Skip to main content

View Diary: NRA's Twitter account goes silent after CT shooting, Facebook page taken down (300 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree on both. Besides being wrong, why ban a (13+ / 0-)

    group when you can defeat it through argument?

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Sun Dec 16, 2012 at 07:24:16 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo (11+ / 0-)

      And related to this discussion:

      In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

      link

      •  Blatent tautology. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, rockhound, FrankRose

        The incidents stopped by "a civilian using a gun" don't turn into mass-murders.

        Not to mention the false insinuation that there is an expectation for and armed Citizen to be in place to stop such.

        Poor assumptions, poor methodology, poor conclusions.  GIGO.

        •  I call bullchit (0+ / 0-)

          The argument for mass gun ownership is precisely that pistol-packing civilians will shoot the madman, as Rep. Gohmert appears to be arguing.  At least, that is the argument I get from our local gun enthusiast every time there is an incident such as this.  So, no, the
          "expectation for an armed citizen to be in place to stop such" is not a false insinuation, but the leading argument for expanding the ranks of weapons-bearing private citizens.
          As for the other side of the argument, I have never seen a news story to the effect of "Sammy Psycho opened fire on a crowded mall, only to be shot minutes later by Gary Gunowner."  Until someone shows actual evidence, preferably with a link to a reputable organization, I say both sides are spinning tales out of myth and wish, and there is insufficient evidence on either side of the argument.

        •  Uh huh (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah
          The incidents stopped by "a civilian using a gun" don't turn into mass-murders.
          You're right -- I remember all those times some nutcase with a semi or fully automatic weapon was taken out by a prepared, gun toting John Q. Public. Except, you know, I don't.

          And the only people who make the false insinuation that there is/could be such an expectation are those who argue against gun-free zones, or suggest that if more people were armed (with whatever the hell they want) there would be less gun violence.

          And to everyone else, this is the point where I walk away and ignore the NRA-ites.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site