Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 6 votes

'Culture war' more than gun rights

gun control nra

  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#91    Spiral staircase

Spiral staircase

    Breaking

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • Such an ugly feeling that won't leave.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:46 PM

View Postgreen_dude777, on 06 May 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

First point in bold: The British have successfully done this, so we see where the beginnings of gun control will lead

Second point in bold:  Who do you think makes up the citizens of this country?  I agree that we have too many teet suckers and morbidly obese people, but former vets, boy scouts, general 'farm boys', and those who would defect in the case of government instability would be more than a handful.  There's more than the conventional way to win a battle, attrition comes to mind.  If we don't drop nukes on foreign enemies in the modern age, why would a government do it to it's own constituents?  Not to mention, this is not an academic opinion (as you keep holding a certain poster to, which I agree with), so please do not state it as such.  A qualifier could have been "in my opinion" or "it could be argued".

Last point in bold:  The first sentence can describe capitalism, so I guess we would have that mindset here in America and apply it elsewhere.  It has been a highly successful model for the Nation.  The second sentence is just another opinion.  In my opinion, your 'city slicker' is showing, so maybe you shouldn't speak up for our neighbors who don't live where you do.

Correct in that the whole of what you quoted is opinion. The qualifiers were the use of the term "assessments" and phrase "it seems" that began the top portion of that post and extended to everything above the double lines.

The second point in bold, the opinion expressed there, is bolstered by the fact that there is a decline in the population of rural America, and an increase in most urban areas. This is an ongoing trend. Rural flight is well documented.

The United States Agricultural Department (USDA) has more information including an easy to understand graph. [link]

The WSJ offers a more nuanced narrative but all roads still seem to lead to metro areas. [link]

Carsey Institute based in UNH Durham offers a contrasting picture based on metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas (not the same as urban vs rural) indicating the trend of out-migration from nonmetropolitan areas reversed in the 1970s but if we take a look at the graph they offer it puts it into perspective: the nonmetro areas are outmatched (population wise) by the metro ones.

(I also wonder if they accounted for those who moved into non-metropolitan areas 10-20 years ago, have since not moved, but have since been annexed or absorbed into a neighboring city's metropolitan area.)

Quote

An Overview of Demographic Change

Historically, rural places have lost population. However,since the rural rebound of the 1970s, the story of migration into and out of rural areas has become more complex.

For much of the 20thcentury, most rural communities experienced population loss as millions of rural residents left for the opportunities in booming cities. The volume of out-migration varied from decade to decade, but the direction of the flows did not. More people consistently left rural areas than came to them.

This trend ended in the 1970s when rural population gains exceeded those in urban areas. Gains in rural areas waned in the 1980s, rebounded in the early 1990sand slowed again in the later 1990s. Rural growth picked up again after 2001, although recent gains remain smaller than in the early 1990s. Currently, 17 percent of the population (50million people) and 75 percent of the land area of the United States is nonmetropolitan.

Posted Image

Carsey Institute - Reports on Rural America

According to the USDA National Resource Conservation Service, currently in Ohio about 3/4s of the population is urban while a little more than 1/4th (26%) is rural. [link] (You probably think those are fair odds.)  q:

To better explore this topic of rural vs urban, there is an ongoing discussion (Red vs Blue is really Urban vs Rural values: Exploring the political divisions in America) on this other thread.

As for the last point in bold: "The appetite for the frontier mindset is spoiled by the fact that some profit as others suffer." That is capitalism but we are a mixed-economy in all honesty and the temperament of the profit motive, through regulatory measures, is clearly in demand as indicated by the polls and surveys where the majority of our citizenry and the member body of the NRA favors universal background checks (all sources have been adequately added in this very thread to corroborate that claim).

As for the final portion of the last point: "The spirit of self reliance and roughing it out has been mythicized but serves no real application in our postmodern era."

It is also opinion but more based on our neighbors, disgruntled urbanites who claim they will take to the country in an armed rebellion, that is all it was speaking to.

It was a gross generalization that did ignore your neighbors, which you would be better assessing, so thank you for pointing that out. Rural folks are still severely outnumbered, again you probably find those even odds since the assumption would be that we are lazy while you guys are not. Take note, we are cycling, running, jogging, zumba-ing, and taking to the outdoors in ever increasing numbers...we love our urban bike and hike trails here!

