Summations Only

Because there is no 'hothead' screening for purchasing a gun? Really? There is some kind of mandatory anger management course that we all go through? You just made up that stat, didn't you?

Amazing tranformation. All it took was showing you that your own statistics were nonsense. You don't need to trust such statements. You should be able to find out the truth yourself. If you are more interested in finding out the truth than in maintaining plausible deniability doing searches for the CDC and Jay Dickey might be enlightening. The second amendment does not prevent enacting gun control measures.The real problem with the rest of your explanation is that there are statistics and they aren't in favor of your position. Those stats also tell us that your anecdotes aren't worthwhile.I appreciate the insight into your thinking. I especially enjoyed the belittling of positions you disagree with. Don't ever ask for respect again.

I didn't see your post. No harm, no foul. That's right. You have no answers.What should I make of an excuse for not believing in statistics that says that you believe it is possible that the statistics might be found to support your point? Doesn't that demonstrate a non objective viewpoint?Did you take my suggestion to research the NRA's action is suppressing research or was that too non-substantive to bother with. Neither of us are not above criticism. If you don't anyone to point out what seem to be flaws, post to your blog. I promise that I won't even see it there.

Uhm, who is this we? You don't have any guns.

DC is interesting because the gun laws are strict in the district but pretty lax in some of the surround areas. The gun laws are strict in an attempt to impact crime, but that strategy simply cannot work in DC.Still, I'll bet far fewer ordinary people are shooting their nieces when they find them in closets or shooting boyfriends in bedrooms when their daughters lie about not knowing them.

Because the NRA always has something to say when the subject of gun control is brought up? The NRA injects themselves into the discussion just as do those in favor of gun control.The NRA is essentially the 'Gun Institute' for the gun manufacturing industry. Most of their money comes from the gun industry. So when the public or the media deals with the topic of gun control, for whatever reason, the NRA is going to demand to be interviewed.If those guys did not get interviewed, would you not then be complaining that it's only the politicially correct, gun control freak panty-waists who get interviewed?Your question makes no sense. It certainly does not demonstrate any particular bias in media coverage that the NRA gets a chance to speak their minds.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

---

Surely that's a rant for another day. In the meantime, trying to impeach Jay Dickey would be a bit pointless. He's no longer a member of Congress. Jay Dickey said that. One good think about wiki articles is the footnotes to more authoritative sources. In this case footnote 5 is a pointer to an editorial written by the former Representative. I'd have to say that you played yourself. You did your own research, picked out the article, read what you thought was helpful and posted what turned out to be a quote mine. Yet somehow your error is my fault. I sometimes suspect that people have made changes to wikipedia during debates, but rather than announce such an look like a paranoid lunatic, I simply check the revision log.It would take 5 seconds worth of work to check that because wikipedia records revisions and their dates to prevent malicious editing. In this case, the article has not been edited for months.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's not what you asked, but here is an answer to that question. Perhaps he NRA has earned the negative reputation they have on this issue.I noticed that you yourself found a list of possible gun control measures worth consideration although you did not commit to any of them. Most people, including most gun owners find the list mostly reasonable.However the NRA opposes all of those measures and all gun control legislation. I believe the primary reason for that stance is that the NRA spokespeople primarily represent gun manufacturers rather than the gun owners in general.Gun owners are not some monolithic block. Only the most extreme gun owner is totally on board with what the NRA advocates.

'Anti-gun rhetoric' apparently means any talk at all about gun control regulation, however rational. Given that it's pretty much impossible to do anything about the run on gun stores.