#26 2018-02-21 12:00:22

Remember the nigh-deafening divestiture from Tobacco by public institutions a couple of decades ago?  We may be about to see it again.

Offline

 

#27 2018-02-21 12:56:34

Baywolfe wrote:

Remember the nigh-deafening divestiture from Tobacco by public institutions a couple of decades ago?  We may be about to see it again.

Normally Funds such as Teachers, Churches, Universities apply "Sin" rules to their investments - no Tobacco, Booze, Gambling or Firearms.  But some get greedy.

I've written the logic on those investments a couple of times but it gets difficult with mergers and acquisitions (M&A) to keep things straight.

Offline

 

#28 2018-02-21 14:40:14

Floriduh taking a stand against the real danger:

Pornography is being declared a health risk by the Florida Legislature.

The resolution was sponsored by Representative Ross Spano, who is running for attorney general.

Spano said there's research showing a connection between pornography use and mental and physical illnesses, forming and maintaining intimate relationships and deviant sexual behavior. The resolution states a need for education, research, and policy changes to protect Floridians, especially teenagers, from pornography.

House Democrats in committees and on the floor have said the bill is a waste of the Legislature's time and that more important bills and topics need to be heard.

During a debate, Representative Carlos Guillermo Smith asked Spano if pornography has killed or physically injured anyone. He went one step further in asking Spano if pornography has caused any first responders to seek counseling. Spano said he did not know.

Smith has had his own bill that would ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines get stuck in Spano's Criminal Justice Subcommittee.

Now we all know that no new assault weapon ban will even come close to getting passed in the Florida statehouse. But pushing an anti-porno bill ahead of it is just rubbing it in their faces.

Also, anybody want to start a pool on how long before Spano gets caught in the wide stance?

Offline

 

#29 2018-02-21 14:55:52

GooberMcNutly wrote:

Also, anybody want to start a pool on how long before Spano gets caught in the wide stance?

https://api.ballotpedia.org/v3/thumbnail/200/300/crop/best/Ross_Spano.jpg


Sounds like a terrific idea. Sadly, though, we've never tried this. Any ideas how it might work?

Offline

 

#30 2018-02-21 15:53:00

This banner of Taint's is apparently the first ever High Street banner.

https://high-street.org/header/highstreetcraigrq0[1].png

Offline

 

#31 2018-02-22 06:04:33

Dan Rather
7 hrs ·

We can have a debate about gun control. But to all those "adults" who mock
or lie about the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High (and the waves
of sympathetic students across the nation), to all those who rain vitriol
down on children's heartbreak and nascent activism, to all those who spread
outrageous conspiracy theories meant to dismiss those who demand to be
heard, there is no place for you in civil society.

I know why the reactionary forces who have cynically played the status quo
on our gun culture to their political and economic power are fanning the
flames of these outrages. They know, as I do, that young adults with
passion can change the world. I saw that in Birmingham, Alabama when
African American children faced the fire hoses and dogs in the march for
racial justice. I saw it in the jungle hell of Vietnam and the streets of
America when young soldiers and protesters asked the chilling question:
what are we fighting and dying for? I saw it in Europe where waves of
youthful activism shattered the Iron Curtain.

The voice of a child is often a clarion call to action. In their purity
lies passion and courage. They are our future. And when they roar, they
will be heard and shake the political status quo of our nation.

-------------------

Bob Dylan's lyrics "The Times They Are a Changing". Come mothers and
fathers throughout the land, and don't criticize what you can't understand.
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command, you're old world is
rapidly aging...

Offline

 

#35 2018-02-22 19:19:28

http://high-street.org/img/archiebunker.gif

Offline

 

#36 2018-02-28 17:23:40

Holy shit. Trump is embracing gun control?

breaking news:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/us/p … ntrol.html

Last edited by choad (2018-02-28 17:25:52)

Offline

 

#37 2018-02-28 18:34:01

choad wrote:

Holy shit. Trump is embracing gun control?

breaking news:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/us/p … ntrol.html

It's never too soon to start running for re-election.  Although, he does have the distressing tendency to say one thing and have it mean the exact opposite.

Offline

 

#38 2018-02-28 19:28:26

Nah, Trump is a liberal at heart so if he speaks without prep it tends to come out.

