That’s a false equivalence. Here are some scientists who think humans are warming the globe, here are some other scientists who disagree. Shall we just split the difference?
2 Likes
The big problem I always have is how to have a reasonable discussion with people who own guns. Even those I know who aren’t what I would consider a typical gun nut but still seem to believe the NRA propaganda and feel that there is no in-between. To them, any gun regulation or “blaming the gun” means someone wants to take away all their guns…
presumably because he (or his people) created the image. It was from his twitter feed
Interesting, seems to strain the boundaries of copyright somewhat.
I recall seeing a youtube vid which was just a 30 second clip from the IT Crowd…half of which was the channel owner’s copyright notice 
must have been taking the same legal classes 
1 Like
The proposal put forth after Sandy Hook had a 90% approval rating across America. Yet the gun lobby was still able to kill it. thats the story I need to hear more about.
8 Likes
So, gun violence, right? There’s a lot of sensible not-too-contentious ideas out there that can chip away at the numbers, IMO:
Combat gang violence by combating poverty. Gang violence exists because of poverty and the drug trade. Let’s legalize and regulate drugs. That also goes to helping curb the cycle of poverty, since the poor are the most likely to be sentenced for drug offenses, which of course contributes to the cycle. Improve social safety nets, universal healthcare, etc. to again reduce the cycle of poverty.
More felony offender employment programs. Felony offenders are basically unemployable for 10 years, and often have no choice but to keep committing crimes to get by. More job programs for reformed convicts would help prevent the slide back into crime. For that matter, let’s remove the law that prevents felons from voting–there’s no societal benefit to this, and no deterrent effect. I’m not even sure which party thinks this benefits them…
Combat mass shooting copycats by erasing their mind share. These have been on the uptick seemingly because of copycats that saw the publicity we gave to Columbine and every school shooting since. Have the FCC regulate how shootings can be reported on; they already do this for sex and nudity and violent content, and so the legal precedent is already set.
Better, more background checks. The only majority that disputes this is the gun lobby.
More special permits. Why? We already qualitatively discern between different types of gun owners for conceal-carry permits. Why not create further special classes for the kinds of guns that enthusiasts don’t want banned. Some states already do this for automatic weapons, why not for: assault rifles, Semi-auto guns, handguns, etc. broken down by the class of weapons most guilty for the loss of life. This has the advantage of not following any sort of “ban guns” rhetoric.
Raise awareness about culpability in providing a firearm to an unlicensed individual. My mind has changed on this since I learned that 40% of firearms used in crimes were originally purchased by legal FOID card holders. It’s already very illegal, we can’t realistically expect to make it more illegal, so we have to again address the mind share that think it is OK to gift or sell a firearm to some one not eligible to own one.
More cash for gun programs. Some people think these are a silly waste of money, and it is difficult to draw a line between their cost and short-term impact, but the overall idea is to take unregulated firearms out of circulation so that the aforementioned regulations on sale and ownership can have a better impact.
Compulsory military service. Military service helps people break the cycle of poverty by teaching them marketable skills. Some nations with lots of private gun ownership and low gun-related death rates have this implemented as well. This doesn’t necessarily mean growing military spending, or engaging in more foreign wars (separate topic entirely there, but we can likely have that cake and eat it too).
EDIT: Also get rid of stand-your-ground laws. “Castle laws” I am not exactly a big fan of either, but there is clear evidence that Stand-your-ground laws cause harm in states that implement them.
OR
We could just ban guns. Way harder than it sounds.
4 Likes
Worked in Oz
2 Likes
Different political landscape. Public opinion turned when something bad enough happened.
That isn’t taking place here in a big enough way.
It’s clear to me now, thanks to some of the commenters here, that guns aren’t actually a problem.
The problem is clearly statistics.
5 Likes
One of the best correlates to gun violence is income disparity.
(Yeah, correlation doe not imply causation…)
1 Like
Well, yeah, if you’re going to have gun free zones, you’re going to have mass shootings, it’s inescapable.
The fact that Democrats respond to the violence of gun free zones by calling for the entire nation to become one is absolutely terrifying.
1 Like
19 Likes
I have to admit that it took me a long time to get to watching that movie relative to when it came out and when I finally watched it, my first question was “why do people think this movie is anti-gun?”
It’s not that at all. More than anything, it poses the question as to WHY we have so much gun violence and what should we do about it.
I really have never gotten the backlash that his movies produce.
8 Likes
Because most people don’t watch his movies…they believe what they’re told by Fox.
9 Likes
Where is there info about the CDC’s biased pit bull study?
1 Like
Not of a big fan of the so-called War on Terror. Setting aside the thousands of deaths, we now have a new Cabinet-level department, National Security Letters, a rubber stamp FISA court accountable to no one, wholesale spying on ALL American citizens, torture, indefinite detention, a tidal wave of vets receiving inadequate services…and ISIS.
And you have to take your shoes off at the airport before you go through the RAPIScan or whatever it’s called. Even though we know neither of those are useful. All so much bullshit.
It’s discouraging that Obama would hold that up as a counterpoint to the mass shootings.
No no no, it makes PERFECT sense. What he’s saying is that because a school is a gun free zone, one is less inclined to bring the proper precautions. If those poor students had just remembered that gun free zone means to still bring your bulletproof outfits they would’ve been fine!
3 Likes
This must be in reference to this 2000 study:
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/images/dogbreeds-a.pdf
I didn’t find any definitive critique, but it’s been discussed because of its interpretation and misinterpretation, for example here:
I don’t see much discussion regarding author bias.
2 Likes
I know, right? Terrifying!
Imagine, a place with no guns whatsoever!
12 Likes
