Facts About Gun Control:

[raykeller]

Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun related
deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.

What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put them in
perspective; as compared to other causes of death.

ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
prevented by gun laws

ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 17% are through criminal activity or mentally ill persons

ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually but drops to 5,100.

Still too many?Ā Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the
nation?

ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington DC

Basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those
cities haveĀ strict gun laws so it is not the lack of law that is the root
cause.Ā Maybe it's gangs and the lack of the historic family unit with a
father and a mother.

This leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 per state.
That is an average, some states have much higher rates than others.Ā For
example, California had 1,169. Alabama had 1.Ā

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far?Ā California of course but
understand, it is not the tool (guns) driving this. It is a crime rate
spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and
states.

So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be
something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths?
All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime
but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault; all are done
by criminals to victims and thinking that criminals will obey laws is
ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.Ā

But what of other deaths?Ā Ā Remember total gun deaths is 30,000/year
(really only 5,100).

ā?¢ 40,000+ die from a drug overdose ā?" THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

Ā· 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun
deaths

ā?¢ 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths
even if youĀ include suicide)

Now it gets good

ā?¢ 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical
malpractice.

ā?¢ You are safer in Chicago than you are in a hospital!

ā?¢ 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Time to stop the
cheeseburgers!

So what is the point?

If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease,
even a 10% decrease would save twice the lives annually of all gun related
deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).

A 10% reduction in malpractice would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4
times the number of criminal homicides.

Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on
guns?Ā

It's pretty simple. Taking away guns gives control to governments.Ā Ā This
is not conspiracy theory; this is a historical fact. Why is it impossible
for the government to spill over into dictatorship?

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government,
those in power may becomeĀ corrupt and seek to rule as the British did.
They too tried to disarm the populace of the colonies because it is not
difficult to understand; a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the Second Amendment was proudly and boldly included in the
Constitution.

It must be preserved at all costs.

Ā

[Dechucka]

"raykeller"
<whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun related
> deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.
>
> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put them in
> perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>
> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
> prevented by gun laws

Wrong

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 08/10/2016 05:30 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>
> "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun related

>> deaths per year by firearms. That is not disputed.

>>
>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>

>> �   65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be

>> prevented by gun laws
>
> Wrong

Are you saying the only way to commit suicide is by using a gun?

There are more people that try suicide by taking drugs... legal and
illegal.

--
That's Karma ;)

[Trevor Wilson]

On 11/08/2016 7:09 AM, raykeller wrote:
> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun related

> deaths per year by firearms. That is not disputed.

>
> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put them in
> perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>

> �   65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
> prevented by gun laws
>
> �   15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
>
> �   17% are through criminal activity or mentally ill persons
>
> �   3% are accidental discharge deaths

>
> So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually but drops to 5,100.

**BZZZTT! Wrong. According to the CDC, there were 11,208 deaths via
gunshot in 2013. NOT 5,100.


>
> Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the
> nation?
>
> �   480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
>
> �   344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
>
> �   333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
>
> �   119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington DC

>
> Basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those

> cities have strict gun laws so it is not the lack of law that is the root
> cause. Maybe it's gangs and the lack of the historic family unit with a

> father and a mother.
>
> This leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 per state.

> That is an average, some states have much higher rates than others. For
> example, California had 1,169. Alabama had 1.Â
>
> Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California of course but

> understand, it is not the tool (guns) driving this. It is a crime rate
> spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and
> states.
>
> So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be
> something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
>
> Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths?
> All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime
> but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault; all are done
> by criminals to victims and thinking that criminals will obey laws is

> ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.Â
>
> But what of other deaths?  Remember total gun deaths is 30,000/year
> (really only 5,100).

**No, really more than 10,000 PA.


>
> â?¢ 40,000+ die from a drug overdose â?" THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

**Suicide.

>
> · 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun
> deaths

**Sure. Are you suggesting that US legislators should ignore the 10,000
firearm related homicides each year?


>
> â?¢ 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths
> even if you include suicide)

**Sure. Are you suggesting that US legislators should ignore the 10,000
firearm related homicides each year?



>
> Now it gets good
>
> â?¢ 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical
> malpractice.
>
> â?¢ You are safer in Chicago than you are in a hospital!

**Tell you what: When you get shot, have a heart attack, or suffer with
a serious form of cancer, you toddle down to your local gun dealer for
treatment. I'll take my chances with a hospital. We'll see who survives.
People die in hospital because they're sick!


>
> â?¢ 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Time to stop the
> cheeseburgers!

**Sugar is the enemy, not cheeseburgers.

>
> So what is the point?

**Well, your point is that you can lie about the data.

>
> If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease,
> even a 10% decrease would save twice the lives annually of all gun related
> deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).

**If you are so concerned about heart disease, why don't YOU study heart
surgery? How will learning to shoot save heart attack victims?

>
> A 10% reduction in malpractice would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4
> times the number of criminal homicides.
>
> Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
>
> So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on

> guns?Â

**I know this will surprise you, but American society is capable of
doing more than one thing at a time.

>
> It's pretty simple. Taking away guns gives control to governments.

**Bullshit. Control of government is in the hands of the people. It has
been for hundreds of years.


  This

> is not conspiracy theory; this is a historical fact. Why is it impossible
> for the government to spill over into dictatorship?

**The vote.

>
> The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government,

> those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did.

> They too tried to disarm the populace of the colonies because it is not
> difficult to understand; a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
>
> Thus, the Second Amendment was proudly and boldly included in the
> Constitution.
>
> It must be preserved at all costs.

**Bollocks. The 2nd is an anomaly to the US. It is daft, poorly written
and way, way out of date.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Dechucka]

"Beam Me Up Scotty"
<Liberalism-is-exposed-as-unsustainab...@cyberspace.nebulax.com>
wrote in message news:7cNqz.16484$_D4....@fx07.iad...

> On 08/10/2016 05:30 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "raykeller"
>> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
>> wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun related
>>> deaths per year by firearms. That is not disputed.
>>>
>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>
>>> �   65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>>> prevented by gun laws
>>
>> Wrong
>
> Are you saying the only way to commit suicide is by using a gun?

No

>
> There are more people that try suicide by taking drugs... legal and
> illegal.

So what. The fact is that households with guns in them have a higher rate of
suicide ( and domestic violence deaths) then those without. True in
Australia as well.

NO this is not causative

[Frank]

I know if I moved to Oz I'd have to give up the shotgun that I shot trap
and skeet and hunted with for over 40 years.

You could just as well argue about our 1st amendment. When it was
written there were no electronic communications. Libs will open up a
can a worms voting for their ilk here.

[Frank]

On 8/10/2016 5:30 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>
> "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun related

>> deaths per year by firearms. That is not disputed.

>>
>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>

>> �   65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be

>> prevented by gun laws
>
> Wrong

He's way off. It is more like 63%.

[Trevor Wilson]

**Wrong. Trap shooting is popular in Australia:

https://www.claytarget.com.au/

http://www.wacta.net/

http://www.melbournegunclub.com.au/

http://www.sacta.com.au/

http://hittingtargets.com.au/

http://www.vcta.com.au/

I trust this assists in dealing with your ignorance.

>
> You could just as well argue about our 1st amendment. When it was
> written there were no electronic communications. Libs will open up a
> can a worms voting for their ilk here.

**Like all legal documents, the US BoR should be regularly examined and
alternations made if necessary.

[Dechucka]

"Frank" <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in message
news:nogavt$dic$2...@dont-email.me...

Actually he is way off because lots of these suicides would be prevented by
sane gun laws

[Dechucka]

"Frank" <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in message

news:nogaum$dic$1...@dont-email.me...

Why?

[Trevor Wilson]

**Because 'Frank' has not bothered to ascertain any of the facts
surrounding his prejudice. Typical of American gun loons. They accept,
unquestioningly, the lies promulgated by the NRA and the gun manufacturers.

[Frank]

Don't know where you get that idea. Suicide rates are just as high or
higher in countries with extremely strict gun laws.

[Frank]

Dangerous thing to do.

My shotgun is a semi-automatic. I understand semi-automatic weapons are
banned in Oz.

Hillary has professed a love for your system. You register all guns
then buy back those you do not like. You could end up like the Brits.
In the UK you have to be 18 to buy a kitchen knife.

[Frank]

Book mark the Oz url. Enlighten me.

[Frank]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
as good as any
According to this I would not be allowed to hunt with my semi-automatic
shotgun. Could I even own it since I no longer target shoot with it.
I don't care what you Ozies say.

[Dechucka]

"Frank" <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in message

news:nogci7$hdg$1...@dont-email.me...

I got the idea from the published data in the US and other countries. As we
are not talking causation the fact that suicide rates vary between countries
is a cultural thing and irrelevant to gun control issues

[Dechucka]

snip

>>> You could just as well argue about our 1st amendment. When it was
>>> written there were no electronic communications. Libs will open up a
>>> can a worms voting for their ilk here.
>>
>> **Like all legal documents, the US BoR should be regularly examined and
>> alternations made if necessary.
>>
>>
> Dangerous thing to do.
>
> My shotgun is a semi-automatic. I understand semi-automatic weapons are
> banned in Oz.

Why do you need a semi automatic for trap/skeet shooting?? Are you a shit
shot?

[Trevor Wilson]

**No. A normal thing to do. In every nation (including the US), the law
changes to deal with changes in society and technology. The US BoR is no
different.

>
> My shotgun is a semi-automatic. I understand semi-automatic weapons are
> banned in Oz.

**Irrelevant. Trap shooters do not need semi-auto weapons. That said,
there are several, legal, alternatives to pump action weapons, if you
are a poor shot and cannot hit the target first time.

>
> Hillary has professed a love for your system. You register all guns
> then buy back those you do not like. You could end up like the Brits.
> In the UK you have to be 18 to buy a kitchen knife.

**In my state, that is, indeed, the case. A system which is fully
supported by 95% of the population, BTW.

[Dechucka]

"Frank" <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in message

news:nogct6$ikl$2...@dont-email.me...

About Australian gun laws? Google is your friend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia i.e. guns are not
banned in Australia

[Dechucka]

"Frank" <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in message

news:nogd66$ikl$3...@dont-email.me...

Hey moron you were talking about trap shooting. You were wrong and a typical
ignorant septic.

BTW what do you hunt with a semi auto shotgun?

[Just Wondering]

What does "need" have to do with it? Why should he not be able to
choose any shotgun that meets the rules?

[Frank]

Last answer as I'm k'fing thread. Wasting my time. Think I said earlier
I've owned gun for over 40 years and started using for trap and skeet,
waterfowl and small game. Later scoped it for deer and no longer shoot
targets. State law requires it be plugged for 3 rounds only.

What the fuck do you Ozies care about our gun laws?

[Dechucka]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XhPqz.9703$Ox5....@fx31.iad...

How many shots do you get at the pigeon in trap shooting?

[Dechucka]

"Frank" <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in message

news:nogfgl$ps4$1...@dont-email.me...

So your a shit shot

>
> What the fuck do you Ozies care about our gun laws?

The deaths

[Trevor Wilson]

**YOU were the one making idiotic claims about Australia gun laws. I am
and others simply educated you on the facts, rather than the rhetoric
you've been sucking down.

[Terry Coombs]

Misery loves company ?
--
Snag

[rbowman]

On 08/10/2016 09:39 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> The libs that love to babble about a living document somehow never
> want to take their case to the people via a proposed amendment.

Well, it did take almost 200 years to ratify the 27th amendment...

[Trevor Wilson]

On 11/08/2016 1:39 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:50:28 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> **Like all legal documents, the US BoR should be regularly examined and
>> alternations made if necessary.
>

> It in fact contains instructions for changing it and it has been
> changed repeatedly.

**Not under dispute, though gun loons seem to imagine that it is imutable.

>
> An important point you will probably want to avoid is that it is the
> instrument by which the people agree to give up certainly basic
> liberties and assign them to the government for practical reasons the
> people think good and proper.

**Why do you imagine that I would want to avoid such a thing? Take as
much space as you require to formulate your answer,

>
> It's a short list. Most rights remain with the people and lower
> governments. The people are free at any time to grant more or revoke
> what they previously gave.
>
> The most obvious point I suspect you will want to dismiss that
> changing that document can only be at the hands of the people - most
> certainly not by the latest band of corrupt thieves and liars that
> bought their way into office for the moment.

**The "people" you speak of, are the elected representatives.

>
> The libs that love to babble about a living document somehow never
> want to take their case to the people via a proposed amendment.
>

**There have been around 10,000 proposed amendments to the US
Constitution. Are you absolutely certain that none have ever been
proposed by liberals? I eagerly await your evidence to substantiate your
claim. For my part, I have non idea who has proposed all those
amendments. I accept that your knowledge is greater than mine.

[Aston Barrett]

"Dechucka" wrote in message
news:rdSdnUaKsNEyITbK...@westnet.com.au...

####

Food.

[Aston Barrett]

"Just Wondering" wrote in message news:XhPqz.9703$Ox5....@fx31.iad...

#####

Damn! That response reminded me of a Tina Turner song! :)

But to answer Dechuka, sometimes you have to try twice to target, and hit,
your ultimate goal.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:e11uah...@mid.individual.net...

You are an excellent example of a person who shouldn't be permitted a
dangerous weapon or a voice in public affairs.

[rbowman]

On 08/10/2016 11:34 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> **There have been around 10,000 proposed amendments to the US
> Constitution. Are you absolutely certain that none have ever been
> proposed by liberals? I eagerly await your evidence to substantiate your
> claim. For my part, I have non idea who has proposed all those
> amendments. I accept that your knowledge is greater than mine.

Liberals may have proposed the 18th Amendment. It fits right in with
their anti-tobacco, anti-soda, anti-fun tendencies.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 07:14:29 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

That was NOT liberals. It was the WCTU that was the big driving force,
and my grandmother (a Weeks [Weeks House]; New England blue blood;
DAR; extreme conservative) was one of them.

--
Ed Huntress

[Governor Swill]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 20:39:38 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

>The most obvious point I suspect you will want to dismiss that
>changing that document can only be at the hands of the people - most
>certainly not by the latest band of corrupt thieves and liars that
>bought their way into office for the moment.

Um, no. The Constitution is not changed by popular referendum. It's
changed by representatives in Congress and the State Legislatures. The

"latest band of corrupt thieves and liars that bought their way into
office for the moment."

Swill
--
#imwithher
You can lead a wingnut to knowledge but you can't make him
learn.

[mog...@hotmail.com]

Australian gun laws Work that's what. The murder rate in the US is (3.9 per 100,000). The murder rate in Australia is only 1.6 per 100,000.

[Governor Swill]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 01:33:46 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:34:54 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>On 11/08/2016 1:39 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>> The most obvious point I suspect you will want to dismiss that
>>> changing that document can only be at the hands of the people - most
>>> certainly not by the latest band of corrupt thieves and liars that
>>> bought their way into office for the moment.
>>
>>**The "people" you speak of, are the elected representatives.
>

>Nope. The power belongs to the people, one by one. Via the
>Constitution they have delegated a select few powers to government.

Nope. You are obviously a Trump supporter if you're that ignorant of
how the Constitution works. It cannot be changed by popular
referendum.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Procedure_for_amending_the_Constitution>

>Yes, in a democratic republic, the people send representatives to do
>their day to day business. But those representatives do not have the
>power to change the very basic rules - the Constitution.

They are the only persons who do have that power. There is no
provision in the Constitution for it to be changed by popular
acclamation.

>They must
>work within the bounds of the Constitution. Any change is a matter for
>a vote by the public, one by one.

Wrong. The Public doesn't propose or vote on amendments.

>I'm sure it's a mix. To this thread, libs have tried a hundred ways to
>implement gun control but as far as I know have never thought about
>proposing the repeal of the 2nd amendment. To your statement that the
>BoR should be examined regularly, libs have NOT done that. They have
>tried to circumvent it, finesse the definition of words, but never
>stand up on their hind legs and propose repeal, right out loud, in
>public.

Cons have likewise regularly circumvented the BoR.

>In the contest of day to day political give and take, especially as it
>has degraded over my lifetime, politicians of any stripe seem
>reluctant to put any pure issue of policy before the people. Look at
>the current campaign and the many before it. The campaign is name
>calling, massive amounts of money spent on negative attack ads, etc.
>Demonize your opponent. Try to say as little as possible about any
>real issue. That tactic doesn't work when it's a nameless, faceless,
>question of policy without a face on it. Such as an amendment.
>
>Still, libs love to try to circumvent the Constitution by back door
>means. Real conservatives are prone to not even want to mess with it.

"Real Conservatives" (TM) are as happy to "mess with it" as anybody
else.

>Then there are the wolves in sheep's clothing, flying a false flag,
>and calling themselves NeoCons. They are as bad as the libs and that
>is a big part of why we are in the mess we find ourselves in. Two
>corrupt parties jockeying for power and financial advantage by any
>means available, legitimate or not. Screw issues, screw any long term
>effects, screw the Constitution if you can get away with it.

Yet when Bush became President, Republicans proudly waved their neocon
flags all the way to Iraq.

[Governor Swill]

It was social conservatives who got Prohibition passed.

You should look stuff up before you post.

[Just Wondering]

On 8/10/2016 9:39 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:50:28 +1000, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>

>> **Like all legal documents, the US BoR should be regularly examined and
>> alternations made if necessary.
>

> It in fact contains instructions for changing it and it has been
> changed repeatedly.
>

> An important point you will probably want to avoid is that it is the
> instrument by which the people agree to give up certainly basic
> liberties and assign them to the government for practical reasons the
> people think good and proper.
>

> It's a short list. Most rights remain with the people and lower
> governments. The people are free at any time to grant more or revoke
> what they previously gave.
>

> The most obvious point I suspect you will want to dismiss that
> changing that document can only be at the hands of the people - most
> certainly not by the latest band of corrupt thieves and liars that
> bought their way into office for the moment.
>

> The libs that love to babble about a living document somehow never
> want to take their case to the people via a proposed amendment.
>

Silly me, all along I thought Article V of the Constitution
required that amendments be done by a 3/4 majority of the
state legislatures,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev
now I learn from you that you only have to take it to the people.

[Just Wondering]

Skeet shooting puts two targets in the air at once. A semiauto
shotgun gives one a distinct advantage.
But you didn't answer my question. What does "need" have to do

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:5ZednZxL4YWPADbK...@westnet.com.au:

>
> "raykeller"
><whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>

>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun related

>> deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.

>>
>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put them
>> in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>

>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>> prevented by gun laws
>
> Wrong
>
>

Stupid. Illiterate. Australian roo fucker.

--
"...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to
the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a
century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time,
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."--
Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787

[Dechucka]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:xA3rz.23466$_95....@fx21.iad...

> On 8/10/2016 6:10 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:XhPqz.9703$Ox5....@fx31.iad...
>>> On 8/10/2016 5:28 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>>>> You could just as well argue about our 1st amendment. When it was
>>>>>>> written there were no electronic communications. Libs will open up
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> can a worms voting for their ilk here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Like all legal documents, the US BoR should be regularly examined
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> alternations made if necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Dangerous thing to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> My shotgun is a semi-automatic. I understand semi-automatic weapons
>>>>> are banned in Oz.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you need a semi automatic for trap/skeet shooting??
>>> >
>>> What does "need" have to do with it? Why should he not be able to
>>> choose any shotgun that meets the rules?
>>
>> How many shots do you get at the pigeon in trap shooting?
> >
> Skeet shooting puts two targets in the air at once. A semiauto
> shotgun gives one a distinct advantage.

Double barrel is the norm

> But you didn't answer my question. What does "need" have to do
> with it? Why should he not be able to choose any shotgun that
> meets the rules?

Do semi autos meet the rules?

[Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas]

Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in

news:e11lnu...@mid.individual.net:

> On 11/08/2016 7:09 AM, raykeller wrote:

>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun related
>> deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.
>>
>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put them
>> in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>
>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>> prevented by gun laws
>>

>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and
>> justified
>>
>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 17% are through criminal activity or mentally ill persons
>>
>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 3% are accidental discharge deaths

>>
>> So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually but drops to
>> 5,100.
>
> **BZZZTT! Wrong. According to the CDC, there were 11,208 deaths via
> gunshot in 2013. NOT 5,100.

Actually stupid there were 30,ooo deaths by gunshot. He was just breaking
them down as to the situation in which it occured.

Is living in Asstralia a natural IQ lowerer?

>
>
>>
>> Still too many?Ā Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the
>> nation?
>>
>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
>>
>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
>>
>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
>>
>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington DC

>>
>> Basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of

>> those cities haveĀ strict gun laws so it is not the lack of law that
>> is the root cause.Ā Maybe it's gangs and the lack of the historic

>> family unit with a father and a mother.
>>
>> This leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 per
>> state. That is an average, some states have much higher rates than

>> others.Ā For example, California had 1,169. Alabama had 1.Ā
>>
>> Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far?Ā California of course but

>> understand, it is not the tool (guns) driving this. It is a crime rate
>> spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and
>> states.
>>
>> So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be
>> something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
>>
>> Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other
>> deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission
>> of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape,
>> assault; all are done by criminals to victims and thinking that

>> criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.Ā
>>
>> But what of other deaths?Ā Ā Remember total gun deaths is 30,000/year

>> (really only 5,100).
>
> **No, really more than 10,000 PA.

No, stupid lookls at his numbers and then dispute them ya shackle dragging
pedophile.

>
>
>>
>> ā?¢ 40,000+ die from a drug overdose ā?" THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
>
> **Suicide.

Were they all suicides, stupid? So basically you are saying that suicide is
means independent. Would your woodie get bigger if the 20,000 thta killed
themselves with a gun simply overdosed instead, stupid.

>
>>
>> Ā· 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the

>> criminal gun
>> deaths
>
> **Sure. Are you suggesting that US legislators should ignore the 10,000
> firearm related homicides each year?

No, we are saying that we should honestly examimne the facts and ban travel
of low IQ Australians to the US.

>
>
>>
>> ā?¢ 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun
>> deaths
>> even if youĀ include suicide)

>
> **Sure. Are you suggesting that US legislators should ignore the 10,000
> firearm related homicides each year?

Where did he say that you shackle dragging roo fuker?

>
>
>
>>
>> Now it gets good
>>
>> ā?¢ 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable
>> medical
>> malpractice.
>>
>> ā?¢ You are safer in Chicago than you are in a hospital!

>
> **Tell you what: When you get shot, have a heart attack, or suffer with
> a serious form of cancer, you toddle down to your local gun dealer for
> treatment. I'll take my chances with a hospital. We'll see who survives.
> People die in hospital because they're sick!

Are you really this stupid? Oh wait...

>
>
>>
>> ā?¢ 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Time to stop the

>> cheeseburgers!
>
> **Sugar is the enemy, not cheeseburgers.

No, illiterate liars are the enemy.

>
>>
>> So what is the point?
>
> **Well, your point is that you can lie about the data.

Point out specifically where he lied.

>
>>
>> If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart
>> disease, even a 10% decrease would save twice the lives annually of all
>> gun related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).
>
> **If you are so concerned about heart disease, why don't YOU study heart
> surgery? How will learning to shoot save heart attack victims?

And the IQ if Australia drops 2 more points.

>
>>
>> A 10% reduction in malpractice would be 66% of the total gun deaths or
>> 4 times the number of criminal homicides.
>>
>> Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
>>
>> So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the

>> focus on guns?Ā

>
> **I know this will surprise you, but American society is capable of
> doing more than one thing at a time.

Which is why we will be great again.

>
>>
>> It's pretty simple. Taking away guns gives control to governments.
>
> **Bullshit. Control of government is in the hands of the people. It has
> been for hundreds of years.

Either you are a prog or a moron. Which is it?

>
>
> Ā Ā This

>> is not conspiracy theory; this is a historical fact. Why is it
>> impossible for the government to spill over into dictatorship?
>
> **The vote.

Don't read much history, do you?

>
>>
>> The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of

>> government, those in power may becomeĀ corrupt and seek to rule as the

>> British did. They too tried to disarm the populace of the colonies
>> because it is not difficult to understand; a disarmed populace is a
>> controlled populace.
>>
>> Thus, the Second Amendment was proudly and boldly included in the
>> Constitution.
>>
>> It must be preserved at all costs.
>
> **Bollocks. The 2nd is an anomaly to the US. It is daft, poorly written
> and way, way out of date.

Come and take it then fuckstick. I dare you.

And it is not poorly written. It is poorly read by ignorant progessives.

[Dechucka]

"Aston Barrett" <fami...@bass.gov> wrote in message
news:2MZqz.13029$MD4....@fx28.iad...

When you could take 2 shots the over and under was still the norm

[Just Wondering]

On 8/11/2016 2:07 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:28:41 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> Silly me, all along I thought Article V of the Constitution
>> required that amendments be done by a 3/4 majority of the
>> state legislatures,
>

> Just where do you suppose THEY get thier power to do anything?
>
From their (not thier) respective state constitutions.

>> now I learn from you that you only have to take it to the people.
>

> No one ever said anything an individual being the proposing body.

>
"The people are free at any time to grant more or revoke
what they previously gave."

"changing that document can only be at the hands of

the people ..."

[Just Wondering]

Define "norm". Keep in mind that Australia has restrictions on pumps
and semiautos that basically channel clay shooters to double barrels
that would skew what is otherwise the norm. Those restrictions don't
exist in the USA.

http://www.shootingtimes.com/shotguns/10-best-shotguns-under-500/
8 pump, 1 semiauto, 1 double barrel

https://shotgunreport.com/2013/07/26/beginners-skeet-gun/
Dear Technoid:
I am beginning to take up the sport of skeet. I cannot afford an
expensive shotgun specifically for skeet shooting! Any recommendation on
an inexpensive shotgun suitable for skeet. thanks, LES

Dear Les:
You can shoot at skeet targets with just about anything, but some guns
are easier to do it with than others. ... If you prefer pump guns, a
26″ screw choked Remington 870 is hard to beat, but the Mossberg and
Browning BPS are also just fine. ... Pump guns are not as popular at
skeet as they used to be, but for starting out they will be more than
adequate. They are inexpensive, reliable and durable. They are also very
American. I like them a lot. I started shooting skeet with an 870 pump.
In semi-autos, I prefer the current Beretta 3901 with a 28″ barrel for
skeet. It also is my favorite general purpose gun for both clay targets
and hunting. It will cost somewhere around $650-700. ...
Side by sides are really not popular for skeet, although they can be
used. ... You are better off with a pump, auto or O/U.

>
>> But you didn't answer my question. What does "need" have to do
>> with it? Why should he not be able to choose any shotgun that
>> meets the rules?
>
> Do semi autos meet the rules?

For recreational shooting there are not rules limiting what gun to use.

For competition, you'd have to look at the rules for each competition.
I don't care, so if you want to know to bloody research yourself.

And you still didn't answer my questions.

[Dechucka]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:lD5rz.29615$9y5....@fx44.iad...

Not the US

[Just Wondering]

On 8/11/2016 2:17 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>
> "Aston Barrett" <fami...@bass.gov> wrote in message
> news:2MZqz.13029$MD4....@fx28.iad...
>>
>>
>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message news:XhPqz.9703$Ox5....@fx31.iad...
>>
>> On 8/10/2016 5:28 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>> snip
>>>>>> You could just as well argue about our 1st amendment. When it was
>>>>>> written there were no electronic communications. Libs will open up a
>>>>>> can a worms voting for their ilk here.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Like all legal documents, the US BoR should be regularly examined
>>>>> and
>>>>> alternations made if necessary.
>>>>>
>>>> Dangerous thing to do.
>>>>
>>>> My shotgun is a semi-automatic. I understand semi-automatic weapons
>>>> are banned in Oz.
>>>
>>> Why do you need a semi automatic for trap/skeet shooting??
>>>
>> What does "need" have to do with it? Why should he not be able to
>> choose any shotgun that meets the rules?
>>

>> Damn! That response reminded me of a Tina Turner song! :)
>>
>> But to answer Dechuka, sometimes you have to try twice to target, and
>> hit, your ultimate goal.
>
> When you could take 2 shots the over and under was still the norm
>

Perhaps when you live in a country that restricts pump and
semiauto shotguns. The USA is not such a country.

[Dechucka]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0-idndpyCds7ezHK...@westnet.com.au...

They don't.

Anyhow for trap shooting a SST is better

[Just Wondering]

On 8/11/2016 2:55 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 14:23:31 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/11/2016 2:07 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:28:41 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>>> Silly me, all along I thought Article V of the Constitution
>>>> required that amendments be done by a 3/4 majority of the
>>>> state legislatures,
>>>
>>> Just where do you suppose THEY get thier power to do anything?
>>>
>> From their (not thier)
>

> I mis-typed a word. Oh, god, I should be beaten. At the very least it
> proves anything you write is more correct than anything I write.
>
>> respective state constitutions.
>
> Where do they come from? Who can change them? Who votes in and recalls
> representatives of the moment?
>
Your questions would be answered in the histories and
constitutions of each state. If you care about answers
to your questions, do your own bloody research.

[Just Wondering]

On 8/11/2016 2:57 PM, Dechucka wrote:

> "Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 8/11/2016 2:16 PM, Dechucka wrote:

>>> "Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Skeet shooting puts two targets in the air at once.
>>>> A semiauto shotgun gives one a distinct advantage.
>>>
>>> Double barrel is the norm
>>>
>> Define "norm".
>
> Not the US
>

That's not a definition.

[Just Wondering]

As I already pointed out, it depends on the competition.
For example:
NATIONAL SKEET SHOOTING ASSOCIATION Official Rules:
http://wegc.org/shotgun/nssa_rule_book_2004.pdf
"Guns must be capable of firing two shots since four sets of doubles are
included in the regulation 25-shot round. In addition, competitive
Doubles Events are offered at many tournaments. The gun may be a double
barrel (side-by-side or over-and-under), a pump gun or an automatic,
depending on the shooter’s preference."

> Anyhow for trap shooting a SST is better
>

"Better" is subjective. Better for who? How are you qualified to say
what is "better" for anyone but yourself? Answer: You're NOT.

And you still didn't answer my questions.

[Dechucka]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:xd6rz.30096$NH5....@fx38.iad...

> On 8/11/2016 2:57 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>> "Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2016 2:16 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>> "Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Skeet shooting puts two targets in the air at once.
>>>>> A semiauto shotgun gives one a distinct advantage.
>>>>
>>>> Double barrel is the norm
>>>>
>>> Define "norm".
>>
>> Not the US
>>
> That's not a definition.

Yes it is

> And you still didn't answer my questions.
> What does "need" have to do with it?

Nothing

> Why should he not be able to choose any shotgun that
> meets the rules?

You should

[Dechucka]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:9n6rz.9668$xe1....@fx02.iad...

Good you've dne some research

>
>> Anyhow for trap shooting a SST is better
> >
> "Better" is subjective. Better for who? How are you qualified to say
> what is "better" for anyone but yourself? Answer: You're NOT.

One trigger pull instead of 2

snip

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:5ZednZxL4YWPADbK...@westnet.com.au:

>
> "raykeller"
> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
> wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>

>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun
>> related deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.
>>
>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>
>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>> prevented by gun laws
>

> Wrong
>
>

Which law...other than a ban...would prevent some person intent on
committing suicide with a firearm from doing so?

--

RD (The Sandman)

There are all kinds of people in this world. Good ones,
bad ones and they come in many colors: white, black, brown, red,
yellow, etc.. but there is only one race - Human.

IOW, All Lives Matter!!!

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:T9mdndLdw_3gOzbK...@westnet.com.au:

>
> "Beam Me Up Scotty"
> <Liberalism-is-exposed-as-unsustainable-self-destructive-and-contradict
> i...@cyberspace.nebulax.com> wrote in message
> news:7cNqz.16484$_D4....@fx07.iad...
>> On 08/10/2016 05:30 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>> "raykeller"
>>> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.co

>>> m> wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun
>>>> related deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.
>>>>
>>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>>>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>>
>>>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>>>> prevented by gun laws
>>>
>>> Wrong
>>

>> Are you saying the only way to commit suicide is by using a gun?
>
> No
>
>>
>> There are more people that try suicide by taking drugs... legal and
>> illegal.
>
> So what. The fact is that households with guns in them have a higher
> rate of suicide ( and domestic violence deaths) then those without.
> True in Australia as well.
>
> NO this is not causative
>
>

Nor does it mean that passing a gun control law would prevent a person
from committing suicide with a gun.

[RD Sandman]

Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in news:nogavt$dic$2...@dont-email.me:

> On 8/10/2016 5:30 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>
>> "raykeller"
>> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>
>> wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun related
>>> deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.
>>>
>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>
>>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>>> prevented by gun laws
>>
>> Wrong
>

> He's way off. It is more like 63%.
>

;)

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:AO-dnTIv7vkyLDbK...@westnet.com.au:

>
> "Frank" <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in message
> news:nogavt$dic$2...@dont-email.me...

>> On 8/10/2016 5:30 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>> "raykeller"
>>> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.co
>>> m> wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun
>>>> related deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.
>>>>
>>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>>>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>>
>>>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>>>> prevented by gun laws
>>>
>>> Wrong
>>
>> He's way off. It is more like 63%.
>

> Actually he is way off because lots of these suicides would be
> prevented by sane gun laws
>
>

What laws specifically?

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:RqOdnYg8-ea1JTbK...@westnet.com.au:

>
> "Frank" <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in message

> news:nogci7$hdg$1...@dont-email.me...

>> On 8/10/2016 6:58 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>> "Frank" <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in message
>>> news:nogavt$dic$2...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 8/10/2016 5:30 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "raykeller"
>>>>> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.

>>>>> com> wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun
>>>>>> related deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to
>>>>>> put them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> prevented by gun laws
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong
>>>>
>>>> He's way off. It is more like 63%.
>>>
>>> Actually he is way off because lots of these suicides would be
>>> prevented by sane gun laws
>>>
>>

>> Don't know where you get that idea. Suicide rates are just as high
>> or higher in countries with extremely strict gun laws.
>
> I got the idea from the published data in the US and other countries.
> As we are not talking causation the fact that suicide rates vary
> between countries is a cultural thing and irrelevant to gun control
> issues
>
>

Not really....they make laws trying to prevent suicide rather dead
herrings.

[RD Sandman]

Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
news:e11lnu...@mid.individual.net:

> On 11/08/2016 7:09 AM, raykeller wrote:

>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun

>> related deaths per year by firearms. That is not disputed.

>>
>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>

>> �   65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>> prevented by gun laws
>>
>> �   15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and
>> justified
>>
>> �   17% are through criminal activity or mentally ill persons
>>
>> �   3% are accidental discharge deaths

>>
>> So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually but drops to
>> 5,100.
>
> **BZZZTT! Wrong. According to the CDC, there were 11,208 deaths via
> gunshot in 2013. NOT 5,100.

Actually, Trevor, per the CDC, in 2013, there were 33,636 deaths by
gunshot in the US:

21,175 - Suicides
11,208 - Homicides (which is the only category you looked at)
467 - Legal intervention
505 - Unintentional
281 - Undetermined intent

If you are going to complain about someone else's figures, try to get
yours right. ;)

[RD Sandman]

Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in

news:e11pjo...@mid.individual.net:

> On 11/08/2016 8:47 AM, Frank wrote:

>> On 8/10/2016 5:44 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2016 7:09 AM, raykeller wrote:
>>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun

>>>> related deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.

>>>>
>>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>>>> them in
>>>> perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>>

>>>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>>>> prevented by gun laws
>>>>
>>>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and
>>>> justified
>>>>
>>>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 17% are through criminal activity or mentally ill
>>>> persons
>>>>
>>>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 3% are accidental discharge deaths

>>>>
>>>> So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually but drops to
>>>> 5,100.
>>>
>>> **BZZZTT! Wrong. According to the CDC, there were 11,208 deaths via
>>> gunshot in 2013. NOT 5,100.
>>>
>>>
>>>>

>>>> ā?¢ 40,000+ die from a drug overdose ā?" THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR
>>>> THAT!
>>>
>>> **Suicide.
>>>
>>>>

>>>> Ā· 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the
>>>> criminal gun
>>>> deaths
>>>
>>> **Sure. Are you suggesting that US legislators should ignore the
>>> 10,000 firearm related homicides each year?
>>>
>>>
>>>>

>>>> ā?¢ 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding
>>>> gun
>>>> deaths
>>>> even if youĀ include suicide)
>>>
>>> **Sure. Are you suggesting that US legislators should ignore the
>>> 10,000 firearm related homicides each year?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>

>>>> Now it gets good
>>>>
>>>> ā?¢ 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable
>>>> medical
>>>> malpractice.
>>>>
>>>> ā?¢ You are safer in Chicago than you are in a hospital!
>>>
>>> **Tell you what: When you get shot, have a heart attack, or suffer
>>> with a serious form of cancer, you toddle down to your local gun
>>> dealer for treatment. I'll take my chances with a hospital. We'll
>>> see who survives. People die in hospital because they're sick!
>>>
>>>
>>>>

>>>> ā?¢ 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Time to stop
>>>> the
>>>> cheeseburgers!
>>>
>>> **Sugar is the enemy, not cheeseburgers.
>>>
>>>>

>>>> So what is the point?
>>>
>>> **Well, your point is that you can lie about the data.
>>>
>>>>

>>>> If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart
>>>> disease,
>>>> even a 10% decrease would save twice the lives annually of all gun
>>>> related
>>>> deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).
>>>
>>> **If you are so concerned about heart disease, why don't YOU study
>>> heart surgery? How will learning to shoot save heart attack victims?
>>>
>>>>

>>>> A 10% reduction in malpractice would be 66% of the total gun deaths
>>>> or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.
>>>>
>>>> Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
>>>>
>>>> So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the
>>>> focus on
>>>> guns?Ā
>>>
>>> **I know this will surprise you, but American society is capable of
>>> doing more than one thing at a time.
>>>
>>>>

>>>> It's pretty simple. Taking away guns gives control to governments.
>>>
>>> **Bullshit. Control of government is in the hands of the people. It
>>> has been for hundreds of years.
>>>
>>>

>>> Ā Ā This
>>>> is not conspiracy theory; this is a historical fact. Why is it
>>>> impossible
>>>> for the government to spill over into dictatorship?
>>>
>>> **The vote.
>>>
>>>>

>>>> The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of
>>>> government,
>>>> those in power may becomeĀ corrupt and seek to rule as the British
>>>> did. They too tried to disarm the populace of the colonies because
>>>> it is not difficult to understand; a disarmed populace is a
>>>> controlled populace.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, the Second Amendment was proudly and boldly included in the
>>>> Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> It must be preserved at all costs.
>>>
>>> **Bollocks. The 2nd is an anomaly to the US. It is daft, poorly
>>> written and way, way out of date.
>>>

>> I know if I moved to Oz I'd have to give up the shotgun that I shot
>> trap and skeet and hunted with for over 40 years.
>
> **Wrong. Trap shooting is popular in Australia:
>
> https://www.claytarget.com.au/
>
> http://www.wacta.net/
>
> http://www.melbournegunclub.com.au/
>
> http://www.sacta.com.au/
>
> http://hittingtargets.com.au/
>
> http://www.vcta.com.au/
>
> I trust this assists in dealing with your ignorance.

>
>
>>
>> You could just as well argue about our 1st amendment. When it was
>> written there were no electronic communications. Libs will open up a
>> can a worms voting for their ilk here.
>
> **Like all legal documents, the US BoR should be regularly examined
> and alternations made if necessary.

It is. There is also a process writtin into it on how to do that.
Perhaps you should review Article V.

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:RMadnd8egawrJTbK...@westnet.com.au:

> snip

>>>> You could just as well argue about our 1st amendment. When it was
>>>> written there were no electronic communications. Libs will open up
>>>> a can a worms voting for their ilk here.
>>>
>>> **Like all legal documents, the US BoR should be regularly examined
>>> and alternations made if necessary.
>>>
>>>

>> Dangerous thing to do.
>>
>> My shotgun is a semi-automatic. I understand semi-automatic weapons
>> are banned in Oz.
>

> Why do you need a semi automatic for trap/skeet shooting?? Are you a
> shit shot?
>
>

No but they are handy for killing javelina, coyotes or other varmints.

[RD Sandman]

"Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:IbCdnem5zpn7XzbK...@westnet.com.au:

>
> "Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XhPqz.9703$Ox5....@fx31.iad...
>> On 8/10/2016 5:28 PM, Dechucka wrote:

>>> snip
>>>>>> You could just as well argue about our 1st amendment. When it
>>>>>> was written there were no electronic communications. Libs will
>>>>>> open up a can a worms voting for their ilk here.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Like all legal documents, the US BoR should be regularly
>>>>> examined and alternations made if necessary.
>>>>>
>>>> Dangerous thing to do.
>>>>
>>>> My shotgun is a semi-automatic. I understand semi-automatic
>>>> weapons are banned in Oz.
>>>
>>> Why do you need a semi automatic for trap/skeet shooting??
>> >

>> What does "need" have to do with it? Why should he not be able to
>> choose any shotgun that meets the rules?
>
> How many shots do you get at the pigeon in trap shooting?
>
>

If you don't hunt with your firearms, why do you have them? Just to shoot
clay pigeons?

[RD Sandman]

Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in

news:e11rqk...@mid.individual.net:

> On 11/08/2016 9:19 AM, Frank wrote:

>>>> You could just as well argue about our 1st amendment. When it was
>>>> written there were no electronic communications. Libs will open up
>>>> a can a worms voting for their ilk here.
>>>
>>> **Like all legal documents, the US BoR should be regularly examined
>>> and alternations made if necessary.
>>>
>>>
>> Dangerous thing to do.
>

> **No. A normal thing to do. In every nation (including the US), the
> law changes to deal with changes in society and technology. The US BoR
> is no different.

And the process is in Article V.

>> My shotgun is a semi-automatic. I understand semi-automatic weapons
>> are banned in Oz.
>

> **Irrelevant. Trap shooters do not need semi-auto weapons. That said,
> there are several, legal, alternatives to pump action weapons, if you
> are a poor shot and cannot hit the target first time.
>
>>
>> Hillary has professed a love for your system. You register all guns
>> then buy back those you do not like. You could end up like the
>> Brits. In the UK you have to be 18 to buy a kitchen knife.
>
> **In my state, that is, indeed, the case. A system which is fully
> supported by 95% of the population, BTW.

[RD Sandman]

rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote in news:e12ftdFcgt6U1
@mid.individual.net:

> On 08/10/2016 09:39 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> The libs that love to babble about a living document somehow never
>> want to take their case to the people via a proposed amendment.
>
> Well, it did take almost 200 years to ratify the 27th amendment...

It required a lot of thought. The did make a mistake with the 18th and had
to repeal it almost 15 years later. Something about the rise of organized
crime was part of that.

[RD Sandman]

Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in
news:fkuoqb5f8r1faes62...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 07:14:29 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 08/10/2016 11:34 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> **There have been around 10,000 proposed amendments to the US
>>> Constitution. Are you absolutely certain that none have ever been
>>> proposed by liberals? I eagerly await your evidence to substantiate
>>> your claim. For my part, I have non idea who has proposed all those
>>> amendments. I accept that your knowledge is greater than mine.
>>
>>Liberals may have proposed the 18th Amendment. It fits right in with
>>their anti-tobacco, anti-soda, anti-fun tendencies.
>
> That was NOT liberals. It was the WCTU that was the big driving force,
> and my grandmother (a Weeks [Weeks House]; New England blue blood;
> DAR; extreme conservative) was one of them.
>

Carrie Nation was oone of the big voices here until her voice was silenced
when she died in 1911. She was the original push behind the Temperance
Movement.

[RD Sandman]

Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:qn6pqb9g5isjfqqlr...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 20:39:38 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>The most obvious point I suspect you will want to dismiss that
>>changing that document can only be at the hands of the people - most
>>certainly not by the latest band of corrupt thieves and liars that
>>bought their way into office for the moment.
>
> Um, no. The Constitution is not changed by popular referendum. It's
> changed by representatives in Congress and the State Legislatures.

Or by votes in the states if that is the way chosen by Congress. In either
case, it is a state by state vote, not a national popular vote.

The
> "latest band of corrupt thieves and liars that bought their way into
> office for the moment."
>
> Swill

[Trevor Wilson]

On 12/08/2016 6:17 AM, Ministry of Vengeance and Vendettas wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
> news:e11lnu...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 11/08/2016 7:09 AM, raykeller wrote:
>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun related

>>> deaths per year by firearms. That is not disputed.

>>>
>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put them
>>> in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>

>>> �   65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>>> prevented by gun laws
>>>
>>> �   15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and
>>> justified
>>>
>>> �   17% are through criminal activity or mentally ill persons
>>>
>>> �   3% are accidental discharge deaths

>>>
>>> So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually but drops to
>>> 5,100.
>>
>> **BZZZTT! Wrong. According to the CDC, there were 11,208 deaths via
>> gunshot in 2013. NOT 5,100.
>
> Actually stupid there were 30,ooo deaths by gunshot. He was just breaking
> them down as to the situation in which it occured.

**MY error. I should have said: "...11,208 HOMICIDES via gunshot..."

>
> Is living in Asstralia a natural IQ lowerer?

**Here in AUSTRALIA, we can spell and use grammar correctly, so, no.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the
>>> nation?
>>>
>>> �   480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
>>>
>>> �   344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
>>>
>>> �   333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
>>>
>>> �   119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington DC

>>>
>>> Basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of

>>> those cities have strict gun laws so it is not the lack of law that
>>> is the root cause. Maybe it's gangs and the lack of the historic

>>> family unit with a father and a mother.
>>>
>>> This leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 per
>>> state. That is an average, some states have much higher rates than

>>> others. For example, California had 1,169. Alabama had 1.Â
>>>
>>> Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California of course but

>>> understand, it is not the tool (guns) driving this. It is a crime rate
>>> spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and
>>> states.
>>>
>>> So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be
>>> something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
>>>
>>> Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other
>>> deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission
>>> of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape,
>>> assault; all are done by criminals to victims and thinking that

>>> criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.Â
>>>
>>> But what of other deaths?  Remember total gun deaths is 30,000/year

>>> (really only 5,100).
>>
>> **No, really more than 10,000 PA.
>
> No, stupid lookls at his numbers and then dispute them ya shackle dragging
> pedophile.

**I merely provided the correct data. Nothing more.


>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> â?¢ 40,000+ die from a drug overdose â?" THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

>>
>> **Suicide.
>
> Were they all suicides, stupid?

**Yep. Drug takers (which includes tobacco abusers, alcohol abusers,
etc, are just suicidal. If people want to kill themselves via the use of
drugs, who am I to stop them?

So basically you are saying that suicide is
> means independent.

**Of course.

Would your woodie get bigger if the 20,000 thta killed
> themselves with a gun simply overdosed instead, stupid.

**I don't care about suicides. If a person wants to kill themselves,
then let them.

>
>>
>>>
>>> · 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the

>>> criminal gun
>>> deaths
>>
>> **Sure. Are you suggesting that US legislators should ignore the 10,000
>> firearm related homicides each year?
>
> No, we are saying that we should honestly examimne the facts and ban travel
> of low IQ Australians to the US.

**A low IQ Aussie would raise the average IQ of the US. Of course, I'm
only judging that on the way you construct sentences. You may not be
representative of a typical American. One would certainly hope not.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> â?¢ 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun
>>> deaths
>>> even if you include suicide)

>>
>> **Sure. Are you suggesting that US legislators should ignore the 10,000
>> firearm related homicides each year?
>
> Where did he say that you shackle dragging roo fuker?

**Are you suggesting that US legislators should ignore the 10,000

firearm related homicides each year?

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>

>>> Now it gets good
>>>
>>> â?¢ 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable
>>> medical
>>> malpractice.
>>>
>>> â?¢ You are safer in Chicago than you are in a hospital!

>>
>> **Tell you what: When you get shot, have a heart attack, or suffer with
>> a serious form of cancer, you toddle down to your local gun dealer for
>> treatment. I'll take my chances with a hospital. We'll see who survives.
>> People die in hospital because they're sick!
>
> Are you really this stupid? Oh wait...

**So, if you're really sick, where will you go for treatment? Your gun
dealer, or a hospital? See if you can answer the question.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> â?¢ 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Time to stop the

>>> cheeseburgers!
>>
>> **Sugar is the enemy, not cheeseburgers.
>
> No, illiterate liars are the enemy.
>
>>
>>>
>>> So what is the point?
>>
>> **Well, your point is that you can lie about the data.
>
> Point out specifically where he lied.

**Already done.

>
>>
>>>
>>> If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart
>>> disease, even a 10% decrease would save twice the lives annually of all
>>> gun related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).
>>
>> **If you are so concerned about heart disease, why don't YOU study heart
>> surgery? How will learning to shoot save heart attack victims?
>
> And the IQ if Australia drops 2 more points.

**I take it that you are not a heart surgeon either?

>
>>
>>>
>>> A 10% reduction in malpractice would be 66% of the total gun deaths or
>>> 4 times the number of criminal homicides.
>>>
>>> Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
>>>
>>> So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the

>>> focus on guns?Â

>>
>> **I know this will surprise you, but American society is capable of
>> doing more than one thing at a time.
>
> Which is why we will be great again.

**Define: "great". When was the US "great"?

>
>>
>>>
>>> It's pretty simple. Taking away guns gives control to governments.
>>
>> **Bullshit. Control of government is in the hands of the people. It has
>> been for hundreds of years.
>
> Either you are a prog or a moron. Which is it?

**I have no idea what a "prog" is.

>
>>
>>
>> Â Â This

>>> is not conspiracy theory; this is a historical fact. Why is it
>>> impossible for the government to spill over into dictatorship?
>>
>> **The vote.
>
> Don't read much history, do you?

**Significantly more than you do. Obviously. When has the US, UK,
Australian, Swiss, French, Swedish, Dutch, Greek and many other
democratically elected governments "spilled over into dictatorships"?

>
>>
>>>
>>> The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of

>>> government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the

>>> British did. They too tried to disarm the populace of the colonies
>>> because it is not difficult to understand; a disarmed populace is a
>>> controlled populace.
>>>
>>> Thus, the Second Amendment was proudly and boldly included in the
>>> Constitution.
>>>
>>> It must be preserved at all costs.
>>
>> **Bollocks. The 2nd is an anomaly to the US. It is daft, poorly written
>> and way, way out of date.
>
> Come and take it then fuckstick. I dare you.

**I suspect I am wasting my time attempting a rational discussion with you.

>
> And it is not poorly written. It is poorly read by ignorant progessives.

**It is VERY, VERY poorly written. If it was well written, there would
be zero doubt about it's meaning. As it is, there have been well
publicised court cases debating the meaning and intent of the 2nd.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Trevor Wilson]

**Thanks for the correction. It was a typo on my part. I meant to say:
"homicides". The others are irrelevant to the discussion.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Just Wondering]

On 8/11/2016 4:06 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> "raykeller" wrote:
>>>
>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun

>>> related deaths per year by firearms. That is not disputed.

>>>
>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>

>>> �   65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be

>>> prevented by gun laws
>>
>> Wrong
>
> Which law...other than a ban...would prevent some person intent on
> committing suicide with a firearm from doing so?
>

A ban alone wouldn't do it. Only actual universal confiscation would.

[Dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA66199D18...@216.166.97.131...

reduce the number of households with guns obviously would given the
correlation

[Just Wondering]

What about one trigger pull instead of 2? Since it takes two trigger
pulls to fire both barrels on a double barrel shotgun, how does pulling
a trigger only once help a skeet shooter? You simply are not qualified
to say what is better for anyone but your own sorry Oz'd self.

[Dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA6619A22D...@216.166.97.131...

cite

[Dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA66199F17...@216.166.97.131...

> "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:AO-dnTIv7vkyLDbK...@westnet.com.au:
>
>>
>> "Frank" <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in message
>> news:nogavt$dic$2...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 8/10/2016 5:30 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "raykeller"
>>>> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.co
>>>> m> wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun
>>>>> related deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>>>>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>>>
>>>>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>>>>> prevented by gun laws
>>>>
>>>> Wrong
>>>
>>> He's way off. It is more like 63%.
>>
>> Actually he is way off because lots of these suicides would be
>> prevented by sane gun laws
>>
>>
>
> What laws specifically?

Introducing Australia gun laws into the US

[Just Wondering]

On 8/11/2016 4:19 PM, RD Sandman wrote:

Peculiar thing about fundamental rights - they don't depend on
the Bill of Rights for their existence. As a corollary, they
can't be eliminated by amending the Bill of Rights.

[Dechucka]

"RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:XnsA6619C45E...@216.166.97.131...

> "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:IbCdnem5zpn7XzbK...@westnet.com.au:
>
>>
>> "Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:XhPqz.9703$Ox5....@fx31.iad...
>>> On 8/10/2016 5:28 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>>>> You could just as well argue about our 1st amendment. When it
>>>>>>> was written there were no electronic communications. Libs will
>>>>>>> open up a can a worms voting for their ilk here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Like all legal documents, the US BoR should be regularly
>>>>>> examined and alternations made if necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Dangerous thing to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> My shotgun is a semi-automatic. I understand semi-automatic
>>>>> weapons are banned in Oz.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you need a semi automatic for trap/skeet shooting??
>>> >
>>> What does "need" have to do with it? Why should he not be able to
>>> choose any shotgun that meets the rules?
>>
>> How many shots do you get at the pigeon in trap shooting?
>>
>>
>
> If you don't hunt with your firearms, why do you have them? Just to shoot
> clay pigeons?

My shotgun is used primarily for targets although I have let go a couple of
times at the starlings at my father-in-laws place.
my shotgun is just used for

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 16:50:15 -0600, Just Wondering
<fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 8/11/2016 4:06 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "raykeller" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun

>>>> related deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.

>>>>
>>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>>>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>>

>>>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be

>>>> prevented by gun laws
>>>
>>> Wrong
>>
>> Which law...other than a ban...would prevent some person intent on
>> committing suicide with a firearm from doing so?
>>
>A ban alone wouldn't do it. Only actual universal confiscation would.

Nope. It doesn't require either a ban nor confiscation. There are
statistical studies that show a substantial reduction in overall
suicide rates in states that have permit-to-purchase laws, like NJ.

You can find them with little trouble, but here's one example:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/02/health/gun-laws-lead-to-suicide-drop/

--
Ed Huntress

[Dechucka]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:th7rz.36894$hB5....@fx08.iad...

See sensible gun laws. However given the US's constitution that's not going
to happen

[Dechucka]

snip

>> **No. A normal thing to do. In every nation (including the US), the
>> law changes to deal with changes in society and technology. The US BoR
>> is no different.
>
> And the process is in Article V.

Much more likely to happen through the SCOTUS

[PaxPerPoten]

On 8/11/2016 5:51 PM, Dechucka wrote:
> from committing suicide with a gun.
>
> reduce the number of households with guns obviously would given the
> correlation

reducing the number of Dechucka's would make life more pleasant for us
free thinkers.


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[PaxPerPoten]

On 8/11/2016 5:06 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:5ZednZxL4YWPADbK...@westnet.com.au:
>
>>
>> "raykeller"
>> <whiney_will_have_his_nose_in_my_ass_in_3_2_1@leftards_are_loosers.com>

>> wrote in message news:nog567$obl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>

>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun
>>> related deaths per year by firearms. That is not disputed.
>>>
>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>
>>> �   65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be
>>> prevented by gun laws
>>
>> Wrong
>>
>>
>
> Which law...other than a ban...would prevent some person intent on
> committing suicide with a firearm from doing so?

Ummm? Giving such person a more viable target..i.e. Dechucka.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:12:09 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:th7rz.36894$hB5....@fx08.iad...
>> On 8/11/2016 4:06 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "raykeller" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control: There are 30,000 gun

>>>>> related deaths per year by firearms.Ā That is not disputed.

>>>>>
>>>>> What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put
>>>>> them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
>>>>>

>>>>> ā?¢Ā Ā Ā 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be

>>>>> prevented by gun laws
>>>>
>>>> Wrong
>>>
>>> Which law...other than a ban...would prevent some person intent on
>>> committing suicide with a firearm from doing so?
>>>
>> A ban alone wouldn't do it. Only actual universal confiscation would.
>
>See sensible gun laws. However given the US's constitution that's not going
>to happen

The Constitution isn't going to prevent many gun laws. The Supreme
Court left a lot of latitude with the 2nd, as we have had throughout
history on all rights, in their D.C. v. Heller decision.

The way the Court traced it through history, we can't ban firearms
kept explicitly for defensive uses. The rest of the nonsense you hear
about it is just a brew of historical ignorance and wishful thinking.

--
Ed Huntress

[Just Wondering]

On 8/11/2016 4:51 PM, Dechucka wrote:

> "RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Nor does it mean that passing a gun control law would
>> prevent a person from committing suicide with a gun.
>
> reduce the number of households with guns obviously
> would given the correlation
>

The same way reducing the number of roosters would
reduce the number of sunrises given the correlation.
Oh, wait, you're confusing correlation with causation.

[Dechucka]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:_Z7rz.31344$p63....@fx36.iad...

> On 8/11/2016 4:51 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>> "RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Nor does it mean that passing a gun control law would
>>> prevent a person from committing suicide with a gun.
>>
>> reduce the number of households with guns obviously
>> would given the correlation
> >
> The same way reducing the number of roosters would
> reduce the number of sunrises given the correlation.

Really? Cite please

> Oh, wait, you're confusing correlation with causation.

Come on how can a gun cause you to commit suicide? All it does is reduce
the chance for second thoughts mixed with greater lethality of course

[Ed Huntress]

If there's a correlation in an example like this, you don't need to
know causation to get the result of fewer suicides. And there is a
correlation.

It's like lots of life-saving drugs. They have no idea how many of
them work, but the correlation between using them and curing disease
holds true.

--
Ed Huntress

[goodsoldi...@geemail.org]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 09:16:55 -0700 (PDT), mog...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 8:18:35 PM UTC-4, Terry Coombs wrote:
>> Frank" <"frank wrote:

>> > On 8/10/2016 7:45 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Frank" <"frank "@frank.net> wrote in message

>> >> news:nogd66$ikl$3...@dont-email.me...
>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
>> >>> as good as any
>> >>> According to this I would not be allowed to hunt with my
>> >>> semi-automatic shotgun. Could I even own it since I no longer
>> >>> target shoot with it.
>> >>> I don't care what you Ozies say.
>> >>
>> >> Hey moron you were talking about trap shooting. You were wrong and a
>> >> typical ignorant septic.
>> >>
>> >> BTW what do you hunt with a semi auto shotgun?
>> >
>> > Last answer as I'm k'fing thread. Wasting my time. Think I said
>> > earlier I've owned gun for over 40 years and started using for trap
>> > and skeet, waterfowl and small game. Later scoped it for deer and no
>> > longer shoot targets. State law requires it be plugged for 3 rounds
>> > only.
>> > What the fuck do you Ozies care about our gun laws?
>>
>> Misery loves company ?
>
>Australian gun laws Work that's what. The murder rate in the US is (3.9 per 100,000). The murder rate in Australia is only 1.6 per 100,000.

I'm not sure that is exactly correct in the context that you intend.
Crime rates in Australia are lower across the board than in the U.S.
In 2014 (from Wikki):
Australia -
Murder 1.0/100,000
Robbery 21.5/100,000

U.S. -
Murder 4.5/100,000
Robbery 113/100.000

--
Cheers,

Schweik

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:00:25 +0700, goodsoldi...@geemail.org
wrote:

41.0% of the robberies in the US are committed with firearms. Knives
and other cutting instruments were used in 7.8%.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/robbery

The correlations between firearm ownership and violent crime are
pretty much uniformly positive, and lead to some of the most
imaginative spin you'll ever hear from the pro-gun-absolutist crowd.

It's such a strong incentive that some of them actually do some
research to learn something, although they're looking for confounding
arguments rather than enlightenment. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[Just Wondering]

You started it, you wrote that reducing the number of
households with guns would prevent people from committing
suicide with a gun GIVEN THE CORRELATION.

[Dechucka]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:oB8rz.32247$NH5....@fx38.iad...

not causation, Oh, wait, you're confusing correlation with causation.

[Just Wondering]

On 8/11/2016 5:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 8/11/2016 4:51 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>> "RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nor does it mean that passing a gun control law would
>>>> prevent a person from committing suicide with a gun.
>>>
>>> reduce the number of households with guns obviously
>>> would given the correlation
>>>
>> The same way reducing the number of roosters would
>> reduce the number of sunrises given the correlation.
>> Oh, wait, you're confusing correlation with causation.
>
> If there's a correlation in an example like this, you don't need to
> know causation to get the result of fewer suicides. And there is a
> correlation.
>

By definition if changing one variable changes another variable,
that's a causal connection, not merely a correlation.

> It's like lots of life-saving drugs. They have no idea how many of
> them work, but the correlation between using them and curing disease
> holds true.
>

You don't have to know the mechanism, if taking a drug cures
a disease then by definition it's not a mere correlation, the
drug causes the cure.

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 18:27:01 -0600, Just Wondering
<fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 8/11/2016 5:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2016 4:51 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>> "RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor does it mean that passing a gun control law would
>>>>> prevent a person from committing suicide with a gun.
>>>>
>>>> reduce the number of households with guns obviously
>>>> would given the correlation
>>>>
>>> The same way reducing the number of roosters would
>>> reduce the number of sunrises given the correlation.
>>> Oh, wait, you're confusing correlation with causation.
>>
>> If there's a correlation in an example like this, you don't need to
>> know causation to get the result of fewer suicides. And there is a
>> correlation.
>>
>By definition if changing one variable changes another variable,
>that's a causal connection, not merely a correlation.

No, it's not. There are many examples in which two variables change
together, while the cause is some third variable that causes both of
the first two.

This appears all the time in social science, medicine, and even in
fields like engineering.

>
>> It's like lots of life-saving drugs. They have no idea how many of
>> them work, but the correlation between using them and curing disease
>> holds true.
>>
>You don't have to know the mechanism, if taking a drug cures
>a disease then by definition it's not a mere correlation, the
>drug causes the cure.

Not necessarily. If someone gets a scare about some condition they
have, and change their lifestyle while taking new prescription drugs
(this is a personal example -- a heart attack), and his heart health
improves, you don't really know what led to the improvement. You may
have epidemiological studies that show that both show positive
correlations in the statistics of your studied cohort, but on any
INDIVIDUAL, you don't know if one or both worked.

Again, this appears all the time in medicine. As a medical editor for
six years, I could tell you how *seldom* researchers will claim
causation. They usually weasel it all the way down to "is associated
with."

--
Ed Huntress

[Dechucka]

"Just Wondering" <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:aI8rz.32249$NH5....@fx38.iad...

> On 8/11/2016 5:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2016 4:51 PM, Dechucka wrote:
>>>> "RD Sandman" <rdsa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor does it mean that passing a gun control law would
>>>>> prevent a person from committing suicide with a gun.
>>>>
>>>> reduce the number of households with guns obviously
>>>> would given the correlation
>>>>
>>> The same way reducing the number of roosters would
>>> reduce the number of sunrises given the correlation.
>>> Oh, wait, you're confusing correlation with causation.
>>
>> If there's a correlation in an example like this, you don't need to
>> know causation to get the result of fewer suicides. And there is a
>> correlation.
>>
> By definition if changing one variable changes another variable,
> that's a causal connection, not merely a correlation.

but if ones talks causation it will immideatly be answered by "guns are
inanimate objects". However the data remains if you are in a household with
guns present you are more likely to die from suicide and domestic violence
( not at the same time). Call it cauusation call it corelated but that is
the data

>
>> It's like lots of life-saving drugs. They have no idea how many of
>> them work, but the correlation between using them and curing disease
>> holds true.
>>
> You don't have to know the mechanism, if taking a drug cures
> a disease then by definition it's not a mere correlation, the
> drug causes the cure.

IF the drug cured it and it wasn't just by chance. If you want to go into
medical trials and results I'll be happy to accommodate you

[Dechucka]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g46qqbt718dgkf69j...@4ax.com...

As you know it all comes down to probability. Is the probability of drug 'a'
being more effective then drug 'b' or placebo so low that the result isn't
by chance

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:21:52 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Right, but now you're off onto another aspect of statistics. What
you're addressing is not a question of causation.

--
Ed Huntress

[Dechucka]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:kbaqqb9f8lgkuvjpb...@4ax.com...

agreed but most comparative drug studies don't look at causation

[John B.]

The implication is of course that "no guns=no crime" but certainly
Australia didn't find that true. Australian Bureau of Statistics
figures show that in 1915 murder rates were 1.8/100,000 and in 1998
(~20 years after gun control) they were 1.6/100,000. The highest
recorded was in 1988 (after gun control) with 2.4/100,000.

It might also be of interest to note that while actual murder rate did
not drop by an astonishing number what did change, again according to
the Bureau of Statistics records, "The percentage of homicides
committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in
1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The
figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968."

Or to put it another way, "We murder just as many but now we don't use
one of those nasty guns any more."

But using the figures discussed above. The U.S. had 113/100,000
robberies of which we are told 41% were committed with firearms.
Leaving some 67/100,000 to be committed without firearms, one
supposes. Versus an Australian rate of 21.5/100,000, Or to put it
another way, some 3 times the number of robberies, even with the
handicap of not owning a gun.

--
cheers,

John B.

[rbowman]

On 08/11/2016 07:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> That was NOT liberals. It was the WCTU that was the big driving force,
> and my grandmother (a Weeks [Weeks House]; New England blue blood;
> DAR; extreme conservative) was one of them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11396091

He's claiming Willard as a prototype for liberal feminism and Wiki agrees:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Willard_(suffragist)

I don't recall ever going to the Weeks House, but I have been to Weeks
Restaurant that used to be in the middle of the Dover traffic circle.

[rbowman]

On 08/11/2016 10:37 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
> It was social conservatives who got Prohibition passed.
>
> You should look stuff up before you post.

If the WCTU was instrumental in getting the Amendment passed, let's look
at one of the creators of the WCTU:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Willard_(suffragist)

How about that staunch Democrat, Bryan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan

The supporters were a mixed bag and it's hard to separate the social
conservatives from the liberals. Maybe they can be both?

[rbowman]

On 08/11/2016 12:37 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> >
> Skeet shooting puts two targets in the air at once. A semiauto
> shotgun gives one a distinct advantage.

The over and under crowd might disagree. There is a local skeet club and
while I drive by it frequently I've never watched them. Personally the
only shotgun I've owned was a Mossberg bolt action in 12 gauge.

[Governor Swill]

Guns don't cause, but they do enable. It seems obvious that if there
was no gun in the house, a suicide would not do it with a gun.

Swill
--
#imwithher
You can lead a wingnut to knowledge but you can't make him
learn.

[Governor Swill]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 13:04:35 -0700, Winston_Smith
<inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 11:35:34 -0400, Governor Swill wrote:
>
>>Um, no. The Constitution is not changed by popular referendum.
>
>I never said it was done by referendum.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 20:39:38 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:

>The most obvious point I suspect you will want to dismiss that
>changing that document can only be at the hands of the people - most
>certainly not by the latest band of corrupt thieves and liars that
>bought their way into office for the moment.