|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 7, 2018 23:39:44 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. Of course it’s not a gun, they gave restrictions there!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 8, 2018 0:16:59 GMT
Very serious but not deadly. AR-15 types make it easier to kill.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:36:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 0:41:02 GMT
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. Well said. THAT is where we need to be! Thanks for posting that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:36:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 0:54:58 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. It went beyond just weird and creepy and yes he did do illegal things. He threatened to shoot up the school numerous times, he called the police on himself, he threatened people with his guns, he held a gun to people's heads, he was shooting family animals, he was suicidal, there were over 40 times they could have done something that would have led to the removal of his guns and didn't. And where does it say that professionals determined he wasn't a threat to himself or others? That defies the facts of what he's done.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:36:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 1:13:25 GMT
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 EN S 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. SaveSaveLife is not a tv episode, if you think people can't fight against the government, you don't understand asymmetrical warfare. Forget fantasy tv and go to Afghanistan and see it in action. I think someone is projecting. That video did not contain one single watermelon and it wasn't staged. It was BALLISTICS GEL, not a watermelon. Ballistics gel, used by the FBI, military, law enforcement professionals, MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, ammunition manufacturers and gun manufacturers. It's specifically formulated to simulate the density and viscosity of human tissue and it clearly showed how devastating the wound from a handgun is.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 8, 2018 1:25:45 GMT
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. SaveSaveLife is not a tv episode, if you think people can't fight against the government, you don't understand asymmetrical warfare. Forget fantasy tv and go to Afghanistan and see it in action. I think someone is projecting. That video did not contain one single watermelon and it wasn't staged. It was BALLISTICS GEL, not a watermelon. Ballistics gel, used by the FBI, military, law enforcement professionals, MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, ammunition manufacturers and gun manufacturers. It's specifically formulated to simulate the density and viscosity of human tissue. So tell us again—-when was the last time that people in the USA have gone to war against their own government? And I don’t watch any “fantasy TV” whatever the heck that is. I have family in military, LEO, medical in service, from the Korean War to Afghanistan and I’ll take their first hand experience. My comments are not any less true or irrelevant. Because of the pro gun nuts, “preppers” & fear mongers, they lie, twist the facts and distort stories to suit their agenda. We are subjected to incredible gaslighting, deflecting and distraction of facts—We see evidence of it being done right here.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Mar 8, 2018 2:36:47 GMT
You know what else simulates the density and viscosity of human tissue? Actual human tissue. And medical professionals say these bullets from these guns decimate our organs.
|
|
jayfab
Drama Llama
procastinating
Posts: 5,584
Jun 26, 2014 21:55:15 GMT
|
Post by jayfab on Mar 8, 2018 3:03:18 GMT
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. SaveSaveLife is not a tv episode, if you think people can't fight against the government, you don't understand asymmetrical warfare. Forget fantasy tv and go to Afghanistan and see it in action.
I think someone is projecting. That video did not contain one single watermelon and it wasn't staged. It was BALLISTICS GEL, not a watermelon. Ballistics gel, used by the FBI, military, law enforcement professionals, MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, ammunition manufacturers and gun manufacturers. It's specifically formulated to simulate the density and viscosity of human tissue and it clearly showed how devastating the wound from a handgun is. Alrighty then. I guess you told me. Believe what you want, but this isn't a third world country, your ar-15 won't be a match against what the US military has. SaveSave
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:36:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 3:41:33 GMT
You know what else simulates the density and viscosity of human tissue? Actual human tissue. And medical professionals say these bullets from these guns decimate our organs.Yes, and I showed you that so do bullets from handguns. Handguns, the ones that are "okay to have" while we "need to get rid of assault rifles" because THEY decimate your organs. It doesn't make sense. The argument before was they were "assault rifles". Which were characterized by cosmetic differences. And that made no sense as a reason to ban them either. AS another Pea posted a couple of weeks ago: Now that THAT claim doesn't hold water anymore to anyone who gives it more than a fleeting thought, it would SEEM that they've moved on to this new claim by surgeons that only this gun will decimate your organs so we "have to" ban it. Now common sense might tell you that any bullet hitting your organ will decimate it, but when you actually look at what a handgun bullet does when it enters your body, you can see for yourself it has the same effect that the surgeon describes of the AR 15 bullet's effect of displacing your tissue that it will be damaged and die. The AR 15 might be more dramatic, but the handgun bullet is still displacing your tissue horrifically too and THAT tissue will be "damaged or killed" too. So why claim only that the AR 15 bullet will do it? Something doesn't add up with that claim.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:36:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 3:42:21 GMT
Life is not a tv episode, if you think people can't fight against the government, you don't understand asymmetrical warfare. Forget fantasy tv and go to Afghanistan and see it in action.
I think someone is projecting. That video did not contain one single watermelon and it wasn't staged. It was BALLISTICS GEL, not a watermelon. Ballistics gel, used by the FBI, military, law enforcement professionals, MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, ammunition manufacturers and gun manufacturers. It's specifically formulated to simulate the density and viscosity of human tissue and it clearly showed how devastating the wound from a handgun is. Alrighty then. I guess you told me. Believe what you want, but this isn't a third world country, your ar-15 won't be a match against what the US military has. SaveSaveTactics are tactics, no matter what country you're in.
|
|
|
Post by LiLi on Mar 8, 2018 4:12:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 8, 2018 4:40:05 GMT
So tell us again—-when was the last time that people in the USA have gone to war against their own government? I do have to say, I can't stand behind this line of thinking either. I'm not a fear monger or doomsday prepper, but the current Commander in Chief does make me personally lean toward a higher level of belief toward not wanting to concede a whole lot regarding bans. For me it has so much more to do with how changes and limitations toward firearm ownership is defined and phrased within legislation.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 8, 2018 4:49:37 GMT
I have no doubt the surgeon is real, but his comparison as presented by the author of the article does not take into account the differences in ammunition. I'm sure during the interview there was most likely information surrounding that, but I'm thinking the author of the article may have omitted all that for simplicity. Of course I don't know that for sure, but taking the article text in and of itself, does leave some informational holes to me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:36:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 5:15:57 GMT
I have no doubt the surgeon is real, but his comparison as presented by the author of the article does not take into account the differences in ammunition. I'm sure during the interview there was most likely information surrounding that, but I'm thinking the author of the article may have omitted all that for simplicity. Of course I don't know that for sure, but taking the article text in and of itself, does leave some informational holes to me. It never occurred to me that the surgeons aren't real. That wasn't the problem I was having with the claim.
|
|
|
Post by megop on Mar 8, 2018 5:17:58 GMT
I have no doubt the surgeon is real, but his comparison as presented by the author of the article does not take into account the differences in ammunition. I'm sure during the interview there was most likely information surrounding that, but I'm thinking the author of the article may have omitted all that for simplicity. Of course I don't know that for sure, but taking the article text in and of itself, does leave some informational holes to me. It never occurred to me that the surgeons aren't real. That wasn't the problem I was having with the claim. Me either. Shrug. Just responding to the previous point made in a post.
|
|
|
Post by LiLi on Mar 8, 2018 5:44:38 GMT
I just mentioned the doctors being real because after I posted I thought... those peas, they will check and break down any post to pieces. To avoid the trouble, I better mention it... and I edited. Sure enough... it was brought up anyway. I can't win for trying! The previous article still convinces me there is a need to make limits on, and ban more types of ammunition AND guns. Of course, that is just my opinion, not trying to argue I don't feel like any gun is *needed* and I am open for compromise. I am actually related by marriage to a few fairly renowned cowboy action shooters. I have pictures of my first born at 1 year with a (toy) cowboy style revolver we took for my Uncle at the time. I appreciate the sport and hobby. I feel like there has got to be a balance in having a few guns for reasonable protection and sport, without building an armory of exceedingly powerful weapons and ammo. Here is another article that mentions that even fairly small bullets from the AR-15 are more damaging than larger sized handgun bullets due to velocity. It isn't just about blowing huge holes, but it is about the force that an AR-15 shoots any bullet, even on the smaller side, THROUGH the body which such velocity. www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physics-deadly-bullets-assault-rifles/
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:36:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 5:55:55 GMT
It never occurred to me that the surgeons aren't real. That wasn't the problem I was having with the claim. Me either. Shrug. Just responding to the previous point made in a post. No, I know, I was just responding to that previous point too.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:36:39 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2018 6:05:12 GMT
I just mentioned the doctors being real because after I posted I thought... those peas, they will check and break down any post to pieces. To avoid the trouble, I better mention it... and I edited. Sure enough... it was brought up anyway. I can't win for trying! YOU are the one the brought up the doctors being real. Anyone else mentioning that after you was ONLY in response to YOU bringing it up.
|
|
|
Post by LiLi on Mar 8, 2018 6:07:05 GMT
Yes, I did. It was pre-emptive and not to anyone in particular. Now, I am also confused. Sorry about the confusion! 🤷
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 8, 2018 12:18:58 GMT
Bottom line is that no one needs these types of guns, that were created specifically to be marketed as “assault/military like/tactical” except military and LEO.
They are not necessary, and there is no denying what damage they do to a person.
|
|
|
Post by *KAS* on Mar 9, 2018 1:01:42 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. You're not reading the (local news) message boards I was reading where people are saying 'it is a constitutional right' on a story about Delta. It certainly doesn't look like they know the difference between the two things. Delta isn't trying to take their guns away, so why say that?
|
|