Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

 

 

Tom, you're letting dogma get in the way of facts. We know that the NRA went to Congress to help themselves out, why else would a judge invalidate a claim that Beretta wasn't liable because the claimant should have known better. That's legalese for pandering out an exception to the rule of law. I don't blame the NRA for what they did, they helped themselves out, the only fault that I see is that they bought their way out and I don't think much of that. But it is what it is.

 

Let's face it, the gorilla in the room is the NRA with virtual unlimited funding who will brazenly spend it to make sure they prevail in most torts. The evidence of that is the remarkable success they have had over the Brady bunch types in courts of law.

 

Hey Tom, do you ever get the feeling you are arguing with a 6 year old?

 

 

I do, every single time I argue with Jeff.

 

Come on, Jeff is more of a 12 year old. A 6 year old won't call you a CUNT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how this got into the Non-Violence thread, as we've already established that some suicides are violence. (The ones where a gun was used.)

 

 

Homicide ... really? Got any figures for the rest of the people killed with guns? You know, like those in my post above, or are you only interested in just one way to die?

 

Not that long ago you discounted results from other countries, like Australia. Now you seem quite happy to do so, Mmmmm.

 

Meanwhile, back in the good Ol US of A;

 

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."

 

Proving my point that more guns = more deaths.

 


If we just stop selling guns, we'll all be immortal!

 

Or maybe that's a dumb idea. We need a wise Aussie to show us how reform is done. What have you done so far to stop Aussie Apartheid, random?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you have capitulated on the topic and once again focused on the messenger. I'll take that as a complement to my research and the soundness of the numbers presented.

 

But you are mixing topics. I was talking about the relationship between gun sales and deaths, but you always want to talk about race Tom. Why is that?

 

I can answer part of that.

-- Tom rotates a list of irritating troll topics to get attention.

--Then he steers the conversation into the weeds of his libertarian-based ideology training.

--The flow of the troll topics is predictable, and finite.

--The key with Tom is the dodging (WHEN he shifts the troll topic). Look to what he just avoided discussing... especially the vacuous evidence base for his...opinions.

--His humble "messenger" copout masks the fact that he feels a compelling need to twist facts and use deceit and dishonesty to support his position.

--"They r taking my guns" is itself freudian.

 

 

 

The part of this I can't answer is the particular troll topic of race.

Tom is a decent guy, so WTF?

This isn't conscious racism as much as a sub-conscious un-easiness about race.

 

I've asked him to quit the race discussion, quite a few different ways.

It got under my skin once, but I took a shower and climbed a mountain and re-gained my perspective.

One week later, it's like a moth back to da fire for Uncle Tom Ray.

 

At least he is in good company. The Friends of the NRA can help him sort it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randumb is not an Aussie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Everyone carries guns?

 

That's just not true in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not carrying one at the moment.

 

It's pretty terrifying facing the morning this way. I usually need to shoot someone pretty much right away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(very cool post, hate to snip it)

 

I talked to my mother about his case again. She said, "He got Judge Morphonios, the hanging judge. She'd do that."

 

Look her up. My mom said she was in the courtroom for the "Nice shot" comment.

 

I talked to "Ernie" the other day. Told him I want to come see him and that I didn't think he should be locked up for the rest of his life. I'm going to look into whether there's any way to get him out. Seems rehabilitated to me. Somehow. Despite our prison system, not because of it. Life changes us.

 

 

+1. A very sensitive post.

Such admirable compassion could be applied to 309 gunshot victims, every day. And to people whom you race-bait.

 

Life changes some of us, sometimes.

 

 

This was posted in a thread that was not about me nor about guns, but the stat used brings me back to this thread.

 

Politifact says that to reach that number, you must include all the suicides by gun.

 

As mentioned, I believe in self-ownership and the right to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns accelerate our suicide rates. Guns contribute to impulsive deaths; each gun suicide is taken by many as a social and family tragedy.

 

I can agree with the choice-to-die side, but only as far as death with dignity.

There is nothing dignified, at all, about a gun suicide.

On the contrary, blasting one's brains out is traumatic, and ugly, for many.

 

 

Is suicide just a straw man here?

 

If you ignore the suicides --... then the number of people who got shot, either fatally or non-fatally, was about 86,000, or roughly 235 a day... And the daily number of firearm deaths would be substantially lower -- 35 per day, rather than the 87 cited in the Facebook post.

Pasted from <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/do-people-get-shot-every-year-facebook-post-says/>

 

Your cheery source: If you remove the gun suicides, then 235 humans get shot in the USA every day.

Care to comment on them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns accelerate our suicide rates. Guns contribute to impulsive deaths; each gun suicide is taken by many as a social and family tragedy.

 

I can agree with the choice-to-die side, but only as far as death with dignity.

There is nothing dignified, at all, about a gun suicide.

On the contrary, blasting one's brains out is traumatic, and ugly, for many.

 

 

We agree that guns are a terrible choice for suicide. The difference is that I see no need to impose my preference in that matter on others. I'd impose it on anyone whose body I own. That's just me. So rest assured, I won't blast my brains out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Guns accelerate our suicide rates. Guns contribute to impulsive deaths; each gun suicide is taken by many as a social and family tragedy.

 

I can agree with the choice-to-die side, but only as far as death with dignity.

There is nothing dignified, at all, about a gun suicide.

On the contrary, blasting one's brains out is traumatic, and ugly, for many.

 

We agree that guns are a terrible choice for suicide. The difference is that I see no need to impose my preference in that matter on others. I'd impose it on anyone whose body I own. That's just me. So rest assured, I won't blast my brains out.

 

If done correctly I'd rather a loved do it with a gun than a rope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns accelerate our suicide rates. Guns contribute to impulsive deaths; each gun suicide is taken by many as a social and family tragedy.

 

I can agree with the choice-to-die side, but only as far as death with dignity.

There is nothing dignified, at all, about a gun suicide.

On the contrary, blasting one's brains out is traumatic, and ugly, for many.

 

 

Is suicide just a straw man here?

 

If you ignore the suicides --... then the number of people who got shot, either fatally or non-fatally, was about 86,000, or roughly 235 a day... And the daily number of firearm deaths would be substantially lower -- 35 per day, rather than the 87 cited in the Facebook post.

Pasted from <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/do-people-get-shot-every-year-facebook-post-says/>

Your cheery source: If you remove the gun suicides, then 235 humans get shot in the USA every day.

Care to comment on them?

I'm certain ALL suicides are taken that way by friends and family.

 

And frankly I've seen loved ones die much more tragic deaths than that. A quick self induced death would have brought me peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I get it, the deaths of others is a price you are willing pay.

 

We only "pay" that price to the extent that we own those lives. Since we don't...

 

BTW, as the Pink Pistols pointed out here, the second is not our only amendment that carries social costs. The fourth amendment's exclusion rules result in the release of lots of really dangerous people each year. We know they're going to go back out and do bad things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guns accelerate our suicide rates. Guns contribute to impulsive deaths; each gun suicide is taken by many as a social and family tragedy.

 

I can agree with the choice-to-die side, but only as far as death with dignity.

There is nothing dignified, at all, about a gun suicide.

On the contrary, blasting one's brains out is traumatic, and ugly, for many.

 

 

Sorry jojo - dead is dead. And there is nothing "dignified" about hanging yourself either. Or slashing your wrists. Or......

 

And if the mess is all you have a problem with, then maybe we should recommend that self-killers put a plastic garbage bag over their head before they pull the trigger. No muss, no fuss. Take the brains out with the trash on Monday. You ok with that compromise, joe?

 

Problem SOLved.

 

 

 

You sound quite cheery about our volume of gun suicides. You find them just ducky, you say.

Your crude manner has a fine match in U.S. gun mentality.

I can see where the NRA, and its values, would be attractive to you.

This package (your manner, your deadly justifications, your guns, and your gun club) becomes an extension of the gun problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't have time to read the attachment.

 

...

 

Then reply after you find the time. You seem to have plenty of time to post here daily.

 

I think you lack the interest to learn, not the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you choose to post, doesn't obligate me or anyone else to read it. I opened it then it looked like too much work in 'legalese'. If you want to make a point make it accessible or no one will read it and the fault lies with you.

 

Ah, so "don't have time" becomes "looks too much like work" and your laziness is my fault?

 

The link made it accessible to me. Well, the link and an inclination to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just because you choose to post, doesn't obligate me or anyone else to read it. I opened it then it looked like too much work in 'legalese'. If you want to make a point make it accessible or no one will read it and the fault lies with you.

 

Ah, so "don't have time" becomes "looks too much like work" and your laziness is my fault?

 

The link made it accessible to me. Well, the link and an inclination to learn.

 

 

That's not what you said another time. And it really struck me.

It was to the effect that you didn't need to consider anti-gun points of view, that you had already considered them, and knew better. As if you had moved on.

Your mind seemed pretty made up that day.

It hit me hard because you blatantly ignore a TON of learned research. Just sayin'.

 

I wish I could cite the conversation. I can only cite what I posted to you then.

 

Quote

"The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool"

- W. Shakespeare

Quote

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Isaac Asimov

Quote

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

--M. L. King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep I get it, the deaths of others is a price you are willing pay.

 

We only "pay" that price to the extent that we own those lives. Since we don't...

 

BTW, as the Pink Pistols pointed out here, the second is not our only amendment that carries social costs. The fourth amendment's exclusion rules result in the release of lots of really dangerous people each year. We know they're going to go back out and do bad things.

 

 

Again, you kind of absolve all gun damage by dismissing all gun suicides...as (whew) totally okay.

You are stretching decency, as we know it, as you do this, buster.

 

I asked this previously. What about the other deaths and injuries?

110,000 total gun casualties (counting injuries) less 19,000 suicides is 91,000 gun casualties per year.

 

Writing off all gun suicides already has you on thin ethical ice here.

Please comment on the other, non-suicidal, 255 gun casualties, per day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you post something that takes more than a minute to read, it won't get read, by me and most others here. Do some work Tom, a couple of sentences, a few short paragraphs to make your point is what is required here. Ant more complicated than that and you will waste your time.

 

You have a great point.

I've cut my column inches way down.

But first, I made sure the bully boys had "eyeballs on" the best studies out there.

Their ignorant lot had much to ignore, didn't they? It was a Full Text tsunami. Yeah, sorry.

 

random, let's say for a moment that de-bunking is admirable, or fun.

If disinformation persists, or dumbassery reigns on the gun forums, that's when the SA Gun Club makes for a target-rich environment.

We have a groove here. They like to ignore evidence-based research, and I like to present knowledge, and sourced facts about the gun situation.

 

One minute reading time, max? That's a challenge around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't have time to read the attachment.

 

From what I have seen all you Amendments don't seem to count for much around guns. The Open carry thing is the best example. No longer tolerated despite what the Amendment says.

 

Tom was being cute, and ethereal. His subject was gun rights outdoors.

The attachment was a Rick-Roll. Tom's link went to the 25-page Peruta decision.

The Peruta decision was a stretch, but it influenced guns being okay outdoors.

 

Much of Judge Scullin's reasoning followed from the recent Peruta decision, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a concealed-carry law that had effectively made it impossible to carry a gun outside the home in San Diego County. This decision struck down the County's law which required applicants to show "good cause" for wanting to carry a gun outside the home, because the definition of good cause went far beyond a general desire for self-protection and basically required the applicant to prove that without a gun he or she would be unable to protect themselves against a specific threat and therefore would be placing themselves in "harm's way." The Peruta decision claimed that the 2nd Amendment, as decided in Heller, required some form of concealed-carry outside the home. This is an interesting reading of Scalia's decision in Heller, which explicitly limited civilian ownership of guns to keeping them within the home.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/dc-concealed-carry-guns_b_5626590.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, I was hoping you could link me to any court decision which went into the following logic or argument:

 

 

"The First Amendment applies to the Internet even though it hadn't been invented when the Constitution was written; so the Second Amendment gives me the right to own a modern sporting rifle."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yep I get it, the deaths of others is a price you are willing pay.

 

We only "pay" that price to the extent that we own those lives. Since we don't...

 

BTW, as the Pink Pistols pointed out here, the second is not our only amendment that carries social costs. The fourth amendment's exclusion rules result in the release of lots of really dangerous people each year. We know they're going to go back out and do bad things.

 

 

Again, you kind of absolve all gun damage by dismissing all gun suicides...as (whew) totally okay.

You are stretching decency, as we know it, as you do this, buster.

 

I asked this previously. What about the other deaths and injuries?

110,000 total gun casualties (counting injuries) less 19,000 suicides is 91,000 gun casualties per year.

 

Writing off all gun suicides already has you on thin ethical ice here.

Please comment on the other, non-suicidal, 255 gun casualties, per day.

 

 

"I don't think I have a right to interfere with what you're doing" and

"I'm totally OK with what you're doing" are different sentiments to me.

 

As for the other people, some are actually attempted firearms suicides that failed, some are aggressive acts of violence, some are defensive gun uses, a handful are accidents. Those are 4 very different groups. Do defensive gun uses really belong among the "costs of gun violence"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I exaggerated. I suspect that the message needs to be visible in less than that. You can read a lot in a minute, most won't bother. It looks the same as a lengthy bibliography oft used by some. They know that no one will look at them but it looks important.

 

Takes effort to distill the message to a digestible size. This is a different medium and most scan rather than read threads. As I said to Tom, it takes effort to predigest the message, less effort to link, less effective.

 

Randumb, I'm curious.... how old are you? I'm betting mid 20s something?

 

 

Clown toss, I'm curious.... how old are you? I'm betting old, bitter, washed up and cleaning toilets for a living... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I exaggerated. I suspect that the message needs to be visible in less than that. You can read a lot in a minute, most won't bother. It looks the same as a lengthy bibliography oft used by some. They know that no one will look at them but it looks important.

 

Takes effort to distill the message to a digestible size. This is a different medium and most scan rather than read threads. As I said to Tom, it takes effort to predigest the message, less effort to link, less effective.

 

Randumb, I'm curious.... how old are you? I'm betting mid 20s something?

 

 

Clown toss, I'm curious.... how old are you? I'm betting old, bitter, washed up and cleaning toilets for a living... :lol:

 

 

 

I know Jeff personally....and you couldn't be more fuking wrong if you tried. Idiot....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking idiot boi should change his name to Fuk-Stik Joe.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yep I get it, the deaths of others is a price you are willing pay.

 

We only "pay" that price to the extent that we own those lives. Since we don't...

 

BTW, as the Pink Pistols pointed out here, the second is not our only amendment that carries social costs. The fourth amendment's exclusion rules result in the release of lots of really dangerous people each year. We know they're going to go back out and do bad things.

 

 

Again, you kind of absolve all gun damage by dismissing all gun suicides...as (whew) totally okay.

You are stretching decency, as we know it, as you do this, buster.

 

I asked this previously. What about the other deaths and injuries?

110,000 total gun casualties (counting injuries) less 19,000 suicides is 91,000 gun casualties per year.

 

Writing off all gun suicides already has you on thin ethical ice here.

Please comment on the other, non-suicidal, 255 gun casualties, per day.

 

 

"I don't think I have a right to interfere with what you're doing" and

"I'm totally OK with what you're doing" are different sentiments to me.

 

As for the other people, some are actually attempted firearms suicides that failed, some are aggressive acts of violence, some are defensive gun uses, a handful are accidents. Those are 4 very different groups. Do defensive gun uses really belong among the "costs of gun violence"?

 

 

Tom Ray, you just failed to answer a very, VERY pertinent question.

What about the daily meatgrinder in the USA, driven by gun fever?

You are our SA Gun Club prophet, more or less. Go ahead and weigh in on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

"I don't think I have a right to interfere with what you're doing" and

"I'm totally OK with what you're doing" are different sentiments to me.

 

As for the other people, some are actually attempted firearms suicides that failed, some are aggressive acts of violence, some are defensive gun uses, a handful are accidents. Those are 4 very different groups. Do defensive gun uses really belong among the "costs of gun violence"?

 

 

Tom Ray, you just failed to answer a very, VERY pertinent question.

What about the daily meatgrinder in the USA, driven by gun fever?

You are our SA Gun Club prophet, more or less. Go ahead and weigh in on this.

 

 

Sorry, I must have overlooked them. If I were to comment on them, I'd probably say some are actually attempted firearms suicides that failed, some are aggressive acts of violence, some are defensive gun uses, a handful are accidents. Those are 4 very different groups. Do defensive gun uses really belong among the "costs of gun violence"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

"I don't think I have a right to interfere with what you're doing" and

"I'm totally OK with what you're doing" are different sentiments to me.

 

As for the other people, some are actually attempted firearms suicides that failed, some are aggressive acts of violence, some are defensive gun uses, a handful are accidents. Those are 4 very different groups. Do defensive gun uses really belong among the "costs of gun violence"?

 

 

Tom Ray, you just failed to answer a very, VERY pertinent question.

What about the daily meatgrinder in the USA, driven by gun fever?

You are our SA Gun Club prophet, more or less. Go ahead and weigh in on this.

 

 

Sorry, I must have overlooked them. If I were to comment on them, I'd probably say some are actually attempted firearms suicides that failed, some are aggressive acts of violence, some are defensive gun uses, a handful are accidents. Those are 4 very different groups. Do defensive gun uses really belong among the "costs of gun violence"?

 

 

More dodger bullshit. And a third failure to address 255 gun casualties per day.

This isn't about DGU's, that seems to be a sidetrack mechanism.

 

1.some are actually attempted firearms suicides that failed

Not many, Tom. But how is any "failed suicide" without effects, or acceptable? Each is a firearm casualty.

 

2. some are aggressive acts of violence ALL of them are "aggressive acts of violence". Each is a firearm casualty.

 

3. some are defensive gun uses Note: Tom, you have failed to document these. The best media research has counted 1600 DGU's/yr. max. The figure is pretty insignificant.

 

4. a handful are accidents. Handful? About 700 gun accidents occur per year, and each is a gun casualty.

 

 

Let's get back to the question I asked. What about the massive scale of gun casualty in the USA?

Why aren't you weighing 255 deaths and injuries per day (NOT COUNTING THE 55 SUICIDES PER DAY) against the libertarian "benefits" of guns everywhere?

Why are you avoiding that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry jojo - dead is dead. And there is nothing "dignified" about hanging yourself either. Or slashing your wrists. Or......

 

And if the mess is all you have a problem with, then maybe we should recommend that self-killers put a plastic garbage bag over their head before they pull the trigger. No muss, no fuss. Take the brains out with the trash on Monday. You ok with that compromise, joe?

 

Problem SOLved.

 

 

This sounds pathological, Jeff.

Tom, Jeff, check your attitudes, eh?

 

I've told you twice about a neighbor boy who offed himself . One of nine brothers, they were my mates.

That kid could laugh, he could run, he was not unlike the kid in Stand by Me.

There was nothing beneficial or right about what went down.

I know with certainty that such an occurrence is not exactly swept away by the trashman.

 

No bad intentions set up that suicide.

Actually, the love of hunting elk set it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom Ray, you just failed to answer a very, VERY pertinent question.

 

 

 

When YOU start answering very, VERY pertinent questions without dodging - then we might take you seriously and reciprocate. Until then, blow me.

 

 

VERY pertinent questions

 

If a woman was being raped, and she used a gun, would she be a vigilante?

Yes or No.

Deliverance_027Pyxurz_zpsnosfljro.jpg

 

 

 

I don't feel any need to hang any label on such a woman...and I'm pulling for her, too, Simple Jeff.

Yo, she will shoot fourteen associates before she shoots a stranger rapist.

 

Your question was leading, tricky, myopic...and set in a YES or NO format.

Yet, your question was described both as "simple" and "reasonable."

It was of the "Have you stopped beating your wife lately" variety.

 

I liked the hell out of my answers, Jeffie.

"No badge required" shows mental preparation and rationalization for taking the law into one's own hands.

"Donut eater" is code for "My justice is better, and faster, than law enforcement."

 

And dude, I can see where this is going.

For example, Boothy can justify a certain bullet in a certain perp's back. Others can justify other shootings of other perps in the back, of course.

 

Guns are seductive. And guns plus adolescent values will lead to vigilantism, IMO.

 

Here's what you get:SheriffDavidClarke_zps76d5a818.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I must have overlooked them. If I were to comment on them, I'd probably say some are actually attempted firearms suicides that failed, some are aggressive acts of violence, some are defensive gun uses, a handful are accidents. Those are 4 very different groups. Do defensive gun uses really belong among the "costs of gun violence"?

 

 

More dodger bullshit. And a third failure to address 255 gun casualties per day.

This isn't about DGU's, that seems to be a sidetrack mechanism.

 

1.some are actually attempted firearms suicides that failed

Not many, Tom. But how is any "failed suicide" without effects, or acceptable? Each is a firearm casualty.

 

2. some are aggressive acts of violence ALL of them are "aggressive acts of violence". Each is a firearm casualty.

 

3. some are defensive gun uses Note: Tom, you have failed to document these. The best media research has counted 1600 DGU's/yr. max. The figure is pretty insignificant.

 

4. a handful are accidents. Handful? About 700 gun accidents occur per year, and each is a gun casualty.

 

 

Let's get back to the question I asked. What about the massive scale of gun casualty in the USA?

Why aren't you weighing 255 deaths and injuries per day (NOT COUNTING THE 55 SUICIDES PER DAY) against the libertarian "benefits" of guns everywhere?

Why are you avoiding that?

 

 

1. Once again, the fact that I feel I don't have the right to interfere in someone's life does not mean I find all of their behavior acceptable. It simply means I don't have a right to interfere.

 

2. I don't consider aggression and defense to be the same thing.

 

3. I'll go with the CDC over the "best media research" on that point.

 

4. Yes, a handful. In the context of the 93,000 incidents you asked about, 700 is a handful.

 

But why are we talking about all of this in a thread that's primarily about suicide. Why don't you explain why you feel you have a right to interfere if someone wants to end his life. Do you own his life, or does he?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of 255

 

An 18 year old male named Adric White enters a Family Dollar while wearing a mask and carrying a gun. He holds employees at gun point, and is ordering them around when a conceal-carry Good Samaritan noticed the crime in progress. Knowing that seconds can count when police are minutes away, the Good Samaritan entered the store and told the criminal not to move, his own firearm out and pointed at the robber. Instead of doing what he was told, the robber spun around to face the Good Samaritan, which earned him five well placed bullets. Adric survived the shooting.

 

Adric’s family got involved, but not in the way most would like to think. Instead of giving a wounded Adric the speech about crime and consequences, and how lucky he was to survive, the family turned against the Good Samaritan, arguing that if the customer’s life wasn’t immediately in danger, he should have left the store and do nothing. That he should have minded his own business....

 

 

Having a young man wearing a mask point a gun at you and demand money is in no way threatening. He was just explaining an economic reality! It's really sad that he was injured while peacefully going about his business.

 

Is that what you were looking for, jocal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on Adric White


White was out of jail on bond after previously robbing The Original Oyster House at gunpoint just a little over a month before he robbed the Family Dollar.

Accomplice Tavoris Moss, 19, was also arrested in the Family Dollar robbery.

 

We should probably have some kind of rule against armed robbers who are out on bail having guns. That surely would have prevented this.

 

That link is broken but a video of the Oyster House robbery report is available. His accomplice that time around was a guy named Tavoris Montgomery. Tavoris M. two months in a row? What are the odds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I must have overlooked them. If I were to comment on them, I'd probably say some are actually attempted firearms suicides that failed, some are aggressive acts of violence, some are defensive gun uses, a handful are accidents. Those are 4 very different groups. Do defensive gun uses really belong among the "costs of gun violence"?

 

 

More dodger bullshit. And a third failure to address 255 gun casualties per day.

This isn't about DGU's, that seems to be a sidetrack mechanism.

 

1.some are actually attempted firearms suicides that failed

Not many, Tom. But how is any "failed suicide" without effects, or acceptable? Each is a firearm casualty.

 

2. some are aggressive acts of violence ALL of them are "aggressive acts of violence". Each is a firearm casualty.

 

3. some are defensive gun uses Note: Tom, you have failed to document these. The best media research has counted 1600 DGU's/yr. max. The figure is pretty insignificant.

 

4. a handful are accidents. Handful? About 700 gun accidents occur per year, and each is a gun casualty.

 

 

Let's get back to the question I asked. What about the massive scale of gun casualty in the USA?

Why aren't you weighing 255 deaths and injuries per day (NOT COUNTING THE 55 SUICIDES PER DAY) against the libertarian "benefits" of guns everywhere?

Why are you avoiding that?

 

 

1. Once again, the fact that I feel I don't have the right to interfere in someone's life does not mean I find all of their behavior acceptable. It simply means I don't have a right to interfere.

 

2. I don't consider aggression and defense to be the same thing.

 

3. I'll go with the CDC Gary Kleck's nonsense figures over the "best media research" on that point.

 

4. Yes, a handful. In the context of the 93,000 incidents you asked about, 700 is a handful.

 

But why are we talking about all of this in a thread that's primarily about suicide. Why don't you explain why you feel you have a right to interfere if someone wants to end his life. Do you own his life, or does he?

 

 

 

Can you count, Tom? Seven hundred lives lost, each year, is just not "a handful".

You have the nerve to claim that in the enormity of the problem, now gun accidents can be just written off. WTF?

Listen to yourself, mate.

"Firearm accidents are insignificant and tolerable, because the gun mess is way up at 90K/yr, not counting suicides."

 

Back to suicide. You think your degenerate view, that all gun suicides are sweet, somehow justifies or masks massive gun casualties.

And I think both these points of view POV (that gun suicides are fine, and that gun accidents are few) expose some seriously shitty ethics.

Twice.

I also think that too many people with shitty ethics, like yours, are drawn to guns.

This combination seems to be a bad mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of 255

 

An 18 year old male named Adric White enters a Family Dollar while wearing a mask and carrying a gun. He holds employees at gun point, and is ordering them around when a conceal-carry Good Samaritan noticed the crime in progress. Knowing that seconds can count when police are minutes away, the Good Samaritan entered the store and told the criminal not to move, his own firearm out and pointed at the robber. Instead of doing what he was told, the robber spun around to face the Good Samaritan, which earned him five well placed bullets. Adric survived the shooting.

 

Adric’s family got involved, but not in the way most would like to think. Instead of giving a wounded Adric the speech about crime and consequences, and how lucky he was to survive, the family turned against the Good Samaritan, arguing that if the customer’s life wasn’t immediately in danger, he should have left the store and do nothing. That he should have minded his own business....

 

 

Having a young man wearing a mask point a gun at you and demand money is in no way threatening. He was just explaining an economic reality! It's really sad that he was injured while peacefully going about his business.

 

Is that what you were looking for, jocal?

 

Reductio ad absurdam.

The statistics for armed good samaritans supporting public safety are questionable.

In fact, any such CCP claims have been soundly de-bunked in several major studies.

Gary Kleck's work was NOT supported in peer review.

Kleck hasn't been published by a quality journal since the NRS debunked Lott in 2004.

This researcher, however has a stream of current peer-reviewed work:

 

Kleck and Lott's formal peer review conclusion (written by Daniel Webster)

Although research by John Lott and Gary Kleck has challenged the prevailing view that

gun regulations can reduce lethal crimes, the many limitations of Lott’s and Kleck’s research

indicate that there is no reason to move from view of guns and violence backed by research in

previous decades. Until proven otherwise, the best science indicates that more guns will lead

to more deaths.

http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, roughly 50% of suicides (I'm too lazy to look the actual number up) are committed with a gun.

 

What about the other 50% that commit self-murder with other means such as ropes, razors, poison, drugs, cars, etc? Why don't you care about them? Are they also not important and worthy of your ire? Why aren't you mounting a national campaign against the razor mentality? Or jumping off bridges mentality?? It only matters if its messy?

 

Talk about dodging.....

 

Gun suicides, but not other forms of suicide, are extremely high in the USA.

This is a quantified public health problem.

Other forms of suicide (plastic bag suicides, hang glider suicides, or take-your-pick) are not out of whack.

Your gun suicide beliefs are convenient to your narrative, but they are denial itself.

 

The Cuntfinder needs to reflect that dumping on me non-stop doesn't address our gun suicide problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun%20control%20girl.jpg

 

This is cheap, uncivilized logic.

Please show me a credible study that says guns will improve the safety of women in the USA.

Here's one that strongly suggests otherwise:

 

Here's one that lays out rape at college.The Nursetta will soon be shooting up her own social circle.

 

Rick, you like FBI info, so check this out:

 

FBI report on Women and Self Defense

In 2009…1,818 females were murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents that were submitted to the FBI for its Supplementary Homicide Report. Examination of that data dispels many of the myths regarding the nature of lethal violence against females.

  • For homicides in which victim-to-offender relationship could be identified, 93% of female victim (1,579 out of 1,693) were murdered by a male they knew.
  • Nearly fourteen times as may females were murdered by a male they knew (1,579 victims) as were killed by male strangers (114 victims).
  • For victims who knew their offenders, 63% (989) of female homicide victims were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers.
  • There were 296 women shot and killed by either their husbands or acquaintances during the course of an argument.
  • Nationwide, for homicides in which the weapon could be determined (1,654), more female homicides were committed with firearms (53%) than any other weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you care about those 114 dead women? ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect we are about to learn that the CDC is the propaganda arm of the NRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect we are about to learn that the CDC is the propaganda arm of the NRA.

 

 

And bank rolled by Team Glock....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect we are about to learn that the CDC is the propaganda arm of the NRA.

 

You tell me. I can't figure this out.

I still want to know how Kleck became the DGU chair for the CDC/IOM/NAS 2013 work.

 

I contacted some key guys to find out. (Twitter has placed me among about eight others as "followers" of the key research orgs. Mutual contact is easy, quick, and direct.)

Tom Diaz, the ex-VPC junkyard dog of anti-gun characters, deferred at first, then offered a "third rail" premesis.

Dr. Daniel Webster responded, too, but would not answer the question.

 

No matter how he got the job, Dr. Gary Kleck's work has been challenged by key players, and it is just plain unsupported by others.

The only exceptions I can find are the work of Mark Gius, and Kastes and Mauser.

Kates is a lobby schill, with testimony for hire. Mauser is or was an exec in the Canadian NRA.

Gius' own study conclusion flat-out suggested that loopholes in present laws might explain their failure in his pro-gun conclusion. His work was not accepted into any peer-reviewed journals. (The links go to the work of the respective men.)

 

History will not be kind to Gary Kleck...unlike how it has sorted Arthur Kellerman already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is cheap, uncivilized logic.

Please show me a credible study that says guns will improve the safety of women in the USA.

 

 

 

You make this too easy.... Like a softball over the center of the plate:

 

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

 

Is the CDC credible enough for you?

 

 

Our question related to WOMEN and guns. That CDC report had no section on women, IIRC.

 

Is the CDC credible enough for you?

Not if cherry-picked. Overall, the IOM (the actual authors of the report for the CDC) cautioned that gun mishaps have to be weighed against iffy DGU benefits.

 

Then they stated the overall benefits needed confirmation by better study.

What is Cuntfinder the Great's position on federal funds for gun violence study?

 

 

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

 

 

Your quote leads us to the study which suggests that gunpackers draw danger (meaning assaults) 450% more than normal people.

Hmmm. When combined, these two studies suggest after gun carriers are a catalyst for trouble, they face better odds.

 

 

See the U.S. gun mentality in action, right here:

 

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

The Branas Study , Publication Date: November 2009, Charles C. Branas, PhD,

Therese S. Richmond, PhD, CRNP, Dennis P. Culhane, PhD, Thomas R. Ten Have, PhD, MPH, and Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD

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.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You follow someone on twitter and think that makes you buddies? That is delusional stalker behavior right there. Someone ought to warn those folks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You follow someone on twitter and think that makes you buddies? That is delusional stalker behavior right there. Someone ought to warn those folks,

 

I didn't say that, Len.

You used to be a cut above disparagement and ad hominems. What happened?

Do you have any comment on the subject matter at hand?

 

I pointed out the amazing present-tense capability of direct communication with key players in this issue.

I didn't see that coming...especially on Twitter.

I get much better info about gun violence issues from Twitter feeds than from media or PA.

Some social media comments sections are sourced, and loaded with non-incendiary discussion.

Most investigative journalist articles even offer a direct e-mail.

 

My side of the gun debate is refreshingly open, Len.

I hope your forty five guns are doing well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jocal, roughly 50% of suicides (I'm too lazy to look the actual number up) are committed with a gun.

 

What about the other 50% that commit self-murder with other means such as ropes, razors, poison, drugs, cars, etc? Why don't you care about them? Are they also not important and worthy of your ire? Why aren't you mounting a national campaign against the razor mentality? Or jumping off bridges mentality?? It only matters if its messy?

 

Talk about dodging.....

 

Gun suicides, but not other forms of suicide, are extremely high in the USA.

This is a quantified public health problem.

Other forms of suicide (plastic bag suicides, hang glider suicides, or take-your-pick) are not out of whack.

...

 

 

Listen to yourself, mate.

 

"THOUSANDS OF SUICIDES PER YEAR DON'T COUNT IF THEY WERE NOT COMMITTED USING A GUN!"

 

We're putting quotation marks around complete distortions now, right? Just want to make sure I'm playing on your field.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

This is about the massive Dr. Seigal's 2013 study, done by a Harvard school, and published in the swanky Journal of AMA.

 

 

Actually, it’s hard to find a more robust correlation in the social sciences than the one between gun laws and gun violence. The cry comes back: “But those are just correlations. They don’t prove causes!” And, indeed, the most recent damning study, published in that cranky, left-wing rag the Jourmal of American Medicine which shows a clear correlation, state to state, between strong gun laws and less gun violence—...

 

 

From the link:

 

Importance Over 30 000 people die annually in the United States from injuries caused by firearms. Although most firearm laws are enacted by states, whether the laws are associated with rates of firearm deaths is uncertain.

 

And on and on and on with the "suicides are gun violence" meme.

 

They've proven that people with access to tools use them, but people without access to tools do not. It's shocking stuff. And has nothing to do with what normal people think of when you say the word "violence."

 

You need to repeat the phrase "self murder" endlessly for quite a few more years before anyone is going to buy it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three Juvenile Criminals Pick Wrong Men to Rob – One Dead, One in Critical Condition

 

 

CBS Local reported:

 

Officers rushed to 431 S. Kalispell Way on reports of a shooting just before 11 p.m. Friday. When they arrived at the Bayberry condominiums off Alameda and South Kalispell Way, officers found two males with gunshot wounds. Both were rushed to the hospital…

…Police confirmed that one of the males died at the hospital and the other was treated for critical injuries. Another male suffered non-life threatening injuries in the shooting.

Police say three white males in their 20s were moving into an apartment building when they were approached by three black males between the ages of 16-20 in the foyer of the apartment building. Those males demanded their money at gunpoint.

“Two of the movers started to hand over their money, the third mover who was in fear for his safety of his friends, pulled out his weapon,” said Aurora Police Chief Nick Metz.

During the alleged robbery, the third male who was with the moving party, grabbed a firearm and shot towards the robbery suspects. Police say he shot each one of them.

One of the suspects died, another was wounded and was in serious condition on Saturday afternoon, and the third male walked into an area hospital with a gunshot wound to the shoulder. He is expected to survive and was taken into custody on unrelated charges.

The suspects have not been identified. The man who fired the shots has not arrested or charged. Police say he was questioned and released.

“I don’t think we would call this necessarily a make-my-day issue. This is a straight up regular common sense statutorily codified self defense,” said Brauchler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Three Juvenile Criminals Pick Wrong Men to Rob One Dead, One in Critical Condition

 

 

 

CBS Local reported:

 

Officers rushed to 431 S. Kalispell Way on reports of a shooting just before 11 p.m. Friday. When they arrived at the Bayberry condominiums off Alameda and South Kalispell Way, officers found two males with gunshot wounds. Both were rushed to the hospital

Police confirmed that one of the males died at the hospital and the other was treated for critical injuries. Another male suffered non-life threatening injuries in the shooting.

Police say three white males in their 20s were moving into an apartment building when they were approached by three black males between the ages of 16-20 in the foyer of the apartment building. Those males demanded their money at gunpoint.

Two of the movers started to hand over their money, the third mover who was in fear for his safety of his friends, pulled out his weapon, said Aurora Police Chief Nick Metz.

During the alleged robbery, the third male who was with the moving party, grabbed a firearm and shot towards the robbery suspects. Police say he shot each one of them.

One of the suspects died, another was wounded and was in serious condition on Saturday afternoon, and the third male walked into an area hospital with a gunshot wound to the shoulder. He is expected to survive and was taken into custody on unrelated charges.

The suspects have not been identified. The man who fired the shots has not arrested or charged. Police say he was questioned and released.

I dont think we would call this necessarily a make-my-day issue. This is a straight up regular common sense statutorily codified self defense, said Brauchler.

 

 

The shooter was definitely a vigilante. If he had just quietly given in to the criminals and been robbed and/killed, none of this would have happened. He obviously left the house that day with a mentality to kill.

 

 

When calculating the "cost of gun violence', how do you factor in the value of a life saved, a robbery or rape or murder prevented. These things are never a part of the calculus of the folks who want people to surrender their firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Three Juvenile Criminals Pick Wrong Men to Rob One Dead, One in Critical Condition

 

 

 

CBS Local reported:

 

Officers rushed to 431 S. Kalispell Way on reports of a shooting just before 11 p.m. Friday. When they arrived at the Bayberry condominiums off Alameda and South Kalispell Way, officers found two males with gunshot wounds. Both were rushed to the hospital

Police confirmed that one of the males died at the hospital and the other was treated for critical injuries. Another male suffered non-life threatening injuries in the shooting.

Police say three white males in their 20s were moving into an apartment building when they were approached by three black males between the ages of 16-20 in the foyer of the apartment building. Those males demanded their money at gunpoint.

Two of the movers started to hand over their money, the third mover who was in fear for his safety of his friends, pulled out his weapon, said Aurora Police Chief Nick Metz.

During the alleged robbery, the third male who was with the moving party, grabbed a firearm and shot towards the robbery suspects. Police say he shot each one of them.

One of the suspects died, another was wounded and was in serious condition on Saturday afternoon, and the third male walked into an area hospital with a gunshot wound to the shoulder. He is expected to survive and was taken into custody on unrelated charges.

The suspects have not been identified. The man who fired the shots has not arrested or charged. Police say he was questioned and released.

I dont think we would call this necessarily a make-my-day issue. This is a straight up regular common sense statutorily codified self defense, said Brauchler.

 

 

The shooter was definitely a vigilante. If he had just quietly given in to the criminals and been robbed and/killed, none of this would have happened. He obviously left the house that day with a mentality to kill.

 

 

When calculating the "cost of gun violence', how do you factor in the value of a life saved, a robbery or rape or murder prevented. These things are never a part of the calculus of the folks who want people to surrender their firearms.

 

 

None of this is even suicide-related. Didn't you guys read the topic post? The thread is mostly about suicides.

 

The Myth of Defensive Gun Ownership thread would have been a better choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

This is about the massive Dr. Seigal's 2013 study, done by a Harvard school, and published in the swanky Journal of AMA.

 

 

Actually, it’s hard to find a more robust correlation in the social sciences than the one between gun laws and gun violence. The cry comes back: “But those are just correlations. They don’t prove causes!” And, indeed, the most recent damning study, published in that cranky, left-wing rag the Jourmal of American Medicine which shows a clear correlation, state to state, between strong gun laws and less gun violence—...

 

 

From the link:

 

Importance Over 30 000 people die annually in the United States from injuries caused by firearms. Although most firearm laws are enacted by states, whether the laws are associated with rates of firearm deaths is uncertain.

 

And on and on and on with the "suicides are gun violence" meme.

On and on with no comprehension of loved ones rashly lost to suicide.

 

They've proven that people with access to tools use them, but people without access to tools do not. It's shocking stuff. And has nothing to do with what normal people think of when you say the word "violence."

 

You need to repeat the phrase "self murder" endlessly for quite a few more years before anyone is going to buy it.

 

 

 

Shameful shit. I've been away from PA for a bit, and find this toilet-bowl stuff. You reflect poorly on guns.

You reflect poorly on your mother, IMO. You should clean it up.

 

If death were a big positive, your position would hold up better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is Cuntfinder the Great's position on the blocked federal funding for gun research?

Do you approve of the 2012 Health and Human Services prohibition of gun study?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Three Juvenile Criminals Pick Wrong Men to Rob One Dead, One in Critical Condition

 

 

 

CBS Local reported:

 

Officers rushed to 431 S. Kalispell Way on reports of a shooting just before 11 p.m. Friday. When they arrived at the Bayberry condominiums off Alameda and South Kalispell Way, officers found two males with gunshot wounds. Both were rushed to the hospital

Police confirmed that one of the males died at the hospital and the other was treated for critical injuries. Another male suffered non-life threatening injuries in the shooting.

Police say three white males in their 20s were moving into an apartment building when they were approached by three black males between the ages of 16-20 in the foyer of the apartment building. Those males demanded their money at gunpoint.

Two of the movers started to hand over their money, the third mover who was in fear for his safety of his friends, pulled out his weapon, said Aurora Police Chief Nick Metz.

During the alleged robbery, the third male who was with the moving party, grabbed a firearm and shot towards the robbery suspects. Police say he shot each one of them.

One of the suspects died, another was wounded and was in serious condition on Saturday afternoon, and the third male walked into an area hospital with a gunshot wound to the shoulder. He is expected to survive and was taken into custody on unrelated charges.

The suspects have not been identified. The man who fired the shots has not arrested or charged. Police say he was questioned and released.

I dont think we would call this necessarily a make-my-day issue. This is a straight up regular common sense statutorily codified self defense, said Brauchler.

 

 

The shooter was definitely a vigilante. If he had just quietly given in to the criminals and been robbed and/killed, none of this would have happened. He obviously left the house that day with a mentality to kill.

 

 

When calculating the "cost of gun violence', how do you factor in the value of a life saved, a robbery or rape or murder prevented. These things are never a part of the calculus of the folks who want people to surrender their firearms.

 

 

I've brought this up several times in the past and each time its been ignored by jocal and his band of merry grabbers.....

 

 

The figures are low. Very low.

Even in the age of the internet and social media, the count is still low.

Even with thousands of rabid gun apologists, no presentable case can be made that guns are contributing significantly to public safety.

Dr. Kleck, Meet Mr. Gallup

According to Gallup (a poll, not a study, but generally rather reliable) 30 percent of American adults own guns. With a U.S. population of 313 million, roughly 75 percent of whom (about 230 million) are adults, that translates to about 70 million gun owners. The gun culture estimates its own strength at 80 million, so let’s assume they’re right, and Gallup not so much so. That would mean that one out of 32 gun owners is involved in a DGU every year. Seriously? Even if we factor in the additional 12 percent who, according to Gallup, live in a household in which someone owns a gun, that means 99 million who have access to one. And that would still mean that one out of 40 of them is involved in a DGU every year. If that sounds like a reasonable ratio to you, let’s draw a tighter bead on it.

(...) In challenging my observation that many of the anecdotes are bogus, a writer at The Truth About Guns whipped out a list of “75 real ones, just from the last 4 months”. Except that many of these “real” ones were, um, not so real. He didn’t say where he came up with this collection, but everybody who produces such a list produces essentially the same list, a roster of news headlines apparently meant to confirm the 2.5 million tally. If so, it indicates that maybe gunsters aren’t quite as proficient at counting people as they are at killing them.

Because 75 in 4 months does not quite add up to 2.5 million. It adds up to 225. And at that rate, you would have – quite literally – a substantially greater risk of being struck by lightning. So, since the NRA has only your best interests at heart (wink wink nudge nudge) why isn’t it promoting handy dandy designer rubber suits to go along with those portable miniature lightning rods it pushes?

Even on the busiest day, there are rarely more than 2 or 3 DGUs in the news; and in order to meet the quota of 2.5 million annually, you would need to have 6849 daily, more than 2 per day in each of the nation’s counties.

(...) One website that regularly circulates the latest version of The List is keepandbeararms.com. And hoo boy, if you want to stoke your paranoia and justify your gun addiction, you’ve come to the right place. There are ample links to stories about the big bad guvmint wanting to take away your so-called Second Amendment rights, and about the incompetence of law enforcement personnel – we all know that they’re not nearly as skilled and responsible at using firearms as we are. And of course stories about defensive gun use. In fact – get this – this website even recruits a team of volunteers to scrape up these stories and send them in. Even so, they can’t come up with more than a few hundred per year (even assuming they’re all genuine) – while there seems to be a higher incidence lately, the archives indicate that 75 in 4 months is more or less typical. And guess what? From what I can tell, every one of these incidents was reported in the nefarious librulmedia.

http://propagandaprofessor.net/2012/02/11/make-my-day-mention-gun-defense-statistics/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Three Juvenile Criminals Pick Wrong Men to Rob One Dead, One in Critical Condition

 

 

 

CBS Local reported:

 

Officers rushed to 431 S. Kalispell Way on reports of a shooting just before 11 p.m. Friday. When they arrived at the Bayberry condominiums off Alameda and South Kalispell Way, officers found two males with gunshot wounds. Both were rushed to the hospital

Police confirmed that one of the males died at the hospital and the other was treated for critical injuries. Another male suffered non-life threatening injuries in the shooting.

Police say three white males in their 20s were moving into an apartment building when they were approached by three black males between the ages of 16-20 in the foyer of the apartment building. Those males demanded their money at gunpoint.

Two of the movers started to hand over their money, the third mover who was in fear for his safety of his friends, pulled out his weapon, said Aurora Police Chief Nick Metz.

During the alleged robbery, the third male who was with the moving party, grabbed a firearm and shot towards the robbery suspects. Police say he shot each one of them.

One of the suspects died, another was wounded and was in serious condition on Saturday afternoon, and the third male walked into an area hospital with a gunshot wound to the shoulder. He is expected to survive and was taken into custody on unrelated charges.

The suspects have not been identified. The man who fired the shots has not arrested or charged. Police say he was questioned and released.

I dont think we would call this necessarily a make-my-day issue. This is a straight up regular common sense statutorily codified self defense, said Brauchler.

 

 

The shooter was definitely a vigilante. If he had just quietly given in to the criminals and been robbed and/killed, none of this would have happened. He obviously left the house that day with a mentality to kill.

 

 

When calculating the "cost of gun violence', how do you factor in the value of a life saved, a robbery or rape or murder prevented. These things are never a part of the calculus of the folks who want people to surrender their firearms.

 

 

I've brought this up several times in the past and each time its been ignored by jocal and his band of merry grabbers.....

 

 

The figures are low. Very low.

Even in the age of the internet and social media, the count is still low.

Even with thousands of rabid gun apologists, no presentable case can be made that guns are contributing significantly to public safety.

 

So, you place a low value on human life, crime prevention including armed assault, rape, murder and the general defense of liberty which might in some measure, small or large, be facilitated by an armed populace defending their property and life, and the Constitution.

 

We get that. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The shooter was definitely a vigilante. If he had just quietly given in to the criminals and been robbed and/killed, none of this would have happened. He obviously left the house that day with a mentality to kill.

 

 

When calculating the "cost of gun violence', how do you factor in the value of a life saved, a robbery or rape or murder prevented. These things are never a part of the calculus of the folks who want people to surrender their firearms.

 

 

I've brought this up several times in the past and each time its been ignored by jocal and his band of merry grabbers.....

 

 

The figures are low. Very low.

Even in the age of the internet and social media, the count is still low.

Even with thousands of rabid gun apologists, no presentable case can be made that guns are contributing significantly to public safety.

 

So, you place a low value on human life, crime prevention including armed assault, rape, murder and the general defense of liberty which might in some measure, small or large, be facilitated by an armed populace defending their property and life, and the Constitution.

 

We get that. Thanks.

 

 

It's like this. A civilized society, in the main, can rise above such violence, using jurisprudence.

Not is all cases, but twenty years of evidence shows that no social collapse occurred in Australia, NZ, Canada, and Israel when guts were restricted. On the contrary.

 

Gun can be handy, I know. But gun fever is a different matter, and inevitably introduces values which clash with the respect for law enforcement.

Guns are not the answer for the advancement of civilization. The net effect of the vigilante outcome is to break down civil rights, too.

 

Regarding the constitutional issue, gun regulations are in play (as demonstrated by state courts, and based on strong language in Heller).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is Cuntfinder the Great's position on the blocked federal funding for gun research?

Do you approve of the 2012 Health and Human Services prohibition of gun study?

 

What does that have to do with suicide?

 

 

Nothing. The Cuntfinder is dodging the question. One which lies at the heart of the gun issue in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I read Sailing Anarchy.

 

 

Yr Tot Gun Deaths Injuries Total Shot[/size]

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...

 

And on and on with the self-murders. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<SNIP>

 

So, you place a low value on human life, crime prevention including armed assault, rape, murder and the general defense of liberty which might in some measure, small or large, be facilitated by an armed populace defending their property and life, and the Constitution.

 

We get that. Thanks.

 

 

It's like this. A civilized society, in the main, can rise above such violence, using jurisprudence.

Not is all cases, but twenty years of evidence shows that no social collapse occurred in Australia, NZ, Canada, and Israel when guts were restricted. On the contrary.

 

Gun can be handy, I know. But gun fever is a different matter, and inevitably introduces values which clash with the respect for law enforcement.

Guns are not the answer for the advancement of civilization. The net effect of the vigilante outcome is to break down civil rights, too.

 

Regarding the constitutional issue, gun regulations are in play (as demonstrated by state courts, and based on strong language in Heller).

 

 

Did you ever consider that to achieve the social elevation you're clamoring about, that you have to actually work to address causal factors, and not the peripheral symptoms and implements?

 

If you wish to progress an agenda, you need to first define that agenda's objective, why your approach to those objectives is the most efficacious, articulate the assumptions/constraints that were stipulated as inherent to the approach, the measurement criterion against which progress towards this objective will be measured, and the expected cost/schedule for achieving this objective.

 

If your approach to anything is lacking either of these attributes, then your approach requires maturation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The CDC just did a big gun study a couple of years ago, commissioned by Obo. Last I checked, the CDC is a federal agency. And that federal agency is federally funded. You would think that if there was a block on federal funding on gun research, it would be really hard for a federal agency to conduct gun research they were legally blocked from doing so. Study the thing (113 pgs) before quoting it, or you trap yourself perty fast.

 

Once upon a time, the USA had a Pearl Harbor moment. Let's call it Sandy Hook. This disturbing event overpowered the wishes of the gun lobby, and a research exception occurred, for the CDC's 2013 Priorities for Research to even happen.The report states the insecurity of it's own completion. And the IOC contract was partially paid by the Joyce Foundation et al, meathead. I also recall that the FBI, DOJ, BATF and such are also all federal agencies (maybe I'm wrong), and I recall that they all collect stats and publish reports on guns, murders, accidents, suicides, and such. Where are they getting the money for that? Are they passing a collection plate around the office and doing it on their own time?

Jeff, first off, the FBI provides numbers, and very little analasis. Secondly, the CDC reports hits AGITC's bit about causal results: the next round of studies must be approached differently. (The FBI is not nearly as state-of-the-art, basically.)

 

The CDC 2013 lays it out how to improve what is concludable, in every field.

 

Public study is trusted by mainstream Americans. Such study of the tobacco industry, of asbestos dangers, and of automobile safety swayed public opinion for public health improvements. In the case of auto safety, a 90% casualty reduction was measured.

 

If your claim (that the faucet of federal research is open to the CDC) were true. then why was the CDC's work stillborn? Their stated window of completion of the work they wanted was April 2016, but ALL the priorities of research they recommended failed to happen as of June 2013.

 

 

 

Now of you want to discuss a ban on federal funding to private researchers who have an agenda, either pro or anti-gun - then yes I support that.. If people or organizations want to conducted "studies" to make a political point or achieve a political goal - have a nut, just don't expect the taxpayer to pick up the check.

 

Which is exactly what the majority all of your "peer reviewed studies" are is ammunition (pun intended) for anti-gun groups to make political hay. Simple Jeff, you'll need to state particular, facts to challenge such science, point-by-point, not just type in sweeping opinions. The NRA does the same thing. The federal gov't should not be in the business of funding "research" on either side. They can pay for that shit themselves. The HHS is for us, the people. Private Guns, Public Health.

 

But interestingly, the one recent study that the gov't did conduct with true independent agencies found pretty much all the anti-gun rhetoric to be absolutely false. Not so fast. That report was cool, and I can accept its entirety...but you quote it selectively. 1. It begged for further study. 2. It showed Tom is lying about gun lobby blockage of proper funding. Suck it, jo-boi. You lost. Read on, folks. Inform yourselves.

 

Let's look at the full context of DGU's in Priorities for Research, 2013:

 

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © 2015 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

 

Mixed DGU signals, p15

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).

 

On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

 

Pasted from <http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15>

 

 

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

 

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

 

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

Kleck's DGU Department in CDC report:

Kleck, G. 1984. Handgun-only gun control: A policy disaster in the making. In Firearms and Violence: Issues of Regulation, edited by D. B. Kates. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Pp. 167-199.

Kleck, G. 1988. Crime-control through the private use of armed force. Social Problems 35(1):1-21.

Kleck, G. 1991. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Kleck, G. 2001a. The frequency of defensive gun use: Evidence and disinformation. In Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, edited by G. Kleck and D. B. Kates. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Pp. 213-284.

Kleck, G. 2001b. The nature and effectiveness of owning, carrying and using guns for self-protection. In Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, edited by G. Kleck and D. B. Kates. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Pp. 285-342.

Kleck, G., and M. DeLone. 1993. Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9(1):55-81.

Kleck, G., and M. Gertz. 1995. Armed resistance to crime: The prevalence and nature of self-defense with a gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 86(1):150-187.

Kleck, G., and E. B. Patterson. 1993. The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9:249-287.

Kleck, G., and S.-Y. K. Wang. 2009. The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data. UCLA Law Review (5). http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on and on...

 

 

 

 

Switzerland in no gun utopia...

Switzerland’s limited gun access does not prevent gun violence. Greater firearm ownership predicts greater firearm suicide...

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

...

Kleck, G., and S.-Y. K. Wang. 2009. The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data. UCLA Law Review (5). http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).

 

 

Go ahead. Get started. Explain why the UCLA Law Review was so foolish as to give him any attention at all. Also, explain why his research at the link you provided is deficient.

 

He's just a professor, not a bright... um... whatever you are. Correct the clown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

...

Kleck, G., and S.-Y. K. Wang. 2009. The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data. UCLA Law Review (5). http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).

 

 

Go ahead. Get started. Explain why the UCLA Law Review was so foolish as to give him any attention at all. Also, explain why his research at the link you provided is deficient.

 

He's just a professor, not a bright... um... whatever you are. Correct the clown.

 

 

1. Ahem. His partner in the survey, Wang, was an undergrad. ?????

2. The work was four years old when used.

3. Kleck's previous work was what, 2001? It's now 2015. Where has this scholar been for this very controversial decade?

(I have a pretty complete collection of his ridiculous articles during this period. Let's go there.)

4.Law Reviews are published by law students. I don't know about UCLA, but other such publications have little gravitas. The Harvard "Law Review" is a conservative mouthpiece, for example:

"Harvard Law Review", published Kates and Mauser 2007 (it had zero acceptance for peer-view; Mauser was a shill of the Canadian NRA. Kates is a testimony-for-hire gun rights advocate.)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

4. Law reviews can and will have good content, and can and will draw intelligent criticism, but their input is leagues away from peer review, as such.

 

The Badgeless Wonder's effort to defend or present pro-gun research seems lazy, uninformed, and half-hearted. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on and on...

 

 

 

 

Switzerland is no gun utopia...

Switzerland’s limited gun access does not prevent gun violence. Greater firearm ownership predicts greater firearm suicide...

 

 

 

 

Your campaign for easy suicides assumes that suicide is socially acceptable. It is not. Suicide will be taboo forever.

Your beliefs show, consistently, a ruthless aberration of human decency. For guns.

Your mother must be proud indeed. Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

...

Kleck, G., and S.-Y. K. Wang. 2009. The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data. UCLA Law Review (5). http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).

Go ahead. Get started. Explain why the UCLA Law Review was so foolish as to give him any attention at all. Also, explain why his research at the link you provided is deficient.

 

He's just a professor, not a bright... um... whatever you are. Correct the clown.

1. Ahem. His partner in the survey, Wang, was an undergrad. ?????

2. The work was four years old when used.

3. Kleck's previous work was what, 2001? It's now 2015. Where has this scholar been for this very controversial decade?

(I have a pretty complete collection of his ridiculous articles during this period. Let's go there.)

4.Law Reviews are published by law students. I don't know about UCLA, but other such publications have little gravitas. The Harvard "Law Review" is a conservative mouthpiece, for example:

"Harvard Law Review", published Kates and Mauser 2007 (it had zero acceptance for peer-view; Mauser was a shill of the Canadian NRA. Kates is a testimony-for-hire gun rights advocate.)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

4. Law reviews can and will have good content, and can and will draw intelligent criticism, but their input is leagues away from peer review, as such.

 

The Badgeless Wonder's effort to defend or present pro-gun research seems lazy, uninformed, and half-hearted. Just sayin'.

Are you saying being an undergrad means your work should not be considered or did someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

...

Kleck, G., and S.-Y. K. Wang. 2009. The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data. UCLA Law Review (5). http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).

Go ahead. Get started. Explain why the UCLA Law Review was so foolish as to give him any attention at all. Also, explain why his research at the link you provided is deficient.

 

He's just a professor, not a bright... um... whatever you are. Correct the clown.

1. Ahem. His partner in the survey, Wang, was an undergrad. ?????

2. The work was four years old when used.

3. Kleck's previous work was what, 2001? It's now 2015. Where has this scholar been for this very controversial decade?

(I have a pretty complete collection of his ridiculous articles during this period. Let's go there.)

4.Law Reviews are published by law students. I don't know about UCLA, but other such publications have little gravitas. The Harvard "Law Review" is a conservative mouthpiece, for example:

"Harvard Law Review", published Kates and Mauser 2007 (it had zero acceptance for peer-view; Mauser was a shill of the Canadian NRA. Kates is a testimony-for-hire gun rights advocate.)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

4. Law reviews can and will have good content, and can and will draw intelligent criticism, but their input is leagues away from peer review, as such.

 

The Badgeless Wonder's effort to defend or present pro-gun research seems lazy, uninformed, and half-hearted. Just sayin'.

Are you saying being an undergrad means your work should not be considered or did someone else?

 

 

I'm saying "consider the source". You can't weigh ANY undergrad against the PhD authors listed in typical peer review.

The prestige of Kleck's research partner is a reflection on himself...in academic circles, or on typical forums.

Eagles soar with eagles, not sparrows.

 

An epic presentation of Kleck's work was once offered on our forums. Take a good look, mate. Kleck's figures just don't hold up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone wanna submit JokeAwf's name to our dead pool 2015? 'Cuz not only is this fuking nutcase looney-tune quickly losing it.....but he also has a gun.

 

I'm betting he'll self murder himself during the holidays....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, consider your sources.

 

I'm going to push this further. Here is a post-graduate (barely has a B.A.) named David Hardy, age 23, writing the first known "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment:

 

Abstract: (written by Hardy, about historian Hardy)

 

Of Arms and the Law is a 1974 Chicago-Kent Law Review article which essentially began the modern trend toward recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual, rather than collective, right.

It is today mainly of historical interest. It was the first discussion of several significant points, including

-- the fact that in US v. Miller, Miller's attorney filed no brief and did not argue,

--that Federalist 21 and 46 support an individual rights view, and

--that the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments also use "right of the people" to describe individual rights.

Pasted from <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1544064#%23>

 

Here is Hardy, sounding lofty towards Historian (and PhD) Dr. Saul Cornell.n The writing includes condescension (like Tom Ray's).

 

David T. Hardy, A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origin of Gun Control in America, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1237 (2007),

 

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol15/ iss4/6

 

Copyright c 2007 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj

 

Again, consider your sources: Kleck is a gun logistics clown, and David Hardy is an historian clown. He once got his panties twisted around, with a nuclear wedgie...

by an imp named Michael Moore.hardys%20michael%20moore%20book_zpslr8fb

 

 

 

Next, Hardy's contribution to Waco Fever was to claim, in writing, that the FBI fired 200 shots into Mr. Koresh's burning buildings. (Unfortunately, David Hardy's evidence evaporated.) YCMTSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone wanna submit JokeAwf's name to our dead pool 2015? 'Cuz not only is this fuking nutcase looney-tune quickly losing it.....but he also has a gun.

 

I'm betting he'll self murder himself during the holidays....

 

Your post seems to show an unhealthy mindset, Rick. (Am feeling pretty well, thank you.)

 

We have a dynamic. The pattern is that I get more and more informed about the hard evidence of our gun problem, and more organized...and your SA Gun Club has more and more to ignore.

 

I hope you enjoy your Sunday, bud.

 

 

thiswaytothebunker_zpsc37b438d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyone wanna submit JokeAwf's name to our dead pool 2015? 'Cuz not only is this fuking nutcase looney-tune quickly losing it.....but he also has a gun.

I'm betting he'll self murder himself during the holidays....

Nah..... He's too self absorbed and narcissistic for that. He thinks people here actually care.

 

 

 

He's DT's crazier twin brother. Anything can happen.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

...

Kleck, G., and S.-Y. K. Wang. 2009. The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data. UCLA Law Review (5). http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).

 

 

Go ahead. Get started. Explain why the UCLA Law Review was so foolish as to give him any attention at all. Also, explain why his research at the link you provided is deficient.

 

He's just a professor, not a bright... um... whatever you are. Correct the clown.

 

 

1. Ahem. His partner in the survey, Wang, was an undergrad. ?????

2. The work was four years old when used.

3. Kleck's previous work was what, 2001? It's now 2015. Where has this scholar been for this very controversial decade?

(I have a pretty complete collection of his ridiculous articles during this period. Let's go there.)

4.Law Reviews are published by law students. I don't know about UCLA, but other such publications have little gravitas. The Harvard "Law Review" is a conservative mouthpiece, for example:

"Harvard Law Review", published Kates and Mauser 2007 (it had zero acceptance for peer-view; Mauser was a shill of the Canadian NRA. Kates is a testimony-for-hire gun rights advocate.)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

4. Law reviews can and will have good content, and can and will draw intelligent criticism, but their input is leagues away from peer review, as such.

 

The Badgeless Wonder's effort to defend or present pro-gun research seems lazy, uninformed, and half-hearted. Just sayin'.

 

 

Yes, yes, I understand. Really bad messengers. That's not what I asked.

 

I asked what they said that was wrong. Address that subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And on and on...

 

 

 

 

Switzerland is no gun utopia...

Switzerland’s limited gun access does not prevent gun violence. Greater firearm ownership predicts greater firearm suicide...

 

 

 

 

Your campaign for easy suicides assumes that suicide is socially acceptable. It is not. Suicide will be taboo forever.

Your beliefs show, consistently, a ruthless aberration of human decency. For guns.

Your mother must be proud indeed. Correct?

 

 

If I want to kill myself, what gives you any right to stop me?

 

If you have an answer to that question you might get me to agree with your efforts to keep our suicide rate down by preventing gun ownership.

 

But I have seen no answer.

 

Your creepy interest in my mother is generally irrelevant, but she's a firm right-to-die person and is proud that I'm the same. Her biggest fear is Alzheimers and she wants to be in control of whether she meets that end. I completely agree. Even if she wants to use a gun, though I'd advise against that because they're messy and not nearly lethal enough.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your campaign for easy suicides assumes that suicide is socially acceptable. It is not. Suicide will be taboo forever.

Your beliefs show, consistently, a ruthless aberration of human decency. For guns.

Your mother must be proud indeed. Correct?

 

 

If I want to kill myself, what gives you any right to stop me?

 

If you have an answer to that question you might get me to agree with your efforts to keep our suicide rate down by preventing gun ownership.

 

But I have seen no answer.

 

Your creepy interest in my mother is generally irrelevant, but she's a firm right-to-die person and is proud that I'm the same. Her biggest fear is Alzheimers and she wants to be in control of whether she meets that end. I completely agree. Even if she wants to use a gun, though I'd advise against that because they're messy and not nearly lethal enough.

 

 

 

Your partial answer covering right-to-die is classic dodging.

Some part of your fine mother, I suppose, is quite set against rash or poorly considered suicides.

You see, 70% of attempted suicide victims go on to complete a fuller life, Tom.

I suppose she would shudder at your approval of 19,000 suicides every year. No?

 

But your proposals for social atrocities don't stop there, do they?

-- mis-quoted Jefferson posted at the top. Quite a bit. This raises credibility issues, Moms don't like that.

--You clip quotes, to present a distorted, dishonest presentation. An attorney such as your mom would object.

--You will not acknowledge, and would not discuss, the 255 non-suicidal gun casualties every day. Unless your mom is heartless, she might object to your cavalier, breezy, smarmy tone on that one.

--You have never faced the idea of reducing our gun homicide rate from 19.5 time those of other developed countries, to the norm of other higher-income nations. Then you claim falsely that the problem is "abating". The quantity of evidence disputing your POV might impress your Mom.

--You claim that guns protect women, but they are a huge culturally-negative factor in the health of women in the USA. What is Mom's position on women's health?

 

Q.Just how proud could your mother be about your body of work? A. Very proud.

Would you object to me presenting her a few of your choice quotations from Political Anarchy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites