Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

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.

I missed that because you were talking about lawless countries.

 

I didn't mention Pusstralia because it is usually assumed.

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

Ok so let's go down that rabbit hole... Suicide rates differ markedly between countries and cultures. (Surprisingly higher in the 1st world.) Japan has one of the higher suicide rates and one of the lowest gun ownership rates in the 1st world. I've no doubt that you will happily draw a conclusion from that about guns making you happy. They seem to make you happy and I doubt you'll be topping yourself any time soon.

 

The interesting thing about suicide statistics in most countries is that people mostly fail in their suicide attempt. In America it is 25 attempts for every 1 suicide and in 15-24 year olds, it is over 100:1. However given the prevelance of guns in your suicide statistics and their effectiveness in committing suicide, you may well find your statistics could be significantly lowered if handguns weren't legally kept loaded in the sock drawers and gloveboxes of Americans.

 

Oh and by the way. Your guns unsurprisingly fall readily to hand. My American girlfriend keeps a loaded gun in her glovebox and it falls readily to hand (most probably a carjacker's hand as I've tried to point out). It's a `turn of phrase' Tom. It means Americans have ready access to loaded guns at home and out and about. Their kids sometimes do too. I think you knew I meant that but I thought I'd just make it bloody obvious for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.

...

 

So how should we restrict sales and/or possession of guns to lower our self-murderation rate?

 

And what does that have to do with protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, I would like to thank Tom Ray for drawing attention to the gun suicide problem in the USA.

Free speech is a wonderful thing, sometimes.

 

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.

 

This is very arbitrary (and very giddy) reasoning to jerk us to this thread.

The discussion on the other thread was not about suicide.

Tom introduced suicides to excuse 11,000 gun homicides per year, plus 85,000 life-altering gun injuries each year.

Tom is wanking it, while quoting himself again, and wants us to join him.

 

 

 

 

 

Let's join some careful, thoughtful gun researchers instead:

 

 

 

The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides. A case-control study.

Brent DA1, Perper JA, Allman CJ, Moritz GM, Wartella ME, Zelenak JP.

peer reviewed in JAMA. 1991 Dec 4;266(21):2989-95.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The presence of guns in the home, the type of gun, and the method of storage were all hypothesized to be associated with risk for adolescent suicide.

...RESULTS:

Guns were twice as likely to be found in the homes of suicide victims as in the homes of attempters (adjusted odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 3.7) or psychiatric controls (adjusted odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 3.5). Handguns were not associated with suicide to any statistically significantly greater extent than long guns. There was no difference in the methods of storage of firearms among the three groups, so that even guns stored locked, or separate from ammunition, were associated with suicide by firearms.

CONCLUSIONS:

The availability of guns in the home, independent of firearms type or method of storage, appears to increase the risk for suicide among adolescents. Physicians should make a clear and firm recommendation that firearms be removed from the homes of adolescents judged to be at suicidal risk.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1820470>

 

In a most dramatic, impressive way, guns play into suicides in the USA.

 

UCSF, Access to guns increases risk of suicide, homicide

http://medicalxpress...e-homicide.html>

Research: Less Access to Guns Does Reduce Suicide

http://www.motherjon...ckground-checks>

Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide

http://www.hsph.harv...ns-matter/risk/>

Suicide Barriers and Gun Control

http://www.armedwith...s-relationship/>

The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide

http://annals.org/ar...id=1814426#f2-6>

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165680&p=4948543>

 

Thanks again, to my favorite libertarian blogger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's 22,000 plus self murders a year, but less than 6,000 criminal homicides. So if you ask me we should concentrate on the bigger gorilla in the room and try to stop depressed people from being depressed.

 

Right?....

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.

 

This is very arbitrary (and very giddy) reasoning to jerk us to this thread.

The discussion on the other thread was not about suicide.

 

I didn't think so either, but then Pin brought up our "gun deaths" which we all know mostly means our self-murders. I figured I should bring the discussion to a thread where self-murders are the focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.

...

 

So how should we restrict sales and/or possession of guns to lower our self-murderation rate?

 

And what does that have to do with protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuts?

 

 

I've answered your first question. If you are to keep repeating your question at least refer to how you believe I may not have answered it.

 

You need to ask why arms manufacturers need protection over and above other industries. It's only `frivolous' to say they deserve extra protection as I pointed out to Rockdog. The author of that article, a Harvard Professor no less, pointed out quite objectively that this was the case and that it was unreasonable. Until I had read that article I hadn't realised how entrenched the arms manufacturers and their lobbyists were in Washington. Their entrenchment has little to do with democratic process and everything to do with money.

 

You used the word `frivolous', no one else has. These cases, whether they be frivolous (as you claim) or not, cannot be heard in court.

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.

 

This is very arbitrary (and very giddy) reasoning to jerk us to this thread.

The discussion on the other thread was not about suicide.

 

I didn't think so either, but then Pin brought up our "gun deaths" which we all know mostly means our self-murders. I figured I should bring the discussion to a thread where self-murders are the focus.

 

 

You are a coy little confusion machine.

This thread is used to dismiss 21,00 gun suicides per year...and to evade the moral implications of the litigation immunity (from gun manufacturer to gun retailer) pointed out by Pinnochio.

 

Tom, your repeated abuse of this thread is psychopathic, and disconnected with reality, IMO.

But it's how you do. You are impressed by your own debased tactics.

You are hiding gun mayhem behind impulsive gun suicides.Your mother must be proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why in the fuck would you even care about how many free Americans choose to self-murderate every year. Not only is it no one's business....but it's not your business......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why in the fuck would you even care about how many free Americans choose to self-murderate every year. Not only is it no one's business....but it's not your business......

 

Classic Boothy.

 

"Why in the fuck would you even care"

 

Noice one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.

...

 

So how should we restrict sales and/or possession of guns to lower our self-murderation rate?

 

And what does that have to do with protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuts?

 

 

I've answered your first question. If you are to keep repeating your question at least refer to how you believe I may not have answered it.

 

You need to ask why arms manufacturers need protection over and above other industries. It's only `frivolous' to say they deserve extra protection as I pointed out to Rockdog. The author of that article, a Harvard Professor no less, pointed out quite objectively that this was the case and that it was unreasonable. Until I had read that article I hadn't realised how entrenched the arms manufacturers and their lobbyists were in Washington. Their entrenchment has little to do with democratic process and everything to do with money.

 

You used the word `frivolous', no one else has. These cases, whether they be frivolous (as you claim) or not, cannot be heard in court.

 

 

You said we should restrict gun availability to cut our self-murder rate, so I'm asking how we should do that.

They got extra protection because of the lawsuits by the powerful anti-gun lobby. I think that suing a manufacturer because of unintended and reckless use of a properly functioning product is frivolous. What would you call it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've answered your first question. If you are to keep repeating your question at least refer to how you believe I may not have answered it.

 

You need to ask why arms manufacturers need protection over and above other industries. It's only `frivolous' to say they deserve extra protection as I pointed out to Rockdog. The author of that article, a Harvard Professor no less, pointed out quite objectively that this was the case and that it was unreasonable. Until I had read that article I hadn't realised how entrenched the arms manufacturers and their lobbyists were in Washington. Their entrenchment has little to do with democratic process and everything to do with money.

 

You used the word `frivolous', no one else has. These cases, whether they be frivolous (as you claim) or not, cannot be heard in court.

 

 

"Frivolous" is a desirable catchword used in their culture when discussing the curious, one-off legal immunity of the gun industry.

Frivoloity, or lack of it, could be determined fairly and openly if Tiahrt hadn't made gunmakers exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act.

Here we see another demonstration of guns taking away civil rights, and blocking knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why in the fuck would you even care about how many free Americans choose to self-murderate every year. Not only is it no one's business....but it's not your business......

 

Classic Boothy.

 

"Why in the fuck would you even care"

 

Noice one.

Seriously? Are you honestly even remotely fucking concerned about complete strangers offing themselves? Who the hell do you think you are....Muthafucking Teresa?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Here's another change to quote me. Wooh hooh!

This is what I said, I am Tom Ray, and I said it myself, to me

I've answered your first question. If you are to keep repeating your question at least refer to how you believe I may not have answered it.

 

You need to ask why arms manufacturers need protection over and above other industries. It's only `frivolous' to say they deserve extra protection as I pointed out to Rockdog. The author of that article, a Harvard Professor no less, pointed out quite objectively that this was the case and that it was unreasonable. Until I had read that article I hadn't realised how entrenched the arms manufacturers and their lobbyists were in Washington. Their entrenchment has little to do with democratic process and everything to do with money.

 

You used the word `frivolous', no one else has. These cases, whether they be frivolous (as you claim) or not, cannot be heard in court.

 

 

You said we should restrict gun availability to cut our self-murder rate, so I'm asking how we should do that.

They got extra protection because of the lawsuits by the powerful anti-gun lobby. I think that suing a manufacturer because of unintended and reckless use of a properly functioning product is frivolous. What would you call it?

 

 

 

Don't accept guns in homes.

Don't encourage guns for "self defense."

Don't glorify or extol guns.

Don't stock up on AW's, Katrina came and went.

Don't dwell on a need to shoot tyrants, the abolitionists already won that one.

 

With fewer guns around, our rash of gun suicides can be circumvented.

Nice chart, Tom. But jcust think, our national suicide rate could be not average, but a low model outlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.

...

 

So how should we restrict sales and/or possession of guns to lower our self-murderation rate?

 

And what does that have to do with protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuts?

 

 

I've answered your first question. If you are to keep repeating your question at least refer to how you believe I may not have answered it.

 

You need to ask why arms manufacturers need protection over and above other industries. It's only `frivolous' to say they deserve extra protection as I pointed out to Rockdog. The author of that article, a Harvard Professor no less, pointed out quite objectively that this was the case and that it was unreasonable. Until I had read that article I hadn't realised how entrenched the arms manufacturers and their lobbyists were in Washington. Their entrenchment has little to do with democratic process and everything to do with money.

 

You used the word `frivolous', no one else has. These cases, whether they be frivolous (as you claim) or not, cannot be heard in court.

 

 

You said we should restrict gun availability to cut our self-murder rate, so I'm asking how we should do that.

They got extra protection because of the lawsuits by the powerful anti-gun lobby. I think that suing a manufacturer because of unintended and reckless use of a properly functioning product is frivolous. What would you call it?

 

So you acknowledge that reducing the takeup of gun ownership and the immediate availability of loaded guns may reduce the suicide rate? If so I will answer your subsequent question.

 

 

Yes I totally agree that suing a manufacturer for frivolous reasons is well... frivolous. However you can't sue them for non-frivolous issues too. Why should the Arms Industry be so scared of due process of law? Probably because, like the Tobacco Industry before it, a court battle may reveal a few unhappy home truths. Much easier to use the old campaign fund route to get crony congressmen to pass laws to protect them. God knows there's billions if not trillions of dollars in the arms business.

 

"the powerful anti gun lobby" You crack me up Tom. Billions of dollars there, ya think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People control tools, not the other way around.

 

"Don't accept guns in homes" sounds to me like "don't accept the exercise of second amendment rights."

 

We know you want to repeal it, but you haven't succeeded yet. Keep trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why in the fuck would you even care about how many free Americans choose to self-murderate every year. Not only is it no one's business....but it's not your business......

Classic Boothy.

 

"Why in the fuck would you even care"

 

Noice one.

Seriously? Are you honestly even remotely fucking concerned about complete strangers offing themselves? Who the hell do you think you are....Muthafucking Teresa?...

 

Seriously? I am honestly remotely fucking concerned because one day it may be someone I do care about who offs themselves because they had a loaded gun in their glovebox.

 

Who the hell do you think you are.... Genghis fucking Khan?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you acknowledge that reducing the takeup of gun ownership and the immediate availability of loaded guns may reduce the suicide rate? If so I will answer your subsequent question.

...

 

 

No, asking how that might work is not agreeing that it would work. I don't think gun control has prevented above-average suicide rates in other countries and I don't think it would here either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People control tools, not the other way around.

 

"Don't accept guns in homes" sounds to me like "don't accept the exercise of second amendment rights."

 

We know you want to repeal it, but you haven't succeeded yet. Keep trying.

People control cars, but there are licenses, registration, age limits, speed limits, red light cameras, speed cameras, highway patrol cars yearly mechanical checks, airbags, oh and the freedom to sue manufacturers (strangely enough).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why in the fuck would you even care about how many free Americans choose to self-murderate every year. Not only is it no one's business....but it's not your business......

 

Classic Boothy.

 

"Why in the fuck would you even care"

 

Noice one.

Seriously? Are you honestly even remotely fucking concerned about complete strangers offing themselves? Who the hell do you think you are....Muthafucking Teresa?...

Seriously? I am honestly remotely fucking concerned because one day it may be someone I do care about who offs themselves because they had a loaded gun in their glovebox.

 

Who the hell do you think you are.... Genghis fucking Khan?...

So you're saying that free people shouldn't be allowed to self-murder themselves....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you acknowledge that reducing the takeup of gun ownership and the immediate availability of loaded guns may reduce the suicide rate? If so I will answer your subsequent question.

...

 

 

No, asking how that might work is not agreeing that it would work. I don't think gun control has prevented above-average suicide rates in other countries and I don't think it would here either.

 

You'd better read Jo-Cal's cites. Oh that's right... you don't read that stuff. It's not from a pro gun website.

 

Her's a challenge. Try citing only UN sponsored reports on gun issues or pick the top three academic institutions in the USA and only use their peer reviewed papers or perhaps quote goverment statistics from their sources.

 

You are going to have very slim pickings for your arguments if you do that Tom.

 

Drop the pro gun websites, they're low brow. Though there are some good ads for ammo, camo and the old man card joke.

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.....

 

Cite that, Rick. I bet I didn't say that, because damn I think Ted Bundy got what he deserved.

It becomes a tough, nasty, bitter, ugly deal, sometimes.

Rest easy, you are quoting the POV of my sweetie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why in the fuck would you even care about how many free Americans choose to self-murderate every year. Not only is it no one's business....but it's not your business......

Classic Boothy.

 

"Why in the fuck would you even care"

 

Noice one.

Seriously? Are you honestly even remotely fucking concerned about complete strangers offing themselves? Who the hell do you think you are....Muthafucking Teresa?...

Seriously? I am honestly remotely fucking concerned because one day it may be someone I do care about who offs themselves because they had a loaded gun in their glovebox.

 

Who the hell do you think you are.... Genghis fucking Khan?...

So you're saying that free people shouldn't be allowed to self-murder themselves....

 

"So you're saying.." I wish I had a dime for every time the pro gun side of this debate says that.

 

I'm not saying that but I'm not going to make it easier for them.

 

So you're saying you'll help people self murder themselves...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites