In article ,
says...

On 2/19/2013 11:06 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/19/2013 9:56 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 2/19/2013 9:55 AM, Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 2/19/13 9:00 AM, Eisboch wrote:
For kicks I looked up the leading causes of death in the USA. Data
is
the final numbers from 2010 as published by the Center for Disease
Control.
Surprisingly, firearms related deaths didn't make the top ten and
firearms related homicides weren't even close to the top ten. It's
interesting that deaths caused by traffic accidents numbered about 3
times those of homicides involving firearms, but all the focus is on
more gun control laws.

Personal note: This is not a excuse of deaths caused by firearms,
but
rather an attempt to put it all in perspective.

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Traffic accidents: 33,808
Firearms: 30,470 (19,392 suicides, 11,078 homicides)


There are solid statistically based predictions that state that
firearms
deaths will exceed traffic accident deaths in a couple of years.

Oh, you forgot to list the number of Americans who die of old age.

On a more serious note, I only took one college-level statistics
course
and have forgotten most of what I ever learned about that sort of
math,
so I asked a family member who has taken four graduate-level stats
courses about these sorts of comparisons (gun deaths vs. car deaths
vs.
cancer deaths, et cetera) and got a chuckle in response. "Such
comparisions are based on silliness and are statistically absurd. Yes,
more people die of cancer than of gunshot wounds but...so what?"

==========================

The number that surprised me was deaths by homicide involving
firearms. I read the same thing you did regarding firearm deaths
exceeding traffic deaths by 2015 however that includes suicides.
Unfortunately, although a gun is the method of choice for most
suicides, further gun restrictions won't eliminate them. As stated
in my post, the data is presented simply to put things in
perspective. 11,078 firearms related homicides is too many of course
but it's a reflection of violence in our society ... which also cannot
be totally eliminated. There are bad people in the world. But the
number is not the huge number that some of the media and proponents of
even more gun control measure would like you to believe.

My state has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

Funny how it's the bigger nanny states, they really don't want their
citizens to have a "say" in their government... Mass is a perfect example.

You stupid little fool!!!

You fat old drunk... do you really think I am gonna' read anything you
write?

I know, you've stated here before, ignorant and proud of it, got it!!
ANd of course, you won't answer the question!!!!!

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:08:32 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:58:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The number of suicides by gun might drop if it were a bit more difficult
and time consuming to buy pistols. In my state, there's a waiting period
that ends up running about 10 days from purchase to approval by the
state police. If you are suicidal and want a gun to end it and you don't
have one, you might change your mind in 10 days.

Not likely. Most people who seriously contemplate suicide, eventually
decide to do it. Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US and
they have virtually zero firearms.

Or they could drive down to Virginia and get one at a gun show. Or, just go ask any drug dealer in
DC if they could borrow their pistol for 30 seconds.


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if...
....the death penalty is a 'no-no', but death by Hellfire
*without* a trial is AOK!

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:08:57 -0800, jps wrote:



Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo

that are owned by the public?



What would be the point?



Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell

an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? Why

can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own

drones? Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I

want to?



Why am I being punished?



That is a red herring, those things have been illegal for 50 years





I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were

incapable of shooting the person holding them. Would they find

another way? What percentage? Should we make other, less violent

methods available to suicidal persons?



The lack of guns has not affected the suicide rate in Japan, one of

the left's favorite example of gun control.





Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's say

under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those

other maladies? I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those

stats above? Not so many.



The ratio of young people who die in cars is pretty close to guns.



Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory

breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat

belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)

That might save more people than banning guns.


Might not be a bad idea...doesn't seem sensible to put autos on the road capable of double the legal speed...or more.
Some kind of limiter could keep speed down to 75 or so while not limiting towing capacity.

On 2/19/2013 11:26 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/19/13 11:08 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:58:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The number of suicides by gun might drop if it were a bit more difficult
and time consuming to buy pistols. In my state, there's a waiting period
that ends up running about 10 days from purchase to approval by the
state police. If you are suicidal and want a gun to end it and you don't
have one, you might change your mind in 10 days.

Not likely. Most people who seriously contemplate suicide, eventually
decide to do it.

- - -

You have valid statistics on that?


Can you prove him wrong? Testimony from the fake doctor isn't proof.

On 2/19/2013 11:49 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/19/13 11:33 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/19/2013 11:06 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 2/19/2013 9:56 AM, Meyer wrote:
On 2/19/2013 9:55 AM, Salmonbait wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:20 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 2/19/13 9:00 AM, Eisboch wrote:
For kicks I looked up the leading causes of death in the USA.
Data
is
the final numbers from 2010 as published by the Center for Disease
Control.
Surprisingly, firearms related deaths didn't make the top ten and
firearms related homicides weren't even close to the top ten. It's
interesting that deaths caused by traffic accidents numbered
about 3
times those of homicides involving firearms, but all the focus
is on
more gun control laws.

Personal note: This is not a excuse of deaths caused by firearms,
but
rather an attempt to put it all in perspective.

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Traffic accidents: 33,808
Firearms: 30,470 (19,392 suicides, 11,078 homicides)


There are solid statistically based predictions that state that
firearms
deaths will exceed traffic accident deaths in a couple of years.

Oh, you forgot to list the number of Americans who die of old
age.

On a more serious note, I only took one college-level statistics
course
and have forgotten most of what I ever learned about that sort of
math,
so I asked a family member who has taken four graduate-level stats
courses about these sorts of comparisons (gun deaths vs. car deaths
vs.
cancer deaths, et cetera) and got a chuckle in response. "Such
comparisions are based on silliness and are statistically absurd.
Yes,
more people die of cancer than of gunshot wounds but...so what?"

