Summations Only

ICANT, as I continue to apparently need to point out, the entire world is not just like you and where you live. Here in my town the ambulances do not typically run their sirens on their way to a call.And I also apparently need to continue to point out that you shouldn't be holding yourself up as a typical example, especially as your claims are frequently of a superhuman level of vigilance and skill. Where you're much more typical is in your belief that you possess great skill, and in your expressed willingness to respond with lethal force when in your own view you are threatened, which is how people get killed. Your paranoia makes you a dangerous menace. I am not dismissing the FBI data, nor am I claiming they are wrong. I am telling you, yet again, that you are using the numbers incorrectly. For example, if there had been a table showing that "In 2010 there was 278 justified homicides" it would be invalid to infer that they were 278 instances of homeowners shooting crooks.But what you've done is far worse than making that incorrect inference because you apparently can't even read a table. For one thing its title happens to be Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Law Enforcement. Got that? By *law enforcement*, not by homeowners. This very explicit footnote from the table makes it even more clear: "¹The killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty."More stuff wrong: the number 278 appears nowhere in table.More stuff wrong: the number 378, which you use elsewhere when making the same claim, does appear in the table, but for 2008, not 2010.So do you understand now that the data you were basing your arguments upon was wrong?But again, even if we just say for the sake of argument that you're correct that a few hundred more homeowners would die every year if they had no guns, that's still no comparison to the thousands who die every year just because there's a gun in the house.Out of time, maybe I'll look at the rest of your post later, though I don't hold out much hope for it since I see you've attempted to use statistics again. Not that that's a bad thing, I encourage the use of statistics, but what you're doing with them is more like making things up.--Percy

Apparently living life as if you were in a state of permanent severe mortal danger is tremendous fun.Apparently living a security-ridden life of the sort that might be necessry in Mogadishu, Kabul or Karchi is something to aspire to.ICANT revels in such an existence despite any necessity to do so.Insane....

Hi Percy, But you were not addressing the world in general.You addressed me in a specific event and told me I would kill the EMT man/woman when they entered my house.How else am I supposed to speak to you accusation, without answering a specific event? But I am typical of millions of gun owners. Would you agree when you look at table 15 that there are 278 citizens that are armed who had a justifiable shooting in 2010?You can find the correct table Here. Nope just got the tables location mixed up. I see where I got the tables mixed up but did use the correct number the first time I cited it, at 278.If you notice in Table 15 the justified shoots increase every year. And the thousands you are talking about are the ones committing suicide which they would do regardless of whether there is a gun in the house or not. Most if not all probably purchased the gun for the specific purpose of using it to commit suicide. Nope, just mixing them up.God Bless,.

So on one hand we should assume that anyone with military experience has the same unerring gunly abilities that you claim to have. On the other hand anyone who experienced the sort of horrors associated with Vietnam should probably not be allowed anywhere near guns at all.Well that is consistent... Wouldn't restricting gun ownership on this basis result in significantly tighter gun regulations than currently exist? By this logic the more dangerous and insecure the world is the happier everyone will be.Bonkers!! If this were true America would be the safest place on the planet. It isn't.Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level.

quote:

---

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

​

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

​

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

​

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

​

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

​

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

​

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

​

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

​

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

​

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

---

LinkDo you dispute these findings?

I find it ironic that a "man of God" surrounds himself with deadly weaponry to protect himself. Clearly you don't REALLY believe that the Lord is looking out for you or will protect you. Meanwhile it is the atheists that KNOW that there is no deity looking out for them who choose not to arm themselves to the teeth.You can split hairs on these stats all day long. The bottom line is you reap what you sow. If you believe you are safer surrounded by weapons, then you perpetuate a society that believes weapons are an absolute necessity for survival. What century is this again?

And regarding suicide.. you say that suicides would happen with or without a gun? Really? Have you ever thought about the fact that actually cutting your wrists and bleeding out without calling for help would require a great deal of devotion, whereas a gun is pushbutton death.I myself got through a period of suicidal ideation that I am convinced I would not have survived if I'd had a gun.Since you seem so interested in statistics, go look up Switzerland's suicide statistics. They may not have the same madman shooting-spree streak in their blood that America has, but they get depressed just like everyone... and they have their guns to hand... it's just all too easy.Clearly many people just really don't care about the countless victims. I have seen so much selfishness and denial in this debate, it is making me physically ill. We make sacrifices for the welfare of our children... or at least we're supposed to... but clearly sacrificing the powerful assault rifle variety of toy is out of the question. Dead kids or not.I for one am grateful to be living in the UK. My 9 year old daughter and I can enjoy the finer things in life, without having to look over our shoulders all the time, or live behind iron gates. Thank you Britain for having me

Text in the bare link says it.10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down – Mother JonesHard to dispute?

