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.
Permits require background checks and every purchase of a firearm at a
dealer involves a telephone check and taking of an electronic
fingerprint to verify that you are who you say you are and your permit
is valid. You must present a valid permit even for ammunition
purchases. But, our me-too governor has proposed and is pushing for
even more restrictive laws including jail time for purchasing more
than one firearm per month for existing permit holders, making
getting a permit more difficult, and putting a heavy state tax (up to
50%) on all ammunition sales (even range target practice rounds). I
don't see how that is going to affect the homicide rate by firearms in
the country.
All it is is political posturing in reaction to a horrible but
isolated event caused by a kid who was severely disturbed .... as are
all cases of mass murders.

By that twisted ****ing logic, we might as well do away with the NTSB
and all the other safety protocols, since they result in fewer deaths.
How about faulty cribs. What a load of horse****. You have a product
that's killing 1000s of people, but since it doesn't kill as many as
cancer, it's ok.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:25:55 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:06:23 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:

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!!! What does ANY of the above have to do with ANY
state's citizens having a "say" in their government? Do you know
(probably not) that the people that run states are hired BY those
"citizens"? It's called voting.

Yet people in other states want to tell people who do vote for things
in their own states that they are wrong.
If DC and Chicago want unconstitutional laws, that is between them and
their voters (or the SCOTUS). Just don't try to impose that on other
people in other states.

More horse****. It's ok if one state pollutes the air that wafts over
the border or pollutes a river that flows into another state?
According to you, the Federal government has no role, never.

On 2/19/13 3:13 PM, Urin Asshole 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.



By that twisted ****ing logic, we might as well do away with the NTSB
and all the other safety protocols, since they result in fewer deaths.
How about faulty cribs. What a load of horse****. You have a product
that's killing 1000s of people, but since it doesn't kill as many as
cancer, it's ok.




It's no more rational to compare cancer deaths to gunshot wound deaths
than it is to compare traffic deaths to gunshot wound deaths.

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

wrote in message ...

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:44:59 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .


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.

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

Interestingly, I recently looked up the statistics on automobile
accidents.

By far, the most occur with drivers between the ages of 45 and 55.
It's something like 20 percent.

Old farts (like me) account for less than 6 percent.


The question is who is in serious or fatal accidents. If you believe
the insurance companies, it is 25 and under.

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

Scroll down to Table 1114. Looks like the age groups of 25 to 34
and 45 to 54 have the highest number of fatal accidents.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1114.pdf

"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

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.
Permits require background checks and every purchase of a firearm at
a
dealer involves a telephone check and taking of an electronic
fingerprint to verify that you are who you say you are and your
permit
is valid. You must present a valid permit even for ammunition
purchases. But, our me-too governor has proposed and is pushing
for
even more restrictive laws including jail time for purchasing more
than one firearm per month for existing permit holders, making
getting a permit more difficult, and putting a heavy state tax (up
to
50%) on all ammunition sales (even range target practice rounds).
I
don't see how that is going to affect the homicide rate by firearms
in
the country.
All it is is political posturing in reaction to a horrible but
isolated event caused by a kid who was severely disturbed .... as are
all cases of mass murders.

By that twisted ****ing logic, we might as well do away with the NTSB
and all the other safety protocols, since they result in fewer deaths.
How about faulty cribs. What a load of horse****. You have a product
that's killing 1000s of people, but since it doesn't kill as many as
cancer, it's ok.

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

The numbers were presented to put things in perspective. Of course
any deaths due to firearms is not ok .... but the number, especially
in homicides, is not what is being hyped by the media and others and
some politicians are over-reacting IMO, like the governor of my state.

In article ,
says...

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!

Once again, the stupid-ness over guns comes out. Are you channeling that
idiot darling of the right Ted Nugent? The difference that the narrow
minded fails to see is that guns are made to kill, cars are not.

On 2/19/13 3:37 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:45:32 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

Or they could drive down to Virginia and get one at a gun show.


Please. There are all sorts of fake "private sales" taking place at
Virginia gun shows, both inside the show and outside in the parking lot.
It has been documented many times. No background check
transactions...because, well, they are "private sales" from non-dealer
dealers.


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

On 2/19/13 3:46 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Urin Asshole" wrote in message
...

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.
Permits require background checks and every purchase of a firearm at a
dealer involves a telephone check and taking of an electronic
fingerprint to verify that you are who you say you are and your permit
is valid. You must present a valid permit even for ammunition
purchases. But, our me-too governor has proposed and is pushing for
even more restrictive laws including jail time for purchasing more
than one firearm per month for existing permit holders, making
getting a permit more difficult, and putting a heavy state tax (up to
50%) on all ammunition sales (even range target practice rounds). I
don't see how that is going to affect the homicide rate by firearms in
the country.
All it is is political posturing in reaction to a horrible but
isolated event caused by a kid who was severely disturbed .... as are
all cases of mass murders.

By that twisted ****ing logic, we might as well do away with the NTSB
and all the other safety protocols, since they result in fewer deaths.
How about faulty cribs. What a load of horse****. You have a product
that's killing 1000s of people, but since it doesn't kill as many as
cancer, it's ok.

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

The numbers were presented to put things in perspective. Of course any
deaths due to firearms is not ok .... but the number, especially in
homicides, is not what is being hyped by the media and others and some
politicians are over-reacting IMO, like the governor of my state.


How are they overreacting? Because more people die from cancer?

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

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:19:17 -0500, Meyer wrote:

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?

If it's a 2009 with a v6, and he's really full of bravado, he can tow 2000lbs. That doesn't mean he
can *stop* it though.


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 Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:13:19 -0800, Urin Asshole 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.
Permits require background checks and every purchase of a firearm at a
dealer involves a telephone check and taking of an electronic
fingerprint to verify that you are who you say you are and your permit
is valid. You must present a valid permit even for ammunition
purchases. But, our me-too governor has proposed and is pushing for
even more restrictive laws including jail time for purchasing more
than one firearm per month for existing permit holders, making
getting a permit more difficult, and putting a heavy state tax (up to
50%) on all ammunition sales (even range target practice rounds). I
don't see how that is going to affect the homicide rate by firearms in
the country.
All it is is political posturing in reaction to a horrible but
isolated event caused by a kid who was severely disturbed .... as are
all cases of mass murders.

By that twisted ****ing logic, we might as well do away with the NTSB
and all the other safety protocols, since they result in fewer deaths.
How about faulty cribs. What a load of horse****. You have a product
that's killing 1000s of people, but since it doesn't kill as many as
cancer, it's ok.

Where, Mr. U. Asshole, did he say 'it's OK'?


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!