Summations Only

Faith, when other things go bad, there may also be differences of opinion --- may be and usually are differences of opinion --- about what caused them and how to prevent them in the future. All these years after 9/11, and people are still arguing about how much airport security we need. When Americans started dying of Ebola, cue an instant political debate about whether the President, the hospitals, and the CDC were handling it right. But such differences of opinion are not usually taken as prohibitive of discussing an issue. Indeed, if everyone knew exactly how to fix a problem, that would render discussion redundant, and we wouldn't have to think about whether it was "taking advantage" of anything.But when a nutter goes on a rampage with a gun, then, and only then, does it become a gross breach of decorum to say --- "hey, how can we stop nutters going on rampages with guns?" and to start making suggestions. Why? It's not because there are different opinions on that, Faith, because in fact there are different opinions on everything. It's because one side doesn't want us to think about that question, it doesn't want us to ask that question, to consider that question --- much less try to answer it.

Then your question about why the NRA is interviewed can be seen as quite inane.

I inadvertently posted that half--draft that you answered. You might want to go read the final version.Yes it is YOUR side that tries to shut up MY side when these discussions get going, not the other way around. You don't even go that far, you don't even think there IS another side. Go read that final version.

Assuming that to be true, yes. Was the research in fact politically biased? Is that really the best research you could do, Faith.Are you aware that the former Congressman Jay Dickey has completely reversed his position on the issue?

Oh golly gee, do you have to be so dense? The spirit of the question is why the NRA is always ATTACKED at these times, why gun rights people are the target of the "national debate" and in the most nasty accusatory tones too.

Ooh, I found another odd similarity that you seem to have missed. Apparently someone did a study and in every single mass shooting the perpetrators had --- what does this say, my eyes are so bad --- buns, I think it says buns.Someone should look into that.

I WAS READING THE LINK YOU SUPPLIED!I'd better get off EvC for a while or I'm going to say something I'll regret.

Sure. And according to you, one technique seems to be interviewing NRA spokespeople.

Yeah, I saw that. It seemed to me to be more of the same, with extra self-pity and paranoia sauce.

No, you weren't reading any such thing.I deliberately did not give you a link to Jay Dickey or the CDC because I felt doing so would simply give you a chance to call my source biased. Instead I gave you some keywords and invited you to do some research on your own. What you did post was certainly wrong enough. Why not go for the big money.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes you are right I did look him up. What I found was Wikipedia. You want to complain about what it said about him?

This one needs to cool off for (maybe) a day.Adminnemooseus

Thank you. Your honesty is refreshing. Nope. I have no complaint about the wikipedia article. My only complaint would only be addressed to your ridiculously one-sided summary.

I didn't lie the first time, so it isn't a matter of honesty.And who says I SUMMARIZED anything? I pointed out his reason for opposing that research WHICH WAS THE POINT AT ISSUE.And yes I saw that he changed his position. He's an idiot. If the research was politically motivated then you don't go back on your opposition to it, you propose better research.And I'm glad this thread is going to close. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, but if instead you merely took that position because you were an NRA shill, then recanting would be the right thing to do.

quote:

---

Following the mass shooting in Aurora, CO, Dickey publicly reversed his position on gun violence research, regretting that he had served as "the NRA’s point person in Congress" to suppress valid and valuable work, and called for new scientific research in the field

---