Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

In article ,
says...

On 9/19/13 9:21 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:34:32 -0400, BAR wrote:



How is a diner involved in interstate commerce?

I suppose someone could take the 1964 civil rights act to the SCOTUS
but it hasn't happened yet.




Restaurants are covered under the Public Accommodations section of the
Civil Rights Law of 1964. That would be the law that drove the southern
white Democratic racists out of that party and into the waiting arms of
the GOP, where they and their descendents still reside.

Again, I can still refuse service to anyone I choose. I just can't do it
in violation of the Civil Rights laws.

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:30:54 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:38:46 -0700, jps wrote:


Researchers in the United States claim to have established a
convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide,
according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health,
challenges the National Rifle Association?s claim that increased gun
ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.

Covering 30 years from 1981 and all 50 US states, it determined that
for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a
given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.

In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the
study used a proxy variable ? the percentage of a state?s suicides
committed with a firearm ? that has been validated in previous
research.

The study, led by Boston University community health sciences
professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December
2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut.

?In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown ? many states are
considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths,? said
Siegel in a statement.

?This research is the strongest to date to document that states with
higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers
of deaths from firearm-related homicides,? he said.

?It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall
prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates.?

The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent.

The mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate stretched from 0.9 percent
per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 1.8 percent in Louisiana, with an
average for all states of four per 100,000.

The study also acknowledged a long-term decline in firearm homicide
for all states, from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in
2010.

Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in
the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is
available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Cite?

Loogy?

You stupid old fool, can you not read: "Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention"????

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:43:50 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:30:54 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:38:46 -0700, jps wrote:


Researchers in the United States claim to have established a
convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide,
according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health,
challenges the National Rifle Association?s claim that increased gun
ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.

Covering 30 years from 1981 and all 50 US states, it determined that
for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a
given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.

In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the
study used a proxy variable ? the percentage of a state?s suicides
committed with a firearm ? that has been validated in previous
research.

The study, led by Boston University community health sciences
professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December
2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut.

?In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown ? many states are
considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths,? said
Siegel in a statement.

?This research is the strongest to date to document that states with
higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers
of deaths from firearm-related homicides,? he said.

?It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall
prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates.?

The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent.

The mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate stretched from 0.9 percent
per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 1.8 percent in Louisiana, with an
average for all states of four per 100,000.

The study also acknowledged a long-term decline in firearm homicide
for all states, from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in
2010.

Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in
the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is
available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Cite?

Loogy?

No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:39:33 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

The parking lot for my
insurance agent, is listed as private parking. No ADA spots. Reason.
Some guy was suing insurance agents all over the state if no handicapped
parking. Even if they had a lot with only 2-3 spaces.

If he did get into court, he would lose

If there are only 3 spaces now, you will end up with 2. One will be a
van accessible space with an 8' access aisle next to it and you can
use the rest for (probably only one) regular parking spot.
If you only have 2 now, guess what? You only have one and it is
handicap only with an access aisle where the other spot used to be.
No regular spots at all.
http://www.ada.gov/restripe.htm

BTW there is a way to move the handicapped spot away from the door.
Put the wheel chair ramp at the other end of the building..

I have to go to ADA training every other year.
This year I took a break from parking lots and wheel chair accessible
toilets. I did the "recreational facility" class

Most of the boat docks you see are illegal, simply waiting for a
complaint. Same with swimming pools. Campgrounds are next.
The DoJ is still working on those regulations but they are coming.

They call it. Employee parking only. Not for public use.

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:32:36 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:39:33 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

The parking lot for my
insurance agent, is listed as private parking. No ADA spots. Reason.
Some guy was suing insurance agents all over the state if no handicapped
parking. Even if they had a lot with only 2-3 spaces.

If he did get into court, he would lose

If there are only 3 spaces now, you will end up with 2. One will be a
van accessible space with an 8' access aisle next to it and you can
use the rest for (probably only one) regular parking spot.
If you only have 2 now, guess what? You only have one and it is
handicap only with an access aisle where the other spot used to be.
No regular spots at all.
http://www.ada.gov/restripe.htm

BTW there is a way to move the handicapped spot away from the door.
Put the wheel chair ramp at the other end of the building..

I have to go to ADA training every other year.
This year I took a break from parking lots and wheel chair accessible
toilets. I did the "recreational facility" class

Most of the boat docks you see are illegal, simply waiting for a
complaint. Same with swimming pools. Campgrounds are next.
The DoJ is still working on those regulations but they are coming.

They call it. Employee parking only. Not for public use.

You should go to one of those classes. The ADA guy would say "does
that mean you would not hire a handicapped person"?
That opens up a whole other can of worms. (and another class"workplace
law")
That is another required CEU course for me.

These ADA classes are increasingly being taught by lawyers, not the
typical builder/architect types who used to do it. This has gone
beyond "reasonable accommodation" into a situation where there are
people who make a living suing people.
The code enforcement officials are caught on the middle and they tend
to err on the side of caution, lest their city be named in the suit
too.

They would install a handicapped spot if there was a handicapped employee.
Basically the suing person was not allowed in the parking lot, so would not
have a right to park there from what I understand.

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:04:46 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

What I said was that a business has the right to refuse service to
anyone they like, you said they didn't. That simply is not true.

It certainly didn't work for the woolworths in Montgomery.

Again, there is a specific reason for that. They could have refused
ANYONE, by simply refusing them. What you can't do is refuse someone for
certain specific reasons.

You go first.

Tell a black guy he can't sit at your lunch counter.

No problem, as long as I am not refusing him service on the basis of
race.
Tell a woman she can't play golf at your public course.

No problem, as long as my reason has nothing to do with gender.


The only people you can refuse are white males. Everyone else has some
protected status.

Horse****.

The only exception is a private club and then you better be able to
prove it is truly private.

Again, I've refused to do business with any number of people without
ever seeing what their race or gender is.

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:11:37 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:




OH, ****. I didn't say that could discriminate based on race. But I can
certainly refuse service to anyone I choose.

That is the same thing Lester Maddox said. He just chose to exclude a
predominant number of blacks along with a few whites. Not good enough.

Horse****. Did a job that the steel subcontractor was a minority owned
company. Because of other reasons, when the time came for the next job,
I said NO.

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:18:24 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in
the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is
available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Cite?

Loogy?

You stupid old fool, can you not read: "Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention"????

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That just demonstrates people are lazy.

Take away the guns and they will find another way.

Asked for a cite, cite given. Of course you'll put a narrow minded spin
on it!

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:18:45 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:43:50 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:30:54 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:38:46 -0700, jps wrote:


Researchers in the United States claim to have established a
convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide,
according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health,
challenges the National Rifle Association?s claim that increased gun
ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.

Covering 30 years from 1981 and all 50 US states, it determined that
for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a
given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.

In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the
study used a proxy variable ? the percentage of a state?s suicides
committed with a firearm ? that has been validated in previous
research.

The study, led by Boston University community health sciences
professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December
2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut.

?In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown ? many states are
considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths,? said
Siegel in a statement.

?This research is the strongest to date to document that states with
higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers
of deaths from firearm-related homicides,? he said.

?It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall
prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates.?

The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent.

The mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate stretched from 0.9 percent
per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 1.8 percent in Louisiana, with an
average for all states of four per 100,000.

The study also acknowledged a long-term decline in firearm homicide
for all states, from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in
2010.

Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in
the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is
available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Cite?

Loogy?

No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

Can't extrapolate the data?

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:23:46 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:18:45 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:43:50 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:30:54 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:38:46 -0700, jps wrote:


Researchers in the United States claim to have established a
convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide,
according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health,
challenges the National Rifle Association?s claim that increased gun
ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.

Covering 30 years from 1981 and all 50 US states, it determined that
for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a
given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.

In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the
study used a proxy variable ? the percentage of a state?s suicides
committed with a firearm ? that has been validated in previous
research.

The study, led by Boston University community health sciences
professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December
2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut.

?In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown ? many states are
considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths,? said
Siegel in a statement.

?This research is the strongest to date to document that states with
higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers
of deaths from firearm-related homicides,? he said.

?It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall
prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates.?

The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent.

The mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate stretched from 0.9 percent
per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 1.8 percent in Louisiana, with an
average for all states of four per 100,000.

The study also acknowledged a long-term decline in firearm homicide
for all states, from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in
2010.

Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in
the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is
available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Cite?

Loogy?

No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

Can't extrapolate the data?


No, I don't choose to "extrapolate," since that yields an opinion or
attempts expand known data into an area not known so as to arrive at a
conjectural position.

No it doesn't. I didn't ask you to make an opinon, I asked you to
extrapolate. You yourself said it was "raw data".

In other words, I'm not going to perpetuate rumor or attempt to divine
tea leaves, so as to support a predisposed position.

No rumors involved. It's "raw data".

Besides, researchers have already crunched the existing data and found
it to support the following position:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/

That's because there are no fewer guns. No one made anybody get rid of
what they have. You do realize, don't you, that most gun crimes are
committed with guns that were either stolen or borrowed from a legal
owner, don't you?