PDA

View Full Version : If you want to want to get pissed off watch this video.


Quake0
08-06-2008, 10:58 AM
If you want to want to get pissed off watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-6gMOWnMPs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyKQuOvVB-A

megavolt121
08-06-2008, 11:12 AM
Trying to follow her argument made my head hurt. She can't get a single point across without a few ums and long pauses!

RomanDad
08-06-2008, 11:26 AM
I hope she doesnt have a gun.... When she actually READS the decision and realizes the two points she cited as "the good news" were absolutely WRONG, and that is NOT what the decision said, I fear she may commit suicide.

CCWFacts
08-06-2008, 11:35 AM
I hope she doesnt have a gun.... When she actually READS the decision and realizes the two points she cited as "the good news" were absolutely WRONG, and that is NOT what the decision said, I fear she may commit suicide.

The fact that she was elected proves that, unlike the RKBA, the right to be in office is absolute and even applies to idiots.

bohoki
08-06-2008, 11:49 AM
she really has selective hearing she only responds to what she wants to heard instead of what the anchor says

AYEAREFIFTEEN
08-06-2008, 12:58 PM
"Most guns are used for Suicide......friend on friend violence."

Did I hear that correctly?

I want this lady drug tested immediately. MOST guns are used for suicide? 200 million guns in this country and most people use them for suicide. How does she explain the 300+ million population?

timmyb21
08-06-2008, 1:14 PM
Can't think. I think her stupid rubbed off on me.

nicki
08-06-2008, 1:21 PM
Guys, we need more videos like this because it allows us to learn about our enemy.

It is not what she said, it is how she said it. Look at her body language.

The reason she stutters and shifts is because she is lying through her teeth.
She doesn't even believe what she is saying.

Most human communication is non verbal and her body language and her comments are inconsistent.

Nicki

GammaRei
08-06-2008, 1:25 PM
"Handguns in the homes are primarily used in suicides". What the hell....

- G

miles2912
08-06-2008, 1:41 PM
She seems drunk? I can't believe someone can be so all over the place on ideas and thoughts.

Nevermore
08-06-2008, 1:42 PM
It's misstatements like what she's making that piss me off. What she means is that the majority of gun-related deaths are suicides.

For instance, if you go the CDC Injury and Mortality (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) site, I found a page where you can look up the numbers.

2005
Suicides by firearms: 17,002
Homicide and legal actions by firearms: 12,682
Accidents: 789
Undetermined: 221
All firearms-related deaths: 30,694

This is one of my arguments about gun control: those 17,002 people are going to kill themselves anyways. They'll jump off a bridge, overdose, slit their wrists or drop a live toaster into the bathtub and electrocute themselves anyways. Of the rest, the vast majority of those homicides are gang-on-gang violence: and really, do we care that they're killing one another?

That leaves a small portion of accidents and collateral damage with firearms. It's a really small number, overall, for the number of firearms in the country. And there's little argument about punishing 70 million law-abiding gun owners for few hundred negligent deaths a year. Compare that to 19,656 accidental deaths due to falling every year. Quick, ban stairs and multi-story buildings!

But what am I thinking? There I go bringing facts into the argument. Silly me.

battlehatch
08-06-2008, 1:47 PM
What these politicians say doesn't have to make sense. They have all kinds of date and statistics that back up what the say. Besides, who will look out for the children?!?!

sorensen440
08-06-2008, 1:54 PM
"according to all the data handguns in the home are used primarly for suicides and domestic violence"
Id love to see what date she was talking about

CCWFacts
08-06-2008, 2:03 PM
This is one of my arguments about gun control: those 17,002 people are going to kill themselves anyways. They'll jump off a bridge, overdose, slit their wrists or drop a live toaster into the bathtub and electrocute themselves anyways. Of the rest, the vast majority of those homicides are gang-on-gang violence: and really, do we care that they're killing one another?

This is what's important to understand.

Suicide is going to happen with or without guns. There are probably less than 100 privately-owned handguns in Japan and their suicide rate is higher than ours, often using chemicals, trains, etc.

And gang members killing other gang members isn't something to cry about. Getting killed is the natural conclusion of joining a gang.

That leaves a small portion of accidents and collateral damage with firearms. It's a really small number, overall, for the number of firearms in the country.

It's very small, I'm actually surprised at how small it is, given how few people have professional training, and how much sloppy gun handling I've seen.

And there's little argument about punishing 70 million law-abiding gun owners for few hundred negligent deaths a year. Compare that to 19,656 accidental deaths due to falling every year. Quick, ban stairs and multi-story buildings!

But violence committed with guns is gun violence, totally worse than any other type of death.

Matt C
08-06-2008, 2:04 PM
"according to all the data handguns in the home are used primarly for suicides and domestic violence"
Id love to see what date she was talking about

It's LONG discredited data, Brady and VPC don't even use it anymore. I would LOVE to debate this woman.

nobody_special
08-06-2008, 2:36 PM
This is one of my arguments about gun control: those 17,002 people are going to kill themselves anyways. They'll jump off a bridge, overdose, slit their wrists or drop a live toaster into the bathtub and electrocute themselves anyways.

While I do partly agree with you, their argument isn't wholly disingenuous. People who use firearms for suicide have a much higher success rate.

Of the rest, the vast majority of those homicides are gang-on-gang violence: and really, do we care that they're killing one another?

Maybe not per se, perhaps, but plenty of innocents get caught in the crossfire.

nobody_special
08-06-2008, 2:37 PM
It's LONG discredited data, Brady and VPC don't even use it anymore

Do you have a citation for that?

Matt C
08-06-2008, 2:46 PM
Do you have a citation for that?

Sure- http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=423




Evaluating the "43 times" fallacy

by David K. Felbeck
Director, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners
August 10, 2000

Those who oppose the use of firearms for self-defense have for fourteen years quoted a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is "43 times more likely" to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder. This "statistic" is used regularly by anti self-protection groups which surely know better, and was even published recently without question in a letter to the Ann Arbor News. Representative Liz Brater cited this "43 times" number in a House committee hearing just a year ago. Thus the original study and its conclusion deserve careful analysis. If nothing else, the repeated use of this "statistic" demonstrates how a grossly inaccurate statement can become a "truth" with sufficient repetition by the compliant and non-critical media.

The "43 times" claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms deaths in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period 1978-83. The authors state,

"Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified…A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."

Having said this, these authors proceed anyway to exclude those same instances where a potential criminal was not killed but was thwarted.

How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in the home, then Kellermann's "43 times" is off by a factor of a thousand and should be at least as small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of firearms as defense against criminal assault should incorporate every event where a crime is either thwarted or mitigated; thus Kellermann's conclusion omits 999 non-lethal favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts only the one event in which the criminal is killed. With woeful disregard for this vital point, recognized by these authors but then ignored, they conclude,

"The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned."

In making this statement the authors have demonstrated an inexcusable non-scientific bias against the effectiveness of firearms ownership for self defense. This is junk science at its worst.

This vital flaw in Kellermann and Reay's paper was demonstrated clearly just six months later, on Dec. 4, 1986 by David Stolinsky and G. Tim Hagen in the same journal (v. 315 n. 23, p. 1483-84), yet these letters have been ignored for fourteen years in favor of the grossly exaggerated figure of the original article. The continual use of the "43 times" figure by groups opposed to the defensive use of firearms suggests the appalling weakness of their argument.

But there's more. Included in the "43 times" of Kellermann are 37 suicides, some 86 percent of the alleged total, which have nothing to do with either crime or defensive uses of firearms. Even Kellermann and Reay say clearly

"…[that] the precise nature of the relation between gun availability and suicide is unclear."

Yet they proceed anyway to include suicides, which comprise the vast majority of the deaths in this study, in their calculations. Omitting suicides further reduces the "43 times" number from 0.043 to 0.006.

"Reverse causation" is a significant factor that does not lend itself to quantitative evaluation, although it surely accounts for a substantial number of additional homicides in the home. A person, such as a drug dealer, who is in fear for his life, will be more likely to have a firearm in his home than will an ordinary person. Put another way, if a person fears death he might arm himself and at the same time be at greater risk of being murdered. Thus Kellermann's correlation is strongly skewed away from normal defensive uses of firearms. His conclusion is thus no more valid than a finding that because fat people are more likely to have diet foods in their refrigerators we can conclude that diet foods "cause" obesity, or that because so many people die in hospitals we should conclude that hospitals "cause" premature death. Reverse causation thus further lowers the 0.006 value, but by an unknown amount.

In conclusion, if we use Kellermann's data adjusted for reality, a firearm kept in a home is at least 167 times more likely to deter criminal attack than to harm a person in the home. This number is some 7000 times more positive than the "43 times" negative figure so often quoted. Should groups and individuals that knowingly perpetuate a figure that is at least 7000 times too large be given any credence at all?

With two million defensive uses of firearms each year, both inside and outside the home, the value of protection against criminal assault provided by firearms vastly exceeds any dangers that they might present.

David K. Felbeck
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Director, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners
http://www.mcrgo.org

nobody_special
08-06-2008, 4:15 PM
Thanks...

HowardW56
08-06-2008, 4:53 PM
"Most guns are used for Suicide......friend on friend violence."

Did I hear that correctly?

I want this lady drug tested immediately. MOST guns are used for suicide? 200 million guns in this country and most people use them for suicide. How does she explain the 300+ million population?

She said that.... I wonder what data she has to back up that comment...

Pvt. Cowboy
08-06-2008, 5:19 PM
The female host in the video is Amy Goodman. She's got a lousy little show on the radical commie-lib Pacifica Radio network called 'Democracy Now!'. She's a silly Marxist idiot squack that doesn't even need to be acknowledged.

Eleanor Holmes Norton is the congressional 'delegate' to the US House Of Representatives from Washington DC. Believe it or not, she's actually kind of a nice lady, but it's still a good thing that her position is nothing more than ceremonial window dressing to let the people of DC pretend that they have some say in Congress -- which of course, and you may thank God for this, they don't.

Guntech
08-06-2008, 6:18 PM
Sour grapes

CCWFacts
08-06-2008, 6:35 PM
The female host in the video is Amy Goodman. She's got a lousy little show on the radical commie-lib Pacifica Radio network called 'Democracy Now!'. She's a silly Marxist idiot squack that doesn't even need to be acknowledged.

What's hilarious is that if Marxists were ever to achieve power here, clowns like Amy Goodman would be the first to be executed. The most well-known example of this is that when Stalin and Lenin took over, the first people they executed were all the communists and socialists. They didn't want to have anyone around who was unafraid to challenge the ruling regime, so of course activist types would be the first they would want to dispose of.

She's only able to spout her BS because pro-freedom activists like us have (so far) kept her type from gaining power. May it continue that way forever.

otteray
08-06-2008, 7:59 PM
I could only bear to watch the first minute or so; due to the oh, so obvious gross, unfounded and untruthful misstatements.
She is truly living in a parallel universe with unicorns prancing atop rainbows.
I think she may actually believe what she is saying here.

FreedomIsNotFree
08-06-2008, 8:15 PM
Pre Heller this imbecile may have aggravated me to a degree, but considering she and her ilk will NEVER have the ability to legally take my guns...I laugh.

By the way, she sounds as if she has a mouth full of drool while she talks...I hope she has a medical condition of some sort that explains that.

pullnshoot25
08-06-2008, 8:17 PM
Wow. I don't even know where to begin ripping her a new one.

Pvt. Cowboy
08-06-2008, 8:27 PM
What's hilarious is that if Marxists were ever to achieve power here, clowns like Amy Goodman would be the first to be executed.

I admit I liked listening to her show when I lived in SF and could hear commie shortwave broadcasts from the East Bay's KPFA satellite station. Pacifica Radio is a scream. If you love hearing from liberals who are continually on the verge of drinking poison, that show is for you. I almost drove my car into San Francisco Bay, I was laughing so hard.

Her show was nothing but doom and gloom and conspiracy theory agitation propaganda. When it was a slow news day, they'd just make something up about some group of Khazakistani yak herder women being forced to work in the dung mines or children in Chiapas forced to run across minefields wearing snowshoes with machinegun bullets whizzing over their heads. The reason for the world's suffering always went back to the CIA, Nixon, the Bush regime, or some bizarre claim of newly-revealed secret documents from the 1950s that the Pacifica Radio people came across with the US State Department logo on it ordering the dictator of Khazakistan to send women down into the dung mines or a suspicious CIA purchase of thousands of pairs of size three snowshoes. Amy Goodman would just invent imaginary atrocities out of thin air and let her guest hosts make the most deranged predictions of 'blowback' from CIA/Bush/Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) policies around the world. Of course, all the dictators on the planet were good guys who are being thwarted by American sabotage: Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia, you name it... They're all trying to undo decades of American Imperialism and would turn into socialist paradises if only the CIA would stop undermining their efforts.

... When Democracy Now!'s claims didn't come true or proved to be demonstrably false, they never did any followup or retraction. They'd just be on to some other wild story the next day winding up their pinko listeners into a tizzy with some new account of atrocity and suffering. Currently, no freelance watchdog group examines the veracity of the claims made by the hosts and guests on Democracy Now!, because it's abundantly clear they're entirely full of left wing agitprop crap. Purely Khrushchev-style shoe-pounding insanity.

You need look no further than www.zombietime.com to see what their listeners look like. Sicko revolutionaries with tattoos on their faces and fish hooks through their lips wearing a Palestianian khafiyyeh around their heads holding a sign calling for the destruction of Israel or some such damned thing. Total loons who need to be in a straitjacket inside a rubber room.

Bring back state funded mental institutions and involuntary committal, I say. Some liberals out there need to have a butterfly net thrown over their heads and then be hauled off to the booby hatch for wellness therapy and chemical dependency treatment.

Nevermore
08-06-2008, 8:54 PM
While I do partly agree with you, their argument isn't wholly disingenuous. People who use firearms for suicide have a much higher success rate.
Why do we want failed suicides? These are people who are, by definition, emotionally damaged and who are going to be physically damaged from the attempt. How many of them do you think have private insurance to cover them? They're going to end up in public hospitals and on public assistance, that's what. Strictly from a 'what it costs the public' perspective, a cleaning crew, a few police and emergency workers, and a medical examiner writing up some paper with, 'Yep, shot himself in the head' costs a lot less than having a disturbed person in and out of hospitals for the next 40 years.
Maybe not per se, perhaps, but plenty of innocents get caught in the crossfire.
Yes, which is a tragedy, but no more than drunk drivers who kill far more innocents. Which is why if people are feeling suicidal, they should get it over with sooner, and effectively. The more time they have to be depressed, the greater the chance of them trying to strike out against others who they wrongly feel are to be blamed for their misery.

Duke81
08-06-2008, 11:31 PM
My personal favorite portion of her argument is when she states that "most criminals in the district of columbia don't enter houses when when they think people are at home..."
I wish I had known this earlier, I wouldn't have bought my S&W M&P, instead I would have bought a big sign that says "I"M HOME!" and put it on my front door.

Mr.RoDiN
08-06-2008, 11:52 PM
She said something that caught my attention. She was explaining how it would be legal to own a handgun in D.C, strictly for self defence. She continued saying, it doesn't mean people can go out and shoot them. From what I understood, It would be illegal to discharge a handgun in D.C even in the shooting range, because the firearm is not being used for self defense. Is this true? Or does she just not know the law? That is total crap if it is true. People have to go to the shooting range to be familiar with their firearms. Going to the shooting range, would have to be "for self defense." One needs to know, and is the responsible obligation of every firearm owner, to know their weapon inside out. How to shoot it accurately and safely. One needs to know how to operate the firearm, load, unload, dissasemble and re assemble. If what she is stating is true, this may be one of the most irresponsible laws that has been created.

NiteQwill
08-07-2008, 12:06 AM
I could barely follow what the heck she was saying. I turned it off.

motorhead
08-07-2008, 12:34 AM
i think towards the end even she can't follow what she's saying.

fullrearview
08-07-2008, 1:00 AM
Guys, we need more videos like this because it allows us to learn about our enemy.

It is not what she said, it is how she said it. Look at her body language.

The reason she stutters and shifts is because she is lying through her teeth.
She doesn't even believe what she is saying.

Most human communication is non verbal and her body language and her comments are inconsistent.

Nicki

true that! turn down the volume and you can read her like a book

sloguy
08-07-2008, 1:09 AM
hate to break it to you guys, but most gun deaths in the united states are suicides. a tad over 50%.

nobody_special
08-07-2008, 1:13 AM
going to be physically damaged from the attempt. How many of them do you think have private insurance to cover them? They're going to end up in public hospitals and on public assistance, that's what. Strictly from a 'what it costs the public' perspective, a cleaning crew, a few police and emergency workers, and a medical examiner writing up some paper with, 'Yep, shot himself in the head' costs a lot less than having a disturbed person in and out of hospitals for the next 40 years.

:nuke: Do you really want to take the expedient position here? That's really easy to do in an academic discussion, but it's pretty callous in the real world.

Maybe not per se, perhaps, but plenty of innocents get caught in the crossfire.
Yes, which is a tragedy, but no more than drunk drivers who kill far more innocents. Which is why if people are feeling suicidal, they should get it over with sooner, and effectively. The more time they have to be depressed, the greater the chance of them trying to strike out against others who they wrongly feel are to be blamed for their misery.

I think you're way off base here. The major mass shootings seem to be committed by people who are fundamentally unbalanced sociopaths. I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of depressed or suicidal individuals do not fit that description.

Osprey
08-07-2008, 1:59 AM
Amy Goodman's politics are atrocious.

She spoke at UCSB once and my mother (who's a big fan of Democracy Now!) made me go so I could get her Ms. Goodman's autograph.

2 hours of insane Leftist propaganda, swallowed up by UCSB's empty-headed progressive fascisti.

I will say this - at the risk of having my Man Card permanently revoked - homely as she is, I've always had this weird crush on her. She's cute in a geeky anti-MILF sort of way.