CDC: Accidental car deaths 2013...35,369. Accidental gun deaths 2013...505.

[Brain357]

I didn't just say they are debunked I gave you a reason. If you are claiming it is 2 million per year then that means 60 million defenses the last 30 years. Well that means pretty much every gun owner has had one. Yet me and you know only a small minority of gun owners has had them. So it is impossible. Debunked.

And again if you are now claiming 2 million well then I have 9 studies that say it is lower. The majority of studies say it is lower.

No it doesn't have to be a gun study. It is a crime study. I posted exactly what the NCVS asks and yes they do ask if they used a firearm for defense. You have read it so stop lying. Also it surveys like 90,000 households. The bigger the survey the more accurate. Your surveys are 5,000 for the biggest and they take like 200 false positives and extrapolate that to 2.5 million. Again, you are about the only one still believing those crazy numbers. They are fantasy.

You take a non gun study and take it as the definitive answer on guns.......I guess you would also take a survey o

None of the things listed affect your second amendment rights. They do help insure those who do not have a right to own guns (wife beaters, criminals, crazies ) do not get them

that's not true....not one of those things does one thing to stop criminals from getting guns or stops them from comitting crimes with guns....they don't stop the 8-9,000 gun murders mostly committed in inner cities and they didn't stop any of the mass shooters...........the mass shooters in particular for the most part obeyed all of those laws...the Santa Barbara shooter who killed people with a knife, gun and car, passed a background check 3 times, and only used the legal 10 round magazines......

Not one thing you listed stops criminals or mass shooters....at all.....

they don't do the one thing you say you want them to do....

Explain why a crime survey that gets all the details of what happened wouldn't get DGUs.

Why is it you never try to explain how there could be 60 million DGUs the last 30 years yet gun owners with one are a minority?

Because it isn't designed to ask the basic question in a straightforward way..."Have you used a gun for self defense in the last year"....it doesn't even get to that question.....the NCVS asks have you been a victim of a crime.....and then as they respond to that question they get around to asking, "did you do anything to try to stop the crime" and even then it doesn't directly ask about gun use..........

these are the examples they miss directly...someone walks up to me and tries to rob me...I draw my gun and they run away...."Question...have you ever been a victim of a crime." I answer no, because I scared the guy off.....no further questions will be asked.......

Then you miss the answers of people who carried the gun without a permit...who are sitting across the table from a government agent with a badge.....asking if they did anything to stop the crime, knowing they used a gun but carried it illegally, having commiteed no crime but that one.....so they answer no, they ran away...instead of the truth.......

The example I gave about sun screen and cars is perfect........

Going right to the gun question is probably why they get so many false positives. Every gun nut who has ever had one is immediately interested and gives his story whether it was 20 years ago or 3 months. Not going right to guns is actually good, not bad.

So yes did you do anything about the crime. Are you suggesting if someone used a gun to defend themselves they wouldn't mention that? The questions are pretty clear and I have no doubt they would capture any DGUs. And it's a survey of like 90,000 households. Far more accurate than your little gun surveys.

Going right to the gun question is probably why they get so many false positives.

yes....a gun study that actually, directly asks..."Have you used a gun for self defense in the last year" would get more false positives than a study that isn't about guns and only asks the question "did you do anything to stop the attack".........does it hurt to contort reasoning so much.....

That is why your gun studies are so inaccurate.

 

[2aguy]

You take a non gun study and take it as the definitive answer on guns.......I guess you would also take a survey o
that's not true....not one of those things does one thing to stop criminals from getting guns or stops them from comitting crimes with guns....they don't stop the 8-9,000 gun murders mostly committed in inner cities and they didn't stop any of the mass shooters...........the mass shooters in particular for the most part obeyed all of those laws...the Santa Barbara shooter who killed people with a knife, gun and car, passed a background check 3 times, and only used the legal 10 round magazines......

Not one thing you listed stops criminals or mass shooters....at all.....

they don't do the one thing you say you want them to do....

Explain why a crime survey that gets all the details of what happened wouldn't get DGUs.

Why is it you never try to explain how there could be 60 million DGUs the last 30 years yet gun owners with one are a minority?

Because it isn't designed to ask the basic question in a straightforward way..."Have you used a gun for self defense in the last year"....it doesn't even get to that question.....the NCVS asks have you been a victim of a crime.....and then as they respond to that question they get around to asking, "did you do anything to try to stop the crime" and even then it doesn't directly ask about gun use..........

these are the examples they miss directly...someone walks up to me and tries to rob me...I draw my gun and they run away...."Question...have you ever been a victim of a crime." I answer no, because I scared the guy off.....no further questions will be asked.......

Then you miss the answers of people who carried the gun without a permit...who are sitting across the table from a government agent with a badge.....asking if they did anything to stop the crime, knowing they used a gun but carried it illegally, having commiteed no crime but that one.....so they answer no, they ran away...instead of the truth.......

The example I gave about sun screen and cars is perfect........

Going right to the gun question is probably why they get so many false positives. Every gun nut who has ever had one is immediately interested and gives his story whether it was 20 years ago or 3 months. Not going right to guns is actually good, not bad.

So yes did you do anything about the crime. Are you suggesting if someone used a gun to defend themselves they wouldn't mention that? The questions are pretty clear and I have no doubt they would capture any DGUs. And it's a survey of like 90,000 households. Far more accurate than your little gun surveys.

Going right to the gun question is probably why they get so many false positives.

yes....a gun study that actually, directly asks..."Have you used a gun for self defense in the last year" would get more false positives than a study that isn't about guns and only asks the question "did you do anything to stop the attack".........does it hurt to contort reasoning so much.....

That is why your gun studies are so inaccurate.

yes...only in your world brain would actually asking the question you want the answer to, be an innaccurate way of getting an answer.......

liberals think funny....

 

[Brain357]

Explain why a crime survey that gets all the details of what happened wouldn't get DGUs.

Why is it you never try to explain how there could be 60 million DGUs the last 30 years yet gun owners with one are a minority?

Because it isn't designed to ask the basic question in a straightforward way..."Have you used a gun for self defense in the last year"....it doesn't even get to that question.....the NCVS asks have you been a victim of a crime.....and then as they respond to that question they get around to asking, "did you do anything to try to stop the crime" and even then it doesn't directly ask about gun use..........

these are the examples they miss directly...someone walks up to me and tries to rob me...I draw my gun and they run away...."Question...have you ever been a victim of a crime." I answer no, because I scared the guy off.....no further questions will be asked.......

Then you miss the answers of people who carried the gun without a permit...who are sitting across the table from a government agent with a badge.....asking if they did anything to stop the crime, knowing they used a gun but carried it illegally, having commiteed no crime but that one.....so they answer no, they ran away...instead of the truth.......

The example I gave about sun screen and cars is perfect........

Going right to the gun question is probably why they get so many false positives. Every gun nut who has ever had one is immediately interested and gives his story whether it was 20 years ago or 3 months. Not going right to guns is actually good, not bad.

So yes did you do anything about the crime. Are you suggesting if someone used a gun to defend themselves they wouldn't mention that? The questions are pretty clear and I have no doubt they would capture any DGUs. And it's a survey of like 90,000 households. Far more accurate than your little gun surveys.

Going right to the gun question is probably why they get so many false positives.

yes....a gun study that actually, directly asks..."Have you used a gun for self defense in the last year" would get more false positives than a study that isn't about guns and only asks the question "did you do anything to stop the attack".........does it hurt to contort reasoning so much.....

That is why your gun studies are so inaccurate.

yes...only in your world brain would actually asking the question you want the answer to be an innaccurate way of getting an answer.......

liberals think funny....

Well you have 16 studies that asked that question and they get answers ranging from like 500k to 3.5 million. I don't think I need any more proof it isn't an accurate way to do it. If it was accurate they would all arrive at similar numbers.

 

[2aguy]

Because it isn't designed to ask the basic question in a straightforward way..."Have you used a gun for self defense in the last year"....it doesn't even get to that question.....the NCVS asks have you been a victim of a crime.....and then as they respond to that question they get around to asking, "did you do anything to try to stop the crime" and even then it doesn't directly ask about gun use..........

these are the examples they miss directly...someone walks up to me and tries to rob me...I draw my gun and they run away...."Question...have you ever been a victim of a crime." I answer no, because I scared the guy off.....no further questions will be asked.......

Then you miss the answers of people who carried the gun without a permit...who are sitting across the table from a government agent with a badge.....asking if they did anything to stop the crime, knowing they used a gun but carried it illegally, having commiteed no crime but that one.....so they answer no, they ran away...instead of the truth.......

The example I gave about sun screen and cars is perfect........

Going right to the gun question is probably why they get so many false positives. Every gun nut who has ever had one is immediately interested and gives his story whether it was 20 years ago or 3 months. Not going right to guns is actually good, not bad.

So yes did you do anything about the crime. Are you suggesting if someone used a gun to defend themselves they wouldn't mention that? The questions are pretty clear and I have no doubt they would capture any DGUs. And it's a survey of like 90,000 households. Far more accurate than your little gun surveys.

Going right to the gun question is probably why they get so many false positives.

yes....a gun study that actually, directly asks..."Have you used a gun for self defense in the last year" would get more false positives than a study that isn't about guns and only asks the question "did you do anything to stop the attack".........does it hurt to contort reasoning so much.....

That is why your gun studies are so inaccurate.

yes...only in your world brain would actually asking the question you want the answer to be an innaccurate way of getting an answer.......

liberals think funny....

Well you have 16 studies that asked that question and they get answers ranging from like 500k to 3.5 million. I don't think I need any more proof it isn't an accurate way to do it. If it was accurate they would all arrive at similar numbers.

Actually, that finding....500 to 3 million defensive gun uses was from President Obama's CDC in 2013....they spent 10 million dollars and examined all of the gun research....all of it, not just those 16 studies I point out cited in Kleck's paper...so their research encompassed all of the research on the topic....far more than my meager attempts as a guy on the internet......so they found that, not Kleck and not me......obama and his CDC....and both are anti gun,,,obama and the CDC leadership......

All of the research, not just the 16 studies I have access to....

 

[Brain357]

Going right to the gun question is probably why they get so many false positives. Every gun nut who has ever had one is immediately interested and gives his story whether it was 20 years ago or 3 months. Not going right to guns is actually good, not bad.

So yes did you do anything about the crime. Are you suggesting if someone used a gun to defend themselves they wouldn't mention that? The questions are pretty clear and I have no doubt they would capture any DGUs. And it's a survey of like 90,000 households. Far more accurate than your little gun surveys.

Going right to the gun question is probably why they get so many false positives.

yes....a gun study that actually, directly asks..."Have you used a gun for self defense in the last year" would get more false positives than a study that isn't about guns and only asks the question "did you do anything to stop the attack".........does it hurt to contort reasoning so much.....

That is why your gun studies are so inaccurate.

yes...only in your world brain would actually asking the question you want the answer to be an innaccurate way of getting an answer.......

liberals think funny....

Well you have 16 studies that asked that question and they get answers ranging from like 500k to 3.5 million. I don't think I need any more proof it isn't an accurate way to do it. If it was accurate they would all arrive at similar numbers.

Actually, that finding....500 to 3 million defensive gun uses was from President Obama's CDC in 2013....they spent 10 million dollars and examined all of the gun research....all of it, not just those 16 studies I point out cited in Kleck's paper...so their research encompassed all of the research on the topic....far more than my meager attempts as a guy on the internet......so they found that, not Kleck and not me......obama and his CDC....and both are anti gun,,,obama and the CDC leadership......

All of the research, not just the 16 studies I have access to....

No I said 3.5 million but I guess I should have said up to 3.6 million. L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military).

Seems like every time there is a gun study you have a very different number. No further proof necessary to prove they are not accurate.

Also your claims of the CDC seems to be inaccurate:
Defensive Gun Use Part I - The CDC Report on Gun Violence
The CDC report made no effort to reconcile the differing estimates of DGUs, except to note that the estimate provided by the Kleck group was larger by an order of magnitude than the estimate arising from the NCVS. The CDC report noted that the estimate of DGU provided by the Kleck group is twice again as large as the estimate of the Dept. of Justice that there are 1.3 million crimes committed with a gun in the USA every year.
Sadly, the CDC reports says little more than that researchers disagree on the true incidence of DGU in America. Sadder still, the CDC report makes no suggestions for further studies to better understand the incidence of DGU or resolve the disagreement among investigators.


Sounds like they didn't make an estimate on DGUs only stated what other studies had found.

 

[rightwinger]

So what number are you clinging to now? Did I see 2 million? So you think the last 30 years there have been 60 million defenses? That's enough that just about every gun owner should have one. Yet I don't know anyone who has one. When I ask on this board people claiming one are a minority. Sorry but they are debunked. They have not stood the test of time, you are one of the few people who take them seriously. And they can't stand the test of time because they don't even all agree. If you claim 2 million now well then 9 of your own surveys say it is lower. The MAJORITY of your own surveys say it is LOWER. The NCVS is far more accurate and it says 108k.

Blame starkey for the new number...he insisted the 16 studies had to include police and military...I checked again and he was partially right.....7 of the 16 included police and military us....so I took those out and only use the studies for civilians...and the number averaged to 2 million....which Kleck quotes often, even though his number was 2.5 million.....

the studies have not been debunked, again...saying... "I Debunk thee,"..... doesn't get the job done........you actually have to do the research....and whenever anti gunners do the research they lie....they purposefully ask the wrong questions, purposefully misquote other studies, and then when that doesn't get the job done, they lie.......that has been shown...over and over by people who did the research into hemenway, kellerman and donahue.......


again.....the NCVS is not a gun study.....it does not ask one person "Did you use a gun for self defense" it is not a gun study...it is "have you been a victim of crime" study.........so no matter what number they find, it doesn't matter since it wasn't studying gun use......

I didn't just say they are debunked I gave you a reason. If you are claiming it is 2 million per year then that means 60 million defenses the last 30 years. Well that means pretty much every gun owner has had one. Yet me and you know only a small minority of gun owners has had them. So it is impossible. Debunked.

And again if you are now claiming 2 million well then I have 9 studies that say it is lower. The majority of studies say it is lower.

No it doesn't have to be a gun study. It is a crime study. I posted exactly what the NCVS asks and yes they do ask if they used a firearm for defense. You have read it so stop lying. Also it surveys like 90,000 households. The bigger the survey the more accurate. Your surveys are 5,000 for the biggest and they take like 200 false positives and extrapolate that to 2.5 million. Again, you are about the only one still believing those crazy numbers. They are fantasy.

You take a non gun study and take it as the definitive answer on guns.......I guess you would also take a survey o

Cars have

Safety requirements
Registration
Licensed and trained drivers
Insurance

Time to do the same with guns

Ownership of guns is the same level of Right as voting....and poll taxes and literacy tests were just attempts to deny people the right to vote....all of the above are the same thing for the 2nd Amendment....since only 505 people out of 320 million people died from accidental gun deaths there is no rational reason for added crap....other than to make assholes like you feel better, and to add expense to punish people who want to own guns for self defense, competition and hunting......

All of the above are poll taxes and literacy tests for a Right...not a priveledge......

None of the things listed affect your second amendment rights. They do help insure those who do not have a right to own guns (wife beaters, criminals, crazies ) do not get them

that's not true....not one of those things does one thing to stop criminals from getting guns or stops them from comitting crimes with guns....they don't stop the 8-9,000 gun murders mostly committed in inner cities and they didn't stop any of the mass shooters...........the mass shooters in particular for the most part obeyed all of those laws...the Santa Barbara shooter who killed people with a knife, gun and car, passed a background check 3 times, and only used the legal 10 round magazines......

Not one thing you listed stops criminals or mass shooters....at all.....

they don't do the one thing you say you want them to do....

Like a true NRA trained rodent you chant....that will not work, that won't work at every suggestion

Of course, most of the civilized world has shown.....IT DOES WORK

No....the civilized world also has gun crime...their criminals don't use guns as much but much like Suicide in Japan and South Korea it is cultural, not guns......Europe has always had a lower crime rate than us.....before they banned guns...so guns aren't the difference.....our criminal culture is different....

And again...FRance has stricter guns laws...and their criminals get fully automatic, military grade rifles when they want or need them...also hand grenades and rocket propelled grenades...so no...their gun laws don't work either...dittos Belgium...where the French guys got their guns, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Australia and Canada....

France has a murder rate one fifth of ours

The idea is you don't stop EVERY gun, but enough to prevent most murders. France would never tolerate the 32,000 gun deaths we do

 

[Vandalshandle]

Blame starkey for the new number...he insisted the 16 studies had to include police and military...I checked again and he was partially right.....7 of the 16 included police and military us....so I took those out and only use the studies for civilians...and the number averaged to 2 million....which Kleck quotes often, even though his number was 2.5 million.....

the studies have not been debunked, again...saying... "I Debunk thee,"..... doesn't get the job done........you actually have to do the research....and whenever anti gunners do the research they lie....they purposefully ask the wrong questions, purposefully misquote other studies, and then when that doesn't get the job done, they lie.......that has been shown...over and over by people who did the research into hemenway, kellerman and donahue.......


again.....the NCVS is not a gun study.....it does not ask one person "Did you use a gun for self defense" it is not a gun study...it is "have you been a victim of crime" study.........so no matter what number they find, it doesn't matter since it wasn't studying gun use......

I didn't just say they are debunked I gave you a reason. If you are claiming it is 2 million per year then that means 60 million defenses the last 30 years. Well that means pretty much every gun owner has had one. Yet me and you know only a small minority of gun owners has had them. So it is impossible. Debunked.

And again if you are now claiming 2 million well then I have 9 studies that say it is lower. The majority of studies say it is lower.

No it doesn't have to be a gun study. It is a crime study. I posted exactly what the NCVS asks and yes they do ask if they used a firearm for defense. You have read it so stop lying. Also it surveys like 90,000 households. The bigger the survey the more accurate. Your surveys are 5,000 for the biggest and they take like 200 false positives and extrapolate that to 2.5 million. Again, you are about the only one still believing those crazy numbers. They are fantasy.

You take a non gun study and take it as the definitive answer on guns.......I guess you would also take a survey o

Ownership of guns is the same level of Right as voting....and poll taxes and literacy tests were just attempts to deny people the right to vote....all of the above are the same thing for the 2nd Amendment....since only 505 people out of 320 million people died from accidental gun deaths there is no rational reason for added crap....other than to make assholes like you feel better, and to add expense to punish people who want to own guns for self defense, competition and hunting......

All of the above are poll taxes and literacy tests for a Right...not a priveledge......

None of the things listed affect your second amendment rights. They do help insure those who do not have a right to own guns (wife beaters, criminals, crazies ) do not get them

that's not true....not one of those things does one thing to stop criminals from getting guns or stops them from comitting crimes with guns....they don't stop the 8-9,000 gun murders mostly committed in inner cities and they didn't stop any of the mass shooters...........the mass shooters in particular for the most part obeyed all of those laws...the Santa Barbara shooter who killed people with a knife, gun and car, passed a background check 3 times, and only used the legal 10 round magazines......

Not one thing you listed stops criminals or mass shooters....at all.....

they don't do the one thing you say you want them to do....

Like a true NRA trained rodent you chant....that will not work, that won't work at every suggestion

Of course, most of the civilized world has shown.....IT DOES WORK

No....the civilized world also has gun crime...their criminals don't use guns as much but much like Suicide in Japan and South Korea it is cultural, not guns......Europe has always had a lower crime rate than us.....before they banned guns...so guns aren't the difference.....our criminal culture is different....

And again...FRance has stricter guns laws...and their criminals get fully automatic, military grade rifles when they want or need them...also hand grenades and rocket propelled grenades...so no...their gun laws don't work either...dittos Belgium...where the French guys got their guns, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Australia and Canada....

France has a murder rate one fifth of ours

The idea is you don't stop EVERY gun, but enough to prevent most murders. France would never tolerate the 32,000 gun deaths we do

Maybe not, but you have to ask yourself: If every waiter in Paris were shot, would that be a positive, or a negative thing, from an American point of view?

 

[HUGGY]

And Americans are 7,000 times more likely to drive, so your figures are out the window. Run along, silly boy.

Interesting satistic is that almost identical percentage of gun owners as car owners. right around one in three ...or nearly one hundred million.

!00,000,000 own cars...35,000 people die from misuse of automobiles.

100,000,000 own guns....505 die from misuse of guns.

 

[HUGGY]

Blame starkey for the new number...he insisted the 16 studies had to include police and military...I checked again and he was partially right.....7 of the 16 included police and military us....so I took those out and only use the studies for civilians...and the number averaged to 2 million....which Kleck quotes often, even though his number was 2.5 million.....

the studies have not been debunked, again...saying... "I Debunk thee,"..... doesn't get the job done........you actually have to do the research....and whenever anti gunners do the research they lie....they purposefully ask the wrong questions, purposefully misquote other studies, and then when that doesn't get the job done, they lie.......that has been shown...over and over by people who did the research into hemenway, kellerman and donahue.......


again.....the NCVS is not a gun study.....it does not ask one person "Did you use a gun for self defense" it is not a gun study...it is "have you been a victim of crime" study.........so no matter what number they find, it doesn't matter since it wasn't studying gun use......

I didn't just say they are debunked I gave you a reason. If you are claiming it is 2 million per year then that means 60 million defenses the last 30 years. Well that means pretty much every gun owner has had one. Yet me and you know only a small minority of gun owners has had them. So it is impossible. Debunked.

And again if you are now claiming 2 million well then I have 9 studies that say it is lower. The majority of studies say it is lower.

No it doesn't have to be a gun study. It is a crime study. I posted exactly what the NCVS asks and yes they do ask if they used a firearm for defense. You have read it so stop lying. Also it surveys like 90,000 households. The bigger the survey the more accurate. Your surveys are 5,000 for the biggest and they take like 200 false positives and extrapolate that to 2.5 million. Again, you are about the only one still believing those crazy numbers. They are fantasy.

You take a non gun study and take it as the definitive answer on guns.......I guess you would also take a survey o

Ownership of guns is the same level of Right as voting....and poll taxes and literacy tests were just attempts to deny people the right to vote....all of the above are the same thing for the 2nd Amendment....since only 505 people out of 320 million people died from accidental gun deaths there is no rational reason for added crap....other than to make assholes like you feel better, and to add expense to punish people who want to own guns for self defense, competition and hunting......

All of the above are poll taxes and literacy tests for a Right...not a priveledge......

None of the things listed affect your second amendment rights. They do help insure those who do not have a right to own guns (wife beaters, criminals, crazies ) do not get them

that's not true....not one of those things does one thing to stop criminals from getting guns or stops them from comitting crimes with guns....they don't stop the 8-9,000 gun murders mostly committed in inner cities and they didn't stop any of the mass shooters...........the mass shooters in particular for the most part obeyed all of those laws...the Santa Barbara shooter who killed people with a knife, gun and car, passed a background check 3 times, and only used the legal 10 round magazines......

Not one thing you listed stops criminals or mass shooters....at all.....

they don't do the one thing you say you want them to do....

Like a true NRA trained rodent you chant....that will not work, that won't work at every suggestion

Of course, most of the civilized world has shown.....IT DOES WORK

No....the civilized world also has gun crime...their criminals don't use guns as much but much like Suicide in Japan and South Korea it is cultural, not guns......Europe has always had a lower crime rate than us.....before they banned guns...so guns aren't the difference.....our criminal culture is different....

And again...FRance has stricter guns laws...and their criminals get fully automatic, military grade rifles when they want or need them...also hand grenades and rocket propelled grenades...so no...their gun laws don't work either...dittos Belgium...where the French guys got their guns, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Australia and Canada....

France has a murder rate one fifth of ours

The idea is you don't stop EVERY gun, but enough to prevent most murders. France would never tolerate the 32,000 gun deaths we do

The French are poor marksman's.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

And Americans are 7,000 times more likely to drive, so your figures are out the window. Run along, silly boy.

You took the words right outta' my mouth.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Huggy, if you believe that there were only 505 accidental deaths from guns during the same period that 35,000 people died in car accidents, i have a special discounted membership plan that I can get for you at the NRA! Not only can he not post the statistic, I personally have known four people who died from the accidental misuse of guns in my lifetime. There is at least one in the Arizona Star, every week, and they are usually children.

 

[HUGGY]

Huggy, if you believe that there were only 505 accidental deaths from guns during the same period that 35,000 people died in car accidents, i have a special discounted membership plan that I can get for you at the NRA! Not only can he not post the statistic, I personally have known four people who died from the accidental misuse of guns in my lifetime. There is at least one in the Arizona Star, every week, and they are usually children.

I rarely believe anything on the internet. The "505" is just a number. It could be 1505 and still be 33,000 less than automobile killings.

I suspect the killings in Arizona are drug trafficking related. I used to be a smuggler so I do have personal experience in seeing how violent ignorant people can get when it involves a lot of money mixed with a lot of untrustworthy people.

I suggest that Arizona make pot legal deflating the hold the cartels have on access to what many people want and are going to get one way or another. About half the illegal contraband the cartels deal in is pot. Cocaine, meth and heroin rank much less than weed. If you take away the incentive of something to fight over you will logically get fewer fights and by further logic fewer accidental or intended deaths by guns.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Children who were victims of guns, accidental, or not accidental (which, after all, makes no difference whatever to the dead victim). Average age...6 years old.

At Least 194 Children Have Been Shot to Death Since Newtown Mother Jones

 

[Brain357]

And Americans are 7,000 times more likely to drive, so your figures are out the window. Run along, silly boy.

Interesting satistic is that almost identical percentage of gun owners as car owners. right around one in three ...or nearly one hundred million.

!00,000,000 own cars...35,000 people die from misuse of automobiles.

100,000,000 own guns....505 die from misuse of guns.

No there are over 200 million licensed drivers. I have also never seen that high an estimate for gun owners. 60-70 million is far more likely. Also most car owners drive daily. I know a lot of gun owners who get them out once a year for deer season...

 

[HUGGY]

And Americans are 7,000 times more likely to drive, so your figures are out the window. Run along, silly boy.

Interesting satistic is that almost identical percentage of gun owners as car owners. right around one in three ...or nearly one hundred million.

!00,000,000 own cars...35,000 people die from misuse of automobiles.

100,000,000 own guns....505 die from misuse of guns.

No there are over 200 million licensed drivers. I have also never seen that high an estimate for gun owners. 60-70 million is far more likely. Also most car owners drive daily. I know a lot of gun owners who get them out once a year for deer season...

What percentage of deer rifles account for accidental deaths? I bet it is less than a dozen a year nationally. The VAST MAJORITY of gun killings in this country are from pistols and assault rifles.

 

[Brain357]

And Americans are 7,000 times more likely to drive, so your figures are out the window. Run along, silly boy.

Interesting satistic is that almost identical percentage of gun owners as car owners. right around one in three ...or nearly one hundred million.

!00,000,000 own cars...35,000 people die from misuse of automobiles.

100,000,000 own guns....505 die from misuse of guns.

No there are over 200 million licensed drivers. I have also never seen that high an estimate for gun owners. 60-70 million is far more likely. Also most car owners drive daily. I know a lot of gun owners who get them out once a year for deer season...

What percentage of deer rifles account for accidental deaths? I bet it is less than a dozen a year nationally. The VAST MAJORITY of gun killings in this country are from pistols and assault rifles.

There certainly are hunting accidents. But my point is based on use guns are far more dangerous. Over 200 million people driving daily while many gun owners use their guns just a few times a year.

 

[Missourian]

Stop with your false comparisons to Japan and South Korea

They have a culture of suicide when your honor is lost....we don't




.

How about the U.K.?

Guns restricted much further than the American gun grabber could ever dream, yet the suicide rate went UP after the confiscation...and it is still 5.1 compared to 5.5 in the U.S.

That's a .4 percent difference with the U.K.s firearm homicide rate at 4% of total.

The nice thing about having this argument 1,000 time is I can recycle old posts.


"with only 4% of UK suicides being by firearm.

The method of suicide transferred from firearms to hanging and poisoning.

Obviously rope ENABLES hanging and the solution is to restrict it's sale?

If common sense didn't show the error of this reasoning...the historical evidence above should prove it.

They banned firearms and that didn't reduce their suicides at a rate faster than it was already declining...ban rope and they'll asphyxiate themselves with carbon monoxide...ban combustion engines and they'll leap from tall buildings...ad infinitum..."

Number of guns in society falling sharply Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


So, for the one thousandth time, adding in suicides is just padding the numbers. People who want to kill themselves are going to kill themselves, gun or no guns. Period. Exclamation point.

What we are talking about is around 8,000 murders and 500 accident deaths in a country with 260,000,000 firearms.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...so, in other words, guns are good, since they are so much more efficient and user friendly than other means of suicide....?

 

[Missourian]

...so, in other words, guns are good, since they are so much more efficient and user friendly than other means of suicide....?

Jumping off a building is pretty damn efficient...carbon monoxide poisoning is efficient and painless.

Good has nothing to do with it.

We are discussing solving a problem.

If the action we are discussing is not going to solve the problems we are discussing, those problems shouldn't be apart of the discussion.

Does that not seem reasonable to you?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

60% of gun deaths are suicides