Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

1…5354565859…117

Comments

  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    pandora wrote:
    hedonist wrote:
    I literally laughed out loud at that.

    (OBVIOUS DISCLAIMER - I am not advocating the actual taking down of Miss Ruby)
    it's even a joy to annoy some with it ;)
    Good lord! I thought the disclaimer would've prevented a tome of a response.

    You really think my or Cosmo's comments meant a desired wipeout of the now-infamous-on-the-AMT Miss Ruby?

    You're not unintelligent, pandora, but I feel you've strapped stubborn blinders on about this.

    So be it.
  • comebackgirl
    comebackgirl Posts: 9,885
    redrock wrote:
    An interesting little tidbit. Though only an abstract, it does give some insight:

    "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.
    Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.
    Source

    Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.


    OBJECTIVE:
    Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

    METHODS:
    We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

    RESULTS:
    During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
    Thank you for this redrock and for your other links. This is the kind of research I was interested I seeing.
    tumblr_mg4nc33pIX1s1mie8o1_400.gif

    "I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    comebackgirl wrote:
    Thank you for this redrock and for your other links. This is the kind of research I was interested I seeing.

    My first link is to the page mentioning a number of articles regarding this '2.5 million' figure, how it is invalid and giving some other stats which help put things in perspective. One can google the articles to see them in full. Interesting analysis (for one who wishes to spend a bit of time googling and reading!).
  • dimitrispearljam
    dimitrispearljam Posts: 139,725
    edited August 2012
    comebackgirl wrote:
    redrock wrote:
    An interesting little tidbit. Though only an abstract, it does give some insight:

    "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.
    Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.
    Source

    Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.


    OBJECTIVE:
    Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

    METHODS:
    We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

    RESULTS:
    During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
    Thank you for this redrock and for your other links. This is the kind of research I was interested I seeing.
    btw...this 13 of 626 is only 2.07%
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • pandora
    pandora Posts: 21,855
    redrock wrote:
    JonnyPistachio wrote:

    Thank you for that. This supports what many of us have been saying for awhile now. I hope some can understand and digest this.

    It's a small study but it is from a independent and reliable source with no ulterior motives.


    The 'fact sheet' from the gun owners association... ah yes... the famous 2.5m figure.. Hmmm... :lol:

    A bit of an explanation of this figure...

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html (to start with - lists various studies about this)

    and...

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... ID7R_KeBLw

    Interesting reading.

    This could go on for ever but I won't play the game. Each and everyone knows how to google. I may be too bold in assuming all would understand validity of sources though.
    Have you researched your group?
    Before you claim them to be reliable and independent which assumes
    no connection to gun opponents.

    Yes, small study would be an understatement and yes statistics are twisted to fit agendas
    both sides manipulating.
    dimitrispearljam wrote:
    redrock wrote:

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."

    i dont think someone need to be Einstain to understand that...


    No one has to be Einstein to understand guns save lives ...
    or that we all have the right to protect our own life

    It doesn't take being an Einstein to know that by passing more laws on the law abiding
    will do nothing to hinder crime nor keep the law abiding safe, quite the contrary...

    It doesn't take an Einstein to encourage gun safety not discourage gun ownership.
    To be respecting of the rights of others ...
    not limiting them because they themselves see no need for a gun in their own lives.

    I wonder if it was reversed and it was required everyone must own a gun,
    have one in the home for protection, going against the beliefs of some here.
    How would those gun opponents feel about the loss of choice?
    That someone would tell them they must protect themselves with a firearm
    though they do not want to.
    This the same for those who need, want and have the right to own a gun.
  • dimitrispearljam
    dimitrispearljam Posts: 139,725
    pandora wrote:


    No one has to be Einstein to understand guns save lives ...


    dimitrispearljam wrote:
    btw...this 13 of 626 is only 2.07%
    give me a 51% that guns save people than kill people and i promise ill rethink it

    edit..i:in 2 days we have training shooting at work..
    we take 3 hours lesson,-training safety guide etc.. just for 2-3 seconds we shoot...
    i hope ill see Misss Ruby around
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • comebackgirl
    comebackgirl Posts: 9,885
    dimitrispearljam wrote:
    comebackgirl wrote:
    redrock wrote:
    An interesting little tidbit. Though only an abstract, it does give some insight:

    "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.
    Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.
    Source

    Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.


    OBJECTIVE:
    Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

    METHODS:
    We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

    RESULTS:
    During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
    Thank you for this redrock and for your other links. This is the kind of research I was interested I seeing.
    btw...this 13 of 626 is only 2.07%
    Such a small portion. We always hear about the stories that make the news for one reason or another and then hold thrm as our example, which happens with a lot of things. Small studies can still provide significant findings. What matters is if the results are significant (statistically speaking). I've been wanting to see some studies from peer reviewed sources. This and the link from Harvard have been particularly helpful.
    tumblr_mg4nc33pIX1s1mie8o1_400.gif

    "I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
  • pandora
    pandora Posts: 21,855
    hedonist wrote:
    pandora wrote:
    hedonist wrote:
    I literally laughed out loud at that.

    (OBVIOUS DISCLAIMER - I am not advocating the actual taking down of Miss Ruby)
    it's even a joy to annoy some with it ;)
    Good lord! I thought the disclaimer would've prevented a tome of a response.

    You really think my or Cosmo's comments meant a desired wipeout of the now-infamous-on-the-AMT Miss Ruby?

    You're not unintelligent, pandora, but I feel you've strapped stubborn blinders on about this.

    So be it.
    Of course Cosmo was making a dumb joke at another's expense, something you found funny
    I guess. No big deal but what was behind it was.

    That's is always an attractive quality though laughing at another's expense.
    I wonder what her loved ones would think.

    It's a real life story of an old woman in fear...
    being victimized who fought back...

    I have told her story and focus on her story for a reason...
    and I know you are not unintelligent so you know why that is,
    why I speak of this woman while some make fun.
    Very insensitive some are and some even have the gall to call her story nonsense,
    unbelievable the lack of respect.

    It is belittling and dismissive to disregard her life and her story.
    She is the core to a new movement of taking back our cities
    and our lives from crime and she is 89! :clap:

    Embrace the heros, you will be hearing about more them
    one would think another human being would think that was a very good thing.
    Stopping the bad guys, refusing to be a victim.
  • JonnyPistachio
    JonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    pandora wrote:
    It doesn't take being an Einstein to know that by passing more laws on the law abiding
    will do nothing to hinder crime nor keep the law abiding safe, quite the contrary...

    There's no way you can predict that.
    What about this Holmes person who bought an AR-15. What if he was dead set on going on this killing spree and couldnt get his hands on one? Maybe he settles for the handguns and kills fewer people. I know, you're going to say he'd do anything to get it legally or not. I disagree...but that's the point, none of us can predict. All we can do is look at the facts -- that there are a lot of accidents that outweigh hero situations, and some people are using legally obtained weapons such as AR-15s (that many feel are unnecessary to the public) to commit mass murder.
    pandora wrote:
    It doesn't take an Einstein to encourage gun safety not discourage gun ownership.
    To be respecting of the rights of others ...
    not limiting them because they themselves see no need for a gun in their own lives.

    Encourage gun safety? We all know how far that will go.
    And again, most here arent for an all out ban -- and most arent so selfish that we want better laws because we dont have a personal need for a gun in our own lives. Thats just silly. I wish you would stop making it like its a personal crusade. We just think things could be better and lives could be saved. I'm sick of seeing kids shot in an accidents all the time.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • dimitrispearljam
    dimitrispearljam Posts: 139,725
    comebackgirl wrote:
    dimitrispearljam wrote:
    btw...this 13 of 626 is only 2.07%
    Such a small portion. We always hear about the stories that make the news for one reason or another and then hold thrm as our example, which happens with a lot of things. Small studies can still provide significant findings. What matters is if the results are significant (statistically speaking). I've been wanting to see some studies from peer reviewed sources. This and the link from Harvard have been particularly helpful.
    Elana...is how media works..
    but how many stories of self-defence like that with that lady will exist out there..5-10-20----??

    there comes one crazy fucker,take some guns so easily no matter how fucknuts he is
    noone ask him,who is,what he needs them for,if he is crazy,or what..
    and in 2-3 min he shoots 50 people...
    i dont need any other exable to understand what guns can do...and to be against them..
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • pandora
    pandora Posts: 21,855
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    pandora wrote:
    It doesn't take being an Einstein to know that by passing more laws on the law abiding
    will do nothing to hinder crime nor keep the law abiding safe, quite the contrary...

    There's no way you can predict that.
    What about this Holmes person who bought an AR-15. What if he was dead set on going on this killing spree and couldnt get his hands on one? Maybe he settles for the handguns and kills fewer people. I know, you're going to say he'd do anything to get it legally or not. I disagree...but that's the point, none of us can predict. All we can do is look at the facts -- that there are a lot of accidents that outweigh hero situations, and some people are using legally obtained weapons such as AR-15s (that many feel are unnecessary to the public) to commit mass murder.
    pandora wrote:
    It doesn't take an Einstein to encourage gun safety not discourage gun ownership.
    To be respecting of the rights of others ...
    not limiting them because they themselves see no need for a gun in their own lives.

    Encourage gun safety? We all know how far that will go.
    And again, most here arent for an all out ban -- and most arent so selfish that we want better laws because we dont have a personal need for a gun in our own lives. Thats just silly. I wish you would stop making it like its a personal crusade. We just think things could be better and lives could be saved. I'm sick of seeing a kids shot in an accidents all the time.
    I will find some statistics that show the laws on the law abiding are not stopping crime here in the US

    those states with the strictest laws, etc show the laws do not work on the criminals..
    gee I wonder why :fp:

    But you could care less about the lives saved by those who had a gun ?? ...
    kids won't be dying if gun safety laws are in place so why don't you try that instead
    of taking guns from law abiding responsible people?
  • comebackgirl
    comebackgirl Posts: 9,885
    dimitrispearljam wrote:
    comebackgirl wrote:
    dimitrispearljam wrote:
    btw...this 13 of 626 is only 2.07%
    Such a small portion. We always hear about the stories that make the news for one reason or another and then hold thrm as our example, which happens with a lot of things. Small studies can still provide significant findings. What matters is if the results are significant (statistically speaking). I've been wanting to see some studies from peer reviewed sources. This and the link from Harvard have been particularly helpful.
    Elana...is how media works..
    but how many stories of self-defence like that with that lady will exist out there..5-10-20----??

    there comes one crazy fucker,take some guns so easily no matter how fucknuts he is
    noone ask him,who is,what he needs them for,if he is crazy,or what..
    and in 2-3 min he shoots 50 people...
    i dont need any other exable to understand what guns can do...and to be against them..
    I agree. That's why media literacy is so important. The way things are reported has a huge impact. That's initially what I took issue with in the Miss Ruby story.

    I think we've seen enough examples lately of people we all agree shouldn't have acess to guns being able to legal obtaining them to have cause for concern. The hardest thing is that hard as we try, we just can't predict behavior. Sometimes we come close, but there are no absolutes. It's a scary risk to take and in some cases, tragic.
    tumblr_mg4nc33pIX1s1mie8o1_400.gif

    "I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    hedonist wrote:
    Good lord! I thought the disclaimer would've prevented a tone of a response.
    You really think my or Cosmo's comments meant a desired wipeout of the now-infamous-on-the-AMT Miss Ruby?
    So be it.
    ...
    Well... you gotta admit, at least the consistency is still there... missing the point 99.99917% of the time.
    ...
    The original comment was not so much directed at that old Ruby lady, rather, it was aimed more towards the never-ending, incessant, long, repetative re-hashed over-use of her story in order to support a position in a complicated, multi-faceted Constitutional discussion. It's like having a knitting needle plunged into my ear.
    ...
    Note: Having a knitting needle plunged into the ear is a figurative narration and does not imply that plunging a knitting needle into one's ear is neither recommended or condoned.
    ...
    Don't you hate it when you have to explain jokes to the ones whose head they fly over?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • JonnyPistachio
    JonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    pandora wrote:
    I will find some statistics that show the laws on the law abiding are not stopping crime here in the US

    I highly doubt you'll find that...How about you just take a look at this link that cincy posted a few days back:
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... izona.html

    The states with the MOST permissive gun laws had the most gun deaths per 100,000.
    pandora wrote:
    those states with the strictest laws, etc show the laws do not work on the criminals..
    gee I wonder why :fp:
    facepalm all you want, we're not talking specifically about criminals. How about you stop tailoring this to fit your agenda? You're wrong about the laws.
    pandora wrote:
    But you could care less about the lives saved by those who had a gun ?? ...
    :? :roll:
    Again, please stop with the drama. You're assuming too much. Of course I appreciated your gun savior Ms.Ruby. She had a handgun bought legally and was responsible. She didnt have an AR-15 she bought on the internet without a background check. If she had the latter, i'd be concerned.
    pandora wrote:
    kids won't be dying if gun safety laws are in place so why don't you try that instead
    of taking guns from law abiding responsible people?
    You can assume that, but ITS NOT WORKING. And what other gun safety laws would work better? what do you mean by gun safety laws anyway? Mandatory classes where they explain to owners that the AR-15 they just purchased could kill a kid if its not locked up correctly?? I'd go for that. Would it help a little? Maybe.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • ComeToTX
    ComeToTX Austin Posts: 8,063
    From the Onion. So true.

    WASHINGTON—In the wake of the shooting that left seven dead at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, WI, the nation's assault weapons held a press conference today in which they pleaded with lawmakers to please just make them illegal.

    Speaking on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of highly accessible American firearms that are reportedly "tired of taking the lives of innocent people," a group of military-designated, semiautomatic weapons pleaded for legislation that would immediately take them off the market and "far, far away from any psychos who would want to murder civilians."

    "Every day we have to live with the overwhelming guilt and sorrow of knowing we've been used to brutally and senselessly murder people," said an M16, who read from a prepared statement while flanked by more than a dozen fellow assault weapons. "How many more human beings do we have to kill before lawmakers finally prohibit private citizens from buying us? Enough is enough already."

    "Christ, do you have any idea how many children there are out there whom I could potentially murder at any given moment?" the 5.56 mm rifle added. "Don’t you at least want to keep us away from your kids?"

    Maintaining composure while delivering the address, the group of highly powerful guns asked that lawmakers "at the bare minimum, for God's sake," raise restrictions so that mentally ill people could no longer get their hands on weapons and use them to kill people in public places.

    The firearms furthered their argument by asking if anyone present could provide "even one logical reason why a civilian would ever need an assault weapon in the first place."

    "I understand the second amendment means a lot to some people, but if it means we're going to be in the hands of violent, mentally disturbed individuals, then I, personally, don't want any part of it," said a Glock 19 semiautomatic sidearm, taking the stage as its fellow assault weapons silently nodded in the background. "I don't want to have to look terrified, helpless people directly in the eye while killing them. Do you people have any idea what that's like? It’s an absolute nightmare."

    The consortium of military-grade weapons then proceeded to discard numerous rounds of armor-piercing bullets on a table in front of them, begging reporters to "take these away, take them all away before anyone else gets hurt."

    "Every time this happens, whether it's Wisconsin or Aurora or Arizona, you all talk about finally criminalizing us, but it never, ever happens," said an emotional AK-47, who was being comforted by a pair of TEC-9s. "We're tired of being used to kill people, goddamn it. And we're scared. We're scared of what we're going to be used for next."

    "If you people have any sense of common decency, you will do the right thing here," the assault rifle added. "Please, please, look into your hearts."

    At press time, the nation's assault weapons returned to their homes, where their owners repeatedly and aggressively emptied them into moving cardboard targets.
    This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    Wow... seeing this listed is scary reading:
    Colorado Gun Laws

    Colorado residents voted overwhelmingly to close the gun show loophole in November of 2000, but Colorado elected officials have done nothing more to protect its residents from gun violence. Amendment 22, to close the gun show loophole by requiring Brady background checks on all gun show sales, passed by a margin of 70%-30%.


    The following is the sad state of gun laws in Colorado:

    No ban on assault weapons
    No ban on high capacity ammunition clips
    No registration
    No gun owner licensing
    No background checks for on line gun sales and other person to person gun transactions
    No police discretion to determine who carries concealed handguns in public
    No 'good cause' required for concealed carry permit applicants
    No limit on the amount of handguns you can buy in one purchase
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    Cosmo wrote:
    Well... you gotta admit, at least the consistency is still there... missing the point 99.99917% of the time.
    ...
    The original comment was not so much directed at that old Ruby lady, rather, it was aimed more towards the never-ending, incessant, long, repetative re-hashed over-use of her story in order to support a position in a complicated, multi-faceted Constitutional discussion. It's like having a knitting needle plunged into my ear.
    ...
    Note: Having a knitting needle plunged into the ear is a figurative narration and does not imply that plunging a knitting needle into one's ear is neither recommended or condoned.
    ...
    Don't you hate it when you have to explain jokes to the ones whose head they fly over?
    Amen, brotha.
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    redrock wrote:
    No ban on assault weapons
    No ban on high capacity ammunition clips
    No registration
    No gun owner licensing
    No background checks for on line gun sales and other person to person gun transactions
    No police discretion to determine who carries concealed handguns in public
    No 'good cause' required for concealed carry permit applicants
    No limit on the amount of handguns you can buy in one purchase
    Scary indeed, especially the first two. And combined? Holy shit.
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    Stumbled upon this site - the Brady Campaign. Lots of info there. Yes, it's a campaign for stricter controls so not 'neutral' but it has a lot of pertinent and relevant info (such as the gun laws in Colorado from my previous post)
    http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/

    godblessamerica2010sm.jpg
  • redrock
    redrock Posts: 18,341
    ComeToTX wrote:
    From the Onion. So true. .

    Astute article :mrgreen: .
This discussion has been closed.

Categories