America's Gun Violence

1…731732734736737…903

Comments

  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,410
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Yes, they are restricted weapons here.
    But what... so now all of a sudden Canada and America are looking fairly equal in terms of gun laws to you? That isn't the case at all.
    Explain to me the restricted weapon access.  Do you need a certain level of background checks to get one?  
    Maybe i should research since you Canadians can not ;)
    And I do think we are more similar than you think, big difference is the training and mag limits imo. 
    I don't think we are even close to similar in either way, but like I always say, it's the American gun culture that really makes the most difference by far, and in that way we are worlds apart.
    Anyway, here is a link to the RCMP website where it defines these things:

    you guys and the god damn metric system.  ugh. what the hell is 470 mm?!
    In the US, we measure in inches. In Canada, they measure in centimeters.  (Yes, this is a dick joke)
    30 centimetres baby. No wait... 36 centimetres baby!
    if that were true I doubt you'd have any time to post on a message board.  ;)
    Just between live streaming breaks. A man's got to recharge :)
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,447
    oftenreading said:
    Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. 

    https://safetennesseeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gun-storage-practices-and-risk-of-youth-suicide-and-unintentional-firearm-injuries.pdf
    Did you spend the time to read this?  It's all over the place...

    They did 106 case studies of shootings.  That is what they studied.  All shootings.

    If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?

    Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    edited March 2019
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. 

    https://safetennesseeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gun-storage-practices-and-risk-of-youth-suicide-and-unintentional-firearm-injuries.pdf
    Did you spend the time to read this?  It's all over the place...

    They did 106 case studies of shootings.  That is what they studied.  All shootings.

    If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?

    Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
    Yes, of course I read it. It’s called a case control study.  It’s an accepted method of research, particularly when one can’t do a prospective randomized control study, which of course you can’t with this issue, as you would be telling one group of people not to safely store their guns and then following up to see what happens, which is obviously unethical.  

    The “cases” are matched with controls.

    The study methodology is sound. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • dignin
    dignin Posts: 9,478
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. 

    https://safetennesseeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gun-storage-practices-and-risk-of-youth-suicide-and-unintentional-firearm-injuries.pdf
    Did you spend the time to read this?  It's all over the place...

    They did 106 case studies of shootings.  That is what they studied.  All shootings.

    If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?

    Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
    I think you just didn't get it.
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,313
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/21/why-new-zealand-could-do-what-us-cant-change-gun-laws-face-tragedy/?utm_term=.b1cdaddb7b64&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,831
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. 

    https://safetennesseeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gun-storage-practices-and-risk-of-youth-suicide-and-unintentional-firearm-injuries.pdf
    Did you spend the time to read this?  It's all over the place...

    They did 106 case studies of shootings.  That is what they studied.  All shootings.

    If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?

    Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
    The issue I had was I didn't see any definition of what was "locked" or "stored." If all I used was a cable lock, then I'd probably store my ammo separately and lock it up, since those cable locks can be cut with some heavy-duty pliers. Or a gun cabinet that a heavy-duty screwdriver can get you in, sure I'd lock it up separately too.  But I think they lumped all types together with a fireproof gun safe type. 
    And also, it looks like they considered a child in the home with a gun if there was a child visiting 2 or more days a year. That has to skew the data a little, who doesn't have a kid visit 2 days a year? So that is pretty much going to exclude no one and consider every gun owner  as a house with a child. Or did I read that wrong?
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Yes, they are restricted weapons here.
    But what... so now all of a sudden Canada and America are looking fairly equal in terms of gun laws to you? That isn't the case at all.
    Explain to me the restricted weapon access.  Do you need a certain level of background checks to get one?  
    Maybe i should research since you Canadians can not ;)
    And I do think we are more similar than you think, big difference is the training and mag limits imo. 
    I don't think we are even close to similar in either way, but like I always say, it's the American gun culture that really makes the most difference by far, and in that way we are worlds apart.
    Anyway, here is a link to the RCMP website where it defines these things:

    you guys and the god damn metric system.  ugh. what the hell is 470 mm?!
    In the US, we measure in inches. In Canada, they measure in centimeters.  (Yes, this is a dick joke)
    30 centimetres baby. No wait... 36 centimetres baby!
    if that were true I doubt you'd have any time to post on a message board.  ;)
    It’s true when I’m holding my gun!
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    my2hands said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    Bentleyspop said:
    NZ gets it....

    New Zealand's Prime Minister announces ban on all assault rifles following massacre https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/asia/new-zealand-christchurch-gun-ban-intl/index.html
    A no brainer.

    I mean... that is for any progressive country grounded in sensibility and reasonable intelligence.

    You know... the type of country that wouldn’t elect a fat f**k known for cheating people, dodging the draft and proceeding to insult prolific war heroes, empathizing with nazis, possessing an overtly racist attitude, adultery, soliciting prostitutes, getting pissed on, and say (because the list is endless and there really needs to be one more item) unable to take a shit without getting toilet paper stuck to the bottom of his shoe prior to a public showing.

    Yee Haw! Git ‘er dun.
    Dude... the horse is dead 

    You think America is full of fat dumb racists, we get it bro... your condescension and stereotyping is as much the problem as the average maga voter, whether you realize it or not 
    Hey.

    Half full. Half full.

    And I didn’t know that. Thanks!
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/21/why-new-zealand-could-do-what-us-cant-change-gun-laws-face-tragedy/?utm_term=.b1cdaddb7b64&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
    Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying over and over.  It’s a little more difficult to “just ban them” in the US than in countries that do not share our legal systems and culture.  I’m not saying “impossible”, but definitely more difficult than the president standing up and saying “we’re going to ban guns”.  This is made even more difficult when there is major discourse between the political parties.  It’s a completely different ballgame than New Zealand.
  • dankind
    dankind Posts: 20,841
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    HughFreakingDillon said:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mcgruff10 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Yes, they are restricted weapons here.
    But what... so now all of a sudden Canada and America are looking fairly equal in terms of gun laws to you? That isn't the case at all.
    Explain to me the restricted weapon access.  Do you need a certain level of background checks to get one?  
    Maybe i should research since you Canadians can not ;)
    And I do think we are more similar than you think, big difference is the training and mag limits imo. 
    I don't think we are even close to similar in either way, but like I always say, it's the American gun culture that really makes the most difference by far, and in that way we are worlds apart.
    Anyway, here is a link to the RCMP website where it defines these things:

    you guys and the god damn metric system.  ugh. what the hell is 470 mm?!
    In the US, we measure in inches. In Canada, they measure in centimeters.  (Yes, this is a dick joke)
    30 centimetres baby. No wait... 36 centimetres baby!
    if that were true I doubt you'd have any time to post on a message board.  ;)
    It’s true when I’m holding my gun!

    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,507
    PJPOWER said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/21/why-new-zealand-could-do-what-us-cant-change-gun-laws-face-tragedy/?utm_term=.b1cdaddb7b64&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
    Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying over and over.  It’s a little more difficult to “just ban them” in the US than in countries that do not share our legal systems and culture.  I’m not saying “impossible”, but definitely more difficult than the president standing up and saying “we’re going to ban guns”.  This is made even more difficult when there is major discourse between the political parties.  It’s a completely different ballgame than New Zealand.
    so basically what this article is saying that their system of government is set up to avoid mass lobbying and political corruption, superior to that of the US. 

    but hey, those genius "forefathers". HAHA
    By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.




  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,313
    PJPOWER said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/21/why-new-zealand-could-do-what-us-cant-change-gun-laws-face-tragedy/?utm_term=.b1cdaddb7b64&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
    Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying over and over.  It’s a little more difficult to “just ban them” in the US than in countries that do not share our legal systems and culture.  I’m not saying “impossible”, but definitely more difficult than the president standing up and saying “we’re going to ban guns”.  This is made even more difficult when there is major discourse between the political parties.  It’s a completely different ballgame than New Zealand.
    Less populated states having an undue or oversized representation in Congress and the NRA more than happy to do their bidding. If all you (you in the general sense) card carrying NRA members cancelled your memberships and lobbied your elected representatives at the state and federal level, we'd have meaningful change that might not result in bans. But its too complicated and not worth the effort. Nothing can be done.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,447
    dignin said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. 

    https://safetennesseeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gun-storage-practices-and-risk-of-youth-suicide-and-unintentional-firearm-injuries.pdf
    Did you spend the time to read this?  It's all over the place...

    They did 106 case studies of shootings.  That is what they studied.  All shootings.

    If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?

    Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
    I think you just didn't get it.
    Cool.  Explain it to me.
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    So, people ask for evidence that safer storage is effective. 

    Evidence presented. 

