@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
National Review by way of FB. That's a source people should pay attention to
Aren't you a delight?
Are you suggesting that Facebook somehow changes the content of an article? I'm connected to a number of different News Media FB pages and I would like to know if I should question the legitimacy of articles from WaPo, The New Yorker, The NY Times, Mother Jones etc. Please enlighten me based on your superior knowledge of Facebook.
Considering your proclivities I don't expect you to respect The National Review, but you made a point to add "by way of FB" as if it was of import, or what prompted your chuckle emoticon. Given that you are such a sophisticated consumer of information, it has me wondering.
In any case, here's an article from a source I hazard to guess you respect: The Washington Post, but, again, it is by way of FB so who knows how the Russian Trolls might have altered it. It would explain though how a former reasonable gun control advocate might do a complete 180. Yes, it must be the Russkie Trolls or those darn American Nazis you seem to be so worried about.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.1a4c19678537#comments
Quote:Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence.
Quote:When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
Quote:As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet.
Oh no! Better not inform Hillary.
Quote:As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?
Yes, that's 2/3rds just as David French seemed to suggest in his FB altered piece. But of course, we all know that barely 10% of these poor souls would have succumbed to their despair and taken their lives if it weren't for guns, and more pointedly THE NRA!
(Interestingly enough, men favor guns as a means to take their own lives at an extremely higher rate than women, what, then, do we do for suicidal women once we ban gun ownership or similarly reasonable gun control methods? Ban all prescription pills or only allow them to be dispensed in quantities of 5 at a time?)
Quote:However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence.
Of course, all these young gangbangers are only able to obtain guns because of the NRA imposed loopholes. They would never buy them from a Black Market dealer in a parking lot.
Quote:And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.
Yeah but these brutal bastards are really afraid of women and if they couldn't get their hands on NRA protected guns they would be too cowardly to resort to a hammer, a knife or their fists.
Quote:By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.
How absolutely refreshing; An honest and rational progressive, and she's what you might call an
intellectual so surely other progressives will respect her. I know you will, right ebeth? But even if she isn't an elite egghead, she's a statistician (and one who worked for or with Nate Silver!) and isn't that pretty close to a scientist? Now we all know that progressives just love science and scientists so you would expect to see the respect for her flowing through the comments section.
But no.
There are 6,000 of them. More than I've ever seen at WaPo, and from the progressive side they range from:
1) You're just wrong
2) You don't know anything about statistics (I guess Silver was fooled!)
3) You are horrible and want people to die
Don't believe me? You're welcome to scroll through all 6,000 and see.
So yes, how amusing was David French's fact-filled article in comparison to Jimmy Kimmel's emotional nonsense! It even deserves a chuckle from me.
I'm still worried about FB so please get back to me on that.
-- whose ox gets gored or who gets to openly carry a gun.
