[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Justus

Gracie, I'll start again. The reason I originally directed an apology to you was that this has more to do with guns.

So I posted this link to a study performed using the CDC raw data. The CDC had absolutely NOTHING to do with the study. Nothing! Something that was not clear to Tom. So here is that link:

All You Need to Know about the Gun Debate in Two Charts | Power Line

The Wiki link was simply identifying the credentials of the expert who designed the graphs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Perry_(author)

I really don't understand any confusion...thought it was pretty straightforward. Hope this helps.

Old Yeller, Your Wikipedia link to Mark Perry had no information...and a disclaimer...Click on it. I don't know who Mark Perry is. I will look him up.


I did, got this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Perry_(author) Interesting. My link is blank too, but it wasn't what I just read and linked to on Wikipedia. Hmmmm.

[Justus]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Old Yeller, Your Wikipedia link to Mark Perry had no information...and a disclaimer...Click on it. I don't know who Mark Perry is. I will look him up.


I did, got this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Perry_(author) Interesting. My link is blank too, but it wasn't what I just read and linked to on Wikipedia. Hmmmm.

Gracie, WIKI shut it down. It was there yesterday. Please do look up Mark Perry on Bing; he is a brilliant man and an expert on Foreign Affairs, Terrorism, etc.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Justus

Gracie, WIKI shut it down. It was there yesterday. Please do look up Mark Perry on Bing; he is a brilliant man and an expert on Foreign Affairs, Terrorism, etc.

Why did Wiki shut it down?

[Justus]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Why did Wiki shut it down?

My non-cynical guess is that they had so many hits they couldn't handle it.

My guts say they realized to their horror that it didn't fit their agenda. WIKI is biased. That's just my guts based on past experience.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Justus

My non-cynical guess is that they had so many hits they couldn't handle it.

My guts say they realized to their horror that it didn't fit their agenda. WIKI is biased. That's just my guts based on past experience.

Good Lord. I hope you are wrong.

[Justus]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Good Lord. I hope you are wrong.

I have that same hope quite often lately...time will tell. BTW, you know much more than you give yourself credit for...Just an observation.

[Walt.]

Originally Posted by goodtimesintv

... or that Muslims entering the country should be temporarily halted until they can be cleared properly.

Both examples are ugly and destructive to a unified populace, but at least people know what they're voting for in general election. And again, nobody is boosting Bernie to the top on his side, so they have an honest choice in Nov.

Maybe I'm missing something. What is "ugly and destuctive" about halting and clearing properly?

[goodtimesintv]

Originally Posted by Walt.

Maybe I'm missing something. What is "ugly and destuctive" about halting and clearing properly?

Nothing. But the opposition and the Media do not mention that clause when they pump keeping people out because of their religion (that is their theocracy-government). They only repeat the "keep them out because of religion", "religious test", ugly part.

I saw talking heads arguing last night that Trump's ban is "unconstitutional" because of Article 6 saying "no religious test". But this is wrong, because the Article refers to people seeking to hold public office, NOT foreign nationals entering the country:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by RickeyD

Cops have an issue going into the South Bronx and Bed Sty also. Mostly Baptists, 7th day Adventists and such...

But those folks are shooting about drugs. Radical Islam does not use drugs or eat pork. At least that is what they are supposed to do.

[RickeyD]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

But those folks are shooting about drugs. Radical Islam does not use drugs or eat pork. At least that is what they are supposed to do.

The 911 JV team partied like there would be no tomorrow before they boarded those planes. Sex, drugs & rock n roll was on their plate, not sure bout the bacon though.

[tomwed]

Originally Posted by Justus

Tom, I will answer at the risk of raising Gracie's ire, which I am loath to do...sorry, Gracie...

The study I cited was performed by Mark Perry, a well-known authority specializing in Military, Intelligence and Foreign Affairs analysis, who retrieved the data directly from the CDC.

The CDC stopped performing its "analyses" years ago after they were revealed as biased by several responsible national organizations. For reasons of additional funding, the CDC would like to resume their "analyses", ergo the piece by their advocate, the Washington Post.

Here is a link you should look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Perry_(author)

Mark Perry is an author. This seems to be where he got his chart and data.
Gun homicides steady after decline in ’90s; suicide rate edges up
Gun homicides steady after decline in

"The nation’s overall gun death rate has declined 30% since 1993. This total includes homicides and suicides, in addition to a smaller number of fatal police shootings, accidental shooting deaths and those of undetermined intent. For example, in 2013 there were 467 fatal police shootings, up from 333 in 2009. (Government data on fatal police shootings are also collected and reported by the FBI, though the agency acknowledges there are discrepancies between federal and local law enforcement counts.)"

I find that interesting.

I think I understand. Mark Perry got his data from the CDC who got it from the Pew Foundation that did the polling.

"The public has been divided on the issue of gun ownership in recent years. In our July survey, 50% said it is more important to control gun ownership and 47% said it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns. Support for controlling gun ownership has declined; throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, a majority of Americans said it was more important to control gun ownership."

It sounds like an even split of this subject. Why do the news sources make it so difficult to unravel?

[Johnd]

[biker1]

As I recall from Engineering Statistics class a long time ago, correlation does not imply causation.

Originally Posted by Johnd

Attachment 56655

[xcaligirl]

I heard the two handguns were obtained legally but never really heard that the other two guns that were used in the attack were "legally obtained". I heard several reports that he got them from a friend/old roommate. If that is true, that's no a legal purchase!

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by xcaligirl

I heard the two handguns were obtained legally but never really heard that the other two guns that were used in the attack were "legally obtained". I heard several reports that he got them from a friend/old roommate. If that is true, that's no a legal purchase!

The friend obtained them legally. He was a friend from childhood and was in the process of becoming a Muslim. The two men had conspired about four years ago to "do something" but but decided against it. His friend is married to a Russian immigrant whose sister is married to Fyeed Farook's brother, also named Fyeed Farook.


The friend checked himself into a mental health facility on the day of the the attacks. He is now being questioned by authorities. Yesterday the FBI was searching a pond near the area of the shootings.


More coming you can bet.