Is it time for gun control in Washington?

Shhhhhhhhh,don't let the Kaveman have a look at that,he'd interpret as a conspiracy theory AND say that gun related suicides shouldn't be included.

 

Of course suicides shouldn't be included.

Why would you deny a person to end their own life when they choose to?

Robin Williams chose to go out naked with a cockhold hanging from a door knob.

A gun would have probably been a more modest choice.

 

HAHAHAHAH you are joking right ??!!

No better way to go out that blowing your head off and leaving the mess for other people to clean up ..... how inconsiderate

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

 

Yippee! Only 11,115 people murdered by guns (33,363 total gun deaths) in 2013 instead of 18,396. Meanwhile in dumb ole Australia just 26 murdered by guns in 2013 ( out of a total figure of 226, last figures available). Gee I wish we were more free to enjoy our land.

Maybe the more interesting figures are the following: percentage of guns used in a death:
U.S. 2013 homicide .012
U.S. 2013 total gun deaths .036
Aus 2013 homicide .008
Aus 2013 total gun deaths .006

Just a tiny, tiny percentage in each case but the effects are enormous.

 

The effects are no more "enormous" than any other death at a much higher percentage.

Of course, what's always conveniently ignored by the gun grabbers are the 100k+ successful gun uses by individuals for defense.

So yeah, a very tolerable trade off. For every gun death, ten times as many people used a gun to defend themselves against criminals.

Why do you want to deny those 100,000+ people the right to defend themselves from criminals? Why do you want to create 100,000+ more victims to address a 0.0xx problem?

Reminds me of Obamacare. ****ing up healthcare for 310 m people to "help" ten million.

 

You're kidding, right?
US healthcare was f'd up by Nixon, and you guys didn't even notice! Obama didn't go far enough, because he couldn't. Basic healthcare delivered by the state costs 3% of healthcare delivered by a corporation - just what do you think the insurance companies are doing it for: good will?. No. You poor bastards are lining the pockets of health insurance executives at your own cost, both financially and healthwise.

 

Considering that you don't live here I don't expect you to know much about it.

Deductibles have tripled or quadrupled. And we still have the same amount of uninsured.

In the metrics that count, nothing has improved: quality of care, access to care, speed of access to specialized care, outcome of care, numbers of doctors per patient, number of specialized equipment per patient.

 

Because the administration was hamstrung. Like I said, he couldn't go far enough - the whole system is entrenched with very powerful lobbies protecting its interests. He was trying to make a private system bend into a public interest system, and in that, you are right. It's a compromise that probably can't work.
What's needed is a tax funded public system - the Canadians manage it. The small tax levy would be a pittance compared with your insurance premiums

 

One for aircon

'Cocks not glocks': University of Texas students to protest gun laws with dildos

 

Show me any verifiable figures of members of the public who ACTUALLY have defended themselves using a gun? IF these events take place, how come they never make the news?

 

They did, the other day

Waffle House North Charleston customer shoots dead armed robber

 

Well, that's one

 

Perfect justification for the gun madness

 

You don't serioulsy believe the media is independant and truthful and provides information for the "greater good" ?

It's been researched and published in academia, for example:

"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee.
http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf In response to "Armed Resistance to Crime" noted criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang wrote "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," (The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology P188 ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Wolfgang
Excerpt from "A tribute to a view I have opposed"
"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence."

( US Department of Justice) - from page 8
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf

 

I wonder what choice,if any,did the shooter give the victim and where,on the body was he shot.

 

None. Centre of mass. Probably from very close range

 

You're just a gun nut like Speedy .......

 

Except that ALL of the above was based on surveys - not real, independently recorded figures. Only good news is that of the 17% who actually fired their defensive weapon, only 3% of the targeted offenders were hit. Seems like there are lots of Ben Carlsons out there!

 

The use of statistical analysis of a small sample to extrapolate the big picture is standard analytical practise in just about any field of endeavour so it's use in this context is not remarkable.
There is extensive discussion on the assumptions and the underlying data in the journal article. Page 19 specifically comments on the estimates.

"Are these estimates plausible? Could it really be true that Americans use guns for self-protection as often as 2.1 to 2.5 million times a year? The estimate may seem remarkable in comparison to expectations based on conventional wisdom, but it is not implausibly large in comparison to various gun-related phenomena.
There are probably over 220 million guns in private hands in the U.S., implying that only about 1% of them are used for defensive purposes in any one year-not an impossibly high fraction.
In a December 1993 Gallup survey, 49% of U.S. households reported owning a gun, and 31% of adults reported personally owning one. These figures indicate that there are about 47.6 million households with a gun, with perhaps 93 million, or 49% of the adult U.S. population living in households with guns, and about 59.1 million adults personally owning a gun.
Again, it hardly seems implausible that 3% (2.5 million / 93 million) of the people with immediate access to a gun could have used one defensively in a given year. Huge numbers of Americans not only have access to guns, but the overwhelming majority of gun owners, if one can believe their statements, are willing to use a gun defensively. In a December 1989 national survey, 78% of American gun owners stated that they would not only be willing to use a gun defensively in some way, but would be willing to shoot a burglar. The percentage willing to use a gun defensively in some way, though not necessarily by shooting someone, would presumably be even higher than this."

 

In other words , use or lose it

 

Dead by gunfire numbers are real, recorded numbers. Use of a weapon in defense surely must generate a police report - were are the numbers of those? And since the statistics show that only .0163% of guns are involved in a death, how do you figure 100 times more are used in defense? And my figures used 2013 numbers which reflect that gun ownership has fallen to an estimated 30% (some 92.6m guns). What people say in surveys, especially regarding hypothetical events hardly counts as statistical evidence - once again, Ben Carlson...