Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

 

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

Its not a problem, it's a personal decision

 

 

Just like shooting someone? Weak argument.

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?

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

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

 

tumblr_m9fbufwsqn1qc882co2_250.gif

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

 

 

Hey jo, you want some hard figures? Here you go. Let's break down those numbers a bit more, shall we? Your "facts" don't even begin to tell the whole story. Using your 2001-2013 time frame, the breakdowns tell a bit different story.

 

Using the same rates per 100K: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html

 

Non-fatal Assault Injuries w/ a Gun:

2001 = 14.11

2013 = 19.78

40% increase

 

Non-fatal Injuries Assaults ALL:

2001 = 623

2013 = 520

17% decrease

 

Non-fatal Suicide attempt with a Gun:

2001 = 1.14

2013 = 1.27

11% increase

 

Non-fatal Suicide attempt ALL:

2001 = 113

2013 = 156

38% Increase

 

Homicide deaths - GUN:

2001 = 3.98

2013 = 3.55

10.8% Decease

 

Homicide deaths - ALL

2001 = 7.13

2013 = 5.10

28.4% Decrease

 

Suicide Deaths - GUN:

2001 = 5.92

2013 = 6.70

13.1% increase

 

Suicide Deaths - ALL:

2001 = 10.75

2013 = 13.02

21.1% Increase

 

So.... some conclusions to draw from those numbers above:

  1. Homicide rates have gone down while suicide rates have gone up.
  2. Both suicide injuries and death from other sources have increased more than suicide injuries and deaths from guns
  3. There are probably an increasing number of injuries from guns rather than deaths because of better medical care - i.e. more people are saved than would have been possible in the past when presenting with a GSW.
  4. More people are choosing a means other than a gun to attempt suicide
  5. Suicides and homicides are not the same thing and should not be lumped together in stats
  6. Jocal is a babbling idiot

 

 

And you can also conclude that JB is loose with the truth, leaving out the most most telling stat.

 

Rate of All Gun Deaths per 100,000 People

2001: 10.38 (29,573)

2013: 10.64 (33,636)

13.7% increase in dead people from guns.

 

Nice work selfish cherry-picking prick.

 

 

 

Why do these self-murder stats keep getting included in Democrat Lies About Guns?

 

I agree that it's generally true that conflating self-murders with violent crimes is a Democrat gungrabby trick that is dishonest, but we have this thread for discussion of that particular aspect of Democrat dishonesty about guns.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, suicide stats ... get mixed up with Gun Deaths ... because those people are dead, by guns. Simple.

 

The figures I posted above show that changing gun laws reduces all types of gun deaths, with no increase in the other types of suicide.

 

See it's not hard. Australia just did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan is way ahead of you, both in terms of denying guns to people and in terms of self-murderizing themselves.

 

How does that happen if denying guns to people is some kind of magical solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan? "How does that happen"?

 

You cherry-pick, that's how. Why not cherry-pick Australia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not look at a whole bunch of countries that all have far fewer guns? If your magical solution works, the evidence should be there.

 

But we did. And it's not.

 

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn ... couldn't even be bothered finding an image for it.

 

Got any other countries that have a before and after on radical gun law changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn ... couldn't even be bothered finding an image for it.

 

Got any other countries that have a before and after on radical gun law changes?

You could try Googly-pooing Mexico, Brazil, El Savador, Russia, Somalia and 83.72% of Africa for starters....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah 87% of africa? Somalia? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correlation, but surely not causation. Right fellas?

 

guns%20per%20capita.jpg

 

gun%20homicides%20per%20capita.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the gun ownership rate really the problem? I didn't know black people owned guns at a much higher rate than whites. I thought it was the other way around. And yet...

 

 

 

 

The problems with black guns and white guns lay out differently.

But both results are catastrophic. Interesting.

.black%20gun%20deaths%20in%20the%20USA_zp

 

 

That low gun ownership rate must be extremely dangerous. If it's the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We can never get anywhere as long as people are being dishonest, like lumping suicides and justified self defense or police shootings with homicides. Keep lying and nobody will trust you even when you tell the truth.

Thus sayeth the Rev. We are blessed by these 21,000 gun suicides each year.

These gun suicides are not gun violence. These deaths are beneficial, they are a given, they were meant to be, shit happens, gun suicides are not to be counted.

 

Rev. Hollow Point has spoken.

 

 

 

What about the other 20,000 or so self-murders? Are those plastic bag or rope violence? Poison violence? Are they beneficial? Meant to be? Should they be counted? And if so, why do you never mention them?

 

 

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.

 

But what about the suffocation violence and the poison violence?

 

 

 

All suicides
  • Number of deaths: 41,149
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.0
  • Cause of death rank: 10
Firearm suicides
  • Number of deaths: 21,175
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.7
Suffocation suicides
  • Number of deaths: 10,062
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.2
Poisoning suicides
  • Number of deaths: 6,637
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1

 

They add up to 16k people, far more than are killed by the type of gun violence that is inflicted by others. Almost as many as self-inflicted "violence" using guns.

 

We obviously need plastic bag control just to start. How much financial responsibility should plastic bag manufacturers take? Or do people usually use ropes? Are we going after the rope moguls for being merchants of death?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The term 'gun related deaths' is just fucking stupid. And you know that....

 

Speaking for myself. Rick, no, I don't know that.

 

Our high rates of "gun related deaths" are related to our gun reliance and high rates of gun ownership.

The number one recommendation to reduce suicide, for example, is to have no guns in the home.

Same suggestion for gun mishaps with teens. Same suggestion for reducing femicide.

 

 

 

So we must own guns at about the same rate as they do in countries that self-murderize at the same rate, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The term 'gun related deaths' is just fucking stupid. And you know that....

 

Speaking for myself. Rick, no, I don't know that.

 

Our high rates of "gun related deaths" are related to our gun reliance and high rates of gun ownership.

The number one recommendation to reduce suicide, for example, is to have no guns in the home.

Same suggestion for gun mishaps with teens. Same suggestion for reducing femicide.

 

 

So we must own guns at about the same rate as they do in countries that self-murderize at the same rate, right?

 

 

Dammit Tom - I asked you politely not to quote the pedantic troll - but since you did, will refute his assertion by suggesting that "our high rates of "gun related deaths"" are more likely assigned to the high rate of young persons who care nothing for their lives or anyone else's than to "gun reliance" and "high rates of gun ownership".

 

Calhoun - you want a good thing, but, your approach to achieving it is simply wrong, and is having an effect opposite that which you desire. (unless I miss my guess and you really do enjoy being the object of scorn and ridicule)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-What you say you want, Guy, is effective, proven policy to manage guns better. But I've never heard you plead for the research to set that up.

What you want is inaction, while we fix the human condition. You are a nay sayer, basically.

 

 

You guys want to tell lies back and forth, such as

--guns don't kill people,

--AW's are just another semi-automatic,

--more guns, less crime,

---20,000 gun suicides per year don't count,

--the second amendment is intrinsic, absolute, and beneficial.

 

And I enjoy debunking your elk. On a website where "anarchy" is about straight shooting, that is, telling it like it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-What you say you want, Guy, is effective, proven policy to manage guns better. But I've never heard you plead for the research to set that up.

What you want is inaction, while we fix the human condition. You are a nay sayer, basically.

 

 

You guys want to tell lies back and forth, such as

--guns don't kill people,

--AW's are just another semi-automatic,

--more guns, less crime,

---20,000 gun suicides per year don't count,

--the second amendment is intrinsic, absolute, and beneficial.

 

And I enjoy debunking your elk. On a website where "anarchy" is about straight shooting, that is, telling it like it is.

 

Here are the self-murders that don't count. The ones you never mention.

 

Suffocation suicides

  • Number of deaths: 10,062
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.2
Poisoning suicides
  • Number of deaths: 6,637
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1

 

 

The ones in countries in the chart above, where gun ownership rates are very low but self-murder rates are higher than ours, don't seem to count either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

-What you say you want, Guy, is effective, proven policy to manage guns better. But I've never heard you plead for the research to set that up.

What you want is inaction, while we fix the human condition. You are a nay sayer, basically.

 

 

You guys want to tell lies back and forth, such as

--guns don't kill people,

--AW's are just another semi-automatic,

--more guns, less crime,

---20,000 gun suicides per year don't count,

--the second amendment is intrinsic, absolute, and beneficial.

 

And I enjoy debunking your elk. On a website where "anarchy" is about straight shooting, that is, telling it like it is.

Here are the self-murders that don't count. The ones you never mention.

Suffocation suicides

  • Number of deaths: 10,062
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.2
Poisoning suicides
  • Number of deaths: 6,637
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1

The ones in countries in the chart above, where gun ownership rates are very low but self-murder rates are higher than ours, don't seem to count either.

Got a link for that Tom? I suspect it's largely a cultural thing, like Japan for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-What you say you want, Guy, is effective, proven policy to manage guns better. But I've never heard you plead for the research to set that up.

What you want is inaction, while we fix the human condition. You are a nay sayer, basically.

 

 

You guys want to tell lies back and forth, such as

--guns don't kill people,

--AW's are just another semi-automatic,

--more guns, less crime,

---20,000 gun suicides per year don't count,

--the second amendment is intrinsic, absolute, and beneficial.

 

And I enjoy debunking your elk. On a website where "anarchy" is about straight shooting, that is, telling it like it is.

 

Here are the self-murders that don't count. The ones you never mention.

 

Suffocation suicides

  • Number of deaths: 10,062
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.2
Poisoning suicides
  • Number of deaths: 6,637
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1

 

 

The ones in countries in the chart above, where gun ownership rates are very low but self-murder rates are higher than ours, don't seem to count either.

 

 

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

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

 

You are cherry picking, to peddle a rash of gun suicides.

 

By the way, how do you explain the teen gun suicide problem in the USA?

Tom, Merry Christmas, from me.

Here's a present for you. If you read up on this subject, you wouldn't have to sound so damn stupid

as you peddle gun suicides from your cardboard soapbox.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Note: This writer grew up on a farm in Oklahoma. The farm had a rifle and a shotgun, and he used them, just like everyone else in OK.

He is a former gunowner, and is against wholesale gun confiscation. He is a valedictorian, an ecomomist, and a scientist who examines the gun violence quagmire. He may be the best organizer of gun studies in the Gun Violence Prevention community today.

I am proud to present an examination of gun suicide, by Evan DePhillippis. He is my elk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUICIDE

A 2009 meta-analysis

A 2007 paper

A 2006 paper

A 2000 paper by Ludwig and Cook estimated whether declines in suicides over the period 1985-1997 were associated with the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The study found that the legislation produced a significant reduction in suicide rates among persons aged 55 or older, suggesting that suicidal impulses in older individuals were attenuated by the imposition of the five day waiting period.

 

Note also that the largest study done to assess mental health trends in the United States found that there was no significant changes in suicidal tendencies between 1990 and 2000. The number of suicides occurring during that period, however, did increase. The only explanation for this incongruity is that suicide attempts became increasingly more ‘successful’ as the years progressed, and the most accepted explanation for why this is the case is due to increase access to firearms.

 

Furthermore, the best empirical evidence on suicides suggests that most attempts occur during temporary bouts of mental illness. One in four teens who survive a suicide attempt say that they thought of suicide just five minutes before the attempt.

--The presence of a gun increases the likelihood that a suicide will be ‘successful’, which is why gun regulation consistently decreases suicide rates.

--The imposition of waiting periods or barriers to the acquisition of a gun allows for the resolution of transient suicidal impulses, decreasing the overall suicide rate.

--This is further validated by a 2012 study, which shows that the majority of suicide attempts were impulsive and that restricting access to highly lethal methods of suicides (like guns) saves lives.

 

In the case of suicides, then, the evidence is clear that guns do kill people.

 

Pasted from <http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-guns-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people-myth/#comment-9803>

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole world is watching, Rick. As this develops, your problem will become the reality that a civilized majority does care.

 

Gun extremists, driven by the GOA mentality, have had a good run since their start in 1974, but a majority of gunowners now disagree with the dangerous positions of the NRA, The post-Heller gun mayhem is becoming more apparent.

By some accounts, 72% of NRA members support background checks on private sales.

Many understand that waiting periods, securing guns, and just discouraging gun reliance could offset gun suicides.

 

 

Suicider Boi Posted Today, 07:12 AM

No. One. Cares.....

 

With 20,000 gun suicide funerals a year, many impacted Americans care quite a bit.

I got it that you don't give a hoot, trust me. That is a big part of the problem here.

Too bad you can't get ahead of this thing. somehow. Merry Christmas.

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>


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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