This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

[Pertinacious Tom]

I know somewhere that did it, easy, and it got the results expected. So that's an excuse tom boy.

Canada tried to register, not even confiscate, long guns and failed, So what works in one country might not work in another. But I feel no need to try to diminish your opinion by calling you boy. I'm secure enough in my own opinions.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Australia's gun slingshot controls a political template for the U.S. New Joisey

...

But the rest of the country is pretty well united in thinking that we can safely allow citizens to possess slingshots.

Have you fixed Aussie Apartheid yet? Seems like you have a lot of time for America's problems, so I assume you've fixed your own. How did you do it?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

Maybe the gun ownership rate is not the problem?

Nah, that couldn't be it.....

The usual response is a messenger attack. It's waay funnier when the messenger delivering the stats is jocal. But it does result in no response instead of the standard messenger attack.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Very funni.

So what numbers in Randoms' Law are wrong?

I could give two shits about randumb's fairy tale. What numbers in that graph above are wrong?

Ok, so you have admitted that more guns equals more deaths. That was easy.

Everything's easy if you just ignore the fact that the population changed over time.

This is my favorite on the growing list of questions you won't answer:

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Are these people Americans or what?

See posts 127 and 142 to review jocal's sources and answer that question for yourself.

But you still won't answer my question.

 

[Guest]

Maybe we should keep it simple for randumb and jocal. Here's a series of YES/NO questions:

1. Has the overall gun death rate gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

2. Has the number of guns in circulation since like 25 years ago gone up up? YES/NO

3. Has the suicide rate by gun gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

I'm sure I'll add these three to the growing list of questions that neither joe nor randumb will answer.

 

[jocal505]

Maybe we should keep it simple for randumb and jocal. Here's a series of YES/NO questions:

1. Has the overall gun death rate gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

2. Has the number of guns in circulation since like 25 years ago gone up up? YES/NO

3. Has the suicide rate by gun gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

I'm sure I'll add these three to the growing list of questions that neither joe nor randumb will answer.

You can't demonstrate a positive correlation between 1 and 2. Your argument is pathetic, infantile...and all you got.

Common fallacies: post hoc, ergo propter hoc:

Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.

Why did crime rates go down? The sociologists do not even mention gun popularity (which decreased per capita during the crime drop, BTW).Here are some of the combined factors in play:

The baby boom males aged, and mellowed.

The crack cocaine epidemic came, and went.

The 911 emergency response system was implemented.

Triage centers improved in emergency rooms, and medical advances addressed high velocity bullet cavitations in human flesh.

Security camera use, and the presence of cellphone cameras, both influenced criminal activity.

An impressive (but incomplete) body of evidence suggests that because the presence of lead poisoning (from both gasoline and paint) was curbed, violent behavior diminished.

BIrth control meant that unwanted children would not extend their poor upbringing into criminal fields.

Stiffer criminal penalties also had a documented effect.

To simply attribute the drop in crime to personal gunplay is unworthy...and also unsupported. Jeff, you and NGS are shamefully making the tired "more guns less crime" argument. That theory was firmly discredited twenty years ago...we covered it on PA as well.

A LOTT OF LIES: SHOOTING DOWN THE GUN LOBBY’S FAVORITE “ACADEMIC”

When Gary Kleck can't defend, he attacks. (2015 Politico articles, pro and con)

You are a lightweight, with a mind filled with cliche's.

 

[jocal505]

This is a country where our gun deaths, not knife deaths or fistfight deaths, have spiked.

Liar! Please point to me on this graph where your "spike" is.

Seems like there has been an overall decline in gun deaths. joe must just reflexively lie hoping no one will catch him.

All in all, gun homicides in the USA have plateaued at around 11,500 per year. But that level itself is a spike, when taken in international perspective.

Show me your decline over this 13-year period, Jeff:

Yr Gun Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

We have spiked on a global level. For example, the CDC quoted our gun homicide rate as 19.5 times higher than other high-income countries. That figure came from the Richardson-Hemenway study, which shows our plateau to be an outlier among civilized norms.

I hope this is not acceptable to you:

RESULTS:

The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.

CONCLUSIONS:

The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.

Pasted from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454>

 

[Rockdog]

This is a country where our gun deaths, not knife deaths or fistfight deaths, have spiked.

Liar! Please point to me on this graph where your "spike" is.

Seems like there has been an overall decline in gun deaths. joe must just reflexively lie hoping no one will catch him.

All in all, gun homicides in the USA have plateaued at around 11,500 per year. But that level itself is a spike, when taken in international perspective.

Show me your decline over this 13-year period, Jeff:

Yr Gun Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf



'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

We have spiked on a global level. For example, the CDC quoted our gun homicide rate as 19.5 times higher than other high-income countries. That figure came from the Richardson-Hemenway study, which shows our plateau to be an outlier among civilized norms.

