I'm an Atheist, I don't believe in me.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;980804]It's the overall tone to your argument, the same tired tactics.



Yeah, all gun owners are NRA members. <rolls_eyes> It's more your side telling everyone that the case. It [U][I][B]IS[/B][/I][/U] political, but driven from the liberal, anti-gun adjenda.




Some of my best friends are black. GTFOOH, you lying weasel!

You're on the wrong end so you attempt to change the conversation to something you're more comfortable with.

At no point did I mock the Conn shooting victims and it's pretty low for you to even suggest it. It's also similar in the way liberals throw the word racism around when they want to bring a conversation back to their terms.

Point being, you accused me of something anyone here can see I didn't do. You are now trying to reframe the 2nd Amendment as a 'hunters only' issue. What part of the 2nd Amendment do you need explained to you?

You're an utter cunt for trying to use a vile assertion like making fun of shooting victims. You know you're wrong, and like another poster on here, when your position is shown to be invalid you use bluff, demands and misdirection in an attempt to garner popular support.

Back on track: This is about gun control. We have an overwhelming amount to gun laws on the books, they should be better enforced.

People need to be better neighbors, care for each other more and get help for people who need it.[/quote]


So now the name calling starts after you get called out,conversation done!

Don't lie, you won't get called names.

You're wrong, everyone can see you're wrong. Now you compound it by being too gutless to just apologize.

Of course you're done. Crawl away.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

You know, at risk of the NRA being able to tell us what we believe, as someone here said: I thought it might be helpful to post what the NRA said, not just a liberal description of what the NRA said that was posted earlier: [URL="http://home.nra.org/classic.aspx/blog/345"]Link[/URL]

[U]NRA PRESS CONFERENCE
12/21/2012

The National Rifle Association's 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters join the nation in horror, outrage, grief and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown, Connecticut ... who suffered such incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.

Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.

Now, we must speak ... for the safety of our nation's children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.

We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.

Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!

(continue reading at link above)[/U]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Punch It In,

Close to home.

[URL="http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2012/12/guns_ammunition_found_during_ocean_township_traffic_stop_police_say.html"]Guns, ammunition found during Ocean Township traffic stop, police say | NJ.com[/URL]

[QUOTE=Giantone;982289]Punch It In,

Close to home.

[URL="http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2012/12/guns_ammunition_found_during_ocean_township_traffic_stop_police_say.html"]Guns, ammunition found during Ocean Township traffic stop, police say | NJ.com[/URL][/QUOTE]

Lovely.....

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Excellent article that goes much deeper into the question 'Why?' these atrocities are happening:
[URL="http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2012/12/17/newtown-and-violence-no-easy-answers/"]
Newtown and Violence - No Easy Answer[/URL]

Whilst I don't agree with this point:

[I]President Obama has called for meaningful action. In government, meaningful action is often symbolic, done in speeches and codified into law. Gun control would at the very least signal that things have shifted, that we will not accept this type of violence, that we are willing to place limits on our freedom for the collective good of our children.[/I]

This resonates:

[I]We need to get better at dealing with young men and women prone to violence through our schools and in our neighborhoods. We need to engage in prison reform, and to rework our senseless jailing of so many non-violent offenders (often to great profit for the people who run prisons) and to direct many more resources to lowering alcohol and drug use rather than a continued engagement in a violent drug war. Much of the saved money from that “war” could then go to funding more community approaches to addressing violence. So, yes, reform before and after these violent acts.[/I]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[FONT=Arial]Enact common sense gun laws,these could'nt hurt![/FONT]

[url=http://www.bradycenter.org/advocates/second_amendment?gclid=CMyupbOix7QCFcuZ4Aod9h4AxQ]Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence : Second Amendment[/url]

[FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000]The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to possess guns in the home for self defense. They Justices also stated that this right is “not unlimited” – elected officials may enact common sense gun laws to protect communities.[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000]
[/COLOR][/FONT][B][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT][/B]
[B][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT][B][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000]
Those laws are needed to protect the safety of Americans. Too many individuals can obtain dangerous weapons far too easily in America. An epidemic of violence results when guns and even assault rifles can be purchased from unlicensed merchants at gun shows without a Brady criminal background check.
[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT][B][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000]
Think we don’t need to change that? Think again. In one year, more than 31,000 people die from gun violence – and close to 79,000 more are shot but survive gun injuries. That’s more than 100,000 people EACH YEAR who are killed or wounded with a gun in our country.
[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT][B][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000]
This is not about banning guns. It’s about responsibility in selling and owning guns – and making our homes, schools and communities safer. And you have a stake in it. [/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000]We all do[/COLOR][/FONT]
[/B][/B]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;982631][B][B][FONT=arial][COLOR=#000000]
Think we don’t need to change that? Think again. In one year, more than 31,000[/COLOR][/FONT][/B][/B][B][/B][/quote]

Which year? Certainly wasn't 2011.

[I]In 2011, an estimated 14,612 persons were [B]murdered[/B] in the United States. This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2010 estimate, a 14.7 percent decline from the 2007 figure, and a 10.0 percent decrease from the 2002 estimate.[/I]

[url=http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder]FBI &mdash; Murder[/url]

This is a total for murder, not just gun murder. I would suggest that you're telling lies again.

Please be thorough enough to post your sources other than an appallingly biased website. FBI should do.

Waiting.........

You could try here:

[url=http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/]FactCheck.org : Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts[/url]

[I]However, Barber said gun violence has “dropped precipitously” from the early 1990s — a trend criminologists chalked up to “changes in the crack cocaine market.” Her observation is supported by crime data and surveys.[/I]
[I]As we said earlier, the homicide rate since 1981 peaked in 1993 at 7 per 100,000. In addition, the Census Bureau’s annual National Crime Victimization Survey collects data on nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes, including those not reported to police. [URL="http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.cfm"]That data set shows a dramatic decline [/URL]in gun violence since the early 1990s.[/I]

But you won't like the result.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;982638]


This is a total for murder, not just gun murder. I would suggest that you're telling lies again.

.[/quote]


"[B][FONT=Arial]Think we don’t need to change that? Think again. In one year, more than 31,000 people die from gun violence – and close to 79,000 more are shot but survive gun injuries. That’s more than 100,000 people EACH YEAR who are killed or wounded with a gun in our country."[/FONT][/B]

[FONT=Arial][B]I would suggest you might need some reading comprehension[/B][/FONT][FONT=Verdana],it says gun vioence not just murder.[/FONT]


More facts you won't like....

[url=http://www.heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10]USA Gun Violence Statistics | heedinggodscall.org[/url]

'It' says.......

Cite your source. You can't substantiate it because it's a falsified figure.

You're a liar, a scaremonger and a waste of forum space.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[url=http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/opinions_civilians_have_no_rig.html#incart_m-rpt-1]Opinions: Civilians have no rights to assault weapons | NJ.com[/url]


Pretty good opinion peace ..........

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;982789]'It' says.......

Cite your source. You can't substantiate it because it's a falsified figure.

You're a liar, a scaremonger and a waste of forum space.[/quote]
[URL="http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=3c1074125499a575d1122710576a769d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thewarpath.net%2Fnewreply.php%3Fdo%3Dnewreply%26p%3D982789&v=1&libid=1357132943196&out=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bradycenter.org%2Fadvocates%2Fsecond_amendment%3Fgclid%3DCMyupbOix7QCFcuZ4Aod9h4AxQ&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thewarpath.net%2Fdebating-with-the-enemy%2F48456-gun-control-thread-should-we-28.html&title=The%20Warpath%20-%20Reply%20to%20Topic&txt=Brady%20Center%20to%20Prevent%20Gun%20Violence%20%3A%20Second%20Amendment&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13571330371952"][COLOR=#0066cc]Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence : Second Amendment[/COLOR][/URL]


and when you can't respond ,you call someone names.

Brady Center is anti-gun. Post an independent, valid source.

I am using Government figures, not a lobbyists group, I expect you to do the same.

And also, calling you a liar is an accurate description, not name-calling. You tell lies. You're a liar.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;982795]Brady Center is anti-gun. Post an independent, valid source.

I am using Government figures, not a lobbyists group, I expect you to do the same.

And also, calling you a liar is an accurate description, not name-calling. You tell lies. You're a liar.[/quote]


Oh ,so becuase you use one type of source I have to use that also, and if I don't I'm a liar,how old are you?The NRA is a lobbyest group and you have no problem throwing their stats out when you need them.

Typical gun culture thinking when they are matched up with facts ,they start personal attacks.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;982804]Oh ,so becuase you use one type of source I have to use that also, [/quote]

Only if you want to be credible.

[quote=Giantone;982804]and if I don't I'm a liar,[/quote]

No, you're a liar because you tell lies. Your most recent is using a distorted set of figures from a biased website. The worst was saying I mocked the shooting victims. Still waiting for an apology......


[quote=Giantone;982804]how old are you?[/quote]

None of your business and irrelevant to the topic.

[quote=Giantone;982804]The NRA is a lobbyest group and you have no problem throwing their stats out when you need them.[/quote]

And yet I don't, do I?

[quote=Giantone;982804]Typical gun culture thinking when they are matched up with facts ,they start personal attacks.[/quote]

You haven't posed any facts, just some scaremongering figures which are wrong. I asked you from which year we had 30K of violent gun deaths? You never answered because you can't.

Claiming I am part of som nefarious 'gun culture' just makes you look more feebleminded and played by the media. I find it amusing, others may not.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

I'l have to say New Years at 12:00 I heard several rounds of guns going off mixed with fireworks. I'm living in a nice neighborhood (renting as we build) and was very surprised to hear guns being fired off to ring in the new year. Maybe it happened at my other house and I was just too drunk to notice.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=firstdown;982860]I'l have to say New Years at 12:00 I heard several rounds of guns going off mixed with fireworks. I'm living in a nice neighborhood (renting as we build) and was very surprised to hear guns being fired off to ring in the new year. Maybe it happened at my other house and I was just too drunk to notice.[/quote]

I can go down to the Indiana border and buy fireworks that are louder than gunshots.
Did you see any guns or just hear a boom?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

I heard the pop, pop, pop, of a gun not a firework. I to have fireworks louder then a gun and heard fireworks on new years louder I just know the sound of a gun.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Here's a nice example today of a gun owner using his firearm to aid his family:

[URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256121/Naked-man-shot-breaking-Miami-home-strangling-pet-Rottweiler.html"]Daily Mail[/URL] - Naked man shot breaking into Miami home, strangling pet Rottweiler.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

And here is an example of gun control working.


[url=http://abcnews.go.com/International/australia-model-successful-gun-control-laws/story?id=18007055]Australia a Model for Successful Gun Control Laws - ABC News[/url]

[QUOTE=firstdown;982877]I heard the pop, pop, pop, of a gun not a firework. I to have fireworks louder then a gun and heard fireworks on new years louder I just know the sound of a gun.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. Sitting in the field across the street from my house, we heard one burst of automatic fire and several shots from semiautomatics. Normal for downtown Baltimore. Actually heard fewer shots than in the past.

Still remember the time I celebrated New Year's Eve with a friend a couple blocks away and, while standing in the driveway, two guys across the street stepped out of a doorway and started blasting away into the air. One had a hand gun the other an automatic rifle ... We went back inside quickly.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;982900]And here is an example of gun control working.


[URL="http://abcnews.go.com/International/australia-model-successful-gun-control-laws/story?id=18007055"]Australia a Model for Successful Gun Control Laws - ABC News[/URL][/quote]

No, not really.....

[URL="http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847"]AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN[/URL]

[I]Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:[/I]
[LIST][*][I]In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. [/I][*][I]Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.[/I][*][I]Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.[/I][/LIST][I]Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:[/I]
[LIST][*][I]Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent. [/I][*][I]During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. [/I][*][I]Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. [/I][*][I]Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. [/I][*][I]At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. [/I][*][I]Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.[/I][/LIST]But at least criminals aren't getting shot, so that's nice.....

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;982960]No, not really.....

[URL="http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847"]AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN[/URL]

[I]Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:[/I]
[LIST][*][I]In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. [/I][*][I]Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.[/I][*][I]Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.[/I][/LIST][I]Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:[/I]
[LIST][*][I]Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent. [/I][*][I]During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. [/I][*][I]Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. [/I][*][I]Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. [/I][*][I]At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. [/I][*][I]Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.[/I][/LIST]But at least criminals aren't getting shot, so that's nice.....[/quote]

Any stats involving just percents are useless. A percent is always the easiest "number" to manipulate when analysing. Why ad companies use percent all the time.

Example:

Koons Chevy was down 20% in car sales in 2012 compared to Jimmy John's Rust Bucket Lot who was up 10% in sales.

Looks like Jimmy John cleaned house in 2012. Right?

Koons Total Cars Sold 2012: 1200
Jimmy Johns Cars Sold 2012: 11

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;982972]Any stats involving just percents are useless. A percent is always the easiest "number" to manipulate when analysing. [/quote]

Your stat example is misleading as you're comparing two different dealerships, I am using their stats where they take the same crime and compare it in different years.

Do you see the difference?

So the stats I cited stand up to examination, yours clearly wouldn't as you're comparing apples and oranges. Nice try though. I'll give you 2/10 for effort.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;982976]Your stat example is misleading as you're comparing two different dealerships, I am using their stats where they take the same crime and compare it in different years.

Do you see the difference?

So the stats I cited stand up to examination, yours clearly wouldn't as you're comparing apples and oranges. Nice try though. I'll give you 2/10 for effort.[/quote]

You are comparing two countries I am comparing two car dealerships. It is the total number of your subject matter that weighs the most not the percent number.

How do like them apples?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;982987]You are comparing two countries I am comparing two car dealerships. It is the total number of your subject matter that weighs the most not the percent number.

How do like them apples?[/quote]

I LOVE them!

Look again: Violent crime ROSE. Do you agree or would you argue that it's not what it means when 'Assault rose 49.2 %'?

As for the percentages, yes, you could argue that one is not comparable except that the statement '[I]Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.' [/I]isn't a percentage.

Wait! Are we the shitty rust bucket or the Cadillac dealer in the analogy?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;982992]I LOVE them!

Look again: Violent crime ROSE. Do you agree or would you argue that it's not what it means when 'Assault rose 49.2 %'?

As for the percentages, yes, you could argue that one is not comparable except that the statement '[I]Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.' [/I]isn't a percentage.

Wait! Are we the shitty rust bucket or the Cadillac dealer in the analogy?[/quote]

Look I am not arguing whether or not not Australia has a more effective or less effective gun laws. I am just saying a percent is a poor benchmark because it can be manipulated.

Even Australian women are now rapped over times as often as American women. How do quantify that? If only 3 women lived in Australia and all 3 were raped yeah I guess that be true. 100% of the female population was raped in Australia; OMG! How many women was that? Oh 3 compared to the millions that live in the US.

Next you are going to argue only choosy moms choose Jiffy.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=mredskins;983026]Look I am not arguing whether or not not Australia has a more effective or less effective gun laws. I am just saying a percent is a poor benchmark because it can be manipulated. [/quote]

It's still a measure that, without going into overwhelming number crunching, illustrates that the argument being used by some people is erroneous.

[quote=mredskins;983026]Even Australian women are now rapped over times as often as American women. How do quantify that? If only 3 women lived in Australia and all 3 were raped yeah I guess that be true. 100% of the female population was raped in Australia; OMG! How many women was that? Oh 3 compared to the millions that live in the US. [/quote]

Clearly that's not a serious argument. The sad fact is that violent crime goes up when criminals know there's a lower risk of fatal consequences.

[quote=mredskins;983026]Next you are going to argue only choosy moms choose Jiffy.[/quote]

As long as they are making sandwiches..... [COLOR=White]J/K[/COLOR]

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

For those who don't read.......


[url=http://abcnews.go.com/International/australia-model-successful-gun-control-laws/story?id=18007055]Australia a Model for Successful Gun Control Laws - ABC News[/url]



The laws banned assault rifles, tightened gun owner licensing, and created national uniform registration standards. Howard knew they might be unpopular among some of the same voters who helped put him into office -- during one particularly hostile public town hall, he wore a bulletproof vest.
But something extraordinary happened: the laws tapped into public revulsion at the shooting and became extremely popular. And they became extremely effective.
[URL="javascript:void(0);"][IMG]http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/gty_gun_control_rally_ll_121218_wg.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images
Protesters march to the National Rifle... [URL="javascript:void(0);"][COLOR=#0066cc]View Full Size[/COLOR][/URL]


[COLOR=#0066cc][IMG]http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/gty_gun_control_rally_ll_121218_wg.jpg[/IMG][/COLOR]Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images
Protesters march to the National Rifle Association headquarters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 17, 2012.

[URL="javascript:void(0);"][/URL]




In the last 16 years, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia has fallen by more than 50 percent. The national rate of gun homicide is one-thirtieth that of the United States. And there hasn't been a single mass shooting since Port Arthur.
"It's not that we are a less violent people and that you are a more violent people," says Philip Alpers, an adjunct associate professor at the University of Sydney who runs GunPolicy.org, which tracks gun violence and gun laws across the world. "It's that you have more lethal means at your disposal."
But it wasn't just the new laws that made Australia safer. The gun buyback program collected nearly 650,000 assault weapons and 50,000 additional weapons – about one sixth of the national stock. Fewer guns on the street helped severely reduce the likelihood that guns could be used for a mass shooting.
"Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of gun owners simply, voluntarily gave up guns that they did not need to give up," Alpers told ABC News. "You could not be a gun owner during that period and not feel terribly persecuted, terribly under threat from public opinion. The commentaries were vicious."

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[url=http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states]Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law[/url]


A link that keeps numbers.......

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;983062]

A link that keeps numbers.......[/quote]

A link that contradicts your previous post from Brady Campaign.

Gun Homicides:

2009: 9,146
2008: 9,484
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,659
2002: 9,369
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,259
1998: 9,257

I don't see 30K there, do you?

Thanks for the link, the numbers are close to those of the FBI and CDC.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=RedskinRat;983190]A link that contradicts your previous post from Brady Campaign.

Gun Homicides:

2009: 9,146
2008: 9,484
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,659
2002: 9,369
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,259
1998: 9,257

I don't see 30K there, do you?

Thanks for the link, the numbers are close to those of the FBI and CDC.[/quote]


Brady numbers are for all gun deaths,not just homicides so no the numbers aren't close,your welcome.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

All firearm deaths

Number of deaths: 31,347
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2 [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm"][COLOR=#333333]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm[/COLOR][/URL]

and the CDC's source: [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf"][COLOR=#333333]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf[/COLOR][/URL]

if you dig into their source, it says in 2009, the homicides committed with firearms was 11,493
Quote:
11,493
, very closer to the FBI numbers.
[B]My point is, just because it's official doesn't mean it's correct.[/B]

interesting note from the CDC 2009 source: there were [B]9,000[/B] suicides committed by suffocation that year.

total suicides that year: 36,909
total homicides that year: 16,799

what do suicides and homicides have in common? bueller? bueller?

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;983963]All firearm deaths

Number of deaths: 31,347
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2 [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm"][COLOR=#333333]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm[/COLOR][/URL]

and the CDC's source: [URL="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf"][COLOR=#333333]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf[/COLOR][/URL]

if you dig into their source, it says in 2009, the homicides committed with firearms was 11,493
Quote:
11,493
, very closer to the FBI numbers.
[B]My point is, just because it's official doesn't mean it's correct.[/B]

interesting note from the CDC 2009 source: there were [B]9,000[/B] suicides committed by suffocation that year.

total suicides that year: 36,909
total homicides that year: 16,799

what do suicides and homicides have in common? bueller? bueller?[/quote]

So are you saying that around 20,000 people either die by accident or suicide with guns each year? I'd have a hard time buying that.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=firstdown;984100]So are you saying that around 20,000 people either die by accident or suicide with guns each year? I'd have a hard time buying that.[/quote]


Not me, the CDC is,hit the link.

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[quote=Giantone;985417]Not me, the CDC is,hit the link.[/quote]

Just because it's official.....

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

[url=http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/]FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns « CBS DC[/url]

Interestingly, the guy who started a fire in New York and then shot and killed firefighters, had previsouly killed his 90 year old grandmother by hammer. Shockingly, beating a 90 year old to death with a hammer only warrented a conviction of manslaughter. I wonder what he would have been convicted of if he shot her?

[QUOTE=mlmpetert;985880][url=http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/]FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns « CBS DC[/url]

Interestingly, the guy who started a fire in New York and then shot and killed firefighters, had previsouly killed his 90 year old grandmother by hammer. Shockingly, beating a 90 year old to death with a hammer only warrented a conviction of manslaughter. I wonder what he would have been convicted of if he shot her?[/QUOTE]

Parole, maybe a demerit on his permanent record?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Re: Gun Control Thread- Should we?
 

Just some food for thought:

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/opinion/halpern-gun-research/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7]Let's take politics out of gun research - CNN.com[/url]