HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Itís One Of The Craziest ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:28 PM

 

Itís One Of The Craziest Internet Rumors About Guns. And As It Turns Out, Itís True.

Itís a fact so jaw-dropping itís unbelievable ó people thought it was a crazy Internet rumor until Politifact verified it. But itís true: More Americans have died just since 1960 from gun incidents ó suicides, accidents, and homicides ó than died in every war in U.S. history. The deadliest war the U.S. has ever had is the war we waged against ourselves.



http://www.upworthy.com/its-one-of-the-craziest-internet-rumors-about-guns-and-as-it-turns-out-its-true?c=la1

192 replies, 21112 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 192 replies Author Time Post
Reply Itís One Of The Craziest Internet Rumors About Guns. And As It Turns Out, Itís True. (Original post)
HarveyDarkey Feb 2013 OP
Junkdrawer Feb 2013 #1
derby378 Feb 2013 #2
Hissyspit Feb 2013 #4
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #43
nineteen50 Feb 2013 #172
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #190
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #47
Walk away Feb 2013 #79
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #82
JDPriestly Feb 2013 #120
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #128
Flatulo Feb 2013 #92
AllyCat Feb 2013 #114
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #117
druidity33 Feb 2013 #151
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #153
druidity33 Feb 2013 #184
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #187
druidity33 Feb 2013 #189
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #192
AllyCat Feb 2013 #164
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #168
ThoughtCriminal Feb 2013 #174
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #179
AllyCat Feb 2013 #185
tkmorris Feb 2013 #6
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #49
progressoid Feb 2013 #8
Historic NY Feb 2013 #25
Glassunion Feb 2013 #58
Historic NY Feb 2013 #126
gcomeau Feb 2013 #10
frylock Feb 2013 #11
derby378 Feb 2013 #48
auburngrad82 Feb 2013 #154
intaglio Feb 2013 #13
City Lights Feb 2013 #15
robinlynne Feb 2013 #17
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #26
Gore1FL Feb 2013 #37
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #38
BainsBane Feb 2013 #104
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #109
BainsBane Feb 2013 #131
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #144
BainsBane Feb 2013 #166
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #167
BainsBane Feb 2013 #169
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #119
BainsBane Feb 2013 #127
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #132
BainsBane Feb 2013 #136
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #139
BainsBane Feb 2013 #141
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #142
BainsBane Feb 2013 #176
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #177
BainsBane Feb 2013 #180
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #182
BainsBane Feb 2013 #188
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #191
theKed Feb 2013 #145
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #146
robinlynne Feb 2013 #46
jberryhill Feb 2013 #52
rbixby Feb 2013 #31
WilliamPitt Feb 2013 #34
justiceischeap Feb 2013 #39
jberryhill Feb 2013 #50
valerief Feb 2013 #59
Major Nikon Feb 2013 #89
Festivito Feb 2013 #100
Major Nikon Feb 2013 #87
derby378 Feb 2013 #99
Major Nikon Feb 2013 #158
lark Feb 2013 #102
derby378 Feb 2013 #108
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #134
TheMadMonk Feb 2013 #124
bowens43 Feb 2013 #130
Marr Feb 2013 #148
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #3
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #36
dreamnightwind Feb 2013 #55
OldDem2012 Feb 2013 #56
dreamnightwind Feb 2013 #91
lark Feb 2013 #103
dreamnightwind Feb 2013 #112
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #137
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #159
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #157
Glassunion Feb 2013 #61
xchrom Feb 2013 #5
libdem4life Feb 2013 #7
another_liberal Feb 2013 #86
Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #9
Flatulo Feb 2013 #12
tridim Feb 2013 #14
Flatulo Feb 2013 #19
tridim Feb 2013 #33
Flatulo Feb 2013 #53
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #68
Flatulo Feb 2013 #72
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #97
tkmorris Feb 2013 #16
Flatulo Feb 2013 #18
tkmorris Feb 2013 #54
hack89 Feb 2013 #20
Flatulo Feb 2013 #22
Squinch Feb 2013 #27
Flatulo Feb 2013 #57
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #160
Flatulo Feb 2013 #170
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #173
Flatulo Feb 2013 #181
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #186
DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2013 #45
Flatulo Feb 2013 #70
DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2013 #90
Flatulo Feb 2013 #95
valerief Feb 2013 #64
Flatulo Feb 2013 #76
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #84
valerief Feb 2013 #113
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #115
valerief Feb 2013 #116
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #118
Niceguy1 Feb 2013 #73
me b zola Feb 2013 #77
Flatulo Feb 2013 #96
greyl Feb 2013 #78
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #21
maxsolomon Feb 2013 #23
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #35
maxsolomon Feb 2013 #40
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #63
maxsolomon Feb 2013 #175
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #183
FailureToCommunicate Feb 2013 #71
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #75
FailureToCommunicate Feb 2013 #85
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #101
FailureToCommunicate Feb 2013 #125
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #135
FailureToCommunicate Feb 2013 #143
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #152
Squinch Feb 2013 #28
thucythucy Feb 2013 #62
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #74
thucythucy Feb 2013 #80
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #81
thucythucy Feb 2013 #83
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #98
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2013 #149
Liberal In Texas Feb 2013 #24
Omaha Steve Feb 2013 #41
ramapo Feb 2013 #29
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #32
Cleita Feb 2013 #30
napoleon_in_rags Feb 2013 #42
Cleita Feb 2013 #44
hack89 Feb 2013 #138
Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #51
amuse bouche Feb 2013 #60
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #155
Turbineguy Feb 2013 #65
valerief Feb 2013 #69
yellerpup Feb 2013 #66
apocalypsehow Feb 2013 #67
Nevernose Feb 2013 #105
samsingh Feb 2013 #88
DreamGypsy Feb 2013 #93
blahblah98 Feb 2013 #94
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #162
rurallib Feb 2013 #106
Loge23 Feb 2013 #107
Gentle-man Feb 2013 #110
BadgerKid Feb 2013 #111
truebluegreen Feb 2013 #163
Peace_Sells Feb 2013 #121
underpants Feb 2013 #122
indivisibleman Feb 2013 #123
lonestarnot Feb 2013 #129
grantcart Feb 2013 #133
Doctor_J Feb 2013 #156
frustrated_lefty Feb 2013 #140
moondust Feb 2013 #147
King_Klonopin Feb 2013 #150
dmallind Feb 2013 #161
cantbeserious Feb 2013 #165
BlueStreak Feb 2013 #171
Dpm12 Feb 2013 #178

Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:30 PM

1. We're awash in a sea of guns....

and there's an arms race between manufacturers to see who can up the ante next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:31 PM

2. Now edit the chart to reflect only homicides...

...and let's see how the data holds up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:48 PM

4. It seems I heard somewhere it was about a third of that, but

don't quote me.

Related, here's an interesting article: http://www.vpc.org/studies/cfcrisis.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:07 PM

43. I read it is 60 percent that are suicides. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:14 PM

172. Aren't suicides by gun

gun deaths?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nineteen50 (Reply #172)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:55 PM

190. Perhaps preventable with some funding and

increased safety net programs. I am not just talking guns as if not guns then there are infinite other ways to take one's life. The suicides are a symptom of something much deeper. It makes a difference to me. These are people in distress. I posted somewhere else that they have cut funding for the suicide prevention hotline where I live. It is beyond the pale that we are not addressing the problem. It is a whole different subject than one person shooting another for me.
Peace, Mojo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hissyspit (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:12 PM

47. The VPC article twists the facts.

While it is true that most people who are murdered are killed by someone they know, what VPC leaves out is that criminals know each other. Drug dealers know their suppliers, pimps know their hookers, gamg members know members of other gangs, etc. Most murders are committed by a person with a criminal record, and for that matter, most murder victims also have a criminal record. Violent criminals behave violently when they argue - gosh, who would have guessed that?

In discussing Defensive Gun Uses, VPC chooses to use years in the early 1990s, before millions of Americans were able to carry concealed. Obviously people who are unarmed aren't going to use guns in their own defense.

