Sign in to follow this  
Hypercapnic Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

 

 

...

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

 

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?

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

redoing the numbers........ standby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, had to redo the numbers because I got the date ranges wrong.

 

1999-2003 / rate/100K

Gun Homicide: 56,726 (3.99)

Gun suicide: 84,069 (5.91)

Gun accident: 3894 (.27)

ALL gun deaths: 144,488 (10.36)

 

2004-2008

Gun Homicide: 61,578 (4.13)

Gun suicide: 86,210 (5.66)

Gun accident: 3285 (.22)

ALL gun deaths: 153,976 (10.32)

 

2010-2013

Gun Homicide: 56.469 (3.63)

Gun suicide: 99,958 (6.42)

Gun accident: 2804 (.18)

ALL gun deaths: 162,569 (10.44)

 

Feel to check my math or run the numbers here yourself.

 

It sure looks to me like ALL types of guns deaths are down with the exception of suicide slightly up over just this recent 15 year period. The overall gun death rate has remained almost totally flat for the last 15 years while the number of guns in circulation has dramatically increased.

 

randumb, you and joe are simply just wrong. But please feel free to continue digging and make yourselves look like fools. I won't stand in your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I totally understand now why tweedle-joe and tweedle-dumb insist on adding in the suicide numbers when talking about gun deaths. Because suicide numbers are the only ones that show a small increase and is overall a flat-line rate over time. Everything else is down (gun Homicides and gun accidents).

 

Yet when they mention increasing gun regulation and gun control - it is always in reference to crime and accidents. Its purely disingenuous to discuss suicides in the context of gun control. I know of no additional gun control that would stop determined self-killers from taking their own life. And frankly even if there was, I don't think its our place to take that choice away from someone who wants to commit self-murder.

 

And frankly - its even more dishonest that it even appears here. If you go back even further in time - the overall gun death rates have dropped significantly from 1980. 2000 to present is a bit of an anomoly when you factor in that we had 9/11, were in 2 decades long wars, and we had a financial meltdown that skyrocketed unemployment, crime and depression. Its no wonder suicides are up slightly. There was even a slight dip in the gun suicide rate in 2004-2008 but then it went back up slightly again. Gee, I wonder what happened in 2008 that might have caused that???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looks like more people killed killing themselves each five year group to me.

 

WRONG! FIFY.

 

Suicides and ONLY suicides account for the rise in death. Self-murderers are irrelevant to the discussion about gun violence and gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take that as a no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bullshit stat. The 97% failure rate of drug suicides only means they didn't really want to kill themselves.

 

What's the failure rate for drug suicides in Japan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back.

 

 

Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?

 

I don't care for dancing in the weeds. Let's just get a room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?

 

I don't care for dancing in the weeds. Let's just get a room.

 

 

Ah no. You can act out your homosexual fantasies with someone else if you really want.

And why is that in the weeds? They are absolutely fundamental questions germaine to the debate. And you can answer as a YES/NO. Easy-peasy pumpkin pie. Your continued refusal to answer them proves that not only are you a coward, but that you have zero integrity or intention to discuss this matter honestly. Don't worry.... this comes as no surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?

Not scared of anything, except big sharks maybe.

 

I just haven't answered to wind you up. Seems to have worked.

 

 

Not wound up at all. I frankly could care less if you answer or not. Your opinion is actually irrelevant to the conversation of what goes on inside of 'merica. I am just amused at your childishness. Carry on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?

 

I don't care for dancing in the weeds. Let's just get a room.

 

 

Ah no. You can act out your homosexual fantasies with someone else if you really want.

And why is that in the weeds? They are absolutely fundamental questions germaine to the debate. And you can answer as a YES/NO. Easy-peasy pumpkin pie. Your continued refusal to answer them proves that not only are you a coward, but that you have zero integrity or intention to discuss this matter honestly. Don't worry.... this comes as no surprise.

 

 

Whew. Not wound up at all.