    But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,447
    dignin said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. 

    https://safetennesseeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gun-storage-practices-and-risk-of-youth-suicide-and-unintentional-firearm-injuries.pdf
    Did you spend the time to read this?  It's all over the place...

    They did 106 case studies of shootings.  That is what they studied.  All shootings.

    If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?

    Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
    I think you just didn't get it.
    Cool.  Explain it to me.
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,831
    tempo_n_groove said:
    dignin said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    oftenreading said:
    Here’s one study that demonstrates that storing ammunition separately from guns reduces the risk of harms (both fatal and nonfatal injuries, including suicides and accidental injuries). Four factors were each independently associated with reduction in gun injuries, including storing guns locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition. 

    https://safetennesseeproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gun-storage-practices-and-risk-of-youth-suicide-and-unintentional-firearm-injuries.pdf
    Did you spend the time to read this?  It's all over the place...

    They did 106 case studies of shootings.  That is what they studied.  All shootings.

    If everything they studied was an actual shooting how do you come to the conclusion that any of these could have been prevented with ammo stored separately?

    Things like this paper just baffle me sometimes as passed for an actual study...
    I think you just didn't get it.
    Cool.  Explain it to me.
    Not sure if that was serious or not, but where we go.
    I have some problems with this study, but I think the outline of it is okay. Basically they looked at 106 actual incidents (case), looked at the rate percentage of those where the guns were kept locked, loaded, how ammo was stored, etc. Then took 480 other samples (control) and collected the same data. Theoretically if the case group had a higher percentage of unlocked firearms and ammo then you can conclude that the difference is attributed to the storing methods.

    The problem is how they defined some of the terms. A child in the house meant that a child visiting 2 times a year or more....so basically everyone, according to this study, would qualify as having a child live with them....
    Another problem was how they defined a child. In this study a child was 20 years or younger. Well, you can buy a long rifle at 18, so that doesn't make any sense. Why have a study that about proper storage and keeping guns away from adults who are legally allowed to buy, own and store them themselves? It also didn't consider different methods of locking up firearms. It looks like it considers a cable lock and a fire safe the same thing.
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,447
    oftenreading said:
    So, people ask for evidence that safer storage is effective. 

    Evidence presented. 

    But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design. 
    I do spreadsheets and formulas all day long, do takeoffs from a stack of prints and can build anything from a set of drawings but I will have to read this again...
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,831
    edited March 2019
    oftenreading said:
    So, people ask for evidence that safer storage is effective. 

    Evidence presented. 

    But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design. 
    No, not good enough for the reasons I've pointed out 3 times now. 20 is not a child. Visiting 2 days a year does not qualify as having a child live with you. These things make me question the integrity of the study. I also saw no distinction between types of locks and gun storage, it was just either labeled locked or unlocked. There is a massive difference between types of gun locks and their effectiveness.

    Show me a study where guns and ammo were both kept in a fire safe and kids (actual kids, not adults old enough to buy guns themselves) still had access to both guns and ammo and I would be interested. 

    And no one has argued about safe storage of guns, I think everyone agrees on that. It is whether or not storing ammo in a gun safe with guns is effective.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    PJPOWER said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/21/why-new-zealand-could-do-what-us-cant-change-gun-laws-face-tragedy/?utm_term=.b1cdaddb7b64&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1
    Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying over and over.  It’s a little more difficult to “just ban them” in the US than in countries that do not share our legal systems and culture.  I’m not saying “impossible”, but definitely more difficult than the president standing up and saying “we’re going to ban guns”.  This is made even more difficult when there is major discourse between the political parties.  It’s a completely different ballgame than New Zealand.
    Less populated states having an undue or oversized representation in Congress and the NRA more than happy to do their bidding. If all you (you in the general sense) card carrying NRA members cancelled your memberships and lobbied your elected representatives at the state and federal level, we'd have meaningful change that might not result in bans. But its too complicated and not worth the effort. Nothing can be done.
    Who is to say that the card carrying NRA members (not me for the record) do not lobby state and federally elected representatives?  Just might not be for the changes you wish for.  Straw man much?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    oftenreading said:
    So, people ask for evidence that safer storage is effective. 

    Evidence presented. 

    But then evidence isn’t good enough because somehow it doesn’t apply. Or people just don’t understand the study design. 
    So people shouldn’t question the validity of the design of studies?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories