Gun Control, A rational discussion Options

[Capt. Andtennille]

What if you didn't have it AND didn't need it?

If you don't have it and find out you need it, it's too late.

If you can't have that, wouldn't you rather have it and not need it, and to ensure you don't need it stricter nation wide laws were put in place to help prevent people who shouldn't have them from getting them?

Gun laws can't accomplish that.

This is frustrating, because I don't believe in a gun ban, but I'm starting to see that stricter regulation wouldn't probably wouldn't help either since there is an average of 341,000 instances of gun theft each year (just instances, not # of guns, that would be more). So, if somebody breaks into your home and you aren't there (which is when they tend to break in) and they steal your gun, it will likely be sold and used in a crime.
Also, this wouldn't stop many of the murders of spouse or family as the person who never thought they would use the gun against a family member goes nuts and shoots his wife.

Too bad the wife didn't have a gun to kill the bastard before he shot her.

But it still seems like only good, honest people should be able to buy guns legally.

On this we agree.



As far as your father goes, what you're basically saying is that the stonger, bigger people should be able to do as they damn well please and he hated Texas because the gun culture evened it out. Nice.



If I can show some restraint, this is probably my last post on this subject because I just don't have the time. It is nice to know, that by MOD's standards, I am apparently a scientist. (I'm referring to the blogger he used as his "expert" to refute the statistical analysis of Professor Lott. Tim Lambert is a computer consultant who (apparently) has a LOT of time to spew propaganda against John Lott, and the use of DDT. Lambert and I share a similar profession, but mine keeps me WAY busier than his).



In the end we can agree to disagree.



One final note. The biggest, and perhaps most important difference in our views is I think that I (and other law-abiding citizens) should be allowed to keep and bear arms. I don't think anyone should be required to if they don't want to. I am all for letting you decide whether or not you have a gun, why don't you want to let me make MY choice? The 2nd ammendment isn't only for protection. Our founding fathers has a great deal of mistrust in government in general. They wanted the citizens to be armed so they could overthrow an opressive government should it become necessary, much like they themselves did with England.

[Nothing]

MOD, I find you to be really funny sometimes. You just like to be an ass. You admit it by saying you were trying to play devil's advocate.

Would you have a fire detector in your home? The chance of a fire is very little in where you would need it, but most still have one for that "Just in Case". Do you put your seatbelt on when driving, or a helmet on when riding a motorcycle? All done for the "Just in Case" times. Same thing with a gun. I dont want to have to use it, but I will be very happy I had one if a "Just in Case" happened to me. And God forbid if some of these "Just in Case" situations happened to you, you can sit there and hate yourself for not having one that could have possibly saved a loved one of yours or prevented a possible rape that could have occured. There are many crazies out there and they are not all contained to the US.

Lets not change what we are saying here. Im not saying its bad for a more strict policy on making it harder to obtain a gun, im against a BAN on guns. Which are you for? These are two entirely different circumstances.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

MOD, I find you to be really funny sometimes. You just like to be an ass. You admit it by saying you were trying to play devil's advocate.

Would you have a fire detector in your home? The chance of a fire is very little in where you would need it, but most still have one for that "Just in Case". Do you put your seatbelt on when driving, or a helmet on when riding a motorcycle? All done for the "Just in Case" times. Same thing with a gun. I dont want to have to use it, but I will be very happy I had one if a "Just in Case" happened to me. And God forbid if some of these "Just in Case" situations happened to you, you can sit there and hate yourself for not having one that could have possibly saved a loved one of yours or prevented a possible rape that could have occured. There are many crazies out there and they are not all contained to the US.

Lets not change what we are saying here. Im not saying its bad for a more strict policy on making it harder to obtain a gun, im against a BAN on guns. Which are you for? These are two entirely different circumstances.

I didn't say anything I didn't believe, I'm just not entirely "passionate" about it since I live in a country where I think the laws are better balanced and I'm OK with them, so I'm not in fear of losing my "constitutional right" to have a gun so I can stop the King of England from raping my wife!

Anyway, I made it pretty clear where I stood. Jump through a few hoops, pay some extra licencing fees, that sort of thing. A criminal record, forget it. And yeah, perhaps ban the obvious killing machine guns if they aren't already. Maybe make it you have to be collecting guns for years before you can purchase high calibre handguns or whatever. I mean, does anyone really need hand-held, full automatic weapons?

Anyway, judging by the gun advocate's here, everyone of them I assume is a perfect crack shot and will kill any perpatrator that enters their home, while "wimps" like me will cower while my wife is raped. Or at least, that's the theory, as Nothing suggests. Wonder if any of you even considered that if you start a shootout in your house to stop a guy from taking your TV, the bad guy might blow YOUR head off, then go around and blow your wife and kids heads off to eliminate the witnesses? You all seem to think guns solve the problem. Perhaps discression sometimes would have been the better part of valor. Maybe keeping your family safe is letting the thief get away with your TV or car. Sometimes the two choices aren't just brandish a gun and save the day, versus standing by while people are raped and murdered. Maybe it's even possible to be a hero without a gun. And maybe the theif wouldn't even have a gun if there weren't so bloddy many of them around!

All that, and we haven't even started to talk about accidents. You know, shooting your hunting buddies in the face. Or, how about kids and guns...

http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/fact_file.asp

Don't trust that? Well, here is my OWN research (in 5 minutes) from two OBJECTIVE sources, because they aren't actually comparing gun crime and accidental deaths.

The first source points out that in 2001 there were 222 "justifiable homicides", by private citizens, but only 183 with guns. This source, btw, is from the FBI website!

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/exp...hrtable_14.html


Next, we have a table of accidental deaths from 1996 (fairly close year). This is a table compiled from stats by the U.S. Census Bureau! You will notice on the right that the "firearms" accidental deaths is 1,134!!!

http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm

So a gun is more than 6 time more likely to be used to kill someone accidentally, than it is to be used to kill a bad guy. One would suspect the amount of injuries, including serious injuries, would be much the same.

I will close by making this camparison between two very similar countries, Canada and the US, both with similar heritage, language, background culture, proximity, etc.

Canada's murder rate per 100,000 is 1.9. (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm)
United States murder rate per 100,000 is 5.6. ( http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm )Almost exactly 3 times the Canadian murder rate.

(Again, objective sources, not sources trying to make a "point")

Is the prevalence of guns in the US solely responsible? No. But 3 times the murder rate is a LOT! Lots of guns in a society do not make people safer. And even responsible gun owners would have to do far better than the average gun owner in the US to be more likely to shoot a bad guy on purpose than to have his gun be used in an accidental shooting.

Nevertheless, since there are so many guns there already, since there's already a billion floating around, yes, the US is in a tough spot for getting a handle on the situation. If I was to give advice to gun owners it would be simply this. Keep your guns locked, and don't shoot in the dark. If you have a family, consider letting the theif have the TV and just make sure your family members are safe and secure. And BTW, a theif is most likely going to break into you home when you're away. The "bump in the night" is most likely your son sneaking in late, or the dog!

This post has been edited by M@ster of Dis@ster: 09/11/07 12:14pm

[Nothing]

OK, then while were at it, why not put a ban on all the physical sports that can cause major bodily harm and even death. And while where there, why not put a stop to all sword swallowers. And since were there, why not put a stop to all Racecar drivers because of the risk of death. And while were there, why not put a ban on smoking because it causes death to those that smoke and those around it as well. And while were there, lets put a ban on Alchohol because I can guarantee you that Alchohol causes more deaths today than Handguns do. This list can go on and on. The bottom line is that its my right to bear arms. I dont care if you like it or not. Put any restrictions on receiving them you want. Lord knows I dont want criminals having these guns. But the problem is, where is the line drawn? A complete ban on guns is what is wrong to me. A tougher system on those applying for handguns, sure, go right ahead. Try to take my gun from me, you better bring a lunch. My guns are secured and there will be no mistakes in my household. How many times has someone slipped in the shower and cracked their head and died. Shit happens, every day people die from the damnest of things. All your doing is falling into the hands of those that want a complete ban on handguns.

[Nothing]

I found this to be a very interesting read. I think that there are many people that think if there is a ban on Handguns, that criminals will not get them. They are mistaken.



First, according to statistics provided by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, there is an interesting correlation between accidental deaths caused by guns and by doctors.

Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. ( Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. © Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.

Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. ( There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. © The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

Statistically, then, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners. Fact: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR. Following the logic of liberals, we should all be warned: "Guns don't kill people. Doctors do."

More seriously, Dr. Glen Otero of the Claremont Institute has published an enlightening article entitled "Ten Myths About Gun Control." (This entire article can be found at the website of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws http://www.dsgl.org.) Here are just a few of his well-documented findings.


Approximately 80 percent of all adult American citizens own firearms, and a gun can be found in nearly half of American households.


Between 1974 and 1995, the total number of privately owned firearms in America increased by 75 percent, to 236 million. During the same period, national homicide and robbery rates did NOT significantly increase.


Less than 1 percent of all guns are involved in any type of crime, which means that 99 percent of all guns are NOT used to commit any crime.


In 1987, the National Crime Victimization Survey estimated that about 83 percent of Americans would become the victims of violent crime during the course of their lifetime.


The National Self-Defense Survey found that between 1988 and 1993, American civilians used firearms in self-defense almost 2.5 million times per year, saving up to 400,000 lives per year in the process.


Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter crime. Where U.S. counties have enacted concealed-carry laws, murder rates fell by 8 percent, rape by 5 percent, and aggravated assault by 7 percent. Urban counties recorded the largest decreases demographically.


You get the picture: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But sometimes law-abiding citizens with guns can save the lives of other innocent people.

It's time to restore some common sense to the hysterical debate over gun control. When Cain killed Abel with a rock, God didn't ban all rocks. He dealt with Cain personally. We need to enforce our criminal laws against murder, robbery, and assault.

I will cite the testimony of just one more expert witness. No, it's not another politician or media pundit. Here's what former Mafia underboss, self-confessed hit man, and government informant Sammy "The Bull" Gravano had to say:

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."

It's time for Liberals to go out and buy a gun. And maybe get a life or at least protect one.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

OK, then while were at it, why not put a ban on all the physical sports that can cause major bodily harm and even death. And while where there, why not put a stop to all sword swallowers. And since were there, why not put a stop to all Racecar drivers because of the risk of death. And while were there, why not put a ban on smoking because it causes death to those that smoke and those around it as well. And while were there, lets put a ban on Alchohol because I can guarantee you that Alchohol causes more deaths today than Handguns do. This list can go on and on. The bottom line is that its my right to bear arms. I dont care if you like it or not. Put any restrictions on receiving them you want. Lord knows I dont want criminals having these guns. But the problem is, where is the line drawn? A complete ban on guns is what is wrong to me. A tougher system on those applying for handguns, sure, go right ahead. Try to take my gun from me, you better bring a lunch. My guns are secured and there will be no mistakes in my household. How many times has someone slipped in the shower and cracked their head and died. Shit happens, every day people die from the damnest of things. All your doing is falling into the hands of those that want a complete ban on handguns.

Geez, you're right. Some dangerous things are legal. So, let do the flipside. Let's legalize all drugs. Let's do away with speed limits. Stop signs too. People should be able to do whatever they want. Let's stop the regulations on explosives. And why are my rights violated every time I get on a plane? From now on, no more pesky questions or searches.

Obviously, I don't believe in the above. Point is, at some point we set a limit on something. Also, there's one really really big key difference when it comes to guns and all the rest. Guns are made to kill. That's why they exist. Alcohol, drugs, cars, do not exist just to kill what they are pointed at. They are not tools of violence. No army is has ever been equiped with snowboards, Toyota Echos, and a case of beer!

Yes, shit happens. But guns are tools of criminals. They're also can become the tools of fools. Men angry at their wives, drunks or druggies out of control. People who otherwise might be too cowardly to be harmful, become deadly with ease. No freak has ever stabbed 20-30 people to death, or even 5 for that matter, but anyone can become a killing machine with a gun. And again, the only point of a gun, it's existance, is to kill. Humans or animals. So regulate the hell out of it, make sure hunters and collectors can get their guns but try and slow down the idea that everyone and his dog needs one. Anyway, again, all IMO.

And finally, to be clear, no I do not want a ban on all guns. When it comes time to overthrow our governments in 30-40 years, yes, we'll need them!

[Nothing]

Next, we have a table of accidental deaths from 1996 (fairly close year). This is a table compiled from stats by the U.S. Census Bureau! You will notice on the right that the "firearms" accidental deaths is 1,134!!!

http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm

I think most of these numbers are completely distorted. I know its not you doing the distortion, but most groups will pick and choose the data just as you mentioned earlier in this topic. Look at this info here and the links where you can go and see the actual numbers yourself.

Gun-related deaths in the USA


Statistics and causes
The definitive source for US injury death statistics is the Centers For Disease Control National Center for Injury Prevention & Control website which provides statistics on all deaths by injury, not just gun deaths. To get the number of gun deaths for a year just set the Cause of Injury to Firearm. If you only want to know the number of child gun deaths per year then choose the custom age range and input 0 years ( <1 ) as the lowest age and 17 years as the top age. Be sure to select "No Age-Adjusting Requested" if you are only interested in a particular age group.

Note that the CDC child gun death figures are typically half of the figures that the gun control lobby publishes. The difference is in the definition of a child. The gun control lobby counts young adults that are 18 or 19 years old as children, but they do not count 20 year olds as children. You can choose from one of two possible reasons, depending on your level of cynicism: 1. The standard CDC age groups used to go from 0-19, 20-39, etc and the gun control lobby couldn't figure out how to select a custom age group. 2. Counting 18 and 19 year olds as children doubles the number of so-called child gun deaths, and more child gun deaths means more support for gun control.

In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and 3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1609 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group. Historically the 18 through 24 age group is the highest crime-committing group. At age 18 part-time drug dealers leave school and become full-time drug dealers. Despite the propaganda from the gun control lobby, criminals in general and drug dealers in particular are the group of so-called children most likely to be shot by their fellow criminals. You can verify this by reading the local gun death news stories in any city newspaper. School shootings are so rare that every one gets national television coverage, but drug dealers are shot so often that they are barely mentioned in their local newspaper.

Older people's gun deaths are most likely to be suicides. Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA.

The best way to prevent gun deaths is to treat depression and other mental illness, teach children not to sell or use illegal drugs, treat drug addiction, and have police concentrate on enforcing drug laws. However, the gun control lobby says that we should spend billions of dollars on gun registration and gun licensing instead of using the money to treat depression and combat drugs. Click here for some sensible ways to prevent gun violence.

The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US accidental gun deaths per year were down to 824 by 1999 according to the CDC. Note that it is extremely easy to prevent accidental gun deaths by following Jeff Cooper's Four Rules Of Gun Safety. Click here for a free downloadable brochure that illustrates the four rules.



More resources
First check out the links on my Gun Safety and other firearms information page. You can also find more great gun-related links in My Bookmarks including gun safety, technical information, politics, why the Fifth Amendment allows convicted felons to ignore gun registration laws, the failures of the Brady Bill and other so-called "gun-control" laws, and gun and ammunition suppliers. Just look at the section under General > Guns.


Home
Back to "Gun Safety and other firearms information" page

This page contains 100% post-consumer recycled HTML.
All rights reserved by Rex Tincher.
©2000
Please contact me for permission to reuse my content.
Email comments and problem reports to: webmaster@tincher.to
Absolutely no junk email accepted. Spammers will be larted.



Edited because the links didnt come out right,

Click on this to see the links to the sites:
http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm



This post has been edited by Nothing: 09/11/07 2:02pm

[Bargod]

Nothing, you can't use the #'s from people whose purpose is to promote one side of the arguement or another. Go to the sources. You will see most of that info is wrong. I already posted numbers from the CDC that dispute #'s you got from Dr. Agenda.

Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. ( There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. © The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

According to the CDC the second leading cause of death in 2003 for the ages 15-34 was accidental homicide with a firearm with 7,950 people killed.

That's just 15-34 year olds. You can go to the CDC website and see the complet figures yourself.
ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/ncipc/10LC-2003/PDF...intentional.pdf
The CDC doesn't have an agenda, they are just providing information. The information that you are getting from Gun Rights pages are either blatent lies, or misrepresentations, or #'s that are cherry picked to make it appear to be true.

You have to go to the actual sources of these #'s and look for yourself.

Also, smoking is banned in more places every day. Trans Fats are banned in I believe Chicago and New York.

*edit*
Oh, yeah. I'd have to go back and find it, but I think on one of the pages form the DOJ they say that more WIVES murder their HUSBANDS than vice versa. How? With their HUSBANDS gun, lol.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

OK, then while were at it, why not put a ban on all the physical sports that can cause major bodily harm and even death. And while where there, why not put a stop to all sword swallowers. And since were there, why not put a stop to all Racecar drivers because of the risk of death. And while were there, why not put a ban on smoking because it causes death to those that smoke and those around it as well. And while were there, lets put a ban on Alchohol because I can guarantee you that Alchohol causes more deaths today than Handguns do. This list can go on and on. The bottom line is that its my right to bear arms. I dont care if you like it or not. Put any restrictions on receiving them you want. Lord knows I dont want criminals having these guns. But the problem is, where is the line drawn? A complete ban on guns is what is wrong to me. A tougher system on those applying for handguns, sure, go right ahead. Try to take my gun from me, you better bring a lunch. My guns are secured and there will be no mistakes in my household. How many times has someone slipped in the shower and cracked their head and died. Shit happens, every day people die from the damnest of things. All your doing is falling into the hands of those that want a complete ban on handguns.

Geez, you're right. Some dangerous things are legal. So, let do the flipside. Let's legalize all drugs. Let's do away with speed limits. Stop signs too. People should be able to do whatever they want. Let's stop the regulations on explosives. And why are my rights violated every time I get on a plane? From now on, no more pesky questions or searches.

Obviously, I don't believe in the above. Point is, at some point we set a limit on something. Also, there's one really really big key difference when it comes to guns and all the rest. Guns are made to kill. That's why they exist. Alcohol, drugs, cars, do not exist just to kill what they are pointed at. They are not tools of violence. No army is has ever been equiped with snowboards, Toyota Echos, and a case of beer!

Yes, shit happens. But guns are tools of criminals. They're also can become the tools of fools. Men angry at their wives, drunks or druggies out of control. People who otherwise might be too cowardly to be harmful, become deadly with ease. No freak has ever stabbed 20-30 people to death, or even 5 for that matter, but anyone can become a killing machine with a gun. And again, the only point of a gun, it's existance, is to kill. Humans or animals. So regulate the hell out of it, make sure hunters and collectors can get their guns but try and slow down the idea that everyone and his dog needs one. Anyway, again, all IMO.

And finally, to be clear, no I do not want a ban on all guns. When it comes time to overthrow our governments in 30-40 years, yes, we'll need them!

Oh, and btw, the stats you brought to the table are obviously cooked up by pro-gun lobbies. The one about 2.5 million "defences" per year saving 400,000 live seems especially ludicrous. I'd like to know what psyhic knows when someone waving a gun prevented a death from occuring.

Stats show less than 200 actually legitimate kills of criminals in self defence per year, yet somehow 400,000 lives are being saved!?! That's utterly perposterous! "Only" 16,000 people in America are murdered in the first place, which is still one of the highest murder rates in the 1st world, so how the hell do guns save 25 times as many people as get killed by them, and you still end up with one of the highest murder rates?

Give me an f'en break. If anyone believes that, I got 400,000 bridges to see you. That was a totally made up number. I suspect the person who chased Big P and his car their friend off was able to claim his saved the lives of everyone in their apartment building. In reality, he saved his car from being stolen. And luckily for Big P, he didn't get spotted and get his head blown off, and his criminal firend and him didn't engage in a shoot-out and hit a pregnant woman passing by.

You see, guns and crime and everything...it's not a black and white issue. Except it is in the American constitution, so unless you change it, yes, it's your right. That doesn't necessarily make things safer or better for society in general though.

Next, we have a table of accidental deaths from 1996 (fairly close year). This is a table compiled from stats by the U.S. Census Bureau! You will notice on the right that the "firearms" accidental deaths is 1,134!!!

http://www.anesi.com/accdeath.htm

I think most of these numbers are completely distorted. I know its not you doing the distortion, but most groups will pick and choose the data just as you mentioned earlier in this topic. Look at this info here and the links where you can go and see the actual numbers yourself.

G

Click on this to see the links to the sites:
http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

Completely distorted?? For the love of God, did you read the source for the one you just quoted? It was the US census bureau! It was a calculation of ALL accidental deaths! It was a pure, completely objective source, it wasn't even a website talking about guns. Yet you dismissed it outright, and grabbed some stats from a pro gun lobby group. Sorry, I guess this debate is at an end. I obviously can't win when I quote your US Census Bureau and get told the numbers are distorted.

[Nothing]

Are you kidding me? Are you just trying to be a complete dip shit and trying to pull my chain here? The results of a SURVEY showd that 2.5 million civilians had used firearms to do what they considered to be saving lives. Is that hard for you to believe? Or should I maybe go and get a written sworn testimony from each one of them for you? Take what you want from the SURVEY here.

Have you seen the movie Demolition Man? From all your posts, you seen to be one of those happy happy joy joy people from that community.

Sorry, I did not dismiss a quote from the U.S. Census bureau. I dismissed a quoted from Chuck Anesi's web page where he posted some distored figures that who knows how he got to. Like I said, go on the actual link I provided to you and do your own studies. And try not to drink before you come on and accuse me of something thats completely bs. Theres a big difference between U.S. Census bureau and Mr. Chuck Anesi's websites, dont you agree?

This post has been edited by Nothing: 09/11/07 3:01pm

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Are you kidding me? Are you just trying to be a complete dip shit and trying to pull my chain here? The results of a SURVEY showd that 2.5 million civilians had used firearms to do what they considered to be saving lives. Is that hard for you to believe? Or should I maybe go and get a written sworn testimony from each one of them for you? Take what you want from the SURVEY here.

Have you seen the movie Demolition Man? From all your posts, you seen to be one of those happy happy joy joy people from that community.

Sorry, I did not dismiss a quote from the U.S. Census bureau. I dismissed a quoted from Chuck Anesi's web page where he posted some distored figures that who knows how he got to. Like I said, go on the actual link I provided to you and do your own studies. And try not to drink before you come on and accuse me of something thats completely bs. Theres a big difference between U.S. Census bureau and Mr. Chuck Anesi's websites, dont you agree?

Chuck Anesi's site uses, labelled quite clearly, stats from the US Census Bureau. It says it right on the graph. IN FACT at the end he adds the comment "Remarks: So stop obsessing over guns and airplanes, OK?", but you are too dense to read down to that and actually figure out I got an objective source.

As for your so-called stat of 2.5 million Americans, who published it? What the hell was the criteria? Who determined whether lives were saved? A bunch of right-wing NRA members who self report they saved their family 10 times last year with their gun? Yeah, that's scientific. And I saved 100 babies last year because I use recylced grocery bags.You think 400,000 people were save by people brandishing guns, yet only 200 potential murderers were killed? Get real.

The only reason you think you chain is being pulled is because you can't dispute what I say without relying on pro-gun lobby propoganda, and instead have to dismiss governement statisitics.

And frankly, you've now called me a dipshit and an ass in this debate. Go screw yourself Nothing.

[Bargod]

I don't know what CDC info that Tincher guy is looking at, but his info doesn't jive with the info on the CDC page I linked to. Suicides are seperated from everything else. Accidental gun deaths is it's own thing. It's all very clear.

[Kleerance]

[Nothing]

Anyone can go on the Census website and use their own different elected stats to pull numbers up. Yes, the bar graph is based on the numbers from Census Bureau, but what boxes did he select to get those totals? For example, look at the list provided on the Bureau's list:



1. What was the intent or manner of the injury? (Select one)
All Intents
Unintentional
Violence-related
Homicide and Legal intervention
Homicide
Legal Intervention
Suicide
Undetermined intent

2. What was the cause or mechanism of the injury? (Select one)
All injury Suffocation
All injury and adverse effects Terrorism
Adverse Effects Transportation-Related
Adverse effects, overall : The ICD-10 codes for some categories have been updated.
Medical care, adverse effects Transportation-Related, overall
Drugs, adverse effects Motor vehicle, overall
Cut / Pierce Motor vehicle, traffic
(categorized by injured person)
Drowning Motorcyclist
Fall Occupant
Fire / Heat Pedal cyclist
Fire / Burn Pedestrian
Fire / Flame Other
Hot object / Substance Unspecified
Residential fire / Flame Pedal cyclist
(includes mv traffic and other)
Firearm Pedal cyclist, other
Non-Firearm Pedestrian
(includes mv traffic and other)
Machinery Pedestrian, other
Natural / Environmental Transport, other land
Overexertion Transport, other
Poisoning Other specified and classifiable
Struck by /against Other specified / NEC
Unspecified

3. Select specific options.

Census Region/State Year(s) of Report
United States Northeast South Midwest West Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 to 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999

Race Hispanic Origin
All Races White Black American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander Other (combined)
All Non-Hispanics Hispanics

Sex Output Options
Both Sexes Males Females Standard Output Text Only


or



Advanced Options (not required)


Select age groups.
All Ages (includes unknown age)
Age Groups 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Unknown to 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ Unknown
Custom Age Range <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85+ Unknown to <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85+ Unknown


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compare injury rates using age-adjusting.
Select Standardized Year for Age-Adjusting:
Use 1940 1970 1980 1990 2000 as the Standard Year.
No Age-Adjusting Requested


So you can see its easy to distort the numbers based on any of the single objects they are clicking on. Yes, the numbers came from the U.S. Census Bureau, but what do they reflect? You nor I can say.

You come across in most of your posts as an errogant ass. Maybe its just me. I like gaming with you and all, but you seem to brush me the wrong way with many of your posts. Dont know if others feel this way like I do, but thats why I probably came across harsh to you. Dont mean to.

I don't know what CDC info that Tincher guy is looking at, but his info doesn't jive with the info on the CDC page I linked to. Suicides are seperated from everything else. Accidental gun deaths is it's own thing. It's all very clear.

The website he linked it to show the site www.cdc.gov I believe that is the correct site? I just put in the criteria that he mentioned and came up with the same numbers he did. What exactly is not jiving. What criteria are you looking at that is different than what he is looking at?

This post has been edited by Nothing: 09/11/07 4:07pm

[Barkmann]

You can take there beer, home, car and anyhting eles you want BUT you be damn if you try and take a american guns away from them.