IGX

Lewis Medlock wrote:

BucketHead wrote:

Lewis Medlock wrote:I was going to try and ignore all that has been going on. But after reading yours and others post as of today I am now a member of thr NRA. Last time I joined was in the 90s, but I could see it was time to rejoin.

Ooohh, you're so cool.

That I am. To cool to ask about long johns on the world wide web.

But too much of a pussy to join IGx without lurking for months (years?)

BucketHead wrote:

Lewis Medlock wrote:

BucketHead wrote:

Lewis Medlock wrote:I was going to try and ignore all that has been going on. But after reading yours and others post as of today I am now a member of thr NRA. Last time I joined was in the 90s, but I could see it was time to rejoin.

Ooohh, you're so cool.

That I am. To cool to ask about long johns on the world wide web.

But too much of a pussy to join IGx without lurking for months (years?)

Lewis Has been here as long or longer than I have.

Turdacious wrote:However, because of the sensitivity of the data and it's implications, it should probably be done in house. Data sharing between CDC, DOJ, etc... to build these data infrastructures and analysis tools is a good idea. A model would be the BLS, Census, and IRS cooperation for economic microdata collection. The microdata collection is not released, even to politicians-- for good reason.

Census even won a standoff with with FBI at some point.

But almost as important as restricting politicians' access to the data would be restricting access to people who are used to thinking about potential correlation with unobserved variables. That would limit some of the silliness that would otherwise come from the public health types.

Pinky wrote:But almost as important as restricting politicians' access to the data would be restricting access to people who are used to thinking about potential correlation with unobserved variables.

You know as well as I do that a large majority of social science PhD theses use very poor statistical correlation to imply causation. I would guess that a not insignificant significant number of these have signatories of that letter as PhD advisers.

Pinky wrote:That would limit some of the silliness that would otherwise come from the public health types.

Even you don't believe that.

This just in.

The sick fuck that perpetrated the CT shooting did not use an AR 15. Only four handguns were used. The rifle was in the trunk of the car as originally reported.

If one did know any better, you would think the authorities and press had an agenda?

BucketHead wrote:

Lewis Medlock wrote:

BucketHead wrote:

Lewis Medlock wrote:I was going to try and ignore all that has been going on. But after reading yours and others post as of today I am now a member of thr NRA. Last time I joined was in the 90s, but I could see it was time to rejoin.

Ooohh, you're so cool.

That I am. To cool to ask about long johns on the world wide web.

But too much of a pussy to join IGx without lurking for months (years?)

Your slow.

I did not post what I did to be cool. I posted it to show the more people like you talk, the more members the NRA get. I have put my cash on what I believe in, how many of the antigunners on here, have put their money where their post are?

Batboy2/75 wrote:This just in.

The sick fuck that perpetrated the CT shooting did not use an AR 15. Only four handguns were used. The rifle was in the trunk of the car as originally reported.

If one did know any better, you would think the authorities and press had an agenda?

link?

Batboy2/75 wrote:This just in.

The sick fuck that perpetrated the CT shooting did not use an AR 15. Only four handguns were used. The rifle was in the trunk of the car as originally reported.

If one did know any better, you would think the authorities and press had an agenda?

Source?

Grandpa's Spells wrote: Johno, bringing the family into it is pretty disgusting, especially since they deal with assassination threats.

I think it's disgusting to use children as political props.

The Murder tried to buy a rifle on 12/11 before shooting, but turned down.

On 12/13 the sick fuck wad involved in an altercation with four school officials.

I want to know more details, but I can guess this is going to get worse for CT state and school district officials. The lawyers for the families are probably popping Champaign corks. Nothing says multi million dollar settlement than public employee incompetence.

Kind of explains why some if the families lawyered up.

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/ ... 5#50208495

nafod wrote:

Gene wrote:We can be sure that Nafod's figure of 2,700 "children" is false.
.

That is not the assertion I made. Go back and read mister fact checker.

Nafod wrote:As I have said, Sandy Hook is a tipping point for me. You can scavenge the archives here and see I didn't have much to say for the CO movie shooting, OR mall shooting, or any of other mass shootings that killed over 70 people just this past year. However, Sandy Hook and its resemblance to Beslan and the imagery of kindergarteners staring down the barrel of a NRA-lobbied-for Bushmaster while they get shot 3-10 times each to the point that they are no longer recognizable isn't leaving me anytime soon, so I started reading.

You're right, lots and lots of kids get shot each year.

Up around 2,700 kids and teens killed each year

"Kids and Teens" Yeap, that is a good fine point. I think most reasonable people tend to consider 18 and 19 year olds, who are old enough to die in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to be adults. They're still "teens" but hardly children.

The figure still isn't 2,700 if you exclude suicides and police shootings. It's 1,762 children and teens of whom some unknown number are legal adults.

nafod wrote:Youths shot by cops...how often do cops shoot unarmed youth?

Visit the "Officer Friendly" thread for details.

Nafod wrote:What was the number for 1 to 14 killed? Figure another 2x that were shot, assuming the mortality rate for children is higher. If not, increase the number.

Last figure I recall seeing is that about 4,000 young children were beaten to death with hands and feet. Mostly by boyfriends and step fathers. Many drown, fall or die in auto wrecks.

The number who died of gunshot wounds is a small figure in comparison. People who get enraged about this sort of thing do not really care about child deaths, they care about whatever is put in front of them on TV or online. A little knowledge about rhetoric would help but most folks accept what is put in front of them.

We're such a bunch of sheep in this country. IF we let Obama and the Elitists disarm us we deserve what happens to us next.

Nafod wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to carbon dioxide last summer, but i am sure i was right

[/quote]

You felt good about the remark. For the record it was something along the lines of "in reducing Climate change every bit helps", but you have a tenured position at Penn State. People with tenure never worry about the market consequences of politcally correct science. At least until the tax rolls start to dry up and there is less money for University funding.

You really don't believe in Freedom, Nafod. You want to take America from a modest "Keep and Bear Arms" to the European model of "dangerous sporting equipment". Nobody here is asking for Machineguns over the counter or the Right to Keep and Bear MANPAADS. Just some ugly guns which are less effective than the pump shotguns used at the Aurora CO shootings or by Marines and SEALs in Afghanistan. Nine rounds of deadly buckshot per pull of the trigger - they'll get to that "outrage" after they've "removed the scourge of weapons of war from American streets".

Gotta keep the "little people" in their place. Right?

Lewis Medlock wrote: Your slow.

I did not post what I did to be cool. I posted it to show the more people like you talk, the more members the NRA get. I have put my cash on what I believe in, how many of the antigunners on here, have put their money where their post are?

Why do you think I'm anti-gun? Couldn't be further from the truth. I just believe the probability of some hypothetical future US armed revolution is low enough to warrant discussing gun control measures that may reduce actual current gun deaths.

or maybe not.

One of the things that bothers me about the MSNBC story is the report of the little turd trying to buy a rifle. Isn't he under age? That alone would bar you from buying a rifle.

Something isn't right about that video..

As with all things press related, double check.


****EDIT**** the little fuck was 20 years old. Old enough to buy a rifle.

Since no major news sources have pickd up on tis I'm goignt o assume MSNBC is full of it.

****SECOND EDIT*****

video is is dated 2/15 hardly the latest news.

However, it looks like the two reported items (1) trying to buy a rifle on 12/11 and (2) altercation with school officials on 12/13 are still beng investigated. My guess this is why some families were so quick to file a law suit. could be just plain old amberlamps chasing, but they probably smell blood. particularly the 12/13 incident.

So, I have this neighbor. He bought a foreclosure a few houses away. Ghetto brother, Granada with the giant tires. Turns out he has several unregistered AKs in the trunk. Walked by as he was showing them to another gentleman of dark color. Taught him how to remove the mag. He still hasnt figured out the safety but thats another story. Im thinking it might be nice to have a few unregistered AK's with a brothers prints on them now. They're still in the trunk as his baby mommas (3)wont let them in the housearound the kidzez.

Gene wrote:The CDC data is partitioned into "children" and "youth". There is no mention of the word "Kids".

The CDC is lying again.

We are fortunate to have somebody like you come out and spread the real truth without messy numbers getting in the way.

The man in black wrote:Just out of curiousity, what is the opposition to universal background checks?

Why do you hate the second amendment?

Batboy2/75 wrote:This just in.

The sick fuck that perpetrated the CT shooting did not use an AR 15. Only four handguns were used. The rifle was in the trunk of the car as originally reported.

If one did know any better, you would think the authorities and press had an agenda?

I've seen the "rifle in the trunk" and "only handguns were used" angles stated 4-5 times in this thread but the only place that I have heard it elsewhere is from conspiracy theorists who are now saying that the entire Sandy Hook shooting never really happened.

BucketHead wrote:

Lewis Medlock wrote: Your slow.

I did not post what I did to be cool. I posted it to show the more people like you talk, the more members the NRA get. I have put my cash on what I believe in, how many of the antigunners on here, have put their money where their post are?

Why do you think I'm anti-gun? Couldn't be further from the truth. I just believe the probability of some hypothetical future US armed revolution is low enough to warrant discussing gun control measures that may reduce actual current gun deaths.

I'd guess that most all of the serious people who are supportive of a look at more gun restrictions feel this way. Thoughtful people can have different positions on this issue. As for me, I've decided that the long term best stance is one that supports liberty and opposes restrictions because (I believe) liberty is under increasing concerted attacks by powerful elites.

And, to paraphrase Ziggy, just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't really trying to gut the Bill of Rights.

BucketHead wrote:

Lewis Medlock wrote: Your slow.

I did not post what I did to be cool. I posted it to show the more people like you talk, the more members the NRA get. I have put my cash on what I believe in, how many of the antigunners on here, have put their money where their post are?

Why do you think I'm anti-gun? Couldn't be further from the truth. I just believe the probability of some hypothetical future US armed revolution is low enough to warrant discussing gun control measures that may reduce actual current gun deaths.

If you don't support assault weapons for every man, woman and child....er, youth....you are anti-gun. Haven't you been paying attention? It's like abortion and religion. You are either on one side of the fence or the other and rational discourse appears to have lost its place in society.

I was thinking about armed guards posted at every school. Then, I realized that in the US, many kids take buses to school - 45 or so kids crammed into a single vehicle and supervised, usually, by a person who is underpaid and responsible for paying attention to the road. That's a fairly easy target for the evil doers - they would need a guard as well. Then, I remembered that kids have recess - the entire school body out in a grassy field, generally contained on each side by fences which would be a fairly easy target for a madman with a few 30 round clips. Oh my. The perimeter would need to be secured - perhaps adjacent buildings evacuated and flight paths diverted. Then I realized...that this could go on forever.

Terry B. wrote:If you don't support assault weapons for every man, woman and child....er, youth....you are anti-gun. Haven't you been paying attention? It's like abortion and religion. You are either on one side of the fence or the other and rational discourse appears to have lost its place in society.

So, Terry, where do you draw the line? The NRA didn't ask for the right to keep and bear automatic firearms without the NFA check. They're not trying to overturn the GCA of 1968 prohibitions on mentally incompetent people buying firearms. They're not even asking for the right to keep and bear RPG-7s or MANPAADS.

Since "Assault weapons" are so "deadly" they have to be banned? Where do you draw the line? What may "mundanes" own and use, Terry?

Are we allowed to carry handguns concealed on the street? Handguns account for most shootings, yes?

How about owning an elephant rifle capable of taking down an airliner? A 458 Magnum or a .577 T-Rex?

How about a "Destructive Device" (greater than 0.5" caliber) that fires nine shots of lethal buckshot with each pull of the trigger? Grandad's shotgun loaded with buckshot.

How about the same kind of rifle that blew Jack Kennedy's brains out? The 6.5 Carcano is a lightweight amongst rifles.

"Sporting Arms" are very deadly, Terry. Deadlier than AR-15s with 223 FMJ bullets.

Where do you "draw the line" and will you leave it there when America gets its Dunblane shooting?

Maybe the NRA has a point of drawing the line at ugly guns? Gradual Incrementalism and all of that.

BucketHead wrote:

Lewis Medlock wrote: Your slow.

I did not post what I did to be cool. I posted it to show the more people like you talk, the more members the NRA get. I have put my cash on what I believe in, how many of the antigunners on here, have put their money where their post are?

Why do you think I'm anti-gun? Couldn't be further from the truth. I just believe the probability of some hypothetical future US armed revolution is low enough to warrant discussing gun control measures that may reduce actual current gun deaths.

Give a little today, a little more tomorrow, and little more the next day. When it is all said and done you gave up a bunch from where you started. That is the way government works, they take little by little, to get to where they want. So it best not to give any today.

Terry B. wrote: If you don't support assault weapons for every man, woman and child....er, youth....you are anti-gun. Haven't you been paying attention? It's like abortion and religion. You are either on one side of the fence or the other and rational discourse appears to have lost its place in society.

I was thinking about armed guards posted at every school. Then, I realized that in the US, many kids take buses to school - 45 or so kids crammed into a single vehicle and supervised, usually, by a person who is underpaid and responsible for paying attention to the road. That's a fairly easy target for the evil doers - they would need a guard as well. Then, I remembered that kids have recess - the entire school body out in a grassy field, generally contained on each side by fences which would be a fairly easy target for a madman with a few 30 round clips. Oh my. The perimeter would need to be secured - perhaps adjacent buildings evacuated and flight paths diverted. Then I realized...that this could go on forever.

Terry, currently such scenarios are possible, but I ask what solutions there are to prevent that?
My guess is that a crazed person is more likely to be deterred by the possibility that his plan won't work so well, than by the thought that he will face more jail time. Crazed people think of the present (how the plan will be executed) more than the future (the punishment). I think the ambiguity of not knowing if an armed guard is nearby is a type of deterrent, whereas a proclamation of a AWB-free zone is a type of invitation for these folks.

Even if you disagree, then what reasonable measures would you take to eliminate the estimated 3+ million AR-15s within the US today?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

johno wrote:I'm all for protecting the President's children. But I object to his indifference to the threats to other people's children.

This is the kookiest of talk. All of these efforts, misguided or not, are specifically to address threats to kids.

And guns are acceptable to protect Sasha & Malia - why not to protect other people's kids?

Their circumstances have nothing to do with those of other children, the measures are in place to protect them from completely different threats other children face, and the protection is at a level that nobody is endorsing for other kids.

A quick google on Presidential assassination attempts leads to wikipedia

1 Successful assassinations
1.1 Abraham Lincoln
1.2 James A. Garfield
1.3 William McKinley
1.4 John F. Kennedy
2 Failed assassination attempts
2.1 Andrew Jackson
2.2 Abraham Lincoln
2.3 Theodore Roosevelt
2.4 Herbert Hoover
2.5 Franklin D. Roosevelt
2.6 Harry S. Truman
2.7 John F. Kennedy
2.8 Richard Nixon
2.9 Gerald Ford
2.10 Jimmy Carter
2.11 Ronald Reagan
2.12 George H. W. Bush
2.13 Bill Clinton
2.14 George W. Bush
2.15 Barack Obama

Since Herbert Hoover, every president has had multiple assassinations plots, attempts, and even successes. Luckily none have taken out a family, but we need to make sure it stays that way. They're the Fort Knox of targets to kooks.

Tiresome shit. Number of President's family members who have been assassinated = 0.

Obama wants men with submachine guns to protect his children, who may attractive targets for nutcases. But he's "skeptical" that men with guns could protect other people's children from violence.
His solution is to treat all citizens as if they are potential nutjob killers.

*****

johno wrote:Tiresome shit. Number of President's family members who have been assassinated = 0.

Obama wants men with submachine guns to protect his children, who may attractive targets for nutcases. But he's "skeptical" that men with guns could protect other people's children from violence.
His solution is to treat all citizens as if they are potential nutjob killers.

Guys, obviously the point is valid but let's use our reason here to draw an otherwise obvious distinction between the "visibility" of Obama's kids and Joe Schmo's kids.

This doesn't make his actions right, and I don't agree with his recent escapades one bit. But, seriously, there are more effective points to be made here.

How is it that people have actually gotten more crazy over the past few days? I thought this thing was winding down, and Obama's executive BS was largely unremarkable; yet, the nutjobs on the right are hunkering down even more. Paranoia really runs motherfuckers in the good ol' US of A.