is the NRA a terrorist organization?

[Fogdog]

Sure. It just seemed a little relevant, since they specifically pointed it out in the article. Any of the polls done online?

They have been taking these polls for about 40 years. At the beginning the internet didn't even exist. Methods such as online vs telephone surveys can change over time but a reputable service would test changes to keep early data consistent with later data. The article, I thought, was fair in how it both reported the data and pointed out that there are valid arguments to a claim of under-counting. The authors went out of their way to explain this yet they reported the results with conviction. Rather than cast doubt on the study, their even handed reporting added credibility to the study, to me, maybe not everybody. I don't see how a reporter who covers the possible sources of error would even write the report in this way if they thought that under-counting could be large enough to reverse their conclusions.

The main point that I'm selling here is that gun ownership has declined to the point where gun owners are a minority. There are many other sources of information that backs up this claim. For example, recent opinion polls show 65% to 70% of the people in this country approve of stricter gun laws. This is completely consistent with the idea that more than 2/3 of households don't own a gun. Minorities don't call the shots in a democracy. Over time, if gun ownership continues to decline and I think there is every reason for it to do so, gun owners will have less and less leverage when it comes to framing a gun regulatory scheme. I think gun nuts who are objecting to even the most reasonable of changes are only, down the road, making gun control advocates less willing to compromise with the minority special interest group of gun owners.

 

[pabloesqobar]

They have been taking these polls for about 40 years. At the beginning the internet didn't even exist. Methods such as online vs telephone surveys can change over time but a reputable service would test changes to keep early data consistent with later data. The article, I thought, was fair in how it both reported the data and pointed out that there are valid arguments to a claim of under-counting. The authors went out of their way to explain this yet they reported the results with conviction. Rather than cast doubt on the study, their even handed reporting added credibility to the study, to me, maybe not everybody. I don't see how a reporter who covers the possible sources of error would even write the report in this way if they thought that under-counting could be large enough to reverse their conclusions.

The main point that I'm selling here is that gun ownership has declined to the point where gun owners are a minority. There are many other sources of information that backs up this claim. For example, recent opinion polls show 65% to 70% of the people in this country approve of stricter gun laws. This is completely consistent with the idea that more than 2/3 of households don't own a gun. Minorities don't call the shots in a democracy. Over time, if gun ownership continues to decline and I think there is every reason for it to do so, gun owners will have less and less leverage when it comes to framing a gun regulatory scheme. I think gun nuts who are objecting to even the most reasonable of changes are only, down the road, making gun control advocates less willing to compromise with the minority special interest group of gun owners.

Right. My only input was that quote I referenced earlier. But I'm sure you're passionate about this.

 

[Fogdog]

Right. My only input was that quote I referenced earlier. But I'm sure you're passionate about this.

lol

Yeah, "passionate". As in emotional. As if gun nuts are completely objective when making claims without any facts to back up their beliefs. Claims fed to them by an industry lobby group. But I'm all emotional about facts that disagree with their unfounded beliefs. Yeah, I'm blinded by my passion.

Nice girly back bite, PE

 

[MichiganMedGrower]

They have been taking these polls for about 40 years. At the beginning the internet didn't even exist. Methods such as online vs telephone surveys can change over time but a reputable service would test changes to keep early data consistent with later data. The article, I thought, was fair in how it both reported the data and pointed out that there are valid arguments to a claim of under-counting. The authors went out of their way to explain this yet they reported the results with conviction. Rather than cast doubt on the study, their even handed reporting added credibility to the study, to me, maybe not everybody. I don't see how a reporter who covers the possible sources of error would even write the report in this way if they thought that under-counting could be large enough to reverse their conclusions.

The main point that I'm selling here is that gun ownership has declined to the point where gun owners are a minority. There are many other sources of information that backs up this claim. For example, recent opinion polls show 65% to 70% of the people in this country approve of stricter gun laws. This is completely consistent with the idea that more than 2/3 of households don't own a gun. Minorities don't call the shots in a democracy. Over time, if gun ownership continues to decline and I think there is every reason for it to do so, gun owners will have less and less leverage when it comes to framing a gun regulatory scheme. I think gun nuts who are objecting to even the most reasonable of changes are only, down the road, making gun control advocates less willing to compromise with the minority special interest group of gun owners.

You don’t sound too convinced of the numbers anymore.

The article leaned toward the 42% and it is likely higher according to most sources not driven by current media.

And I don’t know any gun owners who are against regulations. Well none that aren’t criminals. I’m sure even the criminals don’t want just anyone to have one.

You did not start this talking about regs. You said ban. You always change your tune though. You have to. Extreme bullshit is childish and unreasonable.


You argue with yourself rather than have the discussion you have convinced yourself you are having.

 

[Wballs]

Speak for yourself city slicker. I need 4x4. I drive miles of dirt road daily. When it's wet, watch out!

Completely normal for a right wing special interest group to deny your rights while insisting upon keeping theirs.

It was satire. 4wd was developed by the military to kill therefore any 4wd vehicle is a military style assault vehicle, by your own standard.

Speak for your self city slicker lol, exactly the response I wanted.

You two just made the right wings case for them.

Too easy.

 

[Wballs]

no, this is not correct. when you have to lie it only illustrates how weak you are, weakling

You're right. That seemed to be a rough estimate from memory.

Death from falls
13322

Death from stairs
1307

Sauce is the national safety council.

So the point still stands and it's pretty epic that with a 10× whoops from my memory in the numbers you're still 3.6 times more likely to die from stairs than a rifle.

You guys don't actually care about life or arms, just guns.

 

[TacoMac]

You're right. That seemed to be a rough estimate from memory.

Death from falls
13322

Death from stairs
1307

Sauce is the national safety council.

So the point still stands and it's pretty epic that with a 10× whoops from my memory in the numbers you're still 3.6 times more likely to die from stairs than a rifle.

You guys don't actually care about life or arms, just guns.

Last time I checked, 58 people were killed and 852 wounded by a man falling down the stairs.

 

[Wballs]

They have been taking these polls for about 40 years. At the beginning the internet didn't even exist. Methods such as online vs telephone surveys can change over time but a reputable service would test changes to keep early data consistent with later data. The article, I thought, was fair in how it both reported the data and pointed out that there are valid arguments to a claim of under-counting. The authors went out of their way to explain this yet they reported the results with conviction. Rather than cast doubt on the study, their even handed reporting added credibility to the study, to me, maybe not everybody. I don't see how a reporter who covers the possible sources of error would even write the report in this way if they thought that under-counting could be large enough to reverse their conclusions.

The main point that I'm selling here is that gun ownership has declined to the point where gun owners are a minority. There are many other sources of information that backs up this claim. For example, recent opinion polls show 65% to 70% of the people in this country approve of stricter gun laws. This is completely consistent with the idea that more than 2/3 of households don't own a gun. Minorities don't call the shots in a democracy. Over time, if gun ownership continues to decline and I think there is every reason for it to do so, gun owners will have less and less leverage when it comes to framing a gun regulatory scheme. I think gun nuts who are objecting to even the most reasonable of changes are only, down the road, making gun control advocates less willing to compromise with the minority special interest group of gun owners.

The only point you're selling is 55>45 and which rights you can deem are more gooder based on this fabricated majority.

While ignoring the fact that rights are for the biggest minority of all, the individual.

Why are you against minority rights?

 

[UncleBuck]

You're right. That seemed to be a rough estimate from memory.

Death from falls
13322

Death from stairs
1307

Sauce is the national safety council.

So the point still stands and it's pretty epic that with a 10× whoops from my memory in the numbers you're still 3.6 times more likely to die from stairs than a rifle.

You guys don't actually care about life or arms, just guns.

Member Since:
Today

is this your 14th or 15th account now, trailer boi?

 

[UncleBuck]

Did I just join a forum

no, you've been here before.

 

[Wballs]

Member Since:
Today

is this your 14th or 15th account now, trailer boi?

Greatest argument of all, status.
Ignore the data, follow the children.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why are you against minority rights?

"if you make me serve purples, what is left residually inside me? i just hate 'em more now"

 

[UncleBuck]

Ignore the data, follow the children.

what data?

you pussies banned and censored the CDC from even studying the issue, ya fucking safe space snowflake pussies

 

[Wballs]

what data?

you pussies banned and censored the CDC from even studying the issue, ya fucking safe space snowflake pussies

We know how many died from semi auto rifles last year. It was less than from millitary style assault vehicles.

Aaaaaand ad hom, go!

 

[UncleBuck]

We know how many died from semi auto rifles last year. It was less than from millitary style assault vehicles.

Aaaaaand ad hom, go!

well as long as we ignore most gun deaths, then there are not a lot of gun deaths.

 

[Fogdog]

The only point you're selling is 55>45 and which rights you can deem are more gooder based on this fabricated majority.

While ignoring the fact that rights are for the biggest minority of all, the individual.

Why are you against minority rights?

Name your original screen name and maybe I'll respond. Depends upon which asshole you are. I'll just put you on ignore for now.

 

[TacoMac]

We know how many died from semi auto rifles last year. It was less than from millitary style assault vehicles.

Aaaaaand ad hom, go!

There are, at any given time, roughly 19,000,000 cars on the road making a one way trip every second of every day in the United States.

That equates to roughly 456 million trips per day, which is roughly 166,440,000,000 trips per year.

There are on average 1.3 million deaths by auto accident every year.

That means that you have a .000781% chance of ever dying in a car accident on a trip to or from any given destination.

In contrast to that:

There are roughly 280 million guns in the U.S.

There are on average 34,000 deaths by firearm in this country every year.

That means you have a 2.615% chance of dying from a gun.

So, in the end, you are 3,348 times MORE LIKELY to die by being shot than you are in a car.

And one more small point: the odds of dying by car while sitting in a classroom are zero. It's never happened. Your odds of dying in a classroom by gunfire are astronomically higher than that.

 

[PCXV]

It was satire. 4wd was developed by the military to kill therefore any 4wd vehicle is a military style assault vehicle, by your own standard.

Speak for your self city slicker lol, exactly the response I wanted.

You two just made the right wings case for them.

Too easy.

The bullshit you happily eat up lol.

Yeah, gun owners aren't emotional at all, and they all support regulations, not. Every meme is "why punish gun owners" as if regulating a weapon to save lives is a punishment. They cry at every turn and ignore every fact.

 

[PCXV]

There are, at any given time, roughly 19,000,000 cars on the road making a one way trip every second of every day in the United States.

That equates to roughly 456 million trips per day, which is roughly 166,440,000,000 trips per year.

There are on average 1.3 million deaths by auto accident every year.

That means that you have a .000781% chance of ever dying in a car accident on a trip to or from any given destination.

In contrast to that:

There are roughly 280 million guns in the U.S.

There are on average 34,000 deaths by firearm in this country every year.

That means you have a 2.615% chance of dying from a gun.

So, in the end, you are 3,348 times MORE LIKELY to die by being shot than you are in a car.

And one more small point: the odds of dying by car while sitting in a classroom are zero. It's never happened. Your odds of dying in a classroom by gunfire are astronomically higher than that.

And look at all of the licensing and insurance requirements and numerous laws on the books regulating motor vehicles.

"Why punish me by making me where a seatbelt when it's just the dumb people that crash?"

 

[UncleBuck]

And look at all of the licensing and insurance requirements and numerous laws on the books regulating motor vehicles.

"Why punish me by making me where a seatbelt when it's just the dumb people that crash?"

seatbelt laws just turn law abiding motorists into criminals!