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.

(The Raw Story)   In a development no one could have seen coming, study shows that murders in Missouri have jumped 63% since the state repealed background check requirements for handgun purchases in 2008, while no neighboring state saw a similar jump   (rawstory.com) divider line 214
    More: Obvious, Missouri, handguns, murders, licensing laws  
•       •       •

4587 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2014 at 1:48 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-17 09:39:20 PM

Fubini: Clearly, the vast, vast majority of guns do not injure and will not injure anyone. Therefore, guns are safe.

For comparison, consider cars. According to the same CDC data sources as above, there were 35,000 deaths and 2,500,000 injuries to motor vehicle occupants in 2012, leading to a combined death/injury rate for motor vehicle occupants of 1016.2 per 100,000. Recall from before that there are only 36 firearm injuries per 100,000.

What's more, there are only about 250,000,000 cars in the US. Not only are you 28 times more likely to be injured riding in a car than by a firearm, there are far fewer cars in the US, which means each individual car is statistically much more dangerous than each individual firearm. That doesn't even factor in deaths and injury caused by cars to non-vehicle occupants. (A fun point of statistical nonsense, walking is roughly 12 times more dangerous than driving, per miles traveled. What does that say about the lethality of shoes?)


This is so stupid, I'm putting you on ignore.

Just FYI, a valid comparison in risk would look at the amount of time each of those items are used, not be based solely in absolute numbers. Almost every single man, woman, and child drives in their car, probably for at least an hour per day. Are each of those guns in use for an hour each day?

Your argument is stupid and you should feel bad for attempting to make it at all. I expect no less from the gun nut crowd, which appears to be entirely devoid of basic critical thinking and original thought. It is incredibly pathetic.
 
2014-02-17 09:42:05 PM

Maul555: [considerreconsider.com image 547x192]
[origin.factcheck.org image 600x831]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x231]
[www.moveleft.org image 850x597]


There are different stats... but on the conservative side guns are used to protect someone or something 40 times per every 1 gun crime.     The problem with gun control is that you cant just eliminate the bad, you eliminate the much bigger good as well...  Gun control is the real killer here.


[www.guns.com image 660x750]


Wow another instant ignore. Take your propaganda elsewhere please. Your stats are 100% fabricated, I really hope you one day possess the intelligence required to see that.
 
2014-02-17 09:46:15 PM

justtray: This is so stupid, I'm putting you on ignore.


Of course you are, you ignore everyone who bothers to point out how stupid your talking points are.
 
2014-02-17 09:49:15 PM

justtray: Take your propaganda elsewhere please. Your stats are 100% fabricated, I really hope you one day possess the intelligence required to see that.


Smells mighty rich in here all the sudden.
 
2014-02-17 09:49:32 PM

violentsalvation: justtray: This is so stupid, I'm putting you on ignore.

Of course you are, you ignore everyone who bothers to point out how stupid your talking points are.


which makes his zealous defense of CCW holders in other threads equally hilarious and trolltastic. Seriously follow him in a CCW or self-defense thread sometime. It's night and day.
 
2014-02-17 10:49:09 PM

dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: DamnYankees: dittybopper: In what way?  That it didn't have a lasting significant difference?

Yes, I was agreeing with you. The impact seems to be isolated to that one year and not sustained, which sort of undermines the idea that the repeal of this law had some huge lasting consequences.

OK.  Your post was ambiguous.  Sometimes it's hard to tell.

No.

Yes.


Did either of you bother to read the article? The statistics were based on gun related homicides.
 
2014-02-17 10:58:03 PM

justtray: This is so stupid, I'm putting you on ignore.

Just FYI, a valid comparison in risk would look at the amount of time each of those items are used, not be based solely in absolute numbers. Almost every single man, woman, and child drives in their car, probably for at least an hour per day. Are each of those guns in use for an hour each day?

Your argument is stupid and you should feel bad for attempting to make it at all. I expect no less from the gun nut crowd, which appears to be entirely devoid of basic critical thinking and original thought. It is incredibly pathetic.


This is you missing the point. Go back and read that comment again.
 
2014-02-17 11:54:53 PM

dittybopper: The other thing to consider is that the majority of those injuries are minor and may not even be from projectiles. Have your hand too far forward on a revolver? Get M-1 thumb? Prematurely eject a hang-fire and it goes "BANG!" in front of your face? Shoot with an obstruction in the barrel and it blows up? All are injuries that are gun related but not gunshot wounds.


Add burns from hot brass.
 
2014-02-18 01:36:49 AM

justtray: Maul555: [considerreconsider.com image 547x192]
[origin.factcheck.org image 600x831]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x231]
[www.moveleft.org image 850x597]


There are different stats... but on the conservative side guns are used to protect someone or something 40 times per every 1 gun crime.     The problem with gun control is that you cant just eliminate the bad, you eliminate the much bigger good as well...  Gun control is the real killer here.


[www.guns.com image 660x750]

Wow another instant ignore. Take your propaganda elsewhere please. Your stats are 100% fabricated, I really hope you one day possess the intelligence required to see that.


You now appear in a lovely shade of red.  I think you and I both know what that means...
 
2014-02-18 01:45:13 AM

Acravius: It is unfortunate that we don't have better data about these issues.
That's because in 1996 the NRA successfully shut down Federal level research about gun violence.

The good news is that 1n 2013, the CDC could resume research on gun violence and the causes of said violence.
Maybe in a couple years of sifting through the incomplete data sets, that nobody since 1996 was required by any agency to file or report on, some semblance of what has been happening with guns and gun violence in these past 18 years.

Hopefully the statistical signifigance of nearly 5,700,000 people who have been killed for whatever reason/motive/situation by guns in this country over the past 18 years, will give us some insight into ways to correct, decrease and diminish the annual slaughter that is part of the current American cultural landscape.

Of course they have to interview the king of misinformation from the anti-gun lobby - Kellermann. However, his statements don't detract about the news that it has been 17 years since federal level research about the issue has been actively funded and pursued in any truly intellectual way.

It would be nice to see that year 1 after the reinstatement of federal funding will produce some meaningful insight that can lead to informed legislation about how to proceed to protect rights while also reducing deaths by firearms. However, given the horrible data sets they have access to, it would probably take several more years of real complete data sets to even establish trends that would be meaningful in most areas of the country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-scientists-can-again-r e search-gun-violence/2013/01/17/19d959fc-60e5-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_st ory.html


Ya know, they released the report on the last 30 years worth of violence of data back in June of 2013. What they concluded was that the majority of violence stems from access to alcohol and gun laws had no discernible impact on violence.
 
2014-02-18 12:31:49 PM
 I know this sounds crazy, and it most certainly is.
unfortunately it's also true.
There are a large number of people pushing for weakening of gun laws not because of anything to do with guns and their access but because they actually want to create an atmosphere of chaos and force federal and state governments to crack down on gun ownership. Their ultimate goal is some kind of Turner Diaries race war sparked by gun confiscations and "black crime". I used to think these guys were just a few fringe nuts, but after witnessing the discussions on many different mainstream forums regarding Travon, Dunn, and the knock out game "phenomenon" it's pretty clear that there are either way more people who believe this narrative , or there are a few people working around the clock to push that narrative.  These people are Taliban elephant shiat nutty and are just waiting for any kind of social duress in this country to start coming out of the wood work.

//would totally suggest listening to the audio book for Turner Diaries
//as much as you can stomach.
//know your enemy
 
2014-02-18 02:09:39 PM

MyRandomName: stonicus: MyRandomName: lordjupiter: It is a statistical CERTAINTY that you will be held up at gunpoint in public or in your home by some scruffy stranger.  At the same time there is nearly NO chance whatsoever that you or a family member will accidentally or impulsively shoot someone, or use the weapon in a crime.

So farking knock yourselves out.

I've always wondered why those who cower in fear over guns dont cower in fear of the more numerous killers in life. Do you fear driving? Swimming pools? What about guns scare you so much.

I don't fear driving, or guns.  I fear idiots who drive and idiots who use guns.

As for swimming pools, hellz yeah I am scared.  Last week a swimming pool walked into a school and drowned a bunch of innocent students.

Stay away from doctors then. You have the same statistical chance of being harmed by them as you do guns.


I will most definitely avoid idiot doctors.
 
2014-02-18 11:26:21 PM
Maul555:
img.fark.net

...So, against what are all those people defending themselves?

/I smell messaged numbers.
 
2014-02-19 12:04:41 AM

LoneWolf343: Maul555:
[img.fark.net image 400x231]

...So, against what are all those people defending themselves?

/I smell messaged numbers.


Failed People with guns?
People with knives?
People with fists?
People with [Insert all those wonderful OTHER things that a reasonably in shape person willing to commit violence can use]?

Plus of course the "I felt at threat, but actually wasn't, but I have no way of knowing that".
 
Displayed 14 of 214 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report