Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

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.

Bla bla bla...only suicide by gun is bad...the other means are OK...

Is this another case of "so what you are saying..."?

No. It's the take away of your post.

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.

Maybe because the manufacturers and those who purchase them don't want to be ridiculously screwed over the way McD's got screwed over hot coffee.

 

McD's was not screwed over. They were serving coffee heated to 190 degrees. That is hot enough to cause 3rd or 4th degree burns. This woman who was just putting sugar in her coffee cup ended up needing numerous surgery's and skin grafts because liquid that was intended for consumption spilled on her. Mc Donalds had received 700 complaints of severe burns and did nothing. The Judge said the company had acted with "willful, wanton, and reckless" behavior, and the majority of the award was punitive because McD's was well aware of the problem and they chose to do nothing about it. So maybe it is important for suits like these to actually go though the process and have evidence weighed, as opposed to people like you just making a determination with no knowledge of the facts. This is also why preemptively releasing gun manufacturers from liability before any facts are presented is probably a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

 

I don't know of a father anywhere on the planet who refers to his daughter as "foxy and single", unless maybe he was pimping her out to feed his drug habit.

 

You are one creepy dude.

CREE

 

PEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

I don't know of a father anywhere on the planet who refers to his daughter as "foxy and single", unless maybe he was pimping her out to feed his drug habit.

 

You are one creepy dude.

CREE

 

PEE

 

Donald Trump Won’t Stop Joking About Banging His Daughter

 

(Don't get me wrong - it's weird when anyone does it, it's just jocal has company on that creepy train).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Well, except for the CDC. Are they "scholarly" enough for you? From their recent gun violence study commissioned by Obama:

 

“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.”

 

BTW - if gov't funded gun studies are banned, how did the CDC do this study? Seems incongrous to me.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

 

 

I called this a while ago. Joke-boi considers anyone who arms themselves for protection as "vigilantes". And that's not a paraphrase, he has said exactly that. So a woman who walks out the door on her way to work who carries a pistol for protection against being raped is actually the aggressor and the bad guy (gal) here. She is a vigilante because she had the fucking temerity to arm herself in preparation for an event, no matter how obscure the threat might be. By arming herself, she is actually out there looking for trouble according to our reszident gun-hater.

 

Jocal may be "against rape", but he sure as fuk isn't in favor of women protecting themselves from rape. Because, as you say, if he is - then his whole anti-gun argument crumbles.

 

Jocal is a founding member of the RLM* movement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* RLM - Rapist's Lives Matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.

 

But what about the suffocation violence and the poison violence?

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yeah well there are other studies ...

 

. Across states, more guns = more suicide

 

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership rates, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and suicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997). After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide.

 

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and suicide across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. Epidemiology. 2002; 13:517-524.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As pointed out repeatedly in the Hillary Being A Cunt thread, we already have the right to sue gun manufacturers.

 

Some of us don't want criminals to be able to make a shopping list for guns to steal by consulting our purchase records.

 

How would any of those things help with the self-murder problem? Are large capacity magazines really an issue when we're talking about self-murder?

 

How would we make owners accountable for murdering themselves? They'll be dead!

 

Strict licensing and registration is costly and involves time, money, and paperwork. These things are a problem when it comes to requiring voters to get ID and should be considered a problem with respect to the exercise of other rights too.

 

 

 

Read the NPR article again. The Arms manufacturers do enjoy certain protections under the law. You repeating that they don't or that they need protecting is absurd. Americans should have the right to sue and why arms manufacturers enjoy that privilege for whatever reason should concern you.

 

There may be a simple solution to what records are made public and to whom.

 

Correct. Restricting large capacity magazines will unlikely change the outcomes of those guns used for suicide. (do you really need to make that point?)

 

Correct. Once a gun owner is dead it is hard to make him accountable. (do you really need to make that point?)

 

Why is licensing and registration so difficult when in every other walk of life you subject yourself to it? This is a furphy.

 

Tom I'm going to stop arguing with you now as you show no respect for the debate.

 

 

You're the one who needs to read it again. It said that we can sue firearms manufacturers, but you said we can't. We can. Show some respect and admit it.

 

I asked you for measures that would help cut our self-murder rate and you came up with a bunch of them that you now admit won't work.

 

Licensing and registration is difficult because the anti-gun lobby is powerful and they like to make gun ownership more burdensome and expensive.

 

Do you think it should take 20 months to buy a gun? Or is there some chance that the anti-gun lobby has gone too far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

 

 

What base of evidence do you have for making this statement?

...

 

 

I look at self-murder rates and gun availability around the world and it looks like the chart below.

 

 

 

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.

 

But what about the suffocation violence and the poison violence?

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Yeah well there are other studies ...

 

. Across states, more guns = more suicide

 

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership rates, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and suicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997). After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide.

 

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and suicide across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. Epidemiology. 2002; 13:517-524.

 

 

Uh huh. Hemenway has produced lots of anti-gun studies. Just like creating "Synthetic Connecticut" (which turns out to be mostly Indiana), "controlling" for other factors is done by making heroic assumptions about how well gun control works. I don't share his assumptions so I don't trust his "research" at all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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

Then name the federal research which passed, which was not "taxpayer funded political advocacy."

You. are a fibber, as usual, tonight.

Note: federal gun violence research has been zip for 10 yrs.

Dishonest propaganda is your steady product.

 

 

 

 

 

Calling names is just the pressure relief. I can roast your ass in 2016.

You have no research to support the grotesque, violence-based social order you are proposing.

You will never have research to support your gun vengeance social architecture.

Your constitutional scholarship relies on the southern gun culture, and racist overtones,

 

 

I have never said anything anywhere near this racist:

 

 

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

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

Then name the federal research which passed, which was not "taxpayer funded political advocacy."

You. are a fibber, as usual, tonight.

Note: federal gun violence research has been zip for 10 yrs.

Dishonest propaganda is your steady product.

 

 

 

 

 

Calling names is just the pressure relief. I can roast your ass in 2016.

You have no research to support the grotesque, violence-based social order you are proposing.

You will never have research to support your gun vengeance social architecture.

Your constitutional scholarship relies on the southern gun culture, and racist overtones,

 

 

I have never said anything anywhere near this racist:

 

 

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

 

 

 

 

Holy moly, I missed that Jocal gem. That is well and truly fucked up. Jocal, skin color does not determine anyone's tendencies towards violent behavior. You are really more fucked up than I thought, if you think it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

 

 

I called this a while ago. Joke-boi considers anyone who arms themselves for protection as "vigilantes". And that's not a paraphrase, he has said exactly that. So a woman who walks out the door on her way to work who carries a pistol for protection against being raped is actually the aggressor and the bad guy (gal) here. She is a vigilante because she had the fucking temerity to arm herself in preparation for an event, no matter how obscure the threat might be. By arming herself, she is actually out there looking for trouble according to our reszident gun-hater.

 

Jocal may be "against rape", but he sure as fuk isn't in favor of women protecting themselves from rape. Because, as you say, if he is - then his whole anti-gun argument crumbles.

 

Jocal is a founding member of the RLM* movement.

 

 

* RLM - Rapist's Lives Matter

 

 

Yep, you got it.

 

These are simple, straight-forward and fair questions that anyone here would answer. But not Jokeawf.

 

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?

 

Jokeawf pretends to be offended by the question and calls me a sociopath, "let's just drop it, buddy" in order to avoid answering.

 

OK, well let's forget about the wife's rape for a minute. Jokeawf, you claim to have a "hot" daughter in NYC. Putting aside the fact that this is a freaking bizarre way for a father to refer to his daughter, what about her? Is her life and honor and well being important to you?

 

Suppose she is attacked. Would you not hope that an armed citizen could be there to prevent another rape in your family? Would you not protect her with a firearm if you had one and it were necessary under the circumstances?

 

Let's have some answers here, 'buddy'. Because you do sound like one pretty fucked up dude right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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

Then name the federal research which passed, which was not "taxpayer funded political advocacy."

You. are a fibber, as usual, tonight.

Note: federal gun violence research has been zip for 10 yrs.

Dishonest propaganda is your steady product.

 

Calling names is just the pressure relief. I can roast your ass in 2016.

You have no research to support the grotesque, violence-based social order you are proposing.

You will never have research to support your gun vengeance social architecture.

Your constitutional scholarship relies on the southern gun culture, and racist overtones,

I have never said anything anywhere near this racist:

 

 

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

 

Holy moly, I missed that Jocal gem. That is well and truly fucked up. Jocal, skin color does not determine anyone's tendencies towards violent behavior. You are really more fucked up than I thought, if you think it does.

 

Wow, just f'ng wow. JokeAwf? You are in serious need of real help. Please have your wife start booking you some appointments first thing Monday morning........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jok-awfs racism is well documented in this forum.

Why does Jok-awf need to disarm historically oppressed people of color?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's ANY one on this forum who shouldn't own a gun, it's our PNW psychotic gun grabbing hipocrite JokeAwf. Jeezis, what a fuking train wreck.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that nut case lived in Kali, I'd pick up the phone in a heartbeat and take advantage of our new law to have his guns taken away. 'Cuz all the authorities would have to do is read three of his posts here and they'd then have no question about his broken mental health facilities....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should re-read that extremely racist post of yours one more time. And then get the fuk out of here for a while. Because you are a dispicable human being of the lowest form.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can tell when the conversation gets too close the the mark for Boothy.

 

egzaq9jpg.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Uh huh. Hemenway has produced lots of anti-gun studies. Just like creating "Synthetic Connecticut" (which turns out to be mostly Indiana), "controlling" for other factors is done by making heroic assumptions about how well gun control works. I don't share his assumptions so I don't trust his "research" at all.

 

 

 

Nice well thought out logic based reply Tom. Just don't believe it? Mmmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that nut case lived in Kali, I'd pick up the phone in a heartbeat and take advantage of our new law to have his guns taken away. 'Cuz all the authorities would have to do is read three of his posts here and they'd then have no question about his broken mental health facilities....

 

Hoooly fuk Booze. You are surely talking about yourself?\

 

Step awaaaay form the mirror, NOW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked for MLK, more or less

Alex, I'll take "less" for $800 please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I worked for MLK, more or less

Alex, I'll take "less" for $800 please.

 

 

You weren't there, with any gun.

I fear that your Simple Jeff Gansta Pics speak for your depth of understanding on this subject.

One of thirteen:

50cent_zpsins8pj6q.jpg

 

Tom wasn't there either, preaching his libertarian chaos and his violence-based solutions.

Tom can stir up racial muck but has demonstrated no grasp of the situation.

He can drop the name of MLK, and post cheeky racial content, but has no clue.

The Badgeless Racebaiter can recommend more guns, but take a look, guns are an agent in the fratricide of our black brothers.

 

They are my elk and I'm proud of it. Haters gonna hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but guns are an agent in the fratricide of our BLACK brothers.

Fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some combination of forces is generating high gun violence numbers within the black community.

The racism within me (and no doubt some exists) may not explain it.

 

 

Black Americans Are Killed At 12 Times The Rate Of People In Other Developed Countries

http://fivethirtyeig...-of-people-in-other-developed-countries/>

Black Americans Are Four Times More Likely to Be Victims of Homicide

http://www.huffingto..._b_6563984.html

 

 

DOJ Homicide rates per race:

Blacks were disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders .

http://www.bjs.gov/c...df/htus8008.pdf

In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000). The victimization rate for blacks peaked in the early 1990s, reaching a high of 39.4 homicides per 100,000 in 1991

 

Race, Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—

(Data from FBI UCR and SHR reports.)

n Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and off enders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000) (table 1).

P11

Trends by race

Blacks were disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders.

n In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for

whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000).

n The victimization rate for blacks peaked in the early 1990s, reaching a high of 39.4 homicides per 100,000 in 1991 (figure 17).

n After 1991, the victimization rate for blacks fell until 1999, when it stabilized near 20 homicides per 100,000.

n In 2008, the off ending rate for blacks (24.7 off enders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 off enders per 100,000) (figure 18).

n The off ending rate for blacks showed a similar pattern to the victimization rate, peaking in the early 1990s at a high of 51.1 off enders per 100,000 in 1991.

n After 1991, the off ending rate for blacks declined until it reached 24 per 100,000 in 2004. The rate has since fluctuated, increasing to 28.4 off enders per 100,000 in 2006 before falling again to 24.7 off enders per 100,000 in 2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/c...df/htus8008.pdf

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words,you're advocating blacks should not be allowed to have guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Snipped: suicide-related straw man, and a shallow, sweeping, uninformed assessment of the peer-reviewed statistical science of David Hemenwy).

1.You flick to the subject of suicide a lot, avoiding the countless trajedy occuring niot just by gun suicide, but also by death and in jury.

 

2.Sweeping, un-sourced opinions about Mr. Hemenway aren't good enough, mate.

I propose that this man, David Hemenway, is a kindly, well-informed,anti-Christ to Mr. Larry Pratt's theology.

(Aside...Pratt is a libertarian and a fundamentalist Christian, with guns in his brain fighting secular leaders.

Do you attend the same church, Tom?)

 

 

Hemenway has already defeated you, Tom. The subtle battle lasted thirty years.

You spent that time impressed with yourself, teaching a dangerous belief system on the IQ level of the bumper sticker.

 

 

We obviously need plastic bag control just to start.

 

 

Alan Gottlieb, the global warming denial publisher, was a godsend for you in 1974.

His black Corvette was paid for by state gun danger pre-emption, and he boasts about that.

But IMO you gun dumbasses are tone deaf while forming your own destruction.

 

I am thinking that you two will have plenty to cry about as these matters develop.

Yeah, right now you need your boy Scalia to rally, but whoopsie his elk went under a rock.

 

Fast forward to the present. On the telly, candidates are boasting about bad NRA ratings.

The 2016 presidential election has the gun lobby on the ropes.

LMFAO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words,you're advocating blacks should not be allowed to have guns.

 

Jeff, let's can the term "be allowed." We need to be talkin' choices here.

 

My road map would be that people of whatever color swallow hard and conclude that guns are not the way to go.

So (yeah, sorry) I paint a candid picture of the costs of the gun culture.

 

Dude, if the green people have a bloodbath going on, we gotta talk bloodbath.

 

The real issue here is choices about violence, or not.

The SA Gun Club is duplicitous about violence.

It preaches against it, while practicing violence on a very lethal level.

FFS your mental escalation goes from fists (against jocal BTW) to guns to big guns to hollow points to AW's.

NGS doesn't care for me, so women gotta shoot at me (with unlimited ammo)

 

One may have the right to a gun and also choose to not go that way.

If guns are unpopular for some reason, they will naturally become stigmatized.

Your community is on the gun forums to resist that.

 

Think Darwin, and note the trajectory of jurisprudence and being civilized.

You may see why the meek would inherit the earth.

Both violence and guns will be harder to sell as time passes, IMO.

It's the march of civilization, it's nothing new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More self-murder stuff wound up in a different thread somehow.

 

 

 

There are times a gun could come in handy.

And there are those who would extrapolate that, too.

Too much of a good thing.

 

The Gap Between Gun Deaths in the U.S. and Other Advanced Nations Is Getting Wider, Study Finds

--Americans account for 82 percent of all gun deaths among 23 high-income countries.

--The US accounts for 90% of the women killed in high-income countries.

--91% of the children age 0-14 killed by guns in wealthy countries died in the US.

 

 

Using 2010 data from the World Health Organization (WHO), the academics found that firearm homicide rates were 25 times higher in the U.S. than in other high-income countries.

 

...

The research is an update to a study on WHO data from 2003, which determined the U.S.’s rate to be just 19.5 times higher than that of comparable nations. The math behind the increasing divergence comes down to this: While per capita gun deaths declined in the U.S. over the period in question, the decrease was a small dip from an anomalously high rate. In other high-income nations, already much lower rates have fallen farther.

 

In the new research, the U.S. accounted for 82 percent of all firearm deaths among the 23 countries studied, a fact Hemenway calls “eye-popping.”

 

“The difference is just so enormous,” Hemenway tells The Trace. “Death rates in these other countries were so low already, and now the big picture is that we’re still out-of-this-world horrible compared those countries. We have so many more people dying.”

 

 

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/us-gun-deaths-versus-other-countries-2016/>

 

 

As usual, they don't mention that some of our cities have larger populations than some of the countries mentioned, so comparing numbers of deaths isn't exactly honest. Yes, lots of people live here. Yes, all people die, so that means lots of people die here.

 

But our self-murder rate is pretty average despite our much higher gun ownership rates.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More self-murder stuff wound up in a different thread somehow.

 

 

 

There are times a gun could come in handy.

And there are those who would extrapolate that, too.

Too much of a good thing.

 

The Gap Between Gun Deaths in the U.S. and Other Advanced Nations Is Getting Wider, Study Finds

--Americans account for 82 percent of all gun deaths among 23 high-income countries.

--The US accounts for 90% of the women killed in high-income countries.

--91% of the children age 0-14 killed by guns in wealthy countries died in the US.

 

 

Using 2010 data from the World Health Organization (WHO), the academics found that firearm homicide rates were 25 times higher in the U.S. than in other high-income countries.

 

...

The research is an update to a study on WHO data from 2003, which determined the U.S.’s rate to be just 19.5 times higher than that of comparable nations. The math behind the increasing divergence comes down to this: While per capita gun deaths declined in the U.S. over the period in question, the decrease was a small dip from an anomalously high rate. In other high-income nations, already much lower rates have fallen farther.

 

In the new research, the U.S. accounted for 82 percent of all firearm deaths among the 23 countries studied, a fact Hemenway calls “eye-popping.”

 

“The difference is just so enormous,” Hemenway tells The Trace. “Death rates in these other countries were so low already, and now the big picture is that we’re still out-of-this-world horrible compared those countries. We have so many more people dying.”

 

 

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/us-gun-deaths-versus-other-countries-2016/>

 

 

As usual, they don't mention that some of our cities have larger populations than some of the countries mentioned, so comparing numbers of deaths isn't exactly honest. Yes, lots of people live here. Yes, all people die, so that means lots of people die here.

 

But our self-murder rate is pretty average despite our much higher gun ownership rates.

 

 

 

Using World Health Organization figures, our rate of firearm deaths has increased a whopping 25% from 2003 to 2013.

This comparison considers 22 high-income nations.

 

But Tom wants to talk about out pretty average international suicide rates.

Half of them are by guns, Tom, no victory lap is warranted.

Our country could achieve suicide rates which are far below normal, except for gun saturation.

 

Dr. Hemenway then discussed research concerning firearms-related suicides and defensive use of firearms with implications for prevention. He said research suggests a positive relationship between gun ownership and suicide, and a number of facts indicate preventive interventions may be needed. For instance, although suicide attempts with firearms are most lethal compared to other means, risk of substitution in suicide is very small. Evidence shows that suicide is often impulsive and risks are often transitory. Of near-lethal suicide attempts, 70 percent of individuals contemplated doing it for less than an hour, and fewer than 10 percent attempted it again. Facts like these suggest possible prevention strategies such as means restriction.

http://nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/working-group/Pages/2011-summary.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough shit. And to quote that French broad, 'Let them eat lead.'.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough shit. And to quote that French broad, 'Let them eat lead.'.....

 

Sold any guns today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So in other words,you're advocating blacks should not be allowed to have guns.

 

Jeff, let's can the term "be allowed." We need to be talkin' choices here.

 

My road map would be that people of whatever color swallow hard and conclude that guns are not the way to go.

So (yeah, sorry) I paint a candid picture of the costs of the gun culture.

 

Dude, if the green people have a bloodbath going on, we gotta talk bloodbath.

 

Ok, jocal - I agree. If black folk are the one's creating the bloodbath - then its only fair that we restrict black folk from having those bad guns. I guess racism, as long as it has its practical uses, is ok with you.

 

The SA Gun Club is duplicitous about violence.

It preaches against it, while practicing violence on a very lethal level.

 

 

 

So please explain for the class how exactly we "practice" that violence. I haven't shot anyone today. How about you Len? Did you shoot anyone today? How about you Boothy? AGITC? Anyone? Bueller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So please explain for the class how exactly we "practice" that violence. I haven't shot anyone today. How about you Len? Did you shoot anyone today? How about you Boothy? AGITC? Anyone? Bueller?

 

 

I have happened into violence myself, and have flaunted the danger of the inner cities too, but...

Look at your road map. It's not just violent, it is lethally violent.

You would shoot a fist fighter, yet you would also threaten a fistfight with Spatial Danger at a US regatta, over a trivial matter...a matter which I bet you don't remember.

 

Tough shit and who cares and hollow point choices and women need to give jocal both barrels and molon labe are each practicing violence.

The SA Gun Club is a violent culture with poor introspection ability.

I suspect that an abusive, bully-type attitude, and/or power issues may be the causes of this behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So in other words,you're advocating blacks should not be allowed to have guns.

 

Jeff, let's can the term "be allowed." We need to be talkin' choices here.

 

My road map would be that people of whatever color swallow hard and conclude that guns are not the way to go.

So (yeah, sorry) I paint a candid picture of the costs of the gun culture.

 

 

 

Ok, jocal - I agree. If black folk are the one's creating the bloodbath - then its only fair that we restrict black folk REPEATED STRAW MAN ALERT from having those bad guns. I guess racism, as long as it has its practical uses, is ok with you.

 

 

You are causing me to repeat myself.

 

I am talking gun choices. Where blacks say OMG we gotta go a different way, big-time. (MLK actually did that in another chapter.)

And where the white boys develop some social consciousness about guns, and contain their own for the sake of gun ownership.

People making choices.

 

You are introducing gun restrictions, Jeff, then claiming I am desiring your gun restrictions, then you are declaring me racist as a result.

More guns are a lousy idea for the brothers, IMO. But cite where I called for the restriction of black guns. ZZZzzzzz.

 

Primarily I want gun popularity and acceptance to be treated with skepticism, and without distortion to the Bill of Rights.

Secondarily, and quite reluctantly, since laws and courts reflect the direction of our culture (and noting the SAF/GOA/NRA-type fabrications) I find that gun restrictions are desirable.

I often plead for the immediate research necessary to make effective gun laws minimal and painless.

The CDC 2013 Priorities for Research had hoped for a three-year window: conservative politics blocked that.

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.

Maybe because the manufacturers and those who purchase them don't want to be ridiculously screwed over the way McD's got screwed over hot coffee.

McD's was not screwed over. They were serving coffee heated to 190 degrees. That is hot enough to cause 3rd or 4th degree burns. This woman who was just putting sugar in her coffee cup ended up needing numerous surgery's and skin grafts because liquid that was intended for consumption spilled on her. Mc Donalds had received 700 complaints of severe burns and did nothing. The Judge said the company had acted with "willful, wanton, and reckless" behavior, and the majority of the award was punitive because McD's was well aware of the problem and they chose to do nothing about it. So maybe it is important for suits like these to actually go though the process and have evidence weighed, as opposed to people like you just making a determination with no knowledge of the facts. This is also why preemptively releasing gun manufacturers from liability before any facts are presented is probably a bad idea.

Well 700 complaints out of 'Billions Served' would mean McD's customers liked their coffee.

 

To protect gun manufacturers from ridiculousness is logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So in other words,you're advocating blacks should not be allowed to have guns.

 

Jeff, let's can the term "be allowed." We need to be talkin' choices here.

 

My road map would be that people of whatever color swallow hard and conclude that guns are not the way to go.

So (yeah, sorry) I paint a candid picture of the costs of the gun culture.

 

Dude, if the green people have a bloodbath going on, we gotta talk bloodbath.

 

Ok, jocal - I agree. If black folk are the one's creating the bloodbath - then its only fair that we restrict black folk from having those bad guns. I guess racism, as long as it has its practical uses, is ok with you.

 

The SA Gun Club is duplicitous about violence.

It preaches against it, while practicing violence on a very lethal level.

 

 

 

So please explain for the class how exactly we "practice" that violence. I haven't shot anyone today. How about you Len? Did you shoot anyone today? How about you Boothy? AGITC? Anyone? Bueller?

 

 

JoCal - you're on ignore, but, when others quote you, I feel compelled to read. Ref the bolded part - yeah, I'm actually with you, as this approach, letting the PEOPLE decide, is right in line with what we've all been saying all along, and stands in sharp contrast to your desire to decide FOR them. The way to get the people to decide against employing violence as a means to an end isn't to prohibit one of the devices that are commonly employed to enact that violence.

As to the bolded portions of Jeffie's comment - there is a HUGE difference between espousing protection of articulated rights and "practicing violence". If you actually want to engage in a meaningful dialogue, then you need to recognize that it's not those of us who want to protect ALL our rights that are the problem, it's the portion of the population who have decided that immediate satisfaction of their personal desires is more important than everyone else's right to safely exist.

 

When we as a society accept the task of truly tackling the causality of violent behavior, and committing to the long-term actions necessary to address those causes, things will improve. Prohibitive, confiscatory approaches such as you espouse are only attempts to cushion the corners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The SA Gun Club is duplicitous about violence.

It preaches against it, while practicing violence on a very lethal level.

 

 

 

So please explain for the class how exactly we "practice" that violence. I haven't shot anyone today. How about you Len? Did you shoot anyone today? How about you Boothy? AGITC? Anyone? Bueller?

 

 

JoCal - you're on ignore, but, when others quote you, I feel compelled to read. Ref the bolded part - yeah, I'm actually with you, as this approach, letting the PEOPLE decide, is right in line with what we've all been saying all along, and stands in sharp contrast to your desire to decide FOR them. The way to get the people to decide against employing violence as a means to an end isn't to prohibit one of the devices that are commonly employed to enact that violence.

As to the bolded portions of Jeffie's comment - there is a HUGE difference between espousing protection of articulated rights and "practicing violence". If you actually want to engage in a meaningful dialogue, then you need to recognize that it's not those of us who want to protect ALL our rights that are the problem, it's the portion of the population who have decided that immediate satisfaction of their personal desires is more important than everyone else's right to safely exist.

 

When we as a society accept the task of truly tackling the causality of violent behavior, and committing to the long-term actions necessary to address those causes, things will improve. Prohibitive, confiscatory approaches such as you espouse are only attempts to cushion the corners.

 

 

Yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A_gun_in_the_Chesapeake, on 08 Feb 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:snapback.png

JoCal - you're on ignore, but, when others quote you, I feel compelled to read. Ah, peek-a-boo?

Ref the bolded part - yeah, I'm actually with you, as this approach, letting the PEOPLE decide, is right in line with what we've all been saying all along, and stands in sharp contrast to your desire to decide FOR them. The way to get the people to decide against employing violence as a means to an end isn't to prohibit one of the devices that are commonly employed to enact that violence.

As to the bolded portions of Jeffie's comment - there is a HUGE difference between espousing protection of articulated rights and "practicing violence". If you actually want to engage in a meaningful dialogue, then you need to recognize that it's not those of us who want to protect ALL our rights that are the problem, it's the portion of the population who have decided that immediate satisfaction of their personal desires is more important than everyone else's right to safely exist.

 

When we as a society accept the task of truly tackling the causality of violent behavior, and committing to the long-term actions necessary to address those causes, things will improve. Prohibitive, confiscatory approaches such as you espouse are only attempts to cushion the corners.

 

Lofty as usual, but selective, and ignoring stuff.

cushion the corners. Highway corners got buffers. Improved highway layout, and auto safeguards framed dramatic auto safety improvements, not better drivers.

Your campaign to sort violence is kinda vague; you could start the cleanup on this very forum.

Dumbasses, yes. Human behavior works like this. Spatial Ed says something (the gravitas of which was zip), and Jeffie declared his intention to beat Spatial up at some future US regatta.

Later, Jeffie (Len, Tom and others, too) affirmed the belief that it's fair game to shoot fistfighters. WTF?

Hello? No wonder we have a gun violence problem!

Boothy paints himself as a self-rationalizing vendetta machine on the forums, a regular Charles Bronson on steroids, and it's accepted.

Quote

 

***Boothy and gun vengeance, the 2015 collection

http://forums.sailin...67901&p=5057792

I stated my POV here and there, and (whoah no way) NGS called out the women's liberation army on me, with unlimited ammo too. (He recs both barrels for his fighting bitches who carry shotguns.)

When the subject of mugging my ass came up on the forums, there were three volunteers.

Guy, your gun logic is violent, your SA Gun Club pals are violent, your acceptance of public research blockage is notable...yo, I find that only your words are lofty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of the hundreds killed using hands and feet each year would agree that they should be able to defend themselves? And how many would (had they lived) have adopted the jocal view that self-defense is bad, bad, bad and they should have just taken their fatal beating?

 

murder-by-tool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Later, Jeffie (Len, Tom and others, too) affirmed the belief that it's fair game to shoot fistfighters. WTF?

Hello? No wonder we have a gun violence problem!

 

So what DO you think is fair in regards to fist fighters? You DO know that fist fighters account for more violent murders than scary black rifles, right?

 

If an old guy in his 80s or a small woman is getting beaten up by a fist fighter, what should they be allowed to do other than just take their beating? What if a fist fighter weighing 290lbs of pure tattooed muscle and hatred and hopped up on meth decided he wanted to beat your ass to a pulp? What would you do? Just lay there and take it?

 

I think there are reasonable circumstances where its perfectly acceptable to put a 230 grain hollow point into a fist fighter's face. And there are other times that its not appropriate. Your blanket assertion that its never ok is total douchetopian BS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Later, Jeffie (Len, Tom and others, too) affirmed the belief that it's fair game to shoot fistfighters. WTF?

Hello? No wonder we have a gun violence problem!

 

(Omitted by Jeff: Jeff's plan to assault Spatial Ed at some future US regatta>)

So what DO you think is fair in regards to fist fighters? You DO know that fist fighters account for more violent murders than scary black rifles, right?

 

If an old guy in his 80s or a small woman is getting beaten up by a fist fighter, what should they be allowed to do other than just take their beating? What if a fist fighter weighing 290lbs of pure tattooed muscle and hatred and hopped up on meth decided he wanted to beat your ass to a pulp? What would you do? Just lay there and take it?

 

I think there are reasonable circumstances where its perfectly acceptable to put a 230 grain hollow point into a fist fighter's face. And there are other times that its not appropriate. Your blanket assertion that its never ok is total douchetopian BS!

 

 

Rather than change the subject, let's first address the cycle of violence we have witnessed.

 

Person X takes something the wrong way, and plans a little fistfight with Spatial Danger.

Person X can also easily justify using a firearm against a fistfighting attacker.

See where this is going?

 

This very week you again professed your thorough non-violence. You seem confused, so I'll talk you through it a bit.

 

It was quite possible for you to break this chain of violence (what Spatial said was your issue, you said then, yet what was said was not even directed towards yourself).

You made TWO unnecessary, non-compelling violent choices here, to fight, and to conceivably use a weapon once fist fighting.

If using a 230 grain hollow point , that of course is a third violent contribution.

 

Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, ass-carrot? Do I want to suffer a broken jaw and be out of work for a month? Or would I rather blow some fuk-sticks brains out and fill out a bit of paper work instead?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, ass-carrot? Do I want to suffer a broken jaw and be out of work for a month? Or would I rather blow some fuk-sticks brains out and fill out a bit of paper work instead?....

 

You sound philosophical tonight. Sitting around thinking about shooting bad guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1700 SF is just about the footprint of a double-wide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of the hundreds killed using hands and feet each year would agree that they should be able to defend themselves?What? Did they have no hands and no feet? And how many would (had they lived) have adopted the jocal view that self-defense is bad, bad, bad and they should have just taken their fatal beating? Did I say that? Do all scufflers die?

1.Tell me the Badgeless Propagandist has survived a fistfight or two. Because I have.

2. Self defense does not mean armed self defense.

3. A "beating" in a common fracas is not necessarily a fatality. Except to a gun-simple kinda guy.

4.Sorry, HTFU is not provided by a gun dealer, or by gun bravado. Violence is. Often, as a desired result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

I don't know of a father anywhere on the planet who refers to his daughter as "foxy and single", unless maybe he was pimping her out to feed his drug habit.

 

You are one creepy dude.

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

JBSF getting ready to defend his daughter from Jocal...........

gallery_6160_1047_12969.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

I don't know of a father anywhere on the planet who refers to his daughter as "foxy and single", unless maybe he was pimping her out to feed his drug habit.

 

You are one creepy dude.

CREE

 

PEE

 

 

JBSF getting ready to defend his daughter from Jocal...........

gallery_6160_1047_12969.jpg

 

 

We are experiencing some identification issues hereBoothyasMonkeysUnicorn_zpsb20fd40a.png

 

Twins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You called your daughter 'hot'.

 

Fuck you you fucking fuck sicko-fuck....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, ass-carrot? Do I want to suffer a broken jaw and be out of work for a month? Or would I rather blow some fuk-sticks brains out and fill out a bit of paper work instead?....

Or fuk stik pushes your nose into your brain or causes massive brain hemorrhage and you die. Is that 'fair'?

 

People who think 'fist fights' aren't lethal have never truely been in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's see, ass-carrot? Do I want to suffer a broken jaw and be out of work for a month? Or would I rather blow some fuk-sticks brains out and fill out a bit of paper work instead?....

Or fuk stik pushes your nose into your brain or causes massive brain hemorrhage and you die. Is that 'fair'?

 

People who think 'fist fights' aren't lethal have never truely been in one.

 

He'd live on without that brain just fine. I doubt we'd even notice the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wonder how many of the hundreds killed using hands and feet each year would agree that they should be able to defend themselves?What? Did they have no hands and no feet? And how many would (had they lived) have adopted the jocal view that self-defense is bad, bad, bad and they should have just taken their fatal beating? Did I say that? Do all scufflers die?

1.Tell me the Badgeless Propagandist has survived a fistfight or two. Because I have.

2. Self defense does not mean armed self defense.

3. A "beating" in a common fracas is not necessarily a fatality. Except to a gun-simple kinda guy.

4.Sorry, HTFU is not provided by a gun dealer, or by gun bravado. Violence is. Often, as a desired result.

Sounds great until you have a raving lunatice who is fully capable of killing you with one punch trying to do just that. Is killing him with your bare hands acceptable? Yes it is (Cody Koch dies in Saginaw, Michigan).

 

But what if that guy went nuts on someone who couldn't defend themselves against him with their bare hands? They probably be dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder how many of the hundreds killed using hands and feet each year would agree that they should be able to defend themselves? And how many would (had they lived) have adopted the jocal view that self-defense is bad, bad, bad and they should have just taken their fatal beating?

 

What? Did they have no hands and no feet?

1.Tell me the Badgeless Propagandist has survived a fistfight or two. Because I have.

2. Self defense does not mean armed self defense.

3. A "beating" in a common fracas is not necessarily a fatality. Except to a gun-simple kinda guy.

4.Sorry, HTFU is not provided by a gun dealer, or by gun bravado. Violence is. Often, as a desired result.

Did I say that? Do all scufflers die?

 

Disabled people, elderly people, women, or just people who do not happen to be as good at fighting as their attacker(s) do have hands and feet but can't defend themselves, so what should they do? Take their beating seems to me the only option left under your rules. Yes, you did say that.

 

Yes, I've been in fights, but not in a long time. Never lept over a car.

 

Self defense does mean effective self defense or it's not self defense.

 

The fact that some don't result in death doesn't change the fact that hundreds DO result in death and many more result in serious injury. Why should an attacker be allowed to violate someone's rights that way?

 

HTFU and take your beating because it might not be fatal isn't an acceptable response to being attacked to me. Effective self defense is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Let's see, ass-carrot? Do I want to suffer a broken jaw and be out of work for a month? Or would I rather blow some fuk-sticks brains out and fill out a bit of paper work instead?....

 

Or fuk stik pushes your nose into your brain or causes massive brain hemorrhage and you die. Is that 'fair'?

People who think 'fist fights' aren't lethal have never truely been in one.

He'd live on without that brain just fine. I doubt we'd even notice the difference.

 

Gee, thanx Mom......:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Disabled people, elderly people, women, or just people who do not happen to be as good at fighting as their attacker(s) do have hands and feet but can't defend themselves, so what should they do? Take their beating seems to me the only option left under your rules. Yes, you did say that. Cite it, buster.

 

Yes, I've been in fights, but not in a long time. Never lept over a car. Start with a Spitfire

 

Self defense does mean effective self defense or it's not self defense. You are intentionally escalating the violence, in other words.

 

The fact that some don't result in death doesn't change the fact that hundreds DO result in death and many more result in serious injury. Why should an attacker be allowed to violate someone's rights that way? You have attackers on the brain.

Most violence involves interactions between parties who know one another. Stranger danger fatality was covered here.

 

HTFU and take your beating because it might not be fatal isn't an acceptable response to being attacked to me. Effective self defense is. You plan to ramp an "attack" up to gunplay, but you are against the violence found in our country.

 

 

 

I DIDN'T say that self defense was bad, bad, bad. But hell yes, I scoff at armed self-defense.

As usual, you equate armed self defense with self defense.

You don't even realize you do it.

 

 

Defense means guns? Tom w. PBO

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163210&p=4822966

PBO, on 26 Jan 2015 - 11:34 AM, said:

We're discussing* my proposed theory that the American attitude to self defense, because it in itself is inherently violent, contributes to the overall violence problem within the US. However it (the American attitude to self defense) is not recognised as a contributing factor because the American attitude to self defense is both insidious & carefully crafted.

Tom Ray Posted 26 January 2015 - 05:48 PM

(…) People who initiate violence contribute to violence, and no one else. Defense stops it.

Jocal Posted 27 January 2015 - 11:03 AM

Post 317

The bolded shows how insidious the "self defense" mentality is.

Because defense does not automatically mean armed defense.

And armed defense does not mean defense with AW's.

Tact and diplomacy are powerful self-defenses, at least for certain types.

Three posts later, Tom panicked and changed the subject... to gun confiscation.

Tom Ray Posted 27 January 2015 - 01:01 PM

It's all the same in Highland Park, where an Airsoft gun is an assault weapon and thus subject to confiscation.

Sorry again for the use of the "c" word and the resulting paranoia, just quoting the law again.

PBO Posted 28 January 2015 - 11:37 AM

Jocal can identify the subtle & insidious nature of self defense mentality - he picked it within Tom's post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wonder how many of the hundreds killed using hands and feet each year would agree that they should be able to defend themselves?What? Did they have no hands and no feet? And how many would (had they lived) have adopted the jocal view that self-defense is bad, bad, bad and they should have just taken their fatal beating? Did I say that? Do all scufflers die?

1.Tell me the Badgeless Propagandist has survived a fistfight or two. Because I have.

2. Self defense does not mean armed self defense.

3. A "beating" in a common fracas is not necessarily a fatality. Except to a gun-simple kinda guy.

4.Sorry, HTFU is not provided by a gun dealer, or by gun bravado. Violence is. Often, as a desired result.

Sounds great until you have a raving lunatice who is fully capable of killing you with one punch trying to do just that. Is killing him with your bare hands acceptable? Yes it is (Cody Koch dies in Saginaw, Michigan).

 

But what if that guy went nuts on someone who couldn't defend themselves against him with their bare hands? They probably be dead.

the scary campfire talk of a Girl Scout

What are the odds of encountering "a raving lunatic who is fully capable of killing you with one punch"?

You once argued that a crazy professional boxer could have my ass. LMFAO.

Why does your mind dwell on such images?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

Tell that to your wife, you fucking rapist-abettor piece of shit.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

Use other skills, if you have any.

Tell that to your wife, you fucking rapist-abettor piece of shit.....

 

 

Show me your evidence that guns increase women's safety.

Because the experts see it like this right now (see quote block):

(Note: by one account, study author Susan Sorenson is the love interest of gun researcher Phillip Cook.)

Cook Ludvig Social Cost of Gun Violence

http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

 

Sorensen 2004, DV, Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women

Am J Public Health. 2004 August; 94(8): 1412–1417.

 

Firearms in Most Recent Relationship

Firearm ownership by the partner.

Two fifths (39.1%) of the respondents reported that their most recent partner owned a gun during the time of the relationship. (Few [3.8%] said that they did not know whether their partner owned a gun.) Among the 163 respondents whose partner owned a firearm, 53.4% reported that he obtained a firearm during the time of the relationship. Most respondents (66.9%) reported that the partner’s having a gun made them feel less safe; 11.7% reported feeling more safe, and 8.0% reported feeling safer at first but less safe later. One third (35.0%) of the partners who had a gun had more than 1.

 

Firearm presence in the home.

About one third (36.7%) of respondents reported that they had a gun in their home at some point during the time of the relationship with their most recent partner. Most reported that having a gun in the home made them feel less safe (79.2%), but some said that they felt safer (11.7%) or safer at first but less safe later (5.8%).

As shown in Table 2

 

Adding the number of weapons used against the woman improved the fit of the model, and for every additional weapon ever used against the woman, the odds of having a gun in the home increased by 1.38.

 

 

Methods used by battered women in self-defense.

Although few women had used objects as weapons to harm an intimate partner, it was common for them to have used objects in self-defense (see the third column of Table 1).

 

The use of words, hands or fists, and feet was common. A substantial minority had used a door or wall, household object, or motor vehicle in self-defense.

Few of the respondents reported having used a gun in self-defense. There was some overlap between using a gun in self-defense and using a gun in aggression. Of the 15 women who had used a firearm in self-defense, 5 had also used a firearm aggressively against a partner. Of the 6 who had used a gun aggressively against a partner, 5 also had used the gun in self-defense.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448464/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

Use other skills, if you have any.

Tell that to your wife, you fucking rapist-abettor piece of shit.....

 

 

Hey boozy, I'm still waiting for your response over here.

 

You know, the evidence that women carrying guns are not raped?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the disinformation in play, Boothy may have mis-understood the actual situation.

Among the 22 high- income nations of the world, a whopping 90% of the women killed by guns are killed in the USA.

Guns victimize women.

"Vermont Carry" for example, has baggage: half their adult murders are domestic violence.

 

According to the state-issued Domestic Violence Fatality Commission Review Report, half of the 237 adult homicides committed in Vermont between the years 1994 and 2013 were related to domestic violence. Fifty-six percent of adult domestic violence homicides during that time were committed with firearms. And although gun-related domestic violence isn’t always fatal, assaults committed with guns are twelve times more likely to kill their victims than those involving other weapons or bodily force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

 

 

You still haven't addressed the hundreds of murders using hands and feet, other than to say beatings are not always fatal. OK, but what about the ones that are?

 

Does your "use other skills" approach apply to women, the elderly, disabled people, or those facing multiple attackers?

 

Do you agree with this nutjob that self-defense should be sporting?

 

I don't really want to give an attacker a "sporting" chance at killing me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

 

Use other skills, if you have any.

 

 

Other skills such as what? MMA cage fighting? And what if you don't have any other skills to defend yourself? What if you are a petite 5'1 woman who weighs in at 98lbs and she is attacked by a 6'2 scary black rapist? Or even a scary white rapist? Your advice to here is to lay there and take it? What about a wheelchair bound grandfather or grandmother? What is their defense against a home invader? What skills should they employ if attacked by a thug bent on doing evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes. Armed self defense is absolutely self defense. What other kind is there?

Use other skills, if you have any.

Tell that to your wife, you fucking rapist-abettor piece of shit.....

 

 

Show me your evidence that guns increase women's safety.

 

 

Ok, happy to show you:

 

 

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,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Show me your evidence that guns increase women's safety.

 

 

Ok, happy to show you:

 

 

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,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

 

 

 

Your evidence is skimpy, and stretched, too.

Your cite does not refer to women (nor does Priorities have a section which does). Since women are primarily murdered by

lovers, your DGU evidence in public places is meaningless.

 

You just put both feet in doo doo. Your quote reflects the staff of Gary Kleck quoting Gary Kleck---AND YOUR STUDY QUALIFIED YOUR PARAGRAPH.

 

Your evidence is a narrowly chosen anomaly, one snippet removed from its context , quoting a discredited author (whose material has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal in a dozen years).

Kleck's Latest, and a rebuttal from Evan DePhillipis, 2015

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

Why my critics still have it wrong.

By GARY KLECK

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VQW8ONLF-gx>

 

 

Let's continue.

1. You only support parts of this study; you haven't read it either, mate.

2. The research of the study called for has not been financed---and though given the chance you have not protested that gun-lobby research blockage.

3.The study said that presently, armed self-defense figures fluctuate so wildly that they can't be trusted, and that other research conflicts Kleck's extrapolateded telephone survey DGU claims, which were full of false positives.

 

Let's read the report in context, eh? From P 15

 

Defensive Use of Guns

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

 

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

 

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Jeffie's bit here: 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 compcc 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the disinformation in play, Boothy may have mis-understood the actual situation.

Among the 22 high- income nations of the world, a whopping 90% of the women killed by guns are killed in the USA.

Guns victimize women.

"Vermont Carry" for example, has baggage: half their adult murders are domestic violence.

 

 

According to the state-issued Domestic Violence Fatality Commission Review Report, half of the 237 adult homicides committed in Vermont between the years 1994 and 2013 were related to domestic violence. Fifty-six percent of adult domestic violence homicides during that time were committed with firearms. And although gun-related domestic violence isn’t always fatal, assaults committed with guns are twelve times more likely to kill their victims than those involving other weapons or bodily force.

 

 

Wow JokeAwf, a whopping one-homicide-a-fuking-month over a ten year period.

 

Jfc but it's alarmist 'studies' like these with bullshit headline grabbing titles that your side pulls out in an attempt to make it appear that there's an epidemic of women being murdered by the millions.....when the truth is the exact opposite. Congrats on yet another fail, idiot.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So jocal, you still aren't answering the question...... WHAT should women, the elderly, the infirm and well anyone who is not a good hand to hand combat fighter like you must be supposed to do to protect themselves from an attack by a physically superior assailant who intends to do them bodily harm? That's a direct question. I'd appreciate a direct answer. If a woman can't jump over a car, what else is she to do? Not everyone has your skillz.

 

I honestly fail to understand why you continually tap dance around this. You have repeatedly said that "armed" self-defense" is an abomination unto mankind. So what is your alternative? And why won't you at least acknowledge that there are many murders and very serious injuries caused by hands and feet? Are you actually implying that if someone is attacked by an unarmed assailant, that they should just take their chances they won't be one of those 4000+ non-gun murders per year? If that's what you're implying, just fucking come out and say it. That way you won't come off as such a douchebag about it. Just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Philadelphia study suggests that something about a guy packing a gun increases the trouble factor four and a half times.

Let's call it Branas 2009.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/>

 

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”

The researchers wrote that possessors of guns may be in more, not less, danger for a number of reasons. Offenders may use surprise to overpower their victims, making it difficult to use a gun for self-defense. If a victim is able to draw a gun, it signals to the offender that he must use maximum force to overpower the victim. In addition, the increased possibility of guns being carried in the community may lead to an escalation in the lethality of weapons brought to an argument.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476>

 

 

The Branas work was considered lacking by a very interesting Lone Ranger figure within the anti-gun-violence community, Garen Wintemute.

He's the UC Davis researcher who photographed a few hundred gun shows and a stream of straw buyers.

He is a surgeon who follows and repairs hollow point bullet damage, too.

He grew up plinking with guns in a rural setting.

 

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT

Garen Wintemute

peer reviewed in American Journal of Public Health

June 2010, Vol. 100, No. 6 : pp. 967-968

The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.

Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted).

Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied.

We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.

 

(near the end)

Branas et al. have omitted critical detail from their results.

--Assaults can be independent of any prior relationship between perpetrator and victim—a would-be robber spies a prospect emerging from a bar—

--or can occur in the context of, and perhaps because of, some prior relationship.

 

The association between gun possession and risk of being assaulted or shot may differ greatly between these 2 types of encounters.

<http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476#>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With all the disinformation in play, Boothy may have mis-understood the actual situation.

Among the 22 high- income nations of the world, a whopping 90% of the women killed by guns are killed in the USA.

Guns victimize women.

"Vermont Carry" for example, has baggage: half their adult murders are domestic violence.

 

According to the state-issued Domestic Violence Fatality Commission Review Report, half of the 237 adult homicides committed in Vermont between the years 1994 and 2013 were related to domestic violence. Fifty-six percent of adult domestic violence homicides during that time were committed with firearms. And although gun-related domestic violence isn’t always fatal, assaults committed with guns are twelve times more likely to kill their victims than those involving other weapons or bodily force.

 

Wow JokeAwf, a whopping one-homicide-a-fuking-month over a ten year period.

 

Jfc but it's alarmist 'studies' like these with bullshit headline grabbing titles that your side pulls out in an attempt to make it appear that there's an epidemic of women being murdered by the millions.....when the truth is the exact opposite. Congrats on yet another fail, idiot.....

 

 

We have a problem here, Boothy.

When the subject of guns and domestic violence came up, the SC went radical on your gun loving ass, 9-9, in the Castleman Decision.

If you so much as shove your significant other now, it could be bye bye guns. Wow.

 

YE MANLY AMERICAN MEN

This, below, is why they put their judicial foot down.

Again, World Health Org figures indicate that 90% of the women killed (in 22 high-income countries) are our US women,

Femicide. Is it not another form of gun bloodbath?

 

 

Statistics on Domestic Violence & Firearms

Posted on Sunday, January 1st, 2012

Guns increase the probability of death in incidents of domestic violence.1

Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005.2

Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.3

Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.4

A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm.5 In nearly two thirds (64.5%) of the households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner had used the firearm against the victim, usually threatening to shoot or kill the victim.6

Laws that prohibit the purchase of a firearm by a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order are associated with a reduction in the number of intimate partner homicides.7

Between 1990 and 2005, individuals killed by current dating partners made up almost half of all spouse and current dating partner homicides.8

A study of applicants for domestic violence restraining orders in Los Angeles found that the most common relationship between the victim and abuser was a dating relationship, and applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married.9

For additional information about domestic violence and firearms, including background information and state and local laws on the topic, see LCPGV’s Domestic Violence and Firearms Policy Summary.

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This Philadelphia study suggests that something about a guy packing a gun increases the trouble factor four and a half times.

Let's call it Branas 2009.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/>

 

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”

The researchers wrote that possessors of guns may be in more, not less, danger for a number of reasons. Offenders may use surprise to overpower their victims, making it difficult to use a gun for self-defense. If a victim is able to draw a gun, it signals to the offender that he must use maximum force to overpower the victim. In addition, the increased possibility of guns being carried in the community may lead to an escalation in the lethality of weapons brought to an argument.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476>

 

 

The Branas work was considered lacking by a very interesting Lone Ranger figure within the anti-gun-violence community, Garen Wintemute.

He's the UC Davis researcher who photographed a few hundred gun shows and a stream of straw buyers.

He is a surgeon who follows and repairs hollow point bullet damage, too.

He grew up plinking with guns in a rural setting.

 

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT

Garen Wintemute

peer reviewed in American Journal of Public Health

June 2010, Vol. 100, No. 6 : pp. 967-968

The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.

Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted).

Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied.

We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.

 

(near the end)

Branas et al. have omitted critical detail from their results.

--Assaults can be independent of any prior relationship between perpetrator and victim—a would-be robber spies a prospect emerging from a bar—

--or can occur in the context of, and perhaps because of, some prior relationship.

 

The association between gun possession and risk of being assaulted or shot may differ greatly between these 2 types of encounters.

<http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2009.187476#>

 

 

 

Oh good, you're back.

 

Do you wish you could have been present with a firearm when your wife was assaulted and that you could have prevented her attack? Simple question, Jokeawf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So jocal, you still aren't answering the question...... WHAT should women, the elderly, the infirm and well anyone who is not a good hand to hand combat fighter like you must be supposed to do to protect themselves from an attack by a physically superior assailant who intends to do them bodily harm? That's a direct question. I'd appreciate a direct answer. If a woman can't jump over a car, what else is she to do? Not everyone has your skillz.

 

I honestly fail to understand why you continually tap dance around this. You have repeatedly said that "armed" self-defense" is an abomination unto mankind. So what is your alternative? And why won't you at least acknowledge that there are many murders and very serious injuries caused by hands and feet? Are you actually implying that if someone is attacked by an unarmed assailant, that they should just take their chances they won't be one of those 4000+ non-gun murders per year? If that's what you're implying, just fucking come out and say it. That way you won't come off as such a douchebag about it. Just sayin'

 

Guns in some situations are okay, he says. Then he considers the logistics of a viable handgun in a wheelchair, a walker, or a hospital bed.

His imagery spans the degredation of a once-viable society.

 

Isolated guns in some situations are okay, Then, very soon, SDU attitudes quickly develop excesses.

Our Mr. Booth is a walkin' talkin' example of vigilante mindset.

Boothy and gun vengeance, the 2015 collection

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

He does it for lowbrow entertainment, for chuckles from the SA Gun Club regulars. It is accepted FFS.

No criminal fuk stik is safe, once deemed better off dead by Boothy, yet Boothy's past is checkered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

misc. manly man discussion of studies showing the gun victimization of US women

 

Oh good, you're back.

 

Do you wish you could have been present with a firearm when your wife was assaulted and that you could have prevented her attack? Simple question, Jokeawf.

 

 

Every Saturday morning. Same disgusting bit. Same pinhead too.

 

Is this your stalker question? The one your brain has been stuck on for four weeks?

Is it not some rape fantasy hypothetical to the fifth power?

IF I were'nt living on the east coast at the time

IF I even knew her then,

IF I had ever been in the East Bay,

IF I happened upon the crime in progress, and

IF I had a loaded weapon handy...

You see, if I answer yes, I would shoot, I fear how you will lever that.

Next would fear how your elk would train my sweetie, since you hold cheap values. Destroy your attacker, get lethal, be a violent sort...

In short, you get a FAIL on basics, i.e. "thou shalt not kill".

 

tiger by the tail time

She would firmly reject your training, and send you packing.

 

You would degrade the planet with lowbrow social awareness, gayly escalating misunderstandings with tools of lethal violence.

You'd sell my sweetin a bazooka and an attitude, while Tom Ray would justify the artillery (on behalf of the rights of the poor).

No thanks. Get lost III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites