[Al_T]

the hate that is being generated by both sides is disturbing. but, the "gotta protect me and mine" attitude of a lot of uneducated, paranoid, religious 'mericans is extremely disturbing. because, unfortunately these are typically gun owners. of course i'm not saying that every gun owner is a "uneducated, paranoid, religious 'merican". just a lot of 'em.

I am sorry but you are not correct in your assumption's. Just remember what ASSUME means.

"According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco — as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)
Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.
Nor are they “bitter.” In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were “very happy,” while 9% were “not too happy.” Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy."

[ChatMechant]

I am sorry but you are not correct in your assumption's. Just remember what ASSUME means.
"According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco — as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)
Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.
Nor are they “bitter.” In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were “very happy,” while 9% were “not too happy.” Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy."

sorry man, but citing some survey with it's meaningless statistical "evidence" is, well, meaningless. that one, especially was pretty sad. surveys and statistics are usually construed as some kind of cold hard evidence to further some group or another's agenda.

anyway, even if it was "facts", i didn't grow up in seattle. i know many gun owners, many non-gun owners, many liberals and many conservatives. i haven't lived my life in some liberal bubble or conservative stronghold. my assumptions are based upon my own observations, and they are what they are.

[Wheatfield]

Neither Obama, Palin or guns are to blame. Some sick turd did the job.

Sure, and Bin Laden isn't responsible for 9/11 since he wasn't piloting a plane.
But for some reason you guys have spent several billion (if not trillion) dollars trying to whack him for, apparently, no good reason.

[Al_T]

sorry man, but citing some survey with it's meaningless statistical "evidence" is, well, meaningless. that one, especially was pretty sad. surveys and statistics are usually construed as some kind of cold hard evidence to further some group or another's agenda.

Then the conversation is meaningless since you have all the answers. My supercilious definition comes to mind. Hmmm. We will agree to disagree and that will be it.

Good Luck

[Tom S.]

"In 2005, the most recent year for which mortality data are available, suicide was the second-leading cause of death among Americans 40 years of age or younger. Among Americans of all ages, more than half of all suicides are gun suicides. In 2005, an average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm, accounting for 53% of all completed suicides. Gun suicide during this period accounted for 40% more deaths than gun homicide.

Why might the availability of firearms increase the risk of suicide in the United States? First, many suicidal acts — one third to four fifths of all suicide attempts, according to studies — are impulsive. Among people who made near-lethal suicide attempts, for example, 24% took less than 5 minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt, and 70% took less than 1 hour.2

Second, many suicidal crises are self-limiting. Such crises are often caused by an immediate stressor, such as the breakup of a romantic relationship, the loss of a job, or a run-in with police. As the acute phase of the crisis passes, so does the urge to attempt suicide. The temporary nature and fleeting sway of many suicidal crises is evident in the fact that more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt, including attempts that were expected to be lethal (such as shooting oneself in the head or jumping in front of a train), do not go on to die by suicide. Indeed, recognizing the self-limiting nature of suicidal crises, penal and psychiatric institutions restrict access to lethal means for persons identified as potentially suicidal.

Third, guns are common in the United States (more than one third of U.S. households contain a firearm) and are lethal. A suicide attempt with a firearm rarely affords a second chance. Attempts involving drugs or cutting, which account for more than 90% of all suicidal acts, prove fatal far less often.

The empirical evidence linking suicide risk in the United States to the presence of firearms in the home is compelling.3 There are at least a dozen U.S. case–control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and on the way in which the firearms were stored. The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. Moreover, the increased risk of suicide is not explained by increased psychopathologic characteristics, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts among members of gun-owning households. "


The New England Journal of Medicine

FWIW, the rate of suicide in Japan is double that of the US, despite there being a complete lack of firearms. To say or imply that firearms lