OT Environmentalists may be in deep Kimchee

I made no such claim.

Like I said before, quit trying to stuff words into my mouth.

Carl:

Well now that's interesting, in a paradoxical sort of way. On the one hand you seemed to be very adamant that the victims in these statistics were NOT loved ones. But now when I use the term "claim" in reference to your supposed reluctance to consider the victims as loved ones, you say you made no such claim.

Do you consider the victims, or any portion of them, loved ones? Do you consider NONE of the victims loved ones? Is there a definition problem with the word "claim"?

Just trying to determine what you're saying.

Are you pro-gun, anti-gun, relatively neutral, or do you vacillate back and forth on a whim of the moment?

BottleBob wrote

Either produce the quote where I made claim or learn how to write something without trying to stuff words into my mouth.

Carl:

Here is what you said:

================================================ Having a "'loved one' assaulted by a unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" does not happen hundreds of thousands of times a year. ================================================

So is it the term 'loved one' you object to?

Or is it the "hundreds of thousands of times a year" you object to?

Or is it "assaulted by an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm" you object to?

Or which combination of the above?

BottleBob wrote

That demonstrates that I did not make the claim. Now, learn how to write without trying to stuff words into other people's mouths.

BottleBob wrote

....

That's exactly the problem you face. You think you can read minds when you attempt to attribute positions to other people.

Unlike you, I do read what you write.

No, you were not. You were putting words into the mouth of "Gunner". You seem to think you know what he thinks. You don't. You only know what *you* think and you are revealing what *you* think when you try and attribute it to other people.

Yes the obligatory distraction case of it wouldn't help you in this case. your right, remove drivebys from the equation and you'll get better ratios of the importance of being armed in cases where it can make a diffrence.

to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in

2002, 442,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

-----

Also form a study done by... Lawrence Southwick, Jr. Self-defense with guns. the consequences. Journal of Criminal Justice

------------------ found that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. In contrast, the probability of women being seriously injured was almost 4 times greater when resisting without a gun than with resisting with a gun. ...

Men also fare better with guns, but the differences are significantly smaller. Behaving passively is 1.4 times more likely to result is serious injury than resisting with a gun. Male victims, like females also run the greatest risk when they resist without a gun, yet the difference is again much smaller: resistance without a gun is only 1.5 times as likely to result in serious injury than resistance with a gun. The much smaller difference for men reflects the fact that a gun produces a smaller change in a man's ability to defend himself than it does for a woman.

-----------

There is some question on statistical signifficance with these numbers indicating a larger study might need to be made to tighten the margin of error, I didn't verify the calcutations. Certainly I could find no studies that debunked these facts So I must conclude the anti-gun folks are happy with the Statistically insignificant rebuttal and have no desire to proove the numbers accurate by doing a larger survey. Just as the gun lobby is happy to have this survey and it's results, and see no need to fund a larger one.

In essence Gun lobby likes it's 2.5 x number. They don't want to see that number drop. The anti-gun lobby says irrelavent, margin of error says that a woman with a gun might be more likely to be seriously injured. and the last thing they want is to fund a large more significant survey and find out that the 2.5 number was too low. Range of answers for the exact value if we polled everyone who was a victim of violent crime according to anti gun rebuttal.

women passive vs guns 3x more injured - 17.4 x less injured Women resist without/with 1.75x more injured - 28.1x less injured

Just a note, the rebuttal clearly showed that the probabilty of injury could be much higher as well as lower. Also Given that such items as drivebys are not seperated into different categories, the numbers would be higher if the gun defences were limited to situations where gun defence is a legitamate option.

Well except for you, everyone seems to knows that felons aren't just anyone anymore. They have become a specific subclass in our society, along with the criminally insane and anyone else who has had their legal standing reuduced through process of law because of behavior.

That you seem to need to refute the classifications now shows your losing the argument.

Go back to your population numbers, you at least had something to say there. Even though your side mucked it up.

Not really just shown that sloppy usage has pervaded the english language and people are merging the two terms and losing the distinction. reguardless of how far back you want to look at it. I

Disclaimer: I am not in favor of the whole BD waco scenario.

They had let people peacefully in with a warrant for suspected child abuse the Week before IIRC, not long before anyway.

The feds went in Invasion style and elicited an anti invasion responce. Once there were dead Feds, the die was cast.

People charging your house with guns is more than a misunderstanding.

While some of that is true, the actions of our gov't there and at ruby ridge pushed things into the firefight stage. The Gov't wanted a big flashy raid on TV. They got people killed because of it.

To the best of my knowledge the cold blooded murder of the wife at ruby ridge has never been prosecuted. Her Crime? Standing holding a baby where a sniper could get his crosshairs on her.

When peaceful attempt to serve a warrant are resisted is one thing, when you use a military style invasion to initiate it is another.

Maybe because in 1992 there were 6.5 million violent crimes? And it is less irrealevant and idiotic than you would wish it to be.

Disagree with you on these assertions. Unless you add the fear of the Gov't taking your gun away.

Of course you are right here, but the % is very small.

Obviously you can't commit suicide with a gun if you do not have one Pills, slit wrists etc..... but those aren't gun injuries.

You can't accidently shoot yourself while sharpening a knife.

your child can't accidently shoot themselves or a friend while showing off if there are no guns.

However all these are Very small incidence, one might say trivial compared to the level of gun ownership (except of course to the recipient of the wound, and thier associates)

I think the total I read was 73 gun deaths a year on average for these type of accidental shooting (not suicide)

anti gun site.

"Many children live in homes with guns that are stored in an accessible manner. An April 2000 study in the American Journal of Health found that more than 4.7 million homes with more than

8.3 million children store guns unlocked, including about 946,000 homes with firearms unlocked and loaded and about 425,000 homes with firearms unlocked, unloaded and with ammunition. "

ok 4.7 million homes with guns unlocked (loaded or unloaded)

"In 1999 alone, 88 kids were shot and killed unintentionally. An estimated 10 times that number are treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms each year for nonfatal unintentional gunshot wounds."

we will round up to 1000 gunshot wounds on kids unintentionally.

Chance is 1 in 4.7 thousand of an accidental shooting of a child in a home with a gun in a given year.

"Firearms are the weapon of choice in suicides among children ages 10 to 14. Of all suicides among kids aged 10 to 14, more than four out of ten involved guns (103 of 242 victims or 42 percent)."

assumptions are math based, may differ...

4.7million homes/18 years = 261,111.1 kids per year therfore 1,305,500 homes with children 10-14 approximately

Odds of one of your kids 10-14 committing suicide with your gun... approximately 1 in 12,675

That is from anti gun statistics, and I have no idea what thier emergency room estimate comes from.

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'" Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

I wasn't disputing your numbers there, my quote was specificly aimed at Violent crimes. Murder, Rape, Assult. It is from Gov't numbers so if anything it is probably considerably on the low side. Also it is only from a survey of victims of reported crimes, Missing anyone who was happier to leave the Gov't out of it.

For instance, a rancher scaring off cattle rustlers wouldn't be included unless they had shot at him. Or the famous shotgun loaded with rocksalt to give trespassers something to remeber.

My point was that even GOV"T numbers show almost 1/2 MILLION defensive uses by Victims of VIOLENT crimes that were REPORTED in 2002.

And that number is large enough to be sure that numerous lives were spared Violent termination or injury.

Wow. It took you 20 days to come up with that?

Since you don't seem to know how the whole thread started, here's a brief recap:

Ed Huntress took Gunner to task concerning the numbers Gunner had posted in his sig file. I jumped in with an observation of mine own that when Gunner posts something that he can't prove or defend, he usually makes no reply. To his credit, Gunner did try to defend his sig files numbers.

Some other RCM (and other newsgroup) posters took this criticism to mean Ed Huntress and I are anti-gun, which just ain't the case.

This is my own opinion: sometimes gun owners are their own worst enemy.

-Carl

As are their opponents :o) Greg Sefton

Is túisce deoch ná scéal, Thirsty Viking

If they were victims of violent crime, that suggests that the guns weren't of much use.

"Ed Huntress" wrote

possessing pot as

Ed, as much as I hate to say it, Gunner is right. The _unqualified_ statement "Anyone can buy a gun, strap it on, and go out in public," has only two possible meanings. 1) Those who can do so legally, or 2) _anyone_ at all (legally or not). Which one the original comment had in mind, I don't know. Your own argument falls, if you _do not_ except illegal carriers. In the last week, Indiana, which has relatively "good" laws, has seen a couple of "carrying without a permit" arrests. Even you must admit that the criminally inclined, will carry a pistol, regardless of the laws.

Therefore, we must be discussing those *legally* permitted to own guns, desiring to "buy and carry." Which means that while you all are wrong, you all are also right. For example, in the Carolinas(?), you can "carry openly," but any idiot can say that he/she feels threatened by that, and have you arrested for "brandishing." Which is akin to feeling threatened because Grocery stores sell liquor.

This is a situation you have pointed out in relation to other areas before. What you can _legally_ do, and what you _ought_ to do, are often two different things.:-E) Indiana, AFAIK, doesn't discriminate between concealed and open carry, with a permit. However, LE *prefers* that it be concealed. Meaning, if some idiot accuses you of "Brandishing," you _will_ be arrested, probably convicted, and likely lose the permit. All because someone is "afraid" of an inanimate object.

Believe it or not, on a news show (I believe), someone was actually unhappy that *police* carry guns. The "lunatic fringe" of whatever stripe, is now a significant number of people. And they are finding lawmakers, news media, and others, willing to pander to them. Assuming that they have not achieved actual positions of power, themselves.

As for you, Gunner, and Richard, you are coming from two different positions. Similar to approaching zero from the plus or minus direction. You all say much the same things, but very different starting points. Which is why oyu are all correct, and all of you are wrong.

In every state/province, and the UK, you can "buy a gun, 'put it on' and walk around in public." Criminals do it every day, and do not desire or need any permit. It is impossible to prevent, without a total police state. Now, is it possible to do this _legally_? Yes, in some states. IIRC, New Mexico allows open carry, but not "concealed." Some, allow "concealed," but not open. Others, either one, but you get hassled if the gun is not concealed. AT the other end, is NY state. You can carry, *if* you can get a permit. Just try to get one if your name is not Rockefeller/Clinton/etc. IOW, depending on how you define your terms, gun laws can be described in any manner.

You just argued the reverse of that, a few paras back.

Laws do not matter, *unless* you are inclined to obey them. This has been true throughout history. There always have been, and always will be those who obey only because they want to (unafraid of punishment). I am, at least AFAIK, a "law abiding person," but I can obtain a gun, without going through any legal process. And, I do not mean "buying at a gun show."

Walter Daniels

You'd do well to check out the entire thread, Walter. The alleged point was that there is a connection between being able to legally carry openly and relative freedom from murders. Illegally carrying would invert the idea; it makes the assertion meaningless.

And there is no state, save Vermont, if you want to stretch a point, that allows "anyone" to carry openly.

So the original statement was a crock of baloney, and remains so.

Ed Huntress