Offline

 

#39 2018-03-01 08:32:05

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/28336179_1661508980583769_5566617693394563323_o.jpg?oh=dd1307a0a2f0d939dcef801e7b518686&oe=5B056FC8

Last edited by Mugwump (2018-03-01 08:32:27)

Offline

 

#40 2018-03-02 23:54:09

I'm sure there's some reasonable explanation...

When gun owners meet for the NRA convention, gun injury rates seem to decline

The 20 percent decline happened nationwide, researchers found.

https://s17.postimg.org/3q50c0y4v/168115378.jpg.0.jpg

America has around one mass shooting, defined as at least four people shot, per day on average. But for a few days in May this year, that gun injury rate is likely to drop.

A brief, partial respite from gun injuries is expected when some 80,000 gun owners descend on Dallas for the annual National Rifle Association convention. That’s because the convention has historically coincided with a temporary — and dramatic — drop in gun-related injuries, according to a new analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine...

Read the rest: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ … jury-rates

Offline

 

#41 2018-03-03 00:32:15

Smudge wrote:

I'm sure there's some reasonable explanation...

There are enough BS numbers in that article, that I don't know whether to trust any of the rest.  Figures don't lie, but liars figure.  The whole we own more guns than anyone else is isn't true and takes careful wording (or massaging the numbers) to make it true.  For example Swiss and Israeli guns are mostly technically owned by the state. As for the JAMA article itself, what happens when you use all the time not during the conventions rather than the three weeks before and after?  Cherry picking times or places makes me suspicious.  It's like saying we're number one in gun deaths.  You have to leave out a quarter of the other countries in the world and count suicides by gun here.

Offline

 

#42 2018-03-03 01:16:08

hedgewizard wrote:

Smudge wrote:

I'm sure there's some reasonable explanation...

There are enough BS numbers in that article, that I don't know whether to trust any of the rest.  Figures don't lie, but liars figure.  The whole we own more guns than anyone else is isn't true and takes careful wording (or massaging the numbers) to make it true.  For example Swiss and Israeli guns are mostly technically owned by the state. As for the JAMA article itself, what happens when you use all the time not during the conventions rather than the three weeks before and after?  Cherry picking times or places makes me suspicious.  It's like saying we're number one in gun deaths.  You have to leave out a quarter of the other countries in the world and count suicides by gun here.

You are seriously misinformed, hedgewizard. The statistics are all readily available from a thousand sources. We own more guns per capita than any other country. We own more guns in absolute numbers than any other country. We have more gun deaths in absolute numbers than any other country. We have more gun deaths per capita than any other country.

We are the most highly armed nation in the world, and the nation which suffers the greatest amount of gun violence BY ENORMOUS MARGINS. These facts are not in dispute, and they are not the product of distortion in any form.

Most of what I state above can be gleaned from this one graph alone (but, Google can answer any of these individual questions in a split second if you need additional verification):

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/-6Iuj5TMfG_QKYB4CdASJF_3Pp4=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10328997/Screen_Shot_2018_03_02_at_9.44.09_AM.png

I stand behind the original article one hundred percent.

Offline

 

#43 2018-03-03 03:11:01

Smudge wrote:

hedgewizard wrote:

Smudge wrote:

I'm sure there's some reasonable explanation...

There are enough BS numbers in that article, that I don't know whether to trust any of the rest.  Figures don't lie, but liars figure.  The whole we own more guns than anyone else is isn't true and takes careful wording (or massaging the numbers) to make it true.  For example Swiss and Israeli guns are mostly technically owned by the state. As for the JAMA article itself, what happens when you use all the time not during the conventions rather than the three weeks before and after?  Cherry picking times or places makes me suspicious.  It's like saying we're number one in gun deaths.  You have to leave out a quarter of the other countries in the world and count suicides by gun here.

You are seriously misinformed, hedgewizard. The statistics are all readily available from a thousand sources. We own more guns per capita than any other country. We own more guns in absolute numbers than any other country. We have more gun deaths in absolute numbers than any other country. We have more gun deaths per capita than any other country.

We are the most highly armed nation in the world, and the nation which suffers the greatest amount of gun violence BY ENORMOUS MARGINS. These facts are not in dispute, and they are not the product of distortion in any form.

Most of what I state above can be gleaned from this one graph alone (but, Google can answer any of these individual questions in a split second if you need additional verification):

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/-6Iuj5T … .09_AM.png

I stand behind the original article one hundred percent.

Take blacks and Hispanics - who for gun-related "issues" are notched Caucasian, out of the mix, and the US would be lost in the crowd. 

Smudgie, respected friend, you know this is true.
Channeling Chairman Emeritus Fnord (not a gun nut, by any stretch).  He was NEVER one to be fucked with on "who" drove crime stats, either

Last edited by JetRx (2018-03-03 04:05:50)

Offline

 

#44 2018-03-03 06:04:06

JetRx wrote:

Take blacks and Hispanics - who for gun-related "issues" are notched Caucasian, out of the mix, and the US would be lost in the crowd.

As Chris Rock has repeatedly told us, there is a vast difference between blacks and Niggers.  And Whiggers are every bit as bad.

Offline

 

#45 2018-03-03 07:02:17

All I can say is that Brazil and Pakistan are oddly missing from that graph as are Russia and the Ukraine.

Skewed numbers without proper context.

Offline

 

#46 2018-03-03 09:44:28

Blacks are considered to be white when looking at gun violence? I can't believe I'm reading that. Any chance you'd like to back that claim up with some evidence? And by the way...even if it were true, its not the issue under discussion (which is the link between gun availability and gun violence).

The US is NOT the nation with the highest rates of gun violence. It is the nation with the highest rates of gun violence when compared to other first world nations (my bad, I was incorrect). In absolute terms, the US is the 31st worst nation for gun violence. The US has by far the highest rate of gun violence when compared to similar wealthy, first world nations (the ones included in the diagram) as well as most (but not all) of the world's other nations.

The scatter diagram came from the VOX article which we were discussing.

Offline

 

#47 2018-03-03 10:51:34

The lower accident rate during the convention wouldn't surprise me, I just don't know it's true from this.  It wouldn't surprise me just like it wouldn't surprise me if you told me there were fewer car crashes on Christmas day.  The UN provides homicide data for 192 countries, the small arms survey provides data for 116.  The missing countries have homicide rates rates higher than ours.  There are 101 countries with higher homicide rates than ours.  Em pointed out a few.  The numbers floating around out there have a lot of liars figuring, and your numbers come from them cherry picking.  If you leave out parts of the data, or leave out certain time periods I want to know why.  Why don't we count Russia as a first world nation?  What's the difference if someone was killed with a knife or club instead of a gun?  Why are we only counting certain mass killings, even excluding ones where a firearm was used in other countries?  It's like data mining and telling me you have a sure fire system for beating the market if I'll only spend $20 a month to get your newsletter.  There is good stuff too, but it's hard to pick out.  I don't completely trust Lott's stuff on the pro gun side either.  You may be on the side of the angels putting out a study, but that doesn't excuse making the results fit your idea.

Offline

 

#48 2018-03-03 11:48:25

Smudge wrote:

Blacks are considered to be white when looking at gun violence? I can't believe I'm reading that. Any chance you'd like to back that claim up with some evidence? And by the way...even if it were true, its not the issue under discussion (which is the link between gun availability and gun violence).

The US is NOT the nation with the highest rates of gun violence. It is the nation with the highest rates of gun violence when compared to other first world nations (my bad, I was incorrect). In absolute terms, the US is the 31st worst nation for gun violence. The US has by far the highest rate of gun violence when compared to similar wealthy, first world nations (the ones included in the diagram) as well as most (but not all) of the world's other nations.

The scatter diagram came from the VOX article which we were discussing.

I'm sorry Smudge but there isn't a nation comparable to the US on that chart, not in land mass, ethnic makeup or population level.  This is the same game they play with education statistics.

As a Republic our firearms laws are all over the place but as a whole they aren't much different from Germany's and France's.

Offline

 

#49 2018-03-03 11:49:32

hedgewizard: "The numbers floating around out there have a lot of liars figuring, and your numbers come from them cherry picking."

Great. Please point EXPLICITLY to the incorrect facts, and then provide your (presumably more credible) facts, and more reliable sources, because my cards -- and my data and sources -- are on the table. So far, I'm the ONLY one is this discussion to provide numbers, data, statistics and graphs -- and sources for all of those. And I'll continue to if this discussion continues. But you won't get very far by challenging hard facts, from known and credible sources, against unverified and largely off topic generalities -- which is what you're attempting to do now.

If you want to challenge a point, please be explicit, and take them, at most, one or two at a time so that I can actually address them and respond.

hedgewizard:  "As for the JAMA article itself, what happens when you use all the time not during the conventions rather than the three weeks before and after?"

The results might very well change. Neither you nor I,however, can guess in which direction they would change, nor what that change would indicate. The most likely reason the study was crafted to use the periods immediately before and after the NRA convention as controls is to keep noise in the sample to a minimum. The longer the time period used, the greater the opportunity for other factors to enter into the picture to skew the data. You imply that the study is designed to intentionally and inappropriately influence the results, but you provide no explanation about how that would be done. All else being equal, using a longer time period would weaken the credibility of the study rather than bolster it.


hedgewizard: "The UN provides homicide data for 192 countries, the small arms survey provides data for 116."

What small arms survey are you talking about? What KIND of small arms data? Is this comparison relevant to anything we are discussing? If so, you haven't explained how or why it would be. And BTW -- what does homicide data have to do with what we are discussing?


hedgewizard: "The missing countries have homicide rates rates higher than ours."

I am not discussing homicide rates, and have made no claims about them. How is this relevant? The article I posted was about gun accidents declining during the NRA convention.

Your remaining points are just a hodge podge of half expressed ideas, and of which one could spend hours exploring on their own. You may be interested in having the entire gun control debate in a single thread, but I'm not. If you continue to respond to my posts by dumping laundry lists of questions which I would need to spend a day answering, I'll simply ignore any future responses. If you genuinely have a problem with what I posted, and are willing to take it step at a time and explain your issues in such a way that I can understand and address them, however, then I'll continue to respond indefinitely and make my best effort to answer.

Offline

 

#50 2018-03-03 11:55:03

Smudge wrote:

hedgewizard: "The numbers floating around out there have a lot of liars figuring, and your numbers come from them cherry picking."

Great. Please point EXPLICITLY to the incorrect facts, and then provide your (presumably more credible) facts, and more reliable sources, because my cards -- and my data and sources -- are on the table. So far, I'm the ONLY one is this discussion to provide numbers, data, statistics and graphs -- and sources for all of those. And I'll continue to if this discussion continues. But you won't get very far by challenging hard facts, from known and credible sources, against unverified and largely off topic generalities -- which is what you're attempting to do now.

If you want to challenge a point, please be explicit, and take them, at most, one or two at a time so that I can actually address them and respond.

hedgewizard:  "As for the JAMA article itself, what happens when you use all the time not during the conventions rather than the three weeks before and after?"

The results might very well change. Neither you nor I,however, can guess in which direction they would change, nor what that change would indicate. The most likely reason the study was crafted to use the periods immediately before and after the NRA convention as controls is to keep noise in the sample to a minimum. The longer the time period used, the greater the opportunity for other factors to enter into the picture to skew the data. You imply that the study is designed to intentionally and inappropriately influence the results, but you provide no explanation about how that would be done. All else being equal, using a longer time period would weaken the credibility of the study rather than bolster it.


hedgewizard: "The UN provides homicide data for 192 countries, the small arms survey provides data for 116."

What small arms survey are you talking about? What KIND of small arms data? Is this comparison relevant to anything we are discussing? If so, you haven't explained how or why it would be. And BTW -- what does homicide data have to do with what we are discussing?


hedgewizard: "The missing countries have homicide rates rates higher than ours."

I am not discussing homicide rates, and have made no claims about them. How is this relevant? The article I posted was about gun accidents declining during the NRA convention.

Your remaining points are just a hodge podge of half expressed ideas, and of which one could spend hours exploring on their own. You may be interested in having the entire gun control debate in a single thread, but I'm not. If you continue to respond to my posts by dumping laundry lists of questions which I would need to spend a day answering, I'll simply ignore any future responses. If you genuinely have a problem with what I posted, and are willing to take it step at a time and explain your issues in such a way that I can understand and address them, however, then I'll continue to respond indefinitely and make my best effort to answer.

Directed arguments to the fellas in the pub doesn't result in you being right or wrong my friend, they only result in that the fellas don't come to the pub when you are around.

Make a statement, try to make it fun and move on.  We aren't going to solve anything here but we do enjoy a beer and a laugh at the world.

Offline

 

Board footer

high-street.org