Thank you for strictly discussing the topic with me and allowing me a chance to clarify. For trivia's sake your opinion on whether the rural pop can actually outmatch us city folks on the field is appreciated but hopefully you are not advocating the irrational view of secession. Opinion, I know...

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 06 May 2013 - 10:07 PM.


#92    Spiral staircase

Spiral staircase

    Breaking

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • Such an ugly feeling that won't leave.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:59 PM

View PostGlorfindel, on 06 May 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Youre free to your own views as well, but please try to refrain from associating science with your views. Gun rights are a political issue, a philosophical issue. These blind associations ultimately mean nothing, if you wanna prove your point, stick to the facts and statistics you are presenting. Science ≠ liberalism (or progressives, whatever).

Your view regarding the, "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home,"  is a claim, "that has been debunked countless times on this forum," is not an adequate argument.

Your view that, "That has been debunked countless times on this forum", was itself debunked on this very thread with sources from the American Journal of Public Health, the American Journal of Epidemiology, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, The American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Of course scholarship based on the scientific method will be claimed when your view contains no sources but has been refuted by six. Just the amount necessary to carry your unsourced opinion to its grave but it is likely you have a belief in the resurrection.

Just keep in mind every time you offer that unsourced opinion it is not a savior, merely a zombie.

View PostGlorfindel, on 06 May 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

Dont worry, I used to be a liberal, he is as much a pseudo-intellectual as can be. Most likely has no understanding of the conecpt of humility either. I comment on this forum for fun, I got nothing to prove to this over-educated elitest. He still hasn't even discovered for himself that there is a difference between abstract philosophy, and its applications. He also thinks just because a source comes from a university, it can't be biased. Even though we see stupid university studies these days, that point out blatant common knowledge (example, "Statistics show women prefer men with broad shoulders" "Men prefer women that are shorter than them" etc), ah but it comes from a university publication so it must be sooo intellectual. We have afro-centrists and other nut jobs publishing biased non-sense daily. We have professors being harassed and losing their jobs for presenting non-liberal views (what was wrong with that source exactly?) I mean come on, do I really have to start providing examples of bias in university publications? Because of marxist ideology, the only truly unbiased subjects in university are limited to science and math. And this guy thinks he can claim science, how delusional.

Pointing out the anti-intellectual portions of the above statement in light gray.

What is in bold does not make a convincing argument to your claim regarding the, "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home", has been debunked.

Prove it, if you can.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 06 May 2013 - 10:13 PM.


#93    Glorfindel

Glorfindel

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The answer to 1984, is uhhh... 1812?

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:11 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 May 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

Your view on the claim of the, "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home," was expressed by you stating, "That has been debunked countless times on this forum," is not an adequate argument.

Your view that, "That has been debunked countless times on this forum", was itself debunked on this very thread with sources from the American Journal of Public Health, the American Journal of Epidemiology, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, The American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Of course scholarship based on the scientific method will be claimed when your view contains no sources but has been refuted by many.



Merely pointing out the anti-intellectual portions of the above statement in light gray.

What is in bold does not make a convincing argument to your claim regarding the, "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home", has been debunked. Prove it, if you can.

WHAT? Odds are that a firarm in a home will harm someone in that home? Do you have any idea of many dead Americans there would be daily if that were the case? Now obviously I know thats not what was meant, but its obvious the words were twisted to give that impression. Are you honestly denying that many studies are a waste of time? Are you honestly denying that afro-centists and other less than credible people are doing great as professors in many universities? Surely you can't be this ignorant. Oh yeah, and you forgot to turn the sentence where I mentioned "marxism" light grey. Tell me why is it morally justified to persecute professors who don't fall in line with the rest of the mainstream lefty views? Freedom of speech has no place in academia? Why should I waste time proving anything to you when you refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts you? Tell me when was the scientific method invented? I will actually start responding with facts to your posts, as soon as you prove science and liberalism are so similar that they can be associated. Not just "well my side likes science more", I want you to logically demonstrate how you can make this claim. If you do that, then yes, I will argue in an academic manner. So far from what I've seen, debating with you will be just like debating a creationists or a David Icke fan; a complete waste of time.

Edited by Glorfindel, 06 May 2013 - 10:20 PM.


#94    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Is not a number!

  • Member
  • 9,328 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:22 PM

View PostGlorfindel, on 06 May 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

WHAT? Odds are that a firarm in a home will harm someone in that home? Do you have any idea of many dead Americans there would be daily if that were the case? Now obviously I know thats not what was meant, but its obvious the words were twisted to give that impression. Are you honestly denying that many studies are a waste of time? Are you honestly denying that afro-centists and other less than credible people are doing great as professors in many universities? Surely you can't be this ignorant. Oh yeah, and you forgot to turn the sentence where I mentioned "marxism" light grey. Tell me why is it morally justified to persecute professors who don't fall in line with the rest of the mainstream lefty views? Freedom of speech has no place in academia? Why should I waste time proving anything to you when you refuse to acknowledge anything that contradicts you? Tell me when was the scientific method invented? I will actually start responding with facts to your posts, as soon as you prove science and liberalism are so similar that they can be associated. Not just "well my side likes science more", I want you to logically demonstrate how you can make this claim. If you do that, then yes, I will argue in an academic manner. So far from what I've seen, debating with you will be just like debating a creationists or a David Icke fan; a complete waste of time.
I think what LBA is trying and failing to say is "a gun is more likely to be used to harm/accidentally bring harm to a family member, then it is to harm an intruder or an outsider".
For example, I'm more likely to hurt myself on my bike then I am someone else" that sort of thing.


#95    CRYSiiSx2

CRYSiiSx2

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:26 PM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 06 May 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

I think what LBA is trying and failing to say is "a gun is more likely to be used to harm/accidentally bring harm to a family member, then it is to harm an intruder or an outsider".
For example, I'm more likely to hurt myself on my bike then I am someone else" that sort of thing.

But what people like him think, we're all too stupid to use anything sharper than a butter knife.  He believes we must be so stupid that the Government should regulate everything we do to keep us safe.  If I decide to buy a gun I know what they can do, it's my responsibility to be safe and keep it locked to avoid accidents.  I don't need the Gov. to tell me to do that.

Edited by CRYSiiSx2, 06 May 2013 - 10:26 PM.

Posted Image
NRA - PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT
my twitter @sktm06

#96    Glorfindel

Glorfindel

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The answer to 1984, is uhhh... 1812?

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:30 PM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 06 May 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

I think what LBA is trying and failing to say is "a gun is more likely to be used to harm/accidentally bring harm to a family member, then it is to harm an intruder or an outsider".
For example, I'm more likely to hurt myself on my bike then I am someone else" that sort of thing.

I know thats what it meant, that does not mean the gun is your house is more likely to hurt you, then to hurt no one. Which is why I said LBA is being purposely misleading with his words (I don't think his failure in conveying the message was accidental). Which is exactly why many people view the left as dishonest.

Edited by Glorfindel, 06 May 2013 - 10:32 PM.


#97    green_dude777

green_dude777

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 976 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • When you look back in life, you don't regret what you did, you regret what you never attempted.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:42 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 06 May 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

Correct in that the whole of what you quoted is opinion. The qualifiers were the use of the term "assessments" and phrase "it seems" that began the top portion of that post and extended to everything above the double lines.

The second point in bold, the opinion expressed there, is bolstered by the fact that there is a decline in the population of rural America, and an increase in most urban areas. This is an ongoing trend. Rural flight is well documented.

The United States Agricultural Department (USDA) has more information including an easy to understand graph. [link]

The WSJ offers a more nuanced narrative but all roads still seem to lead to metro areas. [link]

Carsey Institute based in UNH Durham offers a contrasting picture based on metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas (not the same as urban vs rural) indicating the trend of out-migration from nonmetropolitan areas reversed in the 1970s but if we take a look at the graph they offer it puts it into perspective: the nonmetro areas are outmatched (population wise) by the metro ones.

(I also wonder if they accounted for those who moved into non-metropolitan areas 10-20 years ago, have since not moved, but have since been annexed or absorbed into a neighboring city's metropolitan area.)



Posted Image

Carsey Institute - Reports on Rural America

According to the USDA National Resource Conservation Service, currently in Ohio about 3/4s of the population is urban while a little more than 1/4th (26%) is rural. [link] (You probably think those are fair odds.)  q:

To better explore this topic of rural vs urban, there is an ongoing discussion (Red vs Blue is really Urban vs Rural values: Exploring the political divisions in America) on this other thread.

As for the last point in bold: "The appetite for the frontier mindset is spoiled by the fact that some profit as others suffer." That is capitalism but we are a mixed-economy in all honesty and the temperament of the profit motive, through regulatory measures, is clearly in demand as indicated by the polls and surveys where the majority of our citizenry and the member body of the NRA favors universal background checks (all sources have been adequately added in this very thread to corroborate that claim).

As for the final portion of the last point: "The spirit of self reliance and roughing it out has been mythicized but serves no real application in our postmodern era."

It is also opinion but more based on our neighbors, disgruntled urbanites who claim they will take to the country in an armed rebellion, that is all it was speaking to.

It was a gross generalization that did ignore your neighbors, which you would be better assessing, so thank you for pointing that out. Rural folks are still severely outnumbered, again you probably find those even odds since the assumption would be that we are lazy while you guys are not. Take note, we are cycling, running, jogging, zumba-ing, and taking to the outdoors in ever increasing numbers...we love our urban bike and hike trails here!

Thank you for strictly discussing the topic with me and allowing me a chance to clarify. For trivia's sake your opinion on whether the rural pop can actually outmatch us city folks on the field is appreciated but hopefully you are not advocating the irrational view of secession. Opinion, I know...

I appreciate the response, and I say "fair enough".  I may have either misread the qualifiers, or forgot them by the time I arrived to that portion of the post, to that I apologize.

I also completely agree with the sentiment and statement directed at the disgruntled urbanites.  Where I feel survival skills and knowledge of the world outside of our concrete jungles is important and should be more common place, I feel a lot who use that threat are the same who threatened to leave the country if Obama were re elected.

Also, it is a fair point that the urban population is outweighing the rural population.


#98    Spiral staircase

Spiral staircase

    Breaking

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • Such an ugly feeling that won't leave.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 10:51 PM

View PostGlorfindel, on 06 May 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

WHAT? Odds are that a firarm in a home will harm someone in that home? Do you have any idea of many dead Americans there would be daily if that were the case? Now obviously I know thats not what was meant, but its obvious the words were twisted to give that impression.

In the 2008 landmark Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller (does the Second Amendment allows a state or local government to outlaw the private possession of handguns?) [link] it was noted that the D.C. council committee had testified before the "Hearing and Disposition before the House Committee on the District of Columbia, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., on H. Con. Res. 694, Ser. No. 94–24, p. 25 (1976)" that "[f]or every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 gun-related accidents within the home." [link]

Now that is pretty outdated information, from 1976, and we might both agree that it is not accurate, up-to-date, or corroborated by any other source, even if they sourced it in 2008 in front of the SC.

This might be a more accurate answer to your question:

Quote

According to the CDC, there were about 18,498 gun-related accidents that resulted in death or an emergency room visit during 2001.

[link]

That is further broken down into 17,696 injuries and 802 deaths in 2001. [link]

Those number seems to have gone down.

The "Unintentional Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries" in 2011 stood at 14,675, while the" Unintentional Firearm Deaths" in 2007 were 613.

Those were the last years available for each category.

If you want to view those results you will have to select the proper criteria from the radio buttons in the following web-apps: CDC Nonfatal Injury Reports, 2001-2011 and their Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2007.

Note: this does not take into accounts suicides.

The "Self-harm Firearm Gunshot Nonfatal Injuries" in 2011 stood at 3,224, while the "Suicide Firearm Deaths" in 2007 were 17, 352.


Ouch, a total reversal between injuries and deaths, which we can most likely consider them under the banner of, "odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home?"

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 06 May 2013 - 11:08 PM.


#99    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Is not a number!

  • Member
  • 9,328 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:15 AM

How many people hurt themselves with hammers in that time LBA? Or committed suicide via oven or jumping off their roof?
The statistics mean that if you're suicidal and have a gun you're more likely to use the gun, NOT that having a gun magically makes you want to commit suicide.


Ohh and before you call me a pro-gun nut or whatever - I'm pro-gun CONTROL and think that ownership of anything bigger then a handgun (in towns) or a shotgun (in the rural areas) is over-kill.


#100    Spiral staircase

Spiral staircase

    Breaking

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • Such an ugly feeling that won't leave.

Posted 07 May 2013 - 01:52 AM

We are not the same, I am not going to call you anything, nothing personal or negative at least, because we are the same.

Quibbling over that data set is not going to interest me.

Have a nice morning.


#101    CRYSiiSx2

CRYSiiSx2

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:08 AM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 07 May 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

How many people hurt themselves with hammers in that time LBA? Or committed suicide via oven or jumping off their roof?
The statistics mean that if you're suicidal and have a gun you're more likely to use the gun, NOT that having a gun magically makes you want to commit suicide.


Ohh and before you call me a pro-gun nut or whatever - I'm pro-gun CONTROL and think that ownership of anything bigger then a handgun (in towns) or a shotgun (in the rural areas) is over-kill.

As said before, you do know just about all crime committed with a gun is with a handgun right?  So all of you guys calling for bans on AR-15s, 30 round mags, and such, you keep going over the same old same old, and constantly avoid the fact that most crime is done by hand guns.

I'm guessing you've never gone deer hunting, as a rifle is a better choice than a shotgun unless you are using a slug are relatively close range.

Edited by CRYSiiSx2, 07 May 2013 - 02:09 AM.

Posted Image
NRA - PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT
my twitter @sktm06

#102    Spiral staircase

Spiral staircase

    Breaking

  • Member
  • 3,607 posts
  • Joined:27 May 2011

  • Such an ugly feeling that won't leave.

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:42 AM

Many are not focused on "all crime" but on mass shootings.

There the rifle stat jumps to about 38% and the high-capacity magazines to nearly half although the sample they are drawing from is admittedly small.

On the phone so if you want to dispute stats we can discuss later.

The most horrific mass shootings in the public mind for now seem to all involve sporting arms and high-capacity mags. That is public pereption and one can blame the news for only publicizing certain mass shootings but to deny public perception will not help your cause.

Swaying them will take actual stats from an unbiased source. Opinion on this last part but that is the way I see this.

Not everyone is going to be susceptible to the big lie theory, repeating claims over and over without proof only works sometimes now.

Horribly, people do not want mass shootings and are seeming to favor both gun reforms and more security at schools, as the NRA suggested the latter.

No one will get all they want. Time to compromise. There is going to be reaction to mass shootings, it is delayed but that is natural, it is coming, they are a game changer.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!, 07 May 2013 - 02:50 AM.


#103    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Is not a number!

  • Member
  • 9,328 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:52 AM

View PostCRYSiiSx2, on 07 May 2013 - 02:08 AM, said:

I'm guessing you've never gone deer hunting.
No wild deer to hunt in Oz. Tonnes of pigs though, and you need artillery to take them down.


#104    Glorfindel

Glorfindel

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The answer to 1984, is uhhh... 1812?

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:32 PM

"odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home" What you mean to say is "odds are that someone who lives in the home will be harmed by the gun before a home invader is harmed by the gun". How can you honestly repeat the first line and think of yourself as intellectually honest, is beyond me. A firearm in the home is not more likely to harm you, then it is to harm no one. So yes, that line has been thoroughly debunked. If you can't have the integrity to properly state what the statistic is analyzing, how are we suppose to take anything else you say seriously?

On a side note, do you really think self-reliance is unneccesary in today's world? In a world with poverty, violence and diminishing resources? Nothing personal, but that might just be the most naive statement i've ever heard on this forum.

Edited by Glorfindel, 07 May 2013 - 09:41 PM.


#105    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:40 PM

View PostGlorfindel, on 07 May 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

"odds are that a firearm in a home will cause harm to someone in that home" What you mean to say is "odds are that someone who lives in the home will be harmed by the gun before a home invader is harmed by the gun". How can you honestly repeat the first line and think of yourself as intellectually honest, is beyond me. A firearm in the home is not more likely to harm you, then it is to harm no one. So yes, that line has been thoroughly debunked.

On a side note, do you really think self-reliance is unneccesary in today's world? In a world with poverty, violence and diminishing resources? Nothing personal, but that might just be the most naive statement i've ever heard on this forum.

You have to forgive him. He's been so brainwashed by liberal ideology he has no idea what it's like to have an independent thought.






Also tagged with gun control, nra

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users