helps you sleep at night. For the love of God! That needs no attribution, since it was reported on by everyone including Left leaning sources. The only reason you're ever calling for attribution is so what I say can be dismissed based on the source. I've seen and experienced way too many times, so that's based on reality and experience. In this instance it won't work for you because as I said, it was reported by EVERYONE. I don't really care whether you feel put upon that no one trusts your far-right-wing fringe sources. It doesn't change the fact that you need to provide those sources anyway. *I* had not seen that information before, and *I* would have liked to see some context and more information. You people can dish it out, but you sure can't take it. Yes, I'm bitter. I'm sorry, no. Getting 40 something chances to get this kid help and make sure the guns are removed from his possession and dropping the ball on every single one of the 40 something times, is not what I would call an honest mistake. I don't think the parents of the Parkland victims would either. And yes, I see putting a stop to biased and unscientific research meant to prove a predetermined outcome as completely different than fucking up your job as sheriff so royally that 17 people died and too many others were wounded and traumatized beyond belief.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 7, 2018 10:19:10 GMT
I'm sorry, but one person saying that, doesn't make it so in my mind. The level of people involved, the absolute scientific best practice care and ad nauseum peer reviews the CDC takes within their studies, and I speak from a bit of personal experience here as the organization where I work was actually involved in one, any notion of results skewing in favor of an agenda would just not get into the final product. The CDC's effectiveness absolutely relies on their studies being above reproach which is why many are always involved with a myriad of checks and balances. Fine if you continue to believe what you believe as proof. My experience and logic tells me otherwise. But, that's just it, it wasn't just one. 1. Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” 2. His successor Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.” He went on to tell the Washington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.” 3. In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC that concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. The research provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in the crimes in the study belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home. 4. In 1995 the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter told its readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.” Appearing on the same page as the article pointing the finger at gun owners for the Oklahoma City bombing were the words, “This newsletter was supported in part by Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." I appreciate you sharing your experience and have no reason to doubt the integrity of the research as you witnessed on one research project, but the above problems are some of what led to Congress cutting the funding and then only reinstated it with the caveat that they not approach the research in this way anymore. The CDC caused that, not Congress or the NRA. That's all I'm saying. Fair enough. But it is now 2018 and Dickey and Rosenberg have more recently written this op ed over it so perhaps it is time to revisit: Op EdHow to protect gun rights while reducing the toll of gun violence By Jay Dickey and Mark Rosenberg December 25, 2015 Jay Dickey, a Republican, represented Arkansas in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2000. Mark Rosenberg, president and chief executive of the Task Force for Global Health, was director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1994 to 1999. Twenty years ago, one of us was director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, supporting research to build an evidence base to advance the science of gun-violence prevention. The other of us was a Republican representative from Arkansas determined to dismantle that effort because conservatives had concluded that it was aimed at gun control and not gun violence. Ultimately, the House of Representatives voted to insert language into the CDC’s appropriations bill that succeeded in prompting the CDC to bring gun-violence research to a halt. The law stated that no CDC funds “may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” One of us subsequently was fired because of his commitment to gun-violence prevention research. The other saw the CDC’s abandonment of its commitment to this research as a successful effort to protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms. When we met, at a congressional appropriations hearing in 1996, we fiercely opposed each other’s positions. But over years of communicating, we came to see that, while we had differences, we also shared values. We became colleagues, and we became friends. We have argued with each other and learned much from each other. We both belong to the National Rifle Association, and we both believe in the Second Amendment. We have also come to see that gun-violence research can be created, organized and conducted with two objectives: first, to preserve the rights of law-abiding citizens and legal gun owners and, second, to make our homes and communities safer. Well-structured research can be conducted to develop technologies and identify ways to achieve both objectives. We can get there only through research. Our nation does not have to choose between reducing gun-violence injuries and safeguarding gun ownership. Indeed, scientific research helped reduce the motor vehicle death rate in the United States and save hundreds of thousands of lives — all without getting rid of cars. For example, research led to the development of simple four-foot barricades dividing oncoming traffic that are preventing injuries and saving many lives. We can do the same with respect to firearm-related deaths, reducing their numbers while preserving the rights of gun owners. If we are to be successful , those of us on opposite sides of this issue will have to do a better job of respecting, understanding and working with each other. In the area of firearms injuries, collaboration has a special meaning. It will require real partnership on the design of the research we do because while we often hear about “common-sense gun laws,” common sense is not enough to both keep us safe and to protect the Second Amendment. There is urgency to our task. Both of us now believe strongly that federal funding for research into gun-violence prevention should be dramatically increased. But the language accompanying this appropriation should mirror the language already in the law: “No funds shall be used to advocate or promote gun control.” This prohibition can help to reassure supporters of the Second Amendment that the CDC will use the money for important research and not for gun-control advocacy. However, it is also important for all to understand that this wording does not constitute an outright ban on federal gun-violence prevention research. It is critical that the appropriation contain enough money to let science thrive and help us determine what works. So both sides — gun rights advocates and gun-control advocates — need to give quite a bit to get to the heart of this problem. If we yield to fatalism and say nothing will work, we will continue to watch the problem of gun violence grow and grow. We can’t afford to not even try. We have too much riding on this — all of us do.
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on Mar 7, 2018 11:38:52 GMT
Oh, bullsh*t. I know you like to doggedly make that same claim over and over again, but that doesn't make it true. There is no comparison between making an honest mistake, and deliberately blocking attempts to fix a broken situation. I'm not even making an argument here about whether those attempts are right or wrong. I'm just saying the intent is very, very different. Keep defending those assholes, though. I suppose it helps you sleep at night. I don't really care whether you feel put upon that no one trusts your far-right-wing fringe sources. It doesn't change the fact that you need to provide those sources anyway. *I* had not seen that information before, and *I* would have liked to see some context and more information. You people can dish it out, but you sure can't take it. Yes, I'm bitter. I'm sorry, no. Getting 40 something chances to get this kid help and make sure the guns are removed from his possession and dropping the ball on every single one of the 40 something times, is not what I would call an honest mistake. I don't think the parents of the Parkland victims would either. And yes, I see putting a stop to biased and unscientific research meant to prove a predetermined outcome as completely different than fucking up your job as sheriff so royally that 17 people died and too many others were wounded and traumatized beyond belief. Just what do you think they were supposed to do. He didn’t do anything illegal (that I have read about) until he shot up the school. He owned the guns legally. He wasn’t determined by professionals to be a threat to his own or other lives ao couldn’t be involuntarily hospitalized- the threshold for involuntary hospitalization is pretty high. The police/society can’t take guns away that are legally owned just because others think he might do something or he’s weird or creepy. Neither can he be involuntarily committed for those reasons. Hindsight is 20/20, but they have to work with the information they have at that time.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 7, 2018 11:49:42 GMT
I'm sorry, no. Getting 40 something chances to get this kid help and make sure the guns are removed from his possession and dropping the ball on every single one of the 40 something times, is not what I would call an honest mistake. I don't think the parents of the Parkland victims would either. And yes, I see putting a stop to biased and unscientific research meant to prove a predetermined outcome as completely different than fucking up your job as sheriff so royally that 17 people died and too many others were wounded and traumatized beyond belief. Just what do you think they were supposed to do. He didn’t do anything illegal (that I have read about) until he shot up the school. He owned the guns legally. He wasn’t determined by professionals to be a threat to his own or other lives ao couldn’t be involuntarily hospitalized- the threshold for involuntary hospitalization is pretty high. The police/society can’t take guns away that are legally owned just because others think he might do something or he’s weird or creepy. Neither can he be involuntarily committed for those reasons. Hindsight is 20/20, but they have to work with the information they have at that time. Exactly. Gun rights folks would howl like mashed cats if laws were passed to imprison or remove guns from anyone who a. owned guns and b. was perceived by someone to be dangerous or making threats. And you know what? They'd be right. Laws like that would be open to all kinds of abuse, because anyone could claim that a gun owner seemed "off" or that they'd heard him make threats. The sheriff in this case had no standing to do anything. We have to stop relying on LEO (and armed teachers) to save us from this mess we've created and work on cleaning up the mess by putting tight requirements on purchasing guns, including a background check and regular mental health screening. We also need to stop selling ammunition that is designed to blow a hole the size of a grapefruit in a human being. No one needs that. You can hunt and defend yourself with regular rounds.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 7, 2018 13:36:31 GMT
I'm sorry, no. Getting 40 something chances to get this kid help and make sure the guns are removed from his possession and dropping the ball on every single one of the 40 something times, is not what I would call an honest mistake. I don't think the parents of the Parkland victims would either. And yes, I see putting a stop to biased and unscientific research meant to prove a predetermined outcome as completely different than fucking up your job as sheriff so royally that 17 people died and too many others were wounded and traumatized beyond belief. Just what do you think they were supposed to do. He didn’t do anything illegal (that I have read about) until he shot up the school. He owned the guns legally. He wasn’t determined by professionals to be a threat to his own or other lives ao couldn’t be involuntarily hospitalized- the threshold for involuntary hospitalization is pretty high. The police/society can’t take guns away that are legally owned just because others think he might do something or he’s weird or creepy. Neither can he be involuntarily committed for those reasons. Hindsight is 20/20, but they have to work with the information they have at that time. This. I’ve posted this a half dozen times before—the shooters were law abiding, legal gun carrying citizens—up until the minute that they weren’t (and I’ve yet to see any response to that from those who excuse away the gun control with mental illness). You can be 100% sure that if someone tried to take a legal gun owner—law abiding citizens guns away (before they did anything) lawsuits, screams Of YOU’RE TAKING AWAY MY 2A RIGHTS, and potential violence retaliation would be all happening with the NRA funding the (potential shooters) legal defense. It’s nothing more than fear mongering about losing rights—and gun control is not about rewriting the constitution. (Despite what the NRA and the far out there pro gun people would love to have one believe). As for what bullets do to bodies—I’ll take the expert advice, from medical professionals over some staged YouTube videos with watermelons every day of the week and twice on Sunday. To be posting that kind of crap in response to those of medical professionals is just outright idiotic just to try to redirect & deflect, every single time. Polluting and muddying the waters of good gun control discussions. It’s just another propaganda tactic used by the pro gun advocates to try to lessen the graphic and horrific damage these guns do. There is absolutely nothing in our constitution that ENTITLES anyone to any specific type of weapon. And because it always comes up by the same peas, the constitution gives a right to bear arms so that we can be free of fear of our government—-the people of the USA have last gone to war within itself—when? Remind us all of the dates of that occurrence? Back when this was created, people had to defend themselves and their homesteads differently—not at all like now, we are not the wild, Wild West nor have we broke free of our government. No so now. It is time to get these guns off the streets out of production for civilian use. No one needs them.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:32:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 15:56:46 GMT
I'm sorry, but one person saying that, doesn't make it so in my mind. The level of people involved, the absolute scientific best practice care and ad nauseum peer reviews the CDC takes within their studies, and I speak from a bit of personal experience here as the organization where I work was actually involved in one, any notion of results skewing in favor of an agenda would just not get into the final product. The CDC's effectiveness absolutely relies on their studies being above reproach which is why many are always involved with a myriad of checks and balances. Fine if you continue to believe what you believe as proof. My experience and logic tells me otherwise. But, that's just it, it wasn't just one. 1. Patrick O’Carroll stated in a 1989 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” Once again - O’Carroll claims he was misquoted.2. His successor Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.” He went on to tell the Washington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.” Once again if you actually read what Rosenberg said in the Rolling Stone and Washington Post articles it’s nothing like you are parroting. Links for both articles are in an earlier post in this thread.3. In October 1993, The New England Journal of Medicine released a study funded by the CDC that concluded that people who kept guns in their homes were 2.7 times more likely to be homicide victims as people who don’t. The research provided no proof or examples that the murder weapon used in the crimes in the study belonged to the homeowner or had been kept in that home. 4. In 1995 the Injury Prevention Network Newsletter told its readers to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.” Appearing on the same page as the article pointing the finger at gun owners for the Oklahoma City bombing were the words, “This newsletter was supported in part by Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." I appreciate you sharing your experience and have no reason to doubt the integrity of the research as you witnessed on one research project, but the above problems are some of what led to Congress cutting the funding and then only reinstated it with the caveat that they not approach the research in this way anymore. The CDC caused that, not Congress or the NRA. That's all I'm saying. lucyg may be bitter but I’m just plain tired of all this misinformation you and others continue to push. Congratulations! You are the perfect shrill for the far right agenda. You keep repeating their propaganda without giving it a thought of whether it’s correct or not.
|
|
tduby1
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,979
Jun 27, 2014 18:32:45 GMT
|
Post by tduby1 on Mar 7, 2018 18:35:00 GMT
So it's ok to deny customers discounts if you disagree with them?! That's not right either.. that's targating a different group of people if it were reversed there would be outrage?! I don't understand why it's okay? I understand thiat it's up to a company to decide what they want to do, but when your specifically doing it to a group for polically purposes this doesn't sit right. Discounts are not a right.
|
|
azredhead
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,755
Jun 25, 2014 22:49:18 GMT
|
Post by azredhead on Mar 7, 2018 18:37:24 GMT
So it's ok to deny customers discounts if you disagree with them?! That's not right either.. that's targating a different group of people if it were reversed there would be outrage?! I don't understand why it's okay? I understand thiat it's up to a company to decide what they want to do, but when your specifically doing it to a group for polically purposes this doesn't sit right. Discounts are not a right. Good LORD I Never said it WAS! I just it wasn't right can't ya all read.. I also understood better after the discussion and I agree that Gov should not be making the decisions - they are private companies and can do as they please..
|
|
tduby1
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,979
Jun 27, 2014 18:32:45 GMT
|
Post by tduby1 on Mar 7, 2018 18:46:44 GMT
Discounts are not a right. Good LORD I Never said it WAS! I just it wasn't right can't ya all read.. I also understood better after the discussion and I agree that Gov should not be making the decisions - they are private companies and can do as they please.. Yes, I can read. First off, I hadn't yet seen your comment regarding the government as I was posting as I was reading. I am really behind here lately. I was responding to your assertion it wasn't "right". The only thing that would make rescinding a previously offered discount wrong is if it trampled someone's rights- hence my comment. Discounts are not a right, therefore how is it wrong (not right, in your words) for them to be discontinued? Perhaps you answered in a later post. I will keep reading.
|
|
azredhead
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,755
Jun 25, 2014 22:49:18 GMT
|
Post by azredhead on Mar 7, 2018 18:48:51 GMT
Good LORD I Never said it WAS! I just it wasn't right can't ya all read.. I also understood better after the discussion and I agree that Gov should not be making the decisions - they are private companies and can do as they please.. Yes, I can read. First off, I hadn't yet seen your comment regarding the government as I was posting as I was reading. I am really behind here lately. I was responding to your assertion it wasn't "right". The only thing that would make rescinding a previously offered discount wrong is if it trampled someone's rights- hence my comment. Discounts are not a right, therefore how is it wrong (not right, in your words) for them to be discontinued? Perhaps you answered in a later post. I will keep reading. I simply meant that it wasn't 'right what they were doing if that's what they were doing..
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:32:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 20:36:33 GMT
From AP..
“Reports: Several people injured in knife attack in Vienna“
“BERLIN (AP) — Austrian media report that several people have been injured in a knife attack on the streets of Vienna.
News website heute.at reports that the attack happened Wednesday evening, when a man with a knife randomly attacked pedestrians near the capital's famous Prater park.
Citing a police spokesman, the Austria Press Agency reports that three people were seriously injured and that police are still searching for the attacker.
A motive for the attack wasn't immediately known.”
Now there is some good news here. The attacker didn’t have an AR-15.
There are nut cases and fools with grudges all over the world and they feel a need to hurt people. The difference between the nut cases and fools in this country compared to others? We make it easy for them to get weapons like the AR-15s.
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,584
Jun 26, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
|
Post by jayfab on Mar 7, 2018 21:11:07 GMT
Just what do you think they were supposed to do. He didn’t do anything illegal (that I have read about) until he shot up the school. He owned the guns legally. He wasn’t determined by professionals to be a threat to his own or other lives ao couldn’t be involuntarily hospitalized- the threshold for involuntary hospitalization is pretty high. The police/society can’t take guns away that are legally owned just because others think he might do something or he’s weird or creepy. Neither can he be involuntarily committed for those reasons. Hindsight is 20/20, but they have to work with the information they have at that time. This. I’ve posted this a half dozen times before—the shooters were law abiding, legal gun carrying citizens—up until the minute that they weren’t (and I’ve yet to see any response to that from those who excuse away the gun control with mental illness). You can be 100% sure that if someone tried to take a legal gun owner—law abiding citizens guns away (before they did anything) lawsuits, screams Of YOU’RE TAKING AWAY MY 2A RIGHTS, and potential violence retaliation would be all happening with the NRA funding the (potential shooters) legal defense. It’s nothing more than fear mongering about losing rights—and gun control is not about rewriting the constitution. (Despite what the NRA and the far out there pro gun people would love to have one believe). As for what bullets do to bodies—I’ll take the expert advice, from medical professionals over some staged YouTube videos with watermelons every day of the week and twice on Sunday. To be posting that kind of crap in response to those of medical professionals is just outright idiotic just to try to redirect & deflect, every single time. Polluting and muddying the waters of good gun control discussions. It’s just another propaganda tactic used by the pro gun advocates to try to lessen the graphic and horrific damage these guns do. There is absolutely nothing in our constitution that ENS anyone to any specific type of weapon.And because it always comes up by the same peas, the constitution gives a right to bear arms so that we can be free of fear of our government—-the people of the USA have last gone to war within itself—when? Remind us all of the dates of that occurrence? Back when this was created, people had to defend themselves and their homesteads differently—not at all like now, we are not the wild, Wild West nor have we broke free of our government. No so now. It is time to get these guns off the streets out of production for civilian use. No one needs them. Yup and yup. And anyone thinking these ar-15's are going to protect them when "the govt" comes at them just needs to watch the latest episode of Homeland. SaveSave
|
|