THIS is what we are up against

Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
3,864
Likes
1,058
Feedback: 12 / 0 / 0
I know posting a link to another discussion group may be in bad taste, but the link below contains multiple links to various NYT articles, but more importantly how the left reacts to them. It may be a good idea to see what we are facing

???? | MetaFilter
 
His solution: Increase the tax on bullets. He wouldn’t raise the tax on ammunition typically used for target shooting or hunting. But he proposed exorbitant taxes on hollow-tipped bullets designed to penetrate armor and cause devastating damage.

People are that ignorant of the facts that they actually believe hollow points are armor piercing bullets...

And they vote...
 
Eric Holder must have wrote this one.

I am an American and I find it strange. Personally, I am an American who spent some of my wild youth shooting a lot of really interesting guns and I can't think of a single reason why any of us have either the need nor the right to own even a single gun.
 
Thanks for taking the time to read these. Don't forget, these people have the same right to speak their minds as we do, but as the past has proven their voices are given more weight in the editorial pages than do ours.
 
I know posting a link to another discussion group may be in bad taste, but the link below contains multiple links to various NYT articles, but more importantly how the left reacts to them. It may be a good idea to see what we are facing

???? | MetaFilter

I know you went to the gun control hearings run by Naughton. The spew from the antis in there was at least as stupid.
 
The New York Times article on children and gun accidents is amazing. They have several pages of anecdotal stories of kids shooting themselves or each other, and claim they have evidence that accidental shootings are underreported, but steadfastly refuse anyplace in the article to quote the actual statistics. The way the article is written, using deceptive statistical comparisons, it sounds like this is a serious epidemic.

Because the actual number is in the hundreds, regardless of whether the questionable hypothesis they have is true that accidental firearms homicides are underreported, the NYT article never quotes a real number, just says "it is the seventh leading cause of death in children", even though it is like 0.1% of the actual child deaths, which themselves are extremely rare (excluding gang warfare, if you count a 17 year old thug killing another one as a 'child')


It is seriously sick that the New York Times could publish such a twisted article.

National Child Mortality Data

36,272 44.1
Perinatal Conditions 14,570 17.7
Congenital Anomalies 6,896 8.4
Neoplasms 2,302 2.8
Respiratory Disease 1,442 1.8
Circulatory Disease 1,666 2.0
Nervous System Disease 1,609 2.0
SIDS 2,453 3.0
Unintentional Injury 11,560 14.0
Motor Vehicle 6,683 8.1
Drowning 1,056 1.3
Fire/Burn 544 0.7
Poisoning 972 1.2
Suffocation/Strangulation 1,263 1.5
Firearm 138 0.2
 
Last edited:
The New York Times article on children and gun accidents is amazing. They have several pages of anecdotal stories of kids shooting themselves or each other, and claim they have evidence that accidental shootings are underreported, but steadfastly refuse anyplace in the article to quote the actual statistics. The way the article is written, using deceptive statistical comparisons, it sounds like this is a serious epidemic.

Because the actual number is in the hundreds, regardless of whether the questionable hypothesis they have is true that accidental firearms homicides are underreported, the NYT article never quotes a real number, just says "it is the seventh leading cause of death in children", even though it is like 0.1% of the actual child deaths, which themselves are extremely rare (excluding gang warfare, if you count a 17 year old thug killing another one as a 'child')


It is seriously sick that the New York Times could publish such a twisted article.

National Child Mortality Data

36,272 44.1
Perinatal Conditions 14,570 17.7
Congenital Anomalies 6,896 8.4
Neoplasms 2,302 2.8
Respiratory Disease 1,442 1.8
Circulatory Disease 1,666 2.0
Nervous System Disease 1,609 2.0
SIDS 2,453 3.0
Unintentional Injury 11,560 14.0
Motor Vehicle 6,683 8.1
Drowning 1,056 1.3
Fire/Burn 544 0.7
Poisoning 972 1.2
Suffocation/Strangulation 1,263 1.5
Firearm 138 0.2

Even the statistics from the link you provided is including "children" up to age 19 (as opposed to the CDC definition of people aged 4-11).
 
When I read comments like this, I can't wait for the entire system to fail and these morons become food. I have friends who live in Manhattan, when the SHTF they've said they are coming to my house.
 
The New York Times article on children and gun accidents is amazing. They have several pages of anecdotal stories of kids shooting themselves or each other, and claim they have evidence that accidental shootings are underreported,
When I first saw the summary I was thinking WTF, how are these deaths not reported? But in the actual NYT article they state "The report claimed accidental gun deaths of children to be under-reported by up to 90 percent. This undercount is a result of peculiarities in medical and coroners' rulings which often state cause of death as homicide". So what they're actually saying is that a few deaths are being misclassified -- "accidents" are being under-reported, and homicides are being over reported by an equivalent amount.

I blame modern health care. We've solved all the easy preventable causes of child deaths, so now there are some parents that grasp at straws, look for anything else they can possible do to protect their precious snowflakes.
 
I'm just going to leave this here. You guys can tear this apart like I did. In the end, he is okay with a mass shooting if an illegal gun was used...but he's not okay if a mass shooting occurs with a legal firearm... da fuq?!?!



I am an American and I find it strange. Personally, I am an American who spent some of my wild youth shooting a lot of really interesting guns and I can't think of a single reason why any of us have either the need nor the right to own even a single gun.

In fact, I support complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment (because the context of a nation too new and small to protect its citizens from the hostile nations we were occupying and the recent revolution are so alien to the circumstance in which we currently live and because current interpretation is tortured to fit modern circumstance outside of the idea that we've always had this right) and the outlawing firearm ownership and possession in the U.S.

I know that making firearm ownership and possession illegal won't make the existing guns disappear; I know that it won't stop people owning, possession and using firearms (either immediately or within a quick timeframe, however "quick" is defined); I know that if guns were outlawed in the U.S. tomorrow, it would take several generations to significantly reduce intentional and accidental firearm violence. I am okay with that, but it has got to start somewhere and it has got to start now.

Because licensing and regulating and permitting firearm ownership and carry is not stopping people from shooting one another accidentally, on purpose, on on weird moral justifications of a superior right to determine what is safe.

Given the two options:

1) some people who commit mass shootings–or even just a single shooting–lawfully acquired and carried (some or all of) the weapons they used to murder people

and

2) every person who commits a mass shooting–or even a single shooting, fatal or not–does so with an illegally acquired and illegally carried weapon

I’ll take option #2 every single goddamn time
 
Back
Top Bottom