Another Mass Shooting

@MrWhatsItToYa

 I think you entirely missed the point of the article.

At no point did it say or even indicate that.

@StumpTownStu

 Read your reply to me in which you were wrong and very snippy and you wonder why I replied again sharply?

Dont misquote me and call me DUDE...I am not your DUDE, so cut out the jab at me as it is not appreciated and extremely wrong.

@Raiders22

 I read what you wrote and it came off as dismissive and minimizing of the situation. What exactly was the purpose of the cut and paste if it wasnt to make it seem as if AR weapons are not of a serious issue then? 

Id like your words too not someone elses work that you cut and paste, just your comments based on what you posted and what a few of us saw quite differently than you are suggesting.

@wallstreetcappers

 Maybe read it again.  The context is pretty plain.  It is NOT to say they are not a serious issue; it is to say they are NOT as serious as the agenda-driven folks are saying, or implying, that it is.  If you took it as dismissive -- that is your problem and not the writer's.  He was pretty clear.

There are many, much more gun-violence issues that ARE more serious and need to be addressed.  The AR-15 issue just gets the publicity even though it is a FAR smaller number.

My words about the issue followed in the very next post.

My words on this have been written on here many other times as well.

I simply presented the numbers to back up my words.  Something more of you should do instead of just spouting off some idea or stance with nothing substantive to back it up.

Where is your outrage about the far worse issues that you would use as a comparative on this issue.  Why choose this one as the loudest one.  That is the finer point.

Just to make it clear what FEE's conclusion was:

 CONCLUSION: 

Mass shootings involving rifles like the AR-15 can produce dozens of victims at one time, and combined with extensive media coverage of these events, many people have been led to believe that such rifles pose a significant threat to public safety.   

However, such shootings are extremely rare, and a look at the FBI data informs us that homicide with these types of rifles represents an extremely small fraction of overall homicide violence. Banning or confiscating such firearms from the civilian population would likely produce little to no reduction in violent crime rates in America.

I didn't call you my dude, I called you dude. If it was Midnight, or Raiders, I would've said my dude, because they're my dudes. If you think calling you dude, rather than typing out Wallstreetcappers, is being snippy, or tsking a jab at you, then I don't know what to say. Good luck with all of that.

As far as being wrong, as Raiders has shown, i'm actually 100% right. And it doesn't matter if you said hundreds of thousands, or hundreds and thousands, you're statement was hyperbolic and flat out wrong. And as a moderator, among other things, you should refrain from hyperbole.

Not to go off topic, but no where on the last couple of pages of thread..no one has addressed this 14yo background or his/her motives 

Probably doesn't fit the narrative..ironically the MSM also 

As pointed out multiple times, it's a People problem 

Let's ALL just enjoy restarting the football season.  to all

Problem is that people with guns can kill more efficiently than people without guns.  Worldwide, gun control has proven to be the most cost effective way to reduce gun violence.  The science is clear.  States with more gun control tends to have lower rates of gun homicides and suicides. 

question , i know you hate that ..

when the Democratic Party is talking about gun control how come i am missing gun control on --->>>  disarming street gangs , organized crime  orgs , cartels ...hmmm , 

is it because they are part of their voter base ?  

Dems never talk about those groups 

Responsibility... accountability...

Gun control applies to both criminals and non-criminals.  Myth is that criminals always find a way to get guns.  Fact is background checks stop gun sales to criminals every day according to Bureau of justice statistics.  Another myth is there are already enough gun laws.  Fact is there are few federal laws regulating guns and many states have weak gun laws.  However polls show most Americans want stronger gun control.  But politicians fear gun lobby.

Much easier to get a gun illegally .

@thirdperson

You still have to be able to address the underlying issue.  The 'science' says the majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally obtained guns.  There are gun laws in place now that are working.  Taking/restricting guns from being legally obtained does very little to stop the illegally obtained guns and the crimes being committed by those obtaining them.

The criminals need to be punished with enough of a deterrent to prevent future crimes from those guys and as a deterrent from others that 'consider' committing gun crimes.  You will not 100% fix it -- but it is absolutely out of control.  You cannot fix it by addressing a 'non-problem' or at best a very slight tangential problem.  

It is just used as a political ploy to garner votes and appear to be addressing something while NOT addressing the root cause of the problem.

For example:

In the 13 states with the fewest restrictions on gun ownership, 40 percent of inmates illegally obtained the gun they used, Webster said. Only about 13 percent purchased the gun from a store or pawn shop.

In the other 37 states, including New York state, 60 percent of inmates illegally procured the gun they used, Webster said.  

"If you look at the most stringent standards for legal gun ownership, it’s more like 65 percent," Webster said.

"What people don’t really appreciate is that the standards for gun ownership are so that you can be a legal gun owner but not so much law abiding," Webster said.

Then you have to consider things like this:

Congress since the 1990s has had an effective ban on federal taxpayer money being spent on research into gun violence as a public health issue and gun control advocacy by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However:

But other government agencies are free to collect data on guns and gun crime.

Why is that.  Is there really a good reason for it, or is it simply another bit of political posturing.

These issues need to be addressed by trying to 'fix' the large problems and not just the small ones.  They also need to address the real problems and not just the perceived problems.

But at least everyone seems to realize that there is a problem.

@Raiders22

 Thanks for the usual instruction based reply, telling me to read it again. I read things just fine and my conclusions are exactly what you stated just I left out the partisan nonsense you felt inclined to include. I got it and my conclusion was accurate I just did not need to copy someone elses words or make it about left vs right or gun lobby slant because my views arent liberal or conservative rather social benefit pretty much only. 

Why are you so against just admitting your slant? You have an agenda and a position and you spend plenty of time finding other people to back you up, it seems very important that you get some other faceless individual or company or group to validate your position and you fall back on that exclusively. I'd rather you just admit it and own it rather than try to validate based on someone else who shares your agenda because I dont give two craps about someone elses agenda, I am not speaking to your cut and paste source and I do not want to have a cut and paste match where you cut and paste I cut and paste then you cut and paste and all that nonsense. I would rather you state your view and own the downsides to what you feel is deserving and give your own reasons why the downsides are not of merit to what you feel is the upsides. 

Cut and paste stuff you can keep it, to me people that need to lean on other peoples words versus just roughing it person to person I dont see value in that myself.

@wallstreetcappers 

I know it is not a political topic and I know you have said AZ is not your team.  But you seem a bit more tied into them.

Any thoughts on their opener.  I usually do not like ‘Western’ timezone teams coming East on early starting games — especially, in the opener.

But I think there is a lot of value with AZ.  Especially, if the line works its way back to 7.

I considered the OVER because BUF has some holes in the DEF from last year and AZ needs more work on DEF.

But I really like the points with AZ.  I am not a huge Murray fan.  But with time and space he can light up certain defenses.

I think getting MHJ is going to really help that OFF and Conner is always a threat.

It is never a good idea to get into a shootout with Allen.  But if anyone can do it out of the gate — I think Murray can do it, because AZ always seems to start well.

That coupled with me thinking BUF has peaked and could fade this year — plus AZ is healthy and improving their OFF — makes me think there is good value with AZ and the points.

You got any quick thoughts on this?

@wallstreetcappers

I always admit my slant; you do not seem to.  There is no ambivalence on my political slant.

I am simply pointing out the Media and the Left have an agenda by attacking things that are NOT the BIG problem and issues that are NOT the underlying problem.

It is NOT 'cut and paste' BUT 'copy and paste' -- I keep telling you this.

It is fine for you to have an 'opinion and agenda' -- I am, simply, saying you need to be able to back it up with data.  

Otherwise, it is simply another online, biased and unsubstantiated 'opinion'.  Which is fine if you just admit you are like the rest of the Left and overreacting to the wrong part(s) of the issue.

Just because you do not 'feel' anyone needs an AR-style rifle does not mean it is the problem overall that you imply it is.  Others, obviously feel they want an AR-style rifle and not for nefarious reasons.

It is difficult to have a useful discussion if you ignore data and provide none of your own.

It is fine to just admit you have chosen this one issue and cannot swayed to worry about larger issues that are of more concern to the overall citizenry.

But do not jump on folks that have a different opinion that is fact-based.

What for example is your solution(s) to the far more prevalent gun crimes.

@Raiders22

 The data based slant you used is a crutch, this is a discussion not a symposium of data collection. In the past Ive gone down this silly path with you and it always ends up in the same exact ending spot. You think your data smells better than the other peoples data and things swirl down that crappy drain and it is of zero value to discussion that you feel your science and data is superior because unfortunately it is not superior. You feel your data sources and CUT and paste sources are the accurate and correct source but there are other sources and groups and data that do not agree with your sources and data. You admit you are slanted and partisan biased, well that is quite obvious so even if you deny it you consistently go down the same path pretty much every single time, the "my data and science prove" so you are right and that does not make it so. I got tired very early on with the using other peoples data and research in a discussion because several times I did play that game and you rarely looked at the data or sources you were not interested in a different perspective you just ignored or minimized what wasnt your agenda and it was a huge waste of time.

Just for a refresher we did this stupid dance with regards to money supply, no need to revisit that cruddy topic but you had your agenda, I showed with data and evidence and it did not change a thing because you are quite closed minded and feel that because you found some source that match your view then it is universally so. Same with this topic, you are locked in to your view and rarely someone that has the motivation to hunt down sources as you do would be open to a different perspective and you prove that pretty much in any topic or discussion. So no I am not interested in playing go fish data version games. 

The fallback of "the bad guys have guns so the good guys need guns" is pathetic, it is what the gun lobby and manufacturers feed you and want because then there is never an end to gun sales and the pursuit of more and faster bullet delivery systems and since the bad guys are always the blame and never will be stopped then there is zero hope for ever stopping this death cycle from ending.

@wallstreetcappers

 The data based slant you used is a crutch, this is a discussion not a symposium of data collection.

No sir, it is not.  It is empirical data to back up a stance.

So fine:

You think the utmost problem to fix is ARs and they need to be banned; I do not think so.

So, now it is just back to your 'opinion' against my 'opinion'.

So, it is just nonsense to attempt to 'discuss' it if you neither side is allowed a 'crutch' of facts to back their 'opinion'.

@wallstreetcappers

 You think your data smells better than the other peoples data

I do.  

Because the 'data' that was your 'opinion' was proven to be incorrect.

@Raiders22

 This reply is your crutch, empirical data...yeah you are KING DATA there is no other possible way for other data or view to exist when you use terms like that..lol

When you use terms and approaches as you do and are completely inflexible in your perspective there cannot be discussion. 

So as usual in the end you can take your empirical data sources and feel validated, dismiss any other perspective or data or insights or views because your sources have solidified your position and nothing else has merit or is worth consideration.

You can mold and craft and manufacture a position using data in all directions, your empirical sources have an agenda and objective, that means they are not altruistic or correct.

@wallstreetcappers

 Just for a refresher we did this stupid dance with regards to money supply, no need to revisit that cruddy topic but you had your agenda, I showed with data and evidence and it did not change a thing because you are quite closed minded and feel that because you found some source that match your view then it is universally so.

You would have to remind me exactly what about money supply we were discussing.  Know it is not your exact background and I always try to take that into account.  That could have been about very many inter-related issues.

So, I am not sure exactly what we disagreed with about money supply.

But like we always say:  Economics is one of the two professions where you can be wrong 50% of the time but people always look forward to your next report.

But with Economics the numbers can be parsed and used for a direction, for sure.  

But with total number of deaths by ARs -- it cannot.

So this is not a 'feel' issue to me.

Turn it around.

Why do you ignore obvious data that proves your 'opinion' wrong.

@wallstreetcappers 

So as usual in the end you can take your empirical data sources and feel validated, dismiss any other perspective or data or insights or views because your sources have solidified your position and nothing else has merit or is worth consideration.

Of course, because it is a fact-based opinion.

You can mold and craft and manufacture a position using data in all directions, your empirical sources have an agenda and objective, that means they are not altruistic or correct.

For example?  How would you 'mold and manufacture' these same numbers to fit your 'agenda?

This I am very interested to know.

@Raiders22

 Not my background????