Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

Pretty vague statement. Your presentation is very, very shaky.

Name the countries. Do they compare well to the broad makeup of the USA?

 

 

OK.

 

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

The countries are Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland.

 

I don't really know much about Japanese or New Zealand broads, but the other countries have some pretty hot ones. I'd say they have a superior broad makeup to the US.

 

Hot women can certainly deter suicide but I though we were talking about how the gun ownership rate affects suicide rates. So how do those countries compare to our gun ownership rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gun suicide is a public health issue. The Pediatricians are formally on record: they want doctors to educate about the empirical knowledge of gun danger.

Actually, while Tom and Jeff insist these gun deaths are not gun violence, while Tom hijacks a thread to marginalize 20,000 gun suicide deaths per year, gun suicide is in the crosshairs of medical science. And we find the NRA meddling in the medical -profession.

Yes, curiously, the NRA's Docs vs Glocks has silenced the doctors in Florida, and this week a redneck court there has backed them up...for the third time. Take a look at it. The ruling does not read well, IMO.

And by even making the ruling, this court is adamantly defying a third enbanc review request, circumventing a full review of the Eleventh Circuit.

Physicians Lose Again in Docs v. Glocks Case

The majority opinion suggests that popular reverence among gunowners for the Second Amendment makes it more equal than the First Amendment rights of the medical professionals.

It said that a practitioner's right of free speech was secondary to an individual's right to same.

Quote

Professional speech—i.e., the type of speech that occurs when a doctor is counseling a patient one-on-one—was entitled to a lesser degree of review, it said.

It gets curiouser: first insisting on a "strict scrutiny standard", these judges did not really apply such a standard

This ruling demonstrates strained judicial activism to push southern firearms values.

As mentioned, three times now this three-man court has blocked a full review by the Eleventh Circuit court (by issuing its

own pro-gun rulings instead of presenting the matter to all nine members of the court.)

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165145&page=7#entry5171792>

 

 

Any doctor (pediatrician or otherwise) who thinks like this is shortsighted or stupid.

 

Much like our bodies which possess an immune system designed to protect our health and well being, societies contain defenses to protect them from harm, from threats within and without. It is best to view the 2A is an integral part of the immune system of our democracy and manifestation of the more fundamental natural right of self defense. Self-defense = immunity.

 

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776. "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery...

 

When one's immune system is compromised, the body is at risk of disease. With a strong immune system, the body is protected against harm.

 

On the other hand, there are specific diseases which attack our immune system, the most notorious one being AIDS which by attacking T-lymphocytes compromises our specific immunity making the body vulnerable to a host of pathogenic organisms.

 

Continuing with this analogy, it is not unreasonable to view people like you as another form of autoimmune disease (like AIDS) which would compromise the innate defense of our society, notably a specific form of defense established at the birth of our nation, the right to bear arms.

 

As a physician, gun owner and NRA member, I take the health and wellbeing of the individual, the family and nation very seriously, and I never want to see them compromised.

 

glock-assult-rifle.jpg

 

This doctor will never become a willing victim of ISIS or Jocal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not one time have had a doctor mention guns during an office visit. Never had one mention anything of the like during my kids office visits. Why would they if it had nothing to do with the reason for the visit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So sick of this shit. Amend the Constitution or shut the fuck up.

 

Double down on the fucking cowards who kill themselves. "Gun Violence" is a "trigger warning"....we are in our "safe space".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please take out of stats suicides by gun, or acknowledge that there might be a mental health issue, or simply blame the gun for my worthless life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not one time have had a doctor mention guns during an office visit. Never had one mention anything of the like during my kids office visits. Why would they if it had nothing to do with the reason for the visit?

 

What doctors want to discuss, and what the numbers say they need to discuss, should be left up to doctors (not the NRA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit. That's like paying my electrician to find a short....then having him hit me with questions of my past substance abuse.

 

Utterly. Fuking. Stupid.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bullshit. That's like paying my electrician to find a short....then having him hit me with questions of my past substance abuse.

 

Utterly. Fuking. Stupid.....

Maybe he found one of your coke spoons in the outlet and wanted to know how it got there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not one time have had a doctor mention guns during an office visit. Never had one mention anything of the like during my kids office visits. Why would they if it had nothing to do with the reason for the visit?

What doctors want to discuss, and what the numbers say they need to discuss, should be left up to doctors (not the NRA).

Why would a doctor talk about guns to someone complaining of fever and a sore throat?

 

Why would a doctor talk about guns to a patient that wasn't being treated for a gun related issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any parent who doesn't know they need a car seat for their kid needs to go to jail.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any parent who doesn't know they need a car seat for their kid needs to go to jail.....

You didn't answer my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

 

Detailing the "social science" research on guns and what it does, doesn't, and can't prove.

 

Oh boy, jocal's not going to like this. Not one bit. Expect a deluge of cunt-n-pastes by him any moment now. His computer HD is probably starting to smoke a little at the overload he is putting on it......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

 

Detailing the "social science" research on guns and what it does, doesn't, and can't prove.

 

Oh boy, jocal's not going to like this. Not one bit. Expect a deluge of cunt-n-pastes by him any moment now. His computer HD is probably starting to smoke a little at the overload he is putting on it......

 

This jocal chap really has you rattled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

 

Detailing the "social science" research on guns and what it does, doesn't, and can't prove.

 

Oh boy, jocal's not going to like this. Not one bit. Expect a deluge of cunt-n-pastes by him any moment now. His computer HD is probably starting to smoke a little at the overload he is putting on it......

 

This jocal chap really has you rattled.

 

 

 

Rattled? More like an irritating pebble in your shoe - if you don't stop and shake it out now, you know it'll cause a blister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

 

Detailing the "social science" research on guns and what it does, doesn't, and can't prove.

 

Oh boy, jocal's not going to like this. Not one bit. Expect a deluge of cunt-n-pastes by him any moment now. His computer HD is probably starting to smoke a little at the overload he is putting on it......

 

This jocal chap really has you rattled.

 

 

 

Rattled? More like an irritating pebble in your shoe - if you don't stop and shake it out now, you know it'll cause a blister.

 

 

Zactly! Definitely not rattled. More like enjoying the free amusement he provides while at the same time being annoyed at myself for wasting my time talking to a brick wall.

 

Edit: And I want to apologize to brick walls everywhere for comparing them to jocal. That wasn't fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should doctors ask parents if they have a car seat for the child?

If they thought they may not and wanted to give them one it wouldn't hurt. Other than that its none of their business.

 

Any reason a plumber should lecture about guns or ask about car seats during a job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

 

Detailing the "social science" research on guns and what it does, doesn't, and can't prove.

Oh boy, jocal's not going to like this. Not one bit. Expect a deluge of cunt-n-pastes by him any moment now. His computer HD is probably starting to smoke a little at the overload he is putting on it......

How many hours to put together his post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gallery_6160_1047_30894.jpg

 

There are at least two things factually wrong with that cartoon. Bet you can't guess what they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

gallery_6160_1047_30894.jpg

 

There are at least two things factually wrong with that cartoon. Bet you can't guess what they are.

 

Thanks for reposting my cartoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gallery_6160_1047_30894.jpg

 

There are at least two things factually wrong with that cartoon. Bet you can't guess what they are.

 

Thanks for reposting my cartoon.

 

 

You're welcome. Can you guess what the two factual errors are?

 

Edit: never mind, its obvious you're an assclown who has no interest in a serious discussion. So I will answer my own question. The two factual errors are:

 

1. Rifles are not "common" murder weapons. In fact rifles are very UNcommon. Less than 2% of all homicides in the US are committed with rifles of any type, much less the AR-15 in the picture. Hands and feet kill more people than rifles. Baseball bats and other blunt objects kill even more. People used knives to kill 5x more often than rifles. FBI murder weapon stats here

 

2. AR-15s have a many alternate uses beyond murder. You've already stipulated that hunting is a legitimate alternate use for the bolt action rifle - so hunting must be OK right? Here you go.....

 

800px-243_WSSM_Olympic_Arms_AR15.jpg

 

Screen-Shot-2013-02-12-at-5.24.26-PM.png

IMG_11584.JPG

 

but even aside from hunting, both of those rifles have a legitimate 2nd Amendment use that has nothing to do with hunting or sports.

 

Thanks for letting me dispel you of your childish cartoonish myths. Oh and you're welcome.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

gallery_6160_1047_30894.jpg

 

There are at least two things factually wrong with that cartoon. Bet you can't guess what they are.

 

Thanks for reposting my cartoon.

 

 

You're welcome. Can you guess what the two factual errors are?

 

Edit: never mind, its obvious you're an assclown who has no interest in a serious discussion. So I will answer my own question. The two factual errors are:

 

1. Rifles are not "common" murder weapons. In fact rifles are very UNcommon. Less than 2% of all homicides in the US are committed with rifles of any type, much less the AR-15 in the picture. Hands and feet kill more people than rifles. Baseball bats and other blunt objects kill even more. People used knives to kill 5x more often than rifles. FBI murder weapon stats here

 

2. AR-15s have a many alternate uses beyond murder. You've already stipulated that hunting is a legitimate alternate use for the bolt action rifle - so hunting must be OK right? Here you go.....

 

800px-243_WSSM_Olympic_Arms_AR15.jpg

 

Screen-Shot-2013-02-12-at-5.24.26-PM.png

IMG_11584.JPG

 

but even aside from hunting, both of those rifles have a legitimate 2nd Amendment use that has nothing to do with hunting or sports.

 

Thanks for letting me dispel you of your childish cartoonish myths. Oh and you're welcome.....

 

Ya I hear you. Riffles are a lot less commonly used in murders than some those other things like the wood chipper. And the multi round semi-automatic rifle is an important hunting tool especially for those retards that never took the time to learn to aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

gallery_6160_1047_30894.jpg

 

There are at least two things factually wrong with that cartoon. Bet you can't guess what they are.

 

Thanks for reposting my cartoon.

 

 

You're welcome. Can you guess what the two factual errors are?

 

Edit: never mind, its obvious you're an assclown who has no interest in a serious discussion. So I will answer my own question. The two factual errors are:

 

1. Rifles are not "common" murder weapons. In fact rifles are very UNcommon. Less than 2% of all homicides in the US are committed with rifles of any type, much less the AR-15 in the picture. Hands and feet kill more people than rifles. Baseball bats and other blunt objects kill even more. People used knives to kill 5x more often than rifles. FBI murder weapon stats here

 

2. AR-15s have a many alternate uses beyond murder. You've already stipulated that hunting is a legitimate alternate use for the bolt action rifle - so hunting must be OK right? Here you go.....

 

800px-243_WSSM_Olympic_Arms_AR15.jpg

 

Screen-Shot-2013-02-12-at-5.24.26-PM.png

IMG_11584.JPG

 

but even aside from hunting, both of those rifles have a legitimate 2nd Amendment use that has nothing to do with hunting or sports.

 

Thanks for letting me dispel you of your childish cartoonish myths. Oh and you're welcome.....

 

Ya I hear you. Riffles are a lot less commonly used in murders than some those other things like the wood chipper. And the multi round semi-automatic rifle is an important hunting tool especially for those retards that never took the time to learn to aim.

 

 

Nevermind. In typical fashion you hone in on the ever ubiquitous woodchipper and ignore the knives and hammers in your childish cartoon which are used in murder FAR more than rifles. You've proven yourself to be a douchebag who has a closed mind when presented with facts. You're not worth the wear on my keyboard anymore to respond.

 

BTW - thanks for reposting my pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A multi round semi-automatic is an important hunting tool especially for those retards that never took the time to learn to aim.

 

Another hoplophobe exposing their ignorance and idiocy.

 

Professional shooters are required to use semi auto rifles in Australia, if it's good enough for the professionals then surely it's good enough for amateur hunters.

The Australian government says double tapping them with a .308 semi auto is the most humane method to kill feral pests.

 

Page 11​

Humane shooting operations

The shooting technique that will be used for this program is endorsed by the Australian government as the most humane method for reducing the numbers of pest animals.This technique involves shooting the animals using the 'double tap'method, which requires that two shots be fired at the heart and lungs in rapid succession.This results in a quick death,with minimal stress and suffering

 

Page 15 Firearm-

.308 (7.62mm) calibre rifle such as the Springfield M14 and M1A,L1A1 SLR

http://www.territorystories.nt.gov.au/bitstream/handle/10070/212930/Feral_Animal_Control_Manual.pdf?sequence=1

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A multi round semi-automatic is an important hunting tool especially for those retards that never took the time to learn to aim.

 

Another hoplophobe exposing their ignorance and idiocy.

 

Professional shooters are required to use semi auto rifles in Australia, if it's good enough for the professionals then surely it's good enough for amateur hunters.

The Australian government says double tapping them with a .308 semi auto is the most humane method to kill feral pests.

 

Page 11​

Humane shooting operations

The shooting technique that will be used for this program is endorsed by the Australian government as the most humane method for reducing the numbers of pest animals.This technique involves shooting the animals using the 'double tap'method, which requires that two shots be fired at the heart and lungs in rapid succession.This results in a quick death,with minimal stress and suffering

 

Page 15 Firearm-

.308 (7.62mm) calibre rifle such as the Springfield M14 and M1A,L1A1 SLR

http://www.territorystories.nt.gov.au/bitstream/handle/10070/212930/Feral_Animal_Control_Manual.pdf?sequence=1

 

 

 

 

 

 

You had me at "ignorance and idiocy"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roughly 32000 deaths by gun per year in the US.

About the same number of deaths by car.

 

About 2/3rds of the gun deaths are suicide.

 

Really it's about time we drastically changed US lives. Everyone should live in a padded room provided by the govt with no sharp corners. Leaving the room will require govt approval. Food provided by a slot in the wall, delivered by specially trained govt workers only. Govt teleprompter at least 12 feet off the floor for monitoring and indoctro-tainment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This contribution to Self-Murder Anarchy somehow got lost on its way to this thread.

 

 

800px-List_of_countries_by_firearm-relat

 

Take a look at who's company your in..you guys are doing something wrong

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you guys actually read the article and it's conclusion?...

 

"Clinton is wrong that gun manufacturers have no liability for their products, but she's right that they have unique protections from lawsuits that most other businesses — and particularly consumer product-makers — do not."

 

These unique protections, like not making gun trace evidence available, might just seem a little anti social in the face of a glaring problem with gun deaths (8x the 1st world AVERAGE).

 

Doncha think?

 

I decided to take this reply to the self-murder thread because our "gun deaths" are mostly suicides and our suicide rate is pretty normal for the first world, the only world that counts.

 

The gun industry has faced novel lawsuits blaming manufacturers for criminal, reckless, and unintended uses of guns, so yes, so unique provisions were made in our laws to counter that unique attack.

 

Not sure what you mean about "gun trace evidence" being unavailable. It's available. And how would making it even more available help to put our suicide rate below the "world that matters" normal rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes Tom comes up with some pure gold comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean about "gun trace evidence" being unavailable. It's available. And how would making it even more available help to put our suicide rate below the "world that matters" normal rate?

 

 

You are a liar. THE ATF'S GUN TRACE DATA IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

 

 

  • The Tiahrt Amendment restricts access of state and local law enforcement authority to gun trace data, hindering municipal police departments' ability to track down sellers of illegal guns, to investigate gun trafficking patterns, and to make connections between individual gun-related crimes.[14]
  • The Tiahrt Amendment requires that NICS background check records be destroyed within 24 hours, and this makes it harder for law enforcement authorities to catch law-breaking gun dealers who falsify their records.
  • The Tiahrt Amendment denies the ATF the authority to require dealer inventory checks to detect lost and stolen guns. Under current rules, the ATF can conduct a warrantless search of any licensed gun dealer once per year.[17]

--NICS background check records are still destroyed within 24 hours:

--ATF still does not have the power to require dealer inventory checks to detect lost and stolen guns:

--State and local authorities are still restricted from using trace data to fully investigate corrupt gun dealers and traffickers.

Tiahart: Industry pressure hides gun traces, protects dealers from public scrutiny

By James V. Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, October 24, 2010; 6:00 AM

Under the law, investigators cannot reveal federal firearms tracing information that shows how often a dealer sells guns that end up seized in crimes. The law effectively shields retailers from lawsuits, academic study and public scrutiny. It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms.

...

Such information used to be available under a simple Freedom of Information Act request. But seven years ago, under pressure from the gun lobby, Congress blacked out the information by passing the so-called Tiahrt amendment, named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.). The law removed from the public record a government database that traces guns recovered in crimes back to the dealers.

"It was extraordinary, and the most offensive thing you can think of," said Chuck Wexler, director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit group for police chiefs. "The tracing data, which is now secret, helped us see the big picture of where guns are coming from."

...

For years, the ATF had been releasing tracing data that was at least a year old. A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit pushed for contemporaneous data, but the ATF balked because it felt that the release of real-time trace data could threaten investigations. The standoff landed in the Supreme Court.

In February 2003, before oral arguments, the NRA persuaded Rep. George R. Nethercutt (R-Wash.) to add a provision codifying the time delay into a 544-page omnibus spending bill. In a dramatic move, the high court canceled arguments. The case eventually was tossed out.

Next, the gun lobby moved to take the trace data out of public circulation altogether. In July 2003, Tiahrt introduced his amendment, saying, "I wanted to make sure I was fulfilling the needs of my friends who are firearms dealers."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102302996_2.html?sid=ST2010102304311>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Did you guys actually read the article and it's conclusion?...

 

"Clinton is wrong that gun manufacturers have no liability for their products, but she's right that they have unique protections from lawsuits that most other businesses — and particularly consumer product-makers — do not."

 

These unique protections, like not making gun trace evidence available, might just seem a little anti social in the face of a glaring problem with gun deaths (8x the 1st world AVERAGE).

 

Doncha think?

 

I decided to take this reply to the self-murder thread because our "gun deaths" are mostly suicides and our suicide rate is pretty normal for the first world, the only world that counts.

 

The gun industry has faced novel lawsuits blaming manufacturers for criminal, reckless, and unintended uses of guns, so yes, so unique provisions were made in our laws to counter that unique attack.

 

Not sure what you mean about "gun trace evidence" being unavailable. It's available. And how would making it even more available help to put our suicide rate below the "world that matters" normal rate?

 

 

True.. suicides are 61% of gun deaths in the USA. Compared to Australia you have 25% more suicides with a higher incidence of guns involved. The trouble with taking suicide out of the picture is that it makes the statistics on gun related deaths look worse. ie Suicide is your friend Tom as it softens the impact of the stats on homicide.

 

But we've all seen the first world comparison graphs where the USA is a ridiculous outlier on gun homicides. However Tom's (funny) comment about countries `that count' is quite perverse.

 

Those countries that "don't count" often have political instability and high gun death rates and are arms manufacturers' very good customers. America is the biggest exporter of small arms.Those struggling third world countries descend into chaos and social dysfunction so the shareholders of these companies can afford their next superyacht or French villa.

 

Well done Tom, the manufacturer of your loved guns is quietly sowing anarchy in lawless third world countries. You are right! They quite obviously don't count.

 

There is a reason why arms manufacturers are depicted as bad guys in movies.

 

There is also a reason why there is always a struggle for non proliferation of arms treaties world wide. It's the corruption of arms manufacturers that you so obviously celebrate. No wonder your domestic laws protect these companies. Good on yer Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complain about lawless countries and do nothing about it except complain about Americans...a feel good stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complain about lawless countries and do nothing about it except complain about Americans...a feel good stance.

No... I complained about arms manufacturers of which America has about 31% of the worldwide market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jokeawf, your wife might not have been raped had you or a good guy with a gun been there to prevent it. How does that make you feel?

 

You again?

Thus we see NGS degrade himself, stalking from thread to thread with a hurtful narrative of rape, in a pattern.

This is an odd series of posts for a scientist, or for a quality person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not sure what you mean about "gun trace evidence" being unavailable. It's available. And how would making it even more available help to put our suicide rate below the "world that matters" normal rate?

 

 

You are a liar. THE ATF'S GUN TRACE DATA IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

 

 

  • The Tiahrt Amendment restricts access of state and local law enforcement authority to gun trace data, hindering municipal police departments' ability to track down sellers of illegal guns, to investigate gun trafficking patterns, and to make connections between individual gun-related crimes.[14]
  • The Tiahrt Amendment requires that NICS background check records be destroyed within 24 hours, and this makes it harder for law enforcement authorities to catch law-breaking gun dealers who falsify their records.
  • The Tiahrt Amendment denies the ATF the authority to require dealer inventory checks to detect lost and stolen guns. Under current rules, the ATF can conduct a warrantless search of any licensed gun dealer once per year.[17]
...

 

 

Restricting investigators to using that data in connection with an investigation doesn't seem such a burdensome restriction. Why should they be allowed to use it for anything else?

 

The ATF is conducting warrantless searches with no authority to search at all? Shit! We need another law to better protect the industry. I don't like warrantless searches, especially when they have no authority. Or maybe you're lying and they do have the authority.

 

The fact that you don't like the terms under which gun trace data is available does not mean it's not available. It just means you want it more available, want more warrantless searches, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Did you guys actually read the article and it's conclusion?...

 

"Clinton is wrong that gun manufacturers have no liability for their products, but she's right that they have unique protections from lawsuits that most other businesses — and particularly consumer product-makers — do not."

 

These unique protections, like not making gun trace evidence available, might just seem a little anti social in the face of a glaring problem with gun deaths (8x the 1st world AVERAGE).

 

Doncha think?

 

I decided to take this reply to the self-murder thread because our "gun deaths" are mostly suicides and our suicide rate is pretty normal for the first world, the only world that counts.

 

The gun industry has faced novel lawsuits blaming manufacturers for criminal, reckless, and unintended uses of guns, so yes, so unique provisions were made in our laws to counter that unique attack.

 

Not sure what you mean about "gun trace evidence" being unavailable. It's available. And how would making it even more available help to put our suicide rate below the "world that matters" normal rate?

 

 

True.. suicides are 61% of gun deaths in the USA. Compared to Australia you have 25% more suicides with a higher incidence of guns involved. The trouble with taking suicide out of the picture is that it makes the statistics on gun related deaths look worse....

 

 

How did we go from "first world countries" to just Australia? Why don't we talk about Finland? Or France? Or Taiwan? Or Japan? Greenland? S. Korea?

 

Possibly because those all have a higher suicide rate and much lower gun ownership rates?

 

You didn't answer my question. How would changing our rules to allow more warrantless searches of dealers and such impact our suicide rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You didn't answer my question. How would changing our rules to allow more warrantless searches of dealers and such impact our suicide rate?

 

 

You never asked this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You didn't answer my question. How would changing our rules to allow more warrantless searches of dealers and such impact our suicide rate?

 

 

Trust me, you will still not get an answer to that......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You didn't answer my question. How would changing our rules to allow more warrantless searches of dealers and such impact our suicide rate?

 

 

You never asked this question.

 

 

Look a bit more closely at 721.

 

Afterward, admit that the question is from that post, then answer it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

You didn't answer my question. How would changing our rules to allow more warrantless searches of dealers and such impact our suicide rate?

 

 

You never asked this question.

 

 

Look a bit more closely at 721.

 

Afterward, admit that the question is from that post, then answer it.

 

Nup. Still can't see that question in that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Pinocle, I'll help you out.

 

 

Not sure what you mean about "gun trace evidence" being unavailable. It's available. And how would making it even more available help to put our suicide rate below the "world that matters" normal rate?

 

 

The ? at the end was the give-away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jokeawf, your wife might not have been raped had you or a good guy with a gun been there to prevent it. How does that make you feel?

 

You again?

Thus we see NGS degrade himself, stalking from thread to thread with a hurtful narrative of rape, in a pattern.

This is an odd series of posts for a scientist, or for a quality person.

 

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman, but it is a completely reasonable question.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

 

An elderly woman was at home in Big Sur, Calif. when a pair of men armed with knives broke into her house and attempted to rape her. During the incident the woman was able to ...

 

A woman was at home in Billings, Mont. when she went to her car to retrieve her purse. Upon grabbing the purse, the woman heard a suspicious noise and drew a .380-caliber pistol from the ...

 

A woman was at her Van Zandt County, Texas home when she became aware of a man attempting to gain access to the house through a side door. The woman retrieved a gun and shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Pinocle, I'll help you out.

 

 

Not sure what you mean about "gun trace evidence" being unavailable. It's available. And how would making it even more available help to put our suicide rate below the "world that matters" normal rate?

 

 

The ? at the end was the give-away

 

Sometimes, if you ask enough times, he answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Restricting investigators to using that data in connection with an investigation doesn't seem such a burdensome restriction.

 

 

Speak for yourself. Trends cannot be mapped by law enforcement, you idiot.

 

 

Why should they be allowed to use it for anything else?

 

The information becomes off-limits to academics who could aid law enforcement, and public safety.
Shame on you for obscuring the track record of wholesale and retail suppliers of guns.

Some history: Tiahrt's actions were a response to a report about crime guns pouring from certain dealers.

After Tiahrt, Badger Guns' crime gun output increased 210%.

The Badgeless Pariah has claimed he can debunk these facts:

For three decades, tracing was used mostly to help police catch criminals linked to recovered guns. But in 1995, Professor Glenn L. Pierce of Northeastern University analyzed ATF tracing data and discovered that a tiny fraction of gun dealers - 1 percent - were the original sellers of a majority of the guns seized at crime scenes - 57 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102302996_2.html?sid=ST2010102304311>

 

The facts behind crime guns are knowable, but never concluded. This is the blockage of data, and of empirical evidence. If you extremists want a freewheeling second amendment, we have to know how to manage guns.

 

You are obstructing law enforcement, and claiming that you aren't. It's a lie.

The ATF is conducting warrantless searches with no authority to search at all? Shit! We need another law to better protect the industry. I don't like warrantless searches, especially when they have no authority. Or maybe you're lying and they do have the authority.

Your authority issues have risen, again. (I notice that you spit authority, and that you flout legal authority in many ways.)
Mr. Ray, if you were at the ATF, and were not looking at the big picture, and the overall numbers, and generalities within the details of this gun mayhem, armchair experts like Tom Rayand Briethart and Glem Beck would roast you on their blogs over and over and over.

The fact that you don't like the terms under which gun trace data is available does not mean it's not available. It just means you want it more available, want more warrantless searches, etc

 

The info is not available to us the people. It is severely limited to LE. This product liability information is being blocked by gun extremists such as yourself...then you deny you are doing that.

 

The very dangerous liar is yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Jokeawf, your wife might not have been raped had you or a good guy with a gun been there to prevent it. How does that make you feel?

 

You again?

Thus we see NGS degrade himself, stalking from thread to thread with a hurtful narrative of rape, in a pattern.

This is an odd series of posts for a scientist, or for a quality person.

 

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman, but it is a completely reasonable question.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

 

An elderly woman was at home in Big Sur, Calif. when a pair of men armed with knives broke into her house and attempted to rape her. During the incident the woman was able to ...

 

A woman was at home in Billings, Mont. when she went to her car to retrieve her purse. Upon grabbing the purse, the woman heard a suspicious noise and drew a .380-caliber pistol from the ...

 

A woman was at her Van Zandt County, Texas home when she became aware of a man attempting to gain access to the house through a side door. The woman retrieved a gun and shot

 

 

Crickets....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Jokeawf, your wife might not have been raped had you or a good guy with a gun been there to prevent it. How does that make you feel?

 

You again?

Thus we see NGS degrade himself, stalking from thread to thread with a hurtful narrative of rape, in a pattern.

This is an odd series of posts for a scientist, or for a quality person.

 

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman, but it is a completely reasonable question.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

 

An elderly woman was at home in Big Sur, Calif. when a pair of men armed with knives broke into her house and attempted to rape her. During the incident the woman was able to ...

 

A woman was at home in Billings, Mont. when she went to her car to retrieve her purse. Upon grabbing the purse, the woman heard a suspicious noise and drew a .380-caliber pistol from the ...

 

A woman was at her Van Zandt County, Texas home when she became aware of a man attempting to gain access to the house through a side door. The woman retrieved a gun and shot

 

 

Crickets....

 

 

Why are you stuck on this women thing? I have four sisters dude, and a foxy single daugher NYC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman, but it is a completely reasonable question.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

 

An elderly woman was at home in Big Sur, Calif. when a pair of men armed with knives broke into her house and attempted to rape her. During the incident the woman was able to ...

 

A woman was at home in Billings, Mont. when she went to her car to retrieve her purse. Upon grabbing the purse, the woman heard a suspicious noise and drew a .380-caliber pistol from the ...

 

A woman was at her Van Zandt County, Texas home when she became aware of a man attempting to gain access to the house through a side door. The woman retrieved a gun and shot

 

 

Crickets....

 

 

Why are you stuck on this women thing? I have four sisters dude, and a foxy single daugher NYC.

 

 

Women are typically the victims of rape. Why are you avoiding answering these questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Jokeawf, your wife might not have been raped had you or a good guy with a gun been there to prevent it. How does that make you feel?

 

You again?

Thus we see NGS degrade himself, stalking from thread to thread with a hurtful narrative of rape, in a pattern.

This is an odd series of posts for a scientist, or for a quality person.

 

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman, but it is a completely reasonable question.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

 

I am against rape.

 

Where are you getting your information on this subject?

Use your scholarly side to approach this. Where is your empirical evidence that guns prevent rape?

John R. Lott is the only person I know who claimed that guns prevent rapes.

 

Within a year, two determined econometricians, Dan Black and Daniel Nagin (1998) published a study showing that if they changed the statistical model a little bit, or applied it to different segments of the data, Lott and Mustard's findings disappeared.Black and Nagin found that when Florida was removed from the sample there was "no detectable impact of the right-to-carry laws on the rate of murder and rape." They concluded that "inference based on the Lott and Mustard model is inappropriate, and their results cannot be used responsibly to formulate public policy."

Ted Goertzel's comments.

 

There is some recent quality evidence that CCP increases many forms of violent crime, including rape.

 

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

The evidence is less strong on rape and robbery, Donohue noted. The data from 1979 to 2010 provide evidence that the laws are associated with an increase in rape and robbery.

http://news.stanford...s-study-111414.

 

 

The National Organization of Women doesn't want you to pack, NGS.

Actually, they want you to re-define your masculinity, and to re-define your gun culture.

Gender Roles Must be Part of Dialogue on Gun Violence

They want better gun restrictions.

 

 

Based on evidence and experience, campus educators do not see guns as rape-prevention magic.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&p=4361801

American women are six times more exposed to femicide if a gun is in the residence.

A woman in the USA is more at risk with a multiple gunowner, and the US average is 7.9 guns per gunowner.

The incidence of DV is higher among gunowners than the non-gun-owning public.

 

Again, where are you getting your information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Jokeawf, your wife might not have been raped had you or a good guy with a gun been there to prevent it. How does that make you feel?

 

You again?

Thus we see NGS degrade himself, stalking from thread to thread with a hurtful narrative of rape, in a pattern.

This is an odd series of posts for a scientist, or for a quality person.

 

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman, but it is a completely reasonable question.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

 

I am against rape.

 

[spam deleted]

 

Don't hide behind your anti-gun propaganda.

 

Do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

These are very straight-forward questions. Let's have you answer them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You didn't answer my question. How would changing our rules to allow more warrantless searches of dealers and such impact our suicide rate?

 

 

Trust me, you will still not get an answer to that......

 

 

Right, such profundity deserves awesome silence.

Tom Ray Post 721: Not sure what you mean about "gun trace evidence" being unavailable. It's available. And how would making it even more available help to put our suicide rate below the "world that matters" normal rate?

 

 

 

Tom flips a certain conversation into his non-labeled, hi-jacked suicide thread. Whaaa...?

Tom repeats a dumbass question he heard down at the trailer park.

Jeff is the choir today, he say "amen".

 

The conversation was with Pinocchio about how guns, a dangerous consumer product, had gained immunity from product liability.

 

Pinocchio: ...might just seem a little anti social in the face of a glaring problem with gun deaths (8x the 1st world AVERAGE).

 

Tom's reply: How would changing our rules to allow more warrantless searches of dealers and such impact our suicide rate? Straw man alert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain to the class what kind of 'products liability' issues are you talking about, when 99.5% of guns work perfectly?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as expected, our stupid little gun grabber has got nothing...,.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Jokeawf, your wife might not have been raped had you or a good guy with a gun been there to prevent it. How does that make you feel?

 

You again?

Thus we see NGS degrade himself, stalking from thread to thread with a hurtful narrative of rape, in a pattern.

This is an odd series of posts for a scientist, or for a quality person.

 

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman, but it is a completely reasonable question.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

 

I am against rape.

 

[spam deleted]

 

Don't hide behind your anti-gun propaganda.

 

Do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

These are very straight-forward questions. Let's have you answer them.

 

 

Crickets......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Jokeawf, your wife might not have been raped had you or a good guy with a gun been there to prevent it. How does that make you feel?

 

You again?

Thus we see NGS degrade himself, stalking from thread to thread with a hurtful narrative of rape, in a pattern.

This is an odd series of posts for a scientist, or for a quality person.

 

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman, but it is a completely reasonable question.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

 

I am against rape.

 

[spam deleted]

 

Don't hide behind your anti-gun propaganda.

 

Do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

These are very straight-forward questions. Let's have you answer them.

 

 

Tell you what. I don't believe I'll discuss this matter with a pinhead, among barracudas.

 

Just be a gentleman and drop the subject.

If you don't that places you in a parade of two other gun creeps, Simple Jeff and Boothie. Each worked this angle over pretty well.

 

Don't go sociopathic on us here, NGS. I implore you to consider this in your heart of hearts: my sweetie only knows about 5% of the crap you guys pulled on this

(Boothy's Q. Would she have shot the guy later if armed and given the opportunity?

Her A. Nope, no capital punishment for ANY reason)

She is deeply, deeply resentful that I even shared it, because of how your elk do.

Enough said, buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

 

I am against rape.

 

[spam deleted]

 

Don't hide behind your anti-gun propaganda.

 

Do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

These are very straight-forward questions. Let's have you answer them.

 

 

Tell you what. I don't believe I'll discuss this matter with a pinhead, among barracudas.

 

[irrelevant and bogus excuses and name-calling deleted]

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman. I am not a pinhead or barracuda. I am a physician.

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

Stop the name calling. Stop the pretense. Stand up like a man and answer the questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain to the class what kind of 'products liability' issues are you talking about, when 99.5% of guns work perfectly?.....Straw Man Alert

 

The function of the gun barely enters into it. Much of the protection applies to the supply chain...and its record is spotty.

 

We have a gun problem. Gun suppliers are feeding it. The industry is so special the records of their dangerous products are secret?

Why are industry records not traceable per the disclosure requirements of other products?

 

PLCAA: The Gun Industry’s Immunity from Lawsuits

Tort liability plays an important role in injury prevention. In circumstances where legislators have been unwilling to enact regulations to improve safety, dangerous products and careless industry practices are normally held in check by the possibility of civil litigation that enables injured individuals to recover monetarily. As noted above, policies designed to hold gun sellers accountable can curtail the diversion of guns to criminals. Litigation can do the same thing.73 The firearms industry, however, has recently obtained unprecedented immunity from this long-standing system of accountability.

A series of lawsuits in the 1990s held certain members of the firearms industry liable for particularly reckless practices. As a result, the industry began to push legislation in statehouses that limited this avenue of relief. Then, in 2005, after intense lobbying from the gun industry, Congress enacted and President Bush signed a law that gives gun manufacturers and sellers unprecedented nationwide immunity from lawsuits. This law, known as the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” requires the dismissal of almost any lawsuit brought against a member of the gun industry for irresponsible or negligent behavior in the business of making or selling guns.74 This law enables gun makers and sellers to market their products in ways that are intended to appeal to criminals and other ineligible purchasers without facing any legal consequences. It also allows the industry to make available increasingly dangerous weapons and to fail to monitor inventory, even in the face of evidence that thousands of guns are being stolen from dealerships and end up in the hands of criminals.

In 2012, the gun industry made an estimated $11.7 billion in sales and $993 million in profits.75 There is no good reason for the firearms industry to receive special treatment in the hands of the law or to be immune from the same kind of civil lawsuits that are used to hold business practices accountable for the injuries they cause.

Pasted from <http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-safety-public-health-policy-recommendations-for-a-more-secure-america/#Immunity>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

 

I am against rape.

 

[spam deleted]

 

Don't hide behind your anti-gun propaganda.

 

Do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

These are very straight-forward questions. Let's have you answer them.

 

 

Tell you what. I don't believe I'll discuss this matter with a pinhead, among barracudas.

 

[irrelevant and bogus excuses and name-calling deleted]

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman. I am not a pinhead or barracuda. I am a physician.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

Stop the name calling. Stop the pretense. Stand up like a man and answer the questions.

 

 

 

This cuts to the heart of all of Jokeawfs propaganda and exposes for everyone the insane depravity of the antigun ideology he touts. There is a reason that Jokeawf won't answer the questions, and I think it is obvious to everyone what that reason is.

 

Because if he answers affirmatively, that he wishes someone with a firearm had saved his wife from the attack, then the principle must apply to others as well. It would apply to other women in the same circumstance, to the elderly, to all of us who wish to protect our loved ones from harm. He is trapped. Guns save lives.

 

There is no need for any other discussion with this clown. Jokeawf is either a hypocrite or a liar. Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Restricting investigators to using that data in connection with an investigation doesn't seem such a burdensome restriction.

 

 

Speak for yourself. Trends cannot be mapped by law enforcement, you idiot.

 

 

Why should they be allowed to use it for anything else?

 

The information becomes off-limits to academics who could aid law enforcement, and public safety.
Shame on you for obscuring the track record of wholesale and retail suppliers of guns.

Some history: Tiahrt's actions were a response to a report about crime guns pouring from certain dealers.

After Tiahrt, Badger Guns' crime gun output increased 210%.

The Badgeless Pariah has claimed he can debunk these facts:

For three decades, tracing was used mostly to help police catch criminals linked to recovered guns. But in 1995, Professor Glenn L. Pierce of Northeastern University analyzed ATF tracing data and discovered that a tiny fraction of gun dealers - 1 percent - were the original sellers of a majority of the guns seized at crime scenes - 57 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/23/AR2010102302996_2.html?sid=ST2010102304311>

 

The facts behind crime guns are knowable, but never concluded. This is the blockage of data, and of empirical evidence. If you extremists want a freewheeling second amendment, we have to know how to manage guns.

 

You are obstructing law enforcement, and claiming that you aren't. It's a lie.

 

 

Call me names if that's all you can do.

 

You're the one who raised "authority issues by falsely claming that the AFT is conducing their warrantless searches without authority.

 

As for the fact that most sales (including sales to people who commit crimes) come from high-volume, low-price dealers, just as in most markets. Um, yeah. That's how things work. See point 10 below.

 

 

 

 

 

No cite, huh? No problem, I have one.

 

The CDC flagrantly violated the NRA ban on gun-related research (they are able to get away with this because that "ban" does not exist outside the left wing noise machine) and their last bullet point speaks to your allegation.

 

 

Here’s a list of the 10 most salient or surprising takeaways.

 

1. The United States has an indisputable gun violence problem. According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”

 

2. Most indices of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

 

 

3. We have 300 million firearms, but only 100 million are handguns. According to the report, “In 2007, one estimate placed the total number of firearms in the country at 294 million: ‘106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns.’ ” This translates to nearly nine guns for every 10 people, a per capita ownership rate nearly 50 percent higher than the next most armed country. But American gun ownership is concentrated, not universal: In a December 2012 Gallup poll, “43 percent of those surveyed reported having a gun in the home.”

 

 

4. Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”

 

 

5. Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.

 

 

6. Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide. From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun.”

 

 

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “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 per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “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.”

 

 

8. Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,” says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.” According to a Pew Foundation report, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they own guns.”

 

 

9. Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives. “Two-thirds of homicides of ex- and current spouses were committed [with] firearms,” the report observes. “In locations where individuals under restraining orders to stay away from current or ex-partners are prohibited from access to firearms, female partner homicide is reduced by 7 percent.”

 

 

10. It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers. The report concedes that in 1998, “1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced by the ATF.” However, “Gun sales are also relatively concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80 percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” Researchers have found that “the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost equally concentrated among a few dealers.” Volume, not laxity, drives the number of ill-fated sales.

 

 

These conclusions don’t line up perfectly with either side’s agenda. That’s a good reason to take them seriously—and to fund additional data collection and research politics that have been blocked by Congress over politics...

 

I edited that last bit for accuracy, as there is no ban on taxpayer funded research, only a ban on taxpayer funded political advocacy.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Complain about lawless countries and do nothing about it except complain about Americans...a feel good stance.

No... I complained about arms manufacturers of which America has about 31% of the worldwide market.

Yesterday you singled out America. Why only America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because in Pusstralia, 31 is greater than 69?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Complain about lawless countries and do nothing about it except complain about Americans...a feel good stance.

No... I complained about arms manufacturers of which America has about 31% of the worldwide market.

Yesterday you singled out America. Why only America?

Oh please stop whining sensiboy.

 

I can assure you I don't spend my time hating America or even thinking about it. In fact I like Americans (except white middle aged men who view any effort to regulate guns as an attack on their manliness.)

 

The subject is gun control and we were discussing an article about domestic protections for American's arm manufacturers I was pointing out that they hardly need protection but rather some measure of control.

 

Try not to be too sensitive, remember it's manliness at all times. Get your Camo, cut off tshirts and AR15 out. You'll feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Jokeawf, your wife might not have been raped had you or a good guy with a gun been there to prevent it. How does that make you feel?

 

You again?

Thus we see NGS degrade himself, stalking from thread to thread with a hurtful narrative of rape, in a pattern.

This is an odd series of posts for a scientist, or for a quality person.

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman, but it is a completely reasonable question.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

I am against rape.

 

Where are you getting your information on this subject?

Use your scholarly side to approach this. Where is your empirical evidence that guns prevent rape?

John R. Lott is the only person I know who claimed that guns prevent rapes.

 

Within a year, two determined econometricians, Dan Black and Daniel Nagin (1998) published a study showing that if they changed the statistical model a little bit, or applied it to different segments of the data, Lott and Mustard's findings disappeared.Black and Nagin found that when Florida was removed from the sample there was "no detectable impact of the right-to-carry laws on the rate of murder and rape." They concluded that "inference based on the Lott and Mustard model is inappropriate, and their results cannot be used responsibly to formulate public policy." Ted Goertzel's comments.

 

There is some recent quality evidence that CCP increases many forms of violent crime, including rape.

 

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

The evidence is less strong on rape and robbery, Donohue noted. The data from 1979 to 2010 provide evidence that the laws are associated with an increase in rape and robbery.

http://news.stanford...s-study-111414.

 

 

The National Organization of Women doesn't want you to pack, NGS.

Actually, they want you to re-define your masculinity, and to re-define your gun culture.

Gender Roles Must be Part of Dialogue on Gun Violence

They want better gun restrictions.

 

 

Based on evidence and experience, campus educators do not see guns as rape-prevention magic.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&p=4361801

American women are six times more exposed to femicide if a gun is in the residence.

A woman in the USA is more at risk with a multiple gunowner, and the US average is 7.9 guns per gunowner.

The incidence of DV is higher among gunowners than the non-gun-owning public.

 

Again, where are you getting your information?

 

What's the rate when there are knives in the house?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jokeawf, your wife might not have been raped had you or a good guy with a gun been there to prevent it. How does that make you feel?

 

You again?

Thus we see NGS degrade himself, stalking from thread to thread with a hurtful narrative of rape, in a pattern.

This is an odd series of posts for a scientist, or for a quality person.

 

I am very sorry what happened to your wife. It should happen to no woman, but it is a completely reasonable question.

 

Firearms are, in the case of potential crime victims, particularly women and the elderly, a force equalizer. They protect people from harm. They are tools to protect property. And they are tools to prevent rape.

 

If a woman is armed, it is often the case that an attacker will not get the upper hand in these kind of situations. Is this not obvious to you? Armed citizens intervene everyday to prevent violence and other forms of criminal behavior.

 

So, again, do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

You want fewer guns. How about fewer rapes? Stop avoiding these questions.

 

I am against rape.

 

[spam deleted]

 

Don't hide behind your anti-gun propaganda.

 

Do you not wish that your wife's attack had been prevented by an armed citizen? Do you not wish that she herself had been able to prevent the attack with a gun?

 

These are very straight-forward questions. Let's have you answer them.

 

Tell you what. I don't believe I'll discuss this matter with a pinhead, among barracudas.

 

Just be a gentleman and drop the subject.

If you don't that places you in a parade of two other gun creeps, Simple Jeff and Boothie. Each worked this angle over pretty well.

 

Don't go sociopathic on us here, NGS. I implore you to consider this in your heart of hearts: my sweetie only knows about 5% of the crap you guys pulled on this

(Boothy's Q. Would she have shot the guy later if armed and given the opportunity?

Her A. Nope, no capital punishment for ANY reason)

She is deeply, deeply resentful that I even shared it, because of how your elk do.

Enough said, buddy.

 

Personally I believe it is a legitimate question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's already stated that he's against capital punishment at ALL TIMES. Which means that he would sit there comfortably on the couch while his family was being butchered-to-death. Or worse. So to summarize, JokeAwf is the biggest fuking pussy on the planet, hands down.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

The subject is gun control and we were discussing an article about domestic protections for American's arm manufacturers I was pointing out that they hardly need protection but rather some measure of control.

 

...

 

 

What measure of control do you think would help with our gun self-murder rate, which is by far the largest part of our "gun death" rate you were talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Complain about lawless countries and do nothing about it except complain about Americans...a feel good stance.

No... I complained about arms manufacturers of which America has about 31% of the worldwide market.
Yesterday you singled out America. Why only America?
Oh please stop whining sensiboy.

 

I can assure you I don't spend my time hating America or even thinking about it. In fact I like Americans (except white middle aged men who view any effort to regulate guns as an attack on their manliness.)

 

The subject is gun control and we were discussing an article about domestic protections for American's arm manufacturers I was pointing out that they hardly need protection but rather some measure of control.

 

Try not to be too sensitive, remember it's manliness at all times. Get your Camo, cut off tshirts and AR15 out. You'll feel better.

I see. You single out Americans and then say Americans are sensitive and unmamly. If you had balls youd answer the question.

 

So, why did you single out Americans?

 

I don't own camo', cutoffs, or an AR15. You must be a bogan. We don't have those types around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's already stated that he's against capital punishment at ALL TIMES. Which means that he would sit there comfortably on the couch while his family was being butchered-to-death. Or worse. So to summarize, JokeAwf is the biggest fuking pussy on the planet, hands down.....

Well JokeOff isn't about taking guns away. He's a gun owner. He is well aware there are plenty of folks who would do no harm to others with one. As Jeff pointed out he's simply afraid of those who do others harm and realizes he is incapable of defending against them. A man's got to know his limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you had balls youd answer the questiion.

 

I answered your question and you make no reference to the answer I gave you. Then you talk about my balls.

 

You must be taking lessons from Boothy the manliest of the manly men here. Wealthy by his own declarations, a collector of guns, friends of people, unfortunately shot dead. He's got it all going on.

 

But you fail in all things manly, you forgot to call me a faggot, pussy and scared. Oh and don't forget to call my country Pusstralia.

 

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

 

Perhaps using caps makes it easier to read: THE SUBJECT WAS ABOUT US DOMESTIC LAWS PROTECTING US ARMS MANUFACTURERS. ITS AMERICA WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that was the other thread, Pin.

 

This is the self-murder thread, where I brought the discussion about "gun deaths" you brought up, since most of those are self-murders.

 

So how would controlling our gun manufacturers better help with our gun self-murder rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

The subject is gun control and we were discussing an article about domestic protections for American's arm manufacturers I was pointing out that they hardly need protection but rather some measure of control.

 

...

 

 

What measure of control do you think would help with our gun self-murder rate, which is by far the largest part of our "gun death" rate you were talking about?

 

 

There are some gun control measures that would have no effect on the suicide rate and some that may. I used the comparison to Australia because our societies are similar but suicide by gun in the USA is higher than in Australia. You would say take the gun off someone and they'll find a bridge to jump off and you may well be right. I think there would be some lowering of the suicide rate if loaded guns didn't fall so readily to hand. They are the simplest and deadliest tool a human being can use to top themselves. I don't know this to be true but common sense tells me that using knives or jumping off bridges is takes more guts and premeditation.

 

But why this focus? As I said and you make no comment on... taking suicides out of the statistics when comparing first world countries only makes the disparity of gun deaths in America with the rest of the world look much worse.

 

You are trying to take the discussion down a rabbit hole, Tom, and I'm sure you have a practised obscurification in response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured if we were going to talk about gun deaths, we should talk about the vast majority of them, meaning self-murders.

 

So how should we ensure that guns don't fall so readily to hand? I only wish they "fell" into my hands. I've had to buy mine. And one day, I might decide to self-murderate myself. I mean, Americans do that at a normal, first-world rate and I'm an American. So is what you're really saying just the usual line, that we should not be allowed to buy guns at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, that was the other thread, Pin.

 

 

Then why didn't you ask me the bloody question over in that thread, Tom?

 

 

Because I don't think liability protection is related to self-murders and you brought up self-murders as a justification for ending those liability protections. I still don't see how that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites