This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

plchacker

Super Anarchist
5,202
16
Mobile, AL
random said:
R Booze said:
random said:
The percentage of households with guns remained the same ... biatch.
Would love to know how they can even tell how many households have guns or not.

Notice he said 'the percentage'. So if I'm following his thought process correctly, if the number of guns in Americans hands went up 24% in twelve years, that means 24% more households own them. Which is a great thing....but seems a bit low to me.....so we need to work on that and get more people into the shooting sports....
In the United States, the percentage of households with one or more guns is reported to be

2012: 34.4

2010: 32.3

2008: 36.0

2006: 34.5

2004: 37.3

2002: 36.4

2000: 34.3

1998: 36.7

1996: 43.4

1994: 44.0

1993: 45.5

1991: 43.7

1990: 45.8

1989: 48.9

1988: 43.4

1987: 48.6

1985: 48.0

1984: 48.5

1982: 48.9

1980: 50.8

1977: 54.0

1976: 49.7

1974: 47.9

1973: 49.1

Cite
I quit saying yes to those polls years ago...

 

plchacker

Super Anarchist
5,202
16
Mobile, AL
random said:
I see joe completely ignored my direct response to him about whether people in the U.S. Have a groundswell of opinion against guns. Not only is there no groundswell but it's just the opposite.

Jocal = lying cunt.
Ooops, there it is! The JB key indicator of frustration, the C word!

Maybe I'll stay in and ...

scarjo_popcorn.gif


NUH, I'm outta here.

(and I like the way her arm bumps her, ah, chest)
I fully admit I am frustrated by the willful ignorance and the deliberate stupid so on display here.
and yes, the chest squeeze is quite mezmerizing.
I meet no standards of "willfull ignorance." I am the hardest worker on the gun threads.

FIrst I organized and presented (using full text) all the current gun research in North America. (It took half of 2013 and 2014 to do so.)

A hush descended upon the Gun Club Choir.

Then I organized and presented the state-of-the-art conclusions of the social sciences. They are collaborative, and each is inclusive of the 2nd A.

These informed projects were satisfying work. I did it for your elk.

And to challenge your elk in every aspect of your entire SAF hyperbole.

I hope you didn't ignore all that knowledge, but none of it supported your cliche-type views.

"Willful ignorance and deliberate stupid" may apply to yourself, Jeffie, because...

1.You were wrong about 70% of gang violence happens during a secondary crime.

6.You were wrong about my owning a handgun (yet I had sorted that here a half-dozen times).

7. You are mistaken that the mentally ill cause violence. (Their overall violence figure is 4%.)

8. The idea that MADD's approach to drunk drivers precludes gun limitations has been opposed by NAS science.

As Cuntrinder the Great can see, "willful ignorance" may be a projection.
While you were putting all that together the very large number of firearms in my home shot exactly 0 people. In fact the ones that I bought new have never killed anyone.

Not a single one of them even fired on its own.

They did not try to escape from a safe - most aren't even in a safe.

Hell, they didn't move at all.

So please explain this violence you refer to. One in my collection was built in 1875. It is a little worn, but in all the years It has existed I feel pretty certain that it alone did not kill anyone. It was originally issued to a Texas Ranger, so there is a possibility it was used to kill someone. Yet I feel 100% certain that it alone has not harmed anyone. Hell, it can't even load its self.

In fact, the potted plant in my window sill moved more. It breaths, it eats and it could be very toxic.

They have killed. Snakes, deer turkey, and other food sources, also stray critters of various and dubious nature have all died because I used guns to do the job. But not a single human being. At least not yet. Not very likely either. Damn near every house in my home town has guns. There has only been one murder with a firearm in town that I can remember. Just one. It was drug related. Texting drivers on the other hand.....

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,078
1,886
Punta Gorda FL
...You see, your elk are uneasy about race...while I am dancing with black women, by invitation.

You have a lot to learn.
Man o man. W.t.f. does dancing with black women have to do with posting of government supplied data?
I'm not sure either, but I do have a lot to learn.

My guess: it has something to do with the hope that ...the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower penispower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks.

 

tuk tuk Joe

Super Anarchist
8,757
0
SEA
random said:
Well, it would be pretty hard to dance with Black Women at the Friends of the NRA meeting. There were none.
That’s because black pigment folks need to be disarmed by the state to make you feel safer...

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,266
299
near Seattle, Wa
...You see, your elk are uneasy about race...while I am dancing with black women, by invitation.

You have a lot to learn.
Man o man. W.t.f. does dancing with black women have to do with posting of government supplied data?
I'm not sure either, but I do have a lot to learn.

My guess: it has something to do with the hope that ...the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower penispower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks.

More race-baiting, and a further promotion of racial misunderstanding.

Your solution to troubled racial relations (which you keep bringing up) has not been presented.

Your message is that if we don't support your pro-gun policies, that we are racist. Hmmm. How you go on about this.

Next, your bottom line is to promote lots of poorly regulated guns to blacks and whites, regardless of the consequences.

Tom since you have little insight to offer on the subject of positive racial outcome (and until you've read a good book on MLK), how about you just be a decent sort and pick topics other than race.

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
I assume that Jocal is continuing his somebody else DO something diatribe, and will once again remind him, and those who accept his vacuous arguments, that controlling the implement doesn't abate the causes of the undesirable behavior, and that that abatement ought to be the primary goal.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,266
299
near Seattle, Wa
random, on 07 May 2015 - 04:34 AM, said:




scarjo_popcorn.gif
While you were putting all that together the very large number of firearms in my home shot exactly 0 people. In fact the ones that I bought new have never killed anyone.

Not a single one of them even fired on its own.

They did not try to escape from a safe - most aren't even in a safe.

Hell, they didn't move at all.

So please explain this violence you refer to. See figures, below. Each number affects family, loved ones, living situations, etc. These numbers are outliers among high-income countries.. One in my collection was built in 1875. It is a little worn, but in all the years It has existed I feel pretty certain that it alone did not kill anyone. It was originally issued to a Texas Ranger, so there is a possibility it was used to kill someone. Yet I feel 100% certain that it alone has not harmed anyone. Hell, it can't even load its self.

In fact, the potted plant in my window sill moved more. It breaths, it eats and it could be very toxic.

They have killed. Snakes, deer turkey, and other food sources, also stray critters of various and dubious nature have all died because I used guns to do the job. But not a single human being. At least not yet. Not very likely either. Damn near every house in my home town has guns. There has only been one murder with a firearm in town that I can remember. Just one. It was drug related. Texting drivers on the other hand.....
Good on 'ya. I assume you can keep them indefinitely.

But outside your sphere, many, many others are screwing up with guns.

Yr Tot Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

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

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

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

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

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

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>
Society itself bears the costs of our guns, and, even after Heller, regulations and laws still need to be considered.

This is not an either/or matter, as if all your guns are at risk. That is called imagining.

[SIZE=11.25pt]As Mark Rosenberg, the former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control put it during another recent radio conversation, the entrenched gun debate itself carries a steep price:[/SIZE]

This is really destructive to our ability to make progress. It's posed as an "either or," and this was done by strategists working for the NRA over a long period of time. They wanted people to think that either you protect the rights of all gun owners to keep their guns, or you do research on gun violence, and that the two are diametrically opposed. And they had a zero-tolerance philosophy that said, "You can't even discuss research on gun violence because that leads down the slippery slope of all of us losing our guns." And that's led us into the morass where we are today.

Mark Rosenberg, former Director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/05/idiotic-gun-debate-itself-is-killing-us>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,266
299
near Seattle, Wa
I assume that Jocal is continuing his somebody else DO something diatribe, and will once again remind him, and those who accept his vacuous arguments, that controlling the implement doesn't abate the causes of the undesirable behavior, and that that abatement ought to be the primary goal.
This is not for you to say, Guy. Is fixing public health epidemics your discipline, your field of expertise?

Where are some social science sources for your (ahem) opinion?

You wanted proven policy, correct? The policy of challenging the agents of damage to public health has been proven with malaria, lung disease, AIDS, traffic safety, asbestos removal, etc. Guns are an agent of gun violence, according to public health scientists.

Guy, your right hand in demanding evidence-based action only, while your left hand is denying research...and challenging established science.

Just sayin'.

 

Mike in Seattle

Super Anarchist
4,346
613
Latte land
, best get sitting down for this, Boothy,,

? ready ?

Rico, 'shrooms grow in the back yard here, & I find 'em in the Mts too.

(Some 'shroomies say Ilk-shit-shrooms are the "finest in the land")

, but even that isn't enough to 'splain jocal "logic"

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,266
299
near Seattle, Wa
My "logic" is in sync with the current research. This study is significant because it is the newest, AND the most comprehensive (covering 50 states for 30 years).

It suggests that fewer guns = less crime.

Quote

SIEGAL 2013: The Relationship Between Gun Ownership

and Firearm Homicide Rates[SIZE=12pt] in the United States, 1981–2010.[/SIZE]

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio=1.009; 95% confidence interval=1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

Studies analyzing data over long periods are valuable because they assess the effects of variation in gun availability not only between states but within states over time. Although we are aware of no multiyear studies of interstate variation in gun ownership and homicide rates since 1999, national data from the General Social Survey show that the prevalence of household gun ownership has decreased by approximately 12% since then.http://ajph.aphapubl...JPH.2013.301409>

Quote

The results of the research are consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher levels of firearm homicide.

[SIZE=9pt]Siegel noted that the study did not determine causation, allowing that it is theoretically possible that people are more likely to purchase guns if they live in states with higher levels of firearm homicide. But he said the issue warrants further study. “In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, last year, many states are considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths.[/SIZE] This research is the strongest to date to document that states with higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides. It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates...”
My logic agrees with the opinions of the medical community:

AMA on Gun Violence

Gun violence in America has reached epidemic proportions and the horrific school shootings in Newtown, CT, has increased the sense of urgency to find workable solutions to reduce the epidemic of gun violence and the culture of violence in America. In a January 8, 2013 letter to the President and Congressional leaders, the AMA along with 51 other national specialty societies and state medical societies urged the nation to strengthen its commitment and resources to improve comprehensive access to mental health services including screening, prevention and treatment. The letter acknowledges that while the vast majority of patients with mental illness are not violent, physicians and other health professionals must be trained to respond to those who have a mental illness that might make them more prone to commit violence.

Based on long-time AMA-HOD policy, the letter also calls for renewing and strengthening the assault weapons ban, including banning high-capacity magazines. AMA supports S. 150, the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” which was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Pasted from <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/topics/violence-prevention.page>
My logic has long been echoed by the American Bar Assn:

ABA Policy

The first ABA policy related to gun violence, adopted in 1965, supported amending federal law in a number of respects to address interstate sales of firearms as were involved in formerly unregulated mail-order purchases, including the rifle used by Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy. These reforms were later enacted as key provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the principal federal law regarding firearm sales, transfer, and possession, which are still operative to date. They include: mandatory licensing of dealers in interstate commerce of firearms; prohibiting sales to felons, fugitives, persons under indictment, adjudicated mental incompetents, and minors; and restricting sale of firearms to residents of the state where they are purchased. The ABA also called for controlling commerce and importation of large caliber weapons and firearms.

The ABA has repeatedly reaffirmed and expanded its recommendations for strengthening the 1968 Act in the decades following. As a result, the ABA supports reforms that would prohibit sale and possession of certain types of firearms, such as cheap, foreign made handguns (1973); limit availability of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices to the military or law enforcement organizations (1989 and 1993); and strengthen the National Instant Check System background check data base to include other public records such as court orders and relevant records regarding mental health status bearing on eligibility to purchase firearms (2004). In 1975, 1983, 1994, and 1996 the ABA adopted additional policies supporting amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968. These amendments would:

  • Require background checks for all purchasers of firearms, including for purchases at gun shows and for private, nondealer sales.
  • Prohibit sales, transfers, and possession of firearms by persons convicted of violent misdemeanors, including persons convicted of domestic violence and child abuse offenses or subject to a protective order
  • Prohibit interstate sales by unlicensed persons of ammunition and firearm components
My logic is in agreement with the American Psychology Assn.

At the time APA advocated in support of firearm-related injury research, and APA released the following statement when the Dickey amendment was adopted:

Research on the prevention of firearm-related injury, supported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and coordinated within CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), has come under attack from Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee initially rejected Rep. Dickey's attempt to eliminate the $2.6 million dedicated to CDC firearm-injury research. However, Mr. Dickey prevailed in the full Appropriations Committee. The Dickey amendment would transfer the $2.6 million to regional health education centers. This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA. The NRA has taken the position that firearm-related injury research at the CDC amounts to 'antigun' political advocacy and has also attacked the quality of this research. However, research proposals submitted to CDC are subject to a peer review process that follows standard practices. APA's Public Policy Office (PPO) has distributed accurate information to Congress on the nature of CDC-supported firearm-injury research and is advocating against the Dickey amendment.
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,266
299
near Seattle, Wa
Yeah, actually my opinion and those like me DO influence what goes on inside of America. That's not delusion, that's fact. Through many avenues such as the NRA, SAF, my elected representatives, opinion polls, etc - my opinion, along with millions of others directly influences policy. If you look at any opinion polls out, even in the wake of mass shooting tragedies, there is no groundswell for additional gun control.

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.
Jeff's bolded parts are not honest statements. I can debate them intelligently. Jeff. you need to support your statements with cites.

Boothy's italicized post, same thing. These are hollow claims, merely lowbrow opinions which need sources.
Ummm, you want cites that there is no majority public support for more gun control much less a groundswell??? Here, take your pick, dick: http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gun-control/pages/2/

Who's being dishonest now, joe?
You are quoting the Pew Research library of pro-gun outcomes. They have a track record.

And their questions blip the either/or, black-or-white issue framework proposed by the NRA.

The Pew Research Center released a survey this month suggesting that for the first time in two decades more Americans support "gun rights" than "gun control." But the poll's question on that point, asking respondents whether it's more important to "control gun ownership" or to "protect the right of Americans to own guns," drew sharp criticism from some experts, who say it offered a false choice.

"I could not think of a worse way to ask questions about public opinions about gun policies," Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told Media Matters. "The question's implicit and incorrect assumption is that regulations of gun sales infringe on gun owners' rights and control their ability to own guns. The reality is that the vast majority of gun laws restrict the ability of criminals and other dangerous people to get guns and place minimal burdens on potential gun purchasers such as undergoing a background check."

[SIZE=11.25pt](...) That context comes from numerous recent surveys. A July 2014 poll from [/SIZE]Quinnipiac University[SIZE=11.25pt] found that 92 percent of voters—including 86 percent of Republicans and 92 percent of gun owners—support background checks for all gun sales, up four points from the previous year.[/SIZE]

In January, Rasmussen Reports found that 59 percent of respondents supported a ban on assault weapons, while a 2013 CBS News/New York Times poll reported that 63 percent of Americans polled favored a limit on high-capacity magazines.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/pew-poll-gun-rights>

Another factor, argues political scientist Jonathan Bernstein, is that few Americans are taking to the streets to demand universal background checks. Ninety percent of people answering a phone survey the same way is not the same as hordes of voters protesting in the streets or badgering their congressmen.

[SIZE=13.5pt]The lopsided level of activism was clear in a [/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt]January Pew Research poll[/SIZE][SIZE=13.5pt], where respondents who prioritized gun rights were more than four times as likely as those backing gun control to donate money to an organization that takes a position on gun policy. More than [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]four in 10 gun rights supporters (42 percent) reported participating in at least one type of political activism on the issue, compared with 25 percent of those prioritizing gun control.[/SIZE]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/03/90-percent-of-americans-want-expanded-background-checks-on-guns-why-isnt-this-a-political-slam-dunk/>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,078
1,886
Punta Gorda FL
...

Your solution to troubled racial relations (which you keep bringing up) has not been presented.

Your message is that if we don't support your pro-gun policies, that we are racist. ..

Tom since you have little insight to offer on the subject of positive racial outcome (and until you've read a good book on MLK), how about you just be a decent sort and pick topics other than race.
I don't have an overall solution, but think that eliminating government discrimination based on race would be a good start. And yes, knowingly supporting racial discrimination by government is racist. So is saying what you said about it: "big deal."

...The fact that MLK got dissed on da gun permit has a grain of truth in it. Wonderful.

Again, big deal.
I'm here to learn. Specifically, I'm eager to learn how the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. What is it about black people that make them more immature, more short-sighted, and more volatile when they are exposed to guns? Was it wise to deny MLK his permit because his melanin-rich skin made him more volatile than white people? You seem determined to preserve the ability to cops to engage in that kind of discrmination, so I want to learn why blacks are so darn dangerous in your view.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,078
1,886
Punta Gorda FL
random said:
JFC Tom.

"What is it about black people that make them more immature, more short-sighted, and more volatile when they are exposed to guns?" Tom Ray.

These people are US citizens, get off the blame truck in a effort to justify your unsupportable views. Seems unpatriotic to me. Do black people serve in the armed forces? You not supporting the troops?

More guns more deaths.
I'm just trying to learn more about black people from local expert Jocal. Obviously, there's nothing racist about this statement he made: the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks.

So I'm asking about it. Why is that bad? And by the way, what actions have you taken so far to eliminate Aussie Apartheid? Or are you all complaints about other countries, no action in your own?

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,266
299
near Seattle, Wa
Tom, I'm from a family of seven children. Each was unique. As our characters developed, we each faced different challenges.

We each overcame some challenges; we each folded on others. Life is the process of sorting all that out, innit?

I am waiting for you to apply some understanding to this situation. Instead, you choose to misunderstand my Irish ass.

I am still getting painted with the Tom Ray racist broadbrush. This is pointless (but no surprise).

We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.
Address it as well as you can, and lay out your viewpoint on how to sort it.

Pointing fingers at others is not good enough, since you constantly drag the topic of racism and guns into our forums.

Simply lay out your overview for us.

Racism may apply to getting a driver's license. So should we just avoid testing individuals for driving skill to avoid racism?

Racism may apply to getting an electrician's journeyman card. Should we avoid setting standards for electricians' licenses to avoid racism?

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,266
299
near Seattle, Wa
...

Your solution to troubled racial relations (which you keep bringing up) has not been presented.

Your message is that if we don't support your pro-gun policies, that we are racist. ..

Tom since you have little insight to offer on the subject of positive racial outcome (and until you've read a good book on MLK), how about you just be a decent sort and pick topics other than race.
I don't have an overall solution, No shit. Who does? But given that, why grind away with the TR misunderstandings? but think that eliminating government discrimination based on race would be a good start. Your argument is far from brilliant. How about real estate licences, and stock brokerage licences? Are they not just as subject to racist decisions? And yes, knowingly supporting racial discrimination by government is racist. So is saying what you said about it: "big deal." This is key. A true pacifist would find that situation (a gun permit denial based on racism) amusing, since his power is not based on gunfighting in the first place.

Here's the punch line. You can take out the remarkable pacifist with a cheap gun...but The Mountain remains... just sitting there.

...The fact that MLK got dissed on da gun permit has a grain of truth in it. Wonderful.

Again, big deal.
I'm here to learn. Specifically, I'm eager to learn how the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. What is it about black people that make them more immature, more short-sighted, and more volatile when they are exposed to guns? Was it wise to deny MLK his permit because his melanin-rich skin made him more volatile than white people? You seem determined to preserve the ability to cops to engage in that kind of discrmination, so I want to learn why blacks are so darn dangerous in your view.
Whether being denied a handgun permit was a "big deal" to MLK was up to MLK.

Please cite his massive disappointment. Please source this particular bit as a life-changing event (not for yourself, but for MLK).

Or STFU.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,078
1,886
Punta Gorda FL
We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.
OK, one explanation that doesn't work is the random one: blacks have fewer guns but higher "gun damage" as you put it.

I also don't agree with your view that blacks are inherently more volatile when exposed to guns.

I think the violence (gun and otherwise) we see is a result of a history of discrimination.

I don't have an overall solution, but think that eliminating government discrimination based on race would be a good start.
Your argument is far from brilliant. How about real estate licences, and stock brokerage licences? Are they not just as subject to racist decisions?

1. No, they are not.

2. Even if they were, there is no protected right to sell real estate or stocks, but we do have a protected right to keep and bear arms.

 




Top