Bloomberg to take on NRA-FAIL

[Jarlaxle]

I never said he was trying to take my guns away now did I?

Face it most gun deaths (suicides don't count) are committed in isolated urban areas and are gang related.

Less than one percent of all gun murders are attributed to mass shootings.

So ignoring the real issue, the 80% while focusing on the less than one percent is ludicrous.

It would be harder for gangs to get guns if they were registered and we had universal background checks.

No it wouldnt. They'd get em the same way they always get em. Steal em themselves,or buy one someone else stole.

...or grab the ones that cops sell out the back door of the precinct.

 

[Brain357]

Sooner this dude takes a dirt nap the better we'll all be for it. Pass any further infringements and we likely will not allow them to stand.

Think Nevada on a much, much larger scale.

-Geaux

Michael Bloomberg Is Starting A Gun Control Organization To Take On The NRA


Former New York City mayor and very, very rich man Michael Bloomberg plans to take on the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment advocates by forming and financing a new organization focused on gun control. He's pledged at least $50 million to the effort.

The strategy will focus not on sweeping federal restrictions to ban certain weapons, but instead will seek to expand the background check system for gun buyers both at the state and national levels.

Bloomberg told the Times that this new group will try to use the NRA’s own tactics against them, penalizing lawmakers whose stances on gun rights differ from the organization’s. “We’ve got to make them afraid of us,” is how he put it.

The former mayor also said that the effort will deviate from the standard playbook for gun control advocates, throwing less money into television campaigns and more money into field operations to drive single-issue voters, focusing primarily on female voters. The group will initially focus on 15 states, including Colorado, Washington, Texas, Montana, and Indiana.

Come on down Bloominidiot and throw all the money you want in TX, we'll take the business and smile while we ignore your propaganda.

No interest in stopping criminals from being armed there eh? That's sad.

 

[Politico]

Well, we just saw in Nevada the manner in which these fruitloops intend to use their military type of weapons. Real background checks would probably have eliminated many of those idiots, and a number of the same on this board from owning weapons.

You hit it on the head.

That's why the American people voiced their opinion and shoved BG checks up Obama's a$$

-Geaux

Yeah because we can't have people owning them. You hate guns we get it.

 

[Geaux4it]

Bloomberg is a world class hypocrite. He has armed guards protecting him at all times.

It's because he needs them.

I'm my own armed guard

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

So they haven't. Stop letting your paranoia keep us from saving lives.

Why are lives lost to backyard pools, which far exceed those from guns, insignificant to those lost due to a firearm?

-Geaux

Maybe because crazies don't carry swimming pools into schools and start drowning people in them.

Or to put it into terms that even you can understand, one death is accidental, the other is intentional.

Death is death. BTW- Plenty of accidental shootings in the books too.

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Pages and pages and pages of proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
Keep up the good work!

LOL - I detect projection here.

Ewwwwwwwww Registering = confiscation

Ewwwwwwwww Background checks = confiscation.

Yeah - there's some real solid, non-emotional, intelligent, honest reasoning ....

Background checks=registration=confiscation

-Geaux

NYC warning letters: Proof once again that gun registration equals confiscation - St. Louis gun rights | Examiner.com

NYC warning letters: Proof once again that gun registration equals confiscation

Of gun rights advocates' concerns that the other side points to as evidence that we are "paranoid," perhaps the most notable is the observation that the purpose of gun registration is confiscation. Former Brady Campaign staffer Dennis "What People?" Henigan summed up that dismissal of our concerns in his book "Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy":

To put it bluntly, it is absurd for any serious policymaker to oppose registration or other gun control proposals on the ground that they eventually will cause the end of private gun ownership in America. To the NRA's objection that registration will lead to confiscation, it is entirely rational to respond: No it won't because you won't let it!

==========

Connecticut Patriot Group Fights Back Against Gun Confiscation Order - Tea Party

Connecticut Patriot Group Fights Back Against Gun Confiscation Order -

(Info Wars) – The war on liberty is coming to a head in Connecticut, where tens of thousands of gun owners have refused to comply with their state government’s gun registration laws. Officials have literally ordered those who failed to meet the registration deadline to surrender their firearms or face arrest.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I never said he was trying to take my guns away now did I?