==========================

The number that surprised me was deaths by homicide involving
firearms. I read the same thing you did regarding firearm deaths
exceeding traffic deaths by 2015 however that includes suicides.
Unfortunately, although a gun is the method of choice for most
suicides, further gun restrictions won't eliminate them. As stated
in my post, the data is presented simply to put things in
perspective. 11,078 firearms related homicides is too many of
course
but it's a reflection of violence in our society ... which also
cannot
be totally eliminated. There are bad people in the world. But
the
number is not the huge number that some of the media and
proponents of
even more gun control measure would like you to believe.

My state has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

Funny how it's the bigger nanny states, they really don't want their
citizens to have a "say" in their government... Mass is a perfect
example.

You stupid little fool!!!

You fat old drunk... do you really think I am gonna' read anything you
write?



Yup. Because...you do.

He tripped himself up just as you have done on many occasions.

On 2/19/13 12:40 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:26:55 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/19/13 11:08 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:58:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

The number of suicides by gun might drop if it were a bit more difficult
and time consuming to buy pistols. In my state, there's a waiting period
that ends up running about 10 days from purchase to approval by the
state police. If you are suicidal and want a gun to end it and you don't
have one, you might change your mind in 10 days.

Not likely. Most people who seriously contemplate suicide, eventually
decide to do it.

- - -

You have valid statistics on that?

What exactly, That people who commit suicide have a history of
"gestures"? That is easy, or are you going for something else?

This is all over the news right now because of Mindy McCredy



What, exactly? The percentage of those who contemplate suicide who
actually decide to do it. I'm aware that many at risk of suicide give
signs of it.

--
I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist
racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work
for me.

On 2/19/2013 12:52 PM, True North wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:37:36 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:08:57 -0800, jps wrote:



Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo

that are owned by the public?



What would be the point?



Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell

an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? Why

can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own

drones? Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I

want to?



Why am I being punished?



That is a red herring, those things have been illegal for 50 years





I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were

incapable of shooting the person holding them. Would they find

another way? What percentage? Should we make other, less violent

methods available to suicidal persons?



The lack of guns has not affected the suicide rate in Japan, one of

the left's favorite example of gun control.





Lastly, what do you suppose the percentages of young people (let's say

under 20) that die in gun related homicides or suicides vs all those

other maladies? I'm sure a lot die in car accidents but all those

stats above? Not so many.



The ratio of young people who die in cars is pretty close to guns.



Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory

breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat

belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)

That might save more people than banning guns.


Might not be a bad idea...doesn't seem sensible to put autos on the road capable of double the legal speed...or more.
Some kind of limiter could keep speed down to 75 or so while not limiting towing capacity.

What's the towing capacity of your Rav 4?

On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:37:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:


Maybe we should ban any car that goes over 70 MPH, put mandatory
breatholizers on the ignition and keep them from running if the seat
belts are not fastened. (they actually tried that in 1974)
That might save more people than banning guns.

Nah... just install a device that blocks the driver from *all* smart phone usage, application of makeup, or eating/drinking, and we're saving thousands of lives.

Oh, and no dogs in your lap when driving. The kids damn well better be strapped in!

On 2/19/2013 11:08 AM, jps wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:10:15 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

For kicks I looked up the leading causes of death in the USA. Data
is the final numbers from 2010 as published by the Center for
Disease
Control.
Surprisingly, firearms related deaths didn't make the top ten and
firearms related homicides weren't even close to the top ten. It's
interesting that deaths caused by traffic accidents numbered about 3
times those of homicides involving firearms, but all the focus is on
more gun control laws.

Personal note: This is not a excuse of deaths caused by firearms,
but
rather an attempt to put it all in perspective.

Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Traffic accidents: 33,808
Firearms: 30,470 (19,392 suicides, 11,078 homicides)

Yes, all true, BUT, the thing is, a lot of the natural causes aren't
preventable, and besides, the ONLY one of the above that is
manufactured
to kill is the firearm.

---------------------------------------------

There are millions of gun owners who use, collect and enjoy firearms
who have never killed anything with one, let alone another human.
Realistically, it's a tiny percentage of the population who have and
most of them obtained their weapons illegally.

I am for permits, background checks and I don't object to the taking
of electronic fingerprints for each purchase. But what good does it
do to punish the law abiding population for the actions of a violent
few by limiting the number of purchases and taxing the bananas out of
ammunition?

Why is it considered punishment to limit the number of guns and ammo
that are owned by the public?

Is it punishment that I want to own a tank with the capacity to shell
an area of the desert that wouldn't be affected by my hobby? Why
can't I own surface to air missles so that I can shoot down my own
drones? Why can't I own a mortar setup so I can play with it when I
want to?

Why am I being punished?

I wonder what would happen with the suicide stats if guns were
incapable of shooting the person holding them. Would they find
another way? What percentage? Should we make other, less violent
methods available to suicidal persons?

Might I suggest Harri Kari by falling on a #2 lead pencil. Cheap quiet
and less messy.

The lack of guns has not affected the suicide rate in Japan, one of
the left's favorite example of gun control.

Cherry picking different cultures. We don't chop off hands for
stealing here either.

Let The punishment fit the crime. I can envision Harry tapping out
messages to rec boats with his nose. Sweeeet.