Connecticut Elementary School.

http://twitter.com/jneal_18/status/2...806272/photo/1
interesting numbers.
very intersting

jb likes links, so theres a li nk

i stand by what i said, let the parents not any of us decide after they bury thier six year olds, let them weigh in on the topic, I think they have a right to be heard on the subject.
Im not calling for a ban of guns, there needs to be a discussion on these semi auto matic weapons that have 30-40 rounds at one time, i think we need to look at that.

osd, on the rush, lets get this straight, rush was braggin on election day about how he had info that romney was up 5 in ohio from his boys
everyone on fox news had romney winning except baba oreilley who wouldnt say much because he had a bad feeling so he said it was too close to call.
all the left wing media as the conseratives would say were making up the poll numbers lol.
we now know that the fox news slogan of fair and balanced means bs and bs. Originally Posted by bjwstw

Rush never stated Romney would win. And never who he wanted to win the R primary. his boys errr no from a poll yes. And at one point even CNN had Romney ahead.

BS and BS just like all network news now days.

osd and anita get your facts straight before you post, thats all im saying.
we pray for the families. Originally Posted by bjwstw

And just what of "as heard on the news" do you not understand? I got my one of my ops wrong from CNN, the other it was ROC 8, 10 or 13 I forget which network news.

rush had romney up everywhere, he talked about it all the time man.
2 networks played his comments the day after the election to make fun of him and how dumb he looked.
we know fox news had it dead wrong.
cnn had obama ahead in all THE SWING STATES BY 1 OR 2 PTS.
fox news had romney ahead in most of the swings states,
the best poll was fox news having ohio in romney favor by 5 pts when romneys people admitted on sunday before the election they were done, hence why they went to pa.
bs and bs is fox news, and msnbc.

Again, I have long given up hope of changing in any way the extreme gun fetish in this country. Originally Posted by jackfengshui

And reading the Xmas for the ATF thread, it's clear that's exactly what this is all about.

Interesting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0930121512.htm

Sep. 30, 2009 — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun. (emphasis mine)

I'm sure the NRA was able to pay some outfit to determine the opposite.

Tragedies like this always get sensationalized and create knee-jerk reactions. I don't mean to minimize this but these types of horrific acts aren't very common. In reality, if a child is harmed it will far more likely be at the hands of their parents or other family member and not involve a gun. But there's not much sensationalism in bad parenting.

.....
Just like i'm guessing when i say that stricter gun control laws will alleviate (though not eliminate) the problem. But my guess is based on the fact that civilized countries with much stricter gun control laws tend to have "murder by gun" numbers in the double digits per year while ours is typically over 10,000/yr. You need to run away from that in making your guess.

Either way, what i do know, and feel pretty confident in claiming, is that stricter gun control laws won't make the problem any worse than it already is. Originally Posted by Doove

I am so disappointed when I see simplistic arguments like this.

I would rather you not "guess" about this issue, thanks.

Comparing our gun crime rate with other countries is not valid. You need to compare us to SPECIFIC countries that have similar demographics in things like racial composition, drug laws, standard of living in inner cities, mental health services, etc. Good luck finding them.

And this idea that it's okay to do this anyway because it "won't make it worse" is particularly offensive. THAT is not logic. It is... unfortunately... a very common and understandable reaction to a situation like this when no one knows WTF to do. It comes up every time these horrible things happen.

Guns are the easy target after these events. Everyone wants something done, they just don't know where to start. But Louise Slaughter and anyone with the last name of Cuomo will take advantage of that every time to tell you that we must get these "assualt weapons" off of the street.

(BTW, the term "assault weapon" is being misused here. Please stop. Those of you who throw it around are showing your technical ignorance of the issue. And you have fallen for one of the oldest "tricks" of the gun ban folks, i.e. misusing this term to scare folks into thinking the streets are filled with military weapons).

We can debate the real problems all day long. But the "gun thing" ain't it. Sorry. I've worked with this and studied it for years. Without knowing much about very many of you, I can tell you with confidence that no one on this board knows more about this than I. I will try not on preach on this further, unless specifically asked. But I had to say sumthin'.....

Interesting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0930121512.htm

Sep. 30, 2009 — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun. (emphasis mine)

I'm sure the NRA was able to pay some outfit to determine the opposite. Originally Posted by Doove

Well, at least you found the correct source for this and did not use one of the "experts" that mis-quoted this later and left out the decimal point, saying you were "45" times more likely...

You are obviously well-read on this. But you are only finding the low-hanging fruit that is easily misunderstood and misused.

That statistic is not valid, and again, it is mostly for reasons of demographics.

Here is why:

They used two groups of people for this study. The first was a group of "random" people who were shot. The second was a group that was not.

Sounds reasonable, right? Nope. It is apples and oranges. Reason: who are the people likely to be shot in a gun crime? Well.... it ain't people like most of us. We are simply not likely to be in those situations. It is people involved in "lifestyles" and situations that put them at very high risk. Read between the lines on that one. They are many times more likely to be shot in general. They are not representative of the general population.

The NRA doesn't need to fund any study to discredit this. Anyone with a background in proper scientific method and an understanding of the socio-economic conditions in this country can debunk it in a second. It is a piece of shit, plain and simple. But it sure sounds good, doesn't it?

I'll stop now (I hope).

Even though I have stopped wasting my time questioning why people need to have assault weapons in their homes, I am still curious whether people think there should be any upper limit on the firepower. Is the sky the limit?

depends on how fervent Jok's going to get with his guilletines

more of you should clue us in and

we could guage the situation accuratly instead of having to over compensate

osd and anita get your facts straight before you post, thats all im saying.
we pray for the families. Originally Posted by bjwstw

bj..those were the facts that the media gave out at that time..

actually they havent found the father as of yet..the brother is in custody for questioning...they arent releasing who the other person is found dead in the house..
that is owned by the family...they arent sure if its the mother..or someone else..


this is very sad..such a tragedy for those families affected by this person....

..my prayers go out to those families.....(ag) Originally Posted by anita germane

this is the info i posted about the tragedy..what was not correct about it?

Even though I have stopped wasting my time questioning why people need to have assault weapons in their homes, I am still curious whether people think there should be any upper limit on the firepower. Is the sky the limit?

Originally Posted by jackfengshui

who knows?...maybe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Even though I have stopped wasting my time questioning why people need to have assault weapons in their homes, I am still curious whether people think there should be any upper limit on the firepower. Is the sky the limit?

Originally Posted by jackfengshui

We ALWAYS need to have access to the same firepower the cops/authorities have. Should we become unarmed, they will be our worst nightmare. I anticipate this being extended to nuclear weaponry by the eccie debate club, and though that's unreasonable, I'm still all for it.

Unrelated side note: I'm proud to report I received my first infraction! Usually in this hobby I'm in trouble within an hour. I'm not even sure what I did, but I think I used the word dr*g or n*rc*t*c. One point! I'm on the board baby!