Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(WTKR)   Active shooter alert issued for Naval Medical Center Portsmouth. UPDATE: Not a shooter, but there wasn't an Active Stabber alert code   (wtkr.com) divider line 494
    More: News, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth  
•       •       •

6849 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jun 2014 at 9:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-06 02:25:14 PM  
I just wanted to pop in and say that  mrshowrules is doing yeoman's work. Keep it up, bud.
 
2014-06-06 02:26:44 PM  

John Buck 41: stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?

It's like...I know this sounds crazy but...the anti-gun nuts are crying and whining because a gun wasn't involved.
[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x414]


I guess that's how a really stupid person might read it.
 
2014-06-06 02:27:44 PM  
If we really want the murder rate rate to go down (no matter what sort of weapon is used), then we should all stop being the kind of people who could murder someone.
 
2014-06-06 02:31:03 PM  

msqualia: John Buck 41: stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?

It's like...I know this sounds crazy but...the anti-gun nuts are crying and whining because a gun wasn't involved.
[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x414]

I guess that's how a really stupid person might read it.


You're not getting that vibe?
 
2014-06-06 02:33:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I just wanted to pop in and say that  mrshowrules is doing yeoman's work. Keep it up, bud.


mrshowrules is asking Captain Kirk to sign the daily duty roster?
 
2014-06-06 02:48:40 PM  
It's about time congress gets off it's ass and does something about these mass stabbings.  You know EXACTLY what I mean.  Time to ban knives.

NOT ONE MORE!!!

NOT ONE MORE!!!

NOT ONE MORE!!!

NOT ONE MORE!!!
 
2014-06-06 02:50:36 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-06 03:03:35 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: This is one of the most thorough, neutral and comprehensive studies on the subject:

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

"neutral and comprehensive"

1) Random low-ranked journal
2) Doesn't give numbers for gun homicides
3) Disclaims multiple other studies finding different results

Stopped reading there.


Disclaims?  WTF "disclaims" mean?

Anyways.  Do you have a better study, I'd be happy to look at it.
 
2014-06-06 03:06:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I just wanted to pop in and say that  mrshowrules is doing yeoman's work. Keep it up, bud.


Thank you.  Had to look up your reference and I like it.

/lifts head a bit higher
 
2014-06-06 03:07:31 PM  

BeerLion: [i.imgur.com image 850x248]


In your mind what does this demonstrate?
 
2014-06-06 03:16:30 PM  
2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1
 
2014-06-06 03:30:33 PM  

mrshowrules: Disclaims?  WTF "disclaims" mean?


Disclaim - verb - refuse to acknowledge; deny

They say in their intro that there are several other studies of the Australian gun buyback that found no significant correlation between the policy and the homicide rate, but this particular paper claims to have a better statistical method that does find some difference.

I'm not buying it.
 
2014-06-06 03:41:59 PM  

verbaltoxin: Okay, people, "BSAB" can be marked on your Fark bingo cards.


No, I'm saying anyone who uses a tragedy to advance a political agenda needs to be taken out to the woodshed and whooped.
 
2014-06-06 03:42:41 PM  
I know how to get Government off our backs.
Get the private sector out of the public sector.
 
2014-06-06 03:43:08 PM  

mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1


d) assault rifle, pepper gas bombs, explosives, home made tire spikes, one deputy shot in leg, shooter pining for the fjords

/it's on CNN, can't believe it's not on Fark
 
2014-06-06 03:43:36 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: Disclaims?  WTF "disclaims" mean?

Disclaim - verb - refuse to acknowledge; deny

They say in their intro that there are several other studies of the Australian gun buyback that found no significant correlation between the policy and the homicide rate, but this particular paper claims to have a better statistical method that does find some difference.

I'm not buying it.


Referencing studies that have alternate findings is the opposite of refusing to acknowledge or denying?  "Disclaims" is an odd term and you are most certainly not using the term properly in this context.   Anyways, where is your citation to a superior study?
 
2014-06-06 03:48:45 PM  
As much as I want to get into an internet argument with a guy who attacks word semantics, I think I'm going to pass today.
 
2014-06-06 03:49:57 PM  

CADMonkey79: CADMonkey79: KidneyStone: I haven't seen it on Fark yet but this morning some nut job with guns and explosives was killed when he was attempting to occupy the courthouse in Cumming, Ga.  Dude was about to go Columbine.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/police-activity-around-forsyth-courthou se /ngFsZ/

That can't be true we were all just told that using a gun for defense or to stop a crime always results in your own death.


Probably why it hasn't been posted here.
 
2014-06-06 03:54:59 PM  

Fubini: As much as I want to get into an internet argument with a guy who attacks word semantics, I think I'm going to pass today.


When you use a word in exactly the opposite way it was intended, that is not semantics.  Forget the word.  Which superior study are you claiming was not acknowledged?
 
2014-06-06 05:40:38 PM  

mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1


In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?
 
2014-06-06 05:48:46 PM  

mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1


And your a) example was in Canada and it was a hunting rifle.  Case in point that stricter gun laws didn't help.

There was an elevator attack on 2 kids by a knife wielding mental health treatee stranger in New York.  You mean the press didn't cover the mass elevator knifing in New York but covered the school shooter with a shotgun?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/brooklyn-stabbing-suspect-mee ts -angry-crowd-faces-judge-for-first-time/
 
2014-06-06 06:20:16 PM  

AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?


only that in a small (non-scientifical sample), not only did guns make outcome worse, more powerful guns made outcomes worse still.  It proves nothing that shouldn't be known by common sense anyways.

static.fjcdn.com
 
2014-06-06 06:23:44 PM  

tbeatty: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

And your a) example was in Canada and it was a hunting rifle.  Case in point that stricter gun laws didn't help.

There was an elevator attack on 2 kids by a knife wielding mental health treatee stranger in New York.  You mean the press didn't cover the mass elevator knifing in New York but covered the school shooter with a shotgun?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/brooklyn-stabbing-suspect-mee ts -angry-crowd-faces-judge-for-first-time/


I wasn't aware the laws of physics worked differently in Canada.  I see you missed my disclaimer as well.

 Is your position really that a person having a mental meltdown or opting for a murder spree will have better results with a knife than a shotgun and a shotgun versus a semi-automatic rifle or hand gun?
 
2014-06-06 06:27:07 PM  

msqualia: Dimensio: According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?

Maybe the NRA should not have lobbied to outlaw the government's collecting of gun statistics so we could have a study by an organization with the means to provide accurate statistics (including the raw data, so gun advocates would have access to it).

Apparently they don't anticipate flattering statistics.


Ya mean studies like this?

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319
 
2014-06-06 06:27:45 PM  

AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?


and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..
 
2014-06-06 06:41:10 PM  

mrshowrules: When you use a word in exactly the opposite way it was intended, that is not semantics.


Oh, ok, so you get to judge the "intent" behind words now?

For one, my usage is perfectly reasonable, AND dictionary correct.

Two, someone who thinks that they are the sole arbiter of right and wrong is not worth having a debate with.
 
2014-06-06 06:54:05 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: When you use a word in exactly the opposite way it was intended, that is not semantics.

Oh, ok, so you get to judge the "intent" behind words now?

For one, my usage is perfectly reasonable, AND dictionary correct.

Two, someone who thinks that they are the sole arbiter of right and wrong is not worth having a debate with.


I didn't want to judge/guess at the intent of your words, that is why I asked you to clarify.   You are the one belabouring your use of the term.  I asked you to cite a better study on this issue, thrice now.  You know, the study that was "disclaimed".

I'm sure you think the use of your word was perfectly cromulent and let's assume you were/are correct.  What study, did the study I cite, ignore and let's discuss the relative merit of each study.
 
2014-06-06 06:54:50 PM  

mrshowrules: tbeatty: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

And your a) example was in Canada and it was a hunting rifle.  Case in point that stricter gun laws didn't help.

There was an elevator attack on 2 kids by a knife wielding mental health treatee stranger in New York.  You mean the press didn't cover the mass elevator knifing in New York but covered the school shooter with a shotgun?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/brooklyn-stabbing-suspect-mee ts -angry-crowd-faces-judge-for-first-time/

I wasn't aware the laws of physics worked differently in Canada.  I see you missed my disclaimer as well.

 Is your position really that a person having a mental meltdown or opting for a murder spree will have better results with a knife than a shotgun and a shotgun versus a semi-automatic rifle or hand gun?


Actually, if they chose to, yes.  Knife wounds to the same areas as bullets are almost always more lethal.  A firearm adds range.  But you missed the point that it is the mindset of the perpetrator.  Newton wouldn't have changed much if it was a knife or a sword as the victims were confined.  If your argument is that a scary looking assault weapon is less lethal than a regular hunting rifle, I'd agree.  The scary looking 9mm MP5 submachine gun the RCMP officer had was no match for the hunting rifle the shooter had.  A class IIIA ballistic vest would stop the MP5 but no hunting rifle large enough for, say, deer.  A ballistic vest would not stop a knife either.
 
2014-06-06 07:05:21 PM  

tbeatty: mrshowrules: tbeatty: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

And your a) example was in Canada and it was a hunting rifle.  Case in point that stricter gun laws didn't help.

There was an elevator attack on 2 kids by a knife wielding mental health treatee stranger in New York.  You mean the press didn't cover the mass elevator knifing in New York but covered the school shooter with a shotgun?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/brooklyn-stabbing-suspect-mee ts -angry-crowd-faces-judge-for-first-time/

I wasn't aware the laws of physics worked differently in Canada.  I see you missed my disclaimer as well.

 Is your position really that a person having a mental meltdown or opting for a murder spree will have better results with a knife than a shotgun and a shotgun versus a semi-automatic rifle or hand gun?

Actually, if they chose to, yes.  Knife wounds to the same areas as bullets are almost always more lethal.  A firearm adds range.  But you missed the point that it is the mindset of the perpetrator.  Newton wouldn't have changed much if it was a knife or a sword as the victims were confined. If your argument is that a scary looking assault weapon is less lethal than a regular hunting rifle, I'd agree.  The scary looking 9mm MP5 submachine gun the RCMP officer had was no match for the hunting rifle the shooter had.  A class IIIA ballistic vest would stop the MP5 but no hunting rifle large enough for, say, deer.  A ballistic vest would not stop a knife either.


That bolded part is the your new favourite label.  Congrats.
 
2014-06-06 07:44:26 PM  
mrshowrules:
That bolded part is the your new favourite label.  Congrats.

That's okay.  Yours is dipshiat.
 
2014-06-06 08:38:55 PM  

mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..


58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.
 
2014-06-06 08:59:50 PM  

mrshowrules: tbeatty: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

And your a) example was in Canada and it was a hunting rifle.  Case in point that stricter gun laws didn't help.

There was an elevator attack on 2 kids by a knife wielding mental health treatee stranger in New York.  You mean the press didn't cover the mass elevator knifing in New York but covered the school shooter with a shotgun?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/06/05/brooklyn-stabbing-suspect-mee ts -angry-crowd-faces-judge-for-first-time/

I wasn't aware the laws of physics worked differently in Canada.  I see you missed my disclaimer as well.

 Is your position really that a person having a mental meltdown or opting for a murder spree will have better results with a knife than a shotgun and a shotgun versus a semi-automatic rifle or hand gun?


Depending on when and where they wanted to go, yeah, a knife might be better. Guns are loud. They're noisy. They smell a lot. They put fear up in the air. A knife? Sort of quiet. I decided to go off at work, I can guarantee at least three to four deaths in the kitchen before anyone is even aware that there's a problem. Heck, I could probably bag our bartender and a couple of stool sitters while they wonder what the commotion in the back is about, and get the keys to her bike and be out the back while everyone runs for the front. Circle the block, and then there's a whole 'nother restaurant of rubberneckers to pop before they know what's going on. A dash through the parking lot, and through the bushes, and to another bike, and I'm vapor in the wind. Mind you, that is the sort of murder spree that is usually involved with far more ritualistic elements, because a knife is close up. It means you REALLY have to want it. Most folks who go that route, they're far more careful. It's called less a "murder spree" than "serial killing" and oddly enough, the folks who go that route are often fair successful for a long, long, long time. You want to kill a lot of people? Guns are for the amateurs and wannabes who NEED the attention, at least in the murder sense.

So, if we really want to breed a better class of killer, let's take the guns away, and force folks to plan their murder sprees better. Maybe take up an axe like in the Villisca case--which yielded 8 dead, including six children. Then there's the 1993 Greenough Family massacre. The Kumundini Axe Massacre in '85--that was 23 folks, and not a shot expended. Elifasi Msomi fit the serial killer motif with 15 axe kills in '55. Victor Licata inspired the whole Reefer Madness thing with his own kills, which were attributed to weed. Well, and the axe he chopped his family up with. The Axeman of New Orleans bagged 8, usually with an axe that the victims owned. For simple snaps, there's also the Meeks Family murders, though one daughter did escape. Austin had the Servant Girl Annihilator. There's also the Mary Russel murders, where the ship's captain snapped and carved up his crew with an axe and a crowbar, but that was in the 1800s, and let's face it shot and ball at the time weren't so easy to roll out and just massacre folks with. Then there's 2010's oseph Ntshongwana who hacked up four men, and wounded a fourth, but that was in retaliation for the gang rape and HIV infection of his daughter, so maybe that's not so much "snapping" as going Old Skool. There are plenty of examples of folks just cold rolling and massacring folks without the aid of guns. Rawanda anyone? Lots of machetes and ill will to go around there. You take guns away, or make them more difficult to get, without actually addressing the reasons that folks snap, you're not really going to stop folks from the ill will or the desire to kill. We can force them to get up close, personal, and maybe get a taste for it.

Or we can maybe focus on the reasons folks snap like this in the first place, and deal with that. But, hey, I'm a dreamer I guess.
 
2014-06-06 09:31:01 PM  

MFK: Giltric: MFK: Giltric: Target Builder: Is this really news?

Sure, when mass shootings were a biannual event they were newsworthy, and maybe still when they ended up as biannual events, when they got to bimonthly the newsworthiness really dipped, and even moreso when they started happening bimonthly. When they started being a biweekly event, and then even turned into biweekly events... it's just shiat that happens these days.

Mass shootings were never bi annual events.

Mass shootings occurred all the time, the majority of them is when someone kills their spouse, kids and self.

What was bi annual was the spree killer.....but who is content with only having 2 sensationalist stories a year, that never helps push an agenda, so they now make sure they report every shooting that the FBI counts under a mass shooting criteria which is 4 people shot.

So now every bad gang shooting, every drug deal gone bad (like the one from black bike week in myrtle beach last week) every domestic incident where 4 people are shot is reported on so you confuse it with an Aurora theater or Sandy Hook type event.

yeah yeah, Giltric, we know. You have a gun fetish and will go to great lengths to minimize all of the killings that happen just so you can continue to fondle your firearms.

Well if it is such a violent world out there with mass shooting happening every time someone blinks then why would you want to disarm me? By the rhetoric that gets spouted by the gun control types you just further reinforce that I need a gun.

you don't "need" a gun. You "want" them. You "covet" them. You really really "love" them. But you don't "need" one.


Umm, the copperhead I killed in the yard yesterday begs to differ.
 
2014-06-06 09:32:01 PM  

AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.


And lets not kid ouselves.  At those "death by guns tragicomedies" where they read the names, Tamerlan Tsarnaev  was somberly listed as a victim of gun violence.  Nevermind, he just bombed the Boston Marathon, killed a police officer and got in a shootout with police leaving him dead.  Not all deaths are equal.or evil.
 
2014-06-06 09:33:00 PM  

AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.


Actually not.  I'm including suicides in total people shot to death.  You brought up a self inflicted illness so apples to apples.
 
2014-06-06 11:12:32 PM  

mrshowrules: only that in a small (non-scientifical sample), not only did guns make outcome worse, more powerful guns made outcomes worse still. It proves nothing that shouldn't be known by common sense anyways.


Compare Firearms to any and all other weapons. How do the numbers match? Setting guns against things not meant to kill like cars, doctors, toothbrushes, Soda and thumbtacks really doesn't compare well. How do guns match up against other weapons like crossbows, bows, swords, pikes and maces? I'm betting they come out WAY ahead do to efficiency of use and speed of re-use.
 
2014-06-06 11:17:32 PM  
I bet it was a Glock.
www.coltelleriacollini.it
 
2014-06-07 01:27:37 AM  

mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.

Actually not.  I'm including suicides in total people shot to death.  You brought up a self inflicted illness so apples to apples.


So suicide would be cured by gun removal?  Have you noticed that the suicide kits don't include firearms?
 
2014-06-07 01:46:48 AM  

This text is now purple: uttertosh: Dimensio: England:

that spike was from ONE soccer match. ONE. And that was only because there wasn't anyone with a gun to stop the fisticuffs.

And to be fair here, fisticuffs is kind of a dangerous game to play at the best of times, and englanders know how to fisticuffs pretty good, so it was only a matter of time after the ban on guns that a spike in homersides from 'other' would happen.

/your 'spike' is a matter of 5, which is kindof a shyte 'spike' by anyone's measure.

That spike (18/1,000,000 vs 11.5/1,000,000) in a nation of 53 million people is a difference of 325 murders per year.


like I said, ONE soccer match.
 
2014-06-07 06:57:08 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: mrshowrules: only that in a small (non-scientifical sample), not only did guns make outcome worse, more powerful guns made outcomes worse still. It proves nothing that shouldn't be known by common sense anyways.

Compare Firearms to any and all other weapons. How do the numbers match? Setting guns against things not meant to kill like cars, doctors, toothbrushes, Soda and thumbtacks really doesn't compare well. How do guns match up against other weapons like crossbows, bows, swords, pikes and maces? I'm betting they come out WAY ahead do to efficiency of use and speed of re-use.


The only thing that outpaces guns are cars.  Cars are necessary to society.  Guns (or at least many types of guns) are only necessary to hobbyists who like to pretend they are soldiers.
 
2014-06-07 07:01:39 AM  

tbeatty: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.

Actually not.  I'm including suicides in total people shot to death.  You brought up a self inflicted illness so apples to apples.

So suicide would be cured by gun removal?  Have you noticed that the suicide kits don't include firearms?


Just if you are going to mention smoking related death stats, you cannot in fairness compare that to homicides in which the victim had no say in the matter.   Apples to apples, homicides to homicides and accidents to accidents is a better comparison.  I prefer to focus on homicides.  More guns more suicides as per the study I cited earlier.
 
2014-06-07 07:02:36 AM  

mrshowrules: tbeatty: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.

Actually not.  I'm including suicides in total people shot to death.  You brought up a self inflicted illness so apples to apples.

So suicide would be cured by gun removal?  Have you noticed that the suicide kits don't include firearms?

Just if you are going to mention smoking related death stats, you cannot in fairness compare that to homicides in which the victim had no say in the matter.   Apples to apples, homicides to homicides and accidents to accidents is a better comparison.  I prefer to focus on homicides.  More guns more suicides homicides as per the study I cited earlier.

 
Correction
 
2014-06-07 01:52:39 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-06-07 03:22:14 PM  

mrshowrules: mrshowrules: tbeatty: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: AngryDragon: mrshowrules: 2 day non-scientifical sample:

a) semi-automatic rifle, killed 3 armed people and injured 2
b) shotgun, killed 1 and injured 3
c) knife, injured 1

In that same time, 2,900 people died of smoking-related illnesses and 1,400 people died from medical errors.

What is your point?

and we don't try and limit those?

BTW.  In the same time ~160 other Americans died from being shot..

58 actually.

The point is that you would save 50 times as many lives by banning smoking, a luxury, and 25 times as many by cracking down on doctors, a necessity, than by banning firearms, a Constitutional right.

Actually not.  I'm including suicides in total people shot to death.  You brought up a self inflicted illness so apples to apples.

So suicide would be cured by gun removal?  Have you noticed that the suicide kits don't include firearms?

Just if you are going to mention smoking related death stats, you cannot in fairness compare that to homicides in which the victim had no say in the matter.   Apples to apples, homicides to homicides and accidents to accidents is a better comparison.  I prefer to focus on homicides.  More guns more suicides homicides as per the study I cited earlier.
 
Correction


Funny, because gun ownership is going up while gun deaths are going down.  In every category.  Look at age adjusted death rates.  Look at firearms.  Then a lot of other causes.  There's a better CDC report that breaks it down by age.  Accidental deaths below age 14 are practically non-existent for firearms.    Suicides rate is rather steady.  homicide rate is declining.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
 
Displayed 44 of 494 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report