Forums >General Running>'We were bored and didn’t have anything to do, so we decided to kill somebody.'
Why is it sideways?
Or not. Curious.
Whooptey F-in' DOOO!
Going to have to...abortion starts Saturday at 10:00 a.m. EST.
And for the week of September 8, we'll debate Gay Marriage.
Life Goals:
#1: Do what I can do
#2: Enjoy life
Of course marriage is gay! This should be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.
AR-15s are one of the (if not THE) highest volume sales items and have been for years. Go to any range; they are everywhere in common usage for hunting, competition, and home defense. They are also not an automatic rifle. Do you know the difference? I'm really not opposed to efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But I find it hard to maintain a middle ground discussion when this is the kind of ignorance framing the discussion. As for asserting that it won't do any good is no excuse not to try and enact ineffective legislation....really? Think about that for a moment. You really expect people to have to deal with laws that will not be effective at preventing crime but will affect them, just so you can feel better and say you tried something? I'll end where I started....this type of thought process really concerns me for the future of our country.
AR-15s are one of the (if not THE) highest volume sales items and have been for years. Go to any range; they are everywhere in common usage for hunting, competition, and home defense.
They are also not an automatic rifle. Do you know the difference?
I'm really not opposed to efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But I find it hard to maintain a middle ground discussion when this is the kind of ignorance framing the discussion.
As for asserting that it won't do any good is no excuse not to try and enact ineffective legislation....really? Think about that for a moment. You really expect people to have to deal with laws that will not be effective at preventing crime but will affect them, just so you can feel better and say you tried something?
I'll end where I started....this type of thought process really concerns me for the future of our country.
Spaniel--my apologies. I do understand the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon. My omission of the word "semi-" in my final paragraph was an oversight, and I'm not certain I would say that frames the discussion, at least as far as I'm involved in it, in ignorance.
also, you mischaracterized my statement about legislation. My point was this: if we don’t try to create laws that stop people from getting their hands on guns illegally because some people will still get guns illegally, then we may as well not create any laws, period. There are laws in place to discourage people from driving in the breakdown lane on the highway. Some people still drive in the breakdown lane on the highway. Far fewer people drive in the breakdown lane on the highway, though, than if there were no laws meant to discourage it.
unless I’m mistaken, the whole “you’re not screaming to ban cars, alcohol, or cell phones” thought process was yours to begin with, so I’m not sure why that now “really concerns you for the future of our country.”
I am a non-farming person, but if I want a tractor (in my persuit of happiness), and me having that tractor does not infringe on any of your rights, who are you to say that I don't "need" it?
Well, basically, we all also have a right to life (the beginning part of that "persuit of happiness" line), so as long as you can own that tractor without killing anyone with it, enjoy.
That's the whole point.
My favorite part of the video:
"So unless we can get rid of drugs completely, there's no point in having drug laws at all."
Feeling the growl again
Well, because like I said I'm done, but I like you so you should know I did click on it (not right away, I don't go to certain sites at work). But I stopped watching when I saw it was from The Daily Show. "Real data"? Dude, it's The Comedy Channel. That is hardly the definitive view on the Austrailian experience.
Now the CDC, as inappropriate as it is for them to be doing such research, is a bit better. And their conclusions were quite different, though it is funny that The Daily Show did not choose to report these.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
Here is a direct link to the National Academies of Science/CDC report referenced above:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1
and for the time-challenged (aren't we all?) here is a somewhat cogent, but limited, summary from a perspective opposite that of The Daily Show
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative
Keep in mind, the NAS/CDC report really is a review of the current state of firearms research literature and current findings, followed by recommendations for further avenues of research. It is not a research study--more like an executive summary of the literature.
That said, it's well written and a pretty fair look at things, circa 2013.
“If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”
This particular entry smells of heavy spin. I'm sure the statement is true, but my immediate reaction is to say let's exclude the stats from high crime regions in those other countries as well and compare again.
“If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” This particular entry smells of heavy spin. I'm sure the statement is true, but my immediate reaction is to say let's exclude the stats from high crime regions in those other countries as well and compare again.
Interesting that the four regions cited include places with some of the toughest gun control laws in the country.
Of course, this is no evidence of causation, and could certainly be reactive, or perhaps even mere coincidence. (However, it does makes for interesting fodder for flame wars. )
I only included the link to the New American article for those who don't have time to read the actual NAS/CDC report.
I'd encourage people who are interested to read at least the summary included in the actual report. I think it gives a nice, fairly balanced view of the current available data on this topic.
This is my general stance:
But weren't you a pitcher? I'd imagine your stance to be upright, bat on shoulder, bored and blank expression, hoping to be struck out quickly.
"If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus
True, Nads, but I went to a nerd school, so we were generally pretty weird. Put a bat in our hands and you'd get all manner of idiocy. "Bored and blank"...I think that was Clemson's motto...
Come all you no-hopers, you jokers and roguesWe're on the road to nowhere, let's find out where it goes
Interesting that the four regions cited include places with some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. Of course, this is no evidence of causation, and could certainly be reactive
Of course, this is no evidence of causation, and could certainly be reactive
One would expect this to be the case.
Yes. It's no surprise that public support for gun control is highest in areas that need gun control measures the most (I.e., states with very dense urban, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations that are most prone to the problems caused by gun violence).
Query: If gun control measures don't do anything to reduce gun violence, why are the very populations most affected by gun violence, who have the most experience living with it from day to day, so overwhelmingly in favor of gun control?
That Daily Show piece was not really about gun control. It was about mocking ridiculous people who stick to a particular stance long after reasons run out -- and who are willing to manipulate the evidence so that it fits their story. The piece that spaniel linked is a perfect example of this sort of manipulation. Check out the rhetoric in the following paragraph:
The CDC found, for example, that the majority of gun-related deaths were due to suicide — not to ghetto-roaming gang-bangers, armed liquor store robbers or brain-addled mass shooters.
Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States,” the CDC report said.
All true, of course, but the fact that the majority of gun deaths are due to suicide is totally unrelated to the absolute value of gun deaths due to violence (and of course injury.) And the language in that piece? "Ghetto-roaming gang-bangers, armed liquor store robbers or brain-addled mass shooters." Seriously? This article from a guy who "worries about the future of our country" and fears that arguments are "framed ignorantly." And who continuously presents himself as an evidence-based guy? This is hypocrisy at its finest.
If you read the CDC report, the main claim is that the effects of gun control laws are difficult to measure, which is very different from claiming that the effects are non-existent. Surely the CDC does not claim that gun control laws are ineffective -- they avoid that claim precisely because they find it difficult to measure the effects. Yet, the article that spaniel linked has as its title, "Results of Obama’s own CDC study on guns support other side." Actually, no, the results of the study are inconclusive, and the report calls for more study, which is exactly what Obama called for.
Finally, I will just note the trajectory of this thread (which I have now contributed to) is to take an event which is certainly tragic and awful and use this to fan the flames of old and tired (and only tangentially related) arguments. Is this the proper way to mourn the death of a fellow runner? I don't think so.