|
Death statistics
On 2/19/13 5:39 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/19/2013 5:24 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 2/19/13 5:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Make cell phones and computer screens blank out at 10 mph.. but they will never do that... Yeah...what happens if you are a passenger in a car or on a train or in a bus? You really don't know anything about anything. Maybe you could go a few minutes without posting lame insults to usenet? But of course typical liberal, that would save millions of lives, but it would inconvenience you so of course you are against it. Not like you are working all that hard to pay back the folks you stole from with your several bankruptcies... And once again you demonstrate you don't know anything about anything. I know you are not part of the workaday world, but millions of Americans are, and they find it necessary to make and receive phone calls or emails while they commute to work. They commute all sorts of ways, including in vehicles of various types they aren't driving. Many commute long distances. So, your proposal is that they folks should not be able to use their smart phones/tablets/whatever because once the vehicle is going more than 10 mph, it should blank out? You don't know anything about anything. -- I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work for me. |
Death statistics
On 2/19/2013 6:07 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 2/19/13 5:39 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/19/2013 5:24 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 2/19/13 5:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Make cell phones and computer screens blank out at 10 mph.. but they will never do that... Yeah...what happens if you are a passenger in a car or on a train or in a bus? You really don't know anything about anything. Maybe you could go a few minutes without posting lame insults to usenet? But of course typical liberal, that would save millions of lives, but it would inconvenience you so of course you are against it. Not like you are working all that hard to pay back the folks you stole from with your several bankruptcies... And once again you demonstrate you don't know anything about anything. Do you really think I am gonna' read any of this? LOL! |
Death statistics
On 2/19/13 6:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/19/2013 6:07 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 2/19/13 5:39 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 2/19/2013 5:24 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 2/19/13 5:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: Make cell phones and computer screens blank out at 10 mph.. but they will never do that... Yeah...what happens if you are a passenger in a car or on a train or in a bus? You really don't know anything about anything. Maybe you could go a few minutes without posting lame insults to usenet? But of course typical liberal, that would save millions of lives, but it would inconvenience you so of course you are against it. Not like you are working all that hard to pay back the folks you stole from with your several bankruptcies... And once again you demonstrate you don't know anything about anything. Do you really think I am gonna' read any of this? LOL! Hey, most of your posts make absolutely no sense. Why should your latest idea of having everyone's cells shut off at 10 mph be any different. Oh...my wife just messaged me from her iPhone. Her commuter bus, the one on which is she a passenger and the one that travels at more than 10 mph except when it is stuck in traffic arrived at her stop downtown 10 minutes late so she probably will be home a littler later than usual. Under your plan, she wouldn't be able to send such a message. You're a moron. -- I'm a *Liberal* because I knew the militant christian fundamentalist racist militaristic xenophobic corporate oligarchy wasn't going to work for me. |
Death statistics
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:12:01 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote: On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:00:48 -0800, Urin Asshole wrote: On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:57:32 -0500, Salmonbait wrote: 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 Never said he did. I said by that twisted ****ing logic ****bait. Not your words? "You have a product that's killing 1000s of people, but since it doesn't kill as many as cancer, it's ok. " You, Mr. U. Asshole, make a good Harry. Salmonbait Sorry Salmonbreath.. I giving an example of twisted logic. Feel free to foam at the mouth but you're still an idiot. |
Death statistics
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. If I buy a product that just doesn't work out well when I get it home, I can return it and get a refund. With an elected official, whey you vote you are making a two year commitment for any mistakes you have made in your judgment in selecting the elected official. You can try and return it but often times it isn't worth the effort. |
Death statistics
In article ,
says... 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 Doctor Drew's fees took a nose dive today. |
Death statistics
On 2/19/2013 4:55 PM, Salmonbait wrote:
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 I don't think he has the gutsy V6 His new boat is 3 times the princecraft. It's hard to believe he can tow that hefty boat with that pyrite gray devil of a rave 4. |
Death statistics
On 2/19/2013 4:57 PM, Salmonbait wrote:
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! That was foad's comment. Are you confused or is foad really urine A. |
Death statistics
On 2/19/2013 5:07 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 2/19/2013 2:00 PM, Meyer wrote: 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. Nope... I just look at the screen. Usually by the first sentence I see if it's kevin, don, asshole, the other asshole.. etc.. and I skip to the next post. I never see the meat as none of them can write a decent post... Actually there never seems to be any meat in their posts. They are all pansys. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com