Sign in to follow this  
.22 Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

Let me get this straight, so is the report I posted correct or not?

"Murders by firearms have increased dramatically in the state (Florida) since 2000, when there were 499 gun murders, according to data from Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Gun murders have since climbed 38 percent — with 691 murders committed with guns in 2011.

Only partial numbers are available for 2012, but from January to June, there were 479 murders in Florida — 358 of them committed with a gun. That’s an 8 percent increase in gun murders compared to the same period in 2011.

Guns are now the weapons of choice in 75 percent of all homicides in Florida. That’s up from 56 percent in 2000.

The rise in gun homicides in Florida comes at a time when the overall murder rate has declined in Florida, and violent crime has dropped statewide."

 

The first one is true, but it makes for more effective propaganda if you cherry pick 1999 instead of 2000. Jocal showed how it's done back in 2012. It's also true that murders by firearms are down dramatically since 2007 and since 1989. Isn't picking an extreme for a starting year fun?

 

I can't say whether the partial numbers are correct. 2011 = 691 murders by firearm, 2012 = 721, then 695 for 2013. So over a longer period, 2011-2013, we have a shocking increase of 4 murders by firearm. Surely evidence of a terrible trend.

 

Guns have never been the weapons of choice in 75% of all FL homicides. There has been an upward trend, with 2013 being the peak year on record, but 71 does not equal 75.

 

You couldn't figure all this out by looking at the pretty picture I posted?

 

Flfirearmmurders-2013.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let me get this straight, so is the report I posted correct or not?

"Murders by firearms have increased dramatically in the state (Florida) since 2000, when there were 499 gun murders, according to data from Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Gun murders have since climbed 38 percent — with 691 murders committed with guns in 2011.

Only partial numbers are available for 2012, but from January to June, there were 479 murders in Florida — 358 of them committed with a gun. That’s an 8 percent increase in gun murders compared to the same period in 2011.

Guns are now the weapons of choice in 75 percent of all homicides in Florida. That’s up from 56 percent in 2000.

The rise in gun homicides in Florida comes at a time when the overall murder rate has declined in Florida, and violent crime has dropped statewide."

 

The first one is true, but it makes for more effective propaganda if you cherry pick 1999 instead of 2000. Jocal showed how it's done back in 2012. It's also true that murders by firearms are down dramatically since 2007 and since 1989. Isn't picking an extreme for a starting year fun?

 

We are discussing a post I made that dealt with 2000 as a base. Couldn't care less about some bee you have in your nickers about Jocal. Clearly dramatization is not required.

 

I can't say whether the partial numbers are correct. 2011 = 691 murders by firearm, 2012 = 721, then 695 for 2013. So over a longer period, 2011-2013, we have a shocking increase of 4 murders by firearm. Surely evidence of a terrible trend.

 

Guns have never been the weapons of choice in 75% of all FL homicides. There has been an upward trend, with 2013 being the peak year on record, but 71 does not equal 75.

 

Ahh so guns are the weapon of choice in only 71% of homicides? Up quite a bit I see. But they have never been for 75%? Glad we got that cleared up.

 

You couldn't figure all this out by looking at the pretty picture I posted?

 

No. Your pretty pictures are bullshit designed to confuse.

 

 

 

See inserted text above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this just googling about, numbers quoted seem to agree with the table Tom posted above, but the interpretation is different.

 

Link here

 

....

 

Quite possibly because publicintegrity.org got that from the Institute for Non-Profit News, supporting "mission-driven journalism" according to their site.

 

Some of us prefer more objective sources. Speaking of which, I forgot to include the bullshit source for the pretty pic that time. It was posted earlier.

 

 

The current data shows ...

 

 

So FDLE is bullshitting us and is posting images that are designed to confuse. Good thing we have cherry-picking mission-driven journalists to sort it all out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck Tom, your bullshit has no end. You are the only one I have noticed posting bullshit, got some explanation for your favorite table yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Gee, Tom, thanks for the long argument containing nothing, about nothing.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. But chaos is the result of guns in the black community.

The fact that MLK got dissed on da gun permit has a grain of truth in it. Wonderful.

Again, big deal.

 

Sorry for incorrectly saying you see racial discrimination in permitting as no big deal, jocal.

 

You very clearly state that it is a big deal to you and nothing about that post would lead a person to believe you were being sarcastic.

 

 

Look, you offered a racist straw man, with my name on it, twisted with dishonesty.

Tom Ray, above: No, I don't think it's right for government to discriminate based on race. Unlike jocal, I do think it's a big deal.

 

King was not devastated, Tom. The gun permit denial got barely a footnote or comment in MLK's writings.

Dr. King being denied a gun permit was barely the tip of the iceberg. In the course of his life, I doubt it meant much to him.

But it sure means a lot to Tom Ray...for the wrong reasons, too.

What was on MLK's mind, copying Gandhi, was not guns, but teaching civic leaders how to train firm, non-violent, self-discipline into masses of people.

 

You have been making the case, for three years, that what happened to MLK is proof positive that shall issue is okay or needed, I take it.

I disagree. I recognize that it happened, and that it was racist. I acknowledge that he needed a gun, but plead that it was because of hard-headed people who foster misunderstandings, such as your own. I see no viable link between MLK and shall issue... except for Tom Ray's off-key magnetism to the non-connection.

...

 

I think the evidence shows he was more about non-aggression than non-violence. He kept guns for defensive purposes, not aggressive purposes.

 

I think we still have law enforcement officials who might be inclined to discriminate based on race. Maybe even in North Carolina.

 

The linked article is about a bill on the NC permit to purchase a pistol, not to carry one in public.