 

Cuntfinder, you are known in these parts for your Mad Analytical Skilz, right? So yeah, some leading, myopic, YES/NO questions can have their limitations.

Dude, you need to check out my signature line.

 

You are building gun policy around being pro-suicide, I take it.

You are blessing the earth with our increased gun suicides? WTF?

Abnormally high gun suicides somehow demonstrate the benefit of guns in the USA?

That bit seems sort of patholocical.

 

Is WaYne LaPierre a Psychopath? CHARACTERISTICS OF PSYCHOPATHS:

What is very disturbing about psychopaths, besides their sense of special entitlement, is their complete lack of empathy for normal people, psychopaths seem to lack a conscience, feeling little or no empathy for the people whose lives they touch…they effortlessly resists all regulation, unable to see beyond his self-interest or to adopt standards of right versus wrong.

When caught in a lie and challenged, they make up new lies, and don’t care if they’re found out. Often, the psychopath will turn on the victim and claim that the victim suffers from “delusions” and is not mentally stable.

“The main lesson I have learnt is that when dealing with a sociopath, the normal rules of etiquette do not apply. You are dealing with someone who has no empathy, no conscience, no remorse, and no guilt…It is a completely different mindset. Words like ‘predator’ and ‘evil’ are often used.” If you try to deal with psychopaths in an ethical manner, you will be in for a shock. Dr. William Higgins claims that you “can’t negotiate or bargain with psychopaths.” http://www.oocities.org/lycium7/psychopathy.html

“Psychopaths will not only deny the past and trivialize it, but will avoid answering your questions directly, even if they seem to answer them. Psychopaths show a stunning lack of concern for the devastating effects their actions have on others. Often they are completely forthright about the matter, calmly stating that they have no sense of guilt, are not sorry for the pain and destruction they have caused, and that there is no reason for them to be concerned.” [Hare, 41]“.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/blog/2013/03/is-wayne-lapierre-a-psychopath/>

 

 

 

EMHubrisMachine_zps8598ec6e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

(Joe: 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?

 

 

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

 

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.....

 

 

Your claim (i.e. that the increase in guns has caused crime to drop) was recent--last month. It had that spurious graph you presented.

I couldn't believe such an uninformed rant.

 

JBSF, on 12 Mar 2015 - 04:39 AM, said:

Joe, why do you continue to lie? Baldfaced lie? Knowingly lie? You are wrong and no one is buying your shit any more. For the 10th gazillion time - as the

number of guns in circulation has gone up, violent crime has gone down. Way down.

(Omitted: Jeff's graph, by which he infers guns are lowering the crime rate.)

Guns are not "out of control in the USA". We have dispelled the notion 1000x here that more guns =/= more death. For fucks sake, STFU up for once!!!

 

You may need to address veracity itself, since I can back up my claim, but you can't. You are kind of a joke.

 

 

jocal505, on 12 Mar 2015 - 05:45 AM, said:

If quoting study conclusions from a broad variety of sources is lying, then I guess I'm a liar.

Guns are so out of control that the U.S. gun killings are 19.5x greater then other civilized countries. So bad that nine major medical organizations declared a public safety emergency, this month, about gun safety. They asked that AW's be resricted, as well.

We've been here before, O Cuntfinder. You did the bit that i was allowed to opinions, not my own facts, and segued into liar liar pants on fire. It took me five months to sort it, while doing a lot of reading on the subject.

That was then, and I refuted you with twenty sources. FFS, I thought the "more guns less crime" matter had been intelligently put to rest in our community. It lacks evidence-based research.

Tom may have taken this refute of Lott (below) as Tom's "guns neither increase nor decrease crime" position.

Quote

Abstract: For over a decade, there has been a spirited academic debate over the impact on crime of laws that grant citizens the presumptive right to carry concealed handguns in public – so-called right-to-carry (RTC) laws. In 2005, the National Research Council (NRC) offered a critical evaluation of the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis using county-level crime data for the period 1977-2000. 17 of the 18 NRC panel members essentially concluded that the existing research was inadequate to conclude that RTC laws increased or decreased crime. http://papers.ssrn.c...ract_id=2118893>

That opinion is twenty years old, however. Now Donahue has extended Lott's study thesis (more guns, less crime) into 2006. The hypothesis failed again, thoroughly, which (ouch) makes it junk science.

Quote

'Totality of the evidence'

Now, Donohue and his colleagues have shown that extending the data yet another decade (to 2006) provides the most convincing evidence to date that right-to-carry laws are associated with an increase in violent crime.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.

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

Jeff, Lott and Kleck's crap is, again demonstrably disproven to be hogwash. Sorry you fell for it, mate.

Man, I just wish you could get off the "liar" bit. Your dishonesty was displayed the last time you went there. You are a tedious disappointment, Jeff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not pro suicide. I'm pro-choice. And that choice includes the tool to get the job done. Gun, rope, pills, razor blade - the end result is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

What question is that? I recall your title of this thread as being thoroughly debunked. A gun would not have saved him. Death is a common fate for all peace-makers, Gandhi, Rabin, Sadat, Lincoln, King, Malcolm X....

 

Please get a fucking grip on this gun shit. The lot of ya. Stupid people running around talking like you, acting as if any specious, if not outright ridiculous argument you can imagine is pure brilliance is frightening. Get some spokesmen that aren't open racists and get rid of the ones that are. Your idea of countering that by suggesting only racists are against guns in the light of the current reality of the gun rights movement is fucking silly and you know it. Nutcases are a risk to the the right for sane people to have them.

 

 

I'm not sure how "This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed" is "debunked" by a list of non-violent activists who have been killed.

 

Maybe you've confused the meaning of "debunked" with "confirmed" or something? They don't look as similar as prospective and perspective, but that's the only explanation I can think up.

 

I'm not black and don't know firsthand, so I lean on established black corporations like the NAACP to learn what is important to black people. They seem mighty concerned about "stop and frisk" and its racist application.

 

Yet I've seen no calls from you for the anti-gun movement to get rid of the spokesman who personifies "stop and frisk" more than anyone else: Bloomberg, who recently said this:

 

 

Hah! The Aspen Institute and Gra$$root$ TV might not broadcast Bloomberg's comments, but bloggers in pajamas will find the audio and post it.

 

 

“We did a calculation on how many people who would have been dead if we hadn’t brought down the murder rate and gotten guns off the streets,” Bloomberg said. “And the way to get guns out of kids' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them.”

 

Plenty of cities have brought down crime rates without strict gun control laws and without searching random pedestrians.

 

Clearly continuing to advocate the racist policy he had while in office. I don't think the bolded bit is how you treat citizens or even humans. It's how you treat animals if you don't know how to deal with them properly.

 

No problems with his subhuman rhetoric? Shouldn't he be removed before we can take gungrabbers seriously?

 

 

 

How would a concealed handgun deter a sniper with a rifle?

 

Two feet to the rear of the sniper. Arms extended with the muzzle about a half inch from the snipers head. Not likely, but you asked..

 

How many deaths are there due to snipers in any given year?

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.

 

I'm going to have to visit Seattle again. That must be some seriously good shit circulating up there. When do the three weeks of Summer begin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 weeks??? That's overly optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How these fricken tools can't simply comprehend the fact that despite the number of guns in private citizens' hands having almost doubled in just twenty years----shootings and homicides have remained flat. If not dropped even. Jfc but even Stevie Wonder can see that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not including suicides here. Just homicides & intentional shootings. Please pay attention and don't piss me off anymore. ....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How these fricken tools can't simply comprehend the fact that despite the number of guns in private citizens' hands having almost doubled in just twenty years----shootings and homicides have remained flat. If not dropped even. Jfc but even Stevie Wonder can see that...

 

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.

 

 

 

Are you fuking kidding us? Which percentage are you talking about? The 24%? Or the 11%? 'Cuz I can almost garantee you that the number of households with guns in them has gone up at least 24% in the past sixteen years....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet only suicides have risen. Which all of us know don't mean jack shit. So my slogan is more than correct----more fuking guns mean much less murders and intentional shootings.

 

Suck. It.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self-murderers don't count. And you know that. So just stop your childish shit, grow a mangina and repeat after me----More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah ok I will do that. Meanwhile,

 

Iyears1999, 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.

 

Btw, I'm no fuking math wiz but when I see that only about 3,200 extra people 'died by gun' in twelve years, after Americans added another 69 million fuking guns to their collections, methinks you and your numbers are completely fuking wrong. And actually prove my point.

 

Thanx for that.....moran.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?

Not scared of anything, except big sharks maybe.

 

I just haven't answered to wind you up. Seems to have worked.

 

 

Not wound up at all. I frankly could care less if you answer or not. Your opinion is actually irrelevant to the conversation of what goes on inside of 'merica. I am just amused at your childishness. Carry on....

 

 

:lol: and you are under the impression that your opinion influences "what goes on inside of 'merica."?

 

JFC,

 

Yeah, actually my opinion and those like me DO influence what goes on inside of America. That's not delusion, that's fact. Through many avenues such as the NRA, SAF, my elected representatives, opinion polls, etc - my opinion, along with millions of others directly influences policy. If you look at any opinion polls out, even in the wake of mass shooting tragedies, there is no groundswell for additional gun control.

 

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the thread title Booze. Stay with it, pay attention.

 

The thread title is about non-violence.

 

It's well-established that suicides are gun violence. We have a whole thread about it, complete with appropriate title. Take your suicide crap there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Check out the thread title Booze. Stay with it, pay attention.

 

The thread title is about non-violence.

 

It's well-established that suicides are gun violence. We have a whole thread about it, complete with appropriate title. Take your suicide crap there.

 

 

Awesome. Did you hear that Boozy?

 

 

I think he knows sarcasm when he sees it. There are only a few around here who believe gun control is the answer to "self-murder" and he's not in that clown car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, actually my opinion and those like me DO influence what goes on inside of America. That's not delusion, that's fact. Through many avenues such as the NRA, SAF, my elected representatives, opinion polls, etc - my opinion, along with millions of others directly influences policy. If you look at any opinion polls out, even in the wake of mass shooting tragedies, there is no groundswell for additional gun control.

 

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.

 

 

Jeff's bolded parts are not honest statements. I can debate them intelligently. Jeff. you need to support your statements with cites.

Boothy's italicized post, same thing. These are hollow claims, merely lowbrow opinions which need sources.

 

Nearly three quarters (74 percent) of NRA members supported requiring a background check system for all gun sales, according to a poll released Monday by Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The survey found 89 percent of all Americans support the proposal.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/31/nra-leadership-members-divide-on-universal-background-checks/>

 

Why hunters should stand against the nation’s largest firearm association

Most of the country, and most of the NRA itself, doesn't support the current NRA extremism.The NRA is not for hunters any more than AAA is for bicyclists. In 2011, nearly 14 million Americans hunted, while NRA members number about four million, fewer than half of whom actually hunt. First and foremost the NRA serves gun fetishists and the firearms industry. (...) Like me, many hunters consider the NRA a bunch of paranoid loonies, with an increasing volume of innocent blood on their hands.(...)When I say "Fuck the NRA," as I do quite often lately, it's for a host of reasons both personal and political, but has nothing to do with my feelings for guns or the 2nd amendment.The NRA needs hunters a lot more than hunters need the NRA. And the nation needs the opinions of hunters more than it needs the opinion of the NRA. Hunters are intermediaries between government armed forces and private citizens. We are armed citizens, who know what guns can do, and if sensible gun-control policy is ever to be pursued, hunters need to be part of the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, actually my opinion and those like me DO influence what goes on inside of America. That's not delusion, that's fact. Through many avenues such as the NRA, SAF, my elected representatives, opinion polls, etc - my opinion, along with millions of others directly influences policy. If you look at any opinion polls out, even in the wake of mass shooting tragedies, there is no groundswell for additional gun control.

 

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.

 

 

Jeff's bolded parts are not honest statements. I can debate them intelligently. Jeff. you need to support your statements with cites.

Boothy's italicized post, same thing. These are hollow claims, merely lowbrow opinions which need sources.

 

 

Ummm, you want cites that there is no majority public support for more gun control much less a groundswell??? Here, take your pick, dick: http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gun-control/pages/2/

 

Who's being dishonest now, joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The percentage of households with guns remained the same ... biatch.

Would love to know how they can even tell how many households have guns or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The percentage of households with guns remained the same ... biatch.

Would love to know how they can even tell how many households have guns or not.

 

 

 

Notice he said 'the percentage'. So if I'm following his thought process correctly, if the number of guns in Americans hands went up 24% in twelve years, that means 24% more households own them. Which is a great thing....but seems a bit low to me.....so we need to work on that and get more people into the shooting sports....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't catch if that's 24% increased annual sales or total. Lots of old guns around gov never tracked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yups. Lots of mine don't even have serial numbers.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one way for someone to get those numbers----by calling them up at home during work hours, asking how many they have.....then writing down that number. Without ZERO clue if the callee answered truthfully. Ergo I don't trust any of those numbers you just posted----especially with the current gun-grabber craze that seems to have been going on for the past six or eight years.

 

So you gots anything verifiable? .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one way for someone to get those numbers----by calling them up at home during work hours, asking how many they have.....then writing down that number. Without ZERO clue if the callee answered truthfully. Ergo I don't trust any of those numbers you just posted----especially with the current gun-grabber craze that seems to have been going on for the past six or eight years.

 

So you gots anything verifiable? .....

 

Okay, Rick, if that's how you see telephone surveys.

But you just canned the high DGU figures which you guys quote. They came from Gary Kleck.

He hasn't been accepted in a peer-reviewed journal since the mid-nineties. And Kleck's numbers, according to him, were laden with criminal mis-uses.

Tom Ray quotes them, but won';comment on this bit:

 

One example of bias in the Politico article: "Kleck himself admitted in 1997, in response to criticism of his survey, that 36 to 64 percent of the defensive gun uses reported in the survey were likely illegal—meaning the firearm was used to intimidate or harm another person rather than for legitimate self-defense."

Will Caxton

Pasted from <http://www.onthemedia.org/story/myth-behind-defensive-gun-ownership/>

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 2.5 million DGUs, even in 1993, is 7000 per day. The fact that our newspapers, TV reports, and personal experience is completely at odds with those numbers mean something. It means that either there is a huge effort to suppress or hide all of these DGUs, or they just aren't happening in that number.

Pasted from <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1183422/-A-closer-look-at-DGU-numbers/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I don't know any one named Gary Kleck.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

The percentage of households with guns remained the same ... biatch.

Would love to know how they can even tell how many households have guns or not.

 

Notice he said 'the percentage'. So if I'm following his thought process correctly, if the number of guns in Americans hands went up 24% in twelve years, that means 24% more households own them. Which is a great thing....but seems a bit low to me.....so we need to work on that and get more people into the shooting sports....

In the United States, the percentage of households with one or more guns is reported to be

2012: 34.4

2010: 32.3

2008: 36.0

2006: 34.5

2004: 37.3

2002: 36.4

2000: 34.3

1998: 36.7

1996: 43.4

1994: 44.0

1993: 45.5

1991: 43.7

1990: 45.8

1989: 48.9

1988: 43.4

1987: 48.6

1985: 48.0

1984: 48.5

1982: 48.9

1980: 50.8

1977: 54.0

1976: 49.7

1974: 47.9

1973: 49.1

 

Cite

So the percentage of households with guns has gone down considerably since 1973- 27.6%...assuming the above is true.

 

Collectors own many many guns. But they aren't criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

R Booze, on 01 May 2015 - 5:52 PM, said:

 

So you gots anything verifiable? .....

 

 

That's now how we play here. It's on you to support your claim now.

Look at the damn bibliography in Random's source. It's a who's who of gun study content. Gun Policy.Org is awesome---on an international level.

 

You need sources to back up your bluster, buster. Here are some of mine.

 

Bernie Halpin put numbers to the actual breakdown of gun ownership ... and credits one particular survey:

Gun Ownership Is Declining, So Why Is the Gun Lobby So Powerful?We can get an idea of the number of households that own substantial arsenals of guns by examining data from a poll of gun owners conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Question: "How many guns do you or does a member of your family own?"

Number NRA Member Non-NRA

1gun 18% 25%

2 guns 16% 20%

3-5 guns 26% 39%

6-9 guns 17% 15%

10 or more 24% 11%

About 10 percent of gun owners belong to the NRA. You can do the math yourself. The numbers compute to this rough estimate: The owners of one-to-nine guns possess a total of about 110 million firearms. That means the “10 or more” respondents represent about 4.5 million households that own 230 million firearms — an average of more than 50 guns per household. And that’s just an average, which means some very large number (a million?) own more than 100 guns...The General Social Survey is considered the gold standard for polls. It’s based on face-to-face interviews going back four decades, conducted by the independent National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and funded by the National Science Foundation.The numbers reflect a long-term trend. During the same period, the percentage of households with a hunter plummeted from 32 to 15 percent. Other important factors during these decades: the percentage of the population living in urban areas increased from 73 to 81 percent while the percentage of the US that is non-Hispanic White declined from 83 to 63 percent. The last demographic is important because, while 39 percent of White households possess firearms, only 18 percent of Black and 15 percent of Hispanic households have them.

.aa%20guns-in%20decline_zpsbq122thd.gif

 

 

So the GSS is a survey, yes, but the one that has asked identical questions for forty years straight. The conclusion is consistent with the body of knowledge on the subject of gun presence in U.S. homes.

 

 

Survey Shows U.S. Guns in Homes Have Declined

The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it's ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.

According to the latest General Social Survey, 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That's a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.

The General Social Survey is conducted by NORC, an independent research organization based at the University of Chicago, with money from the National Science Foundation. Because of its long-running and comprehensive set of questions about the demographics, behaviors and attitudes of the American public, it is a highly regarded source of data about social trends.(...)

The drop in the number of Americans who own a gun or live in a household with one is probably linked to a decline in the popularity of hunting, from 32 percent who said they lived in a household with at least one hunter in 1977 to less than half that number saying so now. (...)

 

Your turn now, Boothy. Back up your huffing and puffing with some credible information.

 

LenP's best response was that gun owners are lying in unison, thus distorting all survey conclusions. Which sounds quite unscientific to me...and a lot like imagining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I don't know any one named Gary Kleck.....

 

You are as dumb as a rock, evidently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read any of that kind of shit...in decades. Mostly 'cuz I don't give a flying fuk about polls or studies or opinions or whatever. I own guns 'cuz I like them...and 'cuz I can.

 

It's truly as simple as that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. What's not to like about them? Jocal even likes 'em. Most efficient way to remove pesky varmints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Click to enlarge

 

I can't sleep so I have a decent excuse for posting at this time of day. You must be really really bored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see joe completely ignored my direct response to him about whether people in the U.S. Have a groundswell of opinion against guns. Not only is there no groundswell but it's just the opposite.

 

Jocal = lying cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see joe completely ignored my direct response to him about whether people in the U.S. Have a groundswell of opinion against guns. Not only is there no groundswell but it's just the opposite.

Jocal = lying cunt.

 

Ooops, there it is! The JB key indicator of frustration, the C word!

 

Maybe I'll stay in and ...

 

scarjo_popcorn.gif

 

NUH, I'm outta here.

 

(and I like the way her arm bumps her, ah, chest)

I fully admit I am frustrated by the willful ignorance and the deliberate stupid so on display here.

 

and yes, the chest squeeze is quite mezmerizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

 

 

...Now Darren X says he wants black people to start feeling safe again when they walk along America’s streets.

 

“Our initiative is for black men and women to start arming themselves and for us to start patrolling our own communities. That way we have a visual, we have an eye on what is going on in our neighborhoods. So our mission is to arm every black man that can legally be armed throughout the Unites States of America,” he said....

 

It's Chief Justice Taney's nightmare come to life! The horror.

 

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

 

The head of the Georgia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to promote nonviolent social change, on Tuesday advocated African-American families “exercise their Second Amendment rights” in response to recent police shootings of unarmed black men.

 

 

These people don't know what's good for blacks. Bloomberg does: throw 'em up against the wall and frisk 'em!

 

 

Uh oh.

 

Second amendment solutions.

 

This Week on the New Black Panther Party’s “Black Power Radio,” national chairman Hashim Nzinga said since America has “declared war on us,” evidenced by “military police in the black neighborhood” protecting the rich, the New Black Panthers should be looked upon as Founding Fathers who declare war and are “willing to die or kill to save our babies and to save a black nation that is dying before our eyes.”

 

Nzinga said, “America is about protecting the rich and the powerful.”

 

He added, “We pay taxes. They have declared war on us and it’s nothing but state racism.”

 

“So if we say we are at war, we should be applauded like George Washington,” Nzinga continued. “We should be applauded like Thomas Jefferson. We should be applauded like the Founding Fathers of the country.”

 

“This is not the hate hour, this is the love hour,”he added....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

VIle. Absolutely disgusting. You have been promoting racial misunderstanding for thirty days.

 

The gas from your swamp is affecting your better judgement. You are becoming intellectual pond scum.

I don't know the answer to this complex racial dynamic... but I'm certain it isn't more white or black gun culture.

 

You want to increase gun chaos among blacks? The brothers haven't been torn up enough by gun violence?

You are proposing vigilante values to solve create problems among blacks?

 

I can't explain why, but you sport a pattern of race-baiting. You point a lot of fingers WRT race.

I'm not sure what you have to offer in a conversation about racial diversity.

You use the blacks' gun violence numbers to promote your pro-gun idiocy? Then you lack social conscience, and are pretty much a loser, IMO.

 

Tom Ray, on 08 June 2014 - 02:47 AM, said:

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817#entry4893369>

****************

Tom Ray, on 02 May 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:These people don't know what's good for blacks. Bloomberg does: throw 'em up against the wall and frisk 'em!

...2. Gun control has always been racist, and still is today with policies like "stop and frisk" and "may or may not issue" permits.

 

Quit advocating that our officials be allowed to use race to dispense our rights…

 

( Tom my buddy, I made so such claim, and shall avoid liar liar tangents here. This great discussion, if cleaned up a little bit, needs to be continued)

 

...and I will quit complaining about your advocacy of racist policies.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=160457&p=4680878>

 

************

 

Tom Ray Posted 27 July 2014 - 02:07 PM

Denying rights because of race is good, and MLK was glad to had his permit application denied for that reason. Got it.

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=160457&p=4680878>

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I see joe completely ignored my direct response to him about whether people in the U.S. Have a groundswell of opinion against guns. Not only is there no groundswell but it's just the opposite.

Jocal = lying cunt.

Ooops, there it is! The JB key indicator of frustration, the C word!

 

Maybe I'll stay in and ...

 

scarjo_popcorn.gif

 

NUH, I'm outta here.

 

(and I like the way her arm bumps her, ah, chest)

I fully admit I am frustrated by the willful ignorance and the deliberate stupid so on display here.

 

and yes, the chest squeeze is quite mezmerizing.

 

 

I meet no standards of "willfull ignorance." I am the hardest worker on the gun threads.

FIrst I organized and presented (using full text) all the current gun research in North America. (It took half of 2013 and 2014 to do so.)

A hush descended upon the Gun Club Choir.

Then I organized and presented the state-of-the-art conclusions of the social sciences. They are collaborative, and each is inclusive of the 2nd A.

These informed projects were satisfying work. I did it for your elk.

And to challenge your elk in every aspect of your entire SAF hyperbole.

 

 

I hope you didn't ignore all that knowledge, but none of it supported your cliche-type views.

"Willful ignorance and deliberate stupid" may apply to yourself, Jeffie, because...

1.You were wrong about 70% of gang violence happens during a secondary crime.

6.You were wrong about my owning a handgun (yet I had sorted that here a half-dozen times).

7. You are mistaken that the mentally ill cause violence. (Their overall violence figure is 4%.)

8. The idea that MADD's approach to drunk drivers precludes gun limitations has been opposed by NAS science.

 

As Cuntrinder the Great can see, "willful ignorance" may be a projection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

VIle. Absolutely disgusting. You have been promoting racial misunderstanding for thirty days.

 

The gas from your swamp is affecting your better judgement. You are becoming intellectual pond scum.

I don't know the answer to this complex racial dynamic... but I'm certain it isn't more white or black gun culture.

 

You want to increase gun chaos among blacks? The brothers haven't been torn up enough by gun violence?

You are proposing vigilante values to solve create problems among blacks?

 

I can't explain why, but you sport a pattern of race-baiting. You point a lot of fingers WRT race.

I'm not sure what you have to offer in a conversation about racial diversity.

You use the blacks' gun violence numbers to promote your pro-gun idiocy? Then you lack social conscience, and are pretty much a loser, IMO.

]

I don't think joe quite understands the difference between reporting a story and promoting a cause or position. How does Tom posting a link about blacks wanting to use guns for vigilante ism and revolution somehow promoting that? Help me understand because this is a fascination look into a convoluted mind. Somebody should study you, joe. The mental health community could learn oodles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there's just one teensy-eensy small problem, JokeAwf----only you and your two 'friends' here give a flying fuck about you, your 'stats', your opinions, your childish memes and your excruciatingly inane cut 'n pastes. All you've accomplished here since your debut is to make the rest of us despise you, your elks and the Brady Bunchers----and to get us dig our heels into the dirt even harder.

 

Oh yeah, and to buy more guns......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meet all standards of "willfull ignorance." I am the hardest worker on the gun threads.

FIrst I organized and presented (using full text) all the current gun research in North America. (It took half of 2013 and 2014 to do so.)

Then I organized and presented the state-of-the-art conclusions of the social sciences.

It was satisfying work. I did it for your elk.

And to challenge your elk in every aspect of your entire SAF hyperbole.

Good for you. And yet in all that blather. You still think there is a groundswell from the American public for more gun control. The disappointment that America doesn't share in your delusion must be gutting after all your hard work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there's just one teensy-eensy small problem, JokeAwf----only you and your two 'friends' here give a flying fuck about you, your 'stats', your opinions, your childish memes and your excruciatingly inane cut 'n pastes. All you've accomplished here since your debut is to make the rest of us despise you, your elks and the Brady Bunchers----and to get us dig our heels into the dirt even harder.

 

Oh yeah, and to buy more guns......

True dat. Oh and give more money to the NRA. I honestly never really liked the NRA and didn't see the point. Jocal opened my eyes to how his side thinks. So he does convince and change minds about guns, just not in the way he thinks he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read any of that kind of shit...in decades. Mostly 'cuz I don't give a flying fuk about polls or studies or opinions or whatever. I own guns 'cuz I like them...and 'cuz I can.

 

It's truly as simple as that....

 

It as simple as Gary Kleck is a key gun researcher for your elk. One of two.

Both got dissed by the scientific community. Both have been discussed on our forums, for good reasons.

Your only gun researchers are bunk, dude.

 

Hint: if you want to reach out for other researchers to help your cause, try Kates and Mauser, and Mark Gius.

Neither is peer-reviewed. Both are out-classed by the body of knowledge on the subject of gun violence in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites