(October 2, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

---

(October 2, 2015 at 1:45 am)Kitan Wrote:

---

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014

When you must inflate your numbers threefold in order to make your point, you lose credibility.

I wandered around the gunviolencearchive site for a while to try to figure out the discrepancy between your 12562 and Kitan's 33636 number.
My recollected figure regarding gun deaths is closer to a 35k number.
I don't see where your summary ledger distributes the suicides.
If 2 of 3 gun deaths are suicides, then the 12k number works out to about my 35k (3*12k=36k.)

Wikipedia for what it's worth says:

Quote:According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,

the 21175 plus 11208 gives 32383 which is pretty close to Kitan's number.

I site searched gunviolencearchive  for "suicide statistics" but was not able to specifically identify if or where suicides were counted.
They did state that suicides are an exception to their "near real time collection," but that should not affect an annual toll.

(October 2, 2015 at 6:54 pm)FreeTony Wrote: It isn't going to change, no matter how many people get shot. It appears that American gun production is going through the roof, and support for gun control is going down. Apparently Americans feel more at risk nowadays (despite the stats not backing this up), and that the only way to protect themselves is a gun.

I would hate for gun ownership to be normal here in the UK, and I hate seeing police with guns (thankfully this is very rare too). However if you guys in America want lots of people shot as a byproduct of feeling safer yourself, you have that right to decide and you aren't going to be persuaded by stats or examples from abroad.

This just in from a reply I got earlier too - In America you still need a gun as a "tool for the wilderness".... I'm guessing that counts even if you live in Manhattan? Many cougar, such wilderness...

(October 2, 2015 at 4:27 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Open question for USians:

How many more mass shootings is it going to take until your government wakes up to the fact that there needs to be better ways to keep guns away from unstable people?

Boru

Why is that a problem?  If you get shot dead then you won't die from cancer.

The most unstable people are the cops with guns.  People love it when they shoot people.  Take guns away from them and gun violence will take a nosedive.  All cops should have to undergo a rigorous psych exam every six months.

(October 2, 2015 at 11:53 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 11:32 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: You can't carry liquid on a plane but you can walk down a street with an automatic rifle. Its the inconsistency I don't understand.

NRA = money = congress.

It's really very simple.  The NRA exists to protect the profit margins of the death merchants.

Individual voters elect the politicians.  Just because a guy spends $400 million on his campaign it doesn't mean that the dummies have to vote for him.

(October 2, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Individual voters elect the politicians.  Just because a guy spends $400 million on his campaign it doesn't mean that the dummies have to vote for him.

The dummies are not prone to caring about money.

They hear "I will not support gays" and "I believe in god" and that is their vote right there.

(October 2, 2015 at 8:24 pm)JuliaL Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 1:53 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

---

---

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014

When you must inflate your numbers threefold in order to make your point, you lose credibility.

I wandered around the gunviolencearchive site for a while to try to figure out the discrepancy between your 12562 and Kitan's 33636 number.
My recollected figure regarding gun deaths is closer to a 35k number.
I don't see where your summary ledger distributes the suicides.
If 2 of 3 gun deaths are suicides, then the 12k number works out to about my 35k (3*12k=36k.)

Wikipedia for what it's worth says:

Quote:According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,

the 21175 plus 11208 gives 32383 which is pretty close to Kitan's number.

I site searched gunviolencearchive  for "suicide statistics" but was not able to specifically identify if or where suicides were counted.
They did state that suicides are an exception to their "near real time collection," but that should not affect an annual toll.

If you're going to count suicides in a gun debate, ought you not support restrictions on the sale of rope? Do you?

In this context, counting those who kill only themselves is disingenuous. We are, after all, talking about guns as murder weapons.

I can link you to FBI statistics on gun crimes which show similar numbers, if you'd prefer.

The fact is that attributing 33,000 deaths to guns in America is factually incorrect.

(October 2, 2015 at 8:28 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 6:54 pm)FreeTony Wrote: It isn't going to change, no matter how many people get shot. It appears that American gun production is going through the roof, and support for gun control is going down. Apparently Americans feel more at risk nowadays (despite the stats not backing this up), and that the only way to protect themselves is a gun.

I would hate for gun ownership to be normal here in the UK, and I hate seeing police with guns (thankfully this is very rare too). However if you guys in America want lots of people shot as a byproduct of feeling safer yourself, you have that right to decide and you aren't going to be persuaded by stats or examples from abroad.

This just in from a reply I got earlier too - In America you still need a gun as a "tool for the wilderness".... I'm guessing that counts even if you live in Manhattan? Many cougar, such wilderness...

Nice straw man. It apparently escaped your notice that I was trying to explain cultural differences in attitude, not trying to explain current gun usage.

Pearls in front of swine, and all that. Do try to understand what is being said ... and do avoid deliberate misrepresentation, as seems to be the case here.

(October 2, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 11:53 am)Minimalist Wrote: NRA = money = congress.

It's really very simple.  The NRA exists to protect the profit margins of the death merchants.

Individual voters elect the politicians.  Just because a guy spends $400 million on his campaign it doesn't mean that the dummies have to vote for him.

?


Is that how you think their lobbyists function?  If a republicunt threatens to support a gun control bill they threaten him with finding a primary opponent that they will finance to run against him.  If a democrat threatens to support a gun control bill they threaten to finance the campaign of a republicunt shithead that they can control.

In such ways does the kleptocracy function.

(October 1, 2015 at 8:04 pm)EvidenceVersusFaith Wrote: I read some years back that New Zealand is the most peaceful country in the world.

Been there the people were nice. Think one problem with the USA is that people have little respect for human life. Also look at Chicago more people killed there every month an no one seems to care. Not Obama and not Sharpton. Sad.

I read the guy that did the shooting was originally from the UK.

---

(October 2, 2015 at 1:33 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(October 1, 2015 at 10:33 pm)Cecelia Wrote: Simulations have been run by law enforcement have shown that untrained (and even those with some training) are unlikely to hit an assailant in a shooting.

An article and a video demonstrating:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7298996&page=1








(from the article) "You have to be able to know what your target is; but you also have to know what's behind your target, what's around your target; you're very responsible for everything," Benton said. "One stray bullet that misses and hits a bystander, you're responsible for it."


The stress of the situation and the psychological effects are greater than most people realize.  That's why there's so much police training.  They don't jump in there, and day one are ready to react to a shooting. Even if you handle guns all the time, you don't handle them under the stressful situation of someone shooting back at you. 

Also keep in mind that shooting a handgun is harder than any other type of gun. 

Many law enforcement officers that I know echo similar opinions that untrained civilians aren't likely to successfully stop a mass shooting.  It's nothing like a video game, or out at the range where bullets aren't flying back.  The results of this simulation are what you'd expect.  Imagine trying to shoot someone with a handgun (which are fairly inaccurate to begin with) in a crowded and dark theater.  Or in a classroom with people screaming and running everywhere.  It's not as easy as the movies makes it look.  Which is why it's so rare that an armed civilian stops a mass shooting.  It's a pipe dream of many gun enthusiasts who want to get to shoot someone.

Keep in mind most states have little to no requirements for a concealed carry permit.  

I asked for numbers to support your claim. Do you have those numbers, or no? Be clear.

Also shooting at a living target makes a difference.

(October 2, 2015 at 10:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(October 2, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Individual voters elect the politicians.  Just because a guy spends $400 million on his campaign it doesn't mean that the dummies have to vote for him.

?


Is that how you think their lobbyists function?  If a republicunt threatens to support a gun control bill they threaten him with finding a primary opponent that they will finance to run against him.  If a democrat threatens to support a gun control bill they threaten to finance the campaign of a republicunt shithead that they can control.

In such ways does the kleptocracy function.

The voters are still responsible for the people they elect.  If they are routinely stupid enough to elect people who screw them then they need to be screwed hard.