Newtown
Display Avatars Sort By:
David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people [L.A. Times] on 01/30/2013 09:58:34 MST Print View

"One of my gripes the whole thread has been why create more laws when we don't or can't enforce what we have on the books."

Budget cuts prevent the state from seizing firearms owned by thousands of felons:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-guns-20130130,0,418551.story

Why worry about 20,000 felons / unstable people with guns?

In LA we have far more unlicensed drivers than that, and it is official policy of LAPD to allow people to drive without a license.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/26/local/la-me-0127-lopez-unlicensed-20130125

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people [L.A. Times] on 01/30/2013 15:32:52 MST Print View

I really don't like statistics. However, without them we can never know for sure whether things we are discussing are merely emotive, or are a real problem.

As for kids drowning in buckets, this is one of the things about statistics that I find reprehensible. People, including kids, die from all sorts of things, including buckets and bathtubs and a host of other 'rare' events. However, when I said that accidental shooting of youths indicated to me there is a 'significant' number of less than responsible gun owners, I meant several things. One is that I was considering the statistics for youths as aged 0-18. Obviously, youths older than 11 are less likely to drown in a bucket, so I can see why this age was used as a cut-off for the statistical analysis if you wanted to make accidental deaths by guns look as rare as drowning in a bucket. So taking MY definition of youth, it is more like 250 people under 18 per year are killed by guns. Now add to this the estimate that, for every death by gunshot, anywhere from 3-4 people are injured by gunshot, and you have something that looks completely different to 40 per year killed or injured by buckets. I don't know the stats for kids that are injured but not killed by buckets, but I think the point is obvious. Also, when I used the word 'significant', I would think an avoidable death of even one would be significant if it were YOUR child. And of course, there are all the people over 18 who are accidentally killed OR injured by gunshots all the time too.

The other way I see stats used in this kind of argument is to point to all the other dangers in life that kill or injure people too, such as cars or any other number of things whose main purpose is not to kill or injure people, and without which our lives would be much poorer.

As for people breaking the law (such as unlicensed drivers or holding or illegally owning a gun), I don't see how this should be an argument for denying that these things do harm, merely as an argument to better enforcement. As pointed out in the article below, it is often (not always) the people who want less government, which equals less enforcement and greater social unrest, who vehemently argue for their rights to have no restrictions put on gun ownership.

And the assertion that American armed home invaders are LEES brazen because they fear the homeowner might have a gun is so ridiculous, given the extraordinarily high number of armed invasions in the US compared to other western countries, that I had a good laugh :)

To me, this is all a way for people to divert the debate with red herrings, or by denying that there IS a problem. Below is an article from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/26/1077930/-Statistics-Guns-and-Wishful-Thinking# which I feel summarises a lot of my feelings on the issue. It also shows several reasons why I said I would not live with someone who had a gun in the house:

Statistics, Guns, and Wishful Thinking

In this article, I would like to present some of the collected empiric evidence on gun ownership and gun-related death. The need for empiric evidence on this topic is to move the discussion away from opinions and beliefs, and towards what actually happens to actual people. This article will be critical of gun ownership, so gun enthusiasts may want to avoid reading this article, as it will present a lot of data that puts firearms in a bad light.

It is estimated that 40-45% of American households own a firearm, and that 30-35% of American adults own a firearm (http://www.justfacts.com/...). According to the Small Arms Survey in 2007 (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/...), the US leads the world in firearms ownership with 88 firearms per 100 persons. Our closest competitors were the countries of Yemen (54.8 firearms per 100 persons), Switzerland (45.7 firearms per 100 persons), and Finland (45.3 firearms per 100 persons).

This data is from the CDC web-site (http://www.cdc.gov/...). During the period 2008-2009, the last year for which complete data is available, there were 62,940 deaths in the US due to firearms, for a crude (non-age adjusted) rate of 10.29 deaths per 100,000 persons. If you lived in a city of 100,000 persons, you could expect that 10 of your neighbors would die from a firearm injury that year. 1,146 of these deaths were classified as “unintentional” (an accident), and 61,289 of these deaths were classified as “Violence-related” (presumably intentional). During the same period, there were 145,390 non-fatal firearm injuries here in the US, with a crude rate of 23.8 non-fatal injuries per 100,000 persons. If you lived in a city of 100,000 persons, you could expect 24 of your neighbors to suffer an injury due to a firearm that year. Of these injuries, 35,826 were classified as “Unintentional”, while 109,565 non-fatal injuries were “Violence-related”.

For comparison purposes, I looked up the data in bicycle-related injuries and deaths, figuring that bicycles were probably at least as ubiquitous as firearms in American households. During the same period 2008-2009, there were 1,013,739 non-fatal bicycle-related injuries here in the US, many more injuries than were caused by firearms that year. But, there were only 785 fatal bicycle-related injuries, for a crude rate of 0.26 bicycle-related deaths per 100,000 persons. Here I will offer an interpretation: bicycles are less deadly than firearms because firearms, unlike bicycles, are built with the purpose of killing people. When discussing injury or death due to bicycle use, the classification of events into “intentional” vs. “accidental” is irrelevant, because bicycles are not designed to be people-killing machines.

The FBI released information that showed in 2008, there were 16,272 murders in the US; and that firearms were the cause of 10,886 (or 67%) of these murders (http://www.fbi.gov/...). Far and away, a firearm is the preferred tool of those who commit murder, precisely because firearms are designed expressly for the purpose of killing people.

This data is from a peer-reviewed article published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 1998 (Krug EG. Intl J Epidemiology. 1998; 27:214-22). The authors collected data from 36 countries they identified as “high income” (countries as wealthy as the US) and “upper-middle income” countries with populations of greater than 1 million persons. Total firearm deaths in the US were found to occur at a rate of 14.24 per 100,000 persons, the highest rate of all countries studied, and a rate that was eight-fold higher than the combined rate of firearm deaths in all economically similar countries, and 1.5 times higher than the combined rate for the “upper middle income” countries. The three countries with the next highest firearm death rate after the US were Brazil (12.95 firearm deaths per 100,000 persons), Mexico (12.69 firearm deaths per 100,000 persons), and Estonia (12.26 firearm deaths per 100,000 persons). For all countries studied, the combined death rate due to firearms was 6.9 per 100,000 persons, less than half the death rate due to firearms found in the US. The take-home message here: the US has more killings due to firearms than any other industrialized country in the world.

This is data from a report released by the CDC in 1997 (http://www.cdc.gov/...). The CDC collected data from the US and 25 other wealthy, industrialized nations on rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths. Pooling the data from all the countries, 86% of all firearm-related fatalities in children under the age of 15 occurred in the US. The overall firearm-related death rate among US children under the age of 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among the children of the other 25 nations combined. The firearm-related homicide rate among US children was nearly 16 times higher than for children in all other countries combined. The firearm-related suicide rate was over ten times higher for US children than for children in all other countries combined. And the accidental (unintentional) firearm-related death rate for US children was nine times higher for US children than for other children combined. Children here in the US are on average ten times more likely to kill themselves using a gun, and nine times more likely to die by accidental firearm injury than children in other wealthy, industrialized nations.

Owning a gun at home substantially increase the risk of death by firearm to everyone in the home. It turns out that suicide is the leading cause of death for Americans who have purchased a handgun within the previous year. (data published in the New England Journal of Medicine – Wintermute GJ. NEJM. 2008; 358:1421-4). Like cigarette smoke, owning a firearm has deleterious effects on everyone in the home, not just on the one who purchased the gun. Writing in the peer-reviewed journal Annals of Emergency Medicine, Dr. Wiebe reported on a case-controlled study in which household were matched on a number of demographic factors, and then incidences of gun violence were compared. They found that people who keep a gun in their home are almost twice as likely to die in a gun-related homicide, and that the risk was especially greater for women: women living in a home where there is a gun are almost three times more likely to die in a gun-related homicide than men similarly situated. The risk of killing oneself using a gun was almost 17 times greater for persons who live in a home where there is a gun, compared to those in homes without guns. (Wiebe D. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2003; 41:771-82).

Gun enthusiasts like to claim that keeping a gun handy protects them and their family from violent intruders. The study by Wiebe shows that having a gun at home is associated with an increased risk of dying by gunfire, so gun ownership does not appear to be protective of violent firearms-related killings. But the Wiebe study was also able to compute the likelihood of dying by violence other than gunfire. They found there was no relationship between owning a gun and homicide by means other than a gun. In other words, having a gun around is not associated with a decreased risk of homicide of any sort. The study could find no empiric evidence that owning a gun confers some protection on a household from homicide. To my knowledge, there is no peer-reviewed study published anywhere that provides evidence that guns or gun ownership protects individuals from death or injury. If anyone reading this knows of such a study, I hope they will tell me so I can go read that study.



What I have presented here is some of the evidence linking guns to firearms-related death. This is not all of the data on guns and death; there are other studies for readers interested in knowing the data. Unfortunately, this and other empiric data on guns and killing will be largely ignored and/or viewed as irrelevant by gun advocates and enthusiasts, because the data does not match their opinions and beliefs. Just as conservatives ignore the world-wide community of environmental and climate scientists who now have repeatedly replicated and confirmed studies of global climate change and the evidence that human activity is accelerating that change, gun enthusiasts (no matter what their political leanings) will ignore the empiric evidence linking guns to increase fatalities in favor of their personal beliefs regarding the importance of guns.

Arguments for greater gun availability generally fall into two broad areas: 1) crime is common here in the US, and guns can protect persons from being victimized by criminals; and 2) the Second Amendment of the US Constitution permits gun ownership. Gun advocates are correct that crime is common here in the US. However, this should properly be an argument for more and better policing and social policies than an argument for more guns. Strangely enough, those who advocate for more guns as an answer to greater crime are also most commonly the ones calling for reducing the size of government, which of course, creates a higher barrier to more and better policing and social policy. To suggest instead that each person should arm themselves and become their own police force is to advocate for greater social unrest and (and as the data shows) greater violence. Indeed, it is unlikely that owning a gun would have protected Ramarley Graham, the unarmed NY teen who was shot in his own home because police thought he had a gun. And I have heard no one suggest that the Treyvon Martins of America be given more guns to protect themselves from armed racist vigilantes.

The second broad argument used by gun enthusiasts is that gun ownership is a protected right under the US Constitution, and our civil rights are sacrosanct and guns are necessary to protect our civil rights. Anyone paying attention should have by now noticed that American citizens have recently seen an abridgment and restriction on their rights to free speech, their rights to be free of unreasonable government search and seizure, their right to a trial by a jury of their peers, their rights to have legal representation when accused of a crime, their right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, and all of this at a time when there are more guns here in America than at any time in our history. Clearly, increased gun availability has not protected the civil rights of Americans. Increased gun availability has protected the profits of an active gun industry, who use those profits to lobby state and federal legislatures for relaxation of gun ownership restrictions and de-criminalization of gun use.

As the data presented in this article shows, guns are associated with a greater risk of death by a firearm. Both Treyvon Martin and Ramarley Graham would probably enjoy exercising their constitutionally-protected civil rights. Now that they are dead of gun violence, they will not have the opportunity to do so.

Stuart R
(Scunnered) - F

Locale: Scotland
UK gun ownership up, deaths down on 01/31/2013 06:17:37 MST Print View

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dan-ehrlich/uk-gun-ownership-up-deaths-down_b_1209967.html

I was surprised to learn that there are 1.8 million licenced firearms in England and Wales. Of that total, 1.4 million are shotguns (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates). As all handguns and rapid-fire weapons are illegal, the remaining 450k must mostly be rifles of one sort or another.

And the number of gun related deaths last year? 51
Less than 1 per million population

No doubt this is the type of headline that the pro-gun lobby would use to support their view that increasing number of firearms cause reduced number of deaths. The article detail is not so flattering.

Edited by Scunnered on 01/31/2013 06:35:13 MST.

Eric Johnson
(unimog) - MLife

Locale: Utah
UK gun ownership up, deaths down on 01/31/2013 06:39:14 MST Print View

"No doubt this is the type of article that the pro-gun lobby would use to argue the increased number of firearms was the cause of the reduced number of deaths."

No doubt. But it certainly would prove that increased gun ownership did not cause violence committed with guns.

Stuart R
(Scunnered) - F

Locale: Scotland
Re: UK gun ownership up, deaths down on 01/31/2013 07:33:13 MST Print View

That is exactly my point, it does not. It only proves that increased ownership of rifles and shotguns in an environment where there are virtually no hadguns does not increase violence committed by guns.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn)

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people [L.A. Times] on 01/31/2013 08:10:18 MST Print View

"And the assertion that American armed home invaders are LEES brazen because they fear the homeowner might have a gun is so ridiculous, given the extraordinarily high number of armed invasions in the US compared to other western countries, that I had a good laugh :)"

Do you have a source for this? To determine if homeowner gun ownership makes a home invader more/less brazen is not by comparing US to other countries. it would be by comparing the impact in the US over a period of time. Over the past 20 years gun ownership has increased steadily, but violent crimes have dropped:
- 1.9 million to 1.2 million
- 757.7 to 386.3 per 100,000

Based on your logic I could use the following. The suicide rate in New Zealand is higher than the US. If NZ would reduce restrictions on guns like the US then the suicide rate for NZ would drop. See how ridiculous it is to compare across country sometimes.

I think we have a lot of data floating around and people twisting it into information that supports their position.

The article you referenced, like most from both sides, has several issues (twisting the data);

"During the period 2008-2009, the last year for which complete data is available, there were 62,940 deaths in the US due to firearms"

This is CDC data which includes suicides and accidental deaths. The Brady group counts criminals killed my police in the line of duty.


'The FBI released information that showed in 2008, there were 16,272 murders in the US; and that firearms were the cause of 10,886 (or 67%) of these murders"

The FBI data has issues as well because it is dependent upon being reported. However over the past 20 years we have seen a significant decline in violent crimes and homicides.

David Olsen
(oware)

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: Re: California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people [L.A. Times] on 01/31/2013 09:49:38 MST Print View

Lynn I agree with your comments on statistics needing to be apples to apples.

When you speak of children, there is a difference between a toddler, a grade schooler and a teenager. The cut off age could
have been 5 years old and the statistics would be even more uneven. Probably all those kids died in buckets were under 5 and
some of the kids killed by firearms not so. However a Brad points out, the bulk of deaths are from the oldest
of that group. And much of that is gang and drug related. When you blame the majority of lawful gun owners for poor
firearm care and safety it gets ones hackles up. Calling gang members "children" feels statistically manipulative too.

"As for people breaking the law (such as unlicensed drivers or holding or illegally owning a gun), I don't see how this should be an argument for denying that these things do harm, merely as an argument to better enforcement."

Well, the reasoning follows if you can't afford to take away firearms from 20,000 known, CONVICTED criminals, then through law make an additional 1,000,000 people criminals simply through possession, how in the world are you going to enforce that? How much money will it cost that should be used for catching crooks and helping mentally ill folks. This idea failed in Canada. They
couldn't get people to register, couldn't afford the paperwork for the ones that did, and it solved nearly zero crime. They just
quit registry for long guns.

Yesterday-

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/01/gunshot-scares-off-man-threatening-to-kill-woman-in-everett/

"The bystander told Everett police he’d ordered a 48-year-old man chasing and threatening to kill the woman with a knife to stop his attack near the intersection of 34th Street and Lombard Avenue.

Concerned that the woman might be killed if the man didn’t stop chasing her, the 61-year-old Arlington man fired one shot into the air around 4:30 p.m."

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people [L.A. Times] on 01/31/2013 12:22:34 MST Print View

Oops. my bad. I should have said 250 youths (under 18) were killed by ACCIDENTAL gunshots, and 3-4 times that were injured. Of course, the total death and injury from guns is much higher in this group, as there were even more murders and suicides.

I consider under 18s to be youths. In our country, that is the legal age of voting. and drinking, and cigarette purchase and lots of other things that only 'adults' are considered responsible enough to handle. Naturally, I would consider guns as requiring the same amount of responsibility. Nothing changes the fact that these "kids" obviously had easy access to guns.

And as a parent, I would take little comfort in the fact that my child killed themself with a gun that they had easy access to. Sure, they can also get them from friends or gang members who are also friends, or on the black market. So the stats don't really tell us how many of the accidental deaths, suicides and murders were committed with a gun from within the home. Of course, a hand gun is the most commonly used weapon in all cases, and add that to the stats that having a gun in the home means someone in your home is more likely to die by gunshot, I personally would never, as in never, allow one in MY home, except as mentioned before a rifle or shotgun whose main purpose is hunting, and which is kept locked and unloaded with the ammo separate. Of course, that is also the law here, and it is enforced as much as possible, so at least I don't worry about other citizens running around with locked and loaded pistols in public.

I really just don't understand the logic that says because it is too hard to enforce, we should just not make it illegal! The case of unlicensed and uninsured drivers, or drunk drivers, or whatever is a case in point. How many of you feel that just because a lot of people drive unlicensed or drunk, that we should just make it legal for them to do so? That is pretty crazy thinking from my side of the pond.

OK, Brad, home invasions...

"Over the past 20 years gun ownership has increased steadily, but violent crimes have dropped:"

I was referring to you assertion that home invaders in the US may be LESS brazen because of fears the home owner might have a gun. Again, the stats would indicate otherwise:

"According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of household burglaries rose by 14 percent last year, and the overall rate of violent home invasions in the United States increased by 18 percent during 2011."

Again, no one can prove that increased gun ownership in the home has an impact on armed home invasions, but the trend with increasing gun ownership AND increasing violent home invasion appears, to me, to indicate that the invaders are not particularly deterred by the possibility of a gun in the house. And again, the stats indicate that having a gun in your home makes you or your loved ones more likely, not less likely, to be shot. But it is of course your choice, and you will no doubt justify having a gun in the house if you want one, no matter what the stats indicate. I just hope you store it very safely so your kids can't get hold of it, and hope you can restrain yourself from using it if you get into a fight with a loved one. Since everyone on this board appears to be a 'responsible' gun owner (those that admit to having a gun), I'm sure those last comments are unnecessary...

Tony Beasley
(tbeasley) - MLife

Locale: Pigeon House Mt from the Castle
Re: Newtown on 01/31/2013 12:51:46 MST Print View

The majority of Americans support stronger gun control policies, including gun owners and members of the National Rifle Association, a new survey has found.

More than 80% of respondents supported policies requiring
universal background checks for all gun sales and prohibiting the possession of guns by high-risk individuals, including those convicted of violating a domestic-violence restraining order or of a serious crime as a juvenile.

Support for banning the sale of military-style, semiautomatic assault weapons was at 69%.

Researchers said the results indicated a high level of support for policies to reduce US gun violence among those who owned guns and those who didn’t.

The survey took place in January several weeks after the December 14 2012 mass school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512#t=article

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Guns and suicide on 01/31/2013 12:58:16 MST Print View

Just thought I would add that people intent on killing themselves will find a way. It is the one statistics which doesn't seem to track with gun availability in this debate. Sure, more Americans kill themselves with a gun, but they would probably find other ways to kill themselves if they didn't have access to a gun. Guns are just an easy way to take your life if that is your wish. Personally I would go for an overdose if I were ever in that situation. Seems to me a pretty brutal and violent way to end your life, and leaves a shocking mess for your loved ones to clean up if you use a gun! But suicide is suicide, and it rips families apart no matter how it occurs.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Guns and suicide on 01/31/2013 13:15:10 MST Print View

"But suicide is suicide, and it rips families apart no matter how it occurs."

I guess, in the context of this debate, perhaps you're right. But in the larger context which includes end-of-life care/issues, then I'd disagree.

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Re: Re: Guns and suicide on 01/31/2013 13:17:06 MST Print View

Lynn. Cherry picking one year for stats is a but misleading.

You have to look at the long term trends.

David Thomas
(DavidinKenai) - MLife

Locale: North Woods. Far North.
Guns don't kill suicide victims, suicide victims kill suicide victims. But the guns sure up the "success" rate. on 01/31/2013 13:27:14 MST Print View

Stomach full of pills? Activated charcoals and/or pump their stomach.

Bullet to the brain? The ER doesn't have a good fix for that.

Ideation to action can be as little as 5 seconds (known from a survivor of a suicide attempt off a bridge). The bullet-to-the-brain/heart scenario doesn't offer any chance of regret or a change of heart.

Freakanomics did a podcast on suicide and amazingly, it is the reverse of almost every other cause of death. Highest rates - rural, single white guys. Lowest rates - urban blacks. So it is not, perhaps, a disease of hopelessness such much as one of loneliness.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Guns don't kill suicide victims, suicide victims kill suicide victims. But the guns sure up the "success" rate. on 01/31/2013 13:50:27 MST Print View

"So it is not, perhaps, a disease of hopelessness such much as one of loneliness."

Yes, loneliness if a big factor.

And I also agree that end-of-life decisions are quite different to suicide. I am certainly a big fan of assisted suicide for those who are truly at the end of their life and in great pain. Quite a different situation to a teen who feels misunderstood, lonely, bullied or love-scorned.

Nothing to do with Newtown however. That is a similar situation to suicide, but the misunderstood, lonely, bullied or love-scorned takes it out on other people. Don't know how you prevent that. I don't really know if changes in gun legislation will make a difference in a culture so steeped in guns that it is hard to know the way ahead.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Guns don't kill suicide victims, suicide victims kill suicide victims. But the guns sure up the "success" rate. on 01/31/2013 14:09:38 MST Print View

"So it is not, perhaps, a disease of hopelessness such much as one of loneliness."

I think that loneliness can drive hopelessness.

I remember reading - don't know if it still holds true - that suicides often increase around holidays.

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn)

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: Re: Re: California unable to disarm 19,700 felons and mentally ill people [L.A. Times] on 01/31/2013 14:47:32 MST Print View

"According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of household burglaries rose by 14 percent last year, and the overall rate of violent home invasions in the United States increased by 18 percent during 2011."

Interesting. The FBI crime statistics show burglaries increasing by only 0.9% in 2011. The FBI report has no stat for violent home invasions, so I'm surprised your reference had one if the FBI didn't. According to FBI burglary rates have dropped 6% over the past 10 years even with the small increase from 2010 to 2011. However not all burglaries are violent. Business burglaries are down and home burglaries are up. Nobody knows for sure, but some speculate that business have tightened up security over the years and criminals are moving more to home burglaries.

"And again, the stats indicate that having a gun in your home makes you or your loved ones more likely, not less likely, to be shot."

That's always an interesting stat. If you are comparing accidental firearm shootings, then of course a home with a gun will have more than a home without a gun. I don't have a chainsaw at my house so the odds of me getting hurt with a chainsaw are zero. However my neighbor has a chainsaw and I could see him cutting his leg off tomorrow. What would be an interesting stat would be to see the outcomes of an attempted violent act comparing those with a gun and those without a gun.

thanks for comments Lynn

doug thomas
(sparky52804) - MLife

Locale: Eastern Iowa
? on 01/31/2013 15:42:37 MST Print View

I have a question. Why ban semi-automatic "assault type" weapons, and not semi-automatic "hunting type" weapons?

Justin Baker
(justin_baker) - F

Locale: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: ? on 01/31/2013 15:53:21 MST Print View

Because they look scary.

I looked through Feinstein's new assault weapons ban and I really can't tell if she is just a complete idiot or if she is trying to pass useless legislation to give soccer moms a false sense of security.

You can buy one semi automatic rifle and you can't buy another semi automatic rifle shooting the same caliber because it has a pistol grip. AR15's are not deadly killing machines and anyone who thinks they are should not be writing up gun control legislation.

David Thomas
(DavidinKenai) - MLife

Locale: North Woods. Far North.
Bridges kill don't people. Hitting the water at 160 mph kills people. on 01/31/2013 15:56:01 MST Print View

>"I remember reading - don't know if it still holds true - that suicides often increase around holidays."

Doug: I was teaching First Aid / CPR at an oil refinery a few decades ago, and in mid November, the guys set up a pool The participants picked a date for an anticipated event to occur. The winner took the pot if they picked the date that the event occurred. The event was the next jumper off the Golden Gate Bridge. They started before the holidays because they didn't want to wait too long for the payout.

But I think I remember seeing a more careful analysis (Snopes?) that the holiday effect really doesn't happen. Oh, it was that Freak-o-nomics podcast on suicide, I'm pretty sure.

Edited by DavidinKenai on 01/31/2013 16:56:54 MST.

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: MidAtlantic
Re: Bridges kill don't people. Hitting the water at 160 mph kills people. on 01/31/2013 19:04:54 MST Print View

You're having fun with those subject lines, David. Cracking me up. Reminds me of the old standby: It ain't the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end.....