I hope this is not acceptable to you:

RESULTS:

The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.



CONCLUSIONS:

The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.



Pasted from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454>

Maybe they keep their violent offenders looked up.

 

[Rockdog]

I said KEEP. With two thirds of violent offenders being repeat offenders I don't think we have enough.

 

[jocal505]

Sorry Honey, but thems the facts....whether you like them or not.

More guns equals less homicides. Suck it.....

Is that just an unsupported opinion? If not, present some sources.

"Shall issue" states have higher rates of aggravated assault. From the massive 2014 Donahue study:

The strongest evidence was for aggravated assault, with data suggesting that right-to-carry (RTC) laws increase this crime by an estimated 8 percent – and this may actually be understated, according to the researchers.

The study, covering 30 years (1981-2010) in all 50 states, found a “robust correlation” between estimated levels of gun ownership and actual gun homicides at the state level, even when controlling for factors typically associated with homicides. For each 1 percentage point increase in the prevalence of gun ownership, the state firearm homicide rate increases by 0.9 percent, the authors found. “Understanding the relationship between the prevalence of gun ownership and therefore the availability of guns, and firearm-related mortality is critical to guiding decisions regarding recently proposed measures to address firearm violence,”

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

[SIZE=11.25pt]The murder rate increased in the states with existing right-to-carry laws for the period 1999-2010 when the "confounding influence" of the crack cocaine epidemic is controlled for.[/SIZE][SIZE=11.25pt] The study found that homicides increased in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws during 1999-2010.[/SIZE]

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2118893>

[SIZE=11pt] Another study entitled [/SIZE]An Evaluation of State Firearm Regulations and Homicide and

Suicide Death Rates, done by M Rosengart, et al in 2005, found “that when a ‘shall issue’ law was

present, the rate of firearm homicides was greater, RR 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to

1.24), than when the law was not present, as was the rate of all homicides, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.98

to 1.17), although this was not statistically significant.” The study found that no statistically

significant reduction in the rates of firearm homicides or total homicides could be found for any

law. Also, no statistically significant change in firearm suicide rates could be connected to any

laws. The study concluded that implementing a shall-issue law with few restrictions on

obtaining or carrying a concealed weapon may be linked to increased firearm homicide rates.

However, no law was connected to a statistically significant decease in firearm homicide or

suicide rates (Rosengart, 2005).

http://people.uwplatt.edu/~wiegmake/Intro_Files/CJ%20-%20paper%20example.pdf

The Fleegler Study: States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower.

Specifically, Fleeger pointed to states with many gun laws like Massachusetts, which had 3.4 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, and New Jersey, which had 4.9 gun-deaths per 100,000 people. Conversely, he focused on states with less laws like Louisiana, which had 18 deaths per 100,000 individuals and Alaska, which had 17.5 deaths per 100,000 individuals.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/>

1. [SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault[/SIZE]
   

Publication Date: November 2009

This is a case-control study that looks at the relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

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.”

Pasted from <http://forums.sailin...70#entry4660096

 

[Guest]

Maybe we should keep it simple for randumb and jocal. Here's a series of YES/NO questions:

1. Has the overall gun death rate gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

2. Has the number of guns in circulation since like 25 years ago gone up up? YES/NO

3. Has the suicide rate by gun gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

I'm sure I'll add these three to the growing list of questions that neither joe nor randumb will answer.

You can't demonstrate a positive correlation between 1 and 2. Your argument is pathetic, infantile...and all you got.

I never attempted to demonstrate a positive correlation between anything. I simply asked you to answer the questions. So..... yes or no?

 

[jocal505]

You can't demonstrate a positive correlation between 1 and 2. Your argument is pathetic, infantile...and all you got.

I never attempted to demonstrate a positive correlation between anything. I simply asked you to answer the questions. So..... yes or no?

1.You are claiming the increase in guns has caused crime to drop. You need to relate the two bars on your own graph. You can't.

2.Don't bother asking me to dance in the weeds with you.

3. Read my signature line.

 

[Guest]

Why did crime rates go down?

Joe, I did not mention "crime rates". I posted a graph specifically talking about your vaunted "gun deaths". Not just homicides - but ALL gun deaths including your necessary inclusion of suicide to make your numbers look better. And yet they STILL fuck you.

Because GUN DEATHs have dropped. Period. The reasons why are irrelevant to the discussion. Repeat along with me.... "the gun death rate has fallen while at the same time that the number of guns in circulation has increased dramatically".

You can avoid the questions all day long (and knowing you, you will continue to avoid them for weeks and months) - but you cannot escape the fact of the matter that your entire premise is based on the concept that somehow - more guns = more death. The facts are clear that is completely false. I agree that there are very complex reasons why that is the case - but it doesn't change the central fact that more guns DOES NOT equal more deaths. It doesn't mean more suicide. It doesn't mean more homicide and it doesn't mean more accidental deaths. ALL of those are either way down or completely flat (suicide) despite the fact that the number of guns in citizens' hands has skyrocketed over the same period.

I'm truly sorry that facts are not your friend on this.....

 

[Guest]

Maybe we should keep it simple for randumb and jocal. Here's a series of YES/NO questions:

1. Has the overall gun death rate gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

2. Has the number of guns in circulation since like 25 years ago gone up up? YES/NO

3. Has the suicide rate by gun gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

I'm sure I'll add these three to the growing list of questions that neither joe nor randumb will answer.

You can't demonstrate a positive correlation between 1 and 2. Your argument is pathetic, infantile...and all you got.

I never attempted to demonstrate a positive correlation between anything. I simply asked you to answer the questions. So..... yes or no?

1.You are claiming the increase in guns has caused crime to drop. You need to relate the two bars on your own graph. You can't.

2.Don't bother asking me to dance in the weeds with you.

You must be responding to someone else, because I made no such claim. Please post where I've ever claimed that. I'll wait patiently while you search the archives.....

Just answer the fucking questions! They are not "in the weeds". Those are top level, fundamental questions to the argument. I'm sorry if the answers will be detrimental to your central position - but that is not my concern.

Seriously, its a simple YES or NO. It can't be that hard.

 

[Guest]

Why did crime rates go down?

...
Because GUN DEATHs have dropped. Period. The reasons why are irrelevant to the discussion. Repeat along with me.... "the gun death rate has fallen while at the same time that the number of guns in circulation has increased dramatically".

I'm truly sorry that facts are not your friend on this.....

Mmmmm. Seems like facts are a problem here for you JB. Latest available from Gunpolicy.org

Looks like more people dying each year to me. More guns more gun deaths.

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

Year: Number Killed

2011: 32,163

2010: 31,672

2009: 31,347

2008: 31,593

2007: 31,224

2006: 30,896

2005: 30,694

2004: 29,569

2003: 30,136

2002: 30,242

2001: 29,573

2000: 28,663

1999: 28,874

redoing the numbers........ standby

 

[Guest]

Sorry, had to redo the numbers because I got the date ranges wrong.

1999-2003 / rate/100K

Gun Homicide: 56,726 (3.99)

Gun suicide: 84,069 (5.91)

Gun accident: 3894 (.27)

ALL gun deaths: 144,488 (10.36)

2004-2008

Gun Homicide: 61,578 (4.13)

Gun suicide: 86,210 (5.66)

Gun accident: 3285 (.22)

ALL gun deaths: 153,976 (10.32)

2010-2013

Gun Homicide: 56.469 (3.63)

Gun suicide: 99,958 (6.42)

Gun accident: 2804 (.18)

ALL gun deaths: 162,569 (10.44)

Feel to check my math or run the numbers here yourself.

It sure looks to me like ALL types of guns deaths are down with the exception of suicide slightly up over just this recent 15 year period. The overall gun death rate has remained almost totally flat for the last 15 years while the number of guns in circulation has dramatically increased.

randumb, you and joe are simply just wrong. But please feel free to continue digging and make yourselves look like fools. I won't stand in your way.

 

[Guest]

Wow, I totally understand now why tweedle-joe and tweedle-dumb insist on adding in the suicide numbers when talking about gun deaths. Because suicide numbers are the only ones that show a small increase and is overall a flat-line rate over time. Everything else is down (gun Homicides and gun accidents).

Yet when they mention increasing gun regulation and gun control - it is always in reference to crime and accidents. Its purely disingenuous to discuss suicides in the context of gun control. I know of no additional gun control that would stop determined self-killers from taking their own life. And frankly even if there was, I don't think its our place to take that choice away from someone who wants to commit self-murder.

And frankly - its even more dishonest that it even appears here. If you go back even further in time - the overall gun death rates have dropped significantly from 1980. 2000 to present is a bit of an anomoly when you factor in that we had 9/11, were in 2 decades long wars, and we had a financial meltdown that skyrocketed unemployment, crime and depression. Its no wonder suicides are up slightly. There was even a slight dip in the gun suicide rate in 2004-2008 but then it went back up slightly again. Gee, I wonder what happened in 2008 that might have caused that???

 

[Guest]

Looks like more people killed killing themselves each five year group to me.

WRONG! FIFY.

Suicides and ONLY suicides account for the rise in death. Self-murderers are irrelevant to the discussion about gun violence and gun control.

 

[Guest]

Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?