Summations Only

Did I miss some stats being posted on this? Seriously, Faith. I appreciate you letting us peer into your head, but this is beyond irrational. In fact, your entire post is pretty much in line with every caricature the most rabid gun control advocate has ever had of a gun nut.One thing that we can note here is that Lanza's Mom had plenty of guns at her house. Those guns which were used by her son to kill her at home. Boo, hoo. It' possible that Congress will target those guns or magazines that let you "Mix em and cook em in a pot like gumbo." (My apologies to NWA) Yikes. How Old Testament of you not to care.I don't want to create the impression that your post is among the nuttiest stuff we are going to encounter. Here is some even more ridiculous stuff from gun nuts who will push anything other than controls on guns.

quote:

---

n a National Review Online post, author Charlotte Allen followed the lead of other right-wing media figures by suggesting that the deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut were the result of a "feminized setting" in which "helpless passivity is the norm."

​

As The Nation's Jessica Valenti noted, Allen also suggested that "some of the huskier 12-year-old boys" at the school could have attacked the shooter and altered the outcome of the event.

---

Just how many 12 years old are there at a k-4 school anyway?

quote:

---

Similarly, Newsweek and Daily Beast special correspondent Megan McArdle wrote that people, even children, should be trained to "gang rush" active shooters, in contradiction to expert opinion on how best to handle such situations.

---

and finally there is this from gun nut Senator Joe Manchin.

quote:

---

just came with my family from deer hunting, Manchin said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. I’ve never had more than three shells in a clip. Sometimes you don’t get more than one shot anyway at a deer. It’s common sense. It’s time to move beyond rhetoric. We need to sit down and have a common-sense discussion and move in a reasonable way.

​

I don’t know anyone in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle, he said. I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.

---

This nut actually wants to curtail our, um place reason limits on ... uh Whoops. I almost went off the rails again. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not that aren't problems in inner city schools, but it does not seem that any of these large school massacres fit the pattern you are describing. Sandy Hook is not an inner city school. Lanza's mom was divorced from Lanza's dad, but the divorce occurred after twenty seven years of marriage in 2009.As usual, you have your own agenda which you indulge incessantly and often without regard for the discussion going on. Here's something to consider. We aren't ignoring inner city schools simply because we are talking about something else.The unsurprising result of your several fixations is that your comments tend to miss the mark. I suppose I should be thankful that you aren't tying all of this into liberals rejecting the science in Genesis.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The NRA, after their period of silence, holds a press conference in which they do the expected. Namely defend the guns industry whose lifeblood over the last few decades has been the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, and advocates putting more guns in schools.An excerpt from a five minute long screed mostly in defense of assault weapons.

quote:

---

If we truly cherish our kids, more than our money, more than our celebrities, more than our sports stadiums, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible. And that security is only available with properly trained, armed good guys. Under Asa’s leadership, our team of security experts will make this program available to the world for protecting our children in school. And we’ll make the program available to every single school in America, free of charge. That’s a plan of action that can, and will make a real positive, indisputable difference in the safety of our children, and it will start right now.

---

I think the NRA has underestimated the mood of the country after Sandy Hook. I can understand why the NRA waited to deliver this speech, but I think it was still too soon. I also think the attempt to place blame on the president will resonate with some of the 'base', but was overall a tactical mistake.

Assault Weapons Sales Boom Fuels Gun Industry Profits, And Tragedy | HuffPost Latest News

quote:

---

In February 2006, Smith & Wesson, the storied gunmaker founded in 1851, unveiled its first-ever semi-automatic assault-style rifle. The company dubbed it the M&P15, for "military and police," but the gun was very much aimed at the retail market.

​

Consumer response was "overwhelming," Mike Golden, the former CEO, told investors in a conference call the following year. Sales of the M&P15 and other military-style weapons were playing a crucial role in pulling the company out of a deep sales slump, he said.

---

quote:

---

The boom in assault weapons has more than offset dropping sales of traditional firearms caused by a declining national interest in hunting, said Rommel Dionisio, a securities analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities who follows the gun industry.

​

"That category of firearms has been a primary growth engine and profit driver for firearms companies for the last seven or eight years," Dionisio said.

---

What did you have in mind when you wrote this? Were you think that state troopers or the FBI would be patrolling the schools? Because almost certainly, both the teacher and the policeman in the school are going to be employees of the same governmental unit.Neither would be run by the state. Perhaps you meant to say that the teachers were civilians? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Just to back this up with a data point. North Carolina has over 150 inmate on death row. Not one of the inmates was executed in 2011. The two inmates died of natural causes after being on death row for more than 13 years.WordPress.com — Get a Free Blog Here

So according to you, a gun manufacturer saying that selling assault rifles saved his business is no support for my statement that assault rifle revenue is the life blood of the industry. Statements that other sales of guns (e.g hunting rifles) were declining, and that the rapid increases in sales of assault rifles propped up flagging sales revenues is no support either, at least according to you.I'll admit that the single Huffington Post article is not a primary reference, or peer-reviewed work, but before I'd bother adding more, I'm really curious about how you interpret my if you believe that the remarks I've posted are not supportive of my position.Actually, I don't have to guess. This is your statement of what I must establish in order to say that "lifeblood over the last few decades has been the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons". I disagree that I have to meet your given standard just as I disagree that using the term 'diddly squat' to mean 'next to nothing' rather than 'absolutely nothing' is a falsehood. The quotes I provided support my actual position. I have no idea if your 'expectation' is correct or not.

Thanks for posting on this topic. I was going to get around to it in a bit. The tobacco industry method (at least as practiced in the US) would be for the industry to form a 'Tobacco Institute' to help put out false information. That method worked for awhile. The industry avoided liability for a while, but ultimately, the practice of lying and having corporate executives swear to it in front of Congress ended up making the tobacco industry almost universally reviled even among many of their own customers.The gun industry approach is light years ahead of the 'Tobacco Institute'. Congress, is complicit in the blocking of research to the point where there is little for the gun industry to lie about. Congress has passed laws eliminating problematic liability for gun makers that results from the use of the stuff they sell.No need to speculate about what kind of results the gun makers were trying to block.Here is the kind of research that the gun lobby (which for most purposes means the NRA and a number of like minded groups) wanted and got blocked.Sway of N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say - The New York Times

quote:

---

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

---

David B. Muhlhausen, PhD.Dr. Muhlhausen, is as you have noted, the Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Data Analysis of the Heritage Foundation and I don't find this to be a credential that inspires belief in anything he says. The doctor is entitled to his opinion, but there is plenty of evidence to show that the death penalty has been administered unfairly with respect to execution rates of minorities. I understand that you and Dr. Muhlhausen may have a 'Heritage' view of what constitutes unfair application of the death penalty to minorities.Further, more recent research suggest a completely different conclusion on the issue of the link between executions and deterence :EDITORIALS: Evidence Does Not Support Death Penalty As Deterrent | Death Penalty Information Center

quote:

---

For example, compare the homicide rates in California, New York and Texas, as the National Research Council has done. From 1974 to 2009, the homicide rates in those three states tracked virtually identically — going up at the same time in the late 1970s and late 1980s and all declining dramatically since then.

​

Yet during that time Texas had 447 executions and New York had none; California had 13. Clearly, something other than executions has had an effect on declining murder rates. And that clearly is what we should focus on.

​

That pattern holds up in comparisons of Canada and the United States, too.

---

And for this gem you've cited.

quote:

---

While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African—Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African—Americans.

---

Let's explore the ramification of this statement. If unfairly executing African Americans actually did deter them from murder, would being even more unfair be the right policy to implement? After all, we get 1.5 fewer murders per each unfair execution. Why not execute all members of a minority that commit murder? Or who steal? What would happen if we unfairly executed non-minorities? Would that be a moral policy? So who is right? It looks like the proponents have no cases.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No crashfrog. I am not limited to saying a simple 'no' to in response to your questions. I can support my claims using reasoning other than a direct counter to the reasoning in your question. No, you don't think that. That simply means we disagree and not that I don't know what words mean. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The word shill is completely appropriate here. A shill is not simply someone who represents you, such as your lawyer. To wit:

quote:

---

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization.

---

By shill, I mean that the NRA, while ostensibly being an organization expressing the interests of ordinary gun owners seems these days to primarily represent the interests of the gun industry. And why not, the bulk of the NRA's money comes from the other sources including the gun industry, and not from member dues:The NRA Has Sold Out to the Gun Industry to Become Their Top Crisis PR Firm

quote:

---

In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.
While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.

​

The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.

​

Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million to it through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson.

---

So my use of the word shill is not idle.And as long as I have the dictionary open...The word diddly squat...Diddly-squat - definition of diddly-squat by The Free Dictionary

quote:

---

n. Slang

​

A small or worthless amount.

---

Not necessarily zero; but a worthless amount.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

burpEdited by NoNukes, : And the pig likes it.

You can note that in each case, the statistics he posts fall short of supporting the outrageous claims he makes for them. K's posts don't address anything related to Sandy Hook or Columbine or Aurora. He says quite little about guns at all. He's telling you that those events don't matter to him. What does matter, as always with kofh2u, is that he has an agenda that he wants to pursue. At the same time k is posting his spew here, he is also pressing that same agenda in the 'Is God Good' thread.Crashfrog expressed doubts about the wisdom of replying to kofh2u, although he chose to do so anyway. No problem with that. I've made and implemented my own decision about this fellow.

Pointing out that you are being accused of lying may not be as useful a tactic as you'd like.I can note that when Bolderdash was pretending to contribute, he complained about being unable to use the word idiot. I have also observed that while one poster used the word "ignorant" with respect to jar, when jar quoted the person, the word "ignorant" was apparently censored by the board software (but perhaps self-censored) and replaced with asterisks. I believe Dr. Adequate once complained about some words that he could not use that others were able to use.In summary it seems that the moderators do take posting history into account when applying their rules.For good or ill, admin has you on a short leash regarding accusing other posters of lying. Percy has as much as told you that. Perhaps you can get Panda similarly leashed, but it probably won't be as simple as just getting admin to take a peek at a couple of postings.Personally, I don't consider it very sporting to kick a man when he is down, so I would be very hesitant at accusing you of lying. But, yeah, you're in a vulnerable spot.

I did not say that any such words were being replaced in your posts. I gave examples of others who were subject to rules that do not apply to the rest of us. I assumed you would be able to understand that your leash was different that theirs. And you are indeed aware that you are on a short leash. Can you deny that Percy said he would suspend you the next time you called someone a liar? Seriously crashfrog, when Percy offered to suspend you, did he not describe past behavior by you, namely a propensity for calling other people liars in large numbers of threads? Did you really think that he was not talking to you about a particular line that you have long since crossed?I'll repost admin's warning in its entirety from Message 212. That's a personal warning to you, crashfrog. Maybe it will apply to others if they make accusations of lying in "thread after thread", but right now, the spotlight is on you.Edited by NoNukes, : Add quote.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.