Research. Examination of Evidence.

whaddan idea!

This little gal [and her pals] seem to have discovered that it’s not the DirtyBad Scary Gun that kills people …

…and the Wa“DemocracyDiesInDarkness”Po published it.

Before I started researching gun deaths, ["research"??!? what an innovative idea!] gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year [yeah... odd sentence.] in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence.

Yep. Research. Examination of Evidence.
Whattan Idea!

Here’s some other things she found out:

… “assault weapon.” …[is] an invented classification…

…In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet….

…Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless….

She’s still a Nanny Interventionist, …but maybe this “Research” thing will take hold with her.
Hope!

…young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm [that's not creepy at all !], but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. …

We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

No mention of the idea that a whole pile of “young men at risk” could be refocused by the necessity of feeding oneself instead of waitin’ on a .gov check… But… moar Research and Examination of Evidence.

OTOH, intentional dumbassery is still on the loose.

Pelosi conceded Thursday that members supporting gun control want more than just a bill to ban the “bump stock”

“There are going to be Republicans who resist this because they say, ‘Give the gun control people an inch and they’ll try to take a mile,’” a reporter asked Pelosi at a press conference. “So how do you plan to overcome that when the truth is that you would like to go further?

“So what?” Pelosi responded. “They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so. But I don’t think bump stock should be a substitute for the background check. By the way the background check is a compromise. There are many more things members want to do, and we’re saying, ‘How do we save the most lives?’ We save the most lives with a background check.”

Ya mean that “background check” that would have done exactly nothing to prevent LV?

Why doncha ask those armed men who protect you every day, Nanny P. Loosin’it?

11 Comments!

  1. TN VOLUNTEER
    Posted October 6, 2017 at 7:09 am |

    ….The cowardly GOPers, without the help of the Democrits, will be the death of the 2nd Amendment!

  2. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted October 6, 2017 at 9:35 am |

    Pelosi = Perfidious Twat, the villain in a recently discovered, unpublished Charles Dickens manuscript entitled The Swamp, a novel about gross stupidity, waste, fraud, corruption, incompetence and graft in government.

  3. MikeG
    Posted October 6, 2017 at 9:50 am |

    Why do I have the feeling that a push will soon be made to declare my limited supply of Tannerite contraband?

  4. DougM and his raccoon platoon
    Posted October 6, 2017 at 9:58 am |

    Researching outside of googling MSM articles and radical womyn’s studies theses could get her in trouble with SJWs.

  5. Jess
    Posted October 6, 2017 at 10:15 am |

    I don’t think they realize the guns will never be confiscated, and an armed, pissed-off citizenry is much more dangerous than a warehouse filled with inanimate machined metal.

  6. drew458
    Posted October 6, 2017 at 10:41 am |

    I read the linked article and then a couple dozen of the comments. One of the very early remarks was somebody saying that if you weren’t part of a well regulated militia, then you have no right to own a gun. :face palm:^3. And he wasn’t laughed off the page for displaying terminal stupidity.

    How many years ago was Heller? 9? How many thousand articles were written on the parsing of those few words of the Second Amendment, prefatory and operative clauses as Scalia called them, and how writing styles were different in the late 18th Century, and oh here’s a couple examples in the exact same style, can’t you see what it means? The preamble is just one example of the benefit of the right, not the sole reason for it.

    And it hasn’t made a jot of difference.

    I don’t think there is any point in having the Big Discussion. We’re up against an intractable opposition that will not learn, will not change, and is not open to any open minded fair exchange of views. There is no point in wasting our time.

  7. DougM and his raccoon platoon
    Posted October 6, 2017 at 11:40 am |

    I think Rodge makes a good point.

  8. Fat Baxter
    Posted October 6, 2017 at 6:53 pm |

    I commented on this somewhere in PJM and it bears repeating here:

    Anyone can buy a Suzuki Huyabusa motorcycle that will do 180 mph out of the box. If you have enough money, you can buy any number of exotic supercars that will easily break 200 mph.

    A proper control-freak Lefty (but I repeat myself) might snivel “no one needs a car that goes that fast when the speed limit is 55 (70 on interstates).”

    The reason we allow folks to own and operate such high-performance vehicles is that we expect them to operate them safely. And for the most part, they do.

    In parallel fashion, we allow people to own semiautomatic firearms, and possess high-capacity magazines and outlandish amounts of ammunition, because we expect them to use them safely. And for the most part, they do.

    “And for the most part, they do.” In any free society, you will have a small number of idiots who do stupid, even prohibited, things with their toys. But it’s not the toys that are responsible for the results — it’s the idiots. Like the article suggests, you need carefully tailored interventions for small subgroups of people.

  9. Brad
    Posted October 6, 2017 at 9:46 pm |

    Excellent points ABOVE.
    But how much is an outlandish amount of ammo. And where can I store it?

  10. staghounds
    Posted October 7, 2017 at 6:09 pm |

    Don’t mock her, praise her, She followed the truth where it led and will have real problems because she spoke up.

  11. Joe Bandmember ® "≠ damn right I'm not equal to that" ™
    Posted October 8, 2017 at 9:56 am |

    I encourage everyone to have a listen to any of the audio clips from the Las Vegas false flag operation.

    There are multiple shooters in multiple locations.

    Either that or one man can fire more than two rifles at once.