Gun violence: No easy solution
#1
And EXCERPT: (Link at end of post) 

GUN VIOLENCE
No easy solution 
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco Special to The Washington Post
Before
I started researching gun deaths, guncontrol policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-senseguncontrol reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way.
We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tight-ened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy shouldbe. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun relatedcrime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambigu-ous effect on other gunrelatedcrimes or deaths.

http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory....FZVBxTXlo=

EDIT: Okay...I give up.  Wink. This link from the MT just sends us back to the front page. I used the "link feature" in the menu options here...still does not work. Anyone know how to fix this. Anyway, this is on the Opinion page of todays (Sun 10/8 MT). 
Reply
#2
(10-08-2017, 07:55 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: And EXCERPT: (Link at end of post) 

GUN VIOLENCE
No easy solution 
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco Special to The Washington Post
Before
I started researching gun deaths, guncontrol policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-senseguncontrol reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way.
We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tight-ened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy shouldbe. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun relatedcrime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambigu-ous effect on other gunrelatedcrimes or deaths.

http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory....FZVBxTXlo=

EDIT: Okay...I give up.  Wink. This link from the MT just sends us back to the front page. I used the "link feature" in the menu options here...still does not work. Anyone know how to fix this. Anyway, this is on the Opinion page of todays (Sun 10/8 MT). 

The link works. It just doesn't link to what you wanted. I think that's on the MT end of things not what your doing. Congratulations.
Reply
#3
(10-08-2017, 08:05 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(10-08-2017, 07:55 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: And EXCERPT: (Link at end of post) 

GUN VIOLENCE
No easy solution 
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco Special to The Washington Post
Before
I started researching gun deaths, guncontrol policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-senseguncontrol reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way.
We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tight-ened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy shouldbe. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun relatedcrime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambigu-ous effect on other gunrelatedcrimes or deaths.

http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory....FZVBxTXlo=

EDIT: Okay...I give up.  Wink. This link from the MT just sends us back to the front page. I used the "link feature" in the menu options here...still does not work. Anyone know how to fix this. Anyway, this is on the Opinion page of todays (Sun 10/8 MT). 

The link works. It just doesn't link to what you wanted. I think that's on the MT end of things not what your doing. Congratulations.

Yeah, but at one time the link would go directly to the article I had highlighted and copied and pasted.
Whatever. We get what we get I guess. 
Anyway, I thought it was an interesting read and good take on this ongoing discussion.
Reply
#4
Maybe a change in our social structure is needed. So people don't feel the need to go out and kill.
Reply
#5
(10-08-2017, 09:27 AM)chuck white Wrote: Maybe a change in our social structure is needed. So people don't feel the need to go out and kill.

Why Chucky, you are being cute!  Laughing
...or are you?
Are you hitting on my remarks about the need for social changes (even here at the good old RVF, or have you seen the light and come home to Jesus?  Razz

Whatever the tone of our post, I will continue to think it's a fact, no matter what your intent was. 

TVguy recently posted some examples of the breakdown in our social attitudes and I (for one) believe they are responsible for the changes we have seen. Maybe not what motivates mass killers to "go postal", but negative changes in the social interactions of our people. 

Freedom and responsibility need to be firmly linked.
Reply
#6
(10-08-2017, 09:53 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-08-2017, 09:27 AM)chuck white Wrote: Maybe a change in our social structure is needed. So people don't feel the need to go out and kill.

Why Chucky, you are being cute!  Laughing
...or are you?
Are you hitting on my remarks about the need for social changes (even here at the good old RVF, or have you seen the light and come home to Jesus?  Razz

Whatever the tone of our post, I will continue to think it's a fact, no matter what your intent was. 

TVguy recently posted some examples of the breakdown in our social attitudes and I (for one) believe they are responsible for the changes we have seen. Maybe not what motivates mass killers to "go postal", but negative changes in the social interactions of our people. 

Freedom and responsibility need to be firmly linked.


Freedom, firearms and responsibility need to be firmly linked.

Lets not exclude Larry.
Reply
#7
(10-08-2017, 12:42 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(10-08-2017, 09:53 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-08-2017, 09:27 AM)chuck white Wrote: Maybe a change in our social structure is needed. So people don't feel the need to go out and kill.

Why Chucky, you are being cute!  Laughing
...or are you?
Are you hitting on my remarks about the need for social changes (even here at the good old RVF, or have you seen the light and come home to Jesus?  Razz

Whatever the tone of our post, I will continue to think it's a fact, no matter what your intent was. 

TVguy recently posted some examples of the breakdown in our social attitudes and I (for one) believe they are responsible for the changes we have seen. Maybe not what motivates mass killers to "go postal", but negative changes in the social interactions of our people. 

Freedom and responsibility need to be firmly linked.


Freedom, firearms and responsibility need to be firmly linked.

Lets not exclude Larry.
Not to worry. Larry knows ALL about firearm responsibility, values freedom, and is a responsible citizen. 
That said, we don't agree on much.  Razz
Reply
#8
Hey Wonky. When I have trouble posting a link to something that is in the MMT I just copy and paste the headline. Google it and find it somewhere else.

Here is the same article from the Washington post....
Reply
#9
(10-08-2017, 03:43 PM)tvguy Wrote: Hey Wonky. When I have trouble posting a link to something that is in the MMT I just copy and paste the headline. Google it and find it somewhere else.

Here is the same article from the Washington post....

Thanks: Good tip.
Reply
#10
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16/dan...cates.html

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones. I wonder if the irony is totally lost on some, when you threaten to kill someone because YOU are so against violence??
Reply
#11
(10-16-2017, 08:36 AM)Hugo Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16/dan...cates.html

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.  I wonder if the irony is totally lost on some, when you threaten to kill someone because YOU are so against violence??

Yeah right because all the people who want to ban guns or have more restrictions are violent.
And no gun owners would EVER threaten violence against anyone Rolling Eyes
My God don't be such a Fox news tool.
Reply
#12
(10-16-2017, 03:01 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 08:36 AM)Hugo Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16/dan...cates.html

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.  I wonder if the irony is totally lost on some, when you threaten to kill someone because YOU are so against violence??

Yeah right because all the people who want to ban guns or have more restrictions are violent.
And no gun owners would EVER threaten violence against anyone Rolling Eyes
My God don't be such a Fox news tool.

too late.   Big Grin
Reply
#13
(10-16-2017, 05:52 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 03:01 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 08:36 AM)Hugo Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16/dan...cates.html

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.  I wonder if the irony is totally lost on some, when you threaten to kill someone because YOU are so against violence??

Yeah right because all the people who want to ban guns or have more restrictions are violent.
And no gun owners would EVER threaten violence against anyone Rolling Eyes
My God don't be such a Fox news tool.

too late.   Big Grin
Reply
#14
(10-16-2017, 06:31 PM)GCG Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 05:52 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 03:01 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 08:36 AM)Hugo Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16/dan...cates.html

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.  I wonder if the irony is totally lost on some, when you threaten to kill someone because YOU are so against violence??

Yeah right because all the people who want to ban guns or have more restrictions are violent.
And no gun owners would EVER threaten violence against anyone Rolling Eyes
My God don't be such a Fox news tool.

too late.   Big Grin

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point? Gun owners have been getting vicious threats including death, from some nut jobs who don't want ANYONE to own a gun. That's violence, at least implied.
Reply
#15
Maybe it is time to regulate knives.

FBI: 2016 Over Four Times More People Stabbed to Death Than Killed with Rifles of Any Kind
Reply
#16
(10-17-2017, 02:23 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 06:31 PM)GCG Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 05:52 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 03:01 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 08:36 AM)Hugo Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16/dan...cates.html

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.  I wonder if the irony is totally lost on some, when you threaten to kill someone because YOU are so against violence??

Yeah right because all the people who want to ban guns or have more restrictions are violent.
And no gun owners would EVER threaten violence against anyone Rolling Eyes
My God don't be such a Fox news tool.

too late.   Big Grin

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point? Gun owners have been getting vicious threats including death, from some nut jobs who don't want ANYONE to own a gun. That's violence, at least implied.

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point?


Hell no

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.
That's no valid point. That's absurd.

Anti gun people sure as hell don't have the market cornered on violence. Besides it's an assumption to conclude anti gun people would not use violence. IMO they are against mass murdering like 500 plus people being shot.
Or mowing down toddlers OR slaughtering elderly people at church.

Who's to say these people simply see nothing wrong with violence if they think it would stop the killings I mentioned above?
Reply
#17
(10-17-2017, 03:21 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-17-2017, 02:23 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 06:31 PM)GCG Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 05:52 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 03:01 PM)tvguy Wrote: Yeah right because all the people who want to ban guns or have more restrictions are violent.
And no gun owners would EVER threaten violence against anyone Rolling Eyes
My God don't be such a Fox news tool.

too late.   Big Grin

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point? Gun owners have been getting vicious threats including death, from some nut jobs who don't want ANYONE to own a gun. That's violence, at least implied.

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point?


Hell no

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.
That's no valid point. That's absurd.

Anti gun people sure as hell don't have the market cornered on violence. Besides it's an assumption to conclude anti gun people would not use violence. IMO they are against mass murdering like 500 plus people being shot.
Or mowing down toddlers OR slaughtering elderly people at church.

Who's to say these people simply see nothing wrong with violence if they think it would stop the killings I mentioned above?

Killing the people who kill people?
Reply
#18
(10-17-2017, 02:23 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 06:31 PM)GCG Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 05:52 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 03:01 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 08:36 AM)Hugo Wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16/dan...cates.html

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.  I wonder if the irony is totally lost on some, when you threaten to kill someone because YOU are so against violence??

Yeah right because all the people who want to ban guns or have more restrictions are violent.
And no gun owners would EVER threaten violence against anyone Rolling Eyes
My God don't be such a Fox news tool.

too late.   Big Grin

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point? Gun owners have been getting vicious threats including death, from some nut jobs who don't want ANYONE to own a gun. That's violence, at least implied.

"Yea" .....Aint the English language a bitch? Razz



[Image: yehyay.gif]
Reply
#19
(10-17-2017, 03:25 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-17-2017, 03:21 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(10-17-2017, 02:23 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 06:31 PM)GCG Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 05:52 PM)Cuzz Wrote: too late.   Big Grin

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point? Gun owners have been getting vicious threats including death, from some nut jobs who don't want ANYONE to own a gun. That's violence, at least implied.

Yea, but doesn't Hugo have a valid point?


Hell no

It looks to me like the people who are comfortable with guns aren't the dangerous ones.
That's no valid point. That's absurd.

Anti gun people sure as hell don't have the market cornered on violence. Besides it's an assumption to conclude anti gun people would not use violence. IMO they are against mass murdering like 500 plus people being shot.
Or mowing down toddlers OR slaughtering elderly people at church.

Who's to say these people simply see nothing wrong with violence if they think it would stop the killings I mentioned above?

Killing the people who kill people?
I don't know how to explain this any better.

 
Hugo is making the conclusion that all those who are against guns are non violent.
But I'm saying why assume that? Who's to say these people don't mind using violence IF in their mind it stops mass shootings?
Reply
#20
(10-17-2017, 03:05 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: Maybe it is time to regulate knives.

FBI: 2016 Over Four Times More People Stabbed to Death Than Killed with Rifles of Any Kind

Fucking broken record.  Laughing
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)