Ya'all's anti-gun hysteria is nothing more than a political agenda...

WHy won't Democrats support a convergence of mental health databases with gun own/carry applications??

Because Democrats are social justice warriors more concerned about social stigma and potential scumbag shooter's FEELINGS than they are about actually saving lives...

I can't post the relative FACTS because the formatting would be impossible..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Read 'em and weep...

Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel Massacre

15 people killed..

Churchill Massacre

10 people killed...

Both killed by fire, so OBVIOUSLY the *ONLY* recourse is to ban fire... :^/

Lin Family Massacre

5 people bludgeoned to death. So, obviously bludgeons MUST be banned...

Melbourne Massacre..

6 people killed.. 30 people wounded. Car attack.. So, Australia MUST ban cars..

"It's the only way to be sure.."
-Ripley, ALIENS

You see the point??

You can ban guns and psycho scumbags will STILL find a way to kill in mass murder sprees...

Banning the tool simply forces them to choose a new tool...

But if you address the PERSON... If you address the CAUSE and not the symptom, you save ALL lives...

Ya'all's anti-gun hysteria is nothing more than a political agenda...

It's NOT about guns.. It's about control..

What does population growth have to do with anything??

There were 79 deaths from mass murder incidents post Port Arthur, even if Australia had 1,000,000 population growth and there were 79 deaths from mass murder incidents had -1,000,000 population decline..

that is an insignificant "change".

Yer right.. It IS insignificant.. There was statistically NO CHANGE after the gun ban...

And yet, to hear the anti-gun groups tell it, Australia became a peaceful utopia after the gun ban..

But the FACTS clearly show that it hadn't.. MORE people were killed in mass murder incidents than BEFORE the gun ban..

So, obviously, the *ONLY* logical conclusion is that gun bans DON'T prevent mass murder incidents..

My polite request to you was to correct my possible error.

And I *AM* correcting your error.. You claimed I stated that there was no real change in mass shooting deaths..

I never made any such claim...

You have not yet answered the question. Perhaps an oversight? Other reasons?

Other Reason.. You are asking a question based on what you THINK I said, not what I actually said..

I'll ask again: Please let me know the source of your now twice-alleged FACT. I will appreciate that ever so much.

Which FACT are you alleging I alleged???

Once we clear THAT up, I'll be happy to share my sources for the FACT I really stated, rather than the FACT you want me to have stated, but never did..

I looked at several reliable sources and found no mentions of Australian mass murders post Port Arthur. I concede that I might have missed something. My polite request to you was to correct my possible error. You have not yet answered the question. Perhaps an oversight? Other reasons?

I'll ask again: Please let me know the source of your now twice-alleged FACT. I will appreciate that ever so much.

I never claimed that there was any change in mass shooting deaths...

If you make up what I say, you can prove or disprove anything. :D

And if your "proof" is the Left Wing NY Grime, then you have already lost the debate. :D

Now, what I *DID* say is that there was no change in the number of dead due to mass murder incidents.. And even THAT is not factually accurate..

The number of deaths in mass murder incidents actually was HIGHER in the 20 years after Port Arthur/Gun Ban than they were in the 20 years prior to Port Arthur/Gun Ban..

So, what can we logically deduce from this FACT...

That people who want to commit mass murder will find a way to do so, even if you take the guns away...

But if you address the PERSON and not the tool they choose to use, then you have a MUCH better chance of preventing ALL mass murder incidents..

"Simple Logic"
-Admiral James T Kirk

But, of course, addressing the PERSON will not push the Dumbocrats unpopular anti-gun agenda and violates the Dumbocrat tenet of social justice...

So........

I found this as the best explanation of the Australian gun ban results while researching your claim that there has been no real change in their mass shooting deaths:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/austalia-gun-ban-shooting.html

Can you point me to your source(s)? Thank you.

(The preview doesn't show the clickable link, but I think I followed the directions. Here goes.....)

Or like 'Star Trek Discovery' :D

You mean, like you just did?? :D

I usually assume with CRS that he just thinks he is being smart and trolling the discussion.

Why do conservative make broad generalizations about wide swaths of the population that is blatantly false?

A mystery that may never be solved...

I always differentiate between homicide and suicide when discussing gun violence. Mainly I like to show that statistically you are far the greatest danger to yourself if you own a gun. Also, if you look across many countries that have banned or made guns difficult to own, they typically have 15-20% less suicides than the US. A lot more suicide attempts fail without access to convenience and lethality of guns even though the number of attempts are similar.

The press actually have gotten much better not using the combined number. I guess they found the shock value of the much larger number was not working?

That fact that you DIDN'T quote him directly and entirely..

I say put them up next to billboards with his pussy grabbing quote.

ANOTHER quote that is completely out of context and doesn't even say what ya'all claim it says..

Once again, proving you simply CAN'T have a discussion without out of context quotes and outright bullshit...

Par for the course around here...

Exactly.. That's why all the anti-gun arguments crack me up.. They think that dying by something OTHER than a gun i somehow better than dying by a gun.. :^/

Dumbocrat "logic"..

What is taken out of context by quoting Trump directly? How do you know what context the reader will take the statement under?

I say put them up next to billboards with his pussy grabbing quote.

Do you have examples and can show that these are the norm or do you just feel that this is right?

I try to use two classifications:

1. Gun deaths - which include suicides
2. Gun violence - does not include suicide

There is an argument that guns make suicide seem more instantaneous/less painful and thus lowers the bar at a crucial time. If my memory serves, this impact was teased out of statistics after Australia put more restrictive gun laws in place.

Another statistic to look at is the number of unsuccessful suicide attempts where the person does not instantly try again - i.e. the failure was because the attempt was never meant to be successful and a cry for help, or the person got over their depression.

There are do degrees of death. The dead guy is equally dead whether his brains are still in his skull, or scattered all over. The way a dead body looks has significance only for the living. The dead guy couldn't care less.

Listen When etc.

I do have grandkids, but none of them is as dumb as the ones you describe.

Grrrr....

There is no differnce in the end result in the context of the gun issue....

And in the gun issue, listing suicide as part and parcel to the overall gun violence "problem" is, AT BEST, disingenuous... At worst, it's blatant lying..

As I said, lying and disingenuous-ness..ness is the ONLY way the anti-gun nuts can make an "argument"...

I mean, if a person can't shoot themselves with a gun, they may jump off a bridge and kill a couple more people in addition to themselves..

Is THAT preferable to you??

Insofar as the end result...

No, there is no difference. Someone killed themselves..

No difference in your eyes?

There is no end result in the context of the gun issue..

I get it, I really do. You want to make an emotional argument.. 99.9% of the time, an emotional argument is the wrong side...

Democrats need to erect billboards in places like Texas with a picture of Trump and the quote "We need to take away guns first and worry about due process second"!

Like this one. An emotional argument that's completely out of context..

Like I told CRS.. You hysterical anti-gun fanatics CAN'T win in an honest and rational argument..

So you see no difference in a 70 year old suffering from brain cancer for over a decade wanting to end their suffering and a 16 yo teenager who is depressed after his first real girlfriend dumps him choosing to take his father’s gun to end his life, is that it???

One has lived a long life and, with no chance of getting better, decides that the constant pain is more than they can handle; the other has just started living his life and is experiencing his first real “heart break” and doesn’t feel like he can go on....even though we all know he would get over it in time. No difference in your eyes?

Don’t you have grand kids?

That Rand report couldn’t have come at a better time! If do not support repealing the Dickey Amendment, you aren’t in favor of ending gun violence, IMHO.

Democrats need to erect billboards in places like Texas with a picture of Trump and the quote "We need to take away guns first and worry about due process second"!

In other words, forget the FACTS and the REALITY...

Optics are what's important here...

You are CONFUSING suicide by someone who is often temporarily mentally ill with a medically treatable condition with euthanasia by someone of sound mind who is terminally ill with a non medically curable disease.

A distinction without a difference..

Of course, that should read hysterical ANTI gun nuts...

Why do Dems/Libs classify suicides by means of firearms under the heading of "gun violence"?

For the same reason hysterical gun nuts classify as a "school shooting" an accidental discharge of a gun at midnight on school property that has been closed as a school for 20 years....

Because hysterical anti-gun nuts KNOW that they will LOSE any honest and factual argument about guns and gun safety...

It's NOTHING but fear-mongering, pure and simple...

Somebody else here says two and two make five, so your response is to insist that two and two must make three, just to balance things out?

You jump on the ONE person who says two and two make three and ignore the DOZEN people who say, DOZENS of times, that two and two makes five...

Perhaps balancing things out is not a bad idea, no?? :D

The amount of physical damage depends on the weapon used, and the specific way it is directed. Doesn't have to be severe at all if the person isn't trying to make a mess of himself.

"Why do Dems/Libs classify suicides by means of firearms under the heading of "gun violence"?"

Because people who are suicidal and choose guns as their device are far more likely to succeed at ending in either catastrophic damage or fatality more than by any other method.

"Admittedly, the discharge of the firearm makes more noise than the ingestion of pills or the inhalation of carbon monoxide, but that doesn't translate to 'violence'."

But the catastrophic damage that it causes does. Pills or carbon dioxide leaves a person looking as if they are just sleeping for the most part. Guns leave blood, bone, and brain matter splattered all over the place, as well as gruesome looking bodily remains. Seriously, you need that explained to you and don't describe those results as violent?

"Anyway, isn't suicide a 'civil right'? We should quit demonizing it. Nobody should have to go on living who prefers not to."

You are CONFUSING suicide by someone who is often temporarily mentally ill with a medically treatable condition with euthanasia by someone of sound mind who is terminally ill with a non medically curable disease.

OK, you just got monster big points for quoting the Bonzo Dog Band.

Well done!

It must be a week for obscure rock outfits, the Washington Post, in a regular column where they pick one song to reflect on the week, picked a number from the Thirteenth Floor Elevators...

Anyway, both made me smile...

:-)

-CW

SPOON!!!!!!!!!!!

JL

Admittedly, the discharge of the firearm makes more noise than the ingestion of pills or the inhalation of carbon monoxide, but that doesn't translate to 'violence'.

Anyway, isn't suicide a 'civil right'? We should quit demonizing it. Nobody should have to go on living who prefers not to.

Big study by Rand just released about what is possible to know, right now, about gun policies.

RAND's Gun Policy in America initiative provides information on what scientific research can tell us about the effects of gun laws. Our goal is to establish a shared set of facts that will improve public discussions and support the development of fair and effective gun policies.

By exploring this project, you can view summaries of our key findings, delve into our analysis of the existing evidence base, learn how the experts think policies would affect outcomes, download our historical database of state gun laws, and access the supporting research reports.

WAPO does a summary review and concludes: "The best available evidence suggests NRA-backed gun policies are making crime worse." The study's purpose was to establish "proven" outcomes of policies and they found some. But they also determined that there are a number of unproven areas due to lack of rigorous studies.

What DID they find?

1. "There is moderate evidence, for instance, that “stand your ground” laws, which remove the requirement for gun owners to attempt to retreat from a situation before using lethal force, increase total rates of homicide."

2. "RAND's researchers also uncovered limited evidence that on balance, permissive concealed carry laws increase overall rates of violent crime...There is also evidence showing that permissive concealed carry laws increase rates of accidental firearm injury."

3. "The RAND findings diverged from the NRA's preferences in other key areas as well. For instance, the group has lobbied against laws intended to prevent children from getting their hands on unsecured guns. RAND's researchers uncovered strong evidence that these laws prevent unintentional firearm injuries among adults and children, and that they're effective at preventing suicides as well."

4. "The research compiled by RAND shows moderate evidence that dealer background checks decrease rates of firearm homicide and limited evidence that background checks decrease violent crime and total homicide rates."

5. "RAND found moderate evidence that mental health-related prohibitions on gun ownership lead to a decrease in violent crime."

The WAPO piece ends:

Setting individual policies aside, the chief argument of the new RAND report is that there is an urgent need for more, better research into gun violence and how to prevent it. “Many of the possible effects of gun policies that are raised in policy debates have only rarely — or never — been studied rigorously,” RAND's Andrew R. Morral, the project's leader, writes.

The report calls on Congress to eliminate the current restrictions on federal funding for gun research — restrictions that were put in place largely at the behest of the NRA.

In YOUR opinion...

But you have been wrong so many times before.. :D

How much do you want to bet that Trump will win re-election?? :D

The biggest question is how cooperative Blotus is? IOW, is he doing Putin's bidding willingly? Is he doing it under some form of duress? Is he doing it accidentally?

Meanwhile, is the RNC/GOP knowingly taking laundered Russian money? Unknowingly? Ditto the NRA? Is the NRA deliberately laundering Russian money and then giving it to the GOP so that the GOP can claim plausible deniability?

If so, is LaPierre (or someone else at NRA) doing Putin's bidding willingly? Under duress? Accidentally?

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/2/1745997/-FBI-Investigating-Whether-Russian-Politician-Funneled-Cash-To-NRA-To-Help-Trump-Win

Tariffs on steel. Bring back the coal industry! Even though neither one makes much economic sense. The major users of coal, electric utilities, switched to natural gas for economic reasons like it being cheaper, and won't ever be switching back to coal. Sorry to say also, Wyoming and its big open pit strip mining of coal, has also captured market share from West Virginia and Pennsylvania which voted for Trump over coal and steel job loss. Wyoming is not about to give back that market share either.

Meanwhile, while the President talks about 1980's solutions to industries who passed their prime 20 years ago, not one word is mentioned about new emerging high tech industries that the USA could excel and lead the world at, like artificial intelligence and genetic engineering.

Subsequent EVENTS have proven you and everyone else who voted for Orange Toad wrong, and you know it.

Too bad Trump didn't turn out to be a brilliant businessman and financial savant, like y'all kept saying he was. At least we wouldn't be facing a massive deficit and crashing economy on top of a dysfunctional government.

Paula: Keep in mind that Putin isn't really pro-Trump (not in the way that Trump is pro-Putin anyway). Putin is pro-American dysfunction. Anything he can do to get us at each others' throats is in his wheelhouse. He backed Trump AND Bernie, remember.

His interview with Megan Kelly today is a great example. When pressed about why Russia would want to suddenly re-start the arms race (which nearly bankrupted them once, remember), he said, (paraphrasing) "your congress re-started the arms race when it abandoned the anti-ballistic missile treaty." Which Republicans absolutely did, in order that they could put short range missiles in Poland.

This is sure, he assumes, to provoke yet another fight about arms control, which the GOP hates, and the Democrats dote upon (being a sort of extension of the gun control debate, which in the end is a sort of dick-measuring contest in the US). Obama, who knew a thing or two about ballistic missile treaties, called Putin on this bluff years ago, and found - no surprise - that Putin was not about to give up claims to eastern Europe in return for a missile treaty.

Indeed, with his stooge in the White House, Putin might be figuring that this would be a good time to press the US to abandon eastern Europe's defense in exchange for a promise that he won't build his fictional missile. Hey, it worked for Reagan.

Luckily, the old hands in the State Department will see through this....waitaminute...oh shit, they're all gone!

BBBWWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's doubly hilarious because of the real and factual connections that CLINTON has with Russians.. :D

Most Americans only have a cursory knowledge of the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, particularly when the media sometimes presents the story in a piecemeal, context-free fashion. But opponents of Trump need to make the connection between Russiagate and the shootings a talking point. Linking school shootings and Russian interference through the vehicle of the NRA would not only give millions more Americans a reason to be concerned about what they may feel is an overly complex and confusing “foreign” issue, it would also increase the popular disgust with gun lobby. Because how are Wayne LaPierre and his ilk going to pose as true American patriots and constitutionalists if they’ve been unmasked as eager tools of Vladimir Putin?

Yea.. You keep saying that.. That's what you said on 6 Nov 2016...

And yet the FACTS continue to prove ME right and ya'all wrong...

Trump is FAR too dumb to understand that, which doesn't surprise me in the least. He's basically a simpleton in most all instances.

Kick - Listen: Thanks!

[40] neilm:

Admit it, you were completely, utterly, demonstrably, wrong, totally-out-of-the-ballpark, brain-in-another-zip-code, viking-helmet-with-the-horns-on-the-inside wrong.

Yep!

Blotus, btw, backtracking mightily re: gun-control. So much for my trying to process how I'd feel if he actually did something that would benefit the country. The sad thing is, he actually could. He, as he said, doesn't need the NRA like the G(uns) O(ver) P(eople) denizens. But he just can't sustain an intent to act for any length of time if the action isn't about him. After the nightmare ends and his place in history is solidified it will be entirely tarnish, without a single particle of glitter.

Admit it, you were completely, utterly, demonstrably, wrong, totally-out-of-the-ballpark, brain-in-another-zip-code, viking-helmet-with-the-horns-on-the-inside wrong.

Claiming that I never used 45's name was so wrong that I suspect your head is as empty as a eunuch's underpants; if a cannibal tried to eat your brain there wouldn't be enough to cover a water cracker; your history in the department of "Being Right About Things" is about as impressive as Stumpy O’Leg McNolegs’ personal best in the Market Harborough marathon.

(Credit to Blackadder writers.)

I am happy to see you concede that your remarks ARE dumb ass... :D

There is hope for you yet.. :D

Or do we.

Take Apple iPhones (I know, my favorite).

We import them from China at $600/piece. But China only added $10 of value to them (about the cost of assembly, packaging etc.) The real money was already made in the U.S. (paying designers, engineers, etc., plus, of course, Apple's gargantuan profits). So it really isn't $600 from China per phone is it.

And it gets better.

China also "export" iPhones to e.g. Germany. Again the profits go to an Irish subsidiary of Apple where Apple parked their patents (you might want to double check this before repeating - there have been some opaque pieces of paper recently that have been messing around in this, I hear).

Again, the bulk of the profits go to Apple, but are not recorded in the trade figures.

And don't get me started on Financial Services.

We need to stop trying to prop up industries like steel production that are not a good fit for our economy and invest (yes - somebody has to pay those steel tariffs - and basically it is all of us) in education and innovation where we are winning.

It isn't guaranteed that the U.S. will remain the innovation leader - we have a good head start but we can blow it in a decade of stupidity ... and we are in year 2 of a decade of stupidity at the moment.

Rant over. Dumb ass cracks about Michale to resume momentarily.

President Trump winning the Nobel prize is not anymore ridiculous or moronic than your Odumbo winning he Nobel Prize..

Read comment [4] Michale.

Says the guy who STILL can't accept President Trump as President. So much so, he's afraid to even SAY President Trump's name.. :D

"OK Great... Write that down"

:D

In other words, don't try to educate Michale, he is just here to feel good, and if reality doesn't feel good, then he has no quarter with it.

In other words, spin to "prove" that all the polls were accurate and Hillary really is POTUS.. :D

Whatever ya'all have to tell yerselves to make it thru yer day.. :D

Look for this episode on your local PBS rerun channel or the PBS Passport on line.

One other recommendation while I'm here. The Tick on Amazon Prime. All the many Tick variants are great, but the latest is greatest.

