Skip to main content

View Diary: It's fun to accidentally discharge your handgun at the Y-M-C-A! GunFAIL LIX (245 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  How fun. Do tell.... (0+ / 0-)

    If "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel", then who would take refuge in citing comment recs on Daily Kos?

    While you are pondering that, let me help you out by informing you who wouldn't take refuge there:
    People that can quote credible organizations.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:39:16 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why not write a diary. (6+ / 0-)

      Instead of harassing, SPAMMING and insulting in the comment section, you could try to show all the unenlightened people on Dkos the error of their ways.

      No one is buying your SPAM and insults. And anyone reading your comments can see right through them for what they actually are - trolling.

      You've been here a year and have failed to persuade any front pages to agree with your point of view. And you yourself have failed to write diaries that persuade anyone.

      In a nut shell, you are failing.

      But by all means, keep on digging.

      "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

      by We Shall Overcome on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:47:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Someone most certainly is failing. (2+ / 4-)

        Particularly when it comes to protecting Senators.

        But, I'll give you this: you did one hell of a job convincing registered Democrats to vote for the recall of Democrats.

        Perhaps you should try bringing up comment recs on Daily Kos to them next time.
        I'm certain they will find it every bit as convincing as I have.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:53:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How about I bring up HRs? You seem to be (4+ / 1-)

          quite apt at getting those and then being banned from Dkos for 30 days at a time. Here's just a few from the past two weeks - you're on roll:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...
          http://www.dailykos.com/...
          http://www.dailykos.com/...
          http://www.dailykos.com/...
          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          Clearly, you have changed a lot of minds here - a year ago, no one knew you and now everyone doesn't seem to think much of your comments.

          "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

          by We Shall Overcome on Thu Mar 06, 2014 at 08:59:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Markos has clearly said that (1+ / 3-)
            Recommended by:
            ancblu
            Hidden by:
            We Shall Overcome, LilithGardener, howarddream

            Dragging in old shit from hiddens and referencing past admins actions are forbidden. Elfling has as well. HR for repeated dbad and community guideline violations.

            •  OK, thanks, we both set the record straight. (4+ / 0-)

              "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

              by We Shall Overcome on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:07:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  HR abuse by Kasoru, above. (5+ / 0-)

              Not to mention DBAD. And false allegation:

              repeated dbad and community guideline violations.
            •  Can you show the links please ? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber
              Markos has clearly said that
              Dragging in old shit from hiddens and referencing past admins actions are forbidden. Elfling has as well.
              http://www.dkosopedia.com/...
              There isn't actually any site rule that says you can't quote hidden comments in order to make a point. You should still think carefully about doing it -- after all, they were hidden because we believe that they are so unrepresentative of the community as to be unworthy of display -- but there are valid reasons to bring them up, and it isn't against the rules to do so.

              "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

              by indycam on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 02:37:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  This is a Noble Effort. (4+ / 0-)

              And at one point, Kos did say that bringing old fights into un-related diaries is a punishablle/bannable offense. That is how slinkerwink got banned for a few days before she was reinstated.

              But kos's rules are so Wishy-washy and he only strictly enforces some of them when the mood strikes him.

              In addition, I don't think linking hidden comments by a user is dragging in old fights, just providing examples.

              I miss Speaker Pelosi :^(

              by howarddream on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:36:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  HR for intentionally misrepresenting Kos' policy (3+ / 0-)

              and supporting FrankRose persistent threadjacking and dickishness.

              Here's the policy link. The important policy guidance from Kos is bolded for your selective reading skills.

              The "guest in someone's house" rule
              Walking into someone's diary is like walking into someone's home. You are a guest. Act accordingly. That doesn't mean you can't disagree. It just means you have to be civil and courteous and limit your arguments to substance.

              That level of courtesy must be even higher in group diaries. If people want to hang out and talk about X, and you are anti-X, then either be on your bestest of best behavior or just stay away. You are always free to write your own response diary or start your own anti-X group.
              So, my tolerance for dickishness will be least in group diaries, followed by personal diaries, followed by your own diaries.

              Bottom line: If you don't like someone, ignore or argue PURELY on the facts. If you refuse to heed and seek out your foes to shit all over their diaries, I will zap you. You don't need to go after the same people every day to remind them that yes, you still don't like them.

              [bold mine]

              Which is excerpted at the helpdesk, here:
              Is Kos' dictum against dredging up old fights in unrelated diaries still in effect? The rule was explicitly stated here: http://www.dailykos.com/.... The germane portion:

              "A sampling of additional dickish behavior: Going back to hidden comments and pulling stuff out that's six months old. People are allowed to have an off-day without having it rubbed in their face in perpetuity.
              ... Hijacking other people's diaries by dragging in meta fights from outside. I will actually have particularly low tolerance for meta hijacks."

              I imagine examples of Markos reiterating this policy can be found with a diligent search.

              I would appreciate clarification of the present state of site policy regarding old arguments. I imagine other Kossacks would as well.

              Thanks in advance.

              It's not clear whether Kasoru ever bothered to read Kos's  policy diary. Kasoru has clearly read this comment out of context and used it as an excuse to support FrankRose's  dickishness in this diary and his persistent threadjacking.

              This is not about respectful disagreement.

              The threadjackers here are BadBoyScientist and FrankRose. Both of them appear to fancy themselves as masters of misrepresentation. And Kasoru, you know as well as everyone this is not FrankRose just having a bad day. This is FrankRose's normal mode.

              I think he gets away with it because most people have put him on shrink and don't bother anymore to even read threads where Frank is pissing/posting.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:42:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What a bunch (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kasoru, FrankRose

                of self-righteous priggish crap.

                The beloved "gun fail" series here is about accidents ... and just as persistently as this series presents that polemic it just as equally ignores CDC injury and fatality data for firearms relative to other causes.  This is Frank's persistent and perfectly valid point ... however much it gets under your and other anti-advocate's skin.  These data are perfectly relevant for those who prefer a reality based community discussion ... and it is not trolling or thread-jacking when it must be continually raised for purposes of balance and perspective against the purely emotional appeal of the series.

                But keep censoring by HR misuse.  It's perfectly predictable from you and others in the usual coterie.

                •  Shopping in the hiddens, again? (4+ / 0-)

                  Is that a daily past time of yours?

                  Do you really intend to misstate my views, impugne my character, and lie about what I've written at Daily Kos?

                  Curious readers can view my publishing and comment history and decide for themselves.

                  I'm a strong supporter of the individual right to keep and bear arms. I don't recall you ever visiting any of my diaries to discusse gun law and policy. I don't recall you ever participating in any of the Firearms Law and policy diaries covering topics in the CDC report.

                  Yet here you are helicoptering in posing as some kind champion to rescue FrankRose from another round of persistent dickishness, threadjacking, and lying.

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 07:44:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  More than 50 diaries in the past 6 months (3+ / 0-)

                    I've written more than 50 diaries on firearms law and policy, mostly in the past 6 months, along with thousands of comments. I have nurtured and supported other authors, even whether or not I agree with their whole position. And I have participated in dozens of others' diaries, informing about the law, about research, asking questions and presenting experience and facts about firearms fatalities.

                    Proof is easily available, e.g. here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    Readers like ancblu seem to project their own negative attitudes onto anyone who dares to discuss any aspect of gun violence and who dare to support other writers' discussing gun law, policy, and culture. Ancblu's claims are false labeling, similar to others who arbitrarily assign "anti" to anyone who doesn't agree with their personal libertarian view of gun rights.

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 07:59:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Readers like ancblu? Hah. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Kasoru, FrankRose

                      Come now LG ... who is doing the foam-mouthed projecting here?  

                      Are you really so unhinged from my stern critique that you misused your TU status and misplaced an HR by censoring something relevant to the issue of accident rates when supposedly trying to formulate POLICY based on facts rather than emotion ... you know, policy, that thing you've supposedly written so much and thoughtfully about.

                      But yes ... I'm obviously just someone in your mind and projections who just doesn't want to discuss any aspect of gun violence.  Do you realize how amusingly ironic that comment of yours actually is?  Can ya see it?  I rather suppose not ... because it appears easier for you to demonize with intellectually lazy slurs devoid of reason and laden instead with brittle emotional intensity. These are not signs of a credible policy analyst ... at least in worlds I've traveled.

                      But is was you, I'll remind you dear LG,  who in point of fact censored for disagreement.  I brought it back into the light because, and despite your silly certainty otherwise (based yet again on little respect for data, I'll further add), I actually care about rational Democratic policy approaches to the issue, not the emotionally driven hysteria that gun fail fans so love but that do cause harm to the party in certain regions and states.  And that was Frank's "hidden" point as well if you take the time to read it again and think just a wee bit.  

                      Your up-raters make me smile as well ... the usual claque of censors for disagreement on this broader issue, tending to shout out troll! or NRA Shill! for anything that doesn't comport with their cramped need for purity.

                      I'm looking forward to your next round of snorting and foot-stomping that persistently ignores the points ... it's more revealing than you know.

                      •  Here's the problem with FR's use of the CDC (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LilithGardener

                        report:

                        http://www.dailykos.com/...

                        If you take the time to read through the comment thread, you will find that FR mischaracterizes the report.

                        He uses the CDC report as proof that gun reformers are wrong, because the CDC report comes to certain conclusions about the research it reviewed - research that is infected with the discredited ideas of Gary Kleck.

                        FR never addresses this point - that Gary Kleck is a discredited researcher that the gun lobby uses as a basis for many of its claims.

                        Furthermore, the CDC report is not new research - it is a review of research with recommendations for further research.

                        The issue is that FR never acknowledges these short comings in the report - instead he holds it up as the end all to the debate.

                        The truth is, there is a lot of research reviewed in this report from a variety of points of view - but FR only uses those research points that support the point he wants to make without acknowledging the issues are not settled, nor that other researchers don't support his points, nor the fact that the gun lobby has intentionally stifled research into gun violence and gun violence prevention.

                        "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                        by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:54:50 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The CDC report is a partial map of the unknown (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          We Shall Overcome

                          to help prioritise research focus.

                          It's really a commissioned map of what's not known so the research funding agencies can give priority to programs that study the gaps in criminal justice and public health approaches. It's a peer-reviewed survey of some important open questions.

                          The DGU studies cited are also cited because of the huge uncertainties evident in the wide range of the estimates.

                          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                          by LilithGardener on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:34:00 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  There were three separate issues (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru, FrankRose

                            identified in the DGU section ... not just one as you imply.

                            Concerning the issue you are uniquely focusing on, the Report stated as a declarative point -- "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence."  

                            Elaborating, the Report then notes that the exact number is disputed but that "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," ... "in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." [and we know from FBI Bureau of Statistics data that all violent crime rates have been falling since 2008 -- the Report's benchmark year].

                            Your purported "huge uncertainties" only really applies to but one noted outlier 1997 study that estimated 108,000 cases of DGU ... but the Report emphasized "[that study estimate] is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."  

                            Whatever the flawed methodology of that particular outlier study -- and there is substantial criticism of it -- the estimate still represents a significant percentage of the violent crimes figure the Report used for contextual reference.  Moreover, the other DGU studies -- some dozen or more I believe - noted by the Report offer a range of some 500,000 to 3 million cases that clearly dwarf the violent crime reference figure.  This may provide grounds for "huge uncertainty" in your policy making world -- but you seem to have lost sight of the bigger DGU forest for the single outlier tree that certain folks would prefer to uniquely rely upon for demagogic purposes.

                            So yes ... this is certainly an identified area for further research, but a persistent gaggle, including the HR Brigade here, clearly do not want to admit the significant incidence of DGU from "almost all studies" as actually noted by the CDC Report.  

                            When Frank, me or any one else tries to emphasize these points it not even remotely lying as you and others have persistently and falsely asserted -- and it is actually a much more faithful reading of what the Report actually says than what you in fact suggest.

                          •  Gun law is complex, it's dry, it's rather boring (2+ / 0-)

                            Gun law is complex. It's dry. It's rather boring much of the time. In the Firearms Law and Policy group we divide up the heavy lifting and share what we learn, holding our ideas and the sources on which we base opinions up to public scrutiny.

                            Gary Kleck was obviously an important voice, he was cited in the Heller decision (minority opinion) and was a member of the panel chosen by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine to help assess the limit of what's known. The estimates vary from a low about 100,000 to a high of more than 3 million DGUs/year. At first I thought the extremely large difference was because public health officials and criminologists were just measuring difference populations. You know, Gary Kleck studies hammers, so he's better at finding nails in the jumble of public information that gun owners will admit to.

                            There are two big questions that readers can answer for themselves in the diaries below.

                            1. Why are there so few published reports of DGUs?
                            2. Why are all of Kleck's claims dependent on 20 year old study?

                            If there are 6-8000 DGUs per day why do we have so few documented incidents? Haven't you wondered why there aren't more recent studies using the same method? If it was a robust study why aren't they tracking DGU over time using the same method?

                            Defensive Gun Use

                            The Firearms Law and Policy group examined in detail several studies of DGU, including the high and low estimates cited in the CDC report (the NCVS and the NSDS). You may read those diaries and disagree with our  analysis and/or disagree with the conclusions drawn. If you think there is something we missed and you decide to write a rebuttal diary addressing an issue you see, please send the group a Kosmail so that we can participate and add it to the collection of Daily Kos writers who care that policy be based on sound science.

                            Another Look at Estimates of Defensive Gun Use (Part VI) - Open Thread
                            A closer look at DGU numbers
                            Defensive Gun Use (Part V) - A Comparison of Two Studies
                            Defensive Gun Use (Part IV) - The National Self Defense Survey
                            Defensive Gun Use (Part III) - The National Crime Victimization Study
                            Defensive Gun Use (Part II) - You Decide
                            Defensive Gun Use (Part I) - The CDC Report on Gun Violence
                            Center for Disease Control Addresses Gun Violence
                            The bottom line is that self-reporting surveys of gun use are biased in various ways, and there is no way to correct for the obvious limits of the method.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 03:30:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There are several reports in the CDC review that (0+ / 0-)

                            are authored or co-authored or use research by Kleck, it's not just one. Check the footnotes, he is mentioned at least 5 times, if I am not mistaken.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:18:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

                          I accurately quote the CDC report commissioned by President Obama.

                          Your conspiracy theories and attempts to claim political bias for a report commissioned by President Obama is ridiculous.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 11:46:57 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I've read through the Report (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Kasoru, FrankRose

                          several times and this entire thread (and others before it) and it's perfectly telling your and LG's presumption that I have not.

                          Your own bias is quite evident here and there will be no value debating you further on this. Discredited only by  lazy witch hunters who prefer to demonize him as a gun lobby shill, Dr. Kleck has perfectly credible academic credentials at a leading U.S. University and was one of 14 committee members who were appointed to prepare the recent CDC Report pursuant to the President's Executive Order -- under the leadership of Dr. Leshner, the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  What a hack, huh?

                          You tend to infer or surmise much to much -- and I simply don't agree with your assessment how Frank is using language quoted from the Report. But your evident anxiety about this concern seems quite over-wrought.

                          By appearances you and the HR brigade here have an axe to grind and particular agenda to pursue that isn't particularly inclined to discussion or debate ... even as some of us also fully understand the Report's summaries of existing research, with identification of controversies that exist and suggested lines of further enquiry.  The Report's language can still be validly quoted however -- despite your own clearly hostile interpretation about that and conjured grounds for HRing based on "lying."

                          One of the first rules of science is to fall in love with your data not your hypothesis. Think about that for a bit.

                          •  As I have asked FR on many occasions, please (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            write more diaries. Comments in the comment threads are not the best way to have an open debate and to make a case. A diary allows you to include sources, links and make your case without all the interference of a comment thread.

                            I'm also disappointed to hear that in our first interaction on DKos you have immediately divined my intentions and my biases and that you won't be debating because you already know my positions.

                            As for the CDC report, Gary Kleck and defensive gun use (not our immediate issue, but certainly related), I suggest Lilith's advice — a list of diaries that can be read and an invitation to join us with a diary:

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:14:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  When you start out with (2+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru
                            Hidden by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            an immediately discreditable and clearly biased assertion slurring Professor Kleck's academic integrity ... you do not evidence any merit for debate -- open or otherwise.  I'm sorry if that conclusion troubles you ... but it is you who first asserted the bias of shilling and I have shown where your own is clearly evident and disqualifying.

                            It takes only modest effort to investigate Dr. Kleck's academic credentials, his particular emphasis on empirical data, his self-aware acceptance of critical arguments pro or con concerning his own studied conclusions and his appropriate rejection of agenda-driven "research" that permeates the field -- of the Hemenway variety (as I have studied myself and concluded).  

                            Moreover, your invitation to honest debate is also suspect given your handling of Frank's several repeated points where he has fairly quoted the CDC Report and never disputed as I have seen the other narrow quotations you and LG prefer to emphasize that acknowledge areas of academic dispute.

                            But you and others here have branded Frank a liar and thread-jacker for his emphases ... in a diary series no less that fixates on inflammatory anecdotal recitation without any effort to incorporate real and relevant data or critical thought. It is a clear appeal to emotion only ... and your advocates seem to prefer to censor and hide with misplaced HRs anyone with the temerity to challenge that unfortunate myopia in community that congratulates itself as "reality-based."

                            I'm sure though you firmly believe you and LG are trying to educate this community.  In this thread I do not see that ... but my view is unquestionably a minority perspective and is not well accepted as you and the several up-raters have demonstrated.  If I am correct, there is little value in posturing the facade of debate with you, LG or your up-rater crowd.

                            And so you know ... because I am interested in politics and policy on this and other issues, I tend to follow 2A/Gun Control diaries here in DK... including those posted at FLAP.

                            Sorry for being so blunt and, in LG's utter laughable attack, for "parachuting in" the Hiddens where actually I as a TU am perfectly entitled to see how our community moderation efforts are functioning or not.  I'm certainly capable of less scathing interaction, but not when I'm responding to what I've seen here.  

                            And by the by, if you can remember that you, LG and your up-raters are addressing fellow Democrats, liberals and progressives who might hold quite different views on these 2A/Gun Control issues, you might be interested in this nugget:

                            In his 1997 book, Targeting Guns, Kleck revealed that he is a member of several liberal organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Democrats 2000. He is registered as an active Democrat and has contributed financially to the campaigns of Democrat political candidates. He is not a member of the National Rifle Association, or any other pro-gun organization.
                            http://civilliberty.about.com/...
                          •  Appeals to Kleck's liberal background have been (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            rightly called what they are "thou doth protest too much":

                            Spitzer's review of outside researchers' views on gun control offers some small pleasures for the supporter of gun control. He matter-of-factly reviews and dismisses the work of Florida State University professor Gary Kleck (whose discredited claim that Americans use firearms more than 2 million times a year to stop crimes is routinely cited by the NRA) with the observation that Kleck's “estimates are at odds with national crime data, and suffer from severe methodological problems.” Spitzer notes in the book's preface that “declaratory statements by some [pro-gun] lawyers and academics that they were good liberals, or not members of various gun associations, seemed anxious efforts to protest too much.”
                            http://www.nejm.org/...

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:26:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And of course you miss the salient point(s) (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru

                            entirely.  Whoosh ... as they say.

                          •  Whoosh indeed: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight
                            A National Research Council report said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others" (Understanding and Preventing Violence, 266, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., 1992).

                            The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Kleck’s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.

                            Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses.  Kleck’s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household.  Males from the South and West were oversampled.  The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992.

                            http://vacps.org/...

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:31:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you still insist (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru

                            Professor Kleck is simply a gun lobby shill?  Is that your evidence?

                          •  His research is used by the gun lobby to make (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            erroneous claims - that's not necessarily him shilling for the gun lobby. I think it's just bad research.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:48:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of for fuck's sake. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru

                            Are you really that dense?

                            If data or studies have merit, do YOU really give a damn who uses that information?  I mean seriously?  Do have any academic experience or insight?

                            If you think (I suspect believe) his research is bad, then show some empirical data and address some of my substantive points.  Otherwise ... you're continuing to prove yourself simply a copy/paster stenographer with a particular agenda and poor judgment.

                          •  I've already pointed you to research that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            contradicts Kleck and to research that picks apart his findings - not opinion, but actual research:

                            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/...

                            I suppose even Harvard can't match up with your intellect.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:10:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh yes. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru

                            Whatever comes from Harvard can never be wrong.

                            What an absurd perspective.  Really?

                            You need to recalibrate your infatuations toward critical thinking rather than objects of worship.

                          •  So, insult and then skate by the actual (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            research - that's a little dodgy, isn't it?

                            And Harvard isn't rated in the top 5 global universities for research for nothing.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:19:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Top 5 ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            So what?

                            Are you really that incapable of parsing matters just a wee bit thinner?  

                            If you don't like the insult, stop being stupid about these things.  Harvard?  You really believe that label gives special credibility?  Wow.

                            Keep studying.

                          •  It's been real - I get your schtick, heard it here (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            1000s of times.

                            Fortunately, gun reform is coming to the US of A thanks to a bevy of political action groups that have sprung up post Newtown, and a public that's had enough - so, no more guns in Starbucks, no more gun sales on Facebook, Havey Weinstein is coming out with movie that's going to nail the NRA to the wall, gun reform is passing in the states and the courts are upholding those laws, the SC is rejecting NRA-backed court cases, the CDC is getting it's budget back, the ATF has a director again, we're about to get a surgeon general that says gun violence is a major problem and rich folks who are embarrassed by the mockery that's been made of our public square with school shootings, mall shootings, office shootings, airport shootings, places of worship shootings and on and on, are opening their wallets and pouring money into organizations that are leveling the playing field.

                            So, in 1-2 years, if not sooner, you're going to realize you are wasting your time defending the status quo on gun policy.

                            There's your bed time story.

                            Sleep tight.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:33:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for confirming (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            your phony "objectivity" and your actual agenda driven approach.

                            For me, I'll just keep residing in a data driven policy world where facts, critical reasoning and intellectual integrity matters more than politics.

                            It's been real.  Ta.

                          •  Ba Dum Tish! (0+ / 0-)

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:49:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How can I miss you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            if you never leave.  Song I heard once.

                            Nightie-night.

                          •  Show me that you've actually (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru

                            read anything Professor Kleck has written rather than these agenda-driven smear jobs (yes, it happens even in academics).  He's directly addressed, persuasively to my mind, most of these criticisms.

                            Keep studying.

                          •  Can you point me to sources where he has addressed (0+ / 0-)

                            the criticisms?

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:49:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I could, but tell me why I should bother. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru

                            The research is simple enough ... I've done it. You're seem an axe grinder and without much ability to discern the weight of competing arguments.

                            Show me otherwise and I"ll more inclination to discuss the issue with you.

                            In the meanwhile, how about retracting your "gun lobby shill" crap?

                          •  Never said Kleck was a shill - only that he's (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            done bad research that has then been used by the gun lobby for its purposes. There's a difference. Sort of like GOPers watching Faux News and expecting Romney to win. Romney didn't tell Faux what to report. And the gun lobby didn't tell  Kleck what to publish.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:57:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ok ... that's fair nuance. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru

                            I don't agree with your conclusions about the merits of different research studies any more than you evidently agree with mine.

                            But ... to stay on point to my original involvement in this thread ... I believe you do misstate the "CDC Report" by suggesting it is only a literature search summary .. without any conclusory statements concerning existing research.

                            If so, the Report's language quoted clearly refutes that point that has served as the basis of your repeated assertion that Frank (and maybe me I suppose in your world) is a liar.

                            If you want me to be as careful as you'd like, you need to do the same.

                          •  Correction: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            I didn't say "without any conclusory statements concerning existing research."

                            I said, it didn't break new ground with new research.

                            Of course they made concluding statements about the research they reviewed.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:12:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You have repeatedly (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            emphasized that it the point about literature searches without conclusory observations.

                            Own it.

                            And if only now you change tack, then let's discuss those "conclusions" about existing research they in fact made ... rather than the points you and LG and up-raters have repeatedly emphasized to the point of HRing someone for disagreeing.

                          •  Show me where I said that, and I will own it. (0+ / 0-)

                            Or are you going to tell me "you show me"

                            FL&P has already written a number of diaries on the CDC  report, which I've read and commented on and read comments.

                            Ultimately, research about gun violence is spotty, incomplete and inconclusive - thanks to an industry that sells dangerous products that doesn't want consumers to know about those dangers because it would cut into quarterly profits and make shareholders angry.

                            Very similar to the tobacco industry.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:24:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You seem perfectly (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            incapable of recognizing the existence of bias in matters of policy -- even if the conclusions align with your own personal preferences.

                            That is a rather damning indictment -- as I see it.

                            Even Kleck does a better job of owning up to where his research conclusions might be wrong.

                            If you and LG are exemplars of FLAP, this is exactly why I want no part of it.  You emote much better than you reason. And it's perfect that we're addressing this in Gun Fail -- the perfect emoter's haven at DK.

                          •  And did you even bother (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru

                            to compare the academic credentials of Dr. Spitzer and Dr. Kleck -- in the field of criminology, firearm violence and public policy?

                            No?  I thought not.

                            And the NEJM is a not an authoritative publication in this field ... it doesn't remotely strive to provide reference to alternative data or studies even as it concerns public health considerations.

                            Keep studying.  

                          •  Oh, I've studied quite a bit on this subject: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight
                            Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

                            We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

                            Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

                            We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.  Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

                            Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

                            Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use.  We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

                            http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/...

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:45:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh ... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru

                            You're Hemenway light.  Gotcha.  Not impressed.

                            Keep studying.

                          •  So then, you're argument seems to boil down to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so."

                            Where are your sources, research and studies that you base your claims on?

                            Haven't seen one yet and when I ask, you seem to hide behind "oh, you wouldn't read it anyways."

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 08:55:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Prove me wrong. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru

                            You haven't proven yourself all that interested in addressing my issues about your own methodology, agenda and bias.  If you can't even do that honestly, all this is an utter waste of your and my time.

                          •  Got it - you're right and everyone is wrong (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            because you say so.

                            I'll leave you with this:

                            In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year.
                            http://www.slate.com/...

                            The reason the research on gun violence is so spotty is that the gun lobby has made it so - because it doesn't want the public to know the true risks, for fear if it did, it would hurt sales.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:05:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Or ... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, Kasoru

                            the "gun lobby" and many others of us don't particularly respect advocacy based and agenda driven "research."

                            Have you ever corrected anyone on the actual nature of the Congressional funding restriction?

                          •  I guess RJR Nabisco would make the same point (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            about cigarette research.

                            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                            by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:14:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wha? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            Oh so now I'm a tobacco lobbyist.  Brilliant. As usual.

                          •  Where did anyone say you were ? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

                            by indycam on Sun Mar 09, 2014 at 09:55:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't recognize (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            the desperate reliance on the guilt by association fallacy?  It's really not all that hard to see without blinders, but your failure to recognize it seems consistent with the poor self-reflection skills from agenda bias that is so evident in the HR abuser crowd here as well.

                          •  HR for insults, DBAD (0+ / 0-)

                            ancblu writes in comments to this diary, alone:

                            What a bunch
                            of self-righteous priggish crap.
                            foam-mouthed projecting
                            you do not evidence any merit for debate
                            My aren't we a tender hot house flower...
                            Are you really so unhinged from my stern critique...
                            I actually care about rational Democratic policy approaches to the issue, not the emotionally driven hysteria that gun fail fans so love...
                            Your tirade in response...
                            your silly certainty...
                            stay true to your emotion.  It's powerful ... blinding ...
                            But by all means continue to... hype the emotional drama and make all this a personal witch hunt against us "haters.
                            makes a purely emotional appeal to avoid the burden of actually thinking...
                            easier for you to demonize with intellectually lazy slurs devoid of reason and laden instead with brittle emotional intensity.
                            based on facts rather than emotion ...
                            It is a clear appeal to emotion only...
                            Your initial nonsensical diatribe was nothing but a self-impressed justification for an utterly false accusation
                            These are not signs of a credible policy analyst
                            Discredited only by lazy witch hunters
                            Are you really that dense?
                            Do [you] have any academic experience or insight?
                            What an absurd perspective.  Really?
                            You need to recalibrate your infatuations toward critical thinking rather than objects of worship.
                            Are you really that incapable of parsing matters just a wee bit thinner?  
                            If you don't like the insult [sic], stop being stupid about these things.
                            your "gun lobby shill" crap?
                            You're seem [sic] an axe grinder and without much ability to discern the weight of competing arguments.
                            You seem perfectly
                            incapable of recognizing the existence of bias in matters of policy
                            Keep studying.
                            Prove me wrong.
                            your demonstrable ... cherry picking priggishness ...
                            I realized what a hypocrite and poseur you really are on this matter.  You lost all credibility...
                            lazy minds who pretend to debate but studiously avoid use of actual data to form reasoned conclusions
                          •  Ahhhh ... the HR Maven (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            being the proverbial dick herself for failing to be consistent when she and others in this little wolf-pack falsely and persistently accuse a member of lying and thread-jacking for offering a direct and relevant quotation ... or when the object of your own silly infatuation -- LG -- herself hysterically makes up ad homs while studiously ignoring a valid critique.

                            Yawn.  Really dear Sharon? ... "Prove me wrong" provokes your poutrage?  How typically absurd and perfectly revealing.

                            To quote one of your bestest buddies upthead, though --- I've seen your HR abuse schtick 1000s of times.

                            ... Oh, and I still haven't seen you own up to the call out of  your other HR abuse where you phonied up the same sort of silliness as simply purposeful and agenda driven illiteracy.

                      •  Where is your rebuttal diary? (0+ / 0-)

                        You seem to have a lot to say on the topic. If keeping it bottled up is eating you up inside, perhaps you should write a rebuttal diary?

                        Just like everybody else, you, Frank and Kasoru are free to write diaries on any issue you find important, and hold your  views up to scrutiny.

                        What is holding you back? What prevents you from writing a weekly GunSUCCESS diary series? I'd welcome such a series if it educates readers about all the real ways guns are used.

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:46:25 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  My aren't we a tender hot house flower ... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Kasoru, FrankRose

                    I responded to your demonstrable HR misuse and cherry picking priggishness ... here ... in this thread ... with some quite simple re-assertions for you about the repeatedly ignored relevance of different CDC accident rate data.  

                    Your tirade in response notably avoided the essential points of HR misuse and analytical relevance of what you sought to suppress. So if you can't even specifically address that a focused critique about your judgment and methods ... here ... don't you rather prove that the point you are a far more a polemicist than someone reasonable and balanced in any firearms discussion or debate?

                    Whatever your own self-congratulation about your "policy" forum, when you started contributing to the mocking and insult and even uprating a constant shit stirrer during one of her frequent and tiresome flame-baiting anti-agenda hijacks some time back ... I realized what a hypocrite and poseur you really are on this matter.  You lost all credibility for having any objectivity with your ratification of that sort of juvenalia under the phony guise of "it's all just in good fun", so I avoid "your forum."  Simple.  

                    I uprated to offset your and other's HR misuse in this thread clearly addressing a factual matter that is objectively relevant to accident rates, but that you contend is thread-jacking. But whatev ... stay true to your emotion.  It's powerful ... blinding ... but powerful.

                    •  Have you read the Firearms Law and Policy (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      diaries about the CDC report?

                      "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                      by We Shall Overcome on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:16:48 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  The ugly underbelly (0+ / 0-)

                      of gun culture. You clearly haven't read the diary or the comment threads. Perhaps you fail to comprehend the most basic facts of responsible gun ownership.

                      Or maybe you and Frank and Kasoru just hate that the diarist dares to report on the ugly underbelly of "gun culture" and the way negligent gun owners get a pass from law enforcement, week in, week out.

                      Facts:
                      1. Bullets don't accidentally load themselves into a magazine.
                      2. Bullets can't accidentally seat themselves in the chamber.
                      3. The trigger guard is there for a reason, someone intentionally puts there finger inside the trigger guard.
                      4. Triggers can't accidentally pull themselves. Someone has to exert force intentionally for the trigger to release the firing mechanism.
                      5. Guns don't accidentally climb out of the holster onto the table, nightstand, or into the closet where they are found by children.
                      6. Out of all the random directions the open end of a gun can be pointing, they somehow get "accidentally" pointed at someone's chest, or at someone's head, or into someone's back far more than chance could a count for.

                      Are you really going to stand as champion of continued whitewashing of irresponsible gun play? It took a century of research and law, along with mandated technology improvements to bring down the rate of MV injury and death. Sloppy and irresponsible MV drivers are sanctioned under the law.

                      Re your personal insults, unfounded accusations and vitriol. They are no match for the determination I have to secure the RKBA for actual responsible gun owners, people who don't leave guns ensecured, people who don't play with their gun when tbh are drunk.

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 09:25:01 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The only thing I particularly dislike (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Kasoru, FrankRose

                        (hate is your persistent word of choice) is lazy minds who pretend to debate but studiously avoid use of actual data to form reasoned conclusions about a subject -- here, firearm accidents.  The Gun Fail series makes a purely emotional appeal to avoid the burden of actually thinking -- and that's a pretty dark underbelly of your preferred form of advocacy I suppose.

                        CDC data -- not the Report -- provides a basis to evaluate the relative public health risks based on the rates of different causes of accidental injuries and death, including firearms.  Some of us make that point reasonably often to folks of your mindset and in this diary series, but the sound of crickets usually follows other than the predicable accusations like yours of "thread-jacking," "liar, "NRA shill," "RWNJ" "troll" or some penis infatuation crap.

                        Look up-thread ... even the guy first debating Frank can't restrain himself from accusing Dr. Kleck -- one of the Report's authors -- of being a "gun lobby shill." Own this behavior ... it's clear enough to some observers who call you out on it.

                        But by all means continue to misuse your TU status to improperly HR, ignore and suppress relevant facts, hype the emotional drama and make all this a personal witch hunt against us "haters.  However embarrassing it should be to you, it nonetheless seems to keep your passion burning.

                        •  So you disagree? Meh (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Sharon Wraight

                          It's fine to have an opinion, and to express disapproval of an HR. Reasonable people do disagree sometimes.

                          I don't recall ever reading any diary or comment you wrote, or replying to you, and I really don't know anything about you except for the vitriol you heaved up here.

                          Clearly shopping in the hiddens is something of a trigger for you and you saw an excuse to vent your whole bloated spleen of personal vitriol. Do you feel better now?

                          Sorry, you had your chance, but your 15 minutes of my attention have expired.

                          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                          by LilithGardener on Sat Mar 08, 2014 at 04:03:16 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  My vitriol? Hah. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru, FrankRose

                            Your initial nonsensical diatribe was nothing but a self-impressed justification for an utterly false accusation that a DK member was lying.  He was not ... upon an ounce of honest reflection by you and your up-raters. But you persist in ignoring that fact all the while hyper-ventilating about entirely irrelevant tangents to my specific critique and engaging in wild-eyed and purely fanciful speculation about who I am and what I care about.

                            The irony of your silliness in palpable ... and I've had enough of it here as well. Bye.

        •  HR for unsupported accusation of party treason (5+ / 0-)

          (a version of DBAD).

          FrankRose writes:

          But, I'll give you this: you did one hell of a job convincing registered Democrats to vote for the recall of Democrats.
          I'll remove the HR if you supply proof that We Shall Overcome convinced registered Democrats to vote for the recall of Democrats.
          •  Oh please ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kasoru, FrankRose

            He was obviously referring to "you" in the general case -- meaning like-minded Democrats who voted for recall of a Democrat in Democratic counties.  Your conjuring some sort of a HRable personal insult out of this is laughable.

            I hope you really aren't that dense ... but then again I see your upraters and it's clear this is a only a hunt and search mission for someone you all dislike and prefer to HR and censor for entirely fabricated reasons in the absence of anything remotely valid.

        •  HR for baseless accusation (3+ / 0-)

          and persistent threadjacking and dickishness. I posted the policy diary and relevant policy below.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Fri Mar 07, 2014 at 06:45:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site