Of course everything can (and probably will) be disputed. Dr A posted similar diagrams andt hey were not touched at all by our resident gun-toters.
The fact that there were 11 gun-related deaths in Japan (pop. 130 mio, xians 0,7%) and 11 THOUSAND in the US (pop.300 mio, xians 75%), should shout the problem out loud.
Guns kill people and xianity does little to shield from violence.

Well, I think I've said about 20 times now that we're not talking about you personally, so what we obviously have here is just you deciding to be very obstinate about playing dumb so as to avoid constructive consideration and discussion of the actual issues surrounding the dangers of paranoid people who believe they have the right to use lethal force based upon their own personal perception of danger.Despite the best of intentions, which most people have, things go wrong. The details of what will go wrong will vary by time and place and the people involved. The problem is that people who perceive threats and dangers in so many corners are a dangerous menace because they are prone toward interpreting events as a personal threat justifying lethal force. The example of EMT's breaking down the wrong front door was just an example of what can go wrong when the homeowner is overly paranoid. Right now we have an ongoing situation of paranoia run wild in Alabama where a gun-toting survivalist has killed a school bus driver and taken a 5-year old boy hostage in his underground bunker (Authorities tight-lipped as standoff over child hostage enters 5th day). Well, yes, I'm sure you are, and I bet that gun-toting survivalist is typical, too. In your fantasy of how prepared you are to deal properly and safely with a rapidly evolving dangerous situation, yes, you are typical of millions of gun owners. In your habitation of a fantasy world where gun ownership makes you safer, yes, you are typical of millions of gun owners. In your belief that you are superior in skills to most other gun owners, yes, you are typical of millions of gun owners. In your reluctance to consider the very real personal and social consequences of your love affair with guns, yes, you are typical of millions of gun owners.While your fantasies are typical of the fantasies of most other gun owners, they have little correspondence to the realities concerning the skills and preparedness of most other gun owners, and it's reality we're hopefully trying to talk about here. This would be incorrect. By your own figures there were 11,078 firearm homicides in 2010. Between 50% and 75% of homicides involve people who know each other, so even using pessimistic assumptions, at least thousands of people are murdered every year simply because a gun was available when someone became angry or distraught or depressed or drunk or drug-ridden or crazy.--Percy

Hi Percy, You have a looney tune on the loose that was supposed to be in court the day after he shot and killed the bus driver for threatning neighbors branshing a gun.Why was he on the streets instead of being observed and treated by the mental health profession.So don't come at me telling me he was a survivalist. He was a man with a severe mental problem.A survivalist is one who is prepared to defend him/her self family and posession from those who would harm them or take their posessions. They are not people who go out to the road and shoot a school bus driver. Or run around the neighborhood branishing their guns. As I said that gun toting nut was on the loose because the justice system failed to do their job. Had they done therir job he would have been in a mental institution being evaluated as to whether he was a danger to society. Then why not talk about reality, instead of spouting 20 year old conclusions as facts.FACTS found Here:The Pdf file does not have a quickview to be able to link directly to the file. So you need to click on
[PDF] Preliminary Data for 2011 - Centers for Disease Control to open the file.Drug induced deaths 2010 40,393Alcohol induced deaths 2010 25,692Accidental poisioning and exposure to noxious substances 2010 33,041TOTAL Intentional self harme (suicide) 2010 38,364Intentional self harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 2010 19,392
Intentional self harm (suicide) by other means 2010 18,972TOTAL Assault homicide 2010 16269Assault homicide by discharge of firearms 2010 11,078
Assault homicide by other unspecified means 2010 5,181
Legal intervention 2010 412TOTAL Events of undetermined intent 2010 4,908Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent 2010 252
Other unspecified events of undetermined intent 2010 4,656
complications of medical and surgical care 2010 2,490Preventable medical errors 2010 98,000 deaths
Here Here you will find expanded homicide data table 10 in which the victim is listed horozontal at the top and the circumstances listed verticle.
This chart is for all murders with all kinds of weapons.I can not find one for just guns, so I don't have any idea where your or your source is getting the information for your assumptions.You mentioned drunk, there was 121 murders due to alcohol.You mentioned drugs, there was 58 due to narcotics.In 2010
110 husbands were murdered by their wives or ex-wives.NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place or who committed the murder, or with what weapon.603 wives were murdered by their husbands or ex-husbands.
NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place or who committed the murder, or with what weapon.107 mothers were murdered by their children or stepchildren.NOTE: I will assume these took place in or on the premises of the homestead but no idea of weapon used.135 fathers were murdered by their children or stepchildren.NOTE: I will assume these took place in or on the premises of the homestead, no idea what weapon was used.256 sons were murdered by their father, mother, step father or step mother.NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place or who committed the murder, or with what weapon.197 daughters were murdered by their father, mother, step father or step mother.NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place or who committed the murder, or with what weapon.88 brothers were murdered by their sisters or step sistersNOTE: I will assume these took place in or on the premises of the homestead, with no idea of what weapon used.19 sisters were murdered by their brother or step brother.NOTE: I will assume these took place in or on the premises of the homestead, with no idea of what weapon used.287 other family members were murdered by some family member.NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place or who committed the murderor with what weapon.2,723 acquaintances were murdered by an acquaintance.NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place, or with what weapon.396 people were murdered by a friend.NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place, or with what weapon.131 boyfriends were murdered by their girlfriend or ex- girlfriend.
NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place or who committed the murder, or with what weapon.492 girlfriends were murdered by their boyfriend or ex-boyfriend.NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place or who committed the murder, or with what weapon.92 neighbors were murdered by their neighbors.NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place, or with what weapon.8 employees were murdered by their employers.NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place, or with what weapon.13 employers were murdered by employeesNOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place, or with what weapon.1,651 strangers were murdered by a stranger.NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place, or with what weapon.5,724 unknown victims were murdered by unknown assailants.NOTE: I have no way of knowing where the weapon came from or where the murder took place, or with what weapon.So I have 349 murders that took place in a home by a weapon that was in the home. Although some of those counld have been brought in by the children.349 is only .027% of 12,996.For the sake of argument lets say they were all committed with a gun.So if you want to show that your 50+% of murders is correct just because a gun was available you need to show how the weapon came from the house in which the victim lived.Just a stupid question that you might be able to clear up for me.Why has Uniform Protection Authority For Federal Reserve. purchased 1.6 billion hollow point rounds of ammunition over the last few months. These rounds are banned from warfare by the Geneva ConventionThat is enough rounds to shoot every citizen four times and have rounds left in reserve.This special police force is authorized by the USA Patriot Act of 2001 established in Section 364 of the Patriot act and answer to the Federal Reserve Banks only.
You don't use hollow point bullets for target practice, which they say is the reason for so many bullets.And you wonder why I am so paranoid.The smoke screen about saving lives is not the intent of Washington. The intent is to get all weapons out of the hands of the citizens.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : Information for linkEdited by ICANT, : No reason given.

Do we know enough about the perp to know whether he should have been off the streets? He was a bit of an odd duck. He stuck to himself and was often seen to be armed. He had a court date for menacing someone.In my opinion, this last rant of yours is scary sounding stuff. Full of anti-government stuff along with a few things that I cannot make any sense of. (For example you claim you don't know who killed person X after telling us they were killed by a sibling or spouse. What point are you making with that statement?) You even admit to being paranoid and we know you are packing. What more should we look for before we send for the men in white coats? Standard gun nut rant. None of the proposed federal legislation has any provisions that would remove guns already in the hands of citizens. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No doubt Alabama bunker man thinks something very similar....Armed and paranoid is a dangerous combination.

At a time when america wants to keep the mentally ill from acquiring guns, NY state's governor A. Cuomo's proposed budget could lead to MORE mentally ill people on the street. With hundreds of MILLIONS of guns available in america, what could possibly go wrong?I said it before, let's reduce military spending 99%, and use the money for education and health care. Let's make america a country that is worth protecting to begin with.

quote:

---

ALBANY, N.Y. ” Buried in New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's proposed budget is a cost-cutting measure that would empower the state and health insurance companies to deny low-income mental patients the specific brand-name anti-psychotic drugs their doctors prescribe, in favor of less expensive versions.

​

Some care providers worry that some of those patients could be dangerous without an effective drug or if they stop taking it.

​

The measure would save $9 million in state funds.

​

It follows another cost-cutting attempt from last year's budget in which some female Medicaid patients were told they had to switch from their preferred brand of contraceptive to lower-cost options unless the cheaper measures failed, resulting in pregnancy, bleeding or nausea.

---

Cuomo budget limits choice of anti-psychotic drugs
We can’t find the page you are looking for.

Except that until the murder and kidnapping he was just a patriotic American who had served his country and who believed he had a right to defend his property.What's scary is that he sounds a lot like you. I can just picture an angry neighbor (doesn't matter about what) screaming at you as he walks onto your property and you firing a shot into the air. The next thing you know you've got a court date, just like Mr. Dykes the (as described by you) looney tune. Again, this is a link to a Google search result. I was able to find the PDF this time, here's a link: Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011That you went on to cite a bunch of data from this link about deaths due to alcohol, drugs, poisons, automobiles, etc., in a discussion about gun control, and then you never interpret it nor even explain why you cited it, leads me to suspect that you've lost your way in attempting to support your position. I'll ignore this portion of your message. This is much more relevant and is one of the tables people have been using during this discussion. It isn't very difficult to break it down into providing very useful information about firearm murders. If there were around 12,000 murders total and around 11,000 were by firearm, then it is a reasonable approximation to say that around 90% of all murders are by firearm.The chart shows 6351 murders not involving commission of a felony, in other words, they involved romantic triangles, arguments, etc. 767 were strangers, and in another 1637 the relationship was unknown (it's the unknown portion that accounts for why I cited the 50% to 75% range for the assailant being known to the victim). Subtracting these we get 3947. 90% of 3947 is 3552, the number of persons murdered each year by someone known to them. This is the thousands of persons murdered annually that I keep mentioning, and that dwarfs the couple hundred homeowners killed by criminals.This information, combined with the studies focused on the dangers of guns in the home, are how we know that anyone who purchases a gun for home defense is in the paradoxical position of having placed themselves at greater risk.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi Percy And is his defending his property what caused him to be scheduled to be in court the day after he killed the bus driver. I bought my house in 2003 and all my neighbors was here then and are still here. Not a one of them know I have the Surveillance system that I do nor does any of them know that I even own a gun.My neighbors have nothing to fear from me.Unless they fear I will not be able to help them do things that they need to have done and can't afford to pay someone to do it.Now the person that busts through my steel doors and enters my house is another story.I have a empty gun rack in my truck so that anyone who would have bad intentions will know that there is guns in my house, and will have second thoughts about breaking in. The gun racks have been there from the first time my neighbors saw the truck but they have never seen a gun in them. You mentioned drugs and alcohol so I was putting some facts out there.Did you notice how many deaths each cause?
How about the 98,000 per year that are killed in the hospitals by preventable mistakes.Get rid of drugs and aolchol and save a lot of lives.Get rid of doctors who bury their mistakes and save a lot more lives. There was actually 12,996 murders. The total by firearms = 8,775
Here
Making 67 % of murders by firearm. Actually the chart shows:Line 20 had Romantic triangle with a total of 90.
victims were:
1 husband, 1 wife, 1 daughter, 1 family, 52 aquaintance, 4 friends,
1 boyfriend, 9 girlfriends, 2 neighbors, 10 strangers and 8 unknown.The husband, wife and daughter would have been killed by a gun that was in the house or one brought into the house. We will just say it was in the house.All others would be brought to where the victim was. Money arguments are covered on line 24.
Other arguments are covered on line 25. It is unknown whether the people knew each other or were kin to each other. Yet you because of your bias choose to believe they all knew each other.That is not scientific is it? We have 12,996 murders and only 8,775 firearms involved.
Total other weapons 4,221 = 0.481025641025641% of murders.
We have 5,724 unknowns total that it is not known whether they knew each other or were kin to each other.If we substract the unknowns (5,724) from the firearms (8,775)
We have 3,051 then if we substract the strangers (1,615) we have
1,436. Which would be 16% knew each other.Do you now see what you can do with numbers by making assumptions?Go back and digest the numbers I posted in the post you replied too. Another foolish assumption as I just showed you with the numbers above.From table 10 show me which people were killed because they had a gun in the house.You keep making assumptions and assertions. I keep asking what you base your assertions and you keep assuring me your assumptions are correct. But you have not presented 1 shred of evidence to support your assertion that because a person has a gun in the house they are more likely to be responsible for a murder taking place.God Bless,