Getting a valid number of DGUs is extremely difficult. By counting only corpses VPC avoids the far higher number of criminals wounded or scared off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:48 PM

79. Or the children who just get wounded with the family gun.....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #79)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:56 PM

82. Rate is about 1 per 100,000 per year.

The rate has been steadily declining for years. While still a tradegy it is a very low rate. There are other things that injury many more children. (Child being defined as a human person below the age of puberty, using age 12 for statistical purposes.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #82)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:54 PM

120. Actually, usually juvenile or child should refer to those under the age of 18.

That is the legal cut-off for the vote among other things. By child the post probably means minor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #120)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:11 PM

128. Nope. Child is pre-puberty. Little child is pre-school.

Adolescent is between puberty and adulthood. The VPC, in order to get the most alarming numbers possible has previously used child as all the way up to 24. When they were embrassed over that then they backed down to 18. There is a huge difference between an 8 year old and a 17 year old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:16 PM

92. Thank you, this deserves it's own OP.

And to make it even more difficult to tabulate DGU, how many CCW holders would actually report to the police that they had brandished their weapon? I sure as hell wouldn't. In Massachusetts, under the best possible scenario, you will be arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon and lose your CC permit of life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #47)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:30 PM

114. Oh, so drug dealers and drug users don't count?

When you get killed in gun violence, it makes a difference what kind of person you are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllyCat (Reply #114)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:40 PM

117. It means that I am unlikely to be murdered by someone that I know.

Anti-gun people love to throw out that fact that if you are murdered your most likely murderer is someone you know instead of a stranger. But for the average law-abiding person, the person most likely to kill them would be a stranger. Since most of us are not part of the criminal underworld then we don't have to worry about our associates.

If you are a violent criminal then you do need to worry about your friends killing you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #117)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 06:34 AM

151. You're making that up aren't you? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #151)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:49 AM

153. No, not made up. Based on solid studies and common sense.

Criminology is a well studied field, established over 200 years ago. It is well known that almost all murderers have prior criminal records. Further, do you deny that drug dealers know their suppliers and each other? Do you deny that Mafia members know each other? Do you deny that pimps know both each other and the women in their stable? Do you deny that gang members know members of other gangs?

I can recommend some reading for you:

The Creation of Dangerous Violent Criminals by Lonnie H. Athens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Athens

Article in USA Today Criminals Target Each Other http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm

Here is a study: The Myth of the Virgin Killer, http://firearms.hoffmang.com.s3.amazonaws.com/kates/Myth_of_the_Virgin_Killer-Kates-Polsby.pdf and a quote from the paper: Murder is a very unusual behavior and perpetrators turn out on investigation to be extreme aberrants. Studies of homicide uniformly find almost all murderers differ markedly from ordinary people in having life histories of violence, felony, psychopathology, substance abuse, restraining orders and so forth.

Use your common sense. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In your own life you use that rule daily. There are people who you trust because you have observed them to be trustworthy. There are people whom you know to be peaceful, and possibly some you know to be violent. And you correctly expect them to continue to be the same way. Only rarely does someone make a radical change in their lifestyle. Such a sudden change, when it happens, often is a sign of a brain tumor or injury.

Which couple would you expect to hurt each other? A couple whom you know to be peaceful and loving, or a couple you know to have violent raging fights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #153)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:36 PM

184. Your "common sense" is anecdotal...

and your links offer no evidence of your theory.

Here's another example of anecdotal evidence.... Dahmer and the Son of Sam were both considered "next door neighbor" type people. Quiet. Trustworthy, etc. How'd that work out?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #184)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:58 PM

187. And I know a man who is 80 and smokes.

Why doesn't he have cancer? I guess he proves that smoking is safe.

You don't understand statistics do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #187)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:17 AM

189. you don't understand anecdotal evidence, do you?

I see a USA Today article that quotes a few Police Departments and gives percentages about MURDER rates and HOMICIDE... i don't see the word "gun" in the article at all. I see a long PDF about the "Virgin Killer" phenomena which doesn't address the conversation we are having about GUN deaths in this country. You can't just say "there are studies that prove this" and not expect people to question that.

You're making a VERY narrow point here anyway.

Did you know that more Americans have been killed in domestic gun incidents since 1960 than have been killed in ALL our wars combined? Are you saying 90% of those killed were criminals?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to druidity33 (Reply #189)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:48 PM

192. I am saying, that almost all of the killers were already criminals.

It is rare for a law-abiding person to kill for their first crime. Please note that rare does NOT mean "never", as it does happen sometimes. Since such people are rare, then you won't have a measuable effect on crime by trying to take guns away from law-abiding people.

And well over half of those killed did have criminal records. That is how violent criminals settle business disputes. Since I am law-abiding, then my probability of being murdered by someone I know is reduced to almost ("Almost" does NOT mean "never".) zero, so my greatest deliberate violent threat would be from strangers - meaning street crime.

People like yourself who want to ban guns always lump legal and illegal gun owners into the same pot.

You have been trying to use anecdotal evidence (Son of Sam, Columbine, etc.) to paint all legal gun owners as murderers waiting to snap. The statistics show that, as a group, we are very safe.

Here is a link to stats on 525,000+ legal gun carriers, compared to the general population, and a graph: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #117)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:28 AM

164. If you are law-abiding, no bad person could possibly ever come in contact with you.

Right. Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllyCat (Reply #164)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:08 PM

168. Put the straw man back in the barn.

I never claimed that "no bad person could possibly ever come in contact with you." Those are your words, not mine. I do claim that I greatly reduce the probability, but not all the way to zero chance. That is impossible. And there is some risk of assault from street crime. To counter the risk of street crime I stay alert and carry a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #47)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:50 PM

174. Just like the Columbine HS killers knew most of their victims


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #174)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:36 PM

179. Put the strawman back in the barn.

I do NOT make the claim that ALL associate killings will be within the criminal world. I do make the claim that most of them will. In one of my posts I suggested some reading: a book, an article, and a study.

Sometimes, but rarely, the a previously law-abiding person will commit murder as their first serious crime, and will kill people they know. I do not deny that. But when you look at the statistics you find that it is extremely rare for that to happen.

Most murderers AND most murder victims have lengthy criminals records. That is a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #179)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:45 PM

185. Scarecrows all around then. At least they won't kill anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:56 PM

6. I don't know what could be gleaned by doing that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:14 PM

49. I think a lot can be gleaned from it

I would like to see how all suicide by any method matches up also. It seems it is a serious problem and it badly needs to be addressed. I know where I live they closed down the suicide prevention hotline. Can you imagine that anyone would cut funds in that area? It boggles the mind!
These numbers could be used to pressure politicians to refund some of these programs and perhaps develop new ones. It would be good to know why so many people are in a place where they feel this is their only option. Is is a lack of mental health programs, a problem of accessibility, financial desperation, or what? That would be a good study. It breaks my heart that so many people feel this is their only way out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:00 PM

8. And then add in all the years prior to 1968.

Since the data for the war deaths goes back the the revolutionary war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:40 PM

25. Battle deaths....


America's Wars Total (1775Ė1991)
Battle deaths 651,031
Other deaths in service (theater) 308,800
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 230,254
Nonmortal woundings 1,430,290

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html#ixzz2KFfgTK9y

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:25 PM

58. When did the drug war start?

I know it was during Nixon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #58)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:10 PM

126. War on Cancer did too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:05 PM

10. Why?

Because the risk of accidental death caused by having hundreds of millions of guns floating around in a ridiculously poorly regulated environment is something to be ignored? Because the increased rate of suicide (almost five TIMES higher in households with guns in the home) associated with the same is also something to be ignored?

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:10 PM

11. because of lalalalalalalalalalala..

I can't hear you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gcomeau (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:13 PM

48. I think you were the first to ask something in this vein, so here goes...

The gun debate is heavily charged with emotion on both sides, not all of it healthy. When the term "gun violence" is invoked, some people will use that term to mean any injury in which a firearm is involved. I've even seen cops get injured by mishandling their duty pistols.

What happened at Sandy Hook, as horrible as it was, was still a crime. A multiple homicide, to be as clinical as possible. While I can be sickened by the thought of kindergarteners being gunned down by a madman, I can also call for a certain distance from the emotion of it all and try to view the statistics in terms of crime instead of guns, because I'm as sick of the crime as you are. As a gun owner who is in legal possession of a "politically incorrect" rifle, it's fair to say that I'm concerned about my rights as well as everyone else's, not to mention the impact on Democratic elected officials down the line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #48)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:45 AM

154. The original post does not separate murders from any other gun death

It says "domestic gun incidents". It also doesn't say that all the military deaths are due to guns.

Are you saying that the three year old who shot himself with a pink handgun that looked like a toy should not count in the gun statistics because it's not a violent murder?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:12 PM

13. You mean fiddle the figures

So that they support the profit driven agenda of the gun manufacturers? What possible motive might you have behind that???

On the other hand if you edit the figures the way you want then you would have to take out all of the Americans who died in war due to bombs, mines, IEDs, air crash, naval action, artillery fire, gas, disease, suicide and accident. Would you still want to compare the figures? I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:16 PM

15. Why should the chart be edited?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:22 PM

17. why? accidents, homicides, both are preventable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:41 PM

26. Accidents and homicides account for just barely over 1/3 of that.

Unless you think suicides are accidental.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:01 PM

37. They are preventable in some cases. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:03 PM

38. I would agree with that.

But the same is also true of other means of suicide, sadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:36 PM

104. none of which are nearly as effective

90% of suicide attempts by gun suceed, whereas 5% of attempts with pills succeed. Guns make all the difference in people dying at their own hand.
But you know that. You told me yourself. Only now you've decided to pretend that fact is inconsequential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #104)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:51 PM

109. Why did you compare it to one of the least effective methods just now?

First off, considering both genders, firearms are about 84%: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22224886

Hanging/suffocation is about 65% successful in the US. What's the point of comparing it to pills?
Also, the issue of suicide is largely inconsequential, to borrow your word, in the ongoing debate of things like assault weapons, since there is no firearm 'mild' enough for suicide prevention. Any firearm will do, for the most part, even a single shot .22.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #109)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:14 PM

131. Because those are the most common methods

Nice to know you find the lives of suicide victims "inconsequential." This OP isn't about the AWB, it's about the death toll by guns, something that you obviously don't care about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #131)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:00 AM

144. I didn't say they were inconsequential.

Currently, before the congress are bills around high cap weapons, assault weapons, large magazines, etc.

That issue is relevant to murder-suicides, including but not limited to mass-murder shootings.


THIS metric (the overall suicide rate with firearms) is pertinent only to a discussion around removing ALL firearms, no matter how 'mild', because that is the only way to prevent those deaths. Limiting weapon capacity, rate of fire, none of these items are interesting to this discussion, because it only takes a single bullet.

SO, totaling up the number of people, INCLUDING people who have chosen to commit suicide, in some big number to 'make a point' doesn't really make ANY point relevant to the 'firearms' discussion before the nation right now, because 2/3 of those number committed suicide, and any ancient single shot weapon, even from the time of the founders is sufficient to complete the job.

The PEOPLE who have committed suicide, including my first boss, whom I miss very much, are not inconsequential to me. And if you look again at what I said, it's clear I didn't say what you just implied, and that annoys me greatly that you would frame it that way.

Lets keep this civil and honest, ok?

Edit: And when I say 'honest', let's not over-state the number of successful firearm suicides, and then compare it to one of the LEAST successful methods, when there are other methods on-par with firearms. That was not very honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #144)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:01 PM

166. that is true in regard to most gun control measures

other than universal background checks and improved mental health care. If done right, both of those could reduce suicides.

Obviously most people aren't killing themselves with AR-15s.

The point in this OP is relevant because it shows the toll gun violence has had on the nation. You might prefer that information were not known, but people care. It's a shocking fact, and symptom of a diseased, violent culture that privileges guns above human life.

The reason greater measures aren't on the table is because of the institutional corruption in government. 91% of Americans support universal background checks, but the NRA opposes then and even that may be a struggle to get through congress. The proposed measures are baby steps that might help some, but Americans will continue to have access to more guns than any other nation on earth. We will continue to be the most violent society in the industrialized world, and tens of thousands of people will continue to die by gun every year. So you're correct that it doesn't relate directly to most of the gun control measures being proposed (which was not the point of the OP). It does relates to fundamental questions of humanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #166)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:08 PM

167. Personally, I would just

let the NRA keep braying on against universal background checks, and not say a word. I think they are quickly painting themselves into a corner of irrelevance on this issue, by that stance. I wouldn't do anything to discourage them from it.

I agree, universal background checks WILL help prevent suicides by firearm. I couldn't guess at the percentage, but certainly some people who acquire access to a firearm do so AFTER being adjudicated mentally deficient at some point in their lives, yet they still get access, probably through grey market or black market transfers. Eliminate the jump where a weapon goes from a 'legal' owner, to the illicit markets, and there are fewer firearms in play for them to access.

It will help in a couple other ways as well, but I think, actually we mostly agree here then. And you raise a good point, I tend to think mostly about just the issues that are being debated around banning certain firearms and certain features, but ALSO at issue is the background checks, and that IS relevant. Mea culpa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #167)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:16 PM

169. I'm glad we agree on that

and I appreciate your acknowledging you're mistaken on an issue, as you also did in the thread about gun instruction in schools. So I must acknowledge it was dishonest of me to accuse you of saying suicides were "inconsequential." I apologize.

I don't know what LaPierre is thinking, but I do hope he's making his organization increasingly irrelevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #104)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:51 PM

119. Suicide was known long before guns were invented.

There are many very effective ways to commit suicide and web sites that explain them in detail.

I am a senior citizen and while in reasonable health for my age, if the time should come that I may chose death with dignity I will get a bottle of nitrogen from an industrial supply place, rig up a mask, and breathe pure nitrogen. Fast, painless, not messy.

That you compare guns to pills shows that you are trying to slant the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #119)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:11 PM

127. hello

earth to Green Storm Cloud. Read my post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #127)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:17 PM

132. I did.

You tried to compare suicide rates of guns vs that of pills to make guns look bad. I pointed out that extremely effective means of suicide have been around for tens of thousands of years. Jumping headfirst from a very high place is extremely effective, and fast, and ancient. Outlawing guns won't stop suicides. After all, Japan has no guns and a higher suicide rate than ours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #132)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:31 PM

136. to make guns look bad?

Gun are very efficient at killing. Those are basic facts.

Your argument is entirely speculative and not substantiated by any empirical evidence. No other method of suicide is nearly as lethal as guns. There is a huge chasm between intent and a completed suicide.

Guns are only bad if one thinks killing is bad. I happen to think killing, even by one's own hand, is a bad thing. Obviously gun activists feel very differently about that than the rest of us. You are happy to live with the high rates of death listed in the OP. There is no requirement you place a high value on human life. As long as you obey the law, you don't have to care about anyone. But your attempts to distract from the matter by inventing hypotheticals is a canard. No one who doesn't think exactly like you buys it. So spare me your self-justification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #136)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:38 PM

139. No other method is as lethal - bullshit.

There are methods that are 100% effective, and have been around forever.

Yes, guns are deadly, and easy to use. That is what make them such an excellent self-defense tool for those of us who aren't able to fight off a mugger or burglar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #139)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:41 PM

141. find the stats

find me evidence from CDC or some other respected agency that shows another method is as effective or more effective than guns. Not even guns are 100% effective. You don't even seem to understand what you're talking about in regard to lethality. The scientific method isn't your friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #141)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:04 PM

142. I can easily list 100% methods.

Tie a weight to your feet and jump into deep water.
Breathe pure carbon monoxide for a few minutes.
Breathe pure nitrogen for a few minutes.
Do a belly flop jump into pool of molten lava.
Lie with your neck on the rail of a railroad track in front of a fast train.
I remember in the early 1960s some Buddist monks who set themselves on fire to protest the dictator (Diem?) of S. Vietnam. None of them lived.

You should not need an expert to tell you that there are methods that will work every time.

The list is limited only by the imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #142)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:03 PM

176. You fail to grasp the point

The CDC takes reports of attempted suicides and completed suicides within a given year or set of years. They then do a basic calculation based on the method the person used. 90% of those who used guns were successful (meaning they killed themselves). 5% of attempts by pills were successful. This is demographic information based on police reports. Your imagination is not empirically verifiable data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #176)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:28 PM

177. So you think someone can survive being beheaded?

Do you really need an expert to know that drowning is fatal? You insist on comparing guns to pills. There are many methods of suicide, other than guns and pills. Since people have been killing themselves ever since there have been people, then it appears that it is fairly easy to do. Perhaps you should try using some common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #177)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:38 PM

180. How many people kill themselves by beheading?

I don't understand why you find such basic concepts as lethality of suicide methods across the population so difficult to understand. This is obviously a lost cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #180)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:30 PM

182. Because you seem to insist that only guns have high lethality.

I am pointing out that 100% lethal means are easily available to the average person. You seem to be insisting that suicide is difficult to do and that if a gun isn't available that the person would have a hard time killing themselves. I am pointing out to you that suicide is a very easy act to perform, once the person has made that decision. Taking guns away still leaves many methods available that are 100% effective. You don't need a doctorate in engineering to arrange for your own decapitation, not does it take a CDC study to confirm that decapitation is 100% lethal.

I would suggest to you that the people who choose survivable means aren't really trying to kill themselves but are crying for help. People who really do want to kill themselves can easily use effective means that are available to everybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #182)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:36 PM

188. there is no such thing as 100% lethality

No method works every time. Of course anything is possible in a hypothetical alternate reality. But the fact is guns kill more people by suicide than any other method. They are designed to be efficient killing machines, and they perform as such. That is why 9 out of every 10 people who try to kill themselves with guns succeed, whereas only 1 out of 20 who tried to kill themselves with guns end up dead. Those are basic facts. Imagining alternate realities doesn't change what actually happens in real life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #188)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:30 PM

191. Show me someone who has surived decapitation.

You don't have to have a doctorate in engineering to arrange for it, just lie down with your neck on a railroad track in front of a train.

Trains have been around for well over 150 years and have been used for suicide before, so it isn't imaginary.

There are many ways that are 100% effective at suicide. How many survived drinking the Kool-Aid at Jonestown? Zero. Or do you think that Jonestown was imaginary?

Do you think that guns or pills are the ONLY methods of suicide?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #132)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:10 AM

145. Well actually

the comparison was between success rates, not volume of suicides. Point being it is much much easier to accomplish with a gun. With pills there's time to have second thoughts, be found and saved, maybe you don't take enough, or the wrong kind, etc, etc. Guns are the most efficient way of doing it and removing guns from the avalable options will reduce suicide rates relative to the American suicide rate baseline (not comparing to Japanese rates, as they have very significant cultural differences in the area of suicide).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #145)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:42 AM

146. Try comparing guns to jumping from a very high place.

Pills do have a high failure rate for suicide which suggests that the person didn't really want to kill themselves but was crying for help. There are lots of simple, fast, 100% effective methods. Guns are only one of many methods. People have been killing themselves ever since there have been people. The point of me bringing up Japan is that they don't have guns but still manage to kill themselves at a high rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:09 PM

46. of course. implicit. gun regalualtions would prevent hndreds if not thusands of accidents AND homici

homicides. A death by accident is a death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:18 PM

52. The set "homicide" includes "accident"


The word "homicide" does not refer to an intentional killing. It is the broad classification of which intentional homicide is a subset.

One of thing things police do when investigating a "homicide" is to try to determine whether or not the homicide was accidental.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:45 PM

31. Because the only gun deaths that count

are homicides, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:47 PM

34. Because people involved in non-homicide gun deaths are less dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:04 PM

39. Cause a young child accidentally shooting his or her friend/sibling doesn't count?

I could see taking suicides out of it but accidental shootings that result in death are just as valid as homicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:16 PM

50. It would be good if you knew the definition of "homicide"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:26 PM

59. What difference does that make? You mean someone would suicide with

a spoon instead of a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #59)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:06 PM

89. No, chocolate of course



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #89)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:59 PM

100. Torture and death are okay, but that contains hemp!!!11!!!111111!!

Oh noes!!!1!!!1!111

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:05 PM

87. So those deaths don't count?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #87)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:58 PM

99. Your words, not mine...

If you think those deaths don't count, that's your own lookout. But if you seek nothing but simple answers to complex problems, don't be surprised when they blow up in your face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #99)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:12 AM

158. You were the one who suggested to count only homicides

Other advanced countries have found pretty simple answers that appear to be quite effective, and I just don't see the down side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:17 PM

102. Homicides are only part of the problem

Accidental shootings are probably about equal to homicides and most children killed are accidentally, not intentionally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #102)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:45 PM

108. I agree...

...which is why I always say "Education, education, for the love of Pete, education."

Better to educate gun owners and thus reduce the frequency of accidents than to merely treat gun owners as though they're still only in grade school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #102)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:24 PM

134. Sorry, but more children are gun murdered than die in gun accidents.

I use child to mean a human below puberty, usually 12 years old.

The 2007 CDC page: http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe shows 51 accidental firearms deaths for age 0-12. Gun murders for the same age is 156. We do not know the age range of the killers but I would assume that most would be adults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:29 PM

124. NO! WHY? Because you ATTEMPT suicide with drugs...

 

...or dramatic gestures on ledges and bridges.

You SUCCEED when you put the muzzle in your mouth.

Oh, and the legal argument for making attempted suicide a crime is that IT IS ALSO A HOMICIDE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:13 PM

130. Why? Gun death is gun death

I am so sick of the gun fetishists trying to trivialize dead men women and children to try to justify thier sickness

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:50 AM

148. Why?

I've nearly been shot on two separate occasions by idiots who weren't handling their weapons properly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:32 PM

3. Explains why some of us think it's ok to take each other out with drones

A sick fuck culture...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:49 PM

36. Just curious, but when's the last time a drone was used on an American in the US or....

...US territories? Or do you believe that's actually being done?

One more question....do you believe the Americans overseas who have chosen to be enemy combatants deserve due process even though they don't fall under the provisions of the 6th Amendment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:19 PM

55. Fixed it for you

"do you believe the Americans overseas who have chosen to be enemy combatants"

should be

do you believe the Americans overseas who some unidentified and unquestioned U.S. government official or contractor claims to be enemy combatants (though the accused is never confronted nor given the chance to refute the accusations)

Not as catchy, but far more accurate than your original statement, and more illustrative of the actual problem with this policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #55)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:23 PM

56. Uh, no....I got it right the first time. I stand by the wording in my post. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:09 PM

91. Be my guest, it's still wrong though

since it makes the assumption that people being targeted as enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants, yet the targeted people have no opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. So, while many would support the statement the way you presented it (though I would probably not), fewer would support the actual circumstance, which is that we have to take the government's word that the targeted person was an enemy combatant, with little to no transparency in the facts behind their determination, and with absolutely no opportunity for the targeted person to refute the government's assertion. That's very, very different than what you said, but it's the actual situation, whether you admit it or not.

Sorry to appear testy about this, I have no issues with you as a poster here. This issue, and what I perceive as its casual acceptance by some people here, is very disturbing to me and the devil is indeed in the gap between enemy combatant and alleged enemy combatant. Peace, I hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:24 PM

103. Think you are missing the point

How do you know the American killed overseas is really an enemy combatant and not just some crazy kid who wants to live a simple life out of this country? He could have the same name or look like someone thought to be an enemy combatant, but be 100% innocent and he's still dead based on nothing more than speculation. That is the entire issue, killing an American citizen based on nothing more than suspicion. How can anyone condone that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #103)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:22 PM

112. Yes, and I would extend that concern

to include non-Americans. If they're trying to kill us, prove it, and if it can be proven, then fine, they're combatants and they deserve what happens to them. Short of that, though, killing someone, whether our citizen or some other country's citizen, should be unacceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #103)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:32 PM

137. It has been done before, in this country.

John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde were killed by ambush, no chance to surrender, no trial. I don't shed any tears for them but it was still unconstitutional.

At Ruby Ridge the FBI was told to shoot on sight.

At Waco a lot of little kids were killed as collateral damage.

In Philadelphia MOVE was burned out and with them and entire block.

The drone missiles are just continuing a long tradition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #137)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:39 AM

159. Yes. A stupid, immmoral one

that causes more problems than it solves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:31 AM

157. "and their families, friends and neighbors"

also victims of drone strikes, which many at DU are now fans of because Obama is the one giving the orders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:27 PM

61. That's what the LAPD is for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:54 PM

5. Du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 03:59 PM

7. Reminds me of a Wise Teacher...They who live by the sword, shall die by the sword.

Of course, update swords to guns and bombs and other WMD.

I interpret that to mean cultures ... empires ... aggressors ... criminals ... and often in their own homes by accident or suicide.

Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:03 PM

86. Add to that the newer saying . . .

Add to that the newer saying:

"Those who needlessly carry around loaded firearms just because they think it makes them look manly or cool often shoot themselves with them and sometimes even die from their quite avoidable wounds."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:01 PM

9. I'm not at all surprised.

When you are looking at 30,000 gun related deaths a year, the numbers are going to add up.

It's incredibly sad, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:12 PM

12. I'd like to see this data sorted by geography. I suspect that homicides are heavily skewed

towards urban areas. Gangsters shooting each other over drugs.

If you're afraid of getting shot, get out of the cities and your odds will improve greatly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:15 PM

14. Just move if you don't want to get shot! It's that easy!!!!!!!11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:25 PM

19. Actually, getting killed by all weapons is more likely in the city. If you're worried about being

beaten to death or stabbed, I would also suggest getting out of the cities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:46 PM

33. I'm not worried about any of those things.

And I live smack dab in the middle of a fairly large city.

Living in fear is not my idea of life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:18 PM

53. I applaud your attitude. Life is too short to spend in fear.

But having said that, I do feel that we need to act on violence. I'm not sure what the right solution is, but guns are certainly a big part of it. Too many of the wrong people are getting them. And as a gun owner, I really don't see the use of 30 round clips. I'd be happy with 5 or 7. Thorough background checks for everyone. Safe storage laws with civil or criminal liability, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:30 PM

68. I live in the big city and feel perfectly safe. When I lived in a tiny

town in the rural west several years ago I actually encountered more sketchy characters than I ever have here. Lots of those folks made me nervous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:33 PM

72. Obviously YMMV. There area higher crime areas in every big city.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:38 PM

97. Many folks aren't rich enough to move. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:19 PM

16. More people get shot where more people live

Hmmm. Yeah that's probably true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:23 PM

18. I doubt very much if its even remotely linear as you suggest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:19 PM

54. Of course not, I was being flip

There are however a number of clearly identifiable reasons why this would be so beyond what you said in your post, which read to me as almost racist in it's overtones. There seemed little point in going into them at any length however, given your stated position. One must allocate one's resources wisely you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:28 PM

20. No - where there is concentrated poverty in cities are where the shooting is

in Chicago, for example, the recent spike in gun deaths is concentrated in a handful of neighborhoods - there are many Chicago neighborhoods that are extremely safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:31 PM

22. Correct. Like most analyses, the data gets smeared by lack of resolution.

In Boston, for example, nearly all homicides occur in a few extremely poor areas, but overall the city is quite safe. But the total number of homicides per capita for the city looks bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:42 PM

27. So the point is what? If the results are skewed urban, that's OK? Because urban people

are somehow more expendable? And so your answer is, instead of tightening gun laws people should move out of the cities?

Do you hear yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:24 PM

57. Wow, that's quite a heated debate you're having with yourself.

I just pointed out that the cities are less safe. Tightening gun laws are certainly one thing to look at. But beatings, standings, stompings and every other type of violence is worse in urban areas.

Pack people tightly together in poverty and violence ensues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #57)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:45 AM

160. You might want to check out up-to-date statistics on violent crime.

Rates in many cities have been dropping since the nineties until now they are on a par with rural areas.

Presumed culprit? Lead in gas > in environment. Clean that up, let a new generation grow up and voila. Everybody gets to reset their assumptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #160)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:43 PM

170. Although violent crime has been dropping across the board for 20 years, urban firearm

homicide rates are 2X greater than rural.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #170)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:40 PM

173. Nice try.

That study was published in 2004, using data collected between 1989 and 1999.

Almost 15 years out of date. And since the violent crime rate has been dropping since the early-mid 90s, your statistical study reflects what WAS, not what IS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #173)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:25 PM

181. Let's see your data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #181)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 05:23 PM

186. if you want to do some serious wading, go here:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221

Although right up front they give a few highlights, including this one:

In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.


Another thing to do is google "crime and lead". There's an excellent article in Mother Jones with an overview on the crime rate, whether or not you accept the premise (i.e. the connection). There are other publications also.

But I figure you'll need the actual data so happy digging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:09 PM

45. And if you're not afraid of being shot, why on earth do you have a gun?

Your post implies that you don't live in an unsafe place. It also implies that you're a gun owner. If both of these are correct, then why is it you have a gun? What are you afraid of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:31 PM

70. I'm not afraid of anything, really. I've had a gun for over 40 years and haven't ever had to use it

defensively. But I also wear my seatbelt, even though I've never had an accident. I take Lipitor even though I've never had a heart attack. I also buy life insurance.

I do take self-defense very seriously, because I take myself very seriously. I consider myself and my family very worthy of defending. And I rely on no one else to perform that role.

There's an old saying - better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. I guess I'm kind of subscribing to that school of thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #70)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:07 PM

90. Can't say I agree with you, but thanks for the reply. n/t

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #90)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:31 PM

95. And thank you for being civil. I grew up with guns in my family and had my own .22 rifle when I was

18 y/o. It was no big deal. If we touched my dad's guns, he'd kick our asses. Never got into trouble of any kind with any fun. Never had an accidental discharge, and I keep the guns locked up.

It's a divisive issue, no doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:28 PM

64. Gun deaths aren't all homicides. Look at all the stories of little kids killing themselves

with guns, because some jerk left one around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #64)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:40 PM

76. Agreed, and I didn't meant to imply that kids getting killed by accident isn't a problem.

One of the things that really pisses me off is that very, very few handguns are designed so that they can't fire when the clip is removed. Often someone will hand someone a pistol with no clip in it, assuming its safe, but there's a live round in the chamber.

Guns should be required to include an interposer that prevents firing when the clip is removed, as well as a very clear indicator of a live round in the chamber.

And of course, anyone who leaves a gun accessible to kids should be charged. Exceptions for law enforcement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #64)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:01 PM

84. Rate is about 1 per million children per year.

That is using a child as a person under age 12.

While still a tradegy, it is too few to make national policy over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #84)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:26 PM

113. Does that include the kids who shoot other kids?

Doesn't matter. Too many gun deaths for ANY reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #113)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:35 PM

115. Yes, it does. All accidental gun deaths.

Small children shooting other small children are assumed to be accidents, not criminal acts.

Small children have to carefully watched by adults all the time or they can have many different types of accidents, not just with guns.

I do not consider the 28 accidental gun deaths last year of children under 6 to be sufficient reason to take my guns away from me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #115)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:35 PM

116. I do. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #116)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:42 PM

118. You don't have the votes to take my guns away. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:34 PM

73. I think it the FBI or

Maybe the DOJ that had a cranked out the showed most of the violence and murders are clustered around cities with a population over 250k. If the goal is to reduce "gun violence". Maybe we should look at measures that address instead of focusing on measures the will only have a very minor effec, statistically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:43 PM

77. Gangsters, huh? lol

I think that you may end up being surprised if you chose to do it per/100 persons to adjust for population density. I don't know the statistics, but I would be surprised if there were more gun incidents in the city as opposed to a rural area if you adjust for population density.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to me b zola (Reply #77)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:35 PM

96. Do you live near a big city? I'm outside Boston, and almost every night there's a shooting there

in the news. You rarely hear about it in the bedroom towns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:43 PM

78. Here's some related data for discussion:

UrbanĖRural Shifts in Intentional Firearm Death: Different Causes, Same Results

Objectives. We analyzed urbanĖrural differences in intentional firearm death.

Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to 3141 US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category urbanĖrural variable.

Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval =0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI=1.29, 1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban. The most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the adjusted firearm homicide rate of the most rural. Similar opposing trends were not found for nonfirearm suicide or homicide.

Conclusions. Firearm suicide in rural counties is as important a public health problem as firearm homicide in urban counties. Policymakers should become aware that intentional firearm deaths affect all types of communities in the United States.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/


Deadly Violence in the Heartland: Comparing Homicide Patterns in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan
Counties


Perhaps the most thorough examination of rural homicide and rural violence has been conducted by Augustine Kposowa and colleagues (Kposowa & Breault, 1993; Kposowa, Breault, & Harrison, 1995). They persuasively argue that homicide studies drawing on only the largest metropolitan areas may be biased because of the empirical limitations of such data. They note that urbanism is generally associated with homicide, but by focusing on only the largest metropolitan areas, researchers substantially limit the variation in urbanism in their samples. Similarly truncated variation may be found with other variables commonly associated with homicide, including poverty and percentage of the population that is African American (Kposowa & Breault, 1993). By including rural cases in the study of homicide, many problems resulting from truncated variation can be resolved. Significantly, the authors also found that of the 30 United States counties with the highest homicide rates, 23 had populations of fewer than 20,000 people. Thus, although the most rural counties had lower homicide rates overall, there was substantial variation among rural counties in the rate of homicide, a range of variation unmatched in purely metropolitan samples. Kposowa and Breault (1993) concluded that the model that best accounted for variance in urban homicide rates was not the model that best accounted for homicide rates in rural areas. Economic inequality, for example, ďwas a predictor of homicide in urban counties, (but)
it failed to be related to homicide in rural areasĒ (Kposowa &Breault, 1993, p. 44).

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Jak1HeOPOYUJ:www.sagepub.com/oswcondensed/study/articles/13/Weisheit.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjIzCY98NyDg-gKHSC05Wan0Flaiw_5RLGmCFOW8J2FTasH2dJcxtbI_isEaoURO-iCXKWdjycS0mvx1jDmaL0iXMkPlInBboM2LTzLLzy6jq_GTDAtbpnaAyY4Dky882tKLZNL&sig=AHIEtbRrxTeasK9IJQnUZILKWEOm1k5w8Q

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:31 PM

21. Funny...

 

That it includes suicides.
How many?
You have to believe another method would have been found

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:34 PM

23. Yes, suicides are very funny.

Are you contending that suicide by firearm is not a firearm death?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:48 PM

35. Funny as in "Strange", not funny as in "Ha Ha"

 

No of course not.
But I AM saying that a statistic like that is a sensational and misleading case for more gun control.

If you want to have a conversation about guns, and relate them to Homicides, or accidental deaths, or Domestic Violence, where if not for the gun, x number of people would be alive, then fine.

I would argue that you ALSO need to include cases where, if not for a gun, X number of people would be DEAD.
For example, police using guns to subdue a suspect, armed citizens using guns for personal defense.

But to throw out a statistic like the above, in the context of "We wouldn't have all these deaths if guns were banned" and include suicide in the number of deaths is disingenuous and misleading.

People, instead of shooting themselves, would jump off buildings, take pills or sit in a hot bath and slit their wrists.
The fact that the mode of death is a gun is irrelevant, and begs the question... do you want fewer deaths? Or only fewer guns?

Also - saw no statistical breakdown as to accident, crime victim, suicide, dv, etc, nor even any source info as to from where this data was compiled.

It's a poor study.

Sorry...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:04 PM

40. It's supposed to be a generalized, inclusive number. A point is being made.

Parsing it the way you want, to dimish the scale of the carnage, is typical Pro-firearm Sophistry.

All people who kill themselves by gun would NOT kill themselves in another way. This is a known fact. Firearms enable IMPULSE suicide. A gun makes success more likely.

The mode of death is extremely relevant.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/01/20/the-gun-toll-ignoring-suicide/xeWBHDHEvvagfkRlU3CfZJ/story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:27 PM

63. Generalization is rarely of any intellectual value

 

All people who kill themselves by gun would NOT kill themselves in another way.


That is something impossible to prove or disprove.
It is really just parsing a set of facts together to arrive at the desired conclusion.

If they had no access to a gun would they have taken their lives another way?
At a later time?

This is a known fact.

Citation Needed
Known by whom?
How?
Based on what evidence?

(The link you post is argument based on a statistic. Not facts)

The argument that guns cause or facilitate suicide that would not otherwise occur is no different than saying the Death Penalty deters crime. I don't happen to think it does, but it can be neither proven nor disproven.

Even if they were ALL impulse suicides (another fact not in evidence and imposible to prove or even theorize), how many would have comitted impulse suicide with pills (a far more effective manner of suicide)?
Answer: We don't have the first clue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #63)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:56 PM

175. Again, you are using Pro-firearm Sophistry to tear down a GENERAL POINT.

The OP asserts that ALL US civilian firearm deaths are now greater in number than all the deaths in American wars. It is supposed to be a number that makes people think, to reconsider their opinion on guns. Instead it prompts you to argue with multiple people that the number is inaccurate.

Suicide by gun is a subset of the larger category of firearm deaths. My assertion is that guns facilitate SUCCESS in attempting suicide to a greater degree than other methods.

Whether or not that person would have attempted/succeeded by another method is irrelevant for the purposes of the OP. They didn't. Statistically, they are a gun suicide death and go into the larger category of gun deaths. Why is that so difficult to accept?

Here's another link for you to reject as not factual:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

A relevant paragraph:
Beyond sheer lethality, however, what makes gun suicide attempts so resistant to traditional psychological suicide-prevention protocols is the high degree of impulsivity that often accompanies them. In a 1985 study of 30 people who had survived self-inflicted gunshot wounds, more than half reported having had suicidal thoughts for less than 24 hours, and none of the 30 had written suicide notes. This tendency toward impulsivity is especially common among young people ó and not only with gun suicides. In a 2001 University of Houston study of 153 survivors of nearly lethal attempts between the ages of 13 and 34, only 13 percent reported having contemplated their act for eight hours or longer. To the contrary, 70 percent set the interval between deciding to kill themselves and acting at less than an hour, including an astonishing 24 percent who pegged the interval at less than five minutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #175)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 04:36 PM

183. My problem is with the flawed comparison

 

There are 2 problems here.
1) The OP's statement makes a flawed comparison. Consider the following FACTS:

FACT: Guns have been in civillian hands every hour of every day since 1776. The US has NOT been in a state of war every hour of every day since 1776.

FACT: EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 1999 through 2010, more people have died in automobile accidents than from guns
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

You cannot in any logical scientific way compare things that are incomparable.

As for number 2:

It is supposed to be a number that makes people think, to reconsider their opinion on guns.
This is my point. The OP uses a flawed comparison to get people to "Reconsider" guns. It is an emotional tactic to pursue an agenda, not factual argument to create an agenda.

Instead it prompts you to argue with multiple people that the number is inaccurate.
Please point out where I have disputed the actual number. Truth be told I have no cluse whether these numbers (Numbers of war deaths and number of gun deaths) are accurate or not. The graphic is pretty limited as far as authoritative sources for gun deaths, and doesn't even address what it considers a "War Death". All wars? Declared Wars? Friendly Fire? Accidents? Suicides? In and out of a theater of combat?

My assertion is that guns facilitate SUCCESS in attempting suicide to a greater degree than other methods.
How do you back up this assertion? Do you have any facts? As noted in a previous post, pills are far more readily available, and in my personal experience have a 100% success rate.

Regardless of the degree of success:
You cannot with any certainty at all determine how many firearm suicide attempts would have been made by other methods, and at what degree of success. That argument is as impossible to make as several of my favorite Repub arguments:

"The death penalty deters crime".. ok so we've interviewed people that were going to murder someone and decided not to because of the death penalty...

"Life begins at conception" - Really?

"Armed Citizens Prevent Crime" - Because we have interviewed criminals who decided not to commit crimes because the victim MIGHT have a gun

and my all time favorite from the gun world
"Open carry deters crime"... the counter point to which is "If you open carry you will be the first one shot". Neither one has any factsual basis for the argument. None of these things can ever be known. Why? Because the address things that never happened.

Whether or not that person would have attempted/succeeded by another method is irrelevant for the purposes of the OP. They didn't. Statistically, they are a gun suicide death and go into the larger category of gun deaths. Why is that so difficult to accept?

That suicides are "Gun Deaths"? Not difficult to accept at all.
That the person would have comitted suicide by other means? Completely relevant, and completely unknown.
By your own admission, the OP's intent was to change people's thoughts on guns, presumably, to ban them, because of the number of deaths they are responsible for. If the number of suicides are significant, and would have been successful anyway, it is a little hard to blame the gun. It's disingenuous.

More to come... I have not had a chance to read the link you posted but I will.
(I have to go out and shovel... this is heart attack snow... )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:33 PM

71. Blah blah blah. From your postings it seems you have enjoyed your brief

time here at DU... lot's of posts arguing minutia of gun rights.

There is a forum specifically for those people that seem to only argue politics from a gun rights perspective. It is called "Gun Control & RKBA" You should check it out. I have a sense you would fit in there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #71)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:37 PM

75. So... you can only be a Democrat if you're anti-gun?

 

So, you don't want debate?
Nobody can disagree?
Strange I am having a perfectly civil and constructive thread with a few other members here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #75)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:01 PM

85. No, I'm saying your posts have -so far- been about debating details of gun rights and

suggest you would find a more receptive bunch in the RKBA forum.

The folks you are having a "perfectly civil and constructive thread with" may not have not looked into your - eh -track record so far in your short time here.

Don't get me wrong. If you want to comment and debate the wide range of issues that get mulled over at DU then by all means do so. There is a small number of DUers that also happen to strongly support 2A 'rights'. Since Sandy Hook and other recent events, there have been a disturbing number of people who have joined DU with the purpose of only disrupting threads and arguing gun rights. Trolls. They are usually fairly easy to spot. I'd like to hope you are not one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #85)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:01 PM

101. I assure you that there are many issues here with which I agree

 

And a few with which I don't
As far as my - er - track record, I have actually been very up front with who I am
If you are referring to the 1 post that was hidden, it was a reply to a really nasty post from a user who has since been banned.
I assure you I will not react in that manner

If you are referring to the fact that I have been discussing 2A stuff, sorry that is the area that I think many, if not most Democrats have gotten it wrong.

I have some opinions on things like SS with which you may not agree, with which I have posted, but I think my ideas on it are far more in line with what Democrats believe than Republicans.

Yes - I believe the Democratic Party has it dead wrong on guns. I will not apologise for that.
But why on earth would I spend time nodding Yes on a RKBA forum, when I can hopefully bring some logical reasoning and common ground with those with whom I do not agree.

When people make incorrect statements I will raise the bullshit flag.
I am an instructor in firearms and something of an expert on the topic.

When people make assertions of fact, I will ask they be substantiated.

I am not sure which of my posts you take exception to, but if people on this forum are not open to a free exchange of ideas, then perhaps you are correct. I am in the wrong place.

And if any of the above meet DU's definition of "Troll", then I am certainly in the wrong place

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #101)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:36 PM

125. So you are certain we Democrats are "dead wrong on guns"? And you will raise

the "bullshit flag" every time you see inaccuracies about some statistic or some non-precise description of some piece of weaponry by virtue of your being a firearm instructor and a self proclaimed expert?

I'm sure we can't wait to be edumacated.

Well, some other DU-ers have big egos and are sure they're right, so perhaps you will fit well here.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #125)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:29 PM

135. Seriously?

 

No, I am certain that many Democrats are dead wrong on guns.
That's why where I am from, even with a Democratic Governor and a Democrat Super-Majority in the legislature, nothing has been passed on guns... because 1/3 of the Democrats in the state (CT) have NRA ratings of B or better.
I keep telling my Repub gun friends that Republicans don't have a Monopoly on the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, the bullshit flag goes up when you don't get it right. And I am not talking about technical minutie, or even the functionality of a firearm.

When there are inconsistencies in your "facts", fictions in your statements, and more emotion than logic in your arguments, you can take it to the bank I'll call you out on it.

I don't ask for aquiesence, just that what you propose actually make people safer. Not be some sort of illogical feel-good proposal that will have no impact on gun violence.

I'm sure we can't wait to be edumacated.

Clearly, you are closed minded, so I assume this will be the last thread we participate in together.

Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you take a look at this story, and tell me what should happen. (Link left cold)
Personally, I think they should throw the book at the guy, and make sure to call the Times. Want to make sure everyone knows how tough NY is on Assault Weapons, don't we?
He should do the mandatory 7 year minimum for possession of an "Assault Weapon".
After all, NY banned 30 round Mags years ago.

h t t p : / /www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/feb/6/miller-vet-arrested-high-capacity-magazines-new-yo/

Well, some other DU-ers have big egos and are sure they're right, so perhaps you will fit well here.


Well geez... appears that you may be one of them.
"Edumucated???"
Seriously???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #135)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 11:19 PM

143. Wow. You cite a piece by a regular pro-gun commentator for the Washington Times (!)

as your way of showing us how reasonable your gun opinions are?

Oh, yeah, I'm getting schooled now.

(Hey, let's lock horns again another time. You write well, no doubt. Stay safe in this upcoming big storm)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #143)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:11 AM

152. thanks

 

You too.
This storm is going to be bad.

Time to load up my extra mags...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:42 PM

28. But it wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:27 PM

62. You may have to believe it,

but I don't. At any rate, the other method would not be nearly as likely to succeed.

Suicide as an impulsive act, a momentary surrender to depression or despair, is often survived when one attempts it through drug overdose, slitting the wrists, even hanging or jumping off a building. Many people who survive one such suicide attempt (and I know several) never attempt it again--they get the help they need to rebuild their lives, and move on.

People who stick a gun in their mouth generally don't get that chance. Suicide by firearm is far more likely to succeed than just about any other method.

I think suicide by firearm should therefore be included in this chart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #62)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:34 PM

74. All three friends...

 

That took their own lives (Bipolar Disorder) used pills and were successful.
That may not be the case statistically, but see my other post...
We have no way of knowing if suicide would have been attempted and successful by other means if the gun were not available.

I really have a whole host of other issues with the study as well...
How did they gain access,
Were the guns legal
Were they the owners.

The hypothesis being if it is a gun that is in the home, legally owned, and readily accessible, there is a much greater probablility then if it were newly purchased, stolen, or should not have been accessible.

The actions leading to the suicide require planning.

There is no breakdown of those stats either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #74)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:48 PM

80. I'm sorry for your friends, and for you as well.

Suicide is a terrible thing, for everyone concerned. I know two women, one whose husband committed suicide by hanging, one whose lover killed himself with a hand gun--and both women are still trying to recover, many years later.

Just as with murders, some suicides are planned, some are impulsive.

Just recently a friend of mine lost her brother to suicide. He'd had an argument with his mother over the phone, screamed, "I'll show you!" got his gun and blew his brains out. Had the gun not been there in his house--had he been forced to find a sufficient quantity of drugs, or find a building or a cliff, or run out for a length of rope--he might have reconsidered. He might have calmed down. He might even have tried to kill himself, and failed. But instead he reached for the gun, right there in his house. Bang! End of story.

Yeah. I'd love to see more data on all aspects of gun deaths. Maybe now that the CDC is allowed again to investigate gun deaths as a public health issue, we might see some data that will prove useful to efforts to stop the violence.

I agree though, if someone premeditates a suicide, if it's the result of days or weeks or months of careful planning, then the method is less significant.

All of this needs to be studied, and discussed, more thoroughly.

Again, I am so very sorry about your friends.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #80)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:53 PM

81. thank you

 

And sorry for yours as well.
All three were the result of a manic, alcohol induced bender.

For me, i blamed the dr's and the pills, but that is not the cause either.

I agree the issue needs more study.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #81)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:57 PM

83. Alcohol is also definitely a factor

in many of these instances.

Let's hope we find some way to deal with all this, better than we have in the past.

Best wishes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #83)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:52 PM

98. In all 3 circumstances

 

Alcohol + Mental Illness is very difficult to handle.
Best to u 2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:01 AM

149. "Greatest Country In The World" but so many are thinking of offing themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:38 PM

24. Cool, Thom Hartmann just gave you a shout out on his show. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal In Texas (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:05 PM

41. I heard it on XM the left too


I was on the way home.

K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:43 PM

29. We live in a sick country

Nearly 1.4 millon dead in just over 50 years. Yet guns are celebrated, a requirement for our enduring freedom, and something to be protected at all costs. The costs have been almost unimaginable and there is no end in sight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ramapo (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:46 PM

32. No wonder we're so supportive when they want to "get their war on"

we love this shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:43 PM

30. Just a little devils advocate thought here.

Since our population has increased by leaps and bounds in those years, if you compare it percentage wise, it may not be so jaw-dropping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:05 PM

42. Its pretty jaw dropping just in itself.

So the gun deaths in like the last 20 years have exceeded the amount of Americans who actually died fighting Hitler, but the guns are justified as something we need to keep a new Hitler from rising? That don't look too good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napoleon_in_rags (Reply #42)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:08 PM

44. I agree about the justification of needing guns.

I believe Hitler was able to rise because he raised a militia that used to march through the streets of Munich, along with other varying militias of different political idealogies, that met in beer halls and then marched just to let Germans know they were around. They all had guns from that era, and it didn't stop Hitler, it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #30)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:33 PM

138. We have cut our murder and manslaughter rate in half since 1992

we have made tremendous strides in reducing violent crime of all kinds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:16 PM

51. Damn. We just may have found a new use for drones!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:26 PM

60. This is good right?

Gun humpers rejoice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amuse bouche (Reply #60)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:01 AM

155. A small price to pay for freedumb

Keep us safe from the government. Statistically insignificant. Baseball bats. erp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:28 PM

65. The GOP Plan seems to be to

depopulate the country. That way the survivors can devide the spoils without actually doing something to create wealth. So things are going according to plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turbineguy (Reply #65)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:31 PM

69. The folks running the country always want a young (read malleable) population

who'll work for them and make money for them and spend money on them and then die young so little money is actually spent on the population who've stopped working for them and have wised up to their heartless bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:28 PM

66. Undeniable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:30 PM

67. Facts are to the pro-NRA crowd what garlic is to a vampire: when they're not busy screaming

about how unfair it all is that you bring up these inconvenient facts, they're busy trying to flee from them as quickly as possible.

Kick, Rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to apocalypsehow (Reply #67)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:36 PM

105. Disagree

The pro-NRA types aren't afraid of facts, because they're not dealing with reality in the first place. Many of these people -- not all of them, but many of them -- are stockpiling weapons in case the UN invades or the magnetic poles switch polarity or a black guy gets reelected or brown-skinned people wearing bulletproof vests want to murder their family. They don't care about reality; they care about delusional paranoid fantasies and Rambo-esque daydreams.

I think is is one of those things that those of us in the common-sense camp of gun safety need to realize: the pro-NRA crowd isn't the opposing team, because they're not even playing the logic game. They want their toys and are willing to pout until they get to keep them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:05 PM

88. and yet people still support more guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:17 PM

93. The war deaths are based on a Congressional Research Service report...

...American War and Military Operations - Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010, available (pdf) here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

The report lists deaths from each war but doesn't add them up to obtain the total (exercise for the reader). The numbers include non-combat as well combat deaths where known (apparently the DOD doesn't have a breakdown for the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812). Civil War deaths are included only for the United States, and not the opposing governmental entity.

Other interesting breakdowns of data are included, eg. non-mortal wounds, number of amputees, etc.

Some people think accidents and suicides are preventable. Some people think wars are preventable. The report does not consider any notion of a 'degree of preventablility' for a war that could be used to adjust the casualties numbers or portion of mortality of any given casualty.

The Politifact article from which the gun deaths were reported is here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

Here's their statement about the data:

The number of deaths from gunfire is a bit more complicated to total. Two Internet-accessible data sets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allow us to pin down the number of deaths from 1981 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2010. Weíve added FBI figures for 2011, and we offer a number for 1968 to 1980 using a conservative estimate of data we found in a graph in this 1994 paper published by the CDC.

Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms:

1968 to 1980 377,000
1981 to 1998 620,525
1999 to 2010 364,483
2011 32,163
Total 1,384,171

We should note that these figures refer to all gun-fire related deaths -- not just homicides, but also suicides and accidental deaths. In 2011, about one-quarter of firearm-related deaths were homicides, according to FBI and CDC data. Using total firearm-related deaths makes the case against guns more dramatic than just using homicides alone.


Your assignment is to twist these sets of statistics in whatever why you choose to suit your talking point.

Have fun with your homework.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:24 PM

94. And at least 45% of the War deaths were Americans killing Americans

Caused by slave-owning Southerners, may I say as a Midwesterner son of Union Veterans of the Civil War.

The Civil War number Politifact used -- 525,000 -- is debatable and considered a low estimate. More recently the number 750,000 is used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-5). Plus an estimated 50,000 civilian deaths makes 800,000, a clear majority over deaths from foreign wars. That would put American-on-American war deaths up to 55%.

So "only" about 646,000 deaths were in foreign wars. All the other deaths -- 2,184,171 -- are from Americans killing Americans.

Aren't we a peace-loving nation who loves and respects our fellow man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blahblah98 (Reply #94)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:12 AM

162. American Exceptionalism at work. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:40 PM

106. Wow - got to steal this one.

Thanks Harvey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:43 PM

107. I fear things will only get worse

Since the horror at Sandy Hook Elementary, the gun shops have been doing record business.
...and who's doing the buying?
Well, lots of folks to be sure, but every half-wit lunatic out there has surely been among them.
Virtually everyday a shooting incident is in the local news.
How soon before these maniacs start settling minor disputes with guns?
Honestly, it's gotten completely out of control and the only thing holding it all together is the better judgement of people - and we all know that quality is fleeting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:55 PM

110. Did anyone ever compare both statistics?

 

I don't really see how people should ever wonder the comparability between war victims and people killed by guns. It's just a contrived trivia. Did anyone here ever think that the number of war victims was larger, BEFORE this "rumor" appeared?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:00 PM

111. The GOP response is clearly to "bring democracy" to other countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BadgerKid (Reply #111)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:14 AM

163. There ya go. You betcha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:57 PM

121. At first I didn't believe it but

after searching for it yes it is true. Unbelievable. Deaths from gun violence http://www.vpc.org/gunviolence.htm
Deaths from wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 09:06 PM

123. yeah but if you adjust the graph to represent silver bullets

it's a completely different picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:12 PM

129. Granny git yer fuck'n gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:20 PM

133. Now edit out the right handed gun deaths



See what you get now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #133)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:02 AM

156. And the gun deaths due to illegal weapons

those don't count either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 10:40 PM

140. Those numbers obviously fail

to take into account the number of deaths in video war games!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 12:43 AM

147. How many since the 2nd Amendment was passed?

There obviously aren't records dating back that far but maybe a statistician could construct a model based on the available statistics and make an educated projection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:11 AM

150. Why pick nits?

The bottom line is that a lot of Americans have died by
bullet wounds. Whether it is "more than", "equal to",
or "close to" the number of those killed in wars is secondary
and beside the point.

We are a violent and dangerous ("industrialized") country.
Ask any foreigner.
The world doesn't hate us; they are afraid of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 11:00 AM

161. Denominators?

Have we had a 52+ year war with an average of 250 million people involved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 01:00 PM

165. We Are At War With Each Other All Enabled By A Depraved Gun Culture

Last edited Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to HarveyDarkey (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 03:34 PM

178. No. Duh, remember

It's the people that kill people, not guns. Can Republicans say that now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread