Anyone want to educate themselves?

[clcustom1911]

Thus far, a lot of general information. Pretty neutral.

They went into a study about how the FDR admin in 1937 had tons of rules on where/how the Fed's would be subsidizing banks lend money to rebuild/removate areas of cities. The cities were split into low, medium, and high risk zones. The medium and high risk zones didn't get no money and just so happen to be populated by "immigrants" , Jews, blacks, etc the map pictured is Philadelphia.

 

[Maggot]

Who cares what they have to say? John Hopkins is tainted.

Every thing is tainted including conservatives. That doesnt mean you cant learn from them.

 

[clcustom1911]

Every thing is tainted including conservatives. That doesnt mean you cant learn from them.

That's exactly why I'm balls deep in this course, to see what their shtick is all about.

 

[clcustom1911]

And so, it begins.... That legal and political "challenge" to gun policy...

The Second Amendment

My mantra from here on out is going to be "buy more ammo, buy more ammo"

 

[clcustom1911]

That complicated Second Amendment ... so confusingly written and difficult to understand. Such difficult language!!

But, wasn't 1791 in the 18th Century??? ?????. Fail.

 

[johnnycat]

19th century? Meaning 1800's? I coulda sworn the Bill of Rights were written in 1788

 

[Howland]

I don't think it's really an educational class, rather set up to recruit new agitators.

FIFY

 

[Howland]

That complicated Second Amendment ... so confusingly written and difficult to understand. Such difficult language!!

But, wasn't 1791 in the 18th Century??? ?????. Fail.

View attachment 7077571

A nutritious breakfast, being necessary for a wholesome body, the right of the people to bacon and eggs shall not be infringed.

In the above sentence, who or what has a right to bacon and eggs? The people or the breakfast?

 

[308pirate]

I don't give a shit what they decide. The proceedings are all public record or can be obtained via other means.

Everyone there will be on someone's list.

 

[clcustom1911]

Litigation instead of legislation.....

 

[clcustom1911]

19th century? Meaning 1800's? I coulda sworn the Bill of Rights were written in 1788

Yup, and 2A was ratified in 1791

 

[Blue Sky Country]

As soon as gun control advocates start pulling the "public health crisis" or "for the children" card.........Or whatever card for that matter, doesn't have any difference in my perspective, all the same shit..........Just bring up the deaths from preventable medical malpractice figures. 250,000 deaths on average annually. If that can shut up yappy gun ban mofo's on Twitter, it'll work anywhere.

"Public health tool"...Now that's Bernie Mac funny as fuck right there. How about they start working on patient and hospital safety first if they are interested in improving public health?

Newsflash: They are NOT interested in that. They just want us disarmed. In that case, I gotta say fuck off. You want my guns? Why don't you come and try to fucking get them?

 

[clcustom1911]

What's interesting is when they were talking about suicide by gun, they heavily implied owning firearms puts a person at a higher risk for suicide than non gun owners.

Um... people don't kill themselves because they have a gun. They kill themselves because they can't handle whatever life events are occurring, and a gun is the means they choose to end it all.

 

[Srikaleak]

What's interesting is when they were talking about suicide by gun, they heavily implied owning firearms puts a person at a higher risk for suicide than non gun owners.

Um... people don't kill themselves because they have a gun. They kill themselves because they can't handle whatever life events are occurring, and a gun is the means they choose to end it all.

Well, I haven't gotten that far but did they mean that those who are suicidal are more successful at committing suicide when they own a gun or that the gun makes them suicidal? Because you make it sound like the latter, which is dumb.

 

[johnnycat]

Well, I haven't gotten that far but did they mean that those who are suicidal are more successful at committing suicide when they own a gun or that the gun makes them suicidal? Because you make it sound like the latter, which is dumb.

I haven't seen anything from that course other than what has been posted in this thread...and I do not have a Masters in Public Health.

But they are assuming that if guns didn't exist then those suicides would not take place. I can buy that those that commit suicide with a gun are more successful. I can also surmise the those who try to kill themselves with a gun are more serious about following through than someone calling out for help. Without the gun those individuals are more likely to find another way to kill themselves.

 

[Maggot]

Well, I haven't gotten that far but did they mean that those who are suicidal are more successful at committing suicide when they own a gun or that the gun makes them suicidal? Because you make it sound like the latter, which is dumb.

My take is that it implied the first...That people are more successful with a gun. That stands to reason, a big gaping hole in your head isnt really healthy.

 

[Srikaleak]

Direction of the causal arrow: "What that means simply is, it may be that individuals who are highest risk for homicide, are more inclined to go out and purchase a gun for themselves. The relationship is that the risk drives gun ownership, rather than gun ownership drives risk. "

I want to believe this is true for any event dealing with guns.

 

[clcustom1911]

My take is that it implied the first...That people are more successful with a gun. That stands to reason, a big gaping hole in your head isnt really healthy.

They started by stating the facts that people who use a gun have a higher, nearly 100% success rate with suicide....

... but then it concluded with implying people who own guns have a higher incident rate of suicide without addressing any other underlying causes of the suicidal ideation.

 

[clcustom1911]

Direction of the causal arrow: "What that means simply is, it may be that individuals who are highest risk for homicide, are more inclined to go out and purchase a gun for themselves. The relationship is that the risk drives gun ownership, rather than gun ownership drives risk. "

I want to believe this is true for any event dealing with guns.

Correct.

 

[Snuby642]

Told you they would just scew it thier way. Unbiased my ass.

Did you expect different?

 

[Crang]

Just bring up the deaths from preventable medical malpractice figures. 250,000 deaths on average annually. If that can shut up yappy gun ban mofo's on Twitter, it'll work anywhere.

But say it for effect like- Medical Malpractice- has killed almost 5 MILLION Americans since 9/11.

 

[WaltHer]

Just wrapped up week 1. What this class really needs is Army Jerry. Just replied to the neat thread in the forum about 1 participant's concern about how "white and elite the expert panel is." Even the good PhDs at JH are not beyond reproach.

 

[Strykervet]

Lmfao.

Open your eyes.

Bought and paid for like just about everyone else. They have been on that despot Bloombergs payroll for a long long time
Just a small snippet:


View attachment 7077066View attachment 7077067

Yeah, and I studied math and statistics and the first thing you learn is Samuel Clement's quote: "There are three kinds of lies, lies, damned lies and statistics". You can make statistics say anything you want. All you have to do is word the questions a certain way or select the study group from a demographic with known ideals. Then you get what you want and it all looks nice and legit.

Most of these "studies" you see on the news are bullshit. Some are outright lies, some were just done improperly with no agenda, but all are cherry picked by the network to disseminate, so you only see what they want you to see. When was the last time you saw a poll or study that flew in the face of their agenda? Never. It doesn't happen. Math is used a lot by people who don't truly understand it in order to manipulate decisions of others based on the awesome and impressive authority of math.

Unless you have access to the raw data sets, processes used, the questions asked, etc., then you shouldn't even be looking at a poll or study. Without that information, they essentially mean nothing. Once you find one biased question or process though, it collapses the entire study or poll. And that's likely why it's never made available.

For an example, look at how Nielsen ratings are done or how they do political polls. They pick a small and narrow group that they sorta know already how they'll react based on demographics. They use questions worded in such a way that any logical being would answer only one way, so of course the firearms owners agree totally with the gun grabbers!

We're gonna have to get more serious about this and we need a group on our side --NRA ain't it. They're just too polarized now if anything else and they're just an arm of the Republican party anymore. We need a logical organization with the steadiness and power of a freight train. No pandering and with one goal in mind. No backing down, no giving in, and if there's a march or a protest, WE need to go, as in all firearms owners. You're not gonna be able to do this from home, can't sit it out. Hopefully something like this organizes and comes along because we direly need it.

 

[EddieNFL]

Yeah, and I studied math and statistics and the first thing you learn is Samuel Clement's quote: "There are three kinds of lies, lies, damned lies and statistics". You can make statistics say anything you want. All you have to do is word the questions a certain way or select the study group from a demographic with known ideals. Then you get what you want and it all looks nice and legit.

Most of these "studies" you see on the news are bullshit. Some are outright lies, some were just done improperly with no agenda, but all are cherry picked by the network to disseminate, so you only see what they want you to see. When was the last time you saw a poll or study that flew in the face of their agenda? Never. It doesn't happen. Math is used a lot by people who don't truly understand it in order to manipulate decisions of others based on the awesome and impressive authority of math.

Unless you have access to the raw data sets, processes used, the questions asked, etc., then you shouldn't even be looking at a poll or study. Without that information, they essentially mean nothing. Once you find one biased question or process though, it collapses the entire study or poll. And that's likely why it's never made available.

For an example, look at how Nielsen ratings are done or how they do political polls. They pick a small and narrow group that they sorta know already how they'll react based on demographics. They use questions worded in such a way that any logical being would answer only one way, so of course the firearms owners agree totally with the gun grabbers!

We're gonna have to get more serious about this and we need a group on our side --NRA ain't it. They're just too polarized now if anything else and they're just an arm of the Republican party anymore. We need a logical organization with the steadiness and power of a freight train. No pandering and with one goal in mind. No backing down, no giving in, and if there's a march or a protest, WE need to go, as in all firearms owners. You're not gonna be able to do this from home, can't sit it out. Hopefully something like this organizes and comes along because we direly need it.

"Ninety-three percent of all statistics are made up; eighty-seven percent of the people know that." Homer Simpson