 

As the law states right now, before you can get a gun, you have to apply for a permit at your local sheriff's office, and wait for a background check. Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page says it's a lengthy, but worthy process.

 

"I look for felony convictions, I look for domestic violence convictions, I look for mental health adjudications," said Page. "I also look for what's called moral character."

 

The proposed bill would eliminate the sheriff's role altogether.

 

Instead, potential buyers would be evaluated through the National Instant Criminal Background Check.

 

 

I think we have a right to own a handgun, which includes a right to buy one. I don't think we have a right to buy one that is dependent on whether the local sheriff approves of our moral character. I think we might just have a couple of sheriffs around who can not see good moral character when it's covered by black skin. I'd like to see that discretion taken away from sheriffs.

 

Also, that bill is odd in prohibiting the carriage of guns on state fair rides. Presumably, this means you can carry your gun at the fair, but you have to stash it someplace before getting on a ride. Ummm.... where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck Tom, your bullshit has no end. ...

 

Murders by firearm are down dramatically since 2007 in FL. I posted the FDLE-produced table showing it, complete with link.

 

It's every bit as true as the statement you posted that they're up dramatically since 2000.

 

So can a reader learn more from my one-liner, your one-liner, or the FDLE table? All are true. The latter is informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fuck Tom, your bullshit has no end. ...

 

Murders by firearm are down dramatically since 2007 in FL. I posted the FDLE-produced table showing it, complete with link.

 

It's every bit as true as the statement you posted that they're up dramatically since 2000.

 

So can a reader learn more from my one-liner, your one-liner, or the FDLE table? All are true. The latter is informative.

 

 

Ah Ha, so...

 

"Murders by firearms have increased dramatically in the state (Florida) since 2000, when there were 499 gun murders, according to data from Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Gun murders have since climbed 38 percent — with 691 murders committed with guns in 2011.

Only partial numbers are available for 2012, but from January to June, there were 479 murders in Florida — 358 of them committed with a gun. That’s an 8 percent increase in gun murders compared to the same period in 2011.

Guns are now the weapons of choice in 75 percent of all homicides in Florida. That’s up from 56 percent in 2000.

The rise in gun homicides in Florida comes at a time when the overall murder rate has declined in Florida, and violent crime has dropped statewide."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Murders by firearm are down dramatically since 2007 in FL....

 

So can a reader learn more from my one-liner, your one-liner, or the FDLE table? ...

 

 

Ah Ha, so...

 

"Murders by firearms have increased dramatically in the state (Florida) since 2000....

 

 

Yes, I already noted that was true, as is my statement above it. Want to answer the question?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So can a reader learn more from my one-liner, your one-liner, or the FDLE table?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can learn more from my warnings about your posts. You repeatedly post tables that you cannot verify, explain or otherwise defend in any information quality sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What question?

 

Why did you ask if you were just going to make up your own question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More African-Americans Support Carrying Legal Guns For Self-Defense
According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, 54 percent of blacks now see gun ownership as a good thing, something more likely to protect than harm. That's up from 29 percent just two years ago. In places like Detroit, more African-Americans are getting permits to carry concealed weapons.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/02/396869889/more-african-americans-support-carrying-legal-guns-for-self-defense

 

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/

 

Interesting sea change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent! Now we just need to get more Brothers interested in surfing & sailing and this country will become a much better place. .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuff said

 

"Murders by firearms have increased dramatically in the state (Florida) since 2000, when there were 499 gun murders, according to data from Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Gun murders have since climbed 38 percent — with 691 murders committed with guns in 2011.

Only partial numbers are available for 2012, but from January to June, there were 479 murders in Florida — 358 of them committed with a gun. That’s an 8 percent increase in gun murders compared to the same period in 2011.

Guns are now the weapons of choice in 75 percent of all homicides in Florida. That’s up from 56 percent in 2000.

The rise in gun homicides in Florida comes at a time when the overall murder rate has declined in Florida, and violent crime has dropped statewide."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, any clew on how much Florida's population has grown in that same time period?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goody-4-you. 'Cuz now you know that no matter what stupid shit you & JokeAwf cut 'n paste, it will do absolutely nothing to change my/oyr minds about firearms----except to make me/us desire & purchase more of them.

 

Thank you for helping the NRA and us American gun owners pursue our hobby snd our rights with even more vigor than ever before.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real men don't need guns. And without them weighing us down, sailing skills improve too. You should try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've obviously never experienced the joy of shooting ballons and seagulls off a moving boat before.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting seagulls does not match the surfing culture. If you did that here, surfers without guns would sort you pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess I forgot to mention that it was back in 1970. Before the whole Ecology/Earth Day surfboard decal thingy shit came out.. But wut-evs.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah wt-ev. It was always that way here, even in the seventies, and before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have any fuking idea how hard it is to shoot a flying seagull at 20 meters with a WWII issued Colt 45 in six foot seas? Really, you should be sending me money for my superior marksmenship skills, rather than trying to berate me and making my unicorn's vagina gently weep......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fucking red-neck stories.

 

Gun-Banjo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuff said

 

"Murders by firearms have increased dramatically in the state (Florida) since 2000, when there were 499 gun murders, according to data from Florida Department of Law Enforcement. ..

 

Not quite, there's a bit more to learn from FDLE

 

 

 

...murders by firearms are down dramatically since 2007

 

...

 

Flfirearmmurders-2013.gif

 

 

 

And you still can't answer a simple question about your post. This one:

 

 

So can a reader learn more from my one-liner, your one-liner, or the FDLE table?

 

 

My favorite kind of question: one to which the answer is obvious, yet one which people are afraid to answer anyway. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did I lose it when I asked you about jocal's cherry-picking article that claimed a sharp increase in FL gun murders by picking the lowest year in recent memory as a starting point?

