Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

Funny thing too that JokeOff is only concerned with self-muurderators who use specific tools. The rest are 'normal'. Wtf?

 

I've mentioned that before too. The words jocal and logic should never be used in the same sentence......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Our overall suicide rates would fall below normal, meaning below international norms, if they weren't being fed by gun proliferation.

 

...

 

So we agree that the US suicide rate is within international norms and you think we could do much better if only we adopt strict gun control to prevent self-murders.

 

OK. I don't agree because I look at places like Japan, with almost no private gun ownership and a very high suicide rate, and conclude that people inclined to self-murder will find a way to do it.

 

At least you're talking about it in the right thread this time and admitting that we have a normal suicide rate compared to the "leading nations" you referenced earlier. That's progress!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your data is showing a decrease in gun suicide coenciding with an increase in overall suicide rates from 2006 to 2012. Obviously suicide is not tied to guns in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, now I get it, that must be why ...

 

Firearm deaths among leading causes of death

"Gun deaths -- 33, 636 -- pale in comparison to the nation's leading killer, heart disease, which claimed 611,105 lives in 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But, as the graph shows, guns took more lives than other top causes of death, such as hypertension (30,770) and Parkinson's disease (25,196)."

 

and stuff like this happens;

 

"A three-year-old boy has killed himself while playing with his mother's handgun, according to police in Ohio.

The boy shot and fatally wounded himself in the chest after finding the gun at his home near Cincinnati."

 

 

This post that is mostly about self-murders somehow found its way into one about the topic of gun sales, so I moved it here.

 

Do you agree with jocal that we would self-murder ourselves at a lower rate than other "leading nations" if only we got rid of all those pesky guns?

 

I feel sorry for the Darwin Award winner. Usually, such people take themselves, not their offspring, out of the gene pool, but the result is the same. That one should really go in a Darwin Awards thread but I don't feel like finding one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Our overall suicide rates would fall below normal, meaning below international norms, if they weren't being fed by gun proliferation.

 

...

 

So we agree that the US suicide rate is within international norms and you think we could do much better if only we adopt strict gun control to prevent self-murders.

 

OK. I don't agree because I look at places like Japan, with almost no private gun ownership and a very high suicide rate, and conclude that people inclined to self-murder will find a way to do it.

 

At least you're talking about it in the right thread this time and admitting that we have a normal suicide rate compared to the "leading nations" you referenced earlier. That's progress!

 

 

Your international comparison is poor, and misleading. Japan has a unique tradition steeped in suicide.

They have valued suicide for centuries, but get a clue, facilitating suicide is considered ghoulish in our country.

I'll discuss total firearms violence numbers on any thread I wish. Same for posting suicide information.

Suicide Is Leading Cause Of Gun Deaths, But Largely Absent In Debate On Gun Violence

The overall suicide rate is rising so rapidly that it now outnumbers deaths from car crashes. Most recently, health officials noted a startling spike in suicides among middle-aged Americans: they have jumped by 28 percent from 1999 to 2010.Pasted from <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/guns-suicide_n_3240065.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that Dr. Kevorkian had a somewhat ghoulish appearance but I think he was a great American who was willing to help people who were suffering when others would not by facilitating their self-murders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another false comparison. More dishonest propaganda.

 

Dr. Kevorkian did not propose guns for suicide. His approach did not traumatize relatives, loved ones, and cleaning crews.

You are not Dr. Kevorkian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another false comparison. More dishonest propaganda.

 

Dr. Kevorkian did not propose guns for suicide. His approach did not traumatize relatives, loved ones, and cleaning crews.

You are not Dr. Kevorkian.

 

Then you should be more specific and say what you mean. It would look like this:

 

...facilitating suicide is sometimes considered ghoulish in our country.

 

I still say you own your body and your life and can self-murderate yourself when or if you wish by whatever means you choose, including your gun.

 

Did I just facilitate your suicide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your data is showing a decrease in gun suicide coenciding with an increase in overall suicide rates from 2006 to 2012. Obviously suicide is not tied to guns in Australia.

Ahhhh from 2006 to 12? Really? You didn't like the 1996 to 2012 numbers?

 

Judge-Judy-Shake-My-Head-Gif_zps66b02891

Well from 1996 to 2000 the overall rate INCREASED substantially. Then it fell from 2000 to 2006. Something good happened between 2000 and 2006.

 

Based on the very limited data you posted one can only deduce the confiscation caused a substantial rise in the overall suicide rate and something else reversed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another false comparison. More dishonest propaganda.

 

Dr. Kevorkian did not propose guns for suicide. His approach did not traumatize relatives, loved ones, and cleaning crews.

You are not Dr. Kevorkian.

Personally I find hanging, jumps, poisoning to be more ghoulish. Guns seem much quicker and less traumatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another false comparison. More dishonest propaganda.

 

Dr. Kevorkian did not propose guns for suicide. His approach did not traumatize relatives, loved ones, and cleaning crews.

You are not Dr. Kevorkian.

Personally I find hanging, jumps, poisoning to be more ghoulish. Guns seem much quicker and less traumatic.

 

Except for those who find the body. Usually a loved one.

46fd8e9a4a3217c29cac44f015b87aa3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Another false comparison. More dishonest propaganda.

 

Dr. Kevorkian did not propose guns for suicide. His approach did not traumatize relatives, loved ones, and cleaning crews.

You are not Dr. Kevorkian.

Personally I find hanging, jumps, poisoning to be more ghoulish. Guns seem much quicker and less traumatic.

Except for those who find the body. Usually a loved one.

46fd8e9a4a3217c29cac44f015b87aa3.jpg

Like I said - I'm more concerned with time aspect. Other means can't be very pretty either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another false comparison. More dishonest propaganda.

 

Dr. Kevorkian did not propose guns for suicide. His approach did not traumatize relatives, loved ones, and cleaning crews.

You are not Dr. Kevorkian.

 

So you want to take guns away from us to keep cleaning crews from being traumatized??? YCMTSU!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to save their own life. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant. Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it. But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused. I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to save their own life. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant. Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it. But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused. I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

Welcome. You must be new here. Those of us on the pro gun side have repeatedly brought that up wrt to passing background checks and then committing suicide. The idiots like joke-al ignore it as if it's never been said and the. Go on with their hand wringing about self-murder with guns. And yes, they actually call it "self murder". Silly innit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to save their own life. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant. Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it. But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused. I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

 

So there we have it all from the new guy. Condensed, for all to see.

 

If you put this rant together, clearly there is no freedom in the USA, it is an illusion, only held together by the threat of death to the other guy. No surprise, that's the message the gun nuts want, but it does not have to be that way. Countries where the politicians still have at least some say in what happens, have done something to stop the slaughter.

 

The US has been under the control of corporations since 1915, probably from the start. They know what to feed to the sheeple to maximise sales, and the sheeple love it, even if it kills them. As demonstrated here.

 

What a cunt of a place where 'rights' are only assured to those with a gun.

 

 

Slight correction - we're a cunt of a place because we retain our rights, gun or not.

The underlying premise of our constitution, and our way of life is that legal behaviors that even the majority find distasteful are protected. The other side of that is that the legal exercise of those behaviors stipulates that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Most of us accept and like it like that.

 

There are indeed those who refuse to accept responsibility for their behaviors, and the crux of this argument isn't that one side wants to see someone else get their nose poked, it's disagreement over the best way to prevent that.

 

You and many other optimistically mistaken individuals think that outlawing swinging fists would spell the end of bloody noses, and the pragmatic individuals know that that's simply not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I typically try to stay away from internet conversations about guns, cause it never goes anywhere, but sometimes foolish ignorance of the law, and the well documented reasons that laws were put into place pushes me over the edge.

 

I really don't have much else to add to the conversation, because those on the left here are clearly unable to read english. And as long as they can't read english they can continue to deny the constitution is the law, and therefore will not be able to pull their heads out of their asses to see the light

 

Also, thank you, that is my favorite self-portrait! I don't know how you found it, now you know who I am, and when you see me you can run in the other direction because you know I am a "gun nutter"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to save their own life. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant. Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it. But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused. I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

 

Symphato, welcome to our boards.

However, I may read English better than you do.

About the bolded. History shows that armed citizenry is a recipe for squashing civil rights.

(Yo, Molon Labe is an expression which flaunts and threatens that dynamic.)

MILITIA MYTHS: WHY ARMED POPULATIONS DON’T PREVENT TYRANNY,

THEY OFTEN LEAD TO IT.

 

A historical analysis reveals that Militias are typically the gateway to tyranny, not the safeguard against it. A heavily armed population has little to no bearing on preventing tyranny.

 

Militias that have been successful in warding off foreign aggression overwhelmingly opposed democratic rule. A few examples are Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba, Somalia, Iraq, and southern Lebanon; in none of these countries did the militias promote a free State. Add to this list countries where militias have ripped apart society in tribal states or civil war (such as Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Colombia, and the Palestinian Territories) and we can form an even clearer picture of militias.

 

An astute reader will note that all of the examples I am providing are from poor countries or societies that never had a well-established democratic tradition. And this is true. While it is typically wise to refrain from comparing countries in different socio-economic strata, there simply aren’t any wealthy, free societies that use militias for self-defense. Every democratic country, with the exception of Costa Rica, has a standing army to defend it, not militias.

For examples closer to home, we can easily see that the Klu Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi elements, and the Black Panthers (all of which are or were unregulated militias) have done little to promote a free society. Perhaps the best example in America of the influence militias have on society is “Bloody Kansas” during the 1850s. Pro-Northern and Southern settlers, armed to the teeth, streamed into Kansas in order to sway whether the state became free or slave. The constant skirmishes killed 56 settlers, out of a total population of 8,000. It is safe to conclude that the sudden explosion in the number of armed men did not contribute to a democratic process.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/militia-myths-why-armed-populations-dont-prevent-tyranny-but-often-lead-to-it/>

 

The constitution is open to interpretation, and is an evolving mechanism.

According to Heller, the second amendment is not a slam dunk for unlimited gun rights.

The higher courts must balance the public safety against the right to carry. I notice that many courts are saying that since the public safety is involved, intermediate scrutiny of gun restrictions is justified.

 

Symphato, gun violence is not happening in a vacuum. Innocent bystanders have a right to pursue life and liberty without guns adding danger to public spaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to save their own life. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant. Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it. But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused. I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

 

So there we have it all from the new guy. Condensed, for all to see.

 

If you put this rant together, clearly there is no freedom in the USA, it is an illusion, only held together by the threat of death to the other guy. No surprise, that's the message the gun nuts want, but it does not have to be that way. Countries where the politicians still have at least some say in what happens, have done something to stop the slaughter.

 

The US has been under the control of corporations since 1915, probably from the start. They know what to feed to the sheeple to maximise sales, and the sheeple love it, even if it kills them. As demonstrated here.

 

What a cunt of a place where 'rights' are only assured to those with a gun.

 

 

Slight correction - we're a cunt of a place because we retain our rights, gun or not.

 

The underlying premise of our constitution, and our way of life is that legal behaviors that even the majority find distasteful are protected. The other side of that is that the legal exercise of those behaviors stipulates that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Most of us accept and like it like that.

 

There are indeed those who refuse to accept responsibility for their behaviors, and the crux of this argument isn't that one side wants to see someone else get their nose poked, it's disagreement over the best way to prevent that.

 

You and many other optimistically mistaken individuals think that outlawing swinging fists would spell the end of bloody noses, and the pragmatic individuals know that that's simply not the case.

 

 

We need guns, to prevent bloody noses.

WTF?

 

Guns against fists again. Shoot the fistfighters is a song sung by the SA Gun Club Choir.

Jeff agrees. He would off a shirtless garbage chucker. The tire tosser had scary fists.

Tom Ray agrees. (The Badgeless Avenger approved the gunplay at the Burger King Gun Scramble, and at the Plebe's Revenge Shootout.)

LenP agrees: one blow can cause permanent brain damage.

 

Let's plan to shoot fistfighters. Such a progression of thought is part of the problem, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! Are you qualified to object? The medical community is very certain that even unloaded gun presence is, in effect, precipitating suicide.The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. Heller covered in your home only, I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to possibly, with some infinitessmal percentage save their own life. Defensively, lives are saved, and crime is diminished, in many ways without the use of a gun. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, STRAW MAN ALERT I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant.

 

Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it.

 

But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. The happiness of many has been ruined by guns. They have neither life nor liberty in the USA when dead, and less life and liberty if maimed.

 

How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused.

 

I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

Welcome. You must be new here. Those of us on the pro gun side have repeatedly brought that up wrt to passing background checks and then committing suicide. The idiots like joke-al ignore it as if it's never been said and the. Go on with their hand wringing about self-murder with guns. 20,000 per year is a pretty evil figure, Jeff.

And yes, they actually call it "self murder". Silly innit?

 

 

Have a heart, Jeff. The death rate (not just the suicide rate), is skewed directly at the gun-owning demographic. Older white guys.

 

 

Death Rates Rising for Middle-Aged White Americans Dr. Deaton noticed in national data sets that middle-aged whites were committing suicide at an unprecedented rate and that the all-cause mortality in this group was rising. But suicides alone, he and Dr. Case realized, were not enough to push up overall death rates, so they began looking at other causes of death. That led them to the discovery that deaths from drug and alcohol poisoning also increased in this group. (...) They concluded that taken together, suicides, drugs and alcohol explained the overall increase in deaths. The effect was largely confined to people with a high school education or less. In that group, death rates rose by 22 percent while they actually fell for those with a college education.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html#story-continues-4>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Symphato, welcome to our boards.

However, I may read English better than you do.

 

 

 

that's a good thing, jocal. Because you sure as fuck can't write it......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are you qualified to object? The medical community is very certain that even unloaded gun presence is, in effect, precipitating suicide.

 

I AM PART OF THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY, JOKEAWF. WE ARE CERTAIN OF NO SUCH THING. AND YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to save their own life. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant. Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it. But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused. I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

So there we have it all from the new guy. Condensed, for all to see.

 

If you put this rant together, clearly there is no freedom in the USA, it is an illusion, only held together by the threat of death to the other guy. No surprise, that's the message the gun nuts want, but it does not have to be that way. Countries where the politicians still have at least some say in what happens, have done something to stop the slaughter.

 

The US has been under the control of corporations since 1915, probably from the start. They know what to feed to the sheeple to maximise sales, and the sheeple love it, even if it kills them. As demonstrated here.

 

What a cunt of a place where 'rights' are only assured to those with a gun.

Slight correction - we're a cunt of a place because we retain our rights, gun or not.

 

The underlying premise of our constitution, and our way of life is that legal behaviors that even the majority find distasteful are protected. The other side of that is that the legal exercise of those behaviors stipulates that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Most of us accept and like it like that.

 

There are indeed those who refuse to accept responsibility for their behaviors, and the crux of this argument isn't that one side wants to see someone else get their nose poked, it's disagreement over the best way to prevent that.

 

You and many other optimistically mistaken individuals think that outlawing swinging fists would spell the end of bloody noses, and the pragmatic individuals know that that's simply not the case.

We need guns, to prevent bloody noses.

WTF?

 

Guns against fists again. Shoot the fistfighters is a song sung by the SA Gun Club Choir.

Jeff agrees. He would off a shirtless garbage chucker. The tire tosser had scary fists.

Tom Ray agrees. (The Badgeless Avenger approved the gunplay at the Burger King Gun Scramble, and at the Plebe's Revenge Shootout.)

LenP agrees: one blow can cause permanent brain damage.

 

Let's plan to shoot fistfighters. Such a progression of thought is part of the problem, IMO.

What method do you use when someone is pummeling your face with his fists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't 40,000 gun deaths a year normal in a western democracy? What am I missing?

 

A source for about 10,000 of those, for one thing.

 

The fact that most of those are self-murders, for another.

 

The fact that our self-murder rate is normal among western democracies.

 

The thread about self-murders, so I helpfully moved your post here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray,thanks again for dragging out the problem of gun suicide.

 

When examined, our "rate of suicide" is not normal. Unlike other countries, our suicide rates show that half of them are gun deaths.

Our rates of youth suicide by firearm are 17X greater than first world countries. Does that sound "normal"?

Youth suicides are higher now than in the past twelve years.

This week, a study detected a spike in the suicide of undereducated older white guys. It is is being compared to an epidemic.

 

Let's check carefully for "normalcy" in US gun suicide rates. Because states with strong gun cultures seem to show abnormal rates of gun suicide:

 

Suicides in the 15 U.S. States with the Highest

vs. the 6 U.S. States with the Lowest Average Household Gun Ownership (2000-2002)

High-Gun States Low-Gun States

Population 39 million 40 million

Household Gun Ownership 47% 15%

Firearm Suicide 9,749 2,606

Non-Firearm Suicide 5,060 5,446

Total Suicide 14,809 8,052

You guys like to say gun registration has never been effective. This study, which is quite recent and formulated in a southern state, concludes that registration would limit suicides in the USA:

 

 

Am J Public Health. 2015 Apr 16:e1-e9.

The Association Between State Laws Regulating Handgun Ownership and Statewide Suicide Rates.

Anestis MD1, Khazem LR, Law KC, Houtsma C, LeTard R, Moberg F, Martin R.

Author information2015 Suicide,
  • All of the authors are with University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

We examined the impact of 3 state laws (permit to purchase a handgun, registration of handguns, license to own a handgun) on suicide rates.

RESULTS:

Results largely indicated that states with any of these laws in place exhibited lower overall suicide rates and suicide by firearms rates and that a smaller proportion of suicides in such states resulted from firearms. Furthermore, results indicated that laws requiring registration and license had significant indirect effects through the proportion of suicides resulting from firearms. The latter results imply that such laws are associated with fewer suicide attempts overall, a tendency for those who attempt to use less-lethal means, or both. Exploratory longitudinal analyses indicated a decrease in overall suicide rates immediately following implementation of laws requiring a license to own a handgun.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results are thus supportive of the potential of handgun legislation to have an impact on suicide rates.

(Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print April 16, 2015: e1-e9. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302465).

PMID:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25880944>

 

Men of letters CONSISTENTLY conclude that the presence of firearms is feeding our suicide rate.

Their numbers agree with international numbers, that more guns translates to more gun suicide.

This peer-reviewed study is pretty typical of what public health professionals conclude:

 

Suicide, Guns, and Public Policy

E. Michael Lewiecki, MD, and Sara A. Miller, PhD

Peer reviewed in American Journal of Public Health:

January 2013, Vol. 103, No. 1, pp. 27-31.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300964>

 

ABSTRACT

Suicide is a serious public health concern that is responsible for almost 1 million deaths each year worldwide.

It is commonly an impulsive act by a vulnerable individual. The impulsivity of suicide provides opportunities to reduce the risk of suicide by restricting access to lethal means.

 

In the United States, firearms, particularly handguns, are the most common means of suicide.

Despite strong empirical evidence that restriction of access to firearms reduces suicides, access to firearms in the United States is generally subject to few restrictions.

Implementation and evaluation of measures such as waiting periods and permit requirements that restrict access to handguns should be a top priority for reducing deaths from impulsive suicide in the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

international-suicide-rates.jpg

 

 

There is no statistical relationship between gun ownership and suicide rates.

Jokeawf is letting loose with more gun control propaganda.

 

The highest suicide rates are in lithuania where the preferred method is hanging. Compare US and Canada; suicides about equal but markedly different patterns of gun ownership.

 

Similarly, there is no relationship between homicide rates and gun ownership internationally.

 

GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Firearm-Ownershi

 

 

 

Always watch the pea under the thimble with Jokeawf. You will never get truth, just propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How in the fuck is gun suicide a 'problem'? Jfc....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

international-suicide-rates.jpg

 

 

There is no statistical relationship between gun ownership and suicide rates.

Jokeawf is letting loose with more gun control propaganda.

 

The highest suicide rates are in lithuania where the preferred method is hanging. Compare US and Canada; suicides about equal but markedly different patterns of gun ownership.

 

Similarly, there is no relationship between homicide rates and gun ownership internationally.

 

GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Firearm-Ownershi

 

 

 

Always watch the pea under the thimble with Jokeawf. You will never get truth, just propaganda.

 

My sources are pretty broad. The conclusions presented have a certain consistency, based on a body of evidence.

 

Let's talk this year, 2015. Gun violence has gone up, mate.

As of last week, the total homicides in the USA equalled last year's total. And 16% if the elapsed calendar time remains for 2015.

My numerical source here is the Gun Violence Archive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frequently, an impulsive one. Often, not very well thought out. You should read up on it.

 

Mike the Gun Guy:

Suicide And Guns:

.According to the CDC, the suicide rate per 100,000 was 10.44 in 2000,

it was 12.57 in 2013 (the last year for which we have validated numbers.)

These rates translate into 29,350 suicide deaths in 2000 and more than 41,000 in 2013.

Worse, it appears that this increase is directly associated with the use of guns, with the gun suicide rate increasing by 13% over the past seven years.

http://mikethegunguy.com/2015/09/page/2/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

self murders is a different term. Is that suicide? Is there a difference?

 

Two terms for the same thing.

Tom Ray prefers the term "self murder," he's trying to be "funnier," he said.

Ergo he finds suicide amusing.

Tom Ray also blogs that suicide fatalities don't count as firearms violence.

Yo, a certain respect for life seems to have gone missing in TR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

self murders is a different term. Is that suicide? Is there a difference?

 

Two terms for the same thing.

Tom Ray prefers the term "self murder," he's trying to be "funnier," he said.

Ergo he finds suicide amusing.

Tom Ray also blogs that suicide fatalities don't count as firearms violence.

Yo, a certain respect for life seems to have gone missing in TR.

 

 

Jocal neglects to mention that he brought that term here in an effort to promote gun control.

 

I find him amusing as a target of mockery for such propaganda.

 

I think we all own our bodies and our lives and can kill ourselves if we wish. Claiming we have that right is not advocating we use it, but simple minds are often confused by such nuance. I find that amusing too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So shooting someone is a personal choice. Who are we to tell them not to do it? What is this a nanny state or something?

Lock murders up for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So shooting someone is a personal choice. Who are we to tell them not to do it? ....

 

You can shoot any body that you happen to own. I think I only own mine. If you think you own the bodies of other people and can restrict their activities in order to protect them from themselves, then it makes sense from your point of view that you could also shoot them. After all, you own their bodies.

 

I don't share that opinion, whether the issue is guns or abortion. I believe in self-ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

self murders is a different term. Is that suicide? Is there a difference?

 

Two terms for the same thing.

Tom Ray prefers the term "self murder," he's trying to be "funnier," he said.

 

 

Actually tweedle-jo, "self murder" was originally your term IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

self murders is a different term. Is that suicide? Is there a difference?

 

Two terms for the same thing.

Tom Ray prefers the term "self murder," he's trying to be "funnier," he said.

Ergo he finds suicide amusing.

Tom Ray also blogs that suicide fatalities don't count as firearms violence.

Yo, a certain respect for life seems to have gone missing in TR.

 

 

Jocal neglects to mention that he brought that term here in an effort to promote gun control.

 

I find him amusing as a target of mockery for such propaganda.

 

I think we all own our bodies and our lives and can kill ourselves if we wish. Claiming we have that right is not advocating we use it, but simple minds are often confused by such nuance. I find that amusing too.

 

 

There is no "nuance" to trying to dismiss 20,000 human deaths every year, to deny the greatest impact of gun violence.

It's quite blatant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

international-suicide-rates.jpg

 

 

There is no statistical relationship between gun ownership and suicide rates.

Jokeawf is letting loose with more gun control propaganda.

 

The highest suicide rates are in lithuania where the preferred method is hanging. Compare US and Canada; suicides about equal but markedly different patterns of gun ownership.

 

Similarly, there is no relationship between homicide rates and gun ownership internationally.

 

GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Firearm-Ownershi

 

 

 

Always watch the pea under the thimble with Jokeawf. You will never get truth, just propaganda.

 

My sources are pretty broad. The conclusions presented have a certain consistency, based on a body of evidence.

 

Let's talk this year, 2015. Gun violence has gone up, mate.

As of last week, the total homicides in the USA equalled last year's total. And 16% if the elapsed calendar time remains for 2015.

My numerical source here is the Gun Violence Archive.

 

 

Well, the FBI has a different view.

 

Screen-Shot-2015-09-30-at-11.54.12-AM-e1

 

 

 

Meanwhile,

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation processed a record number of background checks in the month of October, indicating that gun sales were at an all time high for the sixth month in a row. The FBI’s National Instant Background Check System processed 1,976,759 firearms related checks in October. That is a 373,290 increase in checks over last year and a new record for the month. It also makes October the sixth consecutive month to see a record number of checks.

 

More fun with math.

 

Monthly Stats

Avg.Jokeawf Posts -- 70

Guns purchased by Americans -- 2,000,000

 

So, everytime Jocal launches another anti-gun diatribe, Americans purchase another 30,000 guns, or there abouts. :lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf would rather believe Bloomfuckle and Ma Earth rather than the FBI....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joke-al, I think Mikey has a spare stairwell somewhere he'll be happy to share with you. A good cry might do you well......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf would rather believe Bloomfuckle and Ma Earth rather than the FBI....

 

I don't know why you keep saying that. I have no problem with FBI information.

But they only find around 200 justifiable homicides per year.

And very few violent crimes relate to guns. That FBI chart says zip about gun violence.

 

 

 

New FBI Report Casts Doubt on NRA's 'Good Guy Stops Bad Guy' Nonsense

...the FBI's claim that the number of incidents and victims totals of these shootings has of late been going up, with the annual number of incidents averaging 7.5 between 2000 and 2006, and jumping to an annual average of 16.3 between 2007 and 2013. The increase in casualties each year is even more dramatic, with the totals (not including the shooters) going from 247 between 2000 and 2006 up to just under 800 over the following seven years. It should be noted, incidentally, that the FBI defines an "active shooting" as an incident during which "both law enforcement personnel and citizens[my italics] have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses." Which is exactly what Wayne-o claims his gun-toting compatriots are all about.

Conclusion

The FBI initiated this study to add to the resources available to law enforcement and others

who must consider their best course of action to prepare for, respond to, and recover from

active shooter incidents. Using the same criteria over a 14-year span, the FBI sought to

determine whether the number of active shooter incidents had changed, concluding the

trend over the study period showed a steady rise. In the first half of the years studied, the

average annual number of incidents was 6.4, but that average rose in the second half of the

study to 16.4, an average of more than one incident per month.

http://www.huffingto..._b_5900748.html>

 

The FBI numbers are trusted, Boothy, I'll give you that.

Your problem is what the FBI numbers indicate. Follow along.

Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? FBI Evidence from Castle Doctrine,”

After Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in Florida, February 2012, a national debate began over how such a tragedy could have befallen an unarmed teenager. Beginning with Florida in 2005, 24 states enacted so-called “stand your ground” laws that widen the scope for the justified use of lethal force by citizens. In the past, self-defense laws have adhered to the principle that one has a duty to retreat from an assailant before using force. But this recent legislation, known as “castle doctrine laws” — under the theory that a home is one’s “castle,” and therefore can be defended — have relaxed this principle, allowing the use of deadly force in one’s home as well as some public spaces.

Following Zimmerman’s acquittal, the effectiveness of these laws and the outcomes produced continue to be debated, and the available research data have some insights.

A 2012 paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, “Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Castle Doctrine,” examines the effects such laws have on illegal activity and rates of lethal incidents. Researchers from Texas A&M University used FBI state-level crime data from 2000-2009 to test the effects of castle doctrine laws and compare outcomes across states.

The study’s findings include:

  • States that adopted castle doctrine laws saw a 7% to 9% increase in murder and manslaughter incidents compared to states that did not adopt such laws. This percentage increase “translates into an additional 500 to 700 homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine.”
  • Adoption of castle doctrine laws resulted in a 17% to 50% increase in justifiable homicides, with justifiable homicide defined by the FBI as “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.” The authors note, however, that this result is suggestive, not conclusive.
  • Adoption of castle doctrine laws did not, on average, deter crimes including burglary, robbery and aggravated assault.

The authors note that their findings effectively negate the “possibility that castle doctrine laws cause economically meaningful deterrence effects” on general crime. Furthermore, the authors conclude that “by lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce more of it … due either to the increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or to the escalation of violence in otherwise nonlethal conflicts.”

Another 2012 paper, from researchers at Georgia State University, draws similar conclusions; its findings “raise serious doubts against the argument that Stand Your Ground laws make America safer.” Some statistical analysis has also found that stand your ground laws produce unequal outcomes in trial contexts, with a finding of “justifiable homicide” more likely in the case of a white-on-black killing, according to data from the Urban Institute.

- See more at: http://journalistsre...tes-crime-deterrence#sthash.s1JtZUMW.dpuf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those researchers think that "castle doctrine" laws are a recent thing?

 

When they tack that one up over the urinal for review, the peers are going to have a good laugh. SYG laws are recent (and I still don't like them) but the castle doctrine is much, much older and was widespread long before the named research period. I wonder what they were really looking at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those researchers think that "castle doctrine" laws are a recent thing?

 

When they tack that one up over the urinal for review, the peers are going to have a good laugh. SYG laws are recent (and I still don't like them) but the castle doctrine is much, much older and was widespread long before the named research period. I wonder what they were really looking at?

 

The rationale behind castile doctrine was simply extended to the out of doors. Yes, recently, using legislation packaged by ALEC.

Get your head out of the urinal. If you see no castle doctrine association to these newer laws, Stevie Wonder has better vision than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Those researchers think that "castle doctrine" laws are a recent thing?

 

When they tack that one up over the urinal for review, the peers are going to have a good laugh. SYG laws are recent (and I still don't like them) but the castle doctrine is much, much older and was widespread long before the named research period. I wonder what they were really looking at?

 

The rationale behind castile doctrine was simply extended to the out of doors. Yes, recently, using legislation packaged by ALEC.

Get your head out of the urinal. If you see no castle doctrine association to these newer laws, Stevie Wonder has better vision than you.

 

 

I know what happened. I also know that studying states that have adopted castle doctrine laws since 2000 should take a few seconds at most. However long it takes to determine that there are none.

 

That's why I wonder what they were really studying.

 

I support the castle doctrine because if you're in your home, you have already retreated. I oppose SYG because if retreat is an option it means deadly force is not a last resort. People who oppose both (and confuse the two) simply oppose the human right of self-defense in any circumstance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, I honestly do not get your opposition to SYG. Unlike fuckhead ed and fuckleberry jocal, I know you do not believe that SYG is a license to assassinate someone on a whim.

 

I think SYG is an important principle. But I think it is one that is misunderstood and occasionally abused by people. It doesn't mean the law is bad and I think the courts do a pretty good job of sorting out the abuses.

 

To me, SYG and " using force as a last resort" are not mutually exclusive terms. I think for SYG to be effective, it should be a last resort and if you have the opportunity to retreat from the threat - you should take it. IMHO, SYG was a legit response to prosecutor overreach and abuse in cases where people defended themselves outside of their homes and they were then prosecuted for it because the cops and the DA were not there in his/her shoes and were second guessing whether it was a last resort use of force. As you know, if you are accosted at knife or gun point by someone on an open street - in theory there is lots of room to "retreat". But the reality is that you might be putting yourself in more danger by turning your back to the threat and trying to run. Every situation is different and I want the person defending themselves to have the benefit of the doubt as to whether they can retreat or not. That to me, is what SYG is about..... putting the onus on the police and DA to prove that you used force as a first resort. Before SYG, the onus was on the victim to prove that the defense was legal and justified. I don't think that is right. And it often cost people who defended themselves from scumbag rapists and murderers an enormous amount in legal costs and sometimes jail time. As I said, if there is evidence that the "shooting" was not justified - then they can prosecute all they want. But before SYG, the norm seemed to be to prosecute every case of self-defense and the defender had to prove they were innocent. Totally not how its supposed to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, I honestly do not get your opposition to SYG. Unlike fuckhead ed and fuckleberry jocal, I know you do not believe that SYG is a license to assassinate someone on a whim.

 

I think SYG is an important principle. But I think it is one that is misunderstood and occasionally abused by people. It doesn't mean the law is bad and I think the courts do a pretty good job of sorting out the abuses.

 

To me, SYG and " using force as a last resort" are not mutually exclusive terms. I think for SYG to be effective, it should be a last resort and if you have the opportunity to retreat from the threat - you should take it. IMHO, SYG was a legit response to prosecutor overreach and abuse in cases where people defended themselves outside of their homes and they were then prosecuted for it because the cops and the DA were not there in his/her shoes and were second guessing whether it was a last resort use of force. As you know, if you are accosted at knife or gun point by someone on an open street - in theory there is lots of room to "retreat". But the reality is that you might be putting yourself in more danger by turning your back to the threat and trying to run. Every situation is different and I want the person defending themselves to have the benefit of the doubt as to whether they can retreat or not. That to me, is what SYG is about..... putting the onus on the police and DA to prove that you used force as a first resort. Before SYG, the onus was on the victim to prove that the defense was legal and justified. I don't think that is right. And it often cost people who defended themselves from scumbag rapists and murderers an enormous amount in legal costs and sometimes jail time. As I said, if there is evidence that the "shooting" was not justified - then they can prosecute all they want. But before SYG, the norm seemed to be to prosecute every case of self-defense and the defender had to prove they were innocent. Totally not how its supposed to work.

 

Our previous law said that if you have the opportunity to retreat from the threat - you should take it.

 

Overreach and abuse by prosecutors means the prosecutor, not the law, is bad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical Nanny post. A Violent Crime chart in a Gun Violence discussion.

 

tumblr_m9fbufwsqn1qc882co2_250.gif

So its acceptable to kill people with other tools? hammers, knives, cars, and the other such instruments so long as they aren't firearms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Those researchers think that "castle doctrine" laws are a recent thing?

 

When they tack that one up over the urinal for review, the peers are going to have a good laugh. SYG laws are recent (and I still don't like them) but the castle doctrine is much, much older and was widespread long before the named research period. I wonder what they were really looking at?

 

The rationale behind castile doctrine was simply extended to the out of doors. Yes, recently, using legislation packaged by ALEC.

Get your head out of the urinal. If you see no castle doctrine association to these newer laws, Stevie Wonder has better vision than you.

 

 

I know what happened. I also know that studying states that have adopted castle doctrine laws since 2000 should take a few seconds at most. However long it takes to determine that there are none.

 

That's why I wonder what they were really studying.

 

I support the castle doctrine because if you're in your home, you have already retreated. I oppose SYG because if retreat is an option it means deadly force is not a last resort. People who oppose both (and confuse the two) simply oppose the human right of self-defense in any circumstance.

 

 

More dancing. More dishonesty. The laws which expanded SYG rights are ALL based on Castle Doctrine logic, expanded to public places.

The public has no right to be in one's home. One retreats to one's home for safety. Traditionally, self defense was guaged by a different standard in the home.

 

ALEC took the principles which fairly apply to one's castle, and applied them to all places. Flag on the play.

 

Traditionally, the law understood deadly force to be justified in self-protection only when an individual reasonably believed that its use was necessary to prevent imminent and unlawful use of deadly force by the aggressor. Much of the tradition also argued that deadly force, outside of one’s immediate home, was not justified if a nondeadly response, such as retreating to a safe place, would suffice.

(...) Florida’s law in particular remade the very nature of self-defense, turning what had been an “affirmative defense” into a presumption of innocence.

(...)

In their thoughtless attempts to undo the wisdom of centuries, extremists in the Florida Legislature went out of their way, if not to legalize murder, at least to decriminalize it.http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/28/my-ethics-stand-your-ground-laws-are-invitation-to-kill/>

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom, I honestly do not get your opposition to SYG. Unlike fuckhead ed and fuckleberry jocal, I know you do not believe that SYG is a license to assassinate someone on a whim.

 

I think SYG is an important principle. But I think it is one that is misunderstood and occasionally abused by people. It doesn't mean the law is bad and I think the courts do a pretty good job of sorting out the abuses.

 

To me, SYG and " using force as a last resort" are not mutually exclusive terms. I think for SYG to be effective, it should be a last resort and if you have the opportunity to retreat from the threat - you should take it. IMHO, SYG was a legit response to prosecutor overreach and abuse in cases where people defended themselves outside of their homes and they were then prosecuted for it because the cops and the DA were not there in his/her shoes and were second guessing whether it was a last resort use of force. As you know, if you are accosted at knife or gun point by someone on an open street - in theory there is lots of room to "retreat". But the reality is that you might be putting yourself in more danger by turning your back to the threat and trying to run. Every situation is different and I want the person defending themselves to have the benefit of the doubt as to whether they can retreat or not. That to me, is what SYG is about..... putting the onus on the police and DA to prove that you used force as a first resort. Before SYG, the onus was on the victim to prove that the defense was legal and justified. I don't think that is right. And it often cost people who defended themselves from scumbag rapists and murderers an enormous amount in legal costs and sometimes jail time. As I said, if there is evidence that the "shooting" was not justified - then they can prosecute all they want. But before SYG, the norm seemed to be to prosecute every case of self-defense and the defender had to prove they were innocent. Totally not how its supposed to work.

Our previous law said that if you have the opportunity to retreat from the threat - you should take it.

 

Overreach and abuse by prosecutors means the prosecutor, not the law, is bad.

 

 

Yeah, well tough shit. Given that they couldn't get rid of all the liberal DAs who were trying to fuck with citizens who were legally defending themselves - I think a law to tie their hands more is justified. I would apply your same logic to SYG. If some abuse it, it's the people who are bad - not the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does gun violence cost? In this case, it cost the instigators a life.. .

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4607400110001/breastfeeding-mother-wounded-in-home-invasion-shootout/?intcmp=hplnws#intcmp=latestnews&sp=show-clips

 

You've gotta wonder whether or not less violent crime would be considered if the would-be perpetrators had to consider that their intended victims weren't helpless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom, I honestly do not get your opposition to SYG. Unlike fuckhead ed and fuckleberry jocal, I know you do not believe that SYG is a license to assassinate someone on a whim.

 

I think SYG is an important principle. But I think it is one that is misunderstood and occasionally abused by people. It doesn't mean the law is bad and I think the courts do a pretty good job of sorting out the abuses.

 

To me, SYG and " using force as a last resort" are not mutually exclusive terms. I think for SYG to be effective, it should be a last resort and if you have the opportunity to retreat from the threat - you should take it. IMHO, SYG was a legit response to prosecutor overreach and abuse in cases where people defended themselves outside of their homes and they were then prosecuted for it because the cops and the DA were not there in his/her shoes and were second guessing whether it was a last resort use of force. As you know, if you are accosted at knife or gun point by someone on an open street - in theory there is lots of room to "retreat". But the reality is that you might be putting yourself in more danger by turning your back to the threat and trying to run. Every situation is different and I want the person defending themselves to have the benefit of the doubt as to whether they can retreat or not. That to me, is what SYG is about..... putting the onus on the police and DA to prove that you used force as a first resort. Before SYG, the onus was on the victim to prove that the defense was legal and justified. I don't think that is right. And it often cost people who defended themselves from scumbag rapists and murderers an enormous amount in legal costs and sometimes jail time. As I said, if there is evidence that the "shooting" was not justified - then they can prosecute all they want. But before SYG, the norm seemed to be to prosecute every case of self-defense and the defender had to prove they were innocent. Totally not how its supposed to work.

Our previous law said that if you have the opportunity to retreat from the threat - you should take it.

 

Overreach and abuse by prosecutors means the prosecutor, not the law, is bad.

 

 

Yeah, well tough shit. Given that they couldn't get rid of all the liberal DAs who were trying to fuck with citizens who were legally defending themselves - I think a law to tie their hands more is justified. I would apply your same logic to SYG. If some abuse it, it's the people who are bad - not the law.

 

 

But the law says that if you have the opportunity to retreat, you don't have to take it. I thought we agreed that if you have the opportunity to retreat from the threat - you should take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same car at the Burger King Scramble which offered a loaded weapon also offered an "opportunity to retreat." Instead of that choice, Tom you said you were a One Limit Shootah against an unarmed fellow employee.

 

The Badgeless Avenger Posted Today, 08:18 AM

How many attacks are we supposed to endure...? My limit is one.

 

The same car which offered a gun at The Plebe's Revenge Shootout also offered escape on wheels.

Instead of retreat Tom, you supported the gunfire which resulted in both cases, without discussing retreat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do know that when you shoot and kill parasitic criminal scum balls, that you remove their ability to continue to be criminal scum balls?

 

I honestly can't see the down side to that. But sadly you do, you piece of shit pussified abettor you.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't you the guy who breezes through FFL background checks, and boasts about it?

Let's invite your chummy FFL background checker onto this thread.

Do they support vigilante idiots? Let's find out.

You can't have it both ways.

 

***Boothy and gun vengeance, the 2015 collection

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=167901&p=5057792

Quote

R Booze Posted 17 September 2014 - 02:08 PM

Post 262 USA vs England thread

Here's where all your shit goes right out the window---and that if the 'murder rate' has gone up lately, that tells me that more bad guys are getting their cumupence and being killed.

I for one see absolutely nothing wrong with that. At all....

<http://forums.sailin...=3#entry4680823>

R Booze, on 04 Feb 2015 - 14:52, said:

Getting rid of America's bad guys, in any manner, is a GOOD thing JokeAwf. You should relish & savor the very moment every-fuking-time that one of them meets an early demise. .... <http://forums.sailin...=2#entry4837580>

'R Booth', on 20 Dec 2012 - 18:59, said

If you had killed a bad guy, then you would have done America a big favor.....

<http://forums.sailin...Key]=date&st=50>

R Booze Posted 27 July 2014 - 02:24 PM

This is a most fuktabulous ruling----one which will immediately begin to save lives rather than ending the lives too soon of law abiding citizens. I hope to fuk that DC's criminal element takes note and changes their current game plan on preying on the innocent.

(Ah hell, who am I kidding. Would love to see about three dozen pussified, chicken shit gang members meet an early demise)......

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=69325&p=4625625

R Booze Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:30 AM

I don't normally approve of shooting bad guys in the back, but this fuk-stik seems to have deserved a rather large exit wound out the front of his shirt. And good on the husband for not interupting the local cops during their donut break.

Win-win.....

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&p=4367582

#707

R Booze Posted Today, 11:38 AM

Every rapist in the world deserves to be shot deader-than-fuck. On the spot. If you think otherwise, then you're more of a pussified, criminal abetting imbecile than I previously thought...

<http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=167978&page=8#entry5066002>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boothy, I think joke-al's timer just sped up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll see. Boothy said I would self-destruct by August 2015. Then he said by Thanksgiving 2015.

See you boys on Thursday. Try to have some substantive content by then, okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was this discussion of self-murders doing in the Democrat Lies About Guns thread?

 

 

 

Tell us all about gun carnage, NGS. "The non-fatal gun injury rate has shown a remarkable annual rise, from 14.11 per 100,000 in 2001 to 19.68 in 2013, an increase of nearly 40 percent." (Source here is Mike the Gun Guy)

 

 

NGS, on 28 Nov 2015 - 09:10 AM, said:

snapback.png

One of us has authored scientific papers...

 

One of us is trained in the methods of science...

 

For a person "trained in the methods of science," your posts, inevitably, lack hard figures. Such as these:

 

Yr Tot 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>

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom Ray Posted 26 November 2015 - 05:04 PM

Happy Thanksgiving to you too! I helped my cousin's kid teach a 13 year old girl to shoot a rifle.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=168970&p=5141747

 

Tom, this is a serious question. As a gun instructor (and a self-righteous libertarian), did you inform the kid that if he or she is ever extremely bummed out, he is free to shoot himself with that rifle?

 

If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was this discussion of self-murders doing in the Democrat Lies About Guns thread?

 

(snipped: figures showing a pattern of increased gun carnage in the USA)

 

 

More dishonesty. That discussion was about increased gun injuries.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=168970&p=5143461

 

 

The CDC figures show a HUGE increase in gun injuries since 2001. This is from Jeffie this morning:

Non-fatal Assault Injuries w/ a Gun:

2001 = 14.11

2013 = 19.78

40% increase

http://www.cdc.gov/i...qars/fatal.html

 

This thread, before being hijacked, was about the increased cost of gun violence. That cost is not just medical fees (@ $229 billion/yr.), but involves the human psychology of associates of the victims who don't survive. Among the gunshot survivors and their loved ones, the cost applies to lost income capability, lost function of body parts, damaged psyches, nightmares, chronic distrust, etc.

 

Let's set aside the shameful games you are playing about gun suicides for a moment. Do you grasp the enormity of the damage in play here, Tom? If so, can you demonstrate that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom Ray Posted 26 November 2015 - 05:04 PM

Happy Thanksgiving to you too! I helped my cousin's kid teach a 13 year old girl to shoot a rifle.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=168970&p=5141747

 

Tom, this is a serious question. As a gun instructor (and a self-righteous libertarian), did you inform the kid that if he or she is ever extremely bummed out, he is free to shoot himself with that rifle?

 

If not, why not?

 

 

No, she seemed happy and did not appear to me to need self-murdering. It just didn't come up.

 

OK, serious answer: that's a discussion for her parents, not for me. Just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I share it widely. Pretty much just here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. We're grownups here.

 

But included in 20,000 gun suicides/yr in the USA is an epidemic of many suicidal children. Their judgement, experience, and decisionmaking are still being formed. You seem to be giving carte blanche to their untimely deaths, with no apparent remorse.

 

Additionally, MOST adults are acting impulsively in suicide attempts, according to the experts. You seem to be giving carte blanche to them as well. It's deadly...and repulsive, IMO.

 

You say you don't encourage suicide, but have asked "what is taking so long" in the case of one suicide (which has been proposed by others, not the individual). It's over the top, and despicable IMO. Be careful out there while pushing guns, okay? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. We're grownups here.

 

But included in 20,000 gun suicides/yr in the USA is an epidemic of many suicidal children. Their judgement, experience, and decisionmaking are still being formed. You seem to be giving carte blanche to their untimely deaths, with no apparent remorse.

 

Additionally, MOST adults are acting impulsively in suicide attempts, according to the experts. You seem to be giving carte blanche to them as well. It's deadly...and repulsive, IMO.

 

You say you don't encourage suicide, but have asked "what is taking so long" in the case of one suicide (which has been proposed by others, not the individual). It's over the top, and despicable IMO. Be careful out there while pushing guns, okay? Thanks.

 

Minors are a special case because unless they have been emancipated, they don't fully own their own bodies yet. My argument about self-ownership can't apply to those who don't own themselves.

 

Adults are free to act impulsively and do stupid things. Otherwise, there would be no recreational boat market and life would not be worth living.

 

You are an adult and are free to act impulsively and even to shoot yourself.

 

Crap, I assisted in your impending suicide again. Sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. We're grownups here.

 

But included in 20,000 gun suicides/yr in the USA is an epidemic of many suicidal children. Their judgement, experience, and decisionmaking are still being formed. You seem to be giving carte blanche to their untimely deaths, with no apparent remorse.

 

Additionally, MOST adults are acting impulsively in suicide attempts, according to the experts. You seem to be giving carte blanche to them as well. It's deadly...and repulsive, IMO.

 

You say you don't encourage suicide, but have asked "what is taking so long" in the case of one suicide (which has been proposed by others, not the individual). It's over the top, and despicable IMO. Be careful out there while pushing guns, okay? Thanks.

What is the point of the above rambling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good. We're grownups here.

 

But included in 20,000 gun suicides/yr in the USA is an epidemic of many suicidal children. Their judgement, experience, and decisionmaking are still being formed. You seem to be giving carte blanche to their untimely deaths, with no apparent remorse.

 

Additionally, MOST adults are acting impulsively in suicide attempts, according to the experts. You seem to be giving carte blanche to them as well. It's deadly...and repulsive, IMO.

 

You say you don't encourage suicide, but have asked "what is taking so long" in the case of one suicide (which has been proposed by others, not the individual). It's over the top, and despicable IMO. Be careful out there while pushing guns, okay? Thanks.

What is the point of the above rambling?

 

 

 

 

 

What is the point of ANY of joke-al's ramblings???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the 'Cost of gun violence' thread. Where the woman in the story saved a certain state tons of money buy disposing of a despicable piece of shit parasitic scum ball forever for just seventeen cents. JokeAwf should show his appreciation for this great American by buying her a new house and sending her kid to college.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I was just thinking how many gigoshit have been burned on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the 'Cost of gun violence' thread. Where the woman in the story saved a certain state tons of money buy disposing of a despicable piece of shit parasitic scum ball forever for just seventeen cents. JokeAwf should show his appreciation for this great American by buying her a new house and sending her kid to college.....

 

A civilized society doesn't function like that. Even Native Americans grasped that in the 1830's in the PNW--they adopted impartial hearing situations to review violence and theft. The hearings included an appeal process. You need to pop into this century, mi amigo.

 

In the meantime, society needs to be protected from your elk. Shannon Watts will be your nanny until you get up to speed, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is the 'Cost of gun violence' thread. Where the woman in the story saved a certain state tons of money buy disposing of a despicable piece of shit parasitic scum ball forever for just seventeen cents. JokeAwf should show his appreciation for this great American by buying her a new house and sending her kid to college.....

A civilized society doesn't function like that. Even Native Americans grasped that in the 1830's in the PNW--they adopted impartial hearing situations to review violence and theft. The hearings included an appeal process. You need to pop into this century, mi amigo.

 

In the meantime, society needs to be protected from your elk. Shannon Watts will be your nanny until you get up to speed, mate.

I agree a civilized person doesn't try to rob others by threat or use of force (potentially deadly or not). After the incident Booze posted the world is more civilized. At least we agree on this one thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is the 'Cost of gun violence' thread. Where the woman in the story saved a certain state tons of money buy disposing of a despicable piece of shit parasitic scum ball forever for just seventeen cents. JokeAwf should show his appreciation for this great American by buying her a new house and sending her kid to college.....

 

A civilized society doesn't function like that. Even Native Americans grasped that in the 1830's in the PNW--they adopted impartial hearing situations to review violence and theft. The hearings included an appeal process. You need to pop into this century, mi amigo.

 

In the meantime, society needs to be protected from your elk. Shannon Watts will be your nanny until you get up to speed, mate.

 

So when some scumbag pulls a gun and demands your money you'll just drop to your knees and offer a BJ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he'd do WITHOUT a gun pointed at him....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites