Texas Church Shooting

[Scrumhalf]

Ok....who is the NRA?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I am not sure why you are declining to engage in a reasonable conversation. Are you suggesting that lobbying by the National Rifle Association is not impeding the ability of the CDC and NIH to do much needed research on gun violence in the US?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[lipripper]

I am not sure why you are declining to engage in a reasonable conversation. Are you suggesting that lobbying by the National Rifle Association is not impeding the ability of the CDC and NIH to do much needed research on gun violence in the US?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Sorry..your the one refusing..I asked a very simple question your obviously avoiding.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Scrumhalf]

You aren't a scientist that deals with something so strongly politically driven as guns bro. I honestly believe the gun issue is so heated and so divisive that even scientists can be swayed one way or another.

So do nothing is your answer? We can do objective research on stem cells and on global warming, but according to you, guns will turn otherwise objective scientists into rabid pro-gun or anti-gun zealots.

I'm sorry but you seriously underestimate the professional integrity of scientists.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Scrumhalf]

Sorry..your the one refusing..I asked a very simple question your obviously avoiding.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Again, I am not sure what you are asking, and I mean that sincerely. The NRA is the National Rifle Association. They have been very effective at lobbying against even what I consider is beneficial research on gun violence.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

So do nothing is your answer? We can do objective research on stem cells and on global warming, bit according to you, guns will turn otherwise objective scientists into rabid pro-gun or anti-gun zealots.

I'm sorry but you seriously underestimate the professional integrity of scientists.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

like the scientists that worked for the lead companies in the 1950's? how about the "sugar scientists" that worked for coke/pepsi etc..

and no i'm not saying it shouldn't be studied. i'm saying whatever the result, the other side will do nothing but try and discredit it.

[lipripper]

Again, I am not sure what you are asking, and I mean that sincerely. The NRA is the National Rifle Association. They have been very effective at lobbying against even what I consider is beneficial research on gun violence.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

But who is the NRA scrum...common now.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Scrumhalf]

like the scientists that worked for the lead companies in the 1950's? how about the "sugar scientists" that worked for coke/pepsi etc..

and no i'm not saying it shouldn't be studied. i'm saying whatever the result, the other side will do nothing but try and discredit it.

None of those "studies" passed muster at a peer reviewed journal or conference. I have faith in CDC/NIH scientists over people working for gas or sugar companies.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

i think ripper is saying its gun owners and donators.. essentially people. without the people there would be no NRA.

[lipripper]

i think ripper is saying its gun owners and donators.. essentially people. without the people there would be no NRA.

Smart guy....it's the will of the majority of the people in this country fighting to save their rights as they know them and believe them to be.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

None of those "studies" passed muster at a peer reviewed journal or conference. I have faith in CDC/NIH scientists over people working for gas or sugar companies.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

people trusted what the lead companies and their scientists were telling them for decades bro.

my point about guns specifically though is that they just cannot be separated from strong emotions and politics. but even so, the study would simply be dismissed by "the other side". in the end sadly it would do nothing. regardless of the findings. thats the harsh reality..

[Scrumhalf]

i think ripper is saying its gun owners and donators.. essentially people. without the people there would be no NRA.

So none of you guys are even curious if there can be objective data on how to reduce gun violence? If the data shows strong correlation to certain aspects of mental health or some other stats, then wouldn't it benefit responsible gun owners as well to put in specific programs to address it?

Or are you really so cynical about the ability of scientists to put their personal opinions aside and show us objective results?

If so, we should just move on. Sandy Hook, Orlando, Vegas,... we should just shrug and move on. Nothing can be done. It's just the price we have to pay to be Americans.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Bouncer]

Smart guy....it's the will of the majority of the people in this country fighting to save their rights as they know them and believe them to be.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

And that's why I joined. Because I know for a fact that I will never harm anything or anyone with a gun unless they are trying to harm my family. I do not want the right to defend my family ever to be taken away from me. The NRA is far far far from perfect but they are our best hope.

[Bouncer]

So none of you guys are even curious if there can be objective data on how to reduce gun violence? If the data shows strong correlation to certain aspects of mental health or some other stats, then wouldn't it benefit responsible gun owners as well to put in specific programs to address it?

Or are you really so cynical about the ability of scientists to put their personal opinions aside and show us objective results?

If so, we should just move on. Sandy Hook, Orlando, Vegas,... we should just shrug and move on. Nothing can be done. It's just the price we have to pay to be Americans.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Yes scrum I would be curious, absolutely. But look at politics in America brother. Take climate data for example. Any person with half a brain knows the Earth is warming.

But what people can't and won't agree on including scientist (conflicting data) is exactly how much we are speeding up that process.

I am 100% for science that leads to reduced gun violence. But I am also 100% against giving up my right to own a gun to defend my family. I have legitimate fears that the science could be politicized and used against my rights to defend my family.

[Bouncer]

i think we can all agree on 1 thing. this guy in texas should never have been given the ability to buy a gun. the air-force not registering him on the FBI list is unforgivable.

[Scrumhalf]

But what people can't and won't agree on including scientist (conflicting data) is exactly how much we are speeding up that process.

Actually, the science is fairly strong on this. I think we know exactly whow much human activities are contributing to global warming.

I am 100% for science that leads to reduced gun violence. But I am also 100% against giving up my right to own a gun to defend my family. I have legitimate fears that the science could be politicized and used against my rights to defend my family.

Your first sentence is common sense, but in your second & third sentences, you are veering from skepticism to paranoia.