Well, thanks. I was beginning to worry I was dead but hadn’t figured it out, and so people couldn’t see my posts anymore.
No. I think it’s ironic, because she was an outspoken gun-nut who was killed by a gun. I only know about it because it was on the news.
Because it doesn’t have shit to do with anything. You know what I do think is ironic? When an outspoken gun-nut is killed by a gun.
I’m not laughing. I’m merely point out that when an outspoken gun-nut get killed by a gun, it’s ironic.
And swimming is different that eating peanut butter; what’s your point?
What isn’t silly is that she was kille by a gun. And she being an outspoken gun-nut, it’s ironic.
Yes, her husband used a gun to kill her. She was an outspoken gun-nut. Which makes her husband shooting her with a gun ironic.
Or do we want to totally deconstruct this tired old trope and claimed she was really killed by expanding gasses in the the chamber.
She was killed by a gun. Face it.
No. *That *would have been funny.
Okay, that would have been ironic too. Because she would have been an outspoken gun-nut who was shot by a gun.
Eat shit. I never said that. The only thing I’ve ever said about this … in case you haven’t figured it out by now … is that when an outspoken gun-nut is killed by a gun, it is ironic.
I’m really not sure how to more clearly state my opinion on this. I’ve repeated it a number of times and yet still somehow you think that I think the irony lays in the fact that she was married. I have no clue what orifice you yanked that out of.
Let me know if you need it in another language and I’ll fire up Babelfish.
Just this spring a young man who was in an oblique angle head on accident was nearly decapitated and killed most sincerely dead by the same seatbelt that was installed to protect him. I know because I cut him out of the car.
[hijack]
It seems that “inherent evil of the gun” speaks, no, yells to the fear, ignorance and lack of understanding about an inanimate object that certian people of a, shall we say, more liberal bent, are embedded with.
We all know the statistics:
Of the 2,426,264 people that died in the year 2006,
the top ten causes were;
The remaining 5 were, without numbers:
Suicide
Chronic Liver Disease
Hypertension and hypertensive liver disease
Parkinson’s
Assault.
Of those and the remaining five causes for all of 2006, left 30,526 deaths by firearms in total, which means that 1.25% of the deaths in the US in 2006 were caused by firearms. This is not an epidemic, this is not a pandemic, this is barely a trend. Really, about the same number of people die from flu than firearms. Still, it’s sensational, it’s newsworthy, it’s different from the majority of Europe, to whom we tend to compare ourselves and strive for some reason to be more like, and it’s horrible to see a greiving mother on TV after her young son was murdered in the street, or the young daughter who was sitting in her bed and struck by a stray bullet. For every story like that though, there’s one where a nurse couldn’t read a doctors scribble and gave 5 grams of a drug instead of .5 and killed a patient. We don’t hear about those, there’s no crime scene tape, no sincere, grim-faced reporter, planted especially to look like the people in that neighborhood. But yet it happens.
I would submit that despite the idiocy that’s gone on in this thread ExTank!? WTF was that? the problem with guns is not the majority of the people who own them, or even their existance. Rather, it’s the noisy minority of crooks with whom our justice system fails to adequately deal. The way to manage THEM is the same way we manage them now, except with honest and extreme penalties for the crimes committed using a gun. Further, there needs to be standardized, streamlined background checks, even at gun shows, and I’d submit that individuals should only be able to transfer weapons using an FFL intermediary at a fixed cost. This would ensure business for the gun dealers and would make sure that everyone who has a gun, is allowed to.
Still, don’t let common sense get in the way of rabid, spittle-flinging hatred.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
[/hijack]
ExTank, have you been sending letters in the Orly Taitz birther case? http://www.scribd.com/doc/20997067/Taitz-Fined-20-000
I had originally intended to say something to the effect of “this thread makes me so mad I’m tempted to start open carrying just because I’m legally allowed to do so”.
Then I read ExTank’s latest string of idiotic posts.
Now I’m just sad. Thanks, ExTank, for being an outspoken gun rights advocate who also manages to come across as batshit crazy with the stupid internet boxing duel whatever shit you just pulled.
Let me spell it out for the ‘not funny’ crowd:
Here is a woman so afraid of the world that she carries a gun to a soccermatch, while the real danger was lying in her bed.
To protect herself and her childeren she didn’t need a gun, she needed more common sense. Her nemesis was not some outside crazy, it was the more obvious danger of having too many guns around (her own brand of crazy).
Yes, I think that is VERY funny. If all the nuts in the world die from their own brand of crazy I will be laughing my ass of.
I disagree with that. Most deaths by firearms aren’t committed by hardened criminals with scars and tattoos and bandit masks on their faces. Most of them are by people the victim knows (including when the victim is the trigger person) who were law-abiding until that one time.
Why do you assume a lack of understanding? What point do you think you’re making about “inanimate objects”. Listen, that’s well-trod ground, and it’s just stupid at this point. Nobody you are arguing against thinks guns are in and of themselves the problem, as if, were they all lodged on some island away from people they’d still be a problem. You look an ass when you do this.
By the same token, gun rights advocates don’t fight for the rights of guns. Oh tee hee! You think an inanimate object should have rights! Hee hee! I’m so clever I made a funny!
And how many causes of death on your list have an advocacy group fighting to keep the status quo. Seems like every other item on your list is something that most people want to try to prevent or reduce, whereas guns actually have a group of people who look at the outcome and say, “Oh well, so be it. That’s the price you pay for my freedom. I’m not going to budge an inch to change anything so that fewer people die.”
Do you hear advocacy groups saying “Some proportion of mistakes in dosing by doctors is what we have to tolerate so that we can all be free. Drugs are an inanimate object! Why do you fear medications? Booga booga booga!”
I suspect you don’t.
Having spent some time reviewing the citations you put forward, Hentor, I believe my general observations are that the studies are not as comprehensive as I would like, nor do I really like some of the assumptions they make (see the “discussion” section in the paper by Wiebe et al). However, outside of the Kellermann studies, which for the two given only look at three counties total, I don’t see them as being necessarily biased. Furthermore, I am having trouble thinking of how to make them more comprehensive, given what I’ve found in terms of reporting bias for both pro and anti-gun studies. For example, trying to capture the number of defensive gun uses by law-abiding gun owners can be very hard, as some few individuals skew results by claiming “scores” or “hundreds” of times.
In short, I think you’ve made your point about a significantly increased risk of death, but I fear that I must still disappoint you by questioning the magnitude - for example, I still believe that suicide needs to be separated out from the numbers to put things on a much more legitimate footing. Some will of course disagree, and given how this thread has proceeded thus far I fully expect to be called some name for thinking that suicide is a different issue to this. Hopefully no one will challenge me to a fistfight, although I’d be happy to meet anyone here on the fencing strip…as long as it’s foil.
As an aside, I do wonder how the study authors would feel if their same metrics were applied to licensed Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) holders - just doing a rough look at some of the statistics I compiled for Cecil, it looks like one could easily come to the conclusion that having a CCW license reduces both your chance of being a violent crime victim, and of committing any crime, especially a violent crime. I cannot however find suicide rates broken out by CCW status, but given the mental history restrictions on CCW license holders in almost every State, I would strongly suspect CCW weapon holders are less likely to die of suicide by any cause. Of course being a self-selecting group, and an externally filtered group makes all the difference when assessing that subset of the general population.
As I’ve said before, I consider myself strongly pro-gun, but at the same time I am a black sheep on the pro-side since I favor restricting the numbers of people with guns, requiring some level of safety training, banning violent juvenile and misdemeanor offenders, cracking down hard on cops who misuse their firearms, and I am mostly anti-hunting. I also feel that gun owners are not policing themselves well enough, both from a safety standpoint on the range and when hunting, and from a preemptive safety standpoint. I can bore folks with examples but they’ve all been said before. Lest anyone think I have an old “Metzenbaum for President” button somewhere, I also strongly favor liberal CCW rules for those who step up to the bar and pass the restrictions, I favor repealing the 1986 NFA ban, I’m against any “assault weapons ban” or limits on gun purchases to X/month, I am opposed to household mandatory storage and locks, and I favor significant government funding for programs to educate and encourage girls and boys in both shooting sports and firearms safety at a very early age.
See, **bup **gets it.
No, **tigers **kill people. Pay attention.
Serious Business Internet Tough Guy is going to turn his fingernails into projectiles! And shoot you with them! Using the force of his hate! For great justice!
I would pay $5 to put this guy in a room with… oh, who was that guy who started the thread about how he was too retarded to park his truck properly?
OK, I’ll agree to a point, but that’s not how some of the other side plays the game is it? The no-guns-ever crowd is alive and well here, and even though the ground is as well trod as we both know it is, the idea bears repeating, I think.
First, no one is advocating more or the same gun deaths, least of all responsible gun owners. However you not getting diabetes or you acquiring heart disease will have no effect on me or anyone else, unless you can’t pay for the treatment, which is another argument. Curbing a constitutional right for everyone that lives today and every one that will come behind us because a few bad people do bad things drives us right up to the slippery slope. Yeah, yeah, OK, I’m paranoid, but the two truths of modern government are that once a new tax is levied, it will live forever, and once a right is take away, you will never get it back.
Furthermore, many of the causes on the list are directly preventable through the right behavior. This all boils down to what we want the larger picture to be, do we truly want a free society, where people are charged with their own prosperity, protected from dangers outside of their ability to defend and allowed to make their own choices for their own families? Or are we determined to be protected from every possible danger at every possible turn and pay 1/2 of our wages or better to ensure it, only to be let down because we cannot stop cancer, we cannot stop diabetes, nor can we stop bad people from doing bad things.
And also this:
I am grateful that you took the time. It is a novelty to find room for rational discussion on this topic.
I’m a bit confused by your observation here. In the papers I’ve cited, homicides and suicides are broken out distinctly. The risks for suicide seem to vary more greatly across these studies, but the ORs specific to homicide alone are those that I summarized previously.
I agree. It would be interesting to see what the outcomes would be. I do think that we tend to overestimate our freedom from homicide and suicide. It’s too easy I think to assume that there’s a “type” of person who does those sorts of things, and we would never be that type. Now, there are risk factors and markers that we might use to predict who is more likely to commit homicide or suicide and who is not, but I don’t think we can do so with 100% accuracy, even in regards to ourselves.
As I said before, every gun owner is a safe gun owner, right up until the point that he or she are not.
I am going to need a cite on this, especially the part about how most gun killers are law-abiding citizens apart from shooting someone.
Regards,
Shodan
I think some people don’t realize the “guns on the end of my arms” are my fists. My two hands. I thought the phrase “God gave me two guns at the end my arms…” was fairly self evidently referring to hands. Apparently not.
I was inviting J. Typical Internet Coward to come out from behind the keyboard, meet face-to-face, and step with me around the side of the building to…have some words.
I realized, a bit after posting, that that was stupid; not only for being provoked into a Board infraction, but for being unrealistically optimistic that someone who would basically go to utter pieces in GQ and get suspended would have a nutsack big enough to own their words, face-to-face.
FTR: I’ve only ever pointed a firearm at someone once, in 1993. The Dallas PD thought it was justified, and told the DA such. No charges were pressed.
I really don’t understand how someone obviously unhinged enough to take a loaded gun to a suburban toddler soccer game is worthy of anything but scorn no matter how she died. The fact her husband shot her while she was chatting on a web cam just adds to overall News of the Weird feel of the story.
Nice explanation, except we ALL knew you were talking about your fists and we pretty much STILL think you’re a douche for posting it. Doubly so because you sound like J. Random Internets himself here–don’t know your shit from Adam, don’t care either.
If you are so hung up on “own[ing your] words, face-to-face”, I cordially invite you to find an appropriate venue for that and go the hell away.
I’m so proud. Doesn’t change the fact you’re acting like a limp-dick in this thread in any way, shape, or form.
Guns or fists, you have proven your inability to control your anger, so you should not be permitted to have a gun.
I was rather hoping that ExTank was going to apologize for his intemperate remarks, and for showing that he cannot control his temper when someone calls him an asshole BACK.
No such luck.
Glad you didn’t have charges pressed after you pointed your firearm at someone. Hope you continue your lucky streak.
The fuck you say. Gun ownership is a right, and it doesn’t take anything other than a sense of personal responsibility for one’s own decision-making prowess and personal safety. While I agree in principle that there are culturally-biased situations in which open-carry is likely to provoke what I would consider an unwarranted negative reaction, I don’t really believe that it requires someone to be “obviously unhinged” to decide to carry legally and safely.
I’m with Una, for the record. Shall-issue concealed and open carry permits, skills testing for licensing firearms with more stringent certifications/registration for more commonly misused/abuseable weapons (hunting/target long arms vs. home-defense-purposed weapons/hanguns analogous to car vs. motorcycle licensing), no restrictions on number of purchases or waiting periods beyond what’s reasonably necessary to check for extant mental health problems or felony convictions, which in my state is a 2-minute phone call (at least when I’ve bought long arms)
Now imagine that one or the both of you is armed (because everyone should be packing at all times). Do you think there is some risk that at some point in the ass whipping the actual “guns” may come out?