If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Fifteen-year-old boy who murdered two people with a handgun got the weapon from his father, who took him gun shopping and let him pick out which gun he wanted. Naturally police have arrested the father   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 318
    More: Florida, handguns, Osceola County  
•       •       •

10130 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Aug 2013 at 9:17 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



318 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-21 12:19:17 AM

Cerebral Knievel: Elegy: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

It's in my profile.

neither of those punks honored the bet? did they agree to the bet?  Hell.. I knew that farker Zimm would walk that's why I didn't bother with all the outrage threads.
..


See my previous post. You have to wait for somebodies TF to expire before you can renew them. Since I don't obsessively follow Elegy's status, I didn't realize his had expired.

But thanks for your input.
 
2013-08-21 12:26:19 AM
Do GOP gun nuts ever pick a weapon based on anything other than how scary it looks? What a piece of junk. LOL.
 
2013-08-21 12:29:48 AM
Oblig:

I bought my step-son a knife for his 13th birthday.  For fishing and camping only.  He knows that if he takes it outside of the house without his dad's or my consent that it disappears forever.  He's shaping up to be a decent fisherman and I trust him to keep his knife in his room.  We had one minor misunderstanding and that was all it took.  Air has been clear and rules obeyed ever since then.

His dad and I have discussed getting him a .22.  I have no problem with guns but have been erring on the side of extreme prudishness and said not until next year at which time he will be 15.  If he gets one then, it will only be released from the prison of the gun safe for target practice under adult supervision.

All guns are locked up either in the safe or the gun case in our house.  Not let out, never left unsupervised for children or visitors under any circumstances.  We also keep our bedroom door locked as I own several knives and a sword that is on display and there is no reason for the kid or one of his fool teenage friends to mess with any of these items when we're not home.  Never, ever.
 
2013-08-21 12:30:21 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: dropdfun: demaL-demaL-yeH: OgreMagi: Naw, she learned her lesson at the range early on.

Try a sleeve full of hot links from an M-60. Scratch-burns are no fun.
/Always button up tight and check the folds.

Got both of ya beat! Had a 20mm cannon shell drop and wedge perfectly between the neck coverage of my flack jacket and my bare neck thanks to a SuperCobra facking something up a few hundred yards down range of us. Was only lodged there for the few seconds it took for me to drop my SAW and start doing the funky chicken dance totally out of cover in the middle of the street to get that fricken thing out of there and that few seconds is all it took to leave me scarred for life on the back of my neck.

Hint: Just like sex, this is not a contest.


No wonder the ladies always give me a weird look when I ask if they have any footage of them in action with their ex's for my competitive analysis, thanks for clearing that up for meh!
 
2013-08-21 12:35:44 AM

dropdfun: demaL-demaL-yeH: dropdfun: demaL-demaL-yeH: OgreMagi: Naw, she learned her lesson at the range early on.

Try a sleeve full of hot links from an M-60. Scratch-burns are no fun.
/Always button up tight and check the folds.

Got both of ya beat! Had a 20mm cannon shell drop and wedge perfectly between the neck coverage of my flack jacket and my bare neck thanks to a SuperCobra facking something up a few hundred yards down range of us. Was only lodged there for the few seconds it took for me to drop my SAW and start doing the funky chicken dance totally out of cover in the middle of the street to get that fricken thing out of there and that few seconds is all it took to leave me scarred for life on the back of my neck.

Hint: Just like sex, this is not a contest.

No wonder the ladies always give me a weird look when I ask if they have any footage of them in action with their ex's for my competitive analysis, thanks for clearing that up for meh!


If they DO have such things, maybe a little lookie loo is still a bad idea.
 
2013-08-21 12:37:06 AM

MFAWG: Cerebral Knievel: Elegy: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

It's in my profile.

neither of those punks honored the bet? did they agree to the bet?  Hell.. I knew that farker Zimm would walk that's why I didn't bother with all the outrage threads.
..

See my previous post. You have to wait for somebodies TF to expire before you can renew them. Since I don't obsessively follow Elegy's status, I didn't realize his had expired.

But thanks for your input.


He's right. I got sponsored about 3 days before the trial ended so I couldn't be sponsored again.