 

Sorry, but the fact that you could see no problem with that tells me all I need to know.

 

If the question came from a different messenger, would it be invalid? Seems to me that you and others think guns cause crime. OK, jocal has shown us the highest crime rates, so those should be associated with the highest gun ownership rates, right? Take another look at my picture from the FNRA banquet before answering.

 

The Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999. That could be why that year was chosen, I don't know.

...

2013 695 aa%20FL%20SYG%20gun%20deaths%20chart_zps

 

 

So what's your source for the claim that Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999?

 

It's pretty amusing appearing in a post with an FLDE image that appears to date to the 1980s, made more amusing by the fact that it's in reply to a post linking back to 2012, when I first posted this link to the FDLE site:

 

 

 

...

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

...

 

Gosh, I wonder why they picked 1999 in particular for that statistic? Could there be more to the story if you look at other years?

 

 

 

Visiting that link will still get you to this FDLE image, which random says is just bullshit designed to mislead. Pretty funny since he's trying the same bullshit trick you tried in 2012, but his propagandist is not quite smart enough to cherry pick 1999 instead of 2000 as a starting point. At least your guy had the ability to look at a list of numbers and pick out the very lowest one.

 

Flfirearmmurders-2013.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, your lying has no end. The below is the table I have called bullshit on and you know it.

You have been shown to be dishonest on multiple occasions, this is but another.

 

How about the totally bullshit image that you posted proudly for years and have not posted since your arse was reamed. So I'll have to do it for you.

 

You made it up. You cannot explain it. It is a complete fabrication of your imagination. What kind of dishonest fuck-wit would post this shit and attempt to confuse fellow sailors?

 

But you did. What the fuck does this mean? Shame on you.

 

brady-vs-census.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You couldn't figure all this out by looking at the pretty picture I posted?

 

 

 

No. Your pretty pictures are bullshit designed to confuse.

 

 

 

See inserted text above.

 

 

That post looked a bit different when I posted it.

 

 

...

 

You couldn't figure all this out by looking at the pretty picture I posted?

 

Flfirearmmurders-2013.gif

 

 

 

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

 

This time you didn't re-publish what is a shameful reflection on your integrity: general rates of murder, which distort gun violence rates.

Tom Ray, I've been wondering: are your children in the habit of fibbing, too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

This time you didn't re-publish what is a shameful reflection on your integrity: general rates of murder, which distort gun violence rates.

Tom Ray, I've been wondering: are your children in the habit of fibbing, too?

 

 

 

Stop it, you're self murdering us!.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

This time you didn't re-publish what is a shameful reflection on your integrity: general rates of murder, which distort gun violence rates.

Tom Ray, I've been wondering: are your children in the habit of fibbing, too?

 

 

I'll answer your question, but first answer mine:

 

So what's your source for the claim that Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999?

 

I published the image that proves you were fibbing again, along with the link that proves you have known that what you said was wrong since 2012. Why such a blatant lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gee, Tom, thanks for the long argument containing nothing, about nothing.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. But chaos is the result of guns in the black community.

The fact that MLK got dissed on da gun permit has a grain of truth in it. Wonderful.

Again, big deal.

Are you saying that guns are a race equalizer? That "shall carry" is an anti-racism mechanism or champion?

State your distortion, whatever it is, clearly for us.

 

But the fact is that guns have devastated the black communities. Guns aren't working out there. Got it?

Enough already. STFU about how guns will protect the non-violent, MLK, or blacks.

 

Race, Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—

(Data from FBI UCR and SHR reports.)

n Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and off enders. Th e victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The off ending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000) (table 1).

P11

Trends by race

Blacks were disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders.

n In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for

whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000).

n The victimization rate for blacks peaked in the early 1990s, reaching a high of 39.4 homicides per 100,000 in 1991 (figure 17).

n After 1991, the victimization rate for blacks fell until 1999, when it stabilized near 20 homicides per 100,000.

n In 2008, the off ending rate for blacks (24.7 off enders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 off enders per 100,000) (figure 18).

n The off ending rate for blacks showed a similar pattern to the victimization rate, peaking in the early 1990s at a high of 51.1 off enders per 100,000 in 1991.

n After 1991, the off ending rate for blacks declined until it reached 24 per 100,000 in 2004. Th e rate has since fluctuated, increasing to 28.4 off enders per 100,000 in 2006 before falling again to 24.7 off enders per 100,000 in 2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

 

 

Must be the gun ownership rate?

 

From one of your sources:

 

In 2010-14, household firearms ownership was higher among households with white respondents (39.0%) than among those with black respondents (18.1%)(Table 4).

 

 

This cartoon seemed out of place where it was originally posted and fits better here if it's not going to find its way to a SYG thread. ;)

 

 

 

angrywhitemales_zpsb561b7b1.png

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

This time you didn't re-publish what is a shameful reflection on your integrity: general rates of murder, which distort gun violence rates.

Tom Ray, I've been wondering: are your children in the habit of fibbing, too?

 

 

I'll answer your question, but first answer mine:

 

So what's your source for the claim that Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999?

 

I published the image that proves you were fibbing again, along with the link that proves you have known that what you said was wrong since 2012. Why such a blatant lie?

 

 

Jocal, why do you show up in most every gun thread to call me a liar but you won't defend your lie about FDLE stats? Your "I googled it" excuse from post 191 is not credible for two reasons: one, I gave you the link to the FDLE stats in 2012 and several times since then, and two, the FDLE site is the top result if you search for FDLE crime stats. You didn't need to look, and if you did, you missed the top result. Sorry, that smells like BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

This time you didn't re-publish what is a shameful reflection on your integrity: general rates of murder, which distort gun violence rates.

Tom Ray, I've been wondering: are your children in the habit of fibbing, too?

 

 

I'll answer your question, but first answer mine:

 

So what's your source for the claim that Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999?

 

I published the image that proves you were fibbing again, along with the link that proves you have known that what you said was wrong since 2012. Why such a blatant lie?

 

 

Jocal, why do you show up in most every gun thread to call me a liar but you won't defend your lie about FDLE stats? Your "I googled it" excuse from post 191 is not credible for two reasons: one, I gave you the link to the FDLE stats in 2012 and several times since then, and two, the FDLE site is the top result if you search for FDLE crime stats. You didn't need to look, and if you did, you missed the top result. Sorry, that smells like BS.

 

 

I told no lie. I saw an FDLE poster somewhere, had to google what the FDLE was. Then I hit the link on the poster.

It opened to FL gun stat info going back to the year 2000. That year had fine print, quoting 1999. There you have it.

I may not have opened your link, since many of them are vaporous, and some open to dishonest settings. (e.g. concealed carry killers from Wisconsin.)

I don't have time for discussions that lack credibility.

 

Unfortunately, you get called a liar by myself because of a pattern of dishonesty. Sorry, but nine examples of mis-truths are shown here.

Two of those examples ("Brady's Best" and the gun research ban denials shown below), have occurred repeatedly.

I am the third anarchist to call you out on dishonest statistical comparisons (besides Pinoccio and Random)--so Tom, any rep for dishonesty is of your own making.

 

I bring credibility up not as an ad hominem, but as a quality control issue. HUBRIS%20and%20missing%20gun%20research_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

This time you didn't re-publish what is a shameful reflection on your integrity: general rates of murder, which distort gun violence rates.

Tom Ray, I've been wondering: are your children in the habit of fibbing, too?

I'll answer your question, but first answer mine:

 

So what's your source for the claim that Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999?

 

I published the image that proves you were fibbing again, along with the link that proves you have known that what you said was wrong since 2012. Why such a blatant lie?

Jocal, why do you show up in most every gun thread to call me a liar but you won't defend your lie about FDLE stats? Your "I googled it" excuse from post 191 is not credible for two reasons: one, I gave you the link to the FDLE stats in 2012 and several times since then, and two, the FDLE site is the top result if you search for FDLE crime stats. You didn't need to look, and if you did, you missed the top result. Sorry, that smells like BS.

I told no lie. I saw an FDLE poster somewhere, had to google what the FDLE was. Then I hit the link on the poster.

It opened to FL gun stat info going back to the year 2000. That year had fine print, quoting 1999. There you have it.

I may not have opened your link, since many of them are vaporous, and some open to dishonest settings. (e.g. concealed carry killers from Wisconsin.)

I don't have time for discussions that lack credibility.

 

Unfortunately, you get called a liar by myself because of a pattern of dishonesty. Sorry, but nine examples of mis-truths are shown here.

Two of those examples ("Brady's Best" and the gun research ban denials shown below), have occurred repeatedly.

I am the third anarchist to call you out on dishonest statistical comparisons (besides Pinoccio and Random)--so Tom, any rep for dishonesty is of your own making.

 

I bring credibility up not as an ad hominem, but as a quality control issue. HUBRIS%20and%20missing%20gun%20research_

It is obvious you do not believe what you post based on your choice to own a firearm. Or you believe you are superior to others who have exercised the same choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is obvious you do not believe what you post based on your choice to own a firearm. Or you believe you are superior to others who have exercised the same choice?

 

 

Hi Rockdog. How's the boat?

 

Yes, I have a gun. Yes, I prefer to keep the gun.

But I also see and count the costs we are paying for such guns...and I consider that as well.

 

Whether I am "superior to others" is not for me to say. Objective tests, however, could determine my actual risk factors wrt gun ownership.

But dude we have a buddy named Boothy who shows the unacceptable undercurrent: his drives and values place him at risk.

He claims to have passed forty background checks, but won't share the contact info, heh heh...

 

If I should fail to pass muster on a relatively objective examination, I am at peace with that. Bye bye gun.

(Is that true of you and your friends? Because many of you say openly that you will disobey the gun laws you don't care for.)

I want gun guys to be making the call, and administering the suitability tests, ideally...but your culture is adrift in irresponsibility, IMO.

 

Rockdog, come on, Tom DIaz and Mark O'Mara and these gun loving scientists are gunowners all. (Diaz can out-shoot you, too.)

Each of us is trying to allow for second amendment rights; none of us is advocating catastrophic gun confiscation.

But each has complaints about second amendment folly right now, and even Diaz says AW's are too much.

 

 

The gun lobby has blocked much of the data to determine the high risks of individuals and to determine which "tools", if any are being mis-used.

But it could be that you guys are driving the problem...because checkered mentalities, and even battlefield firepower, are welcome and encouraged.

 

Boothy%20exit%20wound%20Tommy%20Lee%20Jo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that one of the examples of my "dishonesty" is my claim that Presidential orders can't reduce funding decisions by Congress. LMAO!

 

Jocal, you need to improve your Googling skills and overcome your fear of following links I provide. You know you can hover over a link and see where it goes, right? If it says something like "fdle.state.us" in the URL, you'll know it's not gun control propaganda, but official stats.

 

Or is that what scares you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

Each of us is trying to allow for second amendment rights; none of us is advocating catastrophic gun confiscation.

But each has complaints about second amendment folly right now, and even Diaz says AW's are too much.

 

 

 

You're extra-funny today! Claiming you're not calling for confiscation and then calling for it in the next sentence.

 

AW's include Ruger 10-22's and Airsoft guns, according to your elk. An attempt to confiscate millions of such guns would be an ineffective, expensive, and probably dangerous catastrophe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know somewhere that did it, easy, and it got the results expected. So that's an excuse tom boy.

 

Oh yeah, I like your concern about expense, depends on how you define expense I suppose. $s or people or both. The main expense would be ti gun manufactures, loss of sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S.

 

"...

But the gun reforms made Australia a safer place, with fewer homicides and suicides, and both Howard and Fischer are now urging U.S. President Barack Obama to take his gun control campaign to the people, just as they did, to gain a consensus.

 

"I knew that I had to use the authority of my office to curb the possession and use of the type of weapons that killed 35 innocent people. I also knew it wouldn't be easy," Howard wrote in the New York Times earlier this year.

 

"Penalizing decent, law-abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of others seemed unfair...I understood their misgivings. Yet I felt there was no alternative," wrote Howard, adding he hoped his example would contribute constructively to the U.S. gun debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Obama points to Australian gun control laws as an example of why the US ‘should be ashamed’

 

"AUSTRALIA has got gun control right, says US President Barack Obama, while his own nation “should be ashamed” at its inability to address a surge in school shootings.

The president vented frustration and disbelief that there was no momentum for gun reform in the wake of a recent spate of mass shootings, in impassioned remarks likely to touch off a new row with the powerful firearms lobby."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that one of the examples of my "dishonesty" is my claim that Presidential orders can't reduce funding decisions by Congress. LMAO!

 

Jocal, you need to improve your Googling skills and overcome your fear of following links I provide. You know you can hover over a link and see where it goes, right? If it says something like "fdle.state.us" in the URL, you'll know it's not gun control propaganda, but official stats.

 

Or is that what scares you?

 

 

 

I also loved how JokeAwf says I won't 'share contact info' with whoever performed my many, many background checks on me. Here's a f'ng hint Jokey, if you Google the muthafuking BAFTE of The United Dtates of America, you just might see at least one phone number there....if not a hundred.

 

Jfc but you REALLY need to get someone to proof read your posts first......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are talking about proof reading ... WTF is it with the use of "your elk", as in

 

 


You're extra-funny today! Claiming you're not calling for confiscation and then calling for it in the next sentence.

 

AW's include Ruger 10-22's and Airsoft guns, according to your elk. An attempt to confiscate millions of such guns would be an ineffective, expensive, and probably dangerous catastrophe.

 

 

is there an in-joke I'm not in on? I thought Elk was an animal? Does someone here own an Elk?

 

Maybe you could try "your ilk"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

Each of us is trying to allow for second amendment rights; none of us is advocating catastrophic gun confiscation.

But each has complaints about second amendment folly right now, and even Diaz says AW's are too much.

 

 

 

You're extra-funny today! Claiming you're not calling for confiscation and then calling for it in the next sentence.

 

AW's include Ruger 10-22's and Airsoft guns, according to your elk. An attempt to confiscate millions of such guns would be an ineffective, expensive, and probably dangerous catastrophe.

 

 

 

My revolver moves a new round into position every time I pull the trigger. Is that semi-automatic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we are talking about proof reading ... WTF is it with the use of "your elk", as in

 

 

You're extra-funny today! Claiming you're not calling for confiscation and then calling for it in the next sentence.

 

AW's include Ruger 10-22's and Airsoft guns, according to your elk. An attempt to confiscate millions of such guns would be an ineffective, expensive, and probably dangerous catastrophe.

 

 

 

is there an in-joke I'm not in on? I thought Elk was an animal? Does someone here own an Elk?

 

Maybe you could try "your ilk"?

 

 

Yes, you missed the 5-year-plus long running joke.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

Each of us is trying to allow for second amendment rights; none of us is advocating catastrophic gun confiscation.

But each has complaints about second amendment folly right now, and generally more effective.

 

It sounds like some efforts need tweeking. I hope it gets sorted efficiently, too. But Tom, we'll need to start somewhere.

And tossing around the blanket word confiscation is cheap, incendiary trolling.

 

Calling the SAFE Act’s restrictions “a ban on an entire class of firearms,” Plaintiffs liken the SAFE Act to the ban struck down by the Supreme Court in Heller. But unlike the handgun ban, the SAFE Act applies only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New York State has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense;

it does not totally disarm New York’s citizens; and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their right to self-defense…

(...) In other words, evidence suggests that the banned features make a deadly weapon deadlier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last f'ng time I'm asking you, JokeAwf.....Just. How. Many Murders Have Been Committed With 'Assault Rifles' in this country in the past 50 years? I'm giving you 45 minutes to come back with a REAL statistic that shows us the answer....and then try once again to explain to the class here why you feel there's a need to ban & confiscate them all from us civilians.

 

Clock starts in three minutes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last f'ng time I'm asking you, JokeAwf.....Just. How. Many Murders Have Been Committed With 'Assault Rifles' in this country in the past 50 years? I'm giving you 45 minutes to come back with a REAL statistic that shows us the answer....and then try once again to explain to the class here why you feel there's a need to ban & confiscate them all from us civilians.

 

Clock starts in three minutes....

 

Go to hell, amigo. Do it yourself.

 

Booze Posted 22 March 2015 - 05:17 PM

Not too sure about that Crabs----I've gone thru & passed maybe 20-25 Feddy bg checks in the past four years

Yeah, just send your next FFL examiner guys to our threads.

If FFL's shooting bad guys in the back is up to their standards, no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to hell, amigo? Is that your fuking reasoning to ban & confiscate 'assault rifles'? Wow pal, just fuking wow.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

 

Maybe the gun ownership rate is not the problem?

 

 

Nah, that couldn't be it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Same old shit Tom. Just dissect it until you get the right result. If that division needs to be on race, that's ok with you. Comes across that you are racist. Blame all bad numbers on black people.

 

Questioning the placing of blame on gun ownership is not placing the blame elsewhere. It's questioning the placing of blame on ownership.

 

 

Tom, you DO realize randumb is just trolling you, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I saw where you calculated that there was an extra gun death for every 21000 guns sold. But that doesn't tell me whether other modes of death stayed stable, increased, or decreased. Suppose there was also a drop in other violent deaths? One extra gun death doesn't concern me so much if there's (just "for example", not actual numbers, just illustrating the logical point) 20 less stabbings, 100 less bludgeonings, 60 less beatings, and an overall drop in violent deaths.

 

Exactly! I countered that a while ago by suggesting that even if there was one more death per 21K extra guns - that there was likely a LOT LOT more less beatings, stabbings, rapes, assaults, murders as a result of defensive uses of those 21K extra guns. But he blatantly ignored me, as a good troll does. If he won't have an honest discussion about not only the negative consequences of guns but the positives ones as well - its simply not worth even bothering to engage with people like that. He and jocal have repeatedly proven that they cannot be honest brokers here about the discussion.

 

randumb can cherry pick numbers all day long - but the indisputable fact is that total gun numbers have gone way up while at the same time overall homicides have gone down. Period.

 

And since they want to continually muddy the waters with suicides - then another inconvenient fact is that while it is true that suicide using a gun has increased - the overall US suicide rate has remained almost perfectly flat for the last 20-30 years. It just simply means that self-killers are substituting a gun for other self-murder means. So what? Dead is dead. For instance, lets say hypothetically in 1990 that 20K people committed suicide - 50% of people killed themselves with rope and 25% with a gun and 25% by other various means. And then in 2010 another 20K people committed self-murder, but this time 50% used a gun, 25% used a rope and 25% by other various means. The suicide number is the same 20 years apart, just with a different tool. So why is the tool the problem???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is a country where our gun deaths, not knife deaths or fistfight deaths, have spiked.

 

 

Liar! Please point to me on this graph where your "spike" is.

 

FirearmsDeath_USA_1993-2009_All5.pngSeems like there has been an overall decline in gun deaths. joe must just reflexively lie hoping no one will catch him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

randumb can cherry pick numbers all day long - but the indisputable fact is that total gun numbers have gone way up while at the same time overall homicides have gone down. Period.

 

 

You must have missed this on page 1

 

What is this you say about 'deaths' going down? Your not cherry picking homicides are you? Dead by bullet is fucking dead bro.

 

 

In 1999, 217 million guns, 28,874 people died by gun.

 

In 2011, 286 million guns, 32,163 people died by gun.

 

Guns increased by 24% and Deaths by them increased by 11% between 1999 and 2011 while the number of households were the same percentage

 

THEN

32163 - 28874 = 3,289 more people dead because ..

286 - 217 = 69 million more guns were out there.

SO

69,000,000/3,289 = 20,979 guns per annual death.

 

Randoms' Law states that ... For every 21,000 additional guns sold one death a year will result."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

randumb can cherry pick numbers all day long - but the indisputable fact is that total gun numbers have gone way up while at the same time overall homicides have gone down. Period.

 

FirearmsDeath_USA_1993-2009_All5.png

 

You must have missed this on page 1

 

 

 

 

You must have missed the graph right above your post then. Don't worry, I added it back in for you. Notice is says "firearm deaths" and breaks out the 3 causes: Suicide, homicide and accidents. For the graph reading impaired (you're welcome): Homicides and accidents are down, suicides are slightly up but are back to the exact same level they were 16 years ago and shows the overall suicide rates have been flat for over a decade and down significantly over a 25 year period. ALL WHILE GUN SALES HAVE GONE WAY UP!

 

So you are simply just too stupid to understand that or simply too stubborn to concede that you are just dead wrong. randumb's "law" is more like randumb's "fairy tale".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very funni.

 

So what numbers in Randoms' Law are wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very funni.

 

So what numbers in Randoms' Law are wrong?

 

I could give two shits about randumb's fairy tale. What numbers in that graph above are wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know somewhere that did it, easy, and it got the results expected. So that's an excuse tom boy.

 

Canada tried to register, not even confiscate, long guns and failed, So what works in one country might not work in another. But I feel no need to try to diminish your opinion by calling you boy. I'm secure enough in my own opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia's gun slingshot controls a political template for the U.S. New Joisey

...

But the rest of the country is pretty well united in thinking that we can safely allow citizens to possess slingshots.

 

Have you fixed Aussie Apartheid yet? Seems like you have a lot of time for America's problems, so I assume you've fixed your own. How did you do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

 

Maybe the gun ownership rate is not the problem?

 

 

Nah, that couldn't be it.....

 

 

The usual response is a messenger attack. It's waay funnier when the messenger delivering the stats is jocal. But it does result in no response instead of the standard messenger attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOOoooo. Tom has his knickers bunched.

 

80795538.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Very funni.

 

So what numbers in Randoms' Law are wrong?

 

I could give two shits about randumb's fairy tale. What numbers in that graph above are wrong?

 

 

Ok, so you have admitted that more guns equals more deaths. That was easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Very funni.

 

So what numbers in Randoms' Law are wrong?

 

I could give two shits about randumb's fairy tale. What numbers in that graph above are wrong?

 

 

Ok, so you have admitted that more guns equals more deaths. That was easy.

 

 

Everything's easy if you just ignore the fact that the population changed over time.

 

This is my favorite on the growing list of questions you won't answer:

 

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these people Americans or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these people Americans or what?

 

See posts 127 and 142 to review jocal's sources and answer that question for yourself.

 

But you still won't answer my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should keep it simple for randumb and jocal. Here's a series of YES/NO questions:

 

1. Has the overall gun death rate gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

 

2. Has the number of guns in circulation since like 25 years ago gone up up? YES/NO

 

3. Has the suicide rate by gun gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

 

I'm sure I'll add these three to the growing list of questions that neither joe nor randumb will answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should keep it simple for randumb and jocal. Here's a series of YES/NO questions:

 

1. Has the overall gun death rate gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

 

2. Has the number of guns in circulation since like 25 years ago gone up up? YES/NO

 

3. Has the suicide rate by gun gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

 

I'm sure I'll add these three to the growing list of questions that neither joe nor randumb will answer.

 

You can't demonstrate a positive correlation between 1 and 2. Your argument is pathetic, infantile...and all you got.

Common fallacies: post hoc, ergo propter hoc:

Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.

 

 

 

Why did crime rates go down? The sociologists do not even mention gun popularity (which decreased per capita during the crime drop, BTW).Here are some of the combined factors in play:

 

The baby boom males aged, and mellowed.

The crack cocaine epidemic came, and went.

The 911 emergency response system was implemented.

Triage centers improved in emergency rooms, and medical advances addressed high velocity bullet cavitations in human flesh.

Security camera use, and the presence of cellphone cameras, both influenced criminal activity.

An impressive (but incomplete) body of evidence suggests that because the presence of lead poisoning (from both gasoline and paint) was curbed, violent behavior diminished.

BIrth control meant that unwanted children would not extend their poor upbringing into criminal fields.

Stiffer criminal penalties also had a documented effect.

 

 

 

To simply attribute the drop in crime to personal gunplay is unworthy...and also unsupported. Jeff, you and NGS are shamefully making the tired "more guns less crime" argument. That theory was firmly discredited twenty years ago...we covered it on PA as well.

A LOTT OF LIES: SHOOTING DOWN THE GUN LOBBY’S FAVORITE “ACADEMIC”

When Gary Kleck can't defend, he attacks. (2015 Politico articles, pro and con)

You are a lightweight, with a mind filled with cliche's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Honey, but thems the facts....whether you like them or not.

 

More guns equals less homicides. Suck it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is a country where our gun deaths, not knife deaths or fistfight deaths, have spiked.

 

 

Liar! Please point to me on this graph where your "spike" is.

 

 

 

Seems like there has been an overall decline in gun deaths. joe must just reflexively lie hoping no one will catch him.

 

 

All in all, gun homicides in the USA have plateaued at around 11,500 per year. But that level itself is a spike, when taken in international perspective.

 

Show me your decline over this 13-year period, Jeff:

 

Yr Gun Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

 

We have spiked on a global level. For example, the CDC quoted our gun homicide rate as 19.5 times higher than other high-income countries. That figure came from the Richardson-Hemenway study, which shows our plateau to be an outlier among civilized norms.

 

I hope this is not acceptable to you:

RESULTS:

The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.

CONCLUSIONS:

The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.

Pasted from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When taken in 'International perspective'? Are you fuking kidding us? Who the hell cares about us being compared to the rest o the world?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For reasons that Jocal has discussed, the rates have gone down ... but lets have a look at what they could go down to.

 

Click to enlarge. US ten times that of countries with strict gun laws.

 

Comparegundeaths

 

Seems like these figures still hold as well.

 

In 1999, 217 million guns, 28,874 people died by gun.


In 2011, 286 million guns, 32,163 people died by gun.

Guns increased by 24% and Deaths by them increased by 11% between 1999 and 2011 while the number of households were the same percentage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

This is a country where our gun deaths, not knife deaths or fistfight deaths, have spiked.

 

Liar! Please point to me on this graph where your "spike" is.

 

 

 

Seems like there has been an overall decline in gun deaths. joe must just reflexively lie hoping no one will catch him.

All in all, gun homicides in the USA have plateaued at around 11,500 per year. But that level itself is a spike, when taken in international perspective.

 

Show me your decline over this 13-year period, Jeff:

 

Yr Gun Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

We have spiked on a global level. For example, the CDC quoted our gun homicide rate as 19.5 times higher than other high-income countries. That figure came from the Richardson-Hemenway study, which shows our plateau to be an outlier among civilized norms.

 

I hope this is not acceptable to you:

RESULTS:

The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.

CONCLUSIONS:

The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.

Pasted from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454>

Maybe they keep their violent offenders looked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they keep their violent offenders looked up.

 

 

Don't think that is the reason,

 

The United States has the highest prison population (2,228,424) and the second highest documented incarceration rate in the world (707 per 100,000 population),

 

"Except for the tiny country of the Seychelles, the United States tops the list of countries by incarceration rate."

 

300px-Prisoner_population_rate_world_map

 

350px-US_incarceration_timeline-clean.sv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said KEEP. With two thirds of violent offenders being repeat offenders I don't think we have enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Honey, but thems the facts....whether you like them or not.

 

More guns equals less homicides. Suck it.....

 

Is that just an unsupported opinion? If not, present some sources.

 

"Shall issue" states have higher rates of aggravated assault. From the massive 2014 Donahue study:

 

The strongest evidence was for aggravated assault, with data suggesting that right-to-carry (RTC) laws increase this crime by an estimated 8 percent – and this may actually be understated, according to the researchers.

The study, covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states, found a “robust correlation” between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent, the authors found. “Understanding the relationship between the prevalence of gun ownership and therefore the availability of guns, and firearm-related mortality is critical to guiding decisions regarding recently proposed measures to address firearm violence,”

"Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults," they wrote.

The murder rate increased in the states with existing right-to-carry laws for the period 1999-2010 when the "confounding influence" of the crack cocaine epidemic is controlled for. The study found that homicides increased in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws during 1999-2010.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2118893>

 

 

 

Another study entitled An Evaluation of State Firearm Regulations and Homicide and

Suicide Death Rates, done by M Rosengart, et al in 2005, found “that when a ‘shall issue’ law was

present, the rate of firearm homicides was greater, RR 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to

1.24), than when the law was not present, as was the rate of all homicides, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.98

to 1.17), although this was not statistically significant.” The study found that no statistically

significant reduction in the rates of firearm homicides or total homicides could be found for any

law. Also, no statistically significant change in firearm suicide rates could be connected to any

laws. The study concluded that implementing a shall-issue law with few restrictions on

obtaining or carrying a concealed weapon may be linked to increased firearm homicide rates.

However, no law was connected to a statistically significant decease in firearm homicide or

suicide rates (Rosengart, 2005).

http://people.uwplatt.edu/~wiegmake/Intro_Files/CJ%20-%20paper%20example.pdf

 

 

The Fleegler Study: States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

 

Specifically, Fleeger pointed to states with many gun laws like Massachusetts, which had 3.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, and New Jersey, which had 4.9 gun-deaths per 100,000 people. Conversely, he focused on states with less laws like Louisiana, which had 18 deaths per 100,000 individuals and Alaska, which had 17.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/>

 

 

 

  1. Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Publication Date: November 2009

This is a case-control study that looks at the relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...70#entry4660096

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said KEEP. With two thirds of violent offenders being repeat offenders I don't think we have enough.

Wow, so there aren't enough people in jail?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe we should keep it simple for randumb and jocal. Here's a series of YES/NO questions:

 

1. Has the overall gun death rate gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

 

2. Has the number of guns in circulation since like 25 years ago gone up up? YES/NO

 

3. Has the suicide rate by gun gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

 

I'm sure I'll add these three to the growing list of questions that neither joe nor randumb will answer.

 

You can't demonstrate a positive correlation between 1 and 2. Your argument is pathetic, infantile...and all you got.

 

 

I never attempted to demonstrate a positive correlation between anything. I simply asked you to answer the questions. So..... yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You can't demonstrate a positive correlation between 1 and 2. Your argument is pathetic, infantile...and all you got.

 

 

I never attempted to demonstrate a positive correlation between anything. I simply asked you to answer the questions. So..... yes or no?

 

 

1.You are claiming the increase in guns has caused crime to drop. You need to relate the two bars on your own graph. You can't.

2.Don't bother asking me to dance in the weeds with you.

3. Read my signature line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did crime rates go down?

 

Joe, I did not mention "crime rates". I posted a graph specifically talking about your vaunted "gun deaths". Not just homicides - but ALL gun deaths including your necessary inclusion of suicide to make your numbers look better. And yet they STILL fuck you.

 

Because GUN DEATHs have dropped. Period. The reasons why are irrelevant to the discussion. Repeat along with me.... "the gun death rate has fallen while at the same time that the number of guns in circulation has increased dramatically".

 

You can avoid the questions all day long (and knowing you, you will continue to avoid them for weeks and months) - but you cannot escape the fact of the matter that your entire premise is based on the concept that somehow - more guns = more death. The facts are clear that is completely false. I agree that there are very complex reasons why that is the case - but it doesn't change the central fact that more guns DOES NOT equal more deaths. It doesn't mean more suicide. It doesn't mean more homicide and it doesn't mean more accidental deaths. ALL of those are either way down or completely flat (suicide) despite the fact that the number of guns in citizens' hands has skyrocketed over the same period.

 

I'm truly sorry that facts are not your friend on this.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Maybe we should keep it simple for randumb and jocal. Here's a series of YES/NO questions:

 

1. Has the overall gun death rate gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

 

2. Has the number of guns in circulation since like 25 years ago gone up up? YES/NO

 

3. Has the suicide rate by gun gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

 

I'm sure I'll add these three to the growing list of questions that neither joe nor randumb will answer.

 

You can't demonstrate a positive correlation between 1 and 2. Your argument is pathetic, infantile...and all you got.

 

 

I never attempted to demonstrate a positive correlation between anything. I simply asked you to answer the questions. So..... yes or no?

 

 

1.You are claiming the increase in guns has caused crime to drop. You need to relate the two bars on your own graph. You can't.

2.Don't bother asking me to dance in the weeds with you.

 

 

You must be responding to someone else, because I made no such claim. Please post where I've ever claimed that. I'll wait patiently while you search the archives.....

 

Just answer the fucking questions! They are not "in the weeds". Those are top level, fundamental questions to the argument. I'm sorry if the answers will be detrimental to your central position - but that is not my concern.

 

Seriously, its a simple YES or NO. It can't be that hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why did crime rates go down?

...

 

Because GUN DEATHs have dropped. Period. The reasons why are irrelevant to the discussion. Repeat along with me.... "the gun death rate has fallen while at the same time that the number of guns in circulation has increased dramatically".

 

 

I'm truly sorry that facts are not your friend on this.....

 

Mmmmm. Seems like facts are a problem here for you JB. Latest available from Gunpolicy.org

 

Looks like more people dying each year to me. More guns more gun deaths.

 

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

Year: Number Killed

2011: 32,163

2010: 31,672

2009: 31,347

2008: 31,593

2007: 31,224

2006: 30,896

2005: 30,694

2004: 29,569

2003: 30,136

2002: 30,242

2001: 29,573

2000: 28,663

1999: 28,874

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites