PDA

View Full Version : Gun safety thread...



Pages : [1] 2

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 11:01 AM
...naw...not yet

Glen Longino
02-02-2009, 11:10 AM
Whew!:D

TomF
02-02-2009, 11:11 AM
glutton for punishment, eh Phil?

Welcome back. Glad you didn't freeze solid.

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 11:17 AM
I like to wear out my opponent's knuckles before I move in for the kill :)

LeeG
02-02-2009, 11:39 AM
I just hope folks rotate their tires and keep them inflated, I hate seeing uneven wear.

seanz
02-02-2009, 01:40 PM
...naw...not yet

Garn......start a gun safety thread, it'll keep you warm.
:)


My gun safety tip is to fill the firearm from breech to barrel with beeswax and then brick it up into a wall....safe as houses.
:D

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 04:29 PM
Nah fill the barrel with molten lead - poured in slowly of course.

One in 45 American males will discover (permanently) that guns aren't safe. They won't remember the details though. Lots more get to remember.

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 05:05 PM
Your numbers still sound silly...

switters
02-02-2009, 05:40 PM
Nah fill the barrel with molten lead - poured in slowly of course.

One in 45 American males will discover (permanently) that guns aren't safe. They won't remember the details though. Lots more get to remember.

it is less than 1 in ten thousand including suicide and accidental discharge.

The rates in the CDC report are rates per 100,000. not percentages.

which will not make it right, but skewing numbers to preposterous claims does not leave you with much credibility. And I still think it is a parenting problem.

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 05:47 PM
I look foward to bigfella's response...

stevebaby
02-02-2009, 05:52 PM
Your numbers still sound silly...Feel free to post more credible figures and their source.
You won't of course.

switters
02-02-2009, 05:53 PM
I hate to see the issue confused by not being able to move a decimal point correctly.

And having read some of his (Big Fella) other words on the subject I don't disagree with everything he has to say, especially about storage and such. But I dislike the gun culture label.

switters
02-02-2009, 06:00 PM
Feel free to post more credible figures and their source.
You won't of course.

Using the same numbers from the CDC if you want to see them.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm

look up the PDF Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2006. NVSR Volume 56, Number 16.

page 19 and 20. Then add 0.3 to 5.2 to 4.2. Those are the number of deaths caused by any and all means by firearms including suicide. Now, read the print at the top of the page where is says rates per 100,000 population.

divide 9.7 by 100,000. nowhere close to 1 in 45.

Good day, and stay safe,

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 06:03 PM
okay, Bigfella?

response please...

Paul Pless
02-02-2009, 06:06 PM
divide 9.7 by 100,000. nowhere close to 1 in 45.Thanks.

John of Phoenix
02-02-2009, 06:08 PM
Here ya go. Gun safety, NOT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sytgC5L4Q0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfNbRhjy9HA&feature=related

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 06:10 PM
see Bigfella...us knee-jerk-neocon-repuglican-gun-totin-war-mongers are willing to allow that you made a mistake...be thankful ill-jay ain't on your case...he would call you a liar

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 06:12 PM
Here ya go. Gun safety, NOT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sytgC5L4Q0&feature=related

John...I really hate to see kids doing that stuff...no one is there to teach them any more...

they are too fuled by the movie hero foolishness

stevebaby
02-02-2009, 06:14 PM
New statistic for ya'll- 100% of all Aussies with the gronicles to show up on my doorstep and argue against my lawfull ownership of guns will be thrown in the ocean and told to swim home.

DougEven to threaten such an action constitutes criminal assault. That makes you a violent criminal.

P.S We could walk home...:D

WX
02-02-2009, 06:40 PM
You've got a Jesus complex too!?:eek: Man you guys are messed up!
Mate we are scarily sane compared to you mad buggers.:D

The best gun safely is don't have one!

paladin
02-02-2009, 06:40 PM
Why izzitt..........many, many moons ago when I was in NZ, South Island......a gentleman asked me how good I was with a gun...I said pretty good.....he asked me to pick out a weapon from his closet.....and we went hunting.....two weeks later I was still hunting.....damn deer...he used them to feed his timber crews....we would fly a little puddle jumper down low and whack them with buckshot, and a crew would follow along and dress them out.

John of Phoenix
02-02-2009, 06:50 PM
Unintended consequences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J2WJ1_hHLg&feature=related

Stoopid!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6fDcT9Kiqs&feature=related

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 06:52 PM
Gee - sorry for being tardy guys. I've been running some numbers for the government......

Let's do this carefully, one more time for Switters and the others.

Source:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2004_WorkTable250F.pdf

OK - we are NOT dealing in numbers per 100,000. We are dealing with real death stats from 2004 - which just happen to be the latest ones that I spotted that deal with death by cause.

So - 1,181,668 American males had a real bad 2004. They died.

Of those 1.18 million, the following died of gunshots (there were more - but let's not deal in unspecifieds - just the primary cause of death).

573 - accidental discharge
14,523 - suicide - by gun
9,921 - homicide - by gun
363 - legal intervention
179 - other firearm.

Add that lot up (it does not include those poor soldiers who were shot and died overseas) and you get..... 25,559 American males who died by sudden and significant lead ingestion in 2004.

Divide 1,181,668 by 25,559 - and you get 46.

Well bugger me, I was wrong. In 2004 it was one in 46 American males that died by gun. IIRC, the stats that I did it on last time were 2005 and it was one in 45. So shoot me for getting it wrong.



look up the PDF Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2006. NVSR Volume 56, Number 16.

page 19 and 20. Then add 0.3 to 5.2 to 4.2. Those are the number of deaths caused by any and all means by firearms including suicide. Now, read the print at the top of the page where is says rates per 100,000 population.

divide 9.7 by 100,000. nowhere close to 1 in 45.



switters, please print out my analysis above, pin it up somewhere for the next time, so I don't have to do it again.

btw

with suicides removed its one in 107 (IIRC it was 1 in 101 in 2005).

We also had the data from someone else that showed that if there were guns in the house, suicide was five times more likely to occur than if they weren't there. No, I'm not going chasing it again.

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 06:54 PM
Unintended consequences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0J2WJ1_hHLg&feature=related

Stoopid!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6fDcT9Kiqs&feature=related



anyone with any real knowledge of such things could see that one coming...

Paul Pless
02-02-2009, 06:55 PM
Divide 1,181,668 by 25,559 - and you get 46.and herein lies the error...

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 06:57 PM
and herein lies the error...

I see it Paul...anyone else?

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 07:00 PM
see Bigfella...us knee-jerk-neocon-repuglican-gun-totin-war-mongers are willing to allow that you made a mistake...be thankful ill-jay ain't on your case...he would call you a liar

... waiting. ... waiting. Was I wrong Phillip?

I was in a fairly interesting meeting last week and a high level public servant lost his temper, pointed his finger at me and said "you are wrong Ian, wrong", but a bit louder than that. Guess what Phillip. I wasn't..... and I resisted the temptation to blow him a kiss (I have been known to do that).... Gee its nice to be right, eh?

btw - I'll be shooting at the Olympic range Fri night I believe, if anyone in Sydney wants to come along.....

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 07:01 PM
and herein lies the error...

I'm not talking percentages Paul - I'm talking about the fact that every 46th male death is a gun death

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 07:02 PM
So - what's the error?

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 07:03 PM
1 in 46 men die by guns…that comes to something like a 150 million count of men…1 in 46 die by gun…divide 150 million men by 46 and we get HOW many deaths by guns?

Or is it more like of the TOTAL number of DEAD men…1 in 46 will have died by gun…?

Anyone else notice a difference?

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 07:04 PM
a lie by omission?

(my personal defination of a lie is does the person telling the "lie" intend for his auditor to believe somenting that is not true?)

stevebaby
02-02-2009, 07:05 PM
Feel free to post more credible figures and their source.
You won't of course.No credible figures Phillip?

stevebaby
02-02-2009, 07:07 PM
Phillip, any statistic can be construed to determine whatever outcome one desires. Ian wishes to derive a conclusion that would reason against the average, law-abiding citizen owning and using a gun(while he keeps and uses his). Why he has a hardon for U.S. gunowners is beyond me. Maybe those Aussies wanna' invade and they don't want us with guns in the closet?:rolleyes:

DougBritain ruled India with fewer than 50,000 British troops.

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 07:08 PM
I'm not the one posting stats...the poster is responsible for the proof...

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 07:08 PM
Britain ruled India with fewer than 50,000 British troops.


and a LOT of bribes

Peter Malcolm Jardine
02-02-2009, 07:09 PM
I think Americuns should be allowed to shoot the living **** out of men, women, children, babies, anybody they want that is americun as long as they have decided thats the way it should be.

Just don't export your guns to my country.

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 07:12 PM
1 in 46 men die by guns…that comes to something like a 150 million count of men…1 in 46 die by gun…divide 150 million men by 46 and we get HOW many deaths by guns?

Or is it more like of the TOTAL number of DEAD men…1 in 46 will have died by gun…?

Anyone else notice a difference?

Um, Phillip - not all men die every year mate.

The absolute truth though is that every 46th American male that died in 2004 - died of gunshot. Its really, really simple.


If you want to get into total number of American males who WILL die of gunshot, that's a different matter.

Multiply 25,559 by 80 (average life span) and you get 2,045,000. Yep - if nothing else changes, more than 2 million of your currently alive American males will die by gunshot.

seanz
02-02-2009, 07:12 PM
But I dislike the gun culture label.

Move to Canada.
:p

Why is it that some of our American friends object to the term 'gun culture'?
There is not another country in the world that has the rate of handgun ownership that the USA does.

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 07:17 PM
"The absolute truth though is that every 46th American male that died in 2004 - died of gunshot. Its really, really simple."

why, then, do I recall that number as 1 in 45 (46) men died by gunshot and not that 1 in 45 (46) men WHO DIED died by gunshot?...further take the suicides out, the cops killing folks out (done on purpose in the name of the state, remember?) and your last number must be hunters I guess...prolly should be left in (and add all other recreational deaths)...methinks you are leading the witless

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 07:17 PM
Phillip, any statistic can be construed to determine whatever outcome one desires. Ian wishes to derive a conclusion that would reason against the average, law-abiding citizen owning and using a gun(while he keeps and uses his). Why he has a hardon for U.S. gunowners is beyond me. Maybe those Aussies wanna' invade and they don't want us with guns in the closet?:rolleyes:

Doug


Gee - I missed this one.

I didn't draw any conclusion. I just pointed out a fact.

1 in 45 (OK 1 in 46 in 2004) American males die of gunshot wounds.

Fact. Not a conclusion.

If I were to ponder on how to reduce that number, that might be a different matter. I would conclude that you probably don't - as a country - have a desire to do anything about it.

My opinion is that you should licence all gun owners, register all guns, insist on proper storage - and a few other things.

switters
02-02-2009, 07:20 PM
Gee - sorry for being tardy guys. I've been running some numbers for the government......

Let's do this carefully, one more time for Switters and the others.

Source:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2004_WorkTable250F.pdf

OK - we are NOT dealing in numbers per 100,000. We are dealing with real death stats from 2004 - which just happen to be the latest ones that I spotted that deal with death by cause.

So - 1,181,668 American males had a real bad 2004. They died.

Of those 1.18 million, the following died of gunshots (there were more - but let's not deal in unspecifieds - just the primary cause of death).

573 - accidental discharge
14,523 - suicide - by gun
9,921 - homicide - by gun
363 - legal intervention
179 - other firearm.

Add that lot up (it does not include those poor soldiers who were shot and died overseas) and you get..... 25,559 American males who died by sudden and significant lead ingestion in 2004.

Divide 1,181,668 by 25,559 - and you get 46.

Well bugger me, I was wrong. In 2004 it was one in 46 American males that died by gun. IIRC, the stats that I did it on last time were 2005 and it was one in 45. So shoot me for getting it wrong.



switters, please print out my analysis above, pin it up somewhere for the next time, so I don't have to do it again.

btw

with suicides removed its one in 107 (IIRC it was 1 in 101 in 2005).

We also had the data from someone else that showed that if there were guns in the house, suicide was five times more likely to occur than if they weren't there. No, I'm not going chasing it again.


Your numbers, which you clearly stated and I missed, are only for males. Which are some really good numbers to use. Because if women are factored in then we arrive at the numbers for 2006 that I used. So no, I'm not going to pin it up, though I'm sure the numbers you were working on for your government will make someone happy.

I will concede that 1 in 46 or 46 (what are few gun deaths between friends) deaths of men is a valid statement.

You were right.

The numbers I posted are equally valid assuming women are allowed to have firearms also.

Why did you only cherry pick the numbers for males? Why doesn't half the population count if we are discussing gun safety in the United States?



I am sorry I doubted the validity of your math, and I think I'll let it go at that and wait for the next smarmy response.

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 07:20 PM
Gee - I missed this one.

I didn't draw any conclusion. I just pointed out a fact.

1 in 45 (OK 1 in 46 in 2004) American males die of gunshot wounds.

Fact. Not a conclusion.

If I were to ponder on how to reduce that number, that might be a different matter. I would conclude that you probably don't - as a country - have a desire to do anything about it.

My opinion is that you should licence all gun owners, register all guns, insist on proper storage - and a few other things.



you did it again!

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 07:22 PM
"The absolute truth though is that every 46th American male that died in 2004 - died of gunshot. Its really, really simple."

why, then, do I recall that number as 1 in 45 (46) men died by gunshot and not that 1 in 45 (46) men WHO DIED died by gunshot?...further take the suicides out, the cops killing folks out (done on purpose in the name of the state, remember?) and your last number must be hunters I guess...prolly should be left in...methinks you are leading the witless

Yes, I understand the witless bit.

The number of 1 in 45 was when I did it using the stats from 2005. Guess what, its a minor variation. Some years it goes up a bit, some years it goes down a bit. Life's like that.

When I did the 2005 stats, I did leave out the legal intervention. It doesn't make much difference to the number - only one in 31,000 American males die by legal intervention.

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 07:23 PM
okay...now leave out suicide ("none of our business")

switters
02-02-2009, 07:24 PM
Gee - I missed this one.

I didn't draw any conclusion. I just pointed out a fact.

1 in 45 (OK 1 in 46 in 2004) American males die of gunshot wounds.

Fact. Not a conclusion.

If I were to ponder on how to reduce that number, that might be a different matter. I would conclude that you probably don't - as a country - have a desire to do anything about it.

My opinion is that you should licence all gun owners, register all guns, insist on proper storage - and a few other things.

All new guns are registered, storage is a common sense thing, but I think you will see more of it mandated in the coming years. The last two new firearms I bought came with locks. Which are in use.

stevebaby
02-02-2009, 07:24 PM
Why izzitt..........many, many moons ago when I was in NZ, South Island......a gentleman asked me how good I was with a gun...I said pretty good.....he asked me to pick out a weapon from his closet.....and we went hunting.....two weeks later I was still hunting.....damn deer...he used them to feed his timber crews....we would fly a little puddle jumper down low and whack them with buckshot, and a crew would follow along and dress them out.I saw something on tv once, showing how they catch wild deer in Enzed. They chased them in a helo till they got close, then jumped from the chopper and threw the deer down and tied them.
Kiwis are all barking mad.:D

Bob Adams
02-02-2009, 07:27 PM
Dosen't make much differance, the choice of tool. Want to kill yourself? Jump off a bridge, OD on prescription drugs, all kinds of alternatives, take your pick. (What is the suicide method of choice in OZ?) Want to kill someone? Plenty of alternatives. As long as the idiotic "War on Drugs" persists, thugs protecting thier turf are going to kill with something, knives, rocks, baseball bats ect. Yeah, the accidental shootings are regrettable, and preventable. But for all the other deaths the cause is human (thoughts & actions), not mechanical (the implement).

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 07:33 PM
Your numbers, which you clearly stated and I missed, are only for males. Which are some really good numbers to use. Because if women are factored in then we arrive at the numbers for 2006 that I used. So no, I'm not going to pin it up, though I'm sure the numbers you were working on for your government will make someone happy.

I will concede that 1 in 46 or 46 (what are few gun deaths between friends) deaths of men is a valid statement.

You were right.

The numbers I posted are equally valid assuming women are allowed to have firearms also.

Why did you only cherry pick the numbers for males? Why doesn't half the population count if we are discussing gun safety in the United States?



I am sorry I doubted the validity of your math, and I think I'll let it go at that and wait for the next smarmy response.

The numbers for 2004 - which are pretty much the same as for any other year that I've looked at - they vary very little - are that in total, 2,397,615 Americans died - male and female. Just to be smarmy, I'll point out that deaths of the androgynous aren't identified separately.

29,569 gun deaths (male and female)

1 in 81 Americans (male and female) die of gunshot wounds

Was that the number you had?

Guys - I'm just stating the facts. Not trying to be rude. You guys seem to have the need to start being rude. They are the facts deal with them.

WX
02-02-2009, 07:33 PM
Take the gun out of the equation and the toll will be a lot less...unless of course you want to treat it as a sort of defacto method of post-natal birth control.

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 07:34 PM
Dosen't make much differance, the choice of tool. Want to kill yourself? Jump off a bridge, OD on prescription drugs, all kinds of alternatives, take your pick. (What is the suicide method of choice in OZ?) Want to kill someone? Plenty of alternatives. As long as the idiotic "War on Drugs" persists, thugs protecting thier turf are going to kill with something, kniives, rocks, baseball bats ect. Yeah, the accidental shootings are regrettable, and preventable. But for all the other deaths the cause is human (thoughts & actions), not mechanical (the implement).


Ahhh - the drug argument. We did that one another time too. Narcoticcs - 5% of gun deaths involve narcotics. Its arguments that is the big one. Arguments by people who can't control themselves and who have a loaded gun sitting there.

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 07:35 PM
take the gun out but add the suicides in and the cops shootin in and check again...don't forget to add recretional deaths...jet skis and hang gliders and all

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 07:36 PM
okay...now leave out suicide ("none of our business")

I did that earlier - 1 in 107 males die by gunshot wounds not involving suicide. BUT suicides are more common because loaded guns are there.

Phillip Allen
02-02-2009, 07:46 PM
pickin the fly-specks out of the pepper is what bidfella does for a living...maximizing/minumizing according to the desired results

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 08:33 PM
pickin the fly-specks out of the pepper is what bidfella does for a living...maximizing/minumizing according to the desired results

Are you naturally rude or do you have to work at it? Show me where any of those statistics are wrong. Every 46th American male death is due to a bullet.

As for the vast majority of deaths that Norman mentions - the majority of them aren't of men in the prime of their life. No-one gets particularly disturbed about a death at the end of a full life.

Joe Dupere
02-02-2009, 08:51 PM
One in 45 American males will discover (permanently) that guns aren't safe. They won't remember the details though. Lots more get to remember.

You keep bouncing between the above statistic and this one:


The absolute truth though is that every 46th American male that died in 2004 - died of gunshot. Its really, really simple.

Those two statements are not equal.

Joe, FPoP

.

The Bigfella
02-02-2009, 09:04 PM
You keep bouncing between the above statistic and this one:



Those two statements are not equal.

Joe, FPoP

.

Different years Joe.

You've just gotta keep up here mate. Once is 2004 the other is 2005. I can probably find a year where its one in 44 if I want to start picking years..... but I didn't..... I just took the stats for the latest year at the time....

stevebaby
02-02-2009, 09:47 PM
Let's use your numbers-
573 - accidental discharge--possible but not likely, yours
14,523 - suicide - by gun--not possible
9,921 - homicide - by gun--possible
363 - legal intervention--highly unlikely, mine
179 - other firearm--highly unlikely, mine

So-
I'm not going to commit suicide(subtract 14,523)
The cops have no reason to shoot me(it would be homicide)-(subtract 363)
"Other firearms" includes bows and crossbows, forget it:rolleyes:(sub 179)
New total- 10,494
We'll use your math now-
1,181,668 divided by 10,494= 112.6
Now, Ian, why don't you scurry back to your little info center and find out for me how many homicides were comitted by lawful gun owners while protecting their own lives, family, and property so I can subtract those too because I don't rob people and I couldn't care less if people shoot those that do. Now go find out how many of the dead are habitual criminals(involved in drugs, gangs, etc.) and I'll subtract that too because I live a fairly pastoral lifestyle and I don't really care if people kill habitual criminals.
Soooooo- assuming your numbers are correct, the worst I could do is 1/112.6 IF I include criminals. I am not a criminal so I'll be waiting on your revised numbers. I'm just itchin' to see how well I'll fare once you lose the scumbags:rolleyes:

DougThreatening to throw someone in the ocean is criminal assault.
You're a violent criminal. No wonder you're so attached to your gun.

cs
02-02-2009, 10:06 PM
After watching this I've been hesitate to say anything, but I can't take it anymore. Ian if that is the best you can do with numbers I'm glad that you are running them for your country and not mine.

Now I'm not a great mathematician but I do know the difference between 1 and 46 males dieing of gunshot wounds and 1 and 46 deaths being from gunshot wounds.

You obviously don't like guns and you have blinded yourself to the truth and have done your best to make the numbers "lie" to you.

Chad

The Bigfella
02-03-2009, 07:40 AM
After watching this I've been hesitate to say anything, but I can't take it anymore. Ian if that is the best you can do with numbers I'm glad that you are running them for your country and not mine.

Now I'm not a great mathematician but I do know the difference between 1 and 46 males dieing of gunshot wounds and 1 and 46 deaths being from gunshot wounds.

You obviously don't like guns and you have blinded yourself to the truth and have done your best to make the numbers "lie" to you.

Chad

I actually do enjoy guns Chad. I own four and I will be shooting this Friday night.

So - if every forty sixth male death in 2004 was from a gunshot, and the same happened the year before, and the same the year after - please tell me where my error is.

Trust me Chad - unless something changes that number - and its been unchanged for many, many years now..... then every 46th American male will die of a gunshot. If every 46th death is from that factor, then 1 in 46 will die of it.

Explain to me the error of that fact....

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 07:43 AM
I actually do enjoy guns Chad. I own four and I will be shooting this Friday night.

So - if every forty sixth male death in 2004 was from a gunshot, and the same happened the year before, and the same the year after - please tell me where my error is.

Trust me Chad - unless something changes that number - and its been unchanged for many, many years now..... then every 46th American male will die of a gunshot. If every 46th death is from that factor, then 1 in 46 will die of it.

Explain to me the error of that fact....



why seperate male deaths out?

The Bigfella
02-03-2009, 07:44 AM
...waiting for anyone to tell me where its wrong.

We've got closer to some acceptance I believe, but, yeah I know its hard to accept it when things aren't what you want them to be.....

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 07:46 AM
I have another question...


not all gunshot wounds result in death...why not include them as they would be much more indicative of the "truth" you are ranting about?

The Bigfella
02-03-2009, 07:47 AM
why seperate male deaths out?

Because, like with most toys, guns are mainly a boy thing. Every statistic is cut by sex, and most by ethnicity as well. Its to see why things occur as they do. With guns, its because of the testosterone.

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 07:48 AM
Bigfella...you sound more and more like ill-jay with facks and facks and twisted facks...methinks you are being disingenuous and worrying about the state of your ego a lot as well

The Bigfella
02-03-2009, 07:49 AM
I have another question...


not all gunshot wounds result in death...why not include them as they would be much more indicative of the "truth" you are ranting about?

I'm not ranting.

Of course not all gunshots result in death. Neither do all heart attacks, nor cancers. What point are you trying to make?

The point I was making is simple and indisputable - 1 in 45 +/- 1 or 2 American males die of gunshot wounds. But it's OK - they make you feel safe, don't they?

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 07:49 AM
Because, like with most toys, guns are mainly a boy thing. Every statistic is cut by sex, and most by ethnicity as well. Its to see why things occur as they do. With guns, its because of the testosterone.

subjective...

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 07:52 AM
we're back to this again...I once thought it was just an oversight on your part...once!

"The point I was making is simple and indisputable - 1 in 45 +/- 1 or 2 American males die of gunshot wounds. But it's OK - they make you feel safe, don't they?"

what you are saying is that of the total of over one and a half million males in this country, 1 in 46 will die of gunshot wounds...sounds apocolyptic

The Bigfella
02-03-2009, 07:53 AM
Bigfella...you sound more and more like ill-jay with facks and facks and twisted facks...methinks you are being disingenuous and worrying about the state of your ego a lot as well

Just who is ranting Phillip?

What is disenguous? The facts are indisputable. Every year 1/46th of the men who die in America die because of a gunshot. Some years its 1/45th of the deaths. Yep 2.2% of American men will die of sudden and rapid lead ingestion. Thankfully, their gun will have made them feel safe.

Keep attacking the man, not the fact Phillip - because the fact is indisputable. 2.2% - yep, every 46th male. Get it yet?

The Bigfella
02-03-2009, 08:00 AM
we're back to this again...I once thought it was just an oversight on your part...once!

"The point I was making is simple and indisputable - 1 in 45 +/- 1 or 2 American males die of gunshot wounds. But it's OK - they make you feel safe, don't they?"

what you are saying is that of the total of over one and a half million males in this country, 1 in 46 will die of gunshot wounds...sounds apocolyptic

No Phillip - that's not what I'm saying.

Try it once again.

Of the 150 million men in America (roughly that number - I haven't checked the tally today), of that 150 or so million:

1,181,688 died in 2004.

Of that 1.2 million that died, nearly 30,000 (you can go back and find the exact number) died from a gunshot.

That is 1 / 46th of the deaths that year.

Same again the next year.... etc.

Not disengenuous, not a figment of anyone's ego. A fact - based on the primary cause of death on a death certificate.

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 08:03 AM
your numbers are cherry-picked to advance an agenda...we all know that. I guess it is pointless to try to get you to admit to it so I won't try any more

The Bigfella
02-03-2009, 08:05 AM
your numbers are cherry-picked to advance an agenda...we all know that. I guess it is pointless to try to get you to admit to it so I won't try any more

How the hell do you cherry pick those numbers? I've done it for the two latest years the stats are available. IIRC it was 1 in 45 in 2005 and it is definitely 1 in 46 in 2004. I also looked back to about 1990 - and there was very little variation in the total number of gun deaths.

There's nothing to cherrypick. Total deaths divided by number of bodies with bullet holes.

Where's the cherrypicking?

As for an agenda - sorry mate - no agenda - I'm a licenced gun owner myself. I'm just responding to bogus claims that keep coming up on this forum about gun safety, etc

The Bigfella
02-03-2009, 08:09 AM
.... and on that note its 12:08 am and I've got a presentation on a different set of numbers to do first up in the morning.

Feel free to prove the numbers wrong.... just leave the personal attacks out of it.

stevebaby
02-03-2009, 08:30 AM
your numbers are cherry-picked to advance an agenda...we all know that. I guess it is pointless to try to get you to admit to it so I won't try any moreIf you have different figures, why won't you post them?

Joe Dupere
02-03-2009, 08:47 AM
Bigfella, I have no quibble with you presenting the facts that 1 in 45 (or 46) American male deaths each year are by guns. I think you are portraying that fact accurately and the math bears it out.

However, every now and again you leave out the "of American male deaths" and say that 1 in 45 (or 46) of American males will die by guns in some fashion each year. 1 in 45 of 150 million American males is around 3.3 million per year, not 25,000.

As I said before, the two statements are not equal. I think what
people are reacting to is your second statement, where you inadvertently leave out the "of American male deaths".

Joe, FPoP

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 09:10 AM
of those American "male" deaths every year...how many are the result of recreation vs work?

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 09:20 AM
how does that compare to drowning?

Joe Dupere
02-03-2009, 09:21 AM
It doesn't matter, the objection is that Ian is objecting to a culture of death.

American males are still more likely to die of heart disease than being killed by guns. Where's the objection to whatever culture of death that represents?

Joe, FPoP

by the way, didn't you mean to say "Mmmmphhhh. Urrrrggghhhhhh. Mmmmphhhh." ? :D

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 09:24 AM
does anyone think there is a "culture" of state control of people's lives?

Paul Pless
02-03-2009, 09:34 AM
bunch of lily white people argueing over this crap is making the debate tiresome, let's liven it up some...

Clearly Ian, your data is highly skewed by the inclusion of firearm related deaths statistics that pertain solely to american black males. If we were to exclude that data then clearly it makes the portion of males that log on to this forum appear to be much less likely to be killed by a firearm. Even more so if we exclude Hispanics as well.

I mean this is afterall, where the real problem lies right?

Stats from the CDC

African-American

Fatalities: 7,448 / Rate: 18.30/100,000
Injuries: 29,951 / Rate: 69.85 / 100,000

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 09:39 AM
you will be agressively ignored Paul...it doesn't help the agenda

TomF
02-03-2009, 09:42 AM
how does that compare to drowning?How do gunshot deaths compare with drowning deaths?

I'd expect that virtually all the drowning deaths are accidental.

Popeye
02-03-2009, 09:48 AM
accidental ?

calvin q calculus , inventor of the portable hole , would disagree

Paul Pless
02-03-2009, 09:53 AM
I'd expect that virtually all the drowning deaths are accidental.FBI stats say 2.0 percent of all homicides are either by drowning or asphysiciation. Think I'd rather be shot...

Popeye
02-03-2009, 09:55 AM
they say drowning , as reported by people who near drowned and were resuscitated, is actually pleasant , much like falling asleep

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 10:00 AM
How do gunshot deaths compare with drowning deaths?

I'd expect that virtually all the drowning deaths are accidental.

so then you will leave out accidental gun death from the numbers?

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 10:03 AM
Tom...while you're adjusting your numbers may I suggest that if drowning is to be left out because it is accidental...then we apply the reverse to the gun death numbers...cops, robbers, and murders only..okay?

Paul Pless
02-03-2009, 10:21 AM
yeah but cops are dangerous in and of their own... I think they should be included.

Think about the guy that got shot in the back waiting for the train in Oakland on New Years Eve...

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 10:23 AM
Milo's law doesn't apply to policemen (think...death by intent...which would certinly include cops as they are never taught to wound only)

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 10:25 AM
a funny thought concerning Milo's desire to not include cops...how many cops commit suicide by gun?

Phillip Allen
02-03-2009, 10:32 AM
more duct tape ("more cow bell")

TomF
02-03-2009, 10:46 AM
Happy to remove all "accidental" deaths from the numbers folks are discussing. I've not got the time to google them somehow, but feel free.

I suspect that removing accidental deaths from both categories and comparing again will not suggest guns are more safe.

I heard a clip from a disturbing documentary on the radio last night, about the days following Katrina. About how a few racists took the opportunity to shoot African Americans under the guise of protecting their stuff.

The comments made me physically ill ... interviewed 3 guys who'd used shotguns, and one laughed and said "it felt just like the opening of pheasant season in South Dakota."

I didn't get to hear the whole interview, but I'd assume that folks somewhere round New Orleans must have seen media stuff about the documentary.

Joe Dupere
02-03-2009, 11:01 AM
But it's such a poor, pathetic, weak argument to throw into the discussion, albeit not quite as bad as throwing in drowning. Are you advocating that we should contribute more money to the National Rifle Association or to the American Heart Association? Which contribution prolongs and improves more lives?

As far as statement one goes, I was trying to put total American male deaths by guns into perspective with total American male deaths by heart disease. But, in retrospect, you're right, it's a weak argument.

As far as your second statement goes, I'm not sure how you decided I was advocating anything from the little I wrote. Perhaps that's a weak assumption to throw into the discussion?

On the whole, I don't disagree that a lot of Americans have an obsession with guns, and that America's death rate by guns is higher than that of all other civilized countries in the western world. When you add in the violence in our movies, tv shows, video games, and our fixation on things military, plus the obsession with guns and hunting, I can't even argue too much with the observation that we have a culture that approves of violence.

I don't usually get involved in these discussions, I don't even know why I did on this one, except it was starting to bother me when Warren kept bouncing between the two statements as if they meant the same thing. All the while insisting that his numbers were right, and that people who couldn't see it were ignoring the facts.
I was just trying to point out that his inadvertent omission of a few words actually did change the numbers significantly, and that the people who were pointing that out were correct.

Joe, FPoP

switters
02-03-2009, 11:16 AM
I understand how Big fella got his 1 in 45 and I dont dispute it. Or the number if you take all ages. I've learned a lot about stats, causes of death why I shouldn't argue on the internet.

Australia has implemented some registration laws 1996 primarily based on one guy going crazy in a cafe.

They have a death by gun rate of 1/5th the United States.

I couldn't find the stats listed the same way for AUS but if we extrapolate it looks like 1 in 230 male Australian deaths by firearm.

I thought about that last night for a while, and decided that the smoking and drinking is far more likely to kill me than a firearm in either country so I am pretty happy with the way guns are handled in America right now. And in Australia. And England. Etc.

So if I get pulled into another one of these discussions which changes no ones mind and evolves into a statics game, please come out to the pub in LaPorte Colorado and slap me, I'll buy you a beer.

Good day, and lets be safe out there,

John of Phoenix
02-03-2009, 12:07 PM
The thread title is "Gun Safety". Any shot that's intentional should be excluded.

And Joe got it right, the two statements are entirely different.

That is all.

Paul Pless
02-03-2009, 12:25 PM
The thread title is "Gun Safety". Any shot that's intentional should be excluded.oh my:D

The Bigfella
02-03-2009, 02:54 PM
Bigfella, I have no quibble with you presenting the facts that 1 in 45 (or 46) American male deaths each year are by guns. I think you are portraying that fact accurately and the math bears it out.

However, every now and again you leave out the "of American male deaths" and say that 1 in 45 (or 46) of American males will die by guns in some fashion each year.
As I said before, the two statements are not equal. I think what
people are reacting to is your second statement, where you inadvertently leave out the "of American male deaths".

Joe, FPoP

I think I understand how you are looking at it Joe.

The point is that onlyt 1.2 million American males died in 2004. Every 46th one with a bullet hole in them.

The problem comes when you do this ....



1 in 45 of 150 million American males is around 3.3 million per year, not 25,000.


The correct conclusion to draw, when you introduce the lifetime bit is to say that of the 150 (or so) American males alive today, 3.3 million will die by gunshot. Not each year. Just, that by the time all males alive today die, 3.3 million of them will have died by gunshot.

The Bigfella
02-03-2009, 02:56 PM
bunch of lily white people argueing over this crap is making the debate tiresome, let's liven it up some...

Clearly Ian, your data is highly skewed by the inclusion of firearm related deaths statistics that pertain solely to american black males. If we were to exclude that data then clearly it makes the portion of males that log on to this forum appear to be much less likely to be killed by a firearm. Even more so if we exclude Hispanics as well.

I mean this is afterall, where the real problem lies right?

Stats from the CDC

No. Yes there is a higher incidence, but still no. Later. Gotta go

stevebaby
02-03-2009, 04:28 PM
your numbers are cherry-picked to advance an agenda...we all know that. I guess it is pointless to try to get you to admit to it so I won't try any moreIf you disagree with Bigfella's figures, why do you refuse to offer anything better?

The Bigfella
02-04-2009, 01:36 AM
Let's use your numbers-
573 - accidental discharge--possible but not likely, yours
14,523 - suicide - by gun--not possible
9,921 - homicide - by gun--possible
363 - legal intervention--highly unlikely, mine
179 - other firearm--highly unlikely, mine

So-
I'm not going to commit suicide(subtract 14,523)
The cops have no reason to shoot me(it would be homicide)-(subtract 363)
"Other firearms" includes bows and crossbows, forget it:rolleyes:(sub 179)
New total- 10,494
We'll use your math now-
1,181,668 divided by 10,494= 112.6
Now, Ian, why don't you scurry back to your little info center and find out for me how many homicides were comitted by lawful gun owners while protecting their own lives, family, and property so I can subtract those too because I don't rob people and I couldn't care less if people shoot those that do. Now go find out how many of the dead are habitual criminals(involved in drugs, gangs, etc.) and I'll subtract that too because I live a fairly pastoral lifestyle and I don't really care if people kill habitual criminals.
Soooooo- assuming your numbers are correct, the worst I could do is 1/112.6 IF I include criminals. I am not a criminal so I'll be waiting on your revised numbers. I'm just itchin' to see how well I'll fare once you lose the scumbags:rolleyes:

Doug

I presume this is what I haven't answered Doug?

I presume the question is - how will you fare?

Hopefully, you'll die in your 80's or 90's getting your rocks off.

As for whether you fit into any category - I'll let you answer.

Accidental discharge? I reckon that not a single one of those guys thought he'd do that either.

Suicide? Mate - I really, truly hope not. I'm sure though that not many of that 14,500 who did it in '04 had given it much thought for most of their life either. I've been to a few friends funerals, and I'd not have thought them likely to have done it either.

Lawful gun owners protecting property? I'll try to track that down for you later.... it isn't many. The big issue is arguments. Ever argued with anyone Doug? I have. Its amazing how quickly they can escalate. It gets serious when there's a gun there. I've been in two arguments where there was a knife, and one where there was a small axe. I'm still here. Would I still be here if there was a gun? Doubt it. I tracked down the narcotics figure once 'cause Jack kept rabitting on about it. 5%. Arguments featured big time though. Yep - people die over arguments about dog poop and fences.

Legal intervention. Ever been arrested / in Gaol (jail)? Guess what - the cops will know that if they get called out to an argument. Guess what - they'll be jumpy and more likely trigger happy. Sh!t happens.

Other firearms. Flare guns, cannons, etc. Who cares its half of one percent?

So Doug - my answer is, your chances are your chances - based on all those things. I sincerely hope that you and yours never have a nasty moment in your lives. I wish you faced better odds though. Not much I can do about that. What do you do about it?

The Bigfella
02-04-2009, 07:42 AM
Well Guys. Here's the stats source that will give you an idea about homicides and why they occur. I'm not even going to try and cut and paste them. Its a time series, so covers 18 years IIRC.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/333_murder_victims_circumstances_and_weapons_used. html

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 07:54 AM
a funny thought concerning Milo's desire to not include cops...how many cops commit suicide by gun?More than they will ever admit. Eight that I knew personally.

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 08:06 AM
If you disagree with Bigfella's figures, why do you refuse to offer anything better?Since you have repeatedly refused to offer any evidence to the contrary, despite numerous invitations to do so, I'm morally bound to to explain to the forum that you are:
(1) Wrong on every count.
(2) A moral coward.

cs
02-04-2009, 08:10 AM
One thing I see as I look at that chart and surely I must be looking at something wrong, but according to what I'm seeing the murder rate has dropped by 35% in the time frame of 1980 - 1998. I wonder if that is because we are better armed and trained than we were in 1980?

Chad

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 08:45 AM
I presume this is what I haven't answered Doug?

I presume the question is - how will you fare?

Hopefully, you'll die in your 80's or 90's getting your rocks off.

As for whether you fit into any category - I'll let you answer.

Accidental discharge? I reckon that not a single one of those guys thought he'd do that either.

Suicide? Mate - I really, truly hope not. I'm sure though that not many of that 14,500 who did it in '04 had given it much thought for most of their life either. I've been to a few friends funerals, and I'd not have thought them likely to have done it either.

Lawful gun owners protecting property? I'll try to track that down for you later.... it isn't many. The big issue is arguments. Ever argued with anyone Doug? I have. Its amazing how quickly they can escalate. It gets serious when there's a gun there. I've been in two arguments where there was a knife, and one where there was a small axe. I'm still here. Would I still be here if there was a gun? Doubt it. I tracked down the narcotics figure once 'cause Jack kept rabitting on about it. 5%. Arguments featured big time though. Yep - people die over arguments about dog poop and fences.

Legal intervention. Ever been arrested / in Gaol (jail)? Guess what - the cops will know that if they get called out to an argument. Guess what - they'll be jumpy and more likely trigger happy. Sh!t happens.

Other firearms. Flare guns, cannons, etc. Who cares its half of one percent?

So Doug - my answer is, your chances are your chances - based on all those things. I sincerely hope that you and yours never have a nasty moment in your lives. I wish you faced better odds though. Not much I can do about that. What do you do about it?Ian, we will continue to disagree on many political matters but I'm 100% in agreement with you on this issue.
The loony liars have told us that we are "afraid of guns" .Most, if not all of the Aussies and Kiwis who participate in this forum have owned and used firearms and many of us learned about them at an early age by using military weapons at school, as members of School Cadet Units. I doubt that many 14 year old yanks ever learned marksmanship on a Regular Army range from Regular Army instructors.
Phillip,...what sort of machine guns have you ever been professionally instructed in the use of?
It isn't the weapons themselves that cause concern to us. Despite the blatant lies of your NRA, history shows that when Australians have to use them, we will. To great effect,as every army who ever made the mistake of taking us on found out to their detriment.
We just don't have an unhealthy fetish about them.

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 08:51 AM
Hafta laugh at the irony of it...an amateur with a MUSKET(!) who never had to carry a weapon professionally wants to teach the rest of us about firearm safety!
Bwahahahahaha!:D

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 09:25 AM
No, it's because we disproportionately aborted or imprisoned young black men...And I will no doubt continue to disagree with your political views most of the time,because I'm a Commie pinko leftist liberal but I will back you to the hilt on the question of lethal weapon ownership.
It's a question of individual liberty and individuals being free of the threat of the unrestrained ownership of the means to kill us. Whether liberal or conservative, the greater good of all is best served by the rule of law, and the rule of law was intended to protect the majority.
Don't like that? Go find an uninhabited island of your own and start your own society where everyone carries a lethal weapon.
Wanna find out what it's like living in a society where firearms are available to all? Move to northern Pakistan. Take lots and lots of ammo. It's a poor country. They could use the foreign exchange.

Phillip Allen
02-04-2009, 09:33 AM
jeeze Steve...talk about a fetish!

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 10:41 AM
jeeze Steve...talk about a fetish!That's quite possibly one of the most meaningless and stupid posts that I ever saw..
If you are too illiterate or stupid to actually say anything, save the bandwidth for someone who can make an intelligent contribution.
And if you don't have the education or intelligence to give some respect to my language by spelling words correctly then please find another language to post in. May I suggest the language of choice of your buddies at Walmart...Mandarin?

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 10:44 AM
If you disagree with Bigfella's figures, why do you refuse to offer anything better?C'mon flip...figures. If you need to count past ten, take your shoes off.

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 11:27 AM
Um, maybe we got off on the wrong foot? I think of Australia as an open democracy, though you've made me wonder. You've voted certain rules around firearms that I disagree with, but it's your country to do whatever you want with. Freedom to do as you wish, remember that?

I am trying to understand.

I will agree that our gun violence is atrocious. The majority is because of illegal drugs. I don't have a handle on that because I'm not in that mix, but from what I've seen legalize drugs and 80 percent of the American gun violence would disappear.Yesterday I heard on the radio a short grab from a reasonably well respected expert on Australian crime statistics (Don Weatherburn), and it was only a short sound bite, but he said pretty much what you have just said...that the difference between Oz and American crimes of violence is drugs. Most murders in oz are a result of domestic violence of one kind or another and often related to alcohol. Drug or gang related violence is unusual, despite what the tabloids would have us believe. It occurs, but it's uncommon for most people.
I take Don Weatherburn's comments with a grain of salt , but I will listen to him, and the other points he made about the difference between American crime and Australian crime is the culture of violence in the US and the ready availability of guns, particularly easily concealable handguns.
Whether you like it or not, Americans are very violent people ( look at the way the US media glorifies violence) and that violence often manifests in the form of firearms.Add to that...the USA is the the world's biggest market for illegal drugs.With a culture of violence and a huge drug problem, how does it make sense to make it easier for crims to get their hands on very efficient machines for killing?

Phillip Allen
02-04-2009, 11:41 AM
That's quite possibly one of the most meaningless and stupid posts that I ever saw..
If you are too illiterate or stupid to actually say anything, save the bandwidth for someone who can make an intelligent contribution.
And if you don't have the education or intelligence to give some respect to my language by spelling words correctly then please find another language to post in. May I suggest the language of choice of your buddies at Walmart...Mandarin?

Only an intelligent observation...it would be a contribution only if you were to benefit from it...there’s always hope for you…

paladin
02-04-2009, 11:50 AM
Machine guns.....I have trained on the Sten/Bren/Grease gun, M2 Carbine, Gustav M-45 (Swedish K), Ingram series, Sidewinder and basic training/practice in the Browning 30 and 50's and 20mm....kids were broken in on the smaller weapons by the time they were 15/16 years old.....neither had the desire to mess around with them later. Sonja like the little .380 Ingram with the suppressor, Glenn liked the Swedish K.....

Bob Adams
02-04-2009, 12:00 PM
That's quite possibly one of the most meaningless and stupid posts that I ever saw..
If you are too illiterate or stupid to actually say anything, save the bandwidth for someone who can make an intelligent contribution.


That's quite a statement for the person that started the "Meth Safety Thread".

Phillip Allen
02-04-2009, 12:07 PM
I think he's having a Joe Foster event...his voice has gone up two octaves so far...gotta leave him alone till he recovers

Bob Adams
02-04-2009, 12:58 PM
I don't think anyone will argue that ACB!

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 04:56 PM
Gun safety(been thinking about it since all these threads have sprung up.) is distilled to two things: See, check, look, if there's a round in the chamber, and don't shoot at anything you don't want to hit.

Rudimentary skills any ten year old can learn.The eighteen year old male who deliberately shot my sister's best friend in the head and splattered her brains across her father's face had been well instructed in "gun safety". He had been shooting since early childhood and he was a practiced marksman.
He was a model student with no criminal record of any kind.
So far, her family have had 34 years of suffering. He got out in 4 years.
"Gun safety" must have just slipped his mind at the time.

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 05:04 PM
I think he's having a Joe Foster event...his voice has gone up two octaves so far...gotta leave him alone till he recoversBwahaha...IIRC...you publicly confessed to being a "sissy".:D
That was the exact word you used.

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 05:20 PM
That's quite a statement for the person that started the "Meth Safety Thread".You don't believe in "Drug Safety"?

Paul Pless
02-04-2009, 05:23 PM
You don't believe in"Drug Safety"?errr... or.... the verb transitive form "drug safely"?

Phillip Allen
02-04-2009, 05:36 PM
Bwahaha...IIRC...you publicly confessed to being a "sissy".:D
That was the exact word you used.

look at it this way stevie...how would you explain to your momma that a sissy braided your legs :) (Scot, please note the smiley)

The Bigfella
02-04-2009, 06:30 PM
One thing I see as I look at that chart and surely I must be looking at something wrong, but according to what I'm seeing the murder rate has dropped by 35% in the time frame of 1980 - 1998. I wonder if that is because we are better armed and trained than we were in 1980?

Chad

I wouldn't put it that way. Here's a spreadsheet exercise for you - takes 30 seconds.

Copy the first row of the stats 1980-98 (ie total murders)

paste into Excel

highlight what you pasted, select graph, choose line and preview

The number went down, went up and then went down again for a few years. Life (and death) is like that.

The Bigfella
02-04-2009, 06:31 PM
look at it this way stevie...how would you explain to your momma that a sissy braided your legs :) (Scot, please note the smiley)

Bet you can't braid his brain. We are still waiting for those "other" numbers Phillip.

Phillip Allen
02-04-2009, 06:40 PM
I'm satisfied with debunking yours...

Bob Adams
02-04-2009, 07:45 PM
You don't believe in "Drug Safety"?

My ownership of weapons is legal, Meth isn't.

Bob Adams
02-04-2009, 08:26 PM
The eighteen year old male who deliberately shot my sister's best friend in the head and splattered her brains across her father's face had been well instructed in "gun safety". He had been shooting since early childhood and he was a practiced marksman.
He was a model student with no criminal record of any kind.
So far, her family have had 34 years of suffering. He got out in 4 years.
"Gun safety" must have just slipped his mind at the time.

That had nothing to do with gun safety, that was criminal use of a gun. Most criminals care not a whit about the safety of anything.

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 08:34 PM
I'm satisfied with debunking yours...And when will you be doing that?

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 08:48 PM
I won't throw you in the ocean. Do you know what a "swirlie" is?

DougOh yeah? Do you know what a "drop bear" is?
I'm warning ya...they're vicious...and they can swim long distances...

stevebaby
02-04-2009, 09:23 PM
I'm not too worried about Drop Bears (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear). I keep a dab of Vegemite behind my ears:D

DougDrop bears love the stuff...they can home in on it from thousands of miles away.
Keep plenty of beer on hand. Drop bears can't stand beer...they're rum drinkers:D

The Bigfella
02-04-2009, 09:56 PM
I'm satisfied with debunking yours...

I sure you'll find a way to ignore the statistics on that, or to attack the individual rather than deal with the issue. The stats on your success. Well, there isn't any success. Zero. Zip, Nil.

Just where is this debunking, Phillip?


Ian owns guns and shoots them. Why does he have this pseudo-sexual fascination with ours?

Doug

Oops. I thought I simply answered your questions. Maybe I revealed something I shouldn't have when really, all I was doing was pinting out the facts? Fancy that, pointing out facts to a group of (mainly) guys on an internet forum.

So Douggie, how did you arrive at this new and erroneous position?

The Bigfella
02-04-2009, 10:03 PM
".

Um, maybe we got off on the wrong foot? I think of Australia as an open democracy, though you've made me wonder. You've voted certain rules around firearms that I disagree with, but it's your country to do whatever you want with. Freedom to do as you wish, remember that?

I am trying to understand.

I will agree that our gun violence is atrocious. The majority is because of illegal drugs. I don't have a handle on that because I'm not in that mix, but from what I've seen legalize drugs and 80 percent of the American gun violence would disappear.

Hey Jack. How many times do we have to do this one? Narcotics - 5%. Thats about 1 in 20 where I come from.

Yep, there may be illegal substances mixed into a few of the others too - most likely in the 10% or so robberies category - but if you were to dig into it, you would find that the majority of that 30% - 40% "arguments" category are fuelled by legal drugs.... you know the one ..... alcohol.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/333_murder_victims_circumstances_and_weapons_used. html

ChaseKenyon
02-04-2009, 10:42 PM
humm don't drop bears pretty much = wild haggis?

lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_haggis


Chase

The Bigfella
02-04-2009, 10:56 PM
Did anyone ever tell you that your name sounds like the hero from a cowboy comic book?
Sorry, Had to ask:o:D

Doug

No, they didn't. I'm glad you equate me with one of your heroes though Doug. I knew your true motives would shine through.

Been doing any research on gun safety?

The Bigfella
02-04-2009, 11:10 PM
no need to be rude Douggie

ChaseKenyon
02-04-2009, 11:45 PM
Yaeh I've heard the Steve CAnyon thing all most all my life.


the one I did actually enjoy was Doc Savage.

In High School I lifeguarded. With my dark red (at that time) mahogony speedboat hair and 1/2 Iroquois blood i just turned antique copper bronze from had to foot. the summer youth theater had real problems with stage makeup for me in several productions(half a sixpence, HMS pinafore and others).

the funny thing is that like Doc Savage I was a science geek, plus a champion wrestler, and head coach and accomplished arranger (not composer) of orchestral music. I was a cellist but started at Hart College of Music on the Pipe/hammond organ at age five.

So the Doc Savage thing really did fit.

So that was my slang nick name for my last two years of high school.

not comic book but eqaLL ADVENTURE NOVEL CRAP.

LOL

I doo appreciate your sense of humor.

My native name as given by the council of elders( I now are one lol) Is Enisi Waya Dekanogi (Grandfather Wolf Singing).

life is alway interesting as long as we do not get too hung up on our expectations.

Chase:D

ChaseKenyon
02-04-2009, 11:52 PM
P. S. Like Robbie Robertson just on the US side of the river for me mom = Mohawk , Dad = mostly Scottish. Funny I've always been a fan of his and did not find out till ten years ago we spent our summers on the rez es, just separated by the river and an imaginary dividing line between countries that split our tribe into two. One tribe for CAnaduh, and one for usurpe(steal) land of A. Funny the mohawk still consider one or more villages to be just one even though split part canaduh and part us

ChaseKenyon
02-04-2009, 11:54 PM
Actually the Cherokee or as we say Tsalagi and the Iroquois get along quite well most of the time. Grandmother was part Tsalagi, and I am a member through her of the Cherokees of Kentucky-Chicamaugua, western band. I actually designed the tribal seal for our chief.

ChaseKenyon
02-04-2009, 11:56 PM
good to talk with you doug

cs
02-05-2009, 10:50 AM
I wouldn't put it that way. Here's a spreadsheet exercise for you - takes 30 seconds.

Copy the first row of the stats 1980-98 (ie total murders)

paste into Excel

highlight what you pasted, select graph, choose line and preview

The number went down, went up and then went down again for a few years. Life (and death) is like that.


What I see is the numbers drop a bit and than go slightly up and than take a significant drop. In the end big difference.

Chad

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 10:56 AM
What I see is the numbers drop a bit and than go slightly up and than take a significant drop. In the end big difference.

Chad


you didn't expect him to point that out did you?

cs
02-05-2009, 01:34 PM
Another thing failed I failed to mention and it may be there, I didn't look that deep in to the site, but that was the total number of murders, nothing about population. So I assume that the total number of murders has gone down while the population growth is going up and thus the proportional difference is even greater.

Chad

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 02:03 PM
cherry picking to advance an agenda, Chad

stevebaby
02-05-2009, 03:44 PM
Found those figures yet?

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 04:48 PM
Another thing failed I failed to mention and it may be there, I didn't look that deep in to the site, but that was the total number of murders, nothing about population. So I assume that the total number of murders has gone down while the population growth is going up and thus the proportional difference is even greater.

Chad

That'd be a bad assumption to make.

Go back to the original linked site (cdc) and you will find the rest of the series - up to 2005.

What happens to that graph then is that it goes up after that.

Here's the numbers to save you the trouble (it seems no-one around here wants to do the 30 seconds of work to see the truth) - good on you though Chad for doing the graph.

1999 - 16,889
2000 - 16,765
2001 - 20,308
2002 - 17,638
2003 - 17,732
2004 - 17,357
2005 - 18,124

I'll ruin someon'e Eureka moment - guess why the blip in 2001?

Ignoring (not that we should) the blip - the new graph shows a steady climb since 1998 which was the low point in the 26 years.

The murder rate (per 100k population per year) has remained pretty steady ever since 1999 at 6.2, 6.1, 7.1 (the 2001 figure), 6.1, 6,1, 5.9 and back to 6.1 in 2005.

.... and as we all know, that means that 1 in 45 (or 44 or 46) American males will die of gunshot wounds

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 04:51 PM
"that means that 1 in 45 (or 44 or 46) American males will die of gunshot wounds"

there ya go again...

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 04:54 PM
you didn't expect him to point that out did you?


cherry picking to advance an agenda, Chad

I'm happy to accept your apology Phillip - you are a gentleman, aren't you?

Or even your explanation of these statistics.

Even any statistics you can find that present an alternative picture - which is going to be really, really hard to do.

No cherry picking. Nothing but the numbers from your statistics agencies. btw - having been a paid subscriber to some of their data series, I still get emails from them :D

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 05:00 PM
Yes...cherry picking...and I will not fight you in the gym at your club with your friends refereeing...I'm not that stupid...logic is enough...common logic

You have repeatedly stated that 1 in forty something
American men are dieing of gunshot...preposterous! True, you will occasionally write it differently but then go right back to the stupid statement...you must know you have not fooled me so the logical explanation is that you are writing for the lurkers

You are being dishonest...you are cherry picking...you are manipulating the stats to advance an agenda

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 05:06 PM
The FBI site gives 2006 homicides as 15,972 and 2007 as 15,707.

They have a table which gives a reasonable stab at analysing causes of the murders in 2007 - although about a third aren't classified. Even if all the unclassified ones were narcotics related - which they won't be, it gives a lie to Jack's assertions.

Juvenile gang killing 676 btw.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 05:12 PM
Yes...cherry picking...and I will not fight you in the gym at your club with your friends refereeing...I'm not that stupid...logic is enough...common logic

You have repeatedly stated that 1 in forty something
American men are dieing of gunshot...preposterous! True, you will occasionally write it differently but then go right back to the stupid statement...you must know you have not fooled me so the logical explanation is that you are writing for the lurkers

You are being dishonest...you are cherry picking...you are manipulating the stats to advance an agenda

Show me how Phillip.

Forget the personal attacks.

I've showed you the statistics.

They prove my point. You have provided zero evidence to back your outrageeous personal attacks. The evidence I have provided is your own statistics.

One in 46 American males that died in 2004 died due to a gunshot. Same thing in 2005 - but it was one in 45 American males that died in 2005, died due to gunshot wounds.

Where is the cherry picking? I've also just laid out the last 28 years murder statistics. Sure - the numbers go up and down - the reason for that is that murder is an opportunistic crime.

Phillip - I've done this sort of research for major police forces. I've even seen the murder victims and interviewed murderers. I haven't introduced any of that experience to this discussion. I'm simply presenting facts.

You are presenting personal attacks.

Grow up.

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 05:16 PM
they are not personal attacks...you have just re-worded your statement again...

your clients need reason to continue their course...you provide them that reason

cs
02-05-2009, 05:20 PM
That'd be a bad assumption to make.

Go back to the original linked site (cdc) and you will find the rest of the series - up to 2005.

What happens to that graph then is that it goes up after that.

Here's the numbers to save you the trouble (it seems no-one around here wants to do the 30 seconds of work to see the truth) - good on you though Chad for doing the graph.

1999 - 16,889
2000 - 16,765
2001 - 20,308
2002 - 17,638
2003 - 17,732
2004 - 17,357
2005 - 18,124

I'll ruin someon'e Eureka moment - guess why the blip in 2001?

Ignoring (not that we should) the blip - the new graph shows a steady climb since 1998 which was the low point in the 26 years.

The murder rate (per 100k population per year) has remained pretty steady ever since 1999 at 6.2, 6.1, 7.1 (the 2001 figure), 6.1, 6,1, 5.9 and back to 6.1 in 2005.

.... and as we all know, that means that 1 in 45 (or 44 or 46) American males will die of gunshot wounds


Even so the difference between 1980 and 2005 is still less 3,736.


Now I'm going to switch gears just a bit here. You are trying to prove that guns are the problem and I (or anyone else here) will change your mind. What I will say and support with graphs (well the graphs aren't posting so follow the links) is that violent crime is on the decline in the good 'ol USofA. If you don't believe me check out this link. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#guns)

Since 1994, violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2005. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm)



And this is interesting.
Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm)


After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/percentfirearm.htm)

After peaking in 1993, the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm)

So there it is. Gun related crime and violent crime is falling in the USA.

Chad

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 05:24 PM
I have a question:

using your methods would you tell us how many American citizens are projected to die of gunshot...please include accidental gunshot, both genders, all ages combined, accidental shootings will include hunting of course and leave out cops killing folks and murders and suicides

Please follow this with a comparison of accidental death by drowning, including boating and fishing, accidental death by bicycle-car interactions, air plane assisted death like sky diving and trying for the mile-high club (if possible) and other accidental death during recreational pursuits.

This should eliminate some of the cherry picking

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 05:24 PM
You are being dishonest...you are cherry picking...you are manipulating the stats to advance an agenda


they are not personal attacks...you have just re-worded your statement again...

your clients need reason to continue their course...you provide them that reason

Not personal attacks? Yeah, sure Phillip.

As to police needing reason to continue their course? You are kidding aren't you? In this country, at least, murder is a tiny, tiny part of overall police activity. In fact, dealing with "villains" in total is only about 3% of their total activity. Here, they see their role as being the provision of a safe and secure society. They seem to be succeeding. How about in the US Phillip? Do you have a safe and secure society?

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 05:33 PM
Even so the difference between 1980 and 2005 is still less 3,736.


Now I'm going to switch gears just a bit here. You are trying to prove that guns are the problem and I (or anyone else here) will change your mind. What I will say and support with graphs (well the graphs aren't posting so follow the links) is that violent crime is on the decline in the good 'ol USofA. If you don't believe me check out this link. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#guns)

Since 1994, violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2005. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm)



And this is interesting.
Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm)


After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/percentfirearm.htm)

After peaking in 1993, the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm)

So there it is. Gun related crime and violent crime is falling in the USA.

Chad

I'll check out the links in a minute Chad. Let me comment on your assertion.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I simply put forward what the real impact of the gun violence in your society is. I didn't cherrypick figures - I used the latest available stats that I could find (both times using links to cdc that someone else provided).

IF I had wanted to cherrypick - I would have gone to the early 1990's figures. I didn't. I'd also caution against accepting any analysis that suggests violence is trending down based on a couple of years stats. The figures for 06 and 07 from the FBI site show a two year drop - but the 7 years before that (from 98) show a steady rise.

I'll take a look at your links

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 05:35 PM
cherry picking is demonstrated by not including women...for starters

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 05:41 PM
Chad

All of those links show that I have NOT been cherrypicking. They imply that the long term situation is far worse that I pointed out.

They do NOT point to a long term decline - they show a spike in the early 1990's and that the long term trend (even ignoring that spike) is for increasing violence. Take another look.

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 05:42 PM
cherry picking is demonstrated by not including women...for starters

Try again - I provided the same stats for the entire population.

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 05:45 PM
WOW - in the early to mid 1990's the death rate by homicide for white males was 50% higher that the stats I have been using....

but if I bothered to work with those stats, I'd be cherrypicking.

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 06:00 PM
Chad - if you want to take a decent look at the long-term homicide rate in the US, take a look at the graph on p9 of this report. Beware on 2 fronts - its a 10mb or so download - and the graph uses a log scale.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05acc.pdf

It shows the homicide rate in the late 1950's at around 13 per 100,000 (yes Phillip, it includes women) to a low of around 3 in the late 1970's. It has been going up ever since - to the current figure of a bit over 6.

cs
02-05-2009, 06:23 PM
I don't have time for this tonight, but I will post some quick numbers I see on the links I posted. I don't know what you are seeing, I'm seeing a decline across the board.

Homicide rates
1900 -1.2
1919 - 7.2
1933 - 9.7
1970 - 8.3
1980 - 10.7
1991 - 10.5
2000 - 6.1
2004 -5.9

Looks like a pretty good decrease to me.

Crimes committed with firearms

Year/Number/Rate
1973/361,141/172.1
1980/392,083/174.0
1990/492,671/198.1
2006/388,897/129.9

The way I read this there was a spike in the early 90's but the overall trend is a decrease in crime stats.

Chad

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 06:23 PM
Hey Phillip. Here you go - using the latest data from a couple of sources - Table 1 (which gives deaths in the US going back to 1940) in my last link and also http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm

...which gives firearms deaths for the years 1991-2001.

So - these numbers are including women..... and of course the 5,000 or so American kids that die every year, (presumably from safe guns?)

Every 69th American that died between 1991 and 2001 died of a gunshot wound.

No cherrypicking, No men-only. Every 69th American that died over those 11 years, died of a gunshot wound.

Take the women out of it and the all-male figure would be much worse than the ( 1 in 45 or 46 ) figures I posted earlier. I might just do that.....

Paul Pless
02-05-2009, 06:33 PM
So Ian, I'm a white American male, age 38... what are my chances of being killed by a firearm this year?

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 06:35 PM
The way I read this there was a spike in the early 90's but the overall trend is a decrease in crime stats.



Without wishing to get too technical, all the links you have posted (except the basic homicide stats) include a whole range of other crimes, including rape. Don't go down that path. Phillip already appears to be confused (we are still waiting for his numbers). There is what is known as "the dark figure of unreported crime".

The "dark" is not a reference to race - it is a reference to the fact that many crimes, such as rape, rely on the victim to report it. Homicide tends to be reported almost always. Rape does not. Many firearms crimes that do not involve serious injury may not be reported - eg a businessman getting robbed in a red light district may simply tell his wife he lost his wallet rather than report the crime to the cops.

I'm trying to bring a simple concept to this discussion about "gun safety". That is, how many Americans die (or will die) or gunshot wounds. None of your stats / crime agencies seem to have done this calculation. Its very easy to do. Divide the number of people who die in any year, by the number of people who died of gunshot wounds that year. That gives you, for the years 1991 to 2001 these numbers.... 57 (1991), 58 (1992), 57, 59, 64, 68, 71, 76, 83, 84 (2000), and 82 in 2001

The average of those numbers is 69. The numbers for the earlier years are nasty. They were the spike years I mentioned earlier. Whichever way you look at it - none of the years is particularly appealing - are they?

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 06:37 PM
Try again - I provided the same stats for the entire population.

and THAT worked out to your often repeated 1 in 46 of the population will die?

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 06:38 PM
So Ian, I'm a white American male, age 38... what are my chances of being killed by a firearm this year?

Get out your check book and I'll work it out.....

(no, I'm not really soliciting for work)

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 06:40 PM
and THAT worked out to your often repeated 1 in 46 of the population will die?

Have you forgotten so soon?

The 1 in 46 figure is for males. The figures above - as pointed out, include women, like you requested. For males its much worse than 1 in 69.

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 06:40 PM
Hey Phillip. Here you go - using the latest data from a couple of sources - Table 1 (which gives deaths in the US going back to 1940) in my last link and also http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm

...which gives firearms deaths for the years 1991-2001.

So - these numbers are including women..... and of course the 5,000 or so American kids that die every year, (presumably from safe guns?)

Every 69th American that died between 1991 and 2001 died of a gunshot wound.

No cherrypicking, No men-only. Every 69th American that died over those 11 years, died of a gunshot wound.

Take the women out of it and the all-male figure would be much worse than the ( 1 in 45 or 46 ) figures I posted earlier. I might just do that.....

are you still including suicide and cops killing people (it's legal, remember)?

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 06:43 PM
So Ian, I'm a white American male, age 38... what are my chances of being killed by a firearm this year?

Paul - on a more serious note, I was looking at a filter on American male deaths earlier - by age group. If you look at violent deaths, it really is appalling. Firearms are right up there as one of the top causes of death - even for babies.

I'll see if I can find the link

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 06:44 PM
what is a violent death...car wreck?

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 06:47 PM
are you still including suicide and cops killing people (it's legal, remember)?

Nah - I took the cops out - despite the fact that it is their concern over their own safety that leads to so many police shootings of citizens. I wonder why they are concerned about their own safety? Maybe they are worried about gun safety? Like I said in my response to Doug earlier - if cops are dealing with someone who has been, for example, in prison (and they have the tools to know btw) - they will have a different concern about their own safety than if they are say pulling over a car being driven by the local doctor.

Oh yeah - I've also interviewed a policeman who shot and killed someone as part of my work in this area.... only one though, so we won't generalise eh?

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 06:50 PM
"Nah - I took the cops out - despite the fact that it is their concern over their own safety that leads to so many police shootings of citizens"

I can see the "reasoning" but I contend that they are taught to kill with the classic double tap...the trainers stress this frequently...so the killing is policy in that regard

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 06:54 PM
what is a violent death...car wreck?

Yes Phillip. and all these categories.

Play with this for a while....

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Oh yeah, Paul ....... "Unintentional" poisoning ranks just above gun deaths for a 38 year old male...

I will resist the temptation to comment on that.

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 06:58 PM
"Nah - I took the cops out - despite the fact that it is their concern over their own safety that leads to so many police shootings of citizens"

I can see the "reasoning" but I contend that they are taught to kill with the classic double tap...the trainers stress this frequently...so the killing is policy in that regard

How they do it is irrelevant - the issue is that they are far more jumpy in a society awash with guns - so people get shot and killed.

I know exactly how it goes down too, and the reason is the speed at which events can go south when an angry man is involved. A guy with a knife can stab a cop before he can draw and discharge his gun provided the crim is within 23' of the cop. I've seen the training. 20' isn't enough. Not many cops talk to people from 23+' away.

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 06:59 PM
Yes Phillip. and all these categories.

Play with this for a while....

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

Oh yeah, Paul ....... "Unintentional" poisoning ranks just above gun deaths for a 38 year old male...

I will resist the temptation to comment on that.


so your 1 in 69 number includes our very high car death numbers...don't forget the alcohol

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 06:59 PM
Hey guys - I should be out doing a far more dangerous task. Putting the diff back in the M5. Lets not talk about how many males get crushed under cars eh?

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 07:00 PM
Hey guys - I should be out doing a far more dangerous task. Putting the diff back in the M5. Lets not talk about how many males get crushed under cars eh?


none of any importance...it's self inflicted anyway :)

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 07:01 PM
so your 1 in 69 number includes our very high car death numbers...don't forget the alcohol

NO Phillip.

The 1 in 69 is the number of Americans (men, women, children) that died in the years 1991 - 2001 of gunshots. Every 69th American that died in those years died becasue of a bullet.

In 2004 it was 1 in 46 MALES.

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 07:03 PM
none of any importance...it's self inflicted anyway :)

Its OK - I'll wear protection. Oh yeah - my guns are only 30' from where I'll be doing it too - so I guess that'll make me safe eh?

Larks
02-05-2009, 07:03 PM
Some of these figures that you guys are sprouting make for an interesting trend graph (on an excel spreadsheet), does anyone know how to post such a thing on here?

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 07:05 PM
"The 1 in 69 is the number of Americans (men, women, children) that died in the years 1991 - 2001 of gunshots"

I really wish you wouldn't keep doing this...your sentence reads: 1 in 69 out of 350 million people...a ridiculous number

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 07:05 PM
Yeah - cut it into a powerpoint slide - save as a jpeg, onto photobucket

From memory.

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 07:10 PM
"The 1 in 69 is the number of Americans (men, women, children) that died in the years 1991 - 2001 of gunshots"

I really wish you wouldn't keep doing this...your sentence reads: 1 in 69 out of 350 million people...a ridiculous number

No it doesn't Phillip.

it says "of Americans that died"

374,444 Americans died of gunshot wounds in those 11 years.

27,825,563 Americans died in those 11 years.

:o(Just to correct an error, the 27 mill figure is 1991-2002 - the figure I used in the calcs was correct, 25,382,176 in the years 1991-2001):o

Its got nothing to do with how many Americans there are. It looks at how those that died did so.

btw I really wish you wouldn't keep reading things into what I say.

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 07:15 PM
"btw I really wish you wouldn't keep reading things into what I say"

check your sentence structure then...anyway I get that all the time...think of the title of this thread...think of your repeated claim that guns make me feel safe as if that were my reason for owning them...practice what you preach please

cs
02-05-2009, 07:17 PM
I wish I had more time to dedicate to this, but I have a projectile experiment to do tonight and I don't want to waste half my time screwing around with these numbers and graphs when I have other graphs to create.

But I will say that I am heartened by what I see. As I look at the numbers I see that all crime is on the decline. There was a spike in all crimes in the early 90's, but on the whole, across the board, crime is down. Each category shows a decrease. This would even include crimes with guns. I'm not sure where Ian sees an increase on the links I posted and I don't have the time.

To tie this all together I see a decrease in gun related crimes which means the only other gun deaths (besides lawful shootings from cops) would be accidental or suicide. With that in mind suicide is something having a gun will or will not change, so that leaves accidental.

So to come back full circle, gun crime is down so we are left with accidental deaths due to gun shots which ties directly back to gun safety. So maybe we should stop trying to split hairs and talk about the real issue, gun safety.

Chad

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 07:21 PM
I wish I had more time to dedicate to this, but I have a projectile experiment to do tonight and I don't want to waste half my time screwing around with these numbers and graphs when I have other graphs to create.

But I will say that I am heartened by what I see. As I look at the numbers I see that all crime is on the decline. There was a spike in all crimes in the early 90's, but on the whole, across the board, crime is down. Each category shows a decrease. This would even include crimes with guns. I'm not sure where Ian sees an increase on the links I posted and I don't have the time.

To tie this all together I see a decrease in gun related crimes which means the only other gun deaths (besides lawful shootings from cops) would be accidental or suicide. With that in mind suicide is something having a gun will or will not change, so that leaves accidental.

So to come back full circle, gun crime is down so we are left with accidental deaths due to gun shots which ties directly back to gun safety. So maybe we should stop trying to split hairs and talk about the real issue, gun safety.

Chad


I don't think they want to Chad

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 07:33 PM
Phillip - I did check my sentence structure. I stand by it. You are making assumptions against my sentence structure that are not appropriate. Let me do it again for you....



The 1 in 69 is the number of Americans (men, women, children) that died in the years 1991 - 2001 of gunshots


The 1 in 69 ....... (the 1 is from the 374,444 gunshot victims)

is the number of Americans (men, women, children) that died in the years 1991 - 2001 of gunshots..... (the 69 is from the 25,382,176 Americans died in those years)

Mea culpa...... the number is actually 1 in 68. I averaged the numbers for each year and the rounding errors result in the 1 in 69. Divide 25,382,176 by 374,444 if you don't believe me).

Oh yeah, in an earlier post I mentioned that 27 mil had died in those 11 years, that was a 12 year figure.... I hadn't used it in the calcs anyhow...)

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 07:39 PM
I wish I had more time to dedicate to this, but I have a projectile experiment to do tonight and I don't want to waste half my time screwing around with these numbers and graphs when I have other graphs to create.

But I will say that I am heartened by what I see. As I look at the numbers I see that all crime is on the decline. There was a spike in all crimes in the early 90's, but on the whole, across the board, crime is down. Each category shows a decrease. This would even include crimes with guns. I'm not sure where Ian sees an increase on the links I posted and I don't have the time.

To tie this all together I see a decrease in gun related crimes which means the only other gun deaths (besides lawful shootings from cops) would be accidental or suicide. With that in mind suicide is something having a gun will or will not change, so that leaves accidental.

So to come back full circle, gun crime is down so we are left with accidental deaths due to gun shots which ties directly back to gun safety. So maybe we should stop trying to split hairs and talk about the real issue, gun safety.

Chad

You must be real easy to sell to then Chad.

I gave you the link that shows the increase in the murder rate since the late 1970s. That link is relevant.

Including victim-reported crime into a discussion about gun deaths is not relevant.

The suicide rate has been essentially the same since the late 50's. The murder rate decreased until the late 70's and has been on the increase since. Check the link.

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 07:42 PM
I don't think they want to Chad

Phillip - speaking of not wanting to....

I've answered every criticism of yours, even when you've launched into personal attacks.

I've even put my hand up and said that I posted one number that was wrong - not that I used it in any calculations (and without correcting where I did it - but rather via an addendum to that post, just so you can check if you want)

I've tried to help with your problems with the English language too.

So ....... where are your numbers?

Larks
02-05-2009, 08:22 PM
Ok, lets see if this works: I thought this to be interesting purely from a trend analysis (and I am no statistician or analyst so please don't crucify me if I screw this up)... the first is the trend on Homicide Rates and the second the trend on Crimes Committed by Firearms. I've taken these from ONLY ONE POST - (Chads I think without looking back) so they may not be completely representative of this discussion.
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii11/Larks_01/gunpres.jpg

Phillip Allen
02-05-2009, 08:35 PM
how about identifing your axies

Larks
02-05-2009, 08:46 PM
Sorry about that :o, I ended up being more interested in the process than the content. They were from Chad's figures, the vertical axis in the first is the Homicide rate and in the second the Crime numbers, the horizontal in each is the year.

Homicide rates
1900 -1.2
1919 - 7.2
1933 - 9.7
1970 - 8.3
1980 - 10.7
1991 - 10.5
2000 - 6.1
2004 -5.9

Year/Number/Rate
1973/361,141/172.1
1980/392,083/174.0
1990/492,671/198.1
2006/388,897/129.9

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 09:19 PM
Without going into it in detail - a bit of a stretch in the top one, as the data points aren't equally spaced. That 1900 figure looks weird - a major outlier. Excluding it (no-one still alive from then, anyhow), the long term average of those homicide numbers is 8.3.

The Bigfella
02-05-2009, 09:22 PM
One clear conclusion - I didn't cherrypick - 2004 was a low year. The long term figure (more applicable) is that far more than 1 in 45 American males die of gunshots. A guesstimate (yes a guesstimate - because I am looking at widely spaced rates without all the data points) would be that the number would be about 1 in 35. Give me the data and I'll do the calcs.

Hell - I might even spend some time looking for data - I've just been outside welding in 100F and 36% humidity - and lifting diffs.... I couldn't even be bothered putting gloves on to weld

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 12:03 AM
Wow. Guess how many Americans residents died due to a bullet hole - from 1979 to 2002.....? Remember, this doesn't include those who died on foreign soil....

C'mon have a rough guess.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nah - not even close
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
801,402.

Paul Pless
02-06-2009, 12:12 AM
Ian, surely you have all the data you need on hand to calculate my chance of death by firearm this year... afraid to post for fear it will hurt your arguement???;)

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 12:36 AM
I'm scared to post it because Katherine will shoot me if I keep pointing out that you are more likely to be poisoned.... How's her cooking?

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 01:13 AM
OK guys. I've got an almost fully populated data set for the years 1979 - 2005. I'm only missing the by sex breakdown of a couple of items in two years - but I do have the totals for those years.

Best year for women - 2005 - only 1 in every 308 of the women that died that year, died of a gunshot. Their worst year was 1981, when every 160th woman who died did so of a gunshot wound. The average for women over those years was 1 in 223 died of gunshot.

Best year for men (can you have a best year to die?) Let me re-phrase it, the year (from '79 to 2005) when the smallest ratio of men who died by gunshot to total men's deaths were 1999 and 2000, when 1 in every 48 male deaths was by gunshot. Worst years were 1992 and 1993, when every 35th male that died did so by rapid lead ingestion.

Hear that guys - every 35th guy that died - shot to death.

The average for American residents, 1979 to 2005 was every 68th person (that's male and female included, and probably includes a couple of hermaphrodites too, but I didn't go looking).

For men the average is 1 in 41 died of gunshot over those 27 years. One in every 41 deaths from gunshots.

Why 27 years? That was the break points in the stats I opened up. I extended it back as far as I could.

Pick away guys. I'll defend it with all guns blazing.

Which reminds me .... later. I'm going shooting now thank you.

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 01:15 AM
Hey Phillip.

That answer your cherrypicking complaint?

Turns out I was using some of the worst years if I was trying to cherrypick.

If I had cherrypicked - we would have been talking about 1 in 35 American male deaths being due to gunshots.

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 07:17 AM
I've been to the Olympic Shooting Range - shot my quota of bulls, got back here expecting more bulls..... and ....... silence>??

C'mon guys - defend this gun safety idea you have over there. I just don't see it.

Hey Chad - re murders - the low year was 1999. Since then, homicide by firearm has gone up every year, bar one (in 2004 it went down by 2.5% on the previous year) then resumed climbing. By 2006 it was up 16% on 1999. Dunno why you think crime is going down?

Two categories of gun death have had a constant decline. Both are relatively minor. They are unintentional gun deaths (accidents) - down from 2004 in 1979 to 777 in 2006. The "dunno's" are down from 640 to 214 in the same period - probably due to better CSI services.

Gun suicides went up for a while, down for a while and are pretty constant over the period. No decline for a long time.

Here's the graph of total gun deaths in the USA over time - 1979 to 2006. Yep - there are 920,963 gun deaths represented by that simple line. Nearly a million people in 27 years who discovered that guns aren't that safe after all......

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/gundeathsusa.jpg

Paul Pless
02-06-2009, 07:23 AM
I just want to know, as an individual what my actual chance of death by firearm is this year.

Its pretty freaking low I'm guessing, as there's no real reason for it to even enter my consciousness...;)

erster
02-06-2009, 07:29 AM
I don't get it. The same folks that argue that guns kill also support funding abortions for the good of the economy in this latest drunken sailor package all the way to the third in line to the throne. =Anyway thats achieved should be supported by the same. I feel better now.:cool::p

Paul Pless
02-06-2009, 07:32 AM
btw, as long as we are massaging our numbers, shouldn't deaths from accidental shootings that occur while hunting be excluded? I mean no one here from any country is really arguing that long guns used for hunting should be legally restricted... So why not leave those numbers out if you have no wish to outlaw that activity?

erster
02-06-2009, 07:37 AM
btw, as long as we are massaging our numbers, shouldn't deaths from accidental shootings that occur while hunting be excluded? I mean no one here from any country is really arguing that long guns used for hunting should be legally restricted... So why not leave those numbers out if you have no wish to outlaw that activity?
I think we need a graph that also shows that vacumn cleaners are deadly too and should be outlawed.;)

Paul Pless
02-06-2009, 07:39 AM
btw, as an individual that went to uni (as our australian friends say;)) and majored in economics and minored in quantitative methods; I used Ian's numbers in a 'naive' equation and I calculate my chance of death by firearm, this year, to be less than 4 hundredths of one percent. Now, by naive, I mean... I didn't factor in things like the fact that I'm moving to Detroit in a month ;), or that I own more than 50 firearms, etc, etc...

sound about right ian?

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 07:43 AM
Why leave anything out? The topic is gun safety.

Paul - your individual risk of being shot depends on the opportunities for such an event to occur. If you were to, for example, find it annoying to find the cops parked in your driveway, and yell at them, your chances of being shot would increase. If you were to spend more time driving on freeways north and south, your chances of annoying an armed motorist might increase. If a meths addict moved in to your neighbourhood, your chances would increase (I had that here a few years back - luckily he only came at me with a small axe, not a gun) - and so on.

The answer to your question, at a high level is, if you were to die in the next year, your chance of dieing by gunshot wound would be one in forty six. It is probably higher than that because of your age. You are still in the higher end of the risk area for homicide at your age IIRC - but it gets better after you turn 40.

My suggestion for you. Avoid the nasty parts of town, drive Miss Daisy, smile politely at every cop you see, lock your guns and ammo up separately, stay happy, wear an orange stripe up your back when you go hunting - and never argue with anyone.

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 07:45 AM
I think we need a graph that also shows that vacumn cleaners are deadly too and should be outlawed.;)

Since when did I suggest anything be outlawed?

btw guys - show me how I massaged any numbers. I've made this as simple as I can.

Paul Pless
02-06-2009, 07:58 AM
Why leave anything out? The topic is gun safety.Well the topic may be gun safety, but the under and over tones are ones of firearm regulation and even you've admitted that you don't intend to regulate long guns used for hunting, right?

erster
02-06-2009, 08:07 AM
Since when did I suggest anything be outlawed?

btw guys - show me how I massaged any numbers. I've made this as simple as I can.
OH folks have differing opinions on the meaning of a well regulated militia for reasons that you include that guns kill. These folks work from many angles to remove them even though they are legally obtained. Well we also know that the percentages vary with numerous other lawfully sold items. Heck we know that cars kill huge numbers. But the people attempting to ban cars also are using another reason for that too.;):D

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 08:08 AM
Well the topic may be gun safety, but the under and over tones are ones of firearm regulation and even you've admitted that you don't intend to regulate long guns used for hunting, right?

In essence, we have restricted semi-autos, enacted stringent storage and transport regulations, licenced individuals and registered weapons. The licencing regime requires completion of a gun safety course and entails passing an examination. (I had to do a similar course in New Zealand when I lived there for a couple of years).

We do not allow widespread handgun carriage - and "personal protection" is not a accepted as a valid reason to have a licence. The main categories are hunting and target shooting. Farmers can have semi-autos for vermin control.

There were a dozen or so guys at the range tonight shooting handguns - mostly 22s, a centre-fire revolver and a 357 semi.

The real issues surrounding gun safety is taking them out of situations where aggression may result in them being used against people - and appropriate safety training.

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 08:12 AM
OH folks have differing opinions on the meaning of a well regulated militia for reasons that you include that guns kill. These folks work from many angles to remove them even though they are legally obtained. Well we also know that the percentages vary with numerous other lawfully sold items. Heck we know that cars kill huge numbers. But the people attempting to ban cars also are using another reason for that too.;):D

I reckon that the "well regulated militia" argument is the greatest load of crap I've ever heard.

It has cost you a million American lives in the last 30 years - including 150,000 kids lives. F'n fabulous mate.

Has it produced a safer society? NO

Has it prevented government excess? NO

cs
02-06-2009, 08:20 AM
This is it and than I'm done.

When I look at the crime rate I look at like a whole. Crime was on the rise and peaked in the early 90's and since than is on a steady decline. You on the other hand glance at a smaller section of the graph and see it is on the rise. Here is a graph based on the numbers from the Bureau of Justice. The data source is the Vital Statistics of the United States, National Center for Health Statistics.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3354/3258134752_d504970690_o.jpg

This graph shows a rise in homicides from 1900 to a peak around 1930. From there you have a drop to a low somewhere between 1950 and 1960. It climbs back up in the early 90's and we are now on a steep decline.

Now as I look at your graph I see gun deaths starting at around 33,000 in 1979 with a peak of near 40,000 in the early 90's and from there a steady drop to around the turn of the century where it leveled off somewhere around 30,000.

1) This at a glance is a downward trend.

2) It doesn't take into account population growth (and if it does you draw a poor graph because it is not properly labeled). If we had 33,000 deaths by guns in 1979 and we had 30,000 death by guns in 2006 but yet the the population is getting larger (by lets say about 10% every year) how does that affect the numbers per 100,000? I bet it would show an even steeper decline.

One thing that I see is that the early 90's was a troubled time and since than things are getting better. Funny thing though even during those "high" crime times I never once felt threatened nor has anyone I've ever known died of rapid lead ingestion.

Ian the way you run numbers and look at them is at best questionable. I'm not going to sit here and argue your 1 in 45 (46) number. I have more important things to do. I've posted my numbers and my graphs (and please don't ever speak to me in a condescending nature again) and you can take my numbers for what they are.

Three guys get a hotel room. The rate is $15 and so each guy pays $5. Later the manager decides that he has overcharged them $5 and the rate of the room is only $10. So he give the bellboy $5 and tells him to refund the gentlemen their money. The bellboy not being the smartest (or maybe he was) can't figure out how to divide $5 by 3. So he gives each of the men back $1 a piece and keeps $2 for himself. So in the end each man paid $4 for his share of the room ($4 * 3 = $12) and the bellhop kept $2. $12 + $2 = $14. Where did the other dollar go? I bet Ian has it in his pocket.

Chad

erster
02-06-2009, 08:23 AM
I reckon that the "well regulated militia" argument is the greatest load of crap I've ever heard.

It has cost you a million American lives in the last 30 years - including 150,000 kids lives. F'n fabulous mate.

Has it produced a safer society? NO

Has it prevented government excess? NO
Well to some people, some posting on this thread, thats really a silly argument and deflects from numerous issues such as how many people that do not get killed. Numerous states have concealed carry permits and there are graphs that show that this does improve our chances of survival. But we do also know that there are the same politicans that call for restrictions to outright banning firearms that will not protect the young before and even after they are born too, presidents included.

Until such time that the elected officials will use the same standard to make the argument that you are making as with many others, I stand on the side that gun ownership does reduce chances for one and all to be a victim of gun violence. I also hold up the graphs that reflect the crimes committed by people that do not obtain weapons legally, another well publish stats in areas that have tough gun control laws.

Why not address the reasons behind this area of repeat offenders? I think in part the bar association makes big bucks off of those lowlifes too and do not wish to do anything about the revolving doors. Maybe find those numbers too and subtract those numbers from your averages too.

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 08:28 AM
Ian the way you run numbers and look at them is at best questionable. I'm not going to sit here and argue your 1 in 45 (46) number. I have more important things to do. I've posted my numbers and my graphs (and please don't ever speak to me in a condescending nature again) and you can take my numbers for what they are.



I'd already pointed out to you the issue of unreported and victim-reported crime Chad, yet you kept bringing total crime back in. Its a nonsense.

As for how I present numbers, I agree with you re rates being a better measure to use - and I fully comprehend the issue of population growth - but we have a bit of a comprehension problem with that measure around here - and what it means "on the ground"

If you'd posted a link to your stats, I'd take a look - but bear in mind its 12:30am here..... I have a serious issue with those 1900 numbers. They rise too steeply to seem realistic.

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 08:31 AM
Well to some people, some posting on this thread, thats really a silly argument and deflects from numerous issues such as how many people that do not get killed. Numerous states have concealed carry permits and there are graphs that show that this does improve our chances of survival. But we do also know that there are the same politicans that call for restrictions to outright banning firearms that will not protect the young before and even after they are born too, presidents included.

Until such time that the elected officials will use the same standard to make the argument that you are making as with many others, I stand on the side that gun ownership does reduce chances for one and all to be a victim of gun violence. I also hold up the graphs that reflect the crimes committed by people that do not obtain weapons legally, another well publish stats in areas that have tough gun control laws.

Why not address the reasons behind this area of repeat offenders? I think in part the bar association makes big bucks off of those lowlifes too and do not wish to do anything about the revolving doors. Maybe find those numbers too and subtract those numbers from your averages too.

Here we go again (see Chad?)

Why subtract anything, the fact is that over the last 27 years, every 41st American male death has been by gunshot. Carrying guns does not make Americans safer.

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 08:37 AM
Despite a decline in homicide rates across
the United States during the 1990’s,2 homicide rates
are again rising and continue to claim the lives of
many young people. The human and economic toll
of violence on young people, their families, and
society is high. Homicide is the second leading
cause of death for persons 15-24 years of age and
has been the leading cause of death for African-
Americans in this age group for over a decade.2 The
economic cost associated with violence-related
illness, disability, and premature death is estimated
to be in the billions of dollars each year.1



http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/pdf/YV/CDC_YV_Intro.pdf

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 08:39 AM
Hey Chad - I don't want to sound condescending, but you haven't by any chance used homicide rates, rather than homicide by firearm rates have you?

Care to cite the source data properly?

cs
02-06-2009, 08:44 AM
I've already once posted those links, but here it is again.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

My graph is not crime in general, it is Homicide rates and you yourself said that those generally don't go unreported. And I would guess that homicides are generally tied closer to guns than most any other crime.

If you don't like the 1900 numbers, throw 'em out, but to do that you need to throw out the high numbers also. I was taught a long time ago that when averaging to throw out your high number and your low number. Those are probably anomalies and not a true picture.

Population growth has to be considered. As the population grows more dense it is harder to contain crime. Trust me, the larger the crowd the harder it is to control. I would imagine that the USofA has experienced a pretty substantial population growth since 1900 and thus the steep rise in crime. I think the graphs indicate that law enforcement is learning to deal with the issues and thus you see a decline.

Paint it any way you want, that is the way I see it.

And BTW I'm not going to go back and review every thread, but on unreported crime, I think that now there is more of tendency to report crimes and thus more are getting reported now than even 10 or 15 years ago.

Either way I've never felt threatened nor have I known anyone to die from a gunshot wound.

Chad

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 08:46 AM
This is it and than I'm done.

When I look at the crime rate I look at like a whole. Crime was on the rise and peaked in the early 90's and since than is on a steady decline. You on the other hand glance at a smaller section of the graph and see it is on the rise. Here is a graph based on the numbers from the Bureau of Justice. The data source is the Vital Statistics of the United States, National Center for Health Statistics.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3354/3258134752_d504970690_o.jpg

This graph shows a rise in homicides from 1900 to a peak around 1930. From there you have a drop to a low somewhere between 1950 and 1960. It climbs back up in the early 90's and we are now on a steep decline.

Now as I look at your graph I see gun deaths starting at around 33,000 in 1979 with a peak of near 40,000 in the early 90's and from there a steady drop to around the turn of the century where it leveled off somewhere around 30,000.

1) This at a glance is a downward trend.

2) It doesn't take into account population growth (and if it does you draw a poor graph because it is not properly labeled). If we had 33,000 deaths by guns in 1979 and we had 30,000 death by guns in 2006 but yet the the population is getting larger (by lets say about 10% every year) how does that affect the numbers per 100,000? I bet it would show an even steeper decline.

One thing that I see is that the early 90's was a troubled time and since than things are getting better. Funny thing though even during those "high" crime times I never once felt threatened nor has anyone I've ever known died of rapid lead ingestion.

Ian the way you run numbers and look at them is at best questionable. I'm not going to sit here and argue your 1 in 45 (46) number. I have more important things to do. I've posted my numbers and my graphs (and please don't ever speak to me in a condescending nature again) and you can take my numbers for what they are.

Three guys get a hotel room. The rate is $15 and so each guy pays $5. Later the manager decides that he has overcharged them $5 and the rate of the room is only $10. So he give the bellboy $5 and tells him to refund the gentlemen their money. The bellboy not being the smartest (or maybe he was) can't figure out how to divide $5 by 3. So he gives each of the men back $1 a piece and keeps $2 for himself. So in the end each man paid $4 for his share of the room ($4 * 3 = $12) and the bellhop kept $2. $12 + $2 = $14. Where did the other dollar go? I bet Ian has it in his pocket.

Chad

What I notice is that around the beginning of your graph is also the beginning of the end of the Indian wars and the total subjugation of those peoples...during the previous 25 years the focus was on the eradication of all Indian resistance. After (I think) 1908, Oklahoma became a state and although the "blood was up" to kill the red man the would-be killers were running out of targets. Perhaps they vented on their neighbors? The same applies to returning warriors...return home, a spike in killing until the blood cools then a fall as that set of warrior’s ages...

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 09:01 AM
Here's one for you - might have some meaning. Care to tell me what you think it says about gun safety across a range of countries?

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/guncountries.jpg

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad303.pdf

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 09:14 AM
I'll come back to that one another time. I'd appreciate what your thoughts on it are.

Good night gentlemen. It's 1:14am......

Paul Pless
02-06-2009, 09:25 AM
sleep tight

Paul Pless
02-06-2009, 10:04 AM
As an American, you have a lifetime risk of being wounded by gunshot of 1 in 14. As an American male, you have a lifetime risk of being wounded of about 1 in 8. However, you have told us you have a readily accessible firearm, so your risk is even higher. Rather like playing Russian Roulette with an 8 shot magazine with one live round and 7 blanks, with the gun rather randomly pointed at various parts of your body during the process. Wanna play?Do I get extra points for formal traing in firearms use and safety, as well as a complete familiarity with the guns in my possession?

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 10:16 AM
why do folks insist on muddying the water...I in 14...just WHAT does that include?

It don't compute...there are a quarter million people in this area and by that measure we couldn't dig holes fast enough to bury them!

in my life time I have been "hit" by bullets...ummm...3 times with 180 degree recochets...about as hard as if pitched. I have been hit by B-B's maybe 3 times (still counts as a bullet depending on how one wants to skew the numbers). countless hits by kids' dart guns...don't forget the "Fanner 50" and the little belt darringers with the plastic "bullets"

I am deeply suspicious of such a scary number! Is he including WWI, II and Korea and Vietnam and other conflices...Civil war???

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 10:19 AM
No, no extra points in the gun culture, just time off - you get 150 days off your life expectancy, so do I, so, on average, does every American male participating in the thread, doesn't matter what side they take.


how about defining "gun culture" very carefully...need learned treatises and other Phd generated gun culture studies please...?? Also who the clients for the studies are/were and their interests in same...

Peer reviewed please...

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 10:21 AM
Andrew, I don't suppose there is any way to quantify it but it would be nice to have a graph to compare that showed independant thinking and mob thinking as well...

Popeye
02-06-2009, 10:33 AM
what would happen if a small group of intelligent people colonized a planet with vast resources ?

oznabrag
02-06-2009, 10:40 AM
Gun safety? Meth safety?

In the words of Warren Zevon 'Life'll kill ya.'

The only time anyone will ever be perfectly safe is when they are perfectly dead.

John T

Paul Pless
02-06-2009, 10:41 AM
Anyone who would fanatically insist on having a thread promoting the oxymoron of gun safety is a member of the gun culture. And we're back where we started from weeks ago.=>:D

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 10:58 AM
if the term "gun safety" is an oxymoron...what else may we include in that catagory?

Car safety?
swim safety?
table saw safety?
boat safety?
crab fishing safet y?
bicycle safety?


there are lots more...

anyone else want to join the oxymoron mob...ah...movement?

Popeye
02-06-2009, 11:01 AM
safe safety

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 11:03 AM
piano bench safety

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 11:05 AM
Hey...what about hiway safety? That HAS to be an oxymoron!

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 11:21 AM
still an oxymoron...or did you think to say otherwise?

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 11:25 AM
Still wondering about all that bribery...:mad:

I think Milo would call it a "culture" of oxymoronic bribery :)

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 11:26 AM
BTW I see your frowny and raise you a smiley :) (poker term)

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 11:28 AM
back to our "culture" of thread drift/hijack...

electricity safety is an oxymoron

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 11:30 AM
That is an outrageous slur, Philip.

Unless you are taking a very very wide definition of "bribes" such as the bestowing of honours on the Princes, I cannot think of anything that the Indian Civil Service did that could posibly merit the description of "a bribe". They were fanatically incorruptible - their sucessors still are - and they lacked the resources to do any bribing.

I certainly grant that the British acquired India with a lot of bribes - Clive was particularly good at it - but that is a very different thing to saying that the British ruled India by bribery.


I just now saw this post Andrew...and, yes, I am speaking in very broad terms

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 11:37 AM
I see your smiley and raise you a :(

Now, did we run India with 50,000 troops because we bribed everyone or because most people were happy enough with the administration? :confused:

ask the cult of Thugee if they were happy

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 11:42 AM
okay...next, the Sepoy insergency (o'benevolent one)

stevebaby
02-06-2009, 03:29 PM
how about defining "gun culture" very carefully...need learned treatises and other Phd generated gun culture studies please...?? Also who the clients for the studies are/were and their interests in same...

Peer reviewed please... Post YOUR figures first.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 03:44 PM
I didn't ask for figures...I asked for a defination and discussion on the oft repeated lie of "gun culture"...another buzz phrase meant to startle shallow thinkers in order to drive them in a particular direction...it often works on shallow thinkers...that's why I think of them as shallow thinkers

stevebaby
02-06-2009, 03:57 PM
I didn't ask for figures...I asked for a defination and discussion on the oft repeated lie of "gun culture"...another buzz phrase meant to startle shallow thinkers in order to drive them in a particular direction...it often works on shallow thinkers...that's why I think of them as shallow thinkersYou have repeatedly disputed Ian's figures, yet you either refuse or are unable to offer any contradictory evidence whatsoever.
You lose.

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 05:05 PM
Steve.... he didn't lose. He simply got abusive and ignored the issue, therefore it doesn't matter any more.

stevebaby
02-06-2009, 05:21 PM
Steve.... he didn't lose. He simply got abusive and ignored the issue, therefore it doesn't matter any more.As usual.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 06:58 PM
As usual.

I'm back guys...I had company

I will not even attempt to fight the statistic game...for game it (often) is. I prefer logic...THAT I can do though others treat that method like I treat the number game...looks like a stand off

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 08:04 PM
Not to anyone who uses their brain it isn't.

Logic says that a lot of men do not want to accept the reality that for the last 27 years, every 41st American male that died, did so of a gunshot wound.

Logic says that those who bluster and fart and never deliver an alternative viewpoint based on fact only have one based on a fiction.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 08:05 PM
Not to anyone who uses their brain it isn't.

Logic says that a lot of men do not want to accept the reality that for the last 27 years, every 41st American male that died, did so of a gunshot wound.

Logic says that those who bluster and fart and never deliver an alternative viewpoint based on fact only have one based on a fiction.


but I DID deliver an alternative view point...I just won't play with your rules

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 08:06 PM
Logic says that one country in this list (which is every country in the list provided by your own CDC) has a gun safety problem.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/guncountries.jpg

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 08:08 PM
but I DID deliver an alternative view point...I just won't play with your rules

You mean you can't back it up with facts?

Not a single independent fact?

Not one eh?

I guess its worth as much as the paper its written on then

The Bigfella
02-06-2009, 08:10 PM
I didn't ask for figures...I asked for a defination and discussion on the oft repeated lie of "gun culture"...another buzz phrase meant to startle shallow thinkers in order to drive them in a particular direction...it often works on shallow thinkers...that's why I think of them as shallow thinkers

Shallow thinkers?

That'd be the one million Americans that were buried with a fresh bullet hole in them in the last 30 years wouldn't it.

Six feet under - yeah, that's shallow.

Phillip Allen
02-06-2009, 08:14 PM
Logic says that one country in this list (which is every country in the list provided by your own CDC) has a gun safety problem.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff112/igatenby/guncountries.jpg
How do you make that out Ian?...the blue part is the only part that gun safety instruction will affect...we have a crime problem, not a gun problem...we have a depression problem not a gun problem

you surly didn't expect me to fall in step with the "blame it on the gun" group did you?