http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/12/us-usa-minnesota-shooting-idUSBRE91B0RN20130212
"A handgun and ammunition were recovered near the suspected gunman after he was taken into custody, police said."

Hmm, no mention of a hi-capacity clip or an assault rife?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/delaware-courthouse-shooting_n_2668203.html
"Bill Heriot said he was waiting to enter the courthouse Monday morning when he saw a man pull out a pistol and fire a single shot at each of the two women."

Hmm, no mention of a hi-capacity clip or an assault rife?

I need to liberate my feelings to overcome my thoughts.

Libby's minds are blown

You seem to think that this matters to most anti-second amendment adherants. High capacity magazines and "assault" rifles are just the first step in their gun control agenda. Handguns are certainly next on their list.

first step Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You seem to think that this matters to most
> anti-second amendment adherants. High capacity
> magazines and "assault" rifles are just the first
> step in their gun control agenda. Handguns are
> certainly next on their list.


Dude, you need to liberate your feelings to overcome your thoughts.

Remember Kiddies, Nearly 40,000 annual deaths in America from gun violence is just the cost of our freedom!

.
Attachments:

"Guns are bad, mkay."

Mr. Mackey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Guns are bad, mkay."

So Mittens presents actual facts, and this is the best you can come up with? Don't let the facts get in the way of your blind ignorance, asshole.

Mittens Having Kittens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Remember Kiddies, Nearly 40,000 annual deaths in
> America from gun violence is just the cost of our
> freedom!



First, the number is closer to 30,000.

Second, 2/3 of all firearms deaths are suicides. Why are you trying to deny these people an efficient, quick, and effective way to exercise their right to terminate their life?

Third, under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year. Why are you opposed to self defense.

Finally, are all your posts lies, or just this one.

U R a Moron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Mackey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "Guns are bad, mkay."
>
> So Mittens presents actual facts, and this is the
> best you can come up with? Don't let the facts get
> in the way of your blind ignorance, asshole.


Mittens lied. Lies are not facts.

PS - We all know you are Mittens.

More MHK Lies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mittens Having Kittens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Remember Kiddies, Nearly 40,000 annual deaths
> in
> > America from gun violence is just the cost of
> our
> > freedom!
>
>
>
> First, the number is closer to 30,000.
>
> Second, 2/3 of all firearms deaths are suicides.
> Why are you trying to deny these people an
> efficient, quick, and effective way to exercise
> their right to terminate their life?
>
> Third, under President Clinton, the Department of
> Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the
> usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5
> million times per year. Why are you opposed to
> self defense.
>
> Finally, are all your posts lies, or just this
> one.


True. And majority of the remainder are young largely urban blacks 15-34 shooting each other. Without those our rates are about the same as other countries with far more restricted access to firearms.

You people are missing the point.

'The researchers state that the study shows "in areas with more firearms, people of all ages were more likely to be murdered, especially with handguns."'

That is the point. Do you see anything in there regarding suicide? Or race? 'The usage rate of guns used in personal defense' What does that even mean? How do they define 'personal defense'? If I think someone broke into my house and I blow away my kid who is sneaking in late, is that self-defense? Would George Zimmerman be included as someone acting in self-defense?

Instead of deflecting and misrepresenting my positions, why don't you come up with some real arguments for a change.

P.S. I'm not Mittens. There is more than one rational person on this board.

U R a Moron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is more than one
> rational person on this board.


Well don't keep us in suspense. Who around here is rational?

Besides (LOL) you of course

/.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2013 02:11PM by Mittens Having Kittens.

U R a Moron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You people are missing the point.
>
> 'The researchers state that the study shows "in
> areas with more firearms, people of all ages were
> more likely to be murdered, especially with
> handguns."'

And people that live in areas with more automobiles are more likely to die in automobile incidents than people who live in areas without automobiles. People who live or travel within 50 miles of a wild elephant are more likely to be trampled by a wild elephant that those who don't live or travel near a wild elephant. So, what is your point?

> That is the point.

It is a stupid one. A really stupid one.

> Do you see anything in there
> regarding suicide? Or race?

No. Which is why it needed to be explained further. Leaving out those pertinent and relevent facts is irresponsible.

> 'The usage rate of
> guns used in personal defense' What does that even
> mean?

Go to the library and ask the nice lady there for something called a dictionary. You could use one.

> How do they define 'personal defense'?

Defense of yourself and others.

> If I think someone broke into my house and I blow away
> my kid who is sneaking in late, is that
> self-defense?

Ask the jury.

> Would George Zimmerman be included
> as someone acting in self-defense?

A jury has yet to determine the George Zimmerman case.

> Instead of deflecting and misrepresenting my
> positions, why don't you come up with some real
> arguments for a change.

You haven't presented any positions. So, it is difficult to misrepresent or defelct them. The only thing you have presented is your support for Mitten's incomplete set of facts. Do you also support his outright lie that 40,000 deaths occur annually as a result of gun violence?

> P.S. I'm not Mittens.

I don't think anyone is buying that.

> There is more than one
> rational person on this board.

You aren't one of them.

U R a Moron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You people are missing the point.
>
> 'The researchers state that the study shows "in
> areas with more firearms, people of all ages were
> more likely to be murdered, especially with
> handguns."'
>
> That is the point. Do you see anything in there
> regarding suicide? Or race? 'The usage rate of
> guns used in personal defense' What does that even
> mean? How do they define 'personal defense'? If I
> think someone broke into my house and I blow away
> my kid who is sneaking in late, is that
> self-defense? Would George Zimmerman be included
> as someone acting in self-defense?
>
> Instead of deflecting and misrepresenting my
> positions, why don't you come up with some real
> arguments for a change.
>
> P.S. I'm not Mittens. There is more than one
> rational person on this board.

Your point is a generalization based on an accumulation of more important details, facts and numbers. If you truly want to save lives you need to look deeper into how and why these people died.

Your point is pointless.

"If I think someone broke into my house and I blow away my kid who is sneaking in late, is that self-defense?"
No, thats a tragic accident. But its not murder or a violent crime either.


Yes, George Zimmerman was practicing self defense.

U R a Moron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You people are missing the point.
>
> 'The researchers state that the study shows "in
> areas with more firearms, people of all ages were
> more likely to be murdered, especially with
> handguns."'
>
> That is the point. Do you see anything in there
> regarding suicide? Or race? 'The usage rate of
> guns used in personal defense' What does that even
> mean? How do they define 'personal defense'? If I
> think someone broke into my house and I blow away
> my kid who is sneaking in late, is that
> self-defense? Would George Zimmerman be included
> as someone acting in self-defense?
>
> Instead of deflecting and misrepresenting my
> positions, why don't you come up with some real
> arguments for a change.
>
> P.S. I'm not Mittens. There is more than one
> rational person on this board.


WTF are you babbling about?

Your stats are slanted and presented without context. Just as one of many examples, what they didn't state in the extract that you posted is that in the highest gun-ownership states, the overall and non-gun murder rate also is significantly higher than the lowest ownership states.

They've also chosen a period of time 88-97 where there was a significant increase in gun-related murder rates overall and, in particular, gang- and drug-related murders in some specific areas included in the high-ownership states (New orleans, Birmingham areas, etc.). If you rand this same analysis again today given vastly lower stats for murder and gun-related murder, then you'd very likely have entirely different results. (Although some areas like New Orleans still would push that group higher on its own).

They also based their high-ownership selection on a skewed sample based on suicide rates:

"At the state level, published data on reported household gun ownership are available for only a nonrandom sample of 21 states.21 To analyze all 50 states, we used a proxy for household firearm ownership: the fraction of all suicides in a state that involve a firearm, referred to hereafter as FS/S."

Doing so, they avoid having to include states like MD, IL, and CA, all of which have high murder rates as well as lower numbers of guns (and greater restrictions) which would not yield the results that they want.

Likewise, it overemphasizes states like LA, which is high due to New Orleans being a murder center, MI, which is very high due to Detroit, neither of which reflect much of anything related to legal gun ownership, and at the other end, MS and WV for which the *RATE* (not number) is high only because it has a low population relative to the numbers of guns,

Even they state:

"Our study included only a limited number of potential confounders—poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and violent crimes (aggravated assault, forcible rape, and robbery)—and then only in state-level analyses. We found, consistent with previous work, that homicide rates were higher in areas with higher rates of urbanization, poverty, and nonlethal violent crime (not shown),25–28 but many other factors may affect homicide rates. It is not clear, however, whether accounting for these or other area wide characteristics would increase or reduce the magnitude or significance of the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide."

Actually is it very clear that all of these factors are key in driving the murder and other violent crime rates, and that's exactly what you see if you disaggregate the data to metropolitan areas versus a state level.

Third, it's a fairly ridiculous analysis to begin with. Of course there are more gun-related murders where there are more guns. lol Doesn't mean that guns are the cause. It's simply an attempt to "scientifically" "prove" through correlation and thereby implication that guns are the root cause. Which they are not.

Hmm, the thread should have been named, 'How to shut-up the Libs'

U R a Moron Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
\
> 'The researchers state that the study shows "in
> areas with more firearms, people of all ages were
> more likely to be murdered, especially with
> handguns."'

Lets see some methodology on that study. Its a public health journal, leave criminology to criminologists.

I can tell you off the bat that study is full of bs. Gun crime is the highest in cities where guns are banned. The guns per capita are off the charts in rural southern and middle america yet DC has the highest per capita murder rate in the country. Louisiana isnt far behind because of guess where New Orleans where once again guns are banned.

This is why anti gun studies look at the issue on a large level and usually the state level. The vast majority of the gun crime is in their large city where guns arent allowed but they have no problem trying to blame the rest of the guns in the state for it. All they did was start with a conclusion and work backwards to justify it.

> That is the point. Do you see anything in there
> regarding suicide? Or race? 'The usage rate of
> guns used in personal defense' What does that even
> mean? How do they define 'personal defense'? If I
> think someone broke into my house and I blow away
> my kid who is sneaking in late, is that
> self-defense? Would George Zimmerman be included
> as someone acting in self-defense?

The fact that suicide isnt mentioned shows how bias the study is. If youre killing yourself it doesnt matter how you do it and including those numbers in stats to make guns sound dangerous is nothing more than trying to beef up the gun numbers,

> Instead of deflecting and misrepresenting my
> positions, why don't you come up with some real
> arguments for a change.
>
> P.S. I'm not Mittens. There is more than one
> rational person on this board.

The fact that you think mittens is rational proves you are in fact irrational and are immune to logical thinking and facts