No, it really wouldn't have been done. If they thought it would go the other way they'd do it in a heartbeat because it would give them cover with the average voter who thinks gun laws are too permissive as it is. The NRA is a very powerful lobby and they have sat on the attempts to get the CDC to do the study like a mother hen sitting on her nest. No chance this study gets done any time soon. Tell that to the 6 year old.
Maybe this has to do with me being able to draw my own conclusions from the data provided and not needing the author of the article to tell me what I should think. Unfortunately it seems you do not possess the ability to do the same. I initially posted this You replied I just re-posted excepts from the link you provided since the proof you asked for was right there. I guess you must have missed it when you posted it. You seem to have drawn your own conclusion that race does play a part in SYG cases even though the statistics provided show otherwise. You then say in a further post that the author states no conclusion can be drawn and you seem to be agreeing with the author. Which is it?
unrelated to the topic, I have a question. What percent of gun-owners in this country do you believe to be dumb rednecks?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx That's where people stand and have been standing since the turn of the century. The average politician would love for this issue to go away because the support for gun rights is strong and focused and has a major lobbyist behind it and the gun control lobby is weak and unfocused but has about half the population behind it. That's a recipe for trouble in elections in many areas of the country unless you are pro-gun rights. If the average politician thought he could make the issue go away with a real study they'd jump all over it. The problem is that the study is likely to support the weak, unfocused side of the argument and cause major problems for politicians trying to get elected. If the NRA thought the numbers were going to clearly work out for them in any study they'd do the damn thing themselves as further evidence for their position. The problem for them is that any look at guns from a civil health point of view is going to be disastrous. It's going to clearly point to the widespread availability of guns as a significant cause of morbidity in the general population and it's going to blow away the pro-gun arguments regarding safety in the process. Most people don't wind up confronted in their homes by an intruder and then saved by their guns. Many more people wind up dead because there was a gun kept in the house. You run the numbers and that becomes clear, so the NRA does whatever they can to promote the anecdotal evidence and to suppress the statistical evidence.
So there's some opinion polls. I don't get why you'd show me this? You keep saying this but I haven't seen any numbers yet. It really doesn't even make any sense to me unless there's a bunch of retards with guns who have no clue how to use them or properly store them which again - maybe they're tempting natural selection. I have no idea. Who cares if a bunch of rednecks kill themselves?
Just to show that the issue is pretty evenly split and issues like that really suck for politicians because no matter which way they jump they're wrong with half the voters. Exactly. We need numbers on this. Not having numbers is like where we were with cigarettes before the Surgeon General's report. A couple of things here. 1. It's exactly the fact that many of the people who own guns aren't up to taking care of them and using them properly that is the issue. For the most part very smart and wise gun owners aren't getting themselves or others killed with their guns. So where does that leave us? 2. Inside of that there are very few better examples of a simultaneously smart and stupid creature than your average 9 year old boy. If you're not a *very* smart and wise gun owner the odds are pretty good that little genius retard is going to find a way to play with your gun because he's one smart monkey. Really?
That's fine but you keep stating as if it's a fact that having a gun makes it more dangerous. Maybe you shouldn't? yes, really Stop trying to legislate 100% safety. Shit happens, I saw it on a bumper sticker. Have a nice day!
I think it's a given that it is though. People don't get killed by a gun by people they live with if nobody in the house has a gun. That's pretty obvious. from there you can do lots of other stuff to work the numbers but the number of gun-related accidental deaths and homicides in the home is going to skew the overall numbers no matter what you do. There's a difference between 100% safety and undue risks. That's the difference I'm trying to legislate.
I know many, many people who grew up in and continue to live in homes with guns. None of them ever got shot. Not a single one. Some of them have scared off criminals with the guns. I don't know anyone who has ever had to shoot a person as a civilian though. I'm not so sure it's the given that you believe it is.
comparing violent crime statistics is a useless venture when no country has the same means of classifying violent crime. for instance, in most countries in europe, simple assault is included (among other violent offenses not included in american statistics), where in america, only murder, rape, aggravated assault, and robberies are counted toward violent crime statistics. that and the fact that crime statistics are difficult to trust because they rely on self-reporting as well as police department reports (a lot of which are not included in national data)... its a crapshoot using statistics. they are useful when discussing trends in crime in one country, but can be misleading in comparing numbers of the same category between nations
my great grandfather on my fathers side worked in the coal mines in pennsylvania his whole life from when he was a child, and smoked cigarettes with no filter. lived till he was 93 and never had any health problems related to smoking or the like. my great grandmother on my mothers side smoked cigarettes for over 60 years. died from complications during gall bladder surgery. my friends grandpa smokes a pipe. has done it for over 40 years now. hes healthier than some of my mid 20's friends. the point im driving at here... is that there are exceptions for everything. you are being intentionally ignorant if you do not recognize that owning a gun increases your or somebody you knows chances of becoming a victim of gun violence. (i love guns, have a ruger 1022, an old 16 gauge double barrel shotgun (things a beast) and a smith and wesson .40 revolver, but i certainly understand the risk involved, i just trust myself enough to keep them safe/locked/hidden from everybody else)
you are analyzing second hand information, wrong, and then telling other people that you just are able to come up with your own conclusions... from the second hand information... just let that sink in for a second. and if you dont get what im saying here, well, consider taking some coursework in research and analysis
The judge is allowing the toxicology report into the trial. Trayvon loved him some chronic. Maybe they will also allow the evidence they have of him stealing jewelry and breaking into his school.
There is plenty of data and evidence to prove somoking is going to kill you. Arguing against it is stupid. Having a gun increases your chances of being shot by one like having a lighter increases your chances of lighting yourself on fire. Just like riding in cars increases your chances of getting in a car accident. Obviously. The argument is whether having a gun makes you less safe. You have much better guns than I do.
this basically all goes back to the purpose of a gun. a gun cannot be used for anything that isnt dangerous or violent. each gunshot is a controlled explosion, and the bullet the projectile. when you target shoot, you have to take great care to make sure any bullets that miss wont cause any collateral damage. you need to learn how to properly use and store the weapon, etc. most importanly, it is a weapon. it is not a lighter, or a car. you dont have to do anything crazy to kill someone with a gun, just use it the only way it can be used.
You mean like Target shooting, basic marksmanship? Inherently violent, and Dangerous? More people drown in Pools than die at gun ranges. Collateral damage at Gun Ranges??????? :rofl: And, the insanity notwithstanding, self defense, is an inherently dangerous and violent act...does that make it wrong? Or should you just lay back and take it? Please list your address in the retort. :rofl2:
From CNN, and not a pro gun article. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer So, where are your 100000 dead?