Face it most gun deaths (suicides don't count) are committed in isolated urban areas and are gang related.

Less than one percent of all gun murders are attributed to mass shootings.

So ignoring the real issue, the 80% while focusing on the less than one percent is ludicrous.

SUicides do count, because those people are dead whent hey shouldn't be.

and the "80% are gang related" has been proven to be bullshit. But even it weren't, it's still an unnacceptably high number of gun deaths. Heck, even the 20% of murders that are nice clean cut white people shooting each other are STILL about 3000 murders a year. More murders than most other industrialized countries have.

 

[Geaux4it]

[

I never said he was trying to take my guns away now did I?

Face it most gun deaths (suicides don't count) are committed in isolated urban areas and are gang related.

Less than one percent of all gun murders are attributed to mass shootings.

So ignoring the real issue, the 80% while focusing on the less than one percent is ludicrous.

SUicides do count, because those people are dead whent hey shouldn't be.

and the "80% are gang related" has been proven to be bullshit. But even it weren't, it's still an unnacceptably high number of gun deaths. Heck, even the 20% of murders that are nice clean cut white people shooting each other are STILL about 3000 murders a year. More murders than most other industrialized countries have.

LMAO- Joe, they are dead because THEY WANT TO BE

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

[

I never said he was trying to take my guns away now did I?

Face it most gun deaths (suicides don't count) are committed in isolated urban areas and are gang related.

Less than one percent of all gun murders are attributed to mass shootings.

So ignoring the real issue, the 80% while focusing on the less than one percent is ludicrous.

SUicides do count, because those people are dead whent hey shouldn't be.

and the "80% are gang related" has been proven to be bullshit. But even it weren't, it's still an unnacceptably high number of gun deaths. Heck, even the 20% of murders that are nice clean cut white people shooting each other are STILL about 3000 murders a year. More murders than most other industrialized countries have.

LMAO- Joe, they are dead because THEY WANT TO BE

-Geaux

True, but if they don't have an easy means to do it, they won't be.

That's the point.

I mean, yeah, they might try pills or cutting, but that's a lot more difficult.

My problem with suicides with guns is you get guys like Lanza or the Ft. Hood shooter (the second one) who take people down with them. YOu can't do that with pills.

 

[Iceweasel]

I post a study and that's all you have? Talk about juvenile.

You posted an link and expected other people to do your homework. For some reason you can't find the portion that made your case.

Here is the portion that makes my case:
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Which doesn't explain the adjustments they made or rule out gang style shootings, like I said posts ago. Critical analysis isn't your stong point.

 

[Brain357]

You posted an link and expected other people to do your homework. For some reason you can't find the portion that made your case.

Here is the portion that makes my case:
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Which doesn't explain the adjustments they made or rule out gang style shootings, like I said posts ago. Critical analysis isn't your stong point.

Well read the study and tell me what they did wrong. Wait your too lazy to do that. So if you haven't found anything they did wrong the study stands. I can tell you they didn't count shootings involving people under 21. That would eliminate some gang style shootings. If an armed person is shot by a gang member it still counts. This is just common sense. Are you so brainwashed by the nra that you won't even believe a study?

 

[Iceweasel]

Well read the study and tell me what they did wrong. Wait your too lazy to do that. So if you haven't found anything they did wrong the study stands. I can tell you they didn't count shootings involving people under 21. That would eliminate some gang style shootings. If an armed person is shot by a gang member it still counts. This is just common sense. Are you so brainwashed by the nra that you won't even believe a study?

I didn't post the study, you did. Eliminating some and making adjustments isn't following any objective standards. I believe the studies that say crime has gone down where CCW permits were more readily available and I believe my odds are better and that you shouldn't make the decision for me.

 

[Brain357]

Well read the study and tell me what they did wrong. Wait your too lazy to do that. So if you haven't found anything they did wrong the study stands. I can tell you they didn't count shootings involving people under 21. That would eliminate some gang style shootings. If an armed person is shot by a gang member it still counts. This is just common sense. Are you so brainwashed by the nra that you won't even believe a study?

I didn't post the study, you did. Eliminating some and making adjustments isn't following any objective standards. I believe the studies that say crime has gone down where CCW permits were more readily available and I believe my odds are better and that you shouldn't make the decision for me.

Hey if you disagree with something in the study read it and post it. I can't read it and pull out what you disagree with. I think the study is a common sense finding. Now why don't you counter it with some study saying carrying a gun makes you less likely to be shot? I'd gladly read it and tell you why it is wrong. I don't think you'll find one that says that, but feel free to. According to the study your odds are better at being shot if you carry. Like all gun nuts you argue from emotion, ignorance or dishonesty.

 

[Iceweasel]

Hey if you disagree with something in the study read it and post it.

I did, you can't read.

I can't read it and pull out what you disagree with. I think the study is a common sense finding. Now why don't you counter it with some study saying carrying a gun makes you less likely to be shot? I'd gladly read it and tell you why it is wrong. I don't think you'll find one that says that, but feel free to. According to the study your odds are better at being shot if you carry.

The study was as subjective as you are and you still don't get it. You are afraid of guns, I'm not. The solution is simple, stay away from them and be comforted with massaged statistics and I'll take my odds.

 

[Brain357]

Hey if you disagree with something in the study read it and post it.

I did, you can't read.

I can't read it and pull out what you disagree with. I think the study is a common sense finding. Now why don't you counter it with some study saying carrying a gun makes you less likely to be shot? I'd gladly read it and tell you why it is wrong. I don't think you'll find one that says that, but feel free to. According to the study your odds are better at being shot if you carry.

The study was as subjective as you are and you still don't get it. You are afraid of guns, I'm not. The solution is simple, stay away from them and be comforted with massaged statistics and I'll take my odds.

You have not specifically stated what you disagree with. Please share and we'll discuss. I've provided a link that says exactly how the study was done.

 

[Iceweasel]

Hey if you disagree with something in the study read it and post it.

I did, you can't read.

I can't read it and pull out what you disagree with. I think the study is a common sense finding. Now why don't you counter it with some study saying carrying a gun makes you less likely to be shot? I'd gladly read it and tell you why it is wrong. I don't think you'll find one that says that, but feel free to. According to the study your odds are better at being shot if you carry.

The study was as subjective as you are and you still don't get it. You are afraid of guns, I'm not. The solution is simple, stay away from them and be comforted with massaged statistics and I'll take my odds.

You have not specifically stated what you disagree with. Please share and we'll discuss. I've provided a link that says exactly how the study was done.

I did, you can't read.

 

[Brain357]

I did, you can't read.
The study was as subjective as you are and you still don't get it. You are afraid of guns, I'm not. The solution is simple, stay away from them and be comforted with massaged statistics and I'll take my odds.

You have not specifically stated what you disagree with. Please share and we'll discuss. I've provided a link that says exactly how the study was done.

I did, you can't read.

You've made meaningless broad statements. What specifically is wrong with the study?

You better read this too
The health risk of having a gun in the home | MinnPost

 

[Iceweasel]

You've made meaningless broad statements. What specifically is wrong with the study?

You can't read.

 

[Sallow]

[

I never said he was trying to take my guns away now did I?

Face it most gun deaths (suicides don't count) are committed in isolated urban areas and are gang related.

Less than one percent of all gun murders are attributed to mass shootings.

So ignoring the real issue, the 80% while focusing on the less than one percent is ludicrous.

SUicides do count, because those people are dead whent hey shouldn't be.

and the "80% are gang related" has been proven to be bullshit. But even it weren't, it's still an unnacceptably high number of gun deaths. Heck, even the 20% of murders that are nice clean cut white people shooting each other are STILL about 3000 murders a year. More murders than most other industrialized countries have.

LMAO- Joe, they are dead because THEY WANT TO BE

-Geaux

In most cases?

Suicides are spur of the moment and emotional.

 

[Brain357]

You've made meaningless broad statements. What specifically is wrong with the study?

You can't read.

So you have nothing. Like all gun nuts you argue from emotion, ignorance or dishonesty.