And CMPs would be....????

"And Santiago would be.....???"
"The victim..."
"Great. Write that down.."
-A FEW GOOD MEN

:D

That is AWESOME!!! You win the Internet today with that one!

GMTA ;)

See, this is what happens when you don't teach people #whiteliesmatter, or for that matter #all-liesmatter....

Okay... GT wins the "Internets" today too. Y'all can share them. ;)

As the White Box, bereft of Hope, is riven by yet more turmoil millions of Cassandras look at their befuddled, wracked-with-denial opponents and say "we told you so". But they cannot be heard...

Paula wins the "Internets" today. :)

YOU have stipulated that.. I have stipulated that.. But no one else has...

Liz probably stipulated that as well..

But that's it...

Any chance we will get the Mooch back now Hope has left?

Or even better, Alex Jones - I'd watch that White House briefing every day!

Hey, this is an excellent idea. While Alex wouldn't exactly be allowed to hawk his supplements from the West Wing podium, he's now got Milo Yiannopoulos back home in his basement to pull up the slack.

https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/966317833675264001

That SHOULD read

The days of adhering to one agreed upon "reliable" poll are long gone in the streets of the People's Republic Of Weigantia..

The moral of the tale it seems
One cannot escape the law.
As more and more Hicks abandon the Box,
Perhaps there is Hope for us all. ;)

YOU have stipulated that.. I have stipulated that.. But no one else has...

They still keep quoting individual polls when those polls say what they want to hear..

The days of adhering to one agreed upon reliable poll are long gone in the streets of the People's Republic Of Weigantia...

Sad to say, my friend...

So, playing the game by THEIR rules, Trump's approval is higher than Odumbo's was at this point in Odumbo's presidency...

that's factually incorrect. we've all stipulated that the approval poll we consider most valid is RCP's poll-of-polls average.

here's barry's numbers from 3/2010:

48.1 / 46.4 / 5.5

and here's donald's numbers now:

41.2 / 55.2 / 3.6

JL

It's hilarious how ya'all say this EVERY week..

And yet, Trump's approval numbers are HIGHER than Odumbo's were at this point in his presidency...

I would be laughing my ass off if ya'all's suffering from HHPTDS wasn't so sad..

Dumbocrats.. :^/

You are quite the bard, giving CW a run for his money!

"I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
-JR

Heh.

TheStig [3] -

No, Sirrah, it was Daizd and Confusèd, verily so!

Heh.

neilm [4-5] -

Heh. Saw that too, but didn't come to the same conclusion. But now that you mention it...

:-)

TheStig [8] -

Don't forget:

(4) Trump imposes sanctions on 27 shipping companies who we suspect are still dealing with North Korea. The 28th on the list, Trump refused to sanction. It was the only Russian one on the list...

Paula [9] -

Dang! I knew I should have worked Cassandra in there somewhere...

Heh.

Hope (there's that name again...) everyone had fun with this one, I certainly did.

:-)

-CW

See, this is what happens when you don't teach people #whiteliesmatter,or for that matter #all-liesmatter....

That is AWESOME!!! You win the Internet today with that one!

Examples:

1) Workers from the Russian troll factories are openly giving "how we did it" interviews to US news media.

2) Putin's threat of "unstoppable" nuclear missiles, cruise & ballistic.

3) Putin's threat of the doomsday robotic sub.

Trump's lack of response to this saber rattling makes him look as impotent as a Nevada boxing commissioner. The Cold War is back baby, and the US Executive Branch is floundering at best, bleeding out at worst.

The US isn't beaten, but we've been humiliated, mussed up and better wake up while it still matters. Not looking doesn't make the bad man disappear. I think the US military leadership is going to put some real pressure on Trump. They take an oath to defend
The Constitution, not the Executive Branch. Checks and balances. At least in theory.

Or even better, Alex Jones - I'd watch that White House briefing every day!