Town of Tiburon, CA to photograph every car that enters and leaves

Its a shame for the families that are grieving the dead that the men on that base we denied their God given right to defend themselves and bare arms -- on a military base no less -- if all were armed, nadal would be maggot food today with little or no harm to the men who were attacked. But nooooooooo, lets be PC and ban guns so that it becomes a free killing field for nut jobs -- such as yourself

 

Military bases/forts/ports whatever, don't need to have all the service members armed. It is a safer environment with fewer hotheads carrying lethal arms at the ready... as a former MP, and life NRA member, I believe that.

 

Tell that to the dead and families of the dead at fort hood -- maybe not all service men need to be armed, but several persons with concealed carry permits (even law abiding citizens with these were denied the right to carry on base) could have saved a lot of lives -- oh well, chalk up another win for the terrorists and lets keep disarming US citizens. I'm a NRA life member as well, but we'll have to disagree on this one.

 

http://reactor1967.fortunecity.com/nuke.html

http://home.earthlink.net/~enigmaep/annihilation/buildabomb.html

 

Each of our cruise missiles costs three to four orders of magnitude more than a pissy handgun, yet they are astoundingly ineffective against individual humans. None named 'Sadam' or 'Osama' found their mark.

 

Gun owners more likely to be shot than non-gun owners

Klint Finley
This should come as no surprise. Brandishing a gun is a good way to get yourself shot.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
​

American Public Health Association:
Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
Gun owners more likely to be shot than non-gun owners | Mutate!

 

I thought the word used in the post I was responding to was "cull" not "assassinate".

 

Again with the name calling Doc. Do you know how to have an adult conversation? Perhaps an admin can have a little talk with you about this?

I don't find it at all becoming and it can tend to indicate a low IQ, so it might be best to find a new and more gracious way to inform people you have lost the debate.

 

I went to the Department of Justice to look up the stats

Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice

Bureau of Justice Statistics Violent Crime Rate Trends

Bureau of Justice Statistics Key Facts at a Glance - Firearm deaths by intent

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211201.pdf

Which doesn't explain why in Canada, where no *normal* person can use a firearm in self defense, or indeed even TO defend themselves during an assault, a high proportion of assault victims are injured, or shot. Eg, page 5, 7-8, etc of this document

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2006004-eng.pdf

Or, in the case I already discussed

Man set on fire in Wolseley - Winnipeg Free Press

The gang felt they were being "snitched" and sought revenge.

Just curious, if you "snitch" in Australia, do they set you on fire??

 

No, El nino does that instead.

 

Defend yourself and your family with rubber bands and cute phrases if you want - I'm packin' heat

 

Just put him on ignore yeah. It works great!

 

:kiss:

 

The sample for this study was entirely in Philadelphia, which is far from a representative sample of the U.S. The 4.46 ratio is essentially the same multiplier by which Philadelphia's murder rate exceeds the national average murder rate.

There are vast differences in rates of gun ownership and violence within the U.S., but very little correlation between them. You can cherry-pick locations to get any result you want -- lots of guns and violence, or lots of guns with little violence, or few guns with little violence, or few guns with lots of violence. We have them all.

Early in this decade, our Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly published a report reviewing the field of guns and violence studies published in our primary medical journals, some of which had made national headlines as part of the gun control debate, while others had little publicity. (Exercise for the reader: guess which ones were well publicized, and which were not.) It listed serious problems with each study, then threw out the whole field for using invalid statistics and study designs.

I have not closely followed the subject since.

 

The cost effectiveness of our cruise missiles as cull devices isn't that much better. Considering their cost vs. the average harvest per device, the 'gummint' will be bankrupt long before it makes a big enough dent in the number of gun owners.

 

Bologna.

 

I foresee another trip to the Snake Pit. :madgrin:

 

Huh. A higher percentage of gun deaths are suicide as opposed to homicide. Maybe I will favor gun ownership - it's Darwinism for the gun nuts.

 

It is true, if suicide is included.

But for some reason, even with low gun suicide rates due to lack of easy access to firearms, most other westernized industrial countries still achieve higher total suicide than does the U.S.

The last time I checked the UN Demographic Yearbook, this included Australia.

Are we ready to banish this to FHOPolitics yet?

 

I think its been ready for awhile now. PHoPol, where threads go to die.