Governor Cuomo squashes political speech like a mafia don would.

Democratic Governors just don't get why everybody won't just fall in line with their unconstitutional legislation.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348921/cuomo-tells-sheriffs-stay-quiet-gun-laws-andrew-johnson

"“Shortly after the bill passed in January, the New York State Sheriffs’ Association sent Cuomo an analysis of the law that included suggested changes. According to Albany’s Times Union newspaper, Cuomo then invited representatives of the assoication to the Capitol last month and had a “heated” meeting with them, in which he told them to refrain from commenting on the bill.

The governor was of the opinion that the sheriffs around the state should not be interjecting their personal opinions in reference to the law,” said Chemung County sheriff Christopher Moss. Another person briefed on the meeting said Cuomo threatened to remove the sheriffs from their positions, but Moss would not confirm this.Moss also said that Cuomo never read their analysis.


Last week, the sheriffs’ association filed an amicus curiae brief in support of a federal challenge to the new laws. “The laws appear willfully blind to legitimate safety interests, and instead are tailored to impact, and negatively impact, law-abiding firearm owners,” the brief reads."

After the amicus brief was filed Cuomo was heard to ask, "What's wrong with laws that are willfully blind to legitimate safety interests, and instead are tailored to impact, and negatively impact, law-abiding firearm owners? Heller says I can do what I want, bitches!"
Emphasis mine.

what is this?

has the resident senile racist moron spammed another thread?

how interesting!

not a peep from desert dud about the NRA squashing scientific studies from the CDC that show how a gun in the home is more likely to kill you or your family members. in fact, he'll probably defend that squashing of speech as just and moral and righteous.

then he'll wonder why everyone doesn't line up behind him, and follow him through the desert.

he'll bleat and spam, spam and bleat, and then probably spam some more.

reported as spam.

UncleBuck said:

what is this?

has the resident senile racist moron spammed another thread?

how interesting!

not a peep from desert dud about the NRA squashing scientific studies from the CDC that show how a gun in the home is more likely to kill you or your family members. in fact, he'll probably defend that squashing of speech as just and moral and righteous.

then he'll wonder why everyone doesn't line up behind him, and follow him through the desert.

he'll bleat and spam, spam and bleat, and then probably spam some more.

reported as spam.

Click to expand...

You heard it here first, folks. The CDC says that gun in your night stand will leap from its drawer... and... kill... you... and probably the rest of your family as well.

What I defend is the US congress determining how tax payer money is spent. CDC is free to study and publish whatever left wing gibberish that makes their little dicklets hard, on their own dime.

desert dude said:

You heard it here first, folks. The CDC says that gun in your night stand will leap from its drawer... and... kill... you... and probably the rest of your family as well.

What I defend is the US congress determining how tax payer money is spent. CDC is free to study and publish whatever left wing gibberish that makes their little dicklets hard, on their own dime.

Click to expand...

that is retarded. the CDC is funded by the taxpayers.

just because their study came to a conclusion that you don't like doesn't make it left wing, you bleating tard.

Are you saying that a gun in my safe deposit box at a bank has less of a chance of an accident happening than if that gun is in my kids playroom?

I could have saved us some money on that little study.

But yes, you got us. A gun is far more likely to be fired if one can actually touch it first. Money well spent.

The CDC had their goal, all they needed was the scientific basis to support the goal. What's wrong with that? Can't a federal agency have goals?

"There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...trol-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/

More from the Forbes article.

Why won't you gun nuts just knuckle under to the superior intellect and VASTLY superior good intentions of those who know that guns are like a virus, to be stamped out?

"
In fact, the CDC conducted a major two-year independent study of various regulatory laws in 2003. The investigation considered bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry; and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The study concluded there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed for preventing violence.”


As Don Kates and Henry Schaffer point out in a 1997 Reason article, the main function of treating gun violence as a public health issue with a disease metaphor is to: “…lend a patina of scientific credibility to the belief that guns cause violence…a belief that is hard to justify on empirical grounds.” Kates, a civil liberties lawyer, and Schaffer, a professor of genetics and biomathematics, cite several examples where CDC has sponsored flawed research to advance that belief."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...trol-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/

It's like a bad dream, Bucky...


"A key go-to guy for many of the CDC’s studies was their favorite gun researcher, Arthur Kellermann, the director of Emory University’s Center for Injury Control. In a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine article, Kellermann and his coauthors cited a book written by James Wright and Peter Rossi titled “Under the Gun” to support their contention that “restricting access to handguns could substantially reduce our annual rate of homicide.” Yet the book actually says the opposite. With reference to that particular notion, it actually said: “There is no persuasive evidence that supports that view."

Still more obfuscation by the CDC researchers:

"
CDC funded Kellermann and his colleagues to study whether guns in homes are a benefit or liability for protection from criminal intrusions. According to their examination of 198 incidents in which burglars entered occupied homes in Atlanta, they found that “only three individuals (1.5%) employed a firearm in self –defense”, therefore concluding that guns are rarely used. Closer examination of their data, however, tells a somewhat different story.


In 42% of those incidents, there was no confrontation between the victim and offender because, as they admitted, “the offender(s) either left silently or fled when detected.” When the burglar left silently, the intended victim wasn’t aware of the crime, and therefore had no opportunity to use a gun in self-defense, or alternatively, to call the police. The incidents where would-be intruders “fled when detected”, may actually indicate that that defensive gun ownership can be a crime deterrent, encouraging burglars to flee."

And still more...

"
Yet research by well-known criminalist Gary Kleck indicates that only a tiny percentage of defensive gun uses result in the deaths of offenders. In fact, even Kellermann and Reay conceded that: “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.”