But I'm currently unsponsored now sooooooo.... Yeah.
 
2013-08-21 12:46:36 AM

MFAWG: Cerebral Knievel: Elegy: Amos Quito: Elegy: MFAWG: slayer199: They absolutely should charge the father.  He KNEW the kid was sneaking out with the gun and did NOT lock the gun in a gun safe or sell the gun.  It's one thing to teach your kid gun safety and go shooting with them...it's completely irresponsible to let a 15 year-old have unfettered access to a gun...especially AFTER he KNEW the kid was up to no good with it.  IMHO, The dad should be charged with manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide and not the lesser felony charges he's been charged with.

I was assured in another thread that first grade is a good time to teach kids about firearms. That means this young man would have 8 to 10 years of experience, which should be plenty.

Hey buddy, calling in that Zimmerman bet. I'd like my month of TF now.


LOL!

Got a link? I'd love to see the thread.

It's in my profile.

neither of those punks honored the bet? did they agree to the bet?  Hell.. I knew that farker Zimm would walk that's why I didn't bother with all the outrage threads.
..

See my previous post. You have to wait for somebodies TF to expire before you can renew them. Since I don't obsessively follow Elegy's status, I didn't realize his had expired.

But thanks for your input.


got it, And I understand.. ... that persons TF has now expired.. are you going to now honor the bet?


remember to always do sober what you said you would do when drunk, that teaches you to keep your fool mouth shut.

Not that I am actually calling you a fool, nor,actually a punk despite my previous comment. All I'm saying $5 keeps this shiat honest. despite everything.. there are actual people and personalities behind these letters.
 
2013-08-21 12:56:46 AM
Carbine ≠ handgun

Both father and son should be locked up for the rest of their lives.
 
2013-08-21 12:56:53 AM
The US could do worse than to import some of the gun laws that the Czech Republic has.

Lots of guns there, all registered, increasing tests depending on why/what you want to use it for.

Of course, it'll never happen because of the r-word in that 2nd sentence.

Maybe for Canada someday thought (but I doubt it)

Looking into the purchase of a Ruger SR-1911 if anyone has any experience with it and could offer insight.
 
2013-08-21 01:16:33 AM

Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.


So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

Link (PDF), data used on page 27:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf
 
2013-08-21 01:23:36 AM

Ishkur: Amos Quito: Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.
Linky linky???
Pretty please?

Why should I? You're a petulant little fark who couldn't stand losing an argument so you resorted to calling me obscenities a dozen times. I don't place anyone on ignore, but there are some people I'm simply not interested in replying to anymore. You are very close to being one.



The problem you had last night is that you had NO CLUE what you were trying to argue. It gets frustrating after a while.

And again, you have no clue - as we shall see.


/here's your farking link. Do the math: 467,300 / 320 million = .0015 = 0.2% (rounded) = 1 in 500.
//there. Now grow the fark up. Science is the best system we have and you are a god damn retard.



You could learn a lot from a "retard", Ishkur.

You see, Ishkur, the problem here is not in the science, but in the (intentionally ambiguous?) (mis)representation of the science, AND in the misinterpretation of the findings.

Your source links to the Bureau of Justice Statistics - to a news release that provides information cloaked in ambiguous and esoteric terms:

QUOTE:

"In 2011, about 70 percent of all homicides and eight percent of all nonfatal violent victimizations (rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault) were committed with a firearm, mainly a handgun. A handgun was used in about 7 in 10 firearm homicides and about 9 in 10 nonfatal firearm violent crimes in 2011. In the same year, about 26 percent of robberies and 31 percent of aggravated assaults involved a firearm, such as handguns, shotguns or rifles."

END QUOTE

See, the article speaks of 467,300 NONFATAL FIREARM VICTIMIZATIONS , and you interpret that as "467,300 people were shot", but that is not the case. In fact, this number represents the TOTAL number of crimes in which firearms - real or imaginary - were USED (whether fired, brandished, used as a bludgeon, or simply implied/threatened). The gun need not have even existed (finger in pocket bank heist), let alone been fired with injury.

To find the actual number of non-fatal firearms injuries in 2010, let's go to another source - one that is decidedly anti-gun:

LAW CENTER TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE

QUOTE:

"In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

"73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010."

END QUOTE

Their source: The CDC. Go ahead, run the figures.

While 73,505 non-fatal gun injuries is substantial, it is a far cry from your initial claim: "Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year", isn't it? even if we add in the 31,076 firearms victims who die - including homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings, we still arrive at 104,500 TOTAL persons actually shot.

So the real math goes something like this:

US population: 308,747,000 (2010) / DIVIDED BY / Persons SHOT (killed or injured - including accidents and suicides) 104,500 (2010)  = 2,954.

Your corrected claim: "Every American has a 1 in 500 2,954 chance of being shot in a given year".

But don't feel bad, Ishkur you were only off by a factor of six.

You see, Ishkur, science isn't the problem - rather it is the ambiguous (mis)representation of science (BOJS / NPR article) and the misinterpretation of this ambiguous representation (you), whether accidental or intentional, to shape public opinion. And THAT, dear sir (or madame), is precisely the point I labored (in vain) to get through your thick head yesterday evening.

RECAP: Your figures are wrong. Americans do NOT have "a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year" , in fact, they have a 1 in 2,954 chance of "being shot" in a given year - and that includes accidents and suicides, sir.

/ Science, Ishkur
// It's "the best system we have"
/// Why do you hate it?
 
2013-08-21 01:30:29 AM

lizyrd: Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.

So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

Link (PDF), data used on page 27:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf


How about this:

www.washingtonpost.com

You can't seriously argue that we don't have a major problem with gun violence compared to other first world industrialized nations.
 
2013-08-21 01:31:26 AM

gadian: Get a gun safe, you irresponsible POS. If anyone gets your gun and hurts someone with it, you should be charged as if you had just handed it to them to commit the crime.


So if someone steals your car and crashes it into a farmers market, does that mean you should do jail time?

If not, then you are a hypocritical asshole.
 
2013-08-21 01:33:17 AM

b0rg9: Shot someone walking to the bus stop just for "fun"?

If this isn't what the death penalty is for I don't know what it is for.


Walking to the bus stop, apparently.
 
2013-08-21 01:33:25 AM

JuggleGeek: gadian: Get a gun safe, you irresponsible POS. If anyone gets your gun and hurts someone with it, you should be charged as if you had just handed it to them to commit the crime.

So if someone steals your car and crashes it into a farmers market, does that mean you should do jail time?

If not, then you are a hypocritical asshole.


No, because cars aren't guns, and aren't in any way equivocal to guns.

Cars are designed to transport, guns are designed to kill.
 
2013-08-21 01:34:37 AM

Elegy: Second, do you have any idea how much a gun safe costs? Oh sure, a cheap sears model goes for $200, but you can get through those pretty easily. I have a feeling you want those guns really locked up, so you would need the heavy-walled, armored version, which start around $500.


And they're not that effective for apartment dwellers where you can't bolt them down.  Not to mention that if you can't bolt to concrete it doesn't really mean that much anyway.

I have a safe next to me.  It's not a gun safe but certainly could hold a few handguns.  It has things like our passports, checkbooks etc--the only thing actually of value in there is a bit of foreign currency.  (We're going back, we don't bother to trade it in when we leave.)  Since I'm upstairs bolting it down makes little sense.  It will stop guests from walking off with something, it won't stop a burglar.  I, as a middle-age adult working alone got it up here.  A young-adult burglar who doesn't care about damage will have no problem getting it out of here.  It's as much about the fire rating as theft protection anyway.

By the time you're up to a gun safe that will actually stop a burglar you simply can't put it upstairs anyway.
 
2013-08-21 01:36:54 AM

ReluctantPaladin: Looking into the purchase of a Ruger SR-1911 if anyone has any experience with it and could offer insight.


Not a bad 1911 for the price. Ruger has excellent customer service.
Clean and lube correctly before using and put a few hundred rounds of ball (230 gr FMJ) through it.
/Or have a good gunsmith polish the appropriate places where it's needed and adjust the extractor and magazine springs.
 
2013-08-21 01:45:14 AM

lizyrd: So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.



I agree with all of this. I stand corrected.
 
2013-08-21 01:46:11 AM
Cerebral Knievel:

MFAWG: See my previous post. You have to wait for somebodies TF to expire before you can renew them. Since I don't obsessively follow Elegy's status, I didn't realize his had expired.

But thanks for your input.

got it, And I understand.. ... that persons TF has now expired.. are you going to now honor the bet?


remember to always do sober what you said you would do when drunk, that teaches you to keep your fool mouth shut.

Not that I am actually calling you a fool, nor,actually a punk despite my previous comment. All I'm saying $5 keeps this shiat honest. despite everything.. there are actual people and personalities behind these letters.



Well said, my good sir, and in my experience, there is no better Farker to have said it.


/Still looking for the "Legendary" beer
//Have yet to locate
///Will update

Oh, and thanks again!
 
2013-08-21 01:53:37 AM

Amos Quito: You see, Ishkur, the problem here is not in the science, but in the (intentionally ambiguous?) (mis)representation of the science, AND in the misinterpretation of the findings.


Yes, but that's not science's fault. So why criticize the methodology (or even equate it to a religion) for something that it doesn't even subscribe to.

See, unlike you, I am capable of admitting when I'm wrong and I will always side with reason and evidence every time, irrespective of the claimant. You, on the other hand, resort to ad hominems and faulty accusations which I have absolutely no interest in addressing. Your arguments are fine without all the condescending brow-beating. Grow the fark up.
 
2013-08-21 01:56:58 AM

lizyrd: Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.

So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

Link (PDF), data used on page 27:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf



Nice.

Isn't science wonderful?
 
2013-08-21 02:01:51 AM

Ishkur: See, unlike you, I am capable of admitting when I'm wrong and I will always side with reason and evidence every time, irrespective of the claimant. You, on the other hand, resort to ad hominems and faulty accusations which I have absolutely no interest in addressing. Your arguments are fine without all the condescending brow-beating. Grow the fark up.


It's funny, you're the one who started flapping your gum hole and made yourself look like a moron, and now you're indignant over the manner in which your false and poorly-informed bullshiat got shot down.  And yet you come back and try to claim the intellectual high ground because the other farkers are being mean to you.

home.roadrunner.com

Maybe next time think about what you spew into the comment box before you hit submit.

/cry moar
 
2013-08-21 02:06:23 AM

TuteTibiImperes: lizyrd: Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.

So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

Link (PDF), data used on page 27:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

How about this:



You can't seriously argue that we don't have a major problem with gun violence compared to other first world industrialized nations.


On mobile, can't see the graph all that well, but I get the gist. Do we have a problem? Sure. Is it because we have guns? Maybe. Could the problem be less practical and more social? Like greater wealth disparity, more heterogenous cultures in close proximity, higher incarceration rates, more absent fathers, when compared to other first-world nations? Maybe. I don't know, and don't care enough about the subject to keep reading about it. Gun issues just aren't a high priority for me.

My problem was the guy using a bad number and dishonest math, then saying that the number he used is irrelevent because "who knows anyway?" when it was pointed out.
 
2013-08-21 02:06:56 AM

Ishkur: lizyrd: So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

I agree with all of this. I stand corrected.



I should add, however, that my argument was that gun violence is abnormally high. However off or unreliable my original statistic was, disputing it in no way discredits the sane fact that the US has a gun violence problem.

I think a more interesting question is: How many gun murders will it take to acknowledge this problem to the point where you do something about it? Give an exact figure: One million? Ten million? I wonder what number that NRA would capitulate at. I'm guessing 25 million. That means 24,999,999 people have to die through the barrel of a gun before the nation's leading gun rights organization says "now, hold on a minute here...". But maybe the NRA doesn't have a number. Because guns are freedom, after all. Except for those they kill.
 
2013-08-21 02:17:07 AM

lizyrd: TuteTibiImperes: lizyrd: Ishkur: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dude, that includes muggings, brandishings, and all other firearm crimes that do not necessarily involve anybody being shot.

It doesn't include unreported shootings either (how can it), so who knows what the real figure is.

Point is it shouldn't be any. Australia once had a mass shooting. It shocked everybody. In response, they banned guns. Now there is no more gun violence.

Your country is culturally broken.

So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

Link (PDF), data used on page 27:
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

How about this:



You can't seriously argue that we don't have a major problem with gun violence compared to other first world industrialized nations.

On mobile, can't see the graph all that well, but I get the gist. Do we have a problem? Sure. Is it because we have guns? Maybe. Could the problem be less practical and more social? Like greater wealth disparity, more heterogenous cultures in close proximity, higher incarceration rates, more absent fathers, when compared to other first-world nations? Maybe. I don't know, and don't care enough about the subject to keep reading about it. Gun issues just aren't a high priority for me.

My problem was the guy using a bad number and dishonest math, then saying that the number he used is irrelevent because "who knows anyway?" when it was pointed out.


Oh, and not trying to be an ass and keep harping on that guy. He said he was incorrect, good enough.

I found an error of my own; I was applying today's population to injury rates from 03-07, so my percentages were a little low. So much for being a loudmouth about using good data.
 
2013-08-21 02:31:50 AM

Ishkur: Ishkur: lizyrd: So you got high-and-mighty about science and math, and when it was pointed out that the number you used was ALL gun crime instead of gun injuries, now it doesn't matter what the numbers mean because "who knows what they really are?"

First, your decimal movement was right the first time, but your math was dishonest. By rounding from .15% to .2%, you changed your number from 1 in 650 to 1 in 500. You "rounded" a 30% difference in favor of your argument.

Second, you stated that "each American" has these odds, which is patently untrue. Gun owners have a higher chance than non owners, gangbangers higher than suburbanites, cops higher than IT guys, et cetera.

The total number of fatal gun injuries for all reasons (including suicide) from 2003 to 2007 was 156,519 and non-fatal was 341,328, for a total of just under 500,000 over 5 years. So you could say that 100,000 / 320M = 0.0003125, or 0.031%, or 1 in 3250...is the overall gunshot rate in the US. Certainly not each American's chance of being shot.

If you eliminate suicide and attempts, it drops to about 75,000 per year, and you're at 0.023%, or 1 in 4200. Eliminate suicide and accidents, and you're at 60,000 or 0.018%.

I agree with all of this. I stand corrected.


I should add, however, that my argument was that gun violence is abnormally high. However off or unreliable my original statistic was, disputing it in no way discredits the sane fact that the US has a gun violence problem.

I think a more interesting question is: How many gun murders will it take to acknowledge this problem to the point where you do something about it? Give an exact figure: One million? Ten million? I wonder what number that NRA would capitulate at. I'm guessing 25 million. That means 24,999,999 people have to die through the barrel of a gun before the nation's leading gun rights organization says "now, hold on a minute here...". But maybe the NRA doesn't have a number. Because guns are freedom, after all. Except for those they kill.


Hm. 25 million is a big number. At 10,000 gun murders per year, it will take 2500 years to get there. I really think this may be more complex than availability of guns. Put a gun in my hand today or in my bedroom for 25 years, I don't think I'd commit murder. If you have someone willing to kill, I'm not sure the weapon is the root of the problem.
 
2013-08-21 02:49:19 AM

Amos Quito: Ishkur: Amos Quito: Every American has a 1 in 500 chance of being shot in a given year. Not shot and killed, mind you. Just shot.
Linky linky???
Pretty please?

Why should I? You're a petulant little fark who couldn't stand losing an argument so you resorted to calling me obscenities a dozen times. I don't place anyone on ignore, but there are some people I'm simply not interested in replying to anymore. You are very close to being one.


The problem you had last night is that you had NO CLUE what you were trying to argue. It gets frustrating after a while.

And again, you have no clue - as we shall see.


/here's your farking link. Do the math: 467,300 / 320 million = .0015 = 0.2% (rounded) = 1 in 500.
//there. Now grow the fark up. Science is the best system we have and you are a god damn retard.


You could learn a lot from a "retard", Ishkur.

You see, Ishkur, the problem here is not in the science, but in the (intentionally ambiguous?) (mis)representation of the science, AND in the misinterpretation of the findings.

Your source links to the Bureau of Justice Statistics - to a news release that provides information cloaked in ambiguous and esoteric terms:

QUOTE:

"In 2011, about 70 percent of all homicides and eight percent of all nonfatal violent victimizations (rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault) were committed with a firearm, mainly a handgun. A handgun was used in about 7 in 10 firearm homicides and about 9 in 10 nonfatal firearm violent crimes in 2011. In the same year, about 26 percent of robberies and 31 percent of aggravated assaults involved a firearm, such as handguns, shotguns or rifles."

END QUOTE

See, the article speaks of 467,300 NONFATAL FIREARM VICTIMIZATIONS , and you interpret that as "467,300 people were shot", but that is not the case. In fact, this number represents the TOTAL number of crimes in which firearms - real or imaginary - were USED (whether fired, brandished, used as a bludgeon, or simply implied/threatened). ...


I don't really like you, but that was, without a doubt, an "oh snap" moment.
 
2013-08-21 02:54:01 AM

Ishkur: Amos Quito: You see, Ishkur, the problem here is not in the science, but in the (intentionally ambiguous?) (mis)representation of the science, AND in the misinterpretation of the findings.

Yes, but that's not science's fault. So why criticize the methodology (or even equate it to a religion) for something that it doesn't even subscribe to.



Ah, but I did not criticize scientific methodology, rather, I pointed out that the findings of science are often misrepresented / misinterpreted by parties with ulterior motives to serve their agendas - much as religious scripture is selectively quoted - often out of context - to sway the thoughts and opinions of the befuddled masses. You yourself in this thread have provided a fine example of how said misrepresentations / misinterpretations can and DO sway opinions as a result of deference to "authority".

And yet in spite of these cold-slap-in-the-face revelations, you remain oblivious to the point I repeatedly worked to make both yesterday and today.

I am depressed.


See, unlike you, I am capable of admitting when I'm wrong and I will always side with reason and evidence every time, irrespective of the claimant. You, on the other hand, resort to ad hominems and faulty accusations which I have absolutely no interest in addressing. Your arguments are fine without all the condescending brow-beating. Grow the fark up.


Click that link I added to your post. Ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it means.

You repeatedly accused me of berating science and the scientific method in favor of theology. You were wrong, and refused to back down no matter how many times you were painstakingly corrected. Did I call you a "dick"? Why yes, yes I did, and repeatedly, and as you pigheadedly repeated the same asinine claims - in post after post - in spite of being patiently corrected - you damn well deserved it.

That said, I admire the fact that you are willing to stand corrected (if not by me), and I am more than willing to bury the hatchet - or so to speak - except that I sense that my previous comments on certain - er - "sensitive" topics (Israel / Zionism) have put me on your "shiat list", so I doubt that you will reciprocate.

In any case, I bid you a pleasant evening (or morning, as it may be).

Ta ta!
 
2013-08-21 02:57:53 AM

ReluctantPaladin: Looking into the purchase of a Ruger SR-1911 if anyone has any experience with it and could offer insight.


It's another 1911. You want a 1911 there are dozens of companies that build them. Ruger isn't bad, and the price is good.

I like 1911's but their resurgence is odd to me.
 
2013-08-21 03:01:45 AM

violentsalvation: I like 1911's but their resurgence is odd to me.


resurgence? they never went away.
 
2013-08-21 03:18:33 AM

log_jammin: violentsalvation: I like 1911's but their resurgence is odd to me.

resurgence? they never went away.


Fine, but they sure seem more popular than ever. I have nothing against them, but I have other pistols I'd prefer to shoot.
 
2013-08-21 03:22:25 AM

violentsalvation: Fine, but they sure seem more popular than ever. I have nothing against them, but I have other pistols I'd prefer to shoot.


I'd like to get one, but I just can't talk myself into spending the money.
 
2013-08-21 03:56:13 AM
Boy.....charge him as adult---life in prison no chance of parole. period.
Dad....charge him with murder---life in prison no chance of parole. period.

People like that need to rot for life. If we need to release all the pot-heads from the joint to make room for scum-bags like this....fine. let them go.


Don't "ban" guns.

BAN CRIMINALS.....for life. period. Problem solved. any questions?
 
2013-08-21 03:58:27 AM

violentsalvation: ReluctantPaladin: Looking into the purchase of a Ruger SR-1911 if anyone has any experience with it and could offer insight.

It's another 1911. You want a 1911 there are dozens of companies that build them. Ruger isn't bad, and the price is good.

I like 1911's but their resurgence is odd to me.


They aren't .40 S&W or 10mm.
They aren't ^%#$^#$ 9mm.
Or .380, or .38.
They don't eat exotic, overpriced ammunition. (Looking at you, Five seveN, and .45 GAP!)

.45 ACP has been the get 'er done semiautomatic pistol round for 109 years. Most modern 1911s fire +P just fine, thank you.
/.357 Magnum for 79 years for revolvers.
 
2013-08-21 04:07:42 AM
Gun nut here.  It sounds like he broke the law.  It's against the law for anyone under 18 to have a rifle when he's not in the company of an adult.  Negligence for sure.
 
2013-08-21 04:20:19 AM

Fark It: It's funny, you're the one who started flapping your gum hole


No, this is a continuation of another thread.
 
2013-08-21 04:22:16 AM

Amos Quito: Ah, but I did not criticize scientific methodology


You did. You compared it to religion -- several times.
 
2013-08-21 04:24:33 AM

Amos Quito: Click that link I added to your post. Ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it means.


I dunno, I'm fairly certain this is a stunning example of it.
 
2013-08-21 04:37:14 AM
Next year just get him an Xbox.
 
2013-08-21 05:03:30 AM

I_Like_Pie: No that isn't a bump fire stock....no it isn't a submachine gun. No it isn't any type of assault weapon. Most all full size semi-auto centerfire pistols these days pack more firepower than this firearm you ignorant dolts are freaking out about.

It is a high point carbine

That thing is basically the bottom rung of the firearms spectrum. It is make of plastic and the pot metal used in die cast cars, uses a blowback design that makes a heavy and cumbersome action, and is basically something that an idiot who doesn't have much money buys to look like a mall ninja.


I'm sure that the dead guys and their families are glad that it wasn't a high-end weapon that cost a lot of money.
 
2013-08-21 05:37:29 AM
i'm normally one of those frothing at the mouth 2nd amendment supporters.

and I'm ok that they arrested the father.

Charge him with manslaughter. Through gross negligence on his part (by not teaching his son the value of life, and providing him with easy access to a firearm) his actions or inactions directly caused the death of another.

That does not excuse the son though. He should get murder. He's 15. That is old enough to know what you have done wrong.

Actions should have consequences.

/still pro 2a
 
2013-08-21 05:45:26 AM
From the article:
The father also told police he bought the carbine and 100 rounds of ammunition because his son "was having problems with unidentified subjects in Poinciana, Florida," records state.

So either the kid was having problems with schoolwork or had some other kids at school that were treating him like crap.

Either way, sounds like he was trying to teach his kid that the best way out of a problem is to shoot someone. Looks like the kid learned his lesson.
 
2013-08-21 06:25:32 AM

Elegy: LordJiro: TuteTibiImperes: The father should absolutely be charged.  I'd go as far as to say that gun owners should be held liable for any crimes committed with their weapons.  If you're going to own a gun, you have the responsibility to protect it and keep it locked up so that miscreants can't access it.

This, even if your weapon is stolen. Unless a LOT of effort was made by the thief (like, stealing the whole gun safe), a stolen gun means you neglected your responsibilities as a gun owner.

So in this case, the guy kept letting his son walk with the weapon, I agree.

But what about me? My wife and I have no kids. No reason to have a gun safe, we both know how to use them.

You would arrest me if someone broke into my house and stole my property? What if my door was locked? Is that safe enough for you?


Please don't feed the trolls
 
2013-08-21 06:30:13 AM

Elegy: Think you replied to the wrong person.

And it's a month of TF, not a year, according to the terms I originally laid out and you accepted


How did I get sucked into this?
 
2013-08-21 06:35:09 AM

Dextro: This is a semi-auto gun that fires a .45 ACP (a pistol round) and people in this thread have called it an assault rifle? Dear God.


To be fair, it's not only a pistol round.
s14.postimg.org
Also fires .45 ACP, albeit very rapidly.

But it's also not an assault rifle, even under the 1994 assault weapons ban.  The hi-point was made in 1994 as a legal rifle following the ban.  It was also the rifle selected by Eric Harris for the Columbine shooting.
 
2013-08-21 06:39:43 AM

Fubini: PunGent: Was it, in fact, illegal?

Interestingly, that's not a straightforward question. Florida law requires parental consent before giving a minor a firearm, but otherwise doesn't place an age restriction on ownership. Clearly this kid had parental consent to owning the firearm.

They do prohibit the transfer of a weapon to any person "of unsound mind", but it sounds like the father did not allow the kid to have the gun after the first shooting.

In this light, I conclude that the ownership of the gun by the minor was not illegal (that is, it was not an illegal gun). However:

A minor less than 18 years of age may not possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his home, unless engaged in lawful activities.

In this context, the minor's use of the gun was clearly illegal, even if he had not shot anyone. As to whether or not the father is liable for how his son used the weapon... Florida law says the following, in addition to any other laws that deal with the safe storage of dangerous items:

It is unlawful to store or leave a firearm in any place within reach or easy access of a person less than 18 years of age. This provision does not apply to:
*A firearm stored in a securely locked box or container, or in a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure, or securely locked with a trigger lock;
*A minor who obtains a firearm by means of unlawful entry by any person;
*Minors engaged in a lawful marksmanship competition or practice or other lawful recreational shooting activity;
*Any person carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.

Whoever, through culpable negligence, stores or leaves a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a minor less than 16 years of age commits a felony of the third degree, if the minor obtains the firearm and uses it to inflict injury or death upon himself ...


Interesting, thanks.

Sounds like that's they way it SHOULD be...he takes the gun away and locks it up.  Kid breaks in, not his fault.  But if he just puts it in a cupboard, and says "don't touch it"...well, probably not enough, given what happened.

Even if he's found innocent, I'd guess the civil suits arising out of this will bankrupt the guy.
 
2013-08-21 06:45:22 AM

craigdamage: Boy.....charge him as adult---life in prison no chance of parole. period.
Dad....charge him with murder---life in prison no chance of parole. period.

People like that need to rot for life. If we need to release all the pot-heads from the joint to make room for scum-bags like this....fine. let them go.


Don't "ban" guns.

BAN CRIMINALS.....for life. period. Problem solved. any questions?


No problem with the boy doing life, but Dad?  I see reckless indifference, negligent homicide, stuff like that, (depending on Florida law).  I DON'T see him intending to kill anyone, and in fact he seems to have taken steps (perhaps feeble ones) to prevent the situation.

Save the big penalties for those who really deserve it.

He could still be screwed under the felony murder rule, I suppose, depending on what he knew, when he knew it, etc.
 
2013-08-21 06:56:26 AM

TuteTibiImperes: JuggleGeek: gadian: Get a gun safe, you irresponsible POS. If anyone gets your gun and hurts someone with it, you should be charged as if you had just handed it to them to commit the crime.

So if someone steals your car and crashes it into a farmers market, does that mean you should do jail time?

If not, then you are a hypocritical asshole.

No, because cars aren't guns, and aren't in any way equivocal to guns.

Cars are designed to transport, guns are designed to kill.


There IS an analogy to be made.  Both are mechanical devices that require training to use safely.
And cars kill a LOT of people every year.  We're just used to it...it barely makes the news.
Think 9/11, times ten, EVERY year.  Plus a solid million non-fatal accidents, every year.

And like it or not, cars aren't mentioned in the Constitution, while guns are.  You can argue about the degree of right afforded by the Second Amendment, and you can lobby to change it...heck, try to repeal it if you want...but you can't deny it's in there.
 
2013-08-21 07:20:43 AM
Family of fark ups.
 
2013-08-21 08:39:26 AM

slayer199: Elegy: Think you replied to the wrong person.

And it's a month of TF, not a year, according to the terms I originally laid out and you accepted

How did I get sucked into this?


Innocent bystander. I think you were the guy MFAWG replied to first.

Given that its been 12 hours and no TF on my end, I'm pretty sure he's not going to pay up.

Always sad to meet a welcher.
 
Displayed 50 of 318 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report