Printable View
Maryland man shot in chest during target practice.
Indiana man killed cleaning his gun. He didn't do it right.
Kansas men shoots himself in the leg.
Pennsylvanian killed when man trips with his gun.
Florida woman accidentally shot in the street.
IHOP guard in Ohio accidentally shoots and kills patron.
All happened today, March 31. And the day's not over yet.
http://accidentalgunshots.tumblr.com/
"Innocent until proven guilty"-NRA
Did the voice say anything about loaning money to strangers on the internet? Otherwise, your post warms my heart, to see the insane able to take advantage of thier Second Amendment rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Probably gonna follow that blog...Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
What does everyone think about Cold Dead Hand? Going by the comments, it brings out the best - and worst - of folks.
http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/7w3q
Hilarious. I posted that link a few pages back, but it's worth a repost. (Don't know why it doesn't embed)Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Escalade
A gun can be one hell of an anchor. I don't think Mr. Heston's going to be floating off to Heaven anytime soon.
I watched it Trish. Excellent. But if you read the posts in response to it, it gets scarey.
Not so much lending as borrowing.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
It's amazing how much preparation is involved in premeditation. Wouldn't want to seem rash.
How does one, an individual, protect/defend oneself against a "tyrannical" government? I've never understood that. (Plus corporations control our government. So, we are "defending" ourselves against corporations....)
I support defending one's home... against people trying to break in etc., etc.
But how can one defend oneself against the U.S. government????
I mean, how did the whole David Koresh thing work out????
Caller: Owning a Gun Has Nothing to do With Penis Size! - YouTube
Guns, in the hands of civilians, are hardly ever used for protection. People tell you they own this or that weapon for protection, but what they really mean is they bought an expensive and dangerous security blanket. A gun in a house is more likely to be involved in an accidental shooting or a suicide than in protecting the family.
Oh yeah, they're also huge phallic symbols too. Owners like to show them off and compare. They also get big silly grins on their faces when they ejaculate hot lead at high speed through the exquisitely machined barrels. The more rounds per minute the better. That's just like a man. All speed and no foreplay.
What's foreplay?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Umm no. According to the Census Bureau firearms are used for self-defense OVER 100,000 times per year. While Gary Kleck, a criminologist, says the nuber is closer to 2.5 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
And as for your "phallic symbols", that is pure bullshit. I carry my pistol for my personal protection. I usually have it with me every time I leave my house. In my past I've had several bad relationships and I like having the security of mind to know that I don't have to rely on someone else for protection.
One day, in 2010, I didn't have my pistol. That day, I was raped. He was eventually caught and brought to "justice". Because his family had a slime-ball lawyer got a slap on the wrist and served less than a year in prison. If I would've had my pistol, he wouldn't have raped me.
Loren,
It is great to be able to protect yourself in times of need. But your anecdote tells us that even owning a gun is not enough. You need to have it on you every time you could get into trouble. We're all vulnerable at some point in our lives, guns or not.
In the abstract, you could have prevented the rape. But in your attempt to prevent other crimes, such as robbery, or jaywalking, owning a gun could also lead to an innocent person's untimely death. I don't know anyone who has saved their own life with a gun but I have known three people involved in gun tragedies. One guy's kid killed himself by accident not suicide. One guy was shot by his friend who thought his gun was not loaded (he is a vegetable; not dead). And one guy pulled the trigger of his shotgun with his toe.
Perhaps I just have crossed paths with an accident prone and suicidal group. I have not heard one anecdote of someone hearing someone creeping around their house and thank goodness they had a gun because it averted a disaster. Talk about the statistical anomaly that would catch everyone's attention (think shark attacks). Can you imagine if one day a gun averted a public disaster? The gun lobbies would latch on to this anomaly like it were the only relevant thing in the universe.
There are a lot of tall tales told by gun owners, but not nearly as many substantiated accounts of guns used in self-defense. Just to highlight the willingness of some so-called "researchers" to inflate the numbers note that 100,000 is only 4% of 2.5 million. Gary Kleck's theoretical figure is 2.5 million. Your quote for the Census Bureau's measured figure (for which you provided no link) is 100,000. I'd say the theory failed to remain within a modest interval of error. But don't take my word for it. The National Research Council of the National Academies of Science disagrees.
Here's a quote from the link that follows.
http://fair.org/slider/the-self-defe...ion/#gsc.tab=0Quote:
The pro-gun crowd sure wants you to think so, promoting studies over the years claiming guns are used defensively thousands of times per day and that broader gun ownership makes communities safer, and repeating anecdotes in which guns are reported to have thwarted crimes.
A favorite study of these advocates is 1995’s “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun” (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall/95), byGary Kleck and Marc Gertz, which found that guns were used defensively about 2.5 million times annually in the U.S.—or almost 7,000 times a day.
Researcher John Lott conducted another study favored by gun advocates, published in his 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime, which claimed that increasing numbers of concealed carry permits in a given area are associated with decreasing crime rates.
Both studies have been convincingly challenged in the scientific community. In a 2004 meta-study of gun research, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science found that Lott’s claims were not supported by his data. And when Lott misrepresented the report (New York Post, 12/29/04), the NAS published a letter (Deltoid, 1/26/05) listing his distor-tions. Shooting Down the More Guns Less Crime Hypothesis (11/02), a paper pub-lished by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found crime actually increased in states and locales where concealed carry laws had been adopted.
The Harvard School of Public Health’s David Hemenway took on Kleck in Survey Research and Self Defense Gun Use: An Explanation of Extreme Overestimates (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1997), demonstrating that because of the nature of the data, Kleck’s self-reported phone survey finding 2.5 million defensive uses of guns per year was wildly exaggerated. For example, Kleck says guns were used to defend against 845,000 burglaries in 1992, a year in which the National Crime Victimization Survey says there were fewer than 6 million burglaries.
Hemenway put together facts from the well-regarded NCVS—that someone was known to be home in just 22 percent of burglaries (1.3 million), and that fewer than half of U.S. households have firearms—and pointed out that Kleck “asks us to believe that burglary victims in gun-owning households use their guns in self-defense more than 100 percent of the time.”
Hemenway noted that respondents may also have a distorted view of “self-defense”—e.g., mistakenly thinking they are legally defending themselves when they draw a gun during a minor altercation. As the Harvard researcher and his co-authors in another study pointed out (Injury Prevention, 12/00): “Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self-defense. Most self-reported self-defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.”
A National Crime Victimization Survey report, controlling for many of the methodological problems in Kleck, supported Hemenway, finding 65,000 defensive gun uses per year (NCVS Report, 1997). Current NCVS estimates are in the 100,000 range.
"Hemenway noted that respondents may also have a distorted view of “self-defense”—e.g., mistakenly thinking they are legally defending themselves when they draw a gun during a minor altercation."
Great article Trish. This line in particular made me chuckle because I think it exemplifies how demented some gun advocates are.
Who here doesn't read this sentence and have a picture conjured up in their head of some dolt hastily drawing a gun and pretending he saved everyone's life from a situation he created? Thank goodness our hero saved us from a malicious homeless man cleaning windshields.
There's trouble on both ends of this argument. Here's a list of things everyone should be able to own if they want.
- .22 pistol
- hunting rifle
- .45 handgun
- semi-automatic rifle
- automatic rifle
- grenade launcher
- VX nerve agent
- nuclear warhead
If at any point on this list, you thought "wait a minute", then you agree that the government should control weapons. No one should be talking about whether the government has the right or the need to control weapons. The argument is, and must remain, about where and how to draw the line.
Conversely, the FBI estimates that there are 200 million guns, and there are about 32,000 total gun deaths per year, in the US. Simple division shows that you'd need to take away 6250 guns to possibly save 1 life per year, and since about 2/3 of those deaths are from suicide, that's being really generous.
Here's a "hugely successful" gun buyback, where 100k was spent, and 600 guns were brought in.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...in-oakland-sf/
I think it's extremely safe to say that there are much, much more cost-effective ways of saving lives than "getting guns off the streets".
That's one part of the argument. Other issues include secret carry, background checks etc. But yes, anyone who draws that line at nuclear warheads already grants the government the right to regulate weaponry. Personally I would like to see the line drawn at semi-automatic weapons. But I grant my representatives the right to negotiate and compromise, something tea-baggers do not allow their own representatives.Quote:
There's trouble on both ends of this argument. Here's a list of things everyone should be able to own if they want.
- .22 pistol
- hunting rifle
- .45 handgun
- semi-automatic rifle
- automatic rifle
- grenade launcher
- VX nerve agent
- nuclear warhead
If at any point on this list, you thought "wait a minute", then you agree that the government should control weapons. No one should be talking about whether the government has the right or the need to control weapons. The argument is, and must remain, about where and how to draw the line.
Agreed. But not putting more guns on the streets should be part of any rational regulatory agreement.Quote:
I think it's extremely safe to say that there are much, much more cost-effective ways of saving lives than "getting guns off the streets".
You're right that it's safe to say. Effectiveness of regulation is an important consideration. It's reasonable to start with the measures that save the most lives. Once they're implemented there's no reason to stop there?Quote:
Originally Posted by redsweater
The problem is that decision-making is not perfectly top down. Each agency has its own mandate and so for instance the department of transportation cannot fail to regulate car safety because asbestos is very dangerous. We can't use the fact that money cannot be allocated in a perfectly efficient way as an excuse for dragging our feet. As a theoretical matter, regulate that which is most dangerous and has the least utility first. As a practical matter, going down the list we do not run out of money by the time we get to guns.
I can think of many things that ARE regulated that save fewer lives than getting guns off the streets would. I am glad you concede there would be a net reduction in deaths from gun control measures though.
I didn't say that, in fact. I was careful to use words like "possibly", to show that if you do believe that a net reduction would be the result, then there are still much more effective ways to spend the $1 million that would result in 1 life saved under the absolute most optimistic conditions. The truth is that I don't know what the real result would be, and neither does anyone else. The purpose of this math problem was to show boundaries to check your expectations against, not to suggest what's really going to happen.Quote:
I am glad you concede there would be a net reduction in deaths from gun control measures though.
I understand. Look, though I don't agree with some parts of your previous post I thought it was a fairly reasonable presentation of some of the issues to consider.Quote:
Originally Posted by redsweater
If we discussed this long enough and pored over enough data I think we could shed some light on whether getting rid of certain guns would save lives (I think it would). It's empirically not testable but we could look at some of the factors. The real problem with precise numbers is that you don't know how many of the homicides and suicides and accidents committed with guns would be committed with less efficient means. Some amount less, but then this would still need to be netted against the lives saved by guns, which is some positive number though I think overstated.
Assuming that lives would be saved: I don't think it's that cumbersome a thing to regulate. As you say it's a matter of line drawing and not implementing a complete ban. But I don't think that the fact that there are other things to regulate means that it's too unwieldy to regulate guns.
Fair enough. For the record, I do more or less agree with the federal assault weapons ban. A handgun ban might be going a bit far.Quote:
I don't think that the fact that there are other things to regulate means that it's too unwieldy to regulate guns.
While people of reason are talking about registration and control of sales and limiting access to assault weapons the NRAs answer to gun violence is more guns. Only in a media world where both sides are given equal time as though there is always two sides of equal sanity to every issue could an organization take this stand only months after Newtown without being destroyed by media.
For the record, I am sure that the framers had not a clue what the world would look like today or that ordinary citizens could buy weapons of mass destruction for personal use unfettered by any regulation based on the Bill of Rights. At any rate these same old, rich, white guys also avoided slavery completely in their work so it was far from the Ten Commandments and we as a people should regularly access the intent of the freedoms they wished to create for fellow old, rich, whites guys to govern all of us we have the last 230 plus years.
Since Easter:
Four year old accidentally shoots and kills himself in Mobile, Alabama.
Fourteen year old boy trips, discharges his pistol and shoots his own leg.
Twenty two year old Maine resident shot his hand while trying to remove a bullet from the chamber of his Glock.
Six year old Floridian boy who found a gun inside a car kills his six year old sister.
Off duty Pennsylavania police officer accidentally shoots a citizen in the hand.
Arkansas man accidentally shoots himself.
Ohio man playing with his gun shoots himself in three places.
Arizona man killed when his twelve year old son’s gun discharges.
Oklahoma woman accidently shot in the arm by boyfriend.
Eighteen year old Ohio football player accidentally shot in his pickup.
South Carolina man accidentally shot in the thigh while “mudding” at a bonfile.
Three year old find father’s gun under the bed, shoots his thumb off.
http://accidentalgunshots.tumblr.com/
That's why kids shouldn't own guns. Their parents might accidentally shoot themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
This is why it's best to just pull emotionally charged, anecdotal evidence completely out of the discussion. People die every day, and people are hurt every day. The way that people die or get hurt makes people more or less upset depending on what it is.
To pro gun supporters: You're not entitled to have any weapon you want. There will be limits, so just focus on where you think a reasonable place to draw the line is.
To anti gun advocates: Even if you're completely right about everything, you're more likely to save lives by spending your time on almost any other cause. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
I thought Old Robert was a tad cynical three months ago, but it's looking now like the NRA is stronger than ever, and freedom means freedom not to worry about it. Most non-violent people purposely AVOID gun play, and distance themselves from people that are losing their marbles. Maybe Joseph Conrad was right, Civilization is for the scaredy-cats.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
There are over 23000 non-fatal gun accidents in the U.S. per year. Over 19000 suicides by guns.
Most gun owners think, "Shit, I'm not going to have an accident or commit suicide." They aren't thinking of their secretive teenage son or daughter who, like lots of teenagers, may be going through a rough emotional period. They aren't thinking of their six year old who is capable of finding anything and everything thought to be hidden.
The cdc list linked above includes the category "accidents." "Accidents involving guns" is a subcategory we can do something about.
The report of one gun accident is an anecdote. Yes gun deaths are high, but gun injuries are too. The fact that one can report on dozens of them day after day after day is something more than an ancedote. The fact that we can see that almost every gun accident is due to stupidity or negligence or both underscores what an incredibly dangerous hazard the very presence of a gun is. This is something that needs to be regulated and controlled.
There ya go... But how does that equate to "shouldn't"? Sometimes the parents need a little help. The Menendez genetic strain has now been severed. That's not a good thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Ah yes, Eric and Lyle. I forgot about them;. Perhaps the NRA wants to use them as a success story:).Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
There are 32000 gun deaths/year in the US. About 20,000 of them are suicides. If the rest of those deaths are accidents (they're not), then that's 10% of accidents. Accidental poisoning accounts for more at 33,000/year.
As an aside, I noticed that guns are the method of choice for suicide, accounting for a little over half.
Many suicides are accidents too, in the sense that if a gun hadn't been handy, the victim may have survived his or her darkest hour without dire happenstance. Too often the weapon used belonged not to the victim, but to a family member who bought it to protect the family.
The only gun you need in life is your cock. Never has a truer word been spoken.
And no matter how big or how small your cock, we all shoot the same caliber sperm (about 3 microns in diameter, if I correctly recall).
Every time I go to the toilet Trish, I need to order a crane
:D
Or you could hang a picture of Lilly Langtree over the urinal, drop your pants and wait for an erection. The problem there is you have to learn to piss through an erection, not an easily acquired skill.
You don't think there's maybe a better way to do that? Really? A peptalk? Advocating for a more equitable economy so people in poverty don't feel completely hopeless?
Ok. Let's get rid of all the guns. A buyback is by far the cheapest and fastest way and they've been so successful that we can assume all 200 million guns will be turned in. The average offer is $300/gun, so to prevent all these suicides and accidents, we only need 60 billion dollars. No one will complain about this, no other countries will attempt to capitalize on the new black market opportunity, and no one will try to hasten the completion of a fully 3d printed weapon.
$60 billion buys a lot of cancer research.
Sorry for being caustic.
No need to get rid of all guns. But if your gun was used in the commission of a crime, in a suicide, in an accident let's have some liability. Assign some liability to owner, manufacturers and distributors. From this point on let's make guns harder to acquire. Let's have background checks. If you want to bring a gun into a home let's make it the law that more than one adult living there give it the okay. There's a lot one can do for a lot less than 60 billion dollars.
It strikes me as bit silly to prioritize problems by size and tackle them only in that order. A lot money and a lot of time has already gone into cancer research. There are no organizations opposed to cancer research.
We can also investigate the cosmic background microwave radiation (which costs a lot less money and won't save any lives). We can do it while we research cancer.
Just one of the unique things about the problem of gun injuries and gun deaths, is there actually is a national organization devoted to doing nothing about it, indeed devoted to obstructing all progress. The NRA has even gotten Washington to prevent the CDC from conducting any further research into gun injuries and gun deaths.
While I don't know if I agree with every point made here, a lot of this post rings true to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
The NRAs obstruction and power is enormous and the fact that they stand against universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole are examples of how entrenched they are in maintaining the status quo.
Right off the bat there needs to be some kind of buffer to the prolifiration of guns and a good place to start is with gun show sales and universal background checks and registration. Convicted felons should not be allowed to either maintain ownership or buy new guns.
The database argument IMHO is so lame and just made to incite fear in people. Everyone who has a car has that car registered and drivers license. Now free travel is a basic right but responsible ownership and insurance is required. I can not see why the same basic guidelines aren't good for fire arms. And if people are worried about national database it is a bit late as the Patriot Act has consolidated data and poses a far greater threat to freedom than sensible gun safety regulations or the idea that Obama is going to drop a drone attack on some Tea Party member while they are having their morning coffee and doughnut.
As for assault weapons, they IMHO should be so highly regulated and expensive to buy, register and insure that they will become a rarity in the future.
The idea of buying back all the fire arms in the US isn't terribly viable, given the number is estimated to be between 200 - 300 million. But NRAs idea that the best answer to fire arm violence is to have more people carry weapons while appealing to gun manufactures is not the answer IMHO.
While guns can't and should not be abolished the time has come for the US to comprehend that virtual unfettered ownership is a bad idea. Internet privacy and a whole host of issues threaten freedom more than gun safety does.
Chris Rock did a great skit about how bullets should cost $5,000 a piece. In this skit he talks about two guys having an argument in a bar and one yelling to other "I'd blow your motherfing brains out if I could afford it MF!" Sort of makes sense to me.
I'm sure the Founding Fathers imagined that if a man could be freed from oppression, he could then envision a straight line to God and His Kingdom, and the only task at hand would be to keep one eye on the foggy trap of DESIRE.
Well, it seems that the definition of Freedom requires Lawbooks, aisles of them, libraries of them.
A few years back there was a shooting in a High School near me, I don't recall the details, but that night the school auditorium was packed with outraged citizens and news cameras. In the course of the discussion, the Principle SCHOOLED the Parents, when he calmly stated he had not seen ONE of their faces at the weekly PTA meetings, in fact no-one at all attended them.
"There Is No Security on this Earth. Only Opportunity.” Douglas MacArthur
Any time you change the World to make it a saner place, somebody gets sore. You have to choose your battles. The World is a risky place. That's why there is a Cop with a Gun standing behind every Judge I've ever seen.
[quote=trish;1302067]So if I can just get to the cosmos, I can heat up this frozen burrito?Quote:
We can also investigate the cosmic background microwave radiation (which costs a lot less money and won't save any lives).
All necessary regulations are just common sense. The NRA used to be all about common sense because their agenda was gun safety. Then Wayne laPierre came along & weaseled his way into complete control of the organization. Now the NRA is nothing more than another fringe group, making up conspiracy theories & lobbying to remove the laws that they used to argue were enough to sanely regulate guns. There's so much stupid flowing out of the NRA these days, one would think the general public should be hip to it by now. That doesn't seem to be the case.
Perhaps the discussion should be directed toward blind following of winged philosophies. Basic common sense seems to have no place in most discussion that can be politicized in any way. This is an attitudinal problem.