Kates and Schaffer observe in their Reason article that “by leaving out such cases, Kellermann and Reay excluded almost all the lives saved, injuries avoided, and property protected by keeping a gun in the home.” Yet they note that gun control advocates continue to use that study as a basis for claims such as, “A gun in the home is 43 times as likely to kill a family member as to be used in self-defense.”

Buck, you made the news!

Damn dude. That was a smackdown of epic proportions. That's gonna leave a mark.

ginwilly said:

Damn dude. That was a smackdown of epic proportions. That's gonna leave a mark.

Click to expand...

The internet is the modern day equalizer when dealing with petty tyrants.

I didn't know we had a constitutional lawyer on the forum.

GOD HERE said:

I didn't know we had a constitutional lawyer on the forum.

Click to expand...

You mistake the ability to read, and recognizing when you standing knee deep in bullshit with a law degree.

ginwilly said:

Damn dude. That was a spamming of epic proportions. That's gonna leave a mark.

Click to expand...

fixed it for ya.

he has no ability to refute the actual conclusion or methodology of the study, so he makes insinuations and smears to support the NRA squashing of scientific studies in a thread about the squashing of speech.

no irony there. just more spam.

UncleBuck said:

no irony there. just more spam.

Click to expand...

well in that case. MORE SPAM!!
[video=youtube;qhmCVzrDmBU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhmCVzrDmBU[/video]

desert dude said:

The CDC had their goal, all they needed was the scientific basis to support the goal. What's wrong with that? Can't a federal agency have goals?

"There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...trol-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/

Click to expand...

since you are such a "good" "reader" "and" "now" "quotes" "within" "quotes" "count" "as" "research".....

let's see.


..to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.” - that comes from a literary piece of work called:


[h=1]GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF
VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?[/h]written by none other than Don B. Gates. An american criminologist and constitutional lawyer. He works with the Pacific Research Institute, who's motto is ...Champions freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility by advancing free-market policy ideas. < meaning they're a libertarian political group. Which is fine. But here's where it turns murky. See there is no US Public Health Service. That's a made-up Department. The Department quoted by the study is The United States Department of Health and Human Services. Also, the study by Don Gates doesn't even say a government agency wants to reduce private gun ownership. He says that a goal of the american public health community, as in a collection of people representing the entire community. He goes on to blame the CDC for putting out the studies and when you look further into it, it does seem alarmist but the CDC really only points out the reality that gun violence exists and that it must be reduced. The policy movement known as gun control has mostly come from academia. You can find endless articles by lawyers, doctors, and policy institutes that take a side on GUN CONTROL. The CDC only points out that GUN violence has reached a point where it should be considered a health risk. :S

You can find the article here: http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html#fn3

At best the Forbes article is mis-quoting Don B. Gates.

FAIL #1.

that epic spamdown by desert dud seems to be crumbling in front of our eyes.

desert dude said:

More from the Forbes article.

Why won't you gun nuts just knuckle under to the superior intellect and VASTLY superior good intentions of those who know that guns are like a virus, to be stamped out?

"
In fact, the CDC conducted a major two-year independent study of various regulatory laws in 2003. The investigation considered bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry; and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The study concluded there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed for preventing violence.”


As Don Kates and Henry Schaffer point out in a 1997 Reason article, the main function of treating gun violence as a public health issue with a disease metaphor is to: “…lend a patina of scientific credibility to the belief that guns cause violence…a belief that is hard to justify on empirical grounds.” Kates, a civil liberties lawyer, and Schaffer, a professor of genetics and biomathematics, cite several examples where CDC has sponsored flawed research to advance that belief."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...trol-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/

Click to expand...

I don't understand why this is some sort of 'big deal'. The study concluded that 'there was insufficient evidence to determine' you know what that means? It means there wasn't a data set big enough. When you do a scientific study there are scientific ways to determine what constitutes an acceptable sample. For Ex. you work out the representative sample using the margin of error you find acceptable and some other measures, and you find that for your methodology to be reviewable and acceptable it needs to have a data set of 60,000, but you can only gather 40,000. You know what, you don't have enough evidence to determine which of your hypothesis, null or alternate, is correct. This doesn't mean that the scientists proved or disproved anything. It just means that during the Bush whitehouse, when this study came up, they chose an acceptable margin of error that would guarantee that the sample size was too small.

now it's your turn to prove that wrong. good luck.

By the way. The CDC has not sponsored research to prove that guns cause violence. The CDC has released studies that state that when violence happens with a gun, it hurts more/kills. And that it happens often enough that it warrants research.

It is not hard to justify on emperical grounds that violence with a gun is hardcore shit, that's what the CDC has always maintained...

redivider said:

It is not hard to justify on emperical grounds that violence with a gun is hardcore shit, that's what the CDC has always maintained...

Click to expand...

It would be idiotic to disagree that getting shot will most likely do more harm than getting hit with a pillow. Do we really need a study for this? It's also quite obvious that you are less likely to get shot in your home if there are no guns in your home. I'm not sure it's 43 times as likely, I suggest we use tax payer money in case it's only 30 times or as much as 50 times.

This condescending post is not aimed at you redivider, it's aimed at the study. Houses with guns are more likely to have gun accidents... How do I get funded for something like this? The CDC wasted tax payer money to further an agenda, I'm not a fan. It's not their money.

It is very easy to tabulate instances of violence perpetrated with a gun.
It is difficult-to-impossible to tabulate instanced of violence prevented/averted due to the presence, or the credible likelihood thereof, of a gun.
That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. cn