Gun deaths- 29k, alchohol deaths 85k, tobacco deaths 435k

[Tim01]

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

Something interesting I came across. I didn't do an FBI background check on the sources or anything.
There is a cool chart on the page.


(2000): "The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435,000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85,000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75,000), toxic agents (55,000), motor vehicle crashes (43,000), incidents involving firearms (29,000), sexual behaviors (20,000), and illicit use of drugs (17,000)."

[snappyturtle]

1. I guess I should start smoking....can't get a doctor anyway.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5953500&mesg_id=5953500

[old mark]

2. K&R. Thanks. nt

[Skittles]

3. all of them are senseless

[pkdu]

4. Bingo! n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. And preventable.

[Hoopla Phil]

25. Except the ones that prevented an innocent losing their life.

[iverglas]

6. now tell us

How many people killed someone else using a microbial agent?

You'll be wanting to compare the figure with the approx 10,000 people killed by another person using a firearm.

How many people were robbed on the street, or in their home, by someone armed with a microbial agent? A motor vehicle? A sexual behaviour?

Forgive me, but what on earth is death by sexual behaviour?

If a person who has smoked all his/her life dies at age 80 of emphysema (as my best friend's mother did last year), does that count for the same number of points as a five-year-old killed by a bullet fired into her home?

If 500 motor vehicles drove by that five-year-old's home every day of her life, but not one killed her, and the one bullet ever fired into her home did, which is more dangerous: cars or firearms?

So many questions, eh?

[armyowalgreens]

7. I actually agree...this is a bad comparison because 29K deaths is still a shitload.

It just happens that it's grossly overshadowed by the grim reaper (AKA the tobacco industry).

[Hoopla Phil]

26. I'd like to know how many of the 29K were actually justifiable.

[krispos42]

63. about 600

400 by police, 200 by citizens.


A couple of hundred of them were accidents, and about 18k were suicides.

[Hoopla Phil]

75. Thanks for the information.

sooo, if you factor out the 18k suicides and the 600 justifiable you get 10,400 criminal murders by firearm. Hummmmm

[iverglas]

78. "Hummmmm"?

sooo, if you factor out the 18k suicides and the 600 justifiable you get 10,400 criminal murders by firearm

And how many murders (i.e. intentional homicides) by microbial agent? motor vehicle?

Hmmmmm.

[Hoopla Phil]

111. Don't think that's the point of this thread.

[iverglas]

114. please, enlighten me

I've asked the author of the opening post what THE POINT OF THIS THREAD is, and received no reply.

I'm sure you know.

[Hoopla Phil]

120. Guess that lawyer degree is not all knowing as you will need to ask the O.P. not me.

[rl6214]

135. I thought you were smarter than that

[ProgressiveProfessor]

83. Have a link for that? Be nice to have handy to correct the VPC and Brady Bunch bigots

[iverglas]

88. be nice to see you substantiate that ignorant vicious little slur

Or maybe you would just have the guts to NAME these "VPC and Brady Bunch bigots" to whom you refer by that ignorant vicious little slur.

Since they seem to need correcting, they must be around here somewhere.

Do show us who they are and what they've said that you want to correct, will you?

Or look like the typer of ignorant vicious slurs that you have made yourself look like.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

94. That the VPC and Brady Bunch are anti gun bigots?

It starts from their public statements and goes from there...

[krispos42]

121. Yup, right from the feds

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/justify.htm

[Tim01]

8. Do have your own point? No, of course not. Enjoy your argument.

[iverglas]

13. I'm waiting to hear what your point is

You started the thread. Surely you have one.

I just figured I'd amuse myself and the assembled masses while I tapped my toes.

[Skittles]

14. his point is to miniminze 29,000 senseless gun deaths

[iverglas]

16. oh my goodness

I would never have expected to see such a thing in the Guns forum at Democratic Underground!

You shock me.

[Skittles]

18. the forum is open to all DUers

not just gun nuts

[iverglas]

19. sorry, I didn't mean to be obscure

I've been hanging out in this forum for several years now. ;)

and edit -- I think I was even more obscure than I thought first.

It wasn't your own comments that were unexpected and shocked me -- I was shocked that someone in the Guns forum at DU would minimize senseless gun deaths.

And yes, I was definitely being facetious. Very, very facetious.

[Tim01]

20. Don't you even care about 435k tobacco deaths?

I'm sure a lot of those were innocent second hand smoke victims. Women and children who died slow painful deaths.
And addicts who believed the tobacco commercials. Did you know tobacco companies manipulated nicotine levels on purpose to addict more people? And intentionally target minors?

[iverglas]

21. are you?

I'm sure a lot of those were innocent second hand smoke victims.

Do you have a rock-solid foundation for that sureness? Something like, oh, facts?

Women and children who died slow painful deaths.

Uh ... only men smoke? Or men who are victims of second-hand smoke don't count?

Headscratch.


Did you know tobacco companies manipulated nicotine levels on purpose to addict more people?

I know a whole lot of things.

I could spend two hours recounting the ways in which both US and Cdn tobacco companies engaged in complex business transactions with the end goal of smuggling cigarettes into Canada. Lest you feel huffiness coming on, most of them were Canadian cigarettes manufactured by Canadian tobacco companies, exported into the US and then smuggled back into Canada, via routes organized by the tobacco companies, to be sold at cut-rate prices and maintain the market in the face of rising tax rates and thus shrinking sales. The cigarette wars of the previous decade claimed lives and threatened the security of communities. Public buildings in Cornwall, Ontario, for example, were strafed with automatic gunfire from the St. Lawrence River by smugglers.

Yes, prohibitive measures do attract organized crime into markets. When the organized crime in question is "legitimate" businesses ... . As of course was the case during your Prohibition. Legitimate Canadian businesses were ass-deep in the smuggling. Harmonization of the rules across porous borders is important. That's why banning handguns in Chicago doesn't work. No moat. And even great big moats like the St. Lawrence River didn't and doesn't stop the rum-running from where rum flowed freely to where it's scarce and gun-running from where guns flow freely to where they're scarce.


Anyhow. And tobacco companies are currently marketing pop-flavoured cigarillos. I wonder who the market would be for that. Canada had legislation on the table about that too when the House rose.

But me, I still see a difference between someone dying at 80 because of her own actions, heavily determined by outside forces though they may be, and someone dying at 5 or 15 or 25 because someone else fired a bullet into their body.

[Tim01]

22. Sorry, I don't have enough respect for you to play this game tonight. Nothing personal.nt

[Hoopla Phil]

27. I'd like to know how many of those 29K prevented rape or an innocent's loss of life.

[MichaelHarris]

39. Look it up

let us know

[Hoopla Phil]

43. HaHaHa. You funny! Unfortunately that break down does not exist. Much to

the delight of the "Brady Bunch" and MichaelHarris. LMFAO!

[Tim01]

11. I heard a funny joke today, I'll tell it to you.

There are 2 young female lawyers walking down the street. They both see this tall handsome guy walking toward them. The one lawyer says "I'd sure like to screw him." The other lawyer says "Screw him out of what?":rofl:

[Hoopla Phil]

28. LMFAO!!!!!! Very funny. And so true!

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Well.

Forgive me, but what on earth is death by sexual behaviour?

Auto erotic asphyxiation would be one example. Maybe 'misadventure' would make more sense than 'behavior'?

[iverglas]

80. indeed!

I didn't stop to think.

But if that accounts for all of:

sexual behaviors (20,000)

... well, that really is an epidemic ...

[AtheistCrusader]

89. Supposedly it's a problem here in the US

Granted, we get all sorts of wierd stuff being raised as an 'epidemic', but there have been calls for PSA's about things like this. From what I saw of the front page news at the time, David Carradine may have died doing something similar. Possibly with a partner.

I'm guessing some other stuff like, some old overweight hypertension candidate popping 3 viagra and dying in bed probably fits in that category too. (Even though it could more properly be classified 'poisioning' or something)

[iverglas]

91. I dunno

Tangential as it all is ... ;)

I'd tend to think that those two, for instance, would go down as "suffocation" and "stroke", or whatever was the case. I have a vague understanding of there being two different things about causes of death: for instance, someone who dies when their femoral artery is cut would die of blood loss, but also of a car crash. There would be a big opening for problems if there wasn't some consistency in which of those was being reported in any given set of statistics.

[MichaelHarris]

9. Great!

a comparison of people who choose to drink, people who choose to smoke, and people who choose to be shot and killed. You may actually have something there if you can find the people who choose to be shot and killed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Actually some of the smoking deaths may have been unwilling and certainly some of the firearm

deaths justified.

Nicotine is very hard to quit, some people are unable to.

Shooting someone in self defense is quite legitimate. IIRC that figure includes justified shootings

[iverglas]

15. the 29,000 figure

includes all deaths by firearm, e.g. accident and suicide in addition to homicide. Homicide accounts for about 10,000/yr in the US. "Justified homicide" accounts for something with fewer than 3 digits, would be the guess I'd hazard.


Nicotine is very hard to quit, some people are unable to.

Indeed. Verily, people must arm themselves in self-defence against tobacco manufacturers.

They might have more success than people who arm themselves against drive-by shootings and crossfire and the like.

If you want to start bringing criminal charges against tobacco manufacturers and sellers for homicide, I'll be with you.

[Hoopla Phil]

29. I wonder how many of the 29K were to prevent rape or save an innocent's life.

[MichaelHarris]

40. umm

Polly want a cracker?

[Hoopla Phil]

44. Quaaaak!

HaHaHa. You funny! Unfortunately that break down does not exist. Much to

the delight of the "Brady Bunch" and MichaelHarris. LMFAO!

[iverglas]

69. try post 26

Fewer than 200, then, when we extract the non-police shootings.

Somebody did part of your job for you, eh?

[Hoopla Phil]

74. Actually that would be post 63. And it's not my job.

[jgraz]

46. Actually, about 12,000 of them chose to be shot and killed

Because about 12,000 of those deaths are suicides by a formerly law-abiding gun owner.

[Euromutt]

129. "Formerly law-abiding"?

I wasn't aware that intentional self-harm was a criminal offense.

Or do you mean "formerly law-abiding" in the sense that "law-abiding" and "deceased" are mutually exclusive?

[AtheistCrusader]

65. About 18 thousand of them did.

Being suicides and all.

Hope you saw that one coming, actually.

[JonQ]

76. I wonder how many people choose to enjoy 2nd hand smoke

choose to be be run over by a drunk driver, choose to ingest toxins or deadly bacteria, etc.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. IIRC that figure includes all firearms related deaths, even the justified ones

[iverglas]

17. and the figures for deaths by microbial agents and motor vehicles

include all deaths by those means too, I daresay. In fact, I think virtually all deaths by those means would fall outside the "intentional" rubric, and mainly under the "accidental" -- not even negligent or suicidal.

So ... the point ... ?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. Not unlike the VPC and Brady Bunch anti gun bigots, some here claim all of the gun deaths

are somehow senseless. Clearly not the case.

There are probably a few car death that translate as justifiable as well.

[iverglas]

92. please see my posts in reply to your two other posts of this nature today

and do whatever you think wise.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. I stand by my posts...groups like the VPC and the Brady Bunch are clearly anti gun bigots

Its a factual statement. Why is it unwise. My wording is clear...by characterization is about the organizations, not individuals here at DU.

[Hoopla Phil]

24. Good point. I'd like to know just criminal and negligent use of a firearm.

That would be a much more accurate picture IMO.

[iverglas]

70. you missed that whole Google thing, didn't you?

Not to mention several posts in this very thread.

I'm still waiting to know how many of the microbial-agent deaths involved the criminal or negligent use of a microbial agent.

Oh, and that sexual behaviour thing ...

[Hoopla Phil]

112. Yes, If posed enough sometimes you get an answerer.

As far as the microbial-agent deaths perhaps you should take your own advice. I'm sure such an educated lawyer such as yourself can do it.

[rl6214]

136. What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean

A good start.

[Hoopla Phil]

23. I wonder how many are criminal or negligent use of a firearm?

[jgraz]

30. Advocates for unlimited access to tobacco: 0. Advocates for unlimited access to alcohol: 0.

Advocates for unlimited access to firearms: :shrug:

[X_Digger]

31. Advocates..

..for unlimited access to straw men: :shrug:

[Tim01]

32. I've never , ever, met someone who wanted unlimited access to guns.

I think it is something someone made up.

[jgraz]

33. I certainly have.

Spend a little time on forums that allow Repuke posters. You'll see it quite frequently.

However, I can soften the language and still make my point:

Advocates for increased access to and use of tobacco: 0
Advocates for increased access to and use of alcohol: 0

Advocates for increased access to and use of firearms: ???


How many from this forum fit in that last spot?

[Deadric Damodred]

34. Having access to semi-automatic rifles...

...that look cool and automatic rifles made before 1986 (provided they are registered) is not having "unlimited access to firearms". Can we purchase brand new machine guns? Nope. If it's made after May 19th, 1986, then it's off limits. That's limited access. You can't have felonies or domestic violence convictions on your record if you want to purchase firearms. That's limited access. You can not purchase firearms capable of firearming ammo larger than .50 cal or ammo larger than .50 without going through the same permit & registration process you would for an automatic weapon made in 1986. That's limited access.

"Unlimited Access"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[jgraz]

36. "Princess Bride" came out 22 years ago. You might want to update your list of pithy catchphrases

You should also re-read the post you responded to -- I never mentioned any specific weapons. Are you sure you put your post in the right spot?


Oh, and if you're going to reply with another catchy non sequitur, I suggest you steer clear of "Watchoo talkin 'bout, Willis", "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" and "Dyn-o-mite!!"

Just trying to help...

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Republicans want Felons to have guns?

New one to me.

[Airman Dan]

73. A bit oversimplified

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 is an atrocity. I think you'd then find I'm an advocate for increased access to alcohol.

[Statistical]

35. Please point at a single person on DU who is advocating unlimited access. n/t

[Tim01]

37. Hell, it's a rare person on a GUN forum that advocates unlimited access.

There are extremists of all kinds out there.The lunatic fringe is always in the extreme minority. Whether it be a guy gunning down an abortion doctor or a bunch of fools releasing a bazilion domestic minks loose into a wild environment where they will be sure to starve to death.
Crazies are what they are. And they certainly don't represent the other 95% of any viewpoint.

[jgraz]

41. It's even rarer to see a pro-gun poster advocating for ANY specific limit on firearms

Hell, the NRA wants to keep selling guns to terrorists and Mexican drug lords. I guess we should be thankful they don't want to give them nukes, but that's hardly a "limited" viewpoint.

[Statistical]

45. Did you forget about..

NRA supported 1968 GCA.
NRA lobbied to push for the NICS instant background check system (against wishes of Brady campaign)
NRA lobbied in 1998? to expand NICS to include ineligible status due to being mentally ill.

NRA provides free firearm educational training for children (Eddie the Eagle).
NRA also is one of the best source of firearm training both safety and defensive use training.

Of course you already know the Bush terra watch list has over one million names and no system in place to remove people wrongly placed on he lis.
Do you believe there are a million+ terrorist in the US?
If not then you must accept there are non terorrist on the list.
Do you believe it is progressive to deny people not convicted of any crime the right to bear arms?

[jgraz]

47. Appearances aside, the NRA does not post on this forum

When have you seen someone on this or any pro-gun forum advocate for *any* limits on firearm ownership?


Do you believe there are a million+ terrorist in the US?

No, but most gun owners (i.e. Republicans) do. That's the hypocrisy of the pro-gun position.


Do you believe it is progressive to deny people not convicted of any crime the right to bear arms?

We do this all the time. Or are you in favor of letting the mentally ill purchase firearms?


Look, we all know the terrorist watch list is a bunch of shit. Why Obama hasn't scrapped it is beyond me. But most of the people who are pro-gun believe in the terrorist watch list. And the PATRIOT act. And warrantless wiretaps. And torture.

Such sentiment is not as overt on this forum but it's still there. Most posters are happy to see some "criminal" (a.k.a human being) deprived of his civil rights as long as it happens at the hands of a "law-abiding citizen" with a private firearm.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. So you would rather see innocent people raped and murdered than a criminal deprived of their rights?

[jgraz]

50. Aside from your sweaty fantasies, exactly how often do private gun owners prevent rape?

Got any credible numbers for us?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. So how many women are you okay with being raped?

[jgraz]

71. See, this is why the pro-gun crowd gets such a bad reputation

Why the fuck would you even ask such a question? Earlier you were accusing me of hitting some "low point" by slapping down an insulting jerk. What you're doing is far worse: you make an indefensible pronouncement, you're asked to provide evidence and you accuse me of being pro-rape.

These are the tactics of Operation Rescue and the Westboro Baptist Church. They have no place on an allegedly "Democratic" web site.

[iverglas]

79. I used to have a wonderful article bookmarked

Another that seems to have disappeared.

A whole lovely exposition of the right-wing tactic of "So, you ...".

You say:
"Why the fuck would you even ask such a question?"

In this case, it's just a plain old loaded question:
"So how many women are you okay with being raped?"

More often, it comes in this format:
"So you think it's okay for women to be raped?"
which of course is not a question. It's a statement - it would be a lie, in fact, in this hypothetical case - with a question mark stuck on the end to cover the liar's ass.

And, of course, the "So" at the beginning in both cases constitutes the pretense ... misrepresentation ... that there is some reason/basis for asking you the question.

Given that the one you got is a loaded question, your return question is a good response. So is "Mu".

Or you could ask Davey how many kids he's okay with getting killed by firearm, next time he offers up his prayers for victims maybe. Oh, don't forget the "So ...".


Or you could play jabberwacky with it.

http://www.jabberwacky.com/

Everything flows and nothing stays.
- So how many women are you okay with being raped?
Can we reach the stars?
- So how many women are you okay with being raped?
Did you go to University?
- So how many women are you okay with being raped?
To dream the impossible dream.


Huh. Jabberwacky seems to have decided to ignore the question.

Good answer.

[iverglas]

81. it's gone, but I found traces

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x842

Wow, that's an oldie, but a goodie.

Let me quote myself!

iverglas
Tue Jul-15-03 10:31 AM

... Your actual question was just another of those dishonest loaded-with-crap things. The kind that intelligent folk such as myself simply reject. The kind described here as a favourite tactic of the right wing:

http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.the.new.jargon.html

I am talking about people who express themselves in snide, sarcastic, scornful tones, who express themselves in innuendoes, who invest incredible effort in provoking an intemperate response so that they can portray themselves as victims, and who engage in complicatedly indirect forms of rhetoric that deniably presuppose things that are false.

"Deniably presuppose things that are false." Ring any bells?

... In the jargon, expressions like "let me see if I've got this straight" are used to preface a distorted paraphrase of an opponent's words. This is a matter of routine; it's part of what a linguist would call the "phasal lexicon" of the new jargon. In fact, "so, let's see" does two kinds of work: it prefaces a distortion of what I said, and it pretends that the distortion is what I said. It twists reason, and projects that twisting onto me. I, of course, never said that everyone who disagrees with me is sending hate mail <the subject of the essay I am quoting from>. Never said it, never meant it, never implied it, never presupposed it, never thought it.

"Let me see if I've got this straight"; you haven't, and you know quite well that you haven't, so why would you imagine that you do or bother asking me whether you do? Why would I bother answering?

"So, you're saying ..."; no, I'm not, and why would you say I am?

"So government can regulate what we wear and you have no problem with that?" Who says government may regulate what we wear (as an unqualified generalization); and why would you state (with that cute little question mark attached to your statement) that *I* "have no problem" with this unqualified generalization? Why would you ask such a silly question of me? Are you hearing voices maybe?

Only you know. But me, I have no problem figuring it out. And it isn't all that "interesting" the sixty-three thousandth time out, I assure you.

Mis-repre-sen-ta-a-tion is making me tired. (With apologies to Carole King.) ...

And lest there be any, uh, misunderstanding: yup, anybody who tries to play these games with me will indeed get "snide, sarcastic and scornful" in return. Because that is all anyone who tries to play these games deserves, and can expect.

What no one will get from me is the actual nasty, incivil, anti-democratic tactic in issue. No conveniently deniable false claims about anything or anyone else, no intentional misrepresentation of what anyone says.

And if I claim that I or anyone else has been a victim of these abhorrent tactics, it is because I or he or she WAS.


The post I quoted from is approaching its sixth birthday. Depressing, ain't it?

[iverglas]

84. in searching for that article on the net

I found it quoted by someone else at DU, in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1823&forum=DCForumID12&archive=yes

The rant that opens the thread is also a worthwhile read. ;)

"How conservatives think"

The author of the rant being a fellow Canadian, I would have hoped to see it titled

"How right-wingers think"

of course. There's a difference.

Anyhow -- I found it! preserved for posterity.

http://www.scooterbbs.com/archive/anything/5004/0.html

A little more for our amusement:

And this is not just any distortion. It's a type that is also very common in the new jargon: someone sends me hate mail that expresses disagreement with my views, and so rather than
acknowledge the hateful elements of that mail, my correspondent here pretends that I have associated all disagreement with hate. Underneath, in other words, it's a matter of associationism. Associationism deletes all of logical connections among ideas, and instead works to create certain strategically chosen associations among concepts, and to break others. The first step, very often, is to project the very fact of engaging in associationism into one's opponent: by writing about messages of disagreement that were hateful, it is said, "they" are the ones who associated disagreement with hate.

Notice, too, the rhetorical question ("If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending 'hate mail'?"). This is also common. It's a way of making an obviously false assertion -- in this case, the assertion that I have said that everyone who disagrees with me has ispo facto
sent hate mail -- without admitting to it. Then the "my god", etc, which assumes an answer to the rhetorical question, as if the rhetorical question's proffered paraphrase were something that I said. Then, of course, the flood of nasty language.

It's like holding this place up to a mirror, isn't it??

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. The same reason you ask,"How many children dying is okay with you?"

Of course you lecturing me on manners after you called someones mother a prostitute here yesterday is downright laughable.

David

[jgraz]

100. Not that I ever asked that, but the difference is important

We actually have credible statistics on how many children die each year from firearms. Do you have even an inkling of a clue as to how many rapes are prevented each year by firearms? 10? 100? 100,000? Can you even confidently guess within an order of magnitude?


And no, Dave, I'm not lecturing you on manners. If anything, I'm lecturing you on common sense and basic logic. Apparently to little effect...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

116. So there is a number of rapes that would occur without the victims being armed? Will you admit that?

The numbers would be incredibly difficult to ascertain. Were the men, we read about in the stories I often post here, just there to rob the woman alone in her home. Some cases are clear like the sex offender that had come back to rape the victim for a 2nd time, I can think of at least 2 that I posted last year that were that clear. For you to be lecturing anyone on anything is laughable. Just a little more of the hypocrisy from the gun grabbers, nothing new there.

David

[jgraz]

118. Zero is a number, so yes.

If you have credible evidence that it's more than zero, I'm waiting to hear it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. One is a number too, there is a link with this one.

Cape Girardeau woman shoots, kills would-be rapist at her home

A Cape Girardeau woman shot and fatally wounded Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender who had broken into her home early this morning with the intention of raping her a second time, Cape Girardeau Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle said today.

Swingle said he will not be charging the victim, an older woman who positively identified Preyer this morning as the man who raped her on Saturday.

http://on-murders.blogspot.com/2008/10/mo-cape-girardeau-woman-shoots-kills.html

This was one of the only links I could find to the full story, please do not take the site where the story is found to be of any significance.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. Two turns out to be a number also, of course with another link.

Sex offender fatally shot
Brighton man kills man attacking pair of women

A Brighton man shot and killed a 44-year-old registered sex offender who attacked two women in their home early Tuesday morning, officials said.

According to Dist. Atty. Gen. Mike Dunavant, David Fleming charged into the home of two women at about 3 a.m. Tuesday.

Fleming bound the women but one escaped and ran to a nearby home. Dunavant said Fleming, who lived in Munford, intended to rape the women.

The woman who escaped went to the home of Keith Ingram for help, Dunavant said.

Ingram, carrying a .40-caliber handgun, ran to the house and found Fleming attacking the other woman, officials said.


http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/feb/20/sex-offender-fatally-shot/

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

125. So you still want to stand by your denial that women have been saved by firearms?

[jgraz]

131. My only denial had to do with you possessing any credible evidence about what you posted

I certainly stand by that. When you posted your initial hysterics, you had zero evidence to back up your claim. Now you have a few stories you can repost ad infinitum.

No need to thank me...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

132. Those stories were posted here when they occurred. You're welcome.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

128. Three

Slain man had violated court order, police say

A woman shot and killed a man when he disregarded a protective order, broke into her home and cornered her in a bedroom, police said Monday.

There were "prior incidents of violence" between the man and the unidentified 49-year-old woman, an investigator said.

Terry Dean Milburn died at the woman's house near 39th and Voltaire avenues at 2 a.m. Sunday. The woman was not injured.

Milburn, 45, a registered Class 3 sex offender, was released in 2006 from the Arizona Department of Corrections after serving more than one year of a three-year sentence for kidnapping a woman at knifepoint before sexually assaulting her.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2008/09/30/20080930phxshooting0930.html

[iverglas]

102. I missed both of those

I need a laugh. Can you link me?

[jgraz]

119. Dave has no link for his first allegation, since he made it up.

As for the second, check your inbox.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

126. Which allegation would that be, your post that got deleted because you called a DUers Mom a whore?

[jgraz]

130. Are you familiar with the concepts of "first" and "second"?

Or do you need me to school you on those as well?


But gee, Dave. I had no idea you had such a fragile constitution. Two days later and you're still crying about it. Did you have nightmares? Do you need me to send you some warm milk?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

133. You are projecting and it's obvious. Based on your crying about my question.

[Scout]

60. it's always RAPE they're worried about ... like that's the only/the worst

thing that could ever happen to a woman.

[jgraz]

72. It's a bullying tactic -- see above.

If they could somehow accuse gun control advocates of being baby killiers, they'd do that as well. But, since Operation Rescue has apparently negotiated exclusive rights to that phrase, they have to settle for calling us closet rapists.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. Who called you a rapist?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

85. The most disputed (and really unavailable number) is how often the presence of a firearm prevents a

crime. There is no way to know. The anti gun bigots will say almost never. RTBA people will tell you it happens a lot. My own experiences supports that it does happen. Police do not take statistics of the few cases that are reported.

[iverglas]

90. unless you are prepared to stand up on your hind legs like a human being

and point your finger at these anti gun bigots, who must be here somewhere or you wouldn't have any reason to mention them (oh, unless you're really fond of smiting at straw), I would strongly suggest that you temper your language.

You have 50 minutes left to rethink that little screed. At the end of that time, I will request that it be removed as contrary to the DU rule against using abusive language against other members of this website.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. I was clearly referring to the organizations like the VPC and the Brady vs the RKBA people

not individual DU members. Any umbrage you take is your own.

[Statistical]

98. iverglas can go here to formally stake a claim of umbrage.

http://www.umbrage.org/

:)

[iverglas]

101. I think you're backpedaling

In fact, I have no doubt you are.

Hardly matters. Moronic terminology like "anti-gun bigots" hardly makes you look cool. Just makes you look like a demagogue, using language to dissemble and deceive.

If you need a dictionary to look up the word "bigot", I'll be happy to find you one.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

122. No I am not...words have meaning, I choose mine with care

Umbrage is free, take all you want.

[rl6214]

137. Watch out

He might sue you.

[pipoman]

53. Reply

When have you seen someone on this or any pro-gun forum advocate for *any* limits on firearm ownership?

Happens all the time, most pro 2nd posters here have a plan to effect background checks on private sales. Stick around a while.

No, but most gun owners (i.e. Republicans) do. That's the hypocrisy of the pro-gun position.

Yea, fuck the 50%+/- of Democrats/Independents/Progressives who are gun owners, it's easier to simply label them Republicans and makes you feel superior all at the same time huh...

We do this all the time. Or are you in favor of letting the {adjudicated} mentally ill purchase firearms?

I am sure that was just an oversight.

But most of the people who are pro-gun believe in the terrorist watch list. And the PATRIOT act. And warrantless wiretaps. And torture.

Any sight, source for this claim? Didn't think so.

Most posters are happy to see some "criminal" (a.k.a human being) deprived of his civil rights as long as it happens at the hands of a "law-abiding citizen" with a private firearm.

No, most posters are happy to see some non-criminal (a.k.a. innocent, law abiding citizen) not deprived of their life at the hands of your beloved "criminal"(a.k.a. worthless piece of shit) with an illegally owned and possessed firearm.

[jgraz]

77. Realizing that life doesn't follow Die Hard VII will probably help your grasp of reality

Yea, fuck the 50%+/- of Democrats/Independents/Progressives who are gun owners, it's easier to simply label them Republicans and makes you feel superior all at the same time huh...

Nice shell game there. "Independents" do not belong between Democrats and Progressives on the political spectrum. Even so, your claims of > 50% gun ownership among these groups are hard to believe. When's the last time anyone even polled "progressives" on gun ownership?

Did you know that the majority of NRA Members, Europeans and Survivalists are in favor of stricter gun control? (See what I did there?)

But most of the people who are pro-gun believe in the terrorist watch list. And the PATRIOT act. And warrantless wiretaps. And torture.

Any sight, source for this claim? Didn't think so.

This is not an extraordinary claim or even that unusual. The only people who would feign surprise at this statement are posters on this forum. Since you're making the extraordinary claim, let's see your evidence that people who are pro-Bush tyranny are also pro-gun control. Just seeing that statement in print makes the ridiculousness of your claim self-evident.

And btw, water is wet. Would you like to see my source for that?


Most posters are happy to see some "criminal" (a.k.a human being) deprived of his civil rights as long as it happens at the hands of a "law-abiding citizen" with a private firearm.

No, most posters are happy to see some non-criminal (a.k.a. innocent, law abiding citizen) not deprived of their life at the hands of your beloved "criminal"(a.k.a. worthless piece of shit) with an illegally owned and possessed firearm.

Whoa, slow down there, Judge Dredd. You're not only making another laughably indefensible statement, you're also playing right into the well-worn stereotype of pro-gun advocates as bloodthirsty Rambo wannabes.

How do you know that every alleged "defensive" gun user is a law-abiding citizen? How do you know that every victim of a DGU is an irredeemable "criminal (a.k.a worthless piece of shit)?

There are only about 600 justifiable homicides per year in this country, and 400 of those are by police. You should have no problem tracking down how many worthless, piece of shit, sociopathic career criminals were taken out by those shootings -- especially if your professed EVERY ONE OF THEM belief holds even close to true.


(HINT) This one doesn't count http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc

[pipoman]

103. Let's see

Nice shell game there. "Independents" do not belong between Democrats and Progressives on the political spectrum. Even so, your claims of > 50% gun ownership among these groups are hard to believe. When's the last time anyone even polled "progressives" on gun ownership?

You seem to be forgetting that without the independents Obama would not be our president right now. In fact I don't believe we have had a single president in a century (maybe ever) who hasn't carried the independent voters. I do however realize how many here on DU like to forget that those of us who vote Dem in every election cycle aren't a large enough block to ever carry a majority. I also realize that most urban dems (especially those who live in overwhelmingly liberal cities) are of the belief that their political views are the standard that all dems must embrace or they simply aren't good dems, so I give you some leeway.

But most of the people who are pro-gun believe in the terrorist watch list. And the PATRIOT act. And warrantless wiretaps. And torture.

Any sight, source for this claim? Didn't think so.

As I said, I didn't think so...Don't you find it just a little odd that even though we have a Democratic president and both house and senate are controlled by Democrats that we still have the terrorist watch list AND the PATRIOT act? Don't you find it unusual (given your twisted view of what a good Dem should be) that gun control (as you believe it should be) is so far from reality that, what was it?, 30 some Democratic legislators wrote to Obama to warn him of their intent to vote against new gun legislation? But of coarse they are not real democrats nor are their constituents, we all must be Berkley Democrats or we are not real Democrats, huh?

Further the silliness of your argument may be better put by pointing out that pro RKBA Dems are in favor of LIBERAL interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and usually ALL civil rights. You are saying you are in favor of liberal interpretation of all rights except the 2nd. It sounds that you would like to see that right repealed.

Whoa, slow down there, Judge Dredd. You're not only making another laughably indefensible statement, you're also playing right into the well-worn stereotype of pro-gun advocates as bloodthirsty Rambo wannabes.

If one of your upstanding human beings with an absolute right to due process under the law is breaking in my front door, pardon me if I am not going to wait to see the outcome on court TV...help yourself, I am sure you will be rewarded in the afterlife for your concern for the possible innocence of your murderer.

How do you know that every alleged "defensive" gun user is a law-abiding citizen? How do you know that every victim of a DGU is an irredeemable "criminal (a.k.a worthless piece of shit)?

You are the one speaking in absolutes. Surely you are not saying that every defensive gun user is a criminal...wait, that is exactly what you are saying. The idiocy of that position speaks for itself.

There are only about 600 justifiable homicides per year in this country, and 400 of those are by police. You should have no problem tracking down how many worthless, piece of shit, sociopathic career criminals were taken out by those shootings -- especially if your professed EVERY ONE OF THEM belief holds even close to true.

Again no sites for your silly claims. there have been more than 200 defensive gun examples posted in the gungeon so far this year.

Here, I'll help you out.

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#Crime%20and%20Self%20Defense

[jgraz]

104. You're wasting my time

I'm not going to spend a perfectly good evening helping you do basic homework on gun policy. Please show yourself and your fellow posters the minimal respect of acquiring some basic information before you write your posts.

Also, it's "cite". Not "sight" or "site". As in "citation".

Learn English, pick up a few books. Then we'll talk.

[pipoman]

106. As I expected

WAAAAAAA...elude....WAAAAAA....insult....WAAAA...avoid.....WAAAA...I wish it weren't so.....WAAAAAAAAAAA

I have forgotten more about the truth of gun policy than you have ever known.

This isn't homework and you aren't my teacher or my daddy, apparently you knew exactly what I was talking about, still no sites for your snobish, election loosing, Berkley know everything yet nothing ASSertions..good riddance.

[iverglas]

107. oh, the giggle for the day

I just love that justfacts. Hadn't seen it pop up in a while.

http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.basics.asp

In accord with the journalism standard to “never use … a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent,” the term used by Just Facts to describe the object of an abortion is “preborn human.”

If the RIGHT-WING AGENDA of that outfit (not to mention its through-going complete absence of intelligent life) weren't obvious from the "facts" about firearms it offers, that oughta do it.

"Preborn human". All I can ever think of is "precooked chicken". Cooked ahead of time. Born ahead of time.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[pipoman]

109. Yet, intrestingly

no dispute of the statement...jus' more o' the same..

[iverglas]

110. "statement"?

:shrug:

[Statistical]

54. In violent crime scenario someones rights will be deprived...

Most posters are happy to see some "criminal" (a.k.a human being) deprived of his civil rights as long as it happens at the hands of a "law-abiding citizen" with a private firearm.

Either the victim or the attacker. Given that choice I would gladly see the attack have his rights deprived. He/she broke social contract when deciding to go about depriving others of their rights.

[iverglas]

86. I get so confused

He/she broke social contract

Are those rights things not "inherent", "unalienable", maybe even "god-given"?

What do social contracts have to do with them?

Why are things one way when it advances the gun militant agenda, and quite another way when it doesn't?

[AtheistCrusader]

68. I see myself in the mirror occasionally, so there's at least one.

Hang around. Read posts.

Most of us accept the 1934 NFA as a good 'line in the sand' for limiting firearms types.
I think we all love NICS, and want to see an option for private transfers, to reduce the flow of guns from the hands of lawful law abiding citizens, to known criminals.

Just because we don't buy bullshit 'assault weapon' propaganda doesn't mean we don't advocate for ANY limits on firearm ownership.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. Is it even possible for you to be honest? Almost everyone agrees with the limits in the NFA.

[Tim01]

58. And it is rare for anti-gun people to be in favor of reasonable restrictions.

They want extreme restrictions. We already have reasonable restrictions.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tim01]

38. I know people who think kids should be able to drink. Do they represent you?

They don't represent me. The do not speak for hardly anybody. Neither do people who want unlimited access to guns.

[jgraz]

42. My point exactly. Someone who wants to increase alcohol consumption is considered a fringe case

... or an industry shill. Same goes for someone who wants to increase tobacco consumption.

But someone who wants to expand firearm ownership? Well, they're a fine, upstanding friend of the Constitution.

[Merchant Marine]

51. Someone who wants to expand alcohol consumption?

Sounds like every 18year old I've met.

[Deadric Damodred]

52. Actually the drinking age should be lowered to 18...

...that or the age you can join the army should be raised to 21. Either one would be acceptable.

[Statistical]

55. +1. I guess that makes me part of the pro-alchohol lobby too. n/t

[Tim01]

56. I agree with you on that but,

it is also true that in the military you are very closely monitored especially in war. That 18 year old kid is told to get in line and move forward killing anybody that gets in the way, more or less. His squad leader will try to make sure he doesn't get himself killed until he has enough wisdom to make his own decisions.
In the civilian world he would be given his drivers license and a bottle of liquor to go do whatever children do with alcohol and cars. His squad leader would not be there to tell him he is doing something wrong. He might kill himself and/or some other people too.

[iverglas]

62. went right over your head, did it?

Someone who wants to increase alcohol consumption is considered a fringe case
... or an industry shill.

Think on't, maybe.

[Tim01]

57. Maybe that is the attitude of the people you know. I know gun guys.

And gun guys do NOT want felons to have guns. They don't want kids to be able to get guns on their own, but they do want to be able to give their own family members guns.
People who think everybody should be allowed to have guns are considered fringe by most gun guys.

[jgraz]

97. No, they just want guns so freely available that felons have no problem buying them

I'm not really sure what the distinction is.

[iverglas]

108. the distinction?

If you solemnly intone that you don't want bad people having guns, and advocate nothing that would actually reduce the risk of that happening, you ... uh ... get to solemnly intone that you don't want bad people having guns.

Sorry. I'm no help after all.

[iverglas]

61. you beat me to it

Someone who wants to increase alcohol consumption is considered a fringe case
... or an industry shill. Same goes for someone who wants to increase tobacco consumption.
But someone who wants to expand firearm ownership? Well, they're a fine, upstanding friend of the Constitution.


I was going to come back and raise this interesting point in response to post 20.

The tobacco industry is a big bad bogeyman, doing anything and everything to expand its market and increase its profits, by selling products that kill people (almost always the people who buy the products).

But the firearms industry ... just providing a public service, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Zero

If you can point one out, I'd be interested. I don't think there are any on either side of the political fence.

[iverglas]

93. it's kind of a matter of intending the consequences of one's actions, isn't it?

Tobacco and alcohol sales are regulated. The only people ineligible for purchase are minors. Undoubtedly a lot of both gets into the hands of minors. We may well need better enforcement there.

Nonetheless, minors don't kill other people with tobacco. And strict enforcement of conditions on youth driver licences can help avoid the kinds of deaths that minors + alcohol are most likely to lead to.

(In Ontario, as I think we've discussed actually, there is a zero blood alcohol limit for anyone of any age during the first year or two of a licence, for example.)

But firearms, now.

There are several classes of people who are not eligible to have firearms.

And once they get them, they have them for good. Once guns get into circulation and into the hands of people who shouldn't have them, they don't get smoked up or drunk up. They are there, and they stay there, barring transfer, likely to another ineligible person anyhow.

You know what we used to say: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

If you do not advocate / if you oppose doing things that would be truly effective to reduce access to firearms by ineligible persons, you must be presumed to intend the consequence: that too many firearms will be in the possession of people who should not have them.


Advocates for unlimited access to firearms: zero?

Advocates for not doing the things that would be truly effective to reduce access to firearms by ineligible persons?

Quite a few.

[friendly_iconoclast]

113. I'm all for harm reduction- keep Republicans from power!

I noticed that there seems to be no prominent program to educate people on gun laws. Most anything seen
in public is either:

The VPC saying that semi-automatic weapons exist only for bank robbers and shooting kids who wander on
someone's lawn, or

The NRA-ILA claiming to be the only ones keeping Amurca from the ravening One-Worlder hordes (and can you
give us $100 to help? Thanks)


So it gets left to the Feds and the several states.


Trouble is, the various state's attorneys do not make a point of preventing improper transfers of firearms
from the supply side, and not nearly enough on the receiving end.

The BATF is so dysfunctional, they prefer to go after the low-hanging fruit of paperwork violations instead
of vigorously pursuing straw buyers and sellers. That would involve a) actual police work, and b) cooperation
with other law enforcement agencies.

Couple this with a strong element in the Democratic Party that looks at guns the way the Taliban would look
at a wine tasting, and you've got damn near the worst of all possible worlds: A govenment veering between
a party who doesn't care for part of the Constitution and one who doesn't care for any of it.

[iverglas]

115. you might want to figure out where you meant to post this

and move it to wherever it might be relevant.

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. Thanks for the attempt at freelance moderation, but I think it is fine as is, where is

You'd like firearms kept from the hands of those inelegible to own them, no?

I'm all for that, and would like to see Democrats (and democrats) use methods that didn't simply
play into the hands of Republicans. You know, the dreaded right-wingers?

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say:

The previous attempts at harm reduction via gun control as promoted by the Democratic Party
caused more harm (and more deaths) in the long term than were prevented in the short term, however
attractive the ideas presented were at the time.

Those ideas (let us call them the DLC/VPC school of gun control, for want of a better term) simply
didn't play well in a large right-centrist country like the USA. The GOP knew they wouldn't,
and did what von Bismark did to Napoleon III- got their enemy to do something stupid.

It was the Anne Richards/George Bush debacle writ large, and it netted us the Iraq War w/ tens of thousands
of dead, the Patriot Act, and a nice little concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay.

Harm reduction, indeed.

[iverglas]

134. "You'd like firearms kept from the hands of those inelegible to own them, no?"

Sure.

I'd also like a pony and magic carpet.

Usually, I recognize that I live in the real world, and sometimes it just isn't possible to get what you want.


The previous attempts at harm reduction via gun control as promoted by the Democratic Party caused more harm (and more deaths) in the long term than were prevented in the short term, however attractive the ideas presented were at the time.

Correlation, causation ... my sister, my daughter ...

Well done!

[proteus_lives]

105. It's true.

My smokes will probably kill me before my guns will.

[Tim01]

138. We need more common sense laws for regulating alcohol and tobacco.nt