This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

[Pertinacious Tom]

Did I lose it when I asked you about jocal's cherry-picking article that claimed a sharp increase in FL gun murders by picking the lowest year in recent memory as a starting point?

Sorry, but the fact that you could see no problem with that tells me all I need to know.

If the question came from a different messenger, would it be invalid? Seems to me that you and others think guns cause crime. OK, jocal has shown us the highest crime rates, so those should be associated with the highest gun ownership rates, right? Take another look at my picture from the FNRA banquet before answering.

The Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999. That could be why that year was chosen, I don't know.

...2013 695

So what's your source for the claim that Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999?

It's pretty amusing appearing in a post with an FLDE image that appears to date to the 1980s, made more amusing by the fact that it's in reply to a post linking back to 2012, when I first posted this link to the FDLE site:

...

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

...

Gosh, I wonder why they picked 1999 in particular for that statistic? Could there be more to the story if you look at other years?

Visiting that link will still get you to this FDLE image, which random says is just bullshit designed to mislead. Pretty funny since he's trying the same bullshit trick you tried in 2012, but his propagandist is not quite smart enough to cherry pick 1999 instead of 2000 as a starting point. At least your guy had the ability to look at a list of numbers and pick out the very lowest one.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

You couldn't figure all this out by looking at the pretty picture I posted?

No. Your pretty pictures are bullshit designed to confuse.

See inserted text above.

That post looked a bit different when I posted it.

...
You couldn't figure all this out by looking at the pretty picture I posted?

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

 

[jocal505]

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

This time you didn't re-publish what is a shameful reflection on your integrity: general rates of murder, which distort gun violence rates.Tom Ray, I've been wondering: are your children in the habit of fibbing, too?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

This time you didn't re-publish what is a shameful reflection on your integrity: general rates of murder, which distort gun violence rates.Tom Ray, I've been wondering: are your children in the habit of fibbing, too?

I'll answer your question, but first answer mine:

So what's your source for the claim that Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999?

I published the image that proves you were fibbing again, along with the link that proves you have known that what you said was wrong since 2012. Why such a blatant lie?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Gee, Tom, thanks for the long argument containing nothing, about nothing.

I'm not sure what your point is. But chaos is the result of guns in the black community.

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

Again, big deal.

Are you saying that guns are a race equalizer? That "shall carry" is an anti-racism mechanism or champion?

State your distortion, whatever it is, clearly for us.

But the fact is that guns have devastated the black communities. Guns aren't working out there. Got it?

Enough already. STFU about how guns will protect the non-violent, MLK, or blacks.

Race, Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]

(Data from FBI UCR and SHR reports.)

n Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and off enders. Th e victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The off ending 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. Th e 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/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Must be the gun ownership rate?

From one of your sources:

In 2010-14, household firearms ownership was higher among households with white respondents (39.0%) than among those with black respondents (18.1%)(Table 4).

This cartoon seemed out of place where it was originally posted and fits better here if it's not going to find its way to a SYG thread.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

This time you didn't re-publish what is a shameful reflection on your integrity: general rates of murder, which distort gun violence rates.Tom Ray, I've been wondering: are your children in the habit of fibbing, too?

I'll answer your question, but first answer mine:

So what's your source for the claim that Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999?

I published the image that proves you were fibbing again, along with the link that proves you have known that what you said was wrong since 2012. Why such a blatant lie?

Jocal, why do you show up in most every gun thread to call me a liar but you won't defend your lie about FDLE stats? Your "I googled it" excuse from post 191 is not credible for two reasons: one, I gave you the link to the FDLE stats in 2012 and several times since then, and two, the FDLE site is the top result if you search for FDLE crime stats. You didn't need to look, and if you did, you missed the top result. Sorry, that smells like BS.

 

[jocal505]

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

This time you didn't re-publish what is a shameful reflection on your integrity: general rates of murder, which distort gun violence rates.Tom Ray, I've been wondering: are your children in the habit of fibbing, too?

I'll answer your question, but first answer mine:

So what's your source for the claim that Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999?

I published the image that proves you were fibbing again, along with the link that proves you have known that what you said was wrong since 2012. Why such a blatant lie?

Jocal, why do you show up in most every gun thread to call me a liar but you won't defend your lie about FDLE stats? Your "I googled it" excuse from post 191 is not credible for two reasons: one, I gave you the link to the FDLE stats in 2012 and several times since then, and two, the FDLE site is the top result if you search for FDLE crime stats. You didn't need to look, and if you did, you missed the top result. Sorry, that smells like BS.

I told no lie. I saw an FDLE poster somewhere, had to google what the FDLE was. Then I hit the link on the poster.

It opened to FL gun stat info going back to the year 2000. That year had fine print, quoting 1999. There you have it.

I may not have opened your link, since many of them are vaporous, and some open to dishonest settings. (e.g. concealed carry killers from Wisconsin.)

I don't have time for discussions that lack credibility.

Unfortunately, you get called a liar by myself because of a pattern of dishonesty. Sorry, but nine examples of mis-truths are shown here.

Two of those examples ("Brady's Best" and the gun research ban denials shown below), have occurred repeatedly.

I am the third anarchist to call you out on dishonest statistical comparisons (besides Pinoccio and Random)--so Tom, any rep for dishonesty is of your own making.

I bring credibility up not as an ad hominem, but as a quality control issue.

 

[Rockdog]

So... which picture were you talking about in your response? In context, it sure looks like you were responding to the one in the post. The one you removed from the post, that is.

This time you didn't re-publish what is a shameful reflection on your integrity: general rates of murder, which distort gun violence rates.Tom Ray, I've been wondering: are your children in the habit of fibbing, too?

I'll answer your question, but first answer mine:

So what's your source for the claim that Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999?

I published the image that proves you were fibbing again, along with the link that proves you have known that what you said was wrong since 2012. Why such a blatant lie?

Jocal, why do you show up in most every gun thread to call me a liar but you won't defend your lie about FDLE stats? Your "I googled it" excuse from post 191 is not credible for two reasons: one, I gave you the link to the FDLE stats in 2012 and several times since then, and two, the FDLE site is the top result if you search for FDLE crime stats. You didn't need to look, and if you did, you missed the top result. Sorry, that smells like BS.

I told no lie. I saw an FDLE poster somewhere, had to google what the FDLE was. Then I hit the link on the poster.

It opened to FL gun stat info going back to the year 2000. That year had fine print, quoting 1999. There you have it.

I may not have opened your link, since many of them are vaporous, and some open to dishonest settings. (e.g. concealed carry killers from Wisconsin.)

I don't have time for discussions that lack credibility.

Unfortunately, you get called a liar by myself because of a pattern of dishonesty. Sorry, but nine examples of mis-truths are shown here.

Two of those examples ("Brady's Best" and the gun research ban denials shown below), have occurred repeatedly.

I am the third anarchist to call you out on dishonest statistical comparisons (besides Pinoccio and Random)--so Tom, any rep for dishonesty is of your own making.

I bring credibility up not as an ad hominem, but as a quality control issue.

It is obvious you do not believe what you post based on your choice to own a firearm. Or you believe you are superior to others who have exercised the same choice?

 

[jocal505]

It is obvious you do not believe what you post based on your choice to own a firearm. Or you believe you are superior to others who have exercised the same choice?

Hi Rockdog. How's the boat?

Yes, I have a gun. Yes, I prefer to keep the gun.

But I also see and count the costs we are paying for such guns...and I consider that as well.

Whether I am "superior to others" is not for me to say. Objective tests, however, could determine my actual risk factors wrt gun ownership.

But dude we have a buddy named Boothy who shows the unacceptable undercurrent: his drives and values place him at risk.

He claims to have passed forty background checks, but won't share the contact info, heh heh...

If I should fail to pass muster on a relatively objective examination, I am at peace with that. Bye bye gun.

(Is that true of you and your friends? Because many of you say openly that you will disobey the gun laws you don't care for.)

I want gun guys to be making the call, and administering the suitability tests, ideally...but your culture is adrift in irresponsibility, IMO.

Rockdog, come on, Tom DIaz and Mark O'Mara and these gun loving scientists are gunowners all. (Diaz can out-shoot you, too.)

Each of us is trying to allow for second amendment rights; none of us is advocating catastrophic gun confiscation.

But each has complaints about second amendment folly right now, and even Diaz says AW's are too much.

The gun lobby has blocked much of the data to determine the high risks of individuals and to determine which "tools", if any are being mis-used.

But it could be that you guys are driving the problem...because checkered mentalities, and even battlefield firepower, are welcome and encouraged.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I love that one of the examples of my "dishonesty" is my claim that Presidential orders can't reduce funding decisions by Congress. LMAO!

Jocal, you need to improve your Googling skills and overcome your fear of following links I provide. You know you can hover over a link and see where it goes, right? If it says something like "fdle.state.us" in the URL, you'll know it's not gun control propaganda, but official stats.

Or is that what scares you?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

...Each of us is trying to allow for second amendment rights; none of us is advocating catastrophic gun confiscation.

But each has complaints about second amendment folly right now, and even Diaz says AW's are too much.

You're extra-funny today! Claiming you're not calling for confiscation and then calling for it in the next sentence.

AW's include Ruger 10-22's and Airsoft guns, according to your elk. An attempt to confiscate millions of such guns would be an ineffective, expensive, and probably dangerous catastrophe.

 

[Saorsa]

...Each of us is trying to allow for second amendment rights; none of us is advocating catastrophic gun confiscation.

But each has complaints about second amendment folly right now, and even Diaz says AW's are too much.

You're extra-funny today! Claiming you're not calling for confiscation and then calling for it in the next sentence.

AW's include Ruger 10-22's and Airsoft guns, according to your elk. An attempt to confiscate millions of such guns would be an ineffective, expensive, and probably dangerous catastrophe.

My revolver moves a new round into position every time I pull the trigger. Is that semi-automatic?

 

[jocal505]

...Each of us is trying to allow for second amendment rights; none of us is advocating catastrophic gun confiscation.

But each has complaints about second amendment folly right now, and generally more effective.

It sounds like some efforts need tweeking. I hope it gets sorted efficiently, too. But Tom, we'll need to start somewhere.

And tossing around the blanket word confiscation is cheap, incendiary trolling.

Calling the SAFE Act’s restrictions “a ban on an entire class of firearms,” Plaintiffs liken the SAFE Act to the ban struck down by the Supreme Court in Heller. But unlike the handgun ban, the SAFE Act applies only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New York State has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense;

it does not totally disarm New York’s citizens; and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their right to self-defense…

(...) In other words, evidence suggests that the banned features make a deadly weapon deadlier...

 

[jocal505]

Last f'ng time I'm asking you, JokeAwf.....Just. How. Many Murders Have Been Committed With 'Assault Rifles' in this country in the past 50 years? I'm giving you 45 minutes to come back with a REAL statistic that shows us the answer....and then try once again to explain to the class here why you feel there's a need to ban & confiscate them all from us civilians.

Clock starts in three minutes....

Go to hell, amigo. Do it yourself.

Booze Posted 22 March 2015 - 05:17 PM

Not too sure about that Crabs----I've gone thru & passed maybe 20-25 Feddy bg checks in the past four years

Yeah, just send your next FFL examiner guys to our threads.

If FFL's shooting bad guys in the back is up to their standards, no problem.

 

[Guest]

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.....

 

[Guest]

Same old shit Tom. Just dissect it until you get the right result. If that division needs to be on race, that's ok with you. Comes across that you are racist. Blame all bad numbers on black people.

Questioning the placing of blame on gun ownership is not placing the blame elsewhere. It's questioning the placing of blame on ownership.

Tom, you DO realize randumb is just trolling you, right?

 

[Guest]

I saw where you calculated that there was an extra gun death for every 21000 guns sold. But that doesn't tell me whether other modes of death stayed stable, increased, or decreased. Suppose there was also a drop in other violent deaths? One extra gun death doesn't concern me so much if there's (just "for example", not actual numbers, just illustrating the logical point) 20 less stabbings, 100 less bludgeonings, 60 less beatings, and an overall drop in violent deaths.

Exactly! I countered that a while ago by suggesting that even if there was one more death per 21K extra guns - that there was likely a LOT LOT more less beatings, stabbings, rapes, assaults, murders as a result of defensive uses of those 21K extra guns. But he blatantly ignored me, as a good troll does. If he won't have an honest discussion about not only the negative consequences of guns but the positives ones as well - its simply not worth even bothering to engage with people like that. He and jocal have repeatedly proven that they cannot be honest brokers here about the discussion.

randumb can cherry pick numbers all day long - but the indisputable fact is that total gun numbers have gone way up while at the same time overall homicides have gone down. Period.

And since they want to continually muddy the waters with suicides - then another inconvenient fact is that while it is true that suicide using a gun has increased - the overall US suicide rate has remained almost perfectly flat for the last 20-30 years. It just simply means that self-killers are substituting a gun for other self-murder means. So what? Dead is dead. For instance, lets say hypothetically in 1990 that 20K people committed suicide - 50% of people killed themselves with rope and 25% with a gun and 25% by other various means. And then in 2010 another 20K people committed self-murder, but this time 50% used a gun, 25% used a rope and 25% by other various means. The suicide number is the same 20 years apart, just with a different tool. So why is the tool the problem???

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

randumb can cherry pick numbers all day long - but the indisputable fact is that total gun numbers have gone way up while at the same time overall homicides have gone down. Period.

You must have missed this on page 1

You must have missed the graph right above your post then. Don't worry, I added it back in for you. Notice is says "firearm deaths" and breaks out the 3 causes: Suicide, homicide and accidents. For the graph reading impaired (you're welcome): Homicides and accidents are down, suicides are slightly up but are back to the exact same level they were 16 years ago and shows the overall suicide rates have been flat for over a decade and down significantly over a 25 year period. ALL WHILE GUN SALES HAVE GONE WAY UP!

So you are simply just too stupid to understand that or simply too stubborn to concede that you are just dead wrong. randumb's "law" is more like randumb's "fairy tale".

 

[Guest]

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?