Skip to main content

View Diary: Should People In Rural Areas Be Encouraged To Own Firearms? (166 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No (18+ / 0-)

    I am pretty rural, 10 minute drive to the nearest store.

    My German Shepard and my baseball bat is all I will ever need.

    If you own a gun, the most likely person you are to shoot is yourself. The next most likely person you are to shoot is a close family member.

    Besides I hate it when this happens to someone only 15 miles from me last month

    Yesterday is but today's memory, and tomorrow is today's dream. -Khalil Gibran

    by Toyotabob7 on Mon Mar 17, 2014 at 09:43:37 PM PDT

    •  Never pull a gun if not prepared to use it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shamash, KVoimakas, notrouble

      Sounds like what happened in that burglary is the guy thought pulling out the shotgun would cause the burglar to turn and run.  Instead the burglar closed the gap and got a hold of the gun.

      If you point a gun at someone, it's because you intend to, and are prepared to fire.  If the homeowner had fired, the burglar would be dead.  If the homeowner wasn't prepared to fire, he should have locked himself in the bathroom.

      The biggest gun problem we have is people not giving enough critical thought to their use.

    •  Overall statistics show 375 bad gun killings (5+ / 0-)

      for every 1 defensive civilian killing.

      That's a summary of country coroner reports as tabulated by the FBI.

      Suicides predominate. Then 11,000 homicides, 8,400 of them murders. Accidents. Huge numbers. 30,000+ a year.

      And all of 80 justifiable homicides by civilians at residences, per annum. And of these, the shootings were connected to other crimes as much as not. (Wanna sell meth off your front porch?)

      If you operate a check cashing store or a gas station and keep a gun there, that's a bit over 120 justifiable homicides a year at businesses and away from homes for a pay-out.

      375:1 -- that's the expected pay-out from taking a gun home. You and yours get killed a helluva lot.

      Waving a gun at a common trespasser is illegal in 50 states. "Brandishing" is the misdemeanor. That's even true in Florida, the Gunshine State.

      Thinking that you're safer taking a gun into your home -- that's a propaganda construct based on visually appealing fantasies. Artificial paranoia. And rural people are less likely to suffer home invasions than urban people, contrary to the isolation fantasy that accompanies NRA and gun biz ad campaigns.

      "You Wouldn't Want to be Helpless" is the pitch. At 375:1 it's a flat lie. Very profitable, very dangerous.

      "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Rand Paul Ryan

      by waterstreet2013 on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 07:10:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  CDC report commissioned by Pres Obama: (3+ / 4-)
        “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,”
        "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
        Link

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 07:53:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  CDC provided that quote with a debunking (4+ / 0-)

          of the pro-gun survey of 911 calls that produced it.

          "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Rand Paul Ryan

          by waterstreet2013 on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 08:02:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You will notice I quoted the CDC. (0+ / 0-)

            Why don't you do the same?

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 08:05:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  Correct. A Slate article that provides an (0+ / 0-)

                outline, overview and accompanying quotes from the CDC.

                However waterstreet made an assertion that neither I nor Slate noticed in our respective readings of the CDC report.

                Perhaps you can help: Provide the information waterstreet is speaking of.
                Don't forget to quote and link!

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 08:53:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Isn't there a policy (7+ / 0-)

                  against repeatedly lying, over and over and over again?

                  You've been shown, in great detail, why what you are claiming is, in fact, wrong.

                  In fact, you've been shown in such excruciatingly patient detail that the CDC does not say what you claim it says.

                  And yet you persist.

                  At some point, you should be sanctioned for this.

                  And how about you actually link to the report itself?

                  •  I am quoting the CDC. (0+ / 0-)

                    You are not.

                    There is a reason for this.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 10:33:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Here's the link you seek. (0+ / 0-)

                    The chapter I am quoting is the one that opens thusly:

                    "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence,"

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 10:47:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  4th of 6th on the list in defining a dk troll (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sharon Wraight, ThatSinger

                    Proven-false information, conspiracy theories, or debunked talking points.

                    http://www.dkosopedia.com/...

                    •  When was the CDC proven false? (0+ / 0-)

                      Do tell.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 04:43:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You are a chronic HR abuser (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose, Kasoru

                      on this quotation issue and instead should be appropriately HR'd for your spurious accusations of lying, conspiracy theory advocacy and trolling.

                      But don't worry because you are completely immune from any proper recourse ... but reread your own fricking citation because it applies against you here in spades:

                      Trolling, defined, is not simply disagreeing with your opinion or the collective site opinion.
                      •  Of the *39* HRs frankrose has received this year (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sharon Wraight, ThatSinger

                        I contributed 3; you are flaming rather than seeking facts.

                        •  No ... you are falsifying grounds (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          FrankRose, Kasoru

                          to justify your own HR abuse HERE.

                          Own it.  And spare me your similar nonsense of accusing me of "flaming" when calling out your multiple violations of site standards and hypocrisy.

                          This personal demonization trick you all rely on is totally par for the course when you just don't like the facts.

                        •  Do tell: How many other HRs have been dropped (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Kasoru

                          for directly quoting the CDC?

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 11:22:17 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  None of yours (3+ / 0-)

                            Since you asked I will assume, well, hope, that the admins will allow this answer, this thread began with ancblu baiting, please consider it as such, with apologies to both the admins and the community, I cannot respond further to this baiting by community rules

                            Of the (updated) 53 HRs you've received on comments this year, on 3 of those comments you provided citations, none from the CDC:

                            Date     HRs   Citation(s) provided in comment
                            Mar 18    4      Slate online magazine
                            Mar 13    1      No citation provided
                            Mar 13    5      No citation provided
                            Mar 09    1      No citation provided
                            Mar 06    4      No citation provided
                            Mar 03    3      No citation provided
                            Mar 02    5      No citation provided          
                            Feb 25    1      No citation provided
                            Feb 23   15     listosaur, mcdonaldinjurylaw
                            Feb 23    5      No citation provided
                            Feb 23    1      listosaur, mcdonaldinjurylaw, mednewstoday
                            Jan 26    3      fws

                          •  In the threads a citation was provided. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            Slate provides an overview & quotes from the CDC.
                             But no matter: CDC
                            (Psssssst: Its the chapter that starts out by saying: "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence")

                            Again, I will stick to accurately quoting credible sources.
                            You stick to citing Daily Kos commenters & engaging in HR abuse in a desperate attempt to hide from the facts.

                            Facts don't change because of your feelings.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 09:52:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  tks for the research, isaott! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            The record is clear.

                            Btw, do you notice how FR is "not responsive" to the 50 other HRs you mention, only the 3 that he thinks will help him? Typical.

                          •  he didn't respond coherently at all (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            and his "CDC" link fails, how typical is that

                            I'm done, he blathers complete nonsense, if he comes back with coherence on any issue, I'll engage, thanks Sharon!

                        •  the disinformation gets tedious, no? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          i saw an old tree today

                          as well as the insults, the proven-false or debunked talking points, the false accusations, the red-herrings and diversions (over there! a ladder!), etc.

                  •  No ... you are emphatically wrong (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrankRose, notrouble, Kasoru

                    These are quotations, not lying in the slightest.  Nor has the quotation, been "debunked" despite language indicating there exists a range of findings, including an outlier to the smallest order that cannot be evaluated because because the survey never even asked about defensive gun use.

                    What is true is this same gaggle of HR abusers -- who don't like this quoted language for agenda reasons -- continue to justify their HR abuse by the absolutely bullshit accusation of lying.

                    •  Then perhaps you can explain (3+ / 0-)

                      since Frank has NOT despite repeated questions:

                      Exactly how did the CDC demonstrate that

                      Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence
                      What methodology did they use? How did they validate this conclusion?

                      I won't even bother asking Frank again since his only response is to cut and paste over and over in a brain-dead fashion. Maybe you're different.

                      •  I don't need to justify the credibility of the CDC (0+ / 0-)

                        They are a credible organization.

                        You need to justify your contention.
                        Go ahead Ozy, take down the CDC.
                        I'm certain watching you try and do so will be glorious

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:52:33 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You are so sad. (2+ / 0-)

                          This has nothing to do with the credibility of the CDC, it has to do with YOUR credibility and comprehension.

                          If you feel like taking a stab at it, once again, go ahead.

                          Tell me HOW the CDC validated those numbers. I claim that they didn't, but are just reporting numbers from other studies.

                          Since YOU claim the CDC supports those numbers, then YOU explain how.

                          For example: If I say: "Frank Rose says that guns are cool." I didn't claim that guns were cool. Furthermore, if I say "A survey of RKBA DKosers finds that most think guns are cool". Again, I am not making the claim that guns are cool. I'm just reporting what other people think, just like what the CDC did.

                          So please, try and understand what I'm asking here. I'm asking for you to point out, in the CDC report, where THEY validated those numbers instead of just reporting what other studies said. What did the CDC actually DO to validate the studies that they mentioned?

                          Who knows, maybe the 10th times the charm.

                          •  Oh? If you don't find my credibility and (0+ / 0-)

                            comprehension to be up to par, allow me to simply quote the CDC.

                            Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
                            "Since YOU claim the CDC supports those numbers, then YOU explain how."
                            By printing it in their report. They also go on to point out issues with the two outliers
                            The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
                            108,000 defensive gun uses found in a study that didn't even ask about defensive gun use.
                            Think about that for a moment.

                            A dozen studies. All of them but one (which is itself a large percentage of violent crimes--despite not even asking about defensive gun use) showing that DGUs are more common than violent crimes perpetuated with a gun.
                            Your attempts to dismiss this pertinent, relevant and credible data point is nothing but a willful ignorance shared by nobody but you & handful of RASA & RASAv2 members.
                            You are ignoring facts for your own biases & you are fooling nobody that prefers the reality-based community.

                            That's why I am quoting the CDC & you are spewing opinion-barf desperately trying to deflect from the CDC report.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 02:34:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fail once again. (2+ / 0-)

                            You're a complete waste of time.

                            You simply can't understand the difference between a literature survey and validating research studies.

                            Every time you use the phrase "quoting the CDC" you confirm that you don't even know what you're reading. It takes more than copy and paste to form an argument, and unfortunately, it looks like that's all you have.

                          •  gummy bear (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            ____actually I'm just testing uploading an image___ should be smaller, but I'll work on that

                            "

                          •  True. It also takes credible sources, and it looks (0+ / 0-)

                            like that's something you don't have.

                            You have no credibility. Your opinion is irrelevant.

                            Therefor, I will continue to quote & link credible sources and you continue to opinion-barf.
                            That way we can both stick to what we do best.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 03:36:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you incapable of answering a simple question? (2+ / 0-)

                            What did the CDC do to validate the numbers?

                            Simple question.

                            No answer from you.

                            That's not an opinion, that's not me attacking the CDC credibility, that's a simple question that you've been asked over and over and over again.

                            And it seems to be beyond your comprehension.

                          •  Are you incapable of quoting a credible source? (0+ / 0-)

                            Let us review our typical back and forth:
                            A commenter -- ignorant or otherwise -- contends or implies that DGUs are uncommon.

                            I quote and link the CDC.

                            You enter the fray in order to spew copious amounts of opinion-barf & cry rivers in a desperate attempt to deflect from the very pertinent CDC report.

                            Sorry Ozy, reality is unswayed by your little temper-tantrums.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 11:44:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You could have just said: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            "Yes, I am incapable of answering your question."

                            Try this one then.

                            Since you find the CDC a credible and informative source, how many DGUs occur annually, currently (not 20 years ago), according to the CDC? What number do they endorse for that statistic?

                          •  You could have just said: (0+ / 0-)

                            "Yes, I am incapable of using a credible source".

                            I will continue with quoting credible sources.
                            You stick with.....whatever it is you are doing.

                            I am very comfortable with our respective roles.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 08:02:20 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Whatever it is I'm doing? (3+ / 0-)

                            Trying to get you to think beyond cutting and pasting.

                            So far, there are two simple questions you can't seem to answer:

                            How did the CDC validate the numbers?

                            What ARE the current correct numbers, according to CDC?

                            Does this mean that you can't actually comprehend what you're reading? I mean, if out of that entire report, you can't actually seem to answer the actual 'facts' you claim the CDC supports, then either you can't read, or the report doesn't say what you say.

                            You do realize that one doesn't need a 'credible source' to ask a simple question...

                            So Frank, please educate me.

                          •  Make that three questions… (2+ / 0-)

                            He won't answer whether or not he supports allowing the CDC to resume studying gun violence either...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 09:56:15 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I know what you're not doing: (0+ / 0-)

                            Citing credible sources.

                            "think beyond cutting and pasting"
                            I don't need advise on 'how to think' from someone who doesn't think a CDC report & various studies of DGUs is inferior to his feelings.

                            Some try claiming that DGUs are rare.
                            I claim they are not & I use the CDC to support my point.

                            "please educate me"
                            Just did.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:22:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What sources do you need (2+ / 0-)

                            to ask a question?

                            Again, how many DGUs does the CDC say happen every year at present?

                            Answering a different question isn't educating, it's ducking dodging and weaving.

                          •  I can't find current data (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            I found a couple of psychosocial experiments whose results would lead to another looooong looped argument I imagine

                            That's why I recd your comment, it's a good question

                          •  That's exactly why he's misreading the report. (2+ / 0-)

                            No reliable data exists, past or current, as the report says quite clearly. As the report says, research needs to be done to determine what the true numbers actually are. That was the charge of the report, to determine what the various research needs are regarding gun violence.

                            Of course selectively quoting the document is completely, and intentionally misleading.

                            He's been told this before, but it just doesn't fit his narrow world view.

                          •  1st: better concept formation (security dilemma?) (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Ozy, i saw an old tree today

                            Much of social science research consists of improving concepts. See e.g. (PDFs):
                            * Giovanni Sartori 1970: http://www.sant.ox.ac.uk/...
                            * John Gerring 1999: http://blogs.bu.edu/...
                            * A 2011 paper (i.e. the discussion is ongoing) http://web.princeton.edu/...

                            The concept of "DGU" has been challenged in a number of peer-reviewed publications. There's an inherent subjectivity and tension that has something of a parallel in a key concept borrowed from international relations (IR): the "security dilemma." This is an old idea, dating back at least to Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War (410 BC). The basic idea is that what one party perceives as a 'defensive' step, an opposing party may perceive as an offensive or aggressive one. E.g., Athens built long walls from its city center to its port, so that if Sparta (or others) attacked or besieged the city, it could defend itself and have access to its port. A defensive measure? Sparta didn't perceive it as such, because it gave Athens the ability to launch attacks and then retreat to safety behind its walls. So Sparta felt compelled to attack, first. An "arms race" between hostile countries is a similar spiral of hostility.

                            If one relies on self-reporting for alleged 'defensive' uses of a gun, in how many of those cases would the person(s) who had the gun flashed at them agree with the assessment? I recall one study (I can find the link if need be) in which a team of judges listened to descriptions of 'defensive' gun use and concluded that in roughly half of them the gun brandishing was illegal.

                            In what % of cases would the self-reporting be exaggerated (or an outright lie)?

                            In what % of cases would the self-reporting fail to identify reasonable alternatives than flashing a gun?

                            In what % of cases would the self-reporting admit that flashing a gun made the situation worse (either immediately or later)? Etc.

                            Better concepts are needed -- which is an important part of research. E.g., one might distinguish "Self-Perceived DGU" (SPDGU) from "Other-Perceived DGU" (OPDGU), and compare the results. Better (any?) macro data on brandishings is clearly needed (unreported, reported but not charged, charged but not convicted, convicted). Etc.

                            If only the GOP had not pushed the NRA's agenda and scuttled funding of scientific research on gun-violence, for so many years, we might be further along in this research.

                          •  In Kleck's own study (2+ / 0-)

                            ~50% of the DGU incidents occurred when no threat was actually offered to the defender.

                            And that's a 'self-reported' statistic, one conveniently ignored by the RKBA proponents here. At least the new executive order puts us on the right path to getting the necessary data, of which this CDC report was a good first step at identifying the problems.

                          •  thanks for the links, they are exactly the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            concepts I was trying to form and find scholarship on a few days ago, seriously, I'm not making that up : )

                          •  *laf* My pleasure to reciprocate! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            Thanks again for your earlier links on funding and biased scholarship!

                          •  Thanks for taking the time to explain this! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            It seems rather obvious to most people, and yet a few others try to obfuscate. Thank you for spelling it out. :-)

                      •  looks a little clone like to me (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Glen The Plumber

                        but that's out of my hands

                    •  You were pretty quick (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sharon Wraight

                      to jump to the defense Frank's 'reading' of the CDC report, but seem strangely silent when it comes to actually discussing its content.

                      All of the questions posed to Frank are free to be answered by you, if you can. They are pretty simple questions.

              •  The original took telephone responses (2+ / 0-)

                claiming to have used guns to ward off crime at face value. No validation.

                To believe that crap, you'd have to think that 80 fatalities match up to 2,000,000 My-Gun-Saved-My-Life Near-Combat NRA stories.

                80 is the important number. Versus the 30,000 bad deaths.

                "Stealing kids' lunch money makes them strong and independent." -- Rand Paul Ryan

                by waterstreet2013 on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 11:43:58 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The CDC disagreed. (0+ / 0-)

                  But it is telling that you are willing to dismiss a report from the CDC in lieu of your feelings.

                  When you are willing to join the reality-based community, these facts will be waiting for you.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 04:00:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Do you support or oppose the nomination of... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    i saw an old tree today

                    Dr. Vivek Murthy for Surgeon General?

                    I mean, surely since you're so fond of "quoting" the CDC you must support his nomination, right? You must support even more rigorous research into gun violence too, right? Right?

                    Hello? Is this thing on?

                    Baby, where I come from...

                    by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:54:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I am fond of directly quoting credible sources. (0+ / 0-)

                      You are fond of trying to hide factual quotes with HR abuse.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 01:13:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You're also "fond" of dodging inconvenient... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        i saw an old tree today

                        questions, apparently... your unwillingness to answer mine is pretty much an answer in and of itself though, isn't it?

                        See, you're "fond" of "quoting" the CDC... except when you're not...

                        You're not fooling anyone...

                        Baby, where I come from...

                        by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 01:18:21 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Since you consider the CDC to be such a "credible" (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          i saw an old tree today

                          source, you must be in favour of them being allowed to resume studying gun violence then, right?

                          Welcome aboard, Frank!

                          Baby, where I come from...

                          by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 01:21:22 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  They did study it. (0+ / 0-)

                            Thus my direct quotes of their report regarding gun violence.

                            Quotes you are desperately trying to hide.

                            It would seem that you and Sharon recognize exactly how devastating facts are to your viewpoint.

                             

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 01:41:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You must have missed the "devastating" word (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            "resume" in my question... they "did" study it until your comrades in arms in the NRA shut them down... and you're still completely ignoring my question about the Surgeon General nominee... we both know why, don't we? We both know why you're dancing around the question... because it blows your whole new-found "fondness" for the CDC one cherrypicked CDC statistic out of the water...

                            Seems to me if you were so "devastated" by having your bullshit, specious, disingenuous comments hidden you'd clean up your act... that's OK... you're hanging by a thread as it is...to which I say, "please proceed"...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 01:56:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My comment was direct quotes from a report (0+ / 0-)

                            of firearm violence done by the CDC.

                            There is nothing disingenuous about quoting factual information from a credible source.

                            It's quite alright. It seems we both know how devastating facts are to your viewpoint.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 02:18:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you DO support the CDC resuming… (0+ / 0-)

                            Studies on gun violence? I mean since you're such a fan "facts", you must be in favor of new facts, right?

                            From here you seem to be a fan of fact (singular)...

                            Keep dancing…

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 02:39:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, I am a fan of facts; Which is why I post them (0+ / 0-)

                            while you try to hide them.

                            Sorry son, the facts just aren't on your side.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 03:52:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, son... (2+ / 0-)

                            your dry-humping of cherry-picked facts does not fly here... you float 'em, we'll sink 'em... every. fucking. time..

                            But back to my original question, which you keep dodging like a clown in a dunk tank... if you're so fond of "facts", why are you unwilling to state whether or not you support the CDC RESUMING studies on gun violence?

                            It's a very simple "yes or no" question... we both know why you won't answer it... because you can't... and THAT'S a fact...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 05:02:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In your own words... (2+ / 0-)
                            I don't need to justify the credibility of the CDC (0+ / 0-)
                            They are a credible organization.

                            You need to justify your contention.
                            Go ahead Ozy, take down the CDC.
                            I'm certain watching you try and do so will be glorious

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 12:52:33 PM PDT

                            Why are you unwilling to publicly state categorically and unequivocally your support for this (your words) "credible" organization resuming studies on gun violence? Perhaps because you don't support it? If not, why not? I mean...

                             

                            They are a credible organization.
                            Right?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 05:32:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't sink the CDC. You attempt to use HR (0+ / 0-)

                            abuse to try to bully people from posting the facts, and in the process expose yourselves to be irrational.

                            I will post the facts...every. fucking. time...
                            Deal with it, son.

                            "CDC RESUMING studies on gun violence"
                            Again. I support the CDC's report on gun violence. That's why I am quoting them, whereas you are using HR abuse to hide comments that simply contain quotes from the CDC.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 11:54:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you support allowing the CDC to continue... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            studying gun violence?

                            Yes or no, Frank… No wiggle room… No dancing… No prevarication… No semantics...

                            Yes or no?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 01:21:31 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  exactly: science, enquiry, journalism (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ThatSinger

                            The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.

                            We can and actually have established he is not interested in science.

                            Journalism is a method of inquiry and literary style that aims to provide a service to the public by the dissemination and analysis of news and other information.
                            Ditto

                            So what does this leave, on this site?

                          •  Raises hand! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            i saw an old tree today

                            Oooooh! Ooooh! I know this one!

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Mar 19, 2014 at 02:40:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes!!! (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ThatSinger, Sharon Wraight

                            the crowd reacts, some are stunned, some cheer

          •  HR for directly quoting the CDC..... (0+ / 0-)

            Your opinion doesn't supplant the facts.

            And as you will notice, in this very thread I was asked to link to the CDC report multiple times. A request I gladly answered.
            Your complaint is laughable & indicative of RASA's inability to process verifiable fact.

            Perhaps your time would be better served proof-reading your group's profile instead of such blatant HRing for disagreement.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 03:54:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Glad you have all those (3+ / 0-)

            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

            by fcvaguy on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 04:01:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'll join but there's something fishy (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sharon Wraight, fcvaguy, ThatSinger

            in adminville. Maybe someone is trying to save face. :)  Why they want to be seen to tolerate this is beyond me, it's misleading deflection on his part and really, malicious. How many people have tried to reason with him only to be insulted, jerked around and in the end told to just go educate themselves.

            He did it again yesterday to another user.  

            Your having proved yesterday that he's copping his material from extremist right wing organizations ought to be enough but there's so much (Proven-false information, debunked talking points), it's not helping get more or better democrats elected. On the contrary, it's divisive. He is driving away users.

            And the Grieg March of the Trolls was perfect

            •  It's a direct quote from a credible organization (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kasoru

              There is nothing that was proven false.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 04:38:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What is actually divisive (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, notrouble, Kasoru

              is the olympic gymnastics your little band goes through to turn direct quotations into "lies," "trolling," "NRA shilling," "right wing talking points" and other nonsensical trumped up justifications for your HR abuse.

              He's not driving anyone away for crying out loud ... that's your own melodrama speaking, not his.

            •  tks for link! proven-false, debunked talking pts (3+ / 0-)

              Exactly.

              This has been gone over again and again and again, ad naseum. There has been no real engagement, no progression of discussion or honest 'clash' (in the debating sense) by those who defend Kleck's research on this. As has been shown in many diaries and comments, they mythical notion of "DGU" is conceptually weak (subjective, often non-falsifiable, false positives, often hiding illegal behavior, etc.), and Kleck's self-reporting survey was a pathetically weak methodology that yielded ludicrous results (as critiqued in numerous peer-reviewed studies). It is disappointing to see some Democrats turn a blind eye when the GOP/NRA politicized research and held the CDC's funding hostage until a pro-gun researcher was appointed to the committee. That's not how science should work.

              •  The CDC is 'conceptually weak'.....Huh. (0+ / 0-)

                Thanks for settling that one Sharon.

                "GOP/NRA politicized research"
                Flat out conspiracy theory. The CDC is considered credible by....essentially everyone but you.
                That's not how science should work.
                Thanks for redefining science for us to mean "the CDC is nothing compared to Sharon's opinion".
                Sharon Wraight. Top notch historian & mathematician ("It took 200 years and a Civil War to amend the Constitution to end slavery."--statement recently changed to "nearly 200 years"....that's right, after over a year changed to "nearly 200 years". Slavery--ended in 1979 apparently.) & top notch scientist.
                Can't tell you how impressed I am.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 11:21:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  You are a chronic HR abuser on this issue ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, Kasoru

            as has been shown repeatedly by you and your fellow band of merry deniers of reality.

            The "CDC Report" most certainly acknowledged what you and your fellow HR abusers simply cannot -- most national DGU surveys reviewed by President Obama's appointed comittee found it to occur as or more frequent than offensive use by criminals.

            If you can't grasp this or just don't like, stop fabricating a lie that this is a fair and honest observation of the Report that is being quoted.

            And keep cherry picking what surveys you like and those you don't -- it's perfectly characteristic of advocacy research that doesn't belong in this policy debate.  

    •  I don't know... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Toyotabob7

      If I'd had a gun, I might have been able to save my neighbor's chihuahua from the coyote that killed it.

      “Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful -- just stupid.)” ― Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

      by midgebaker on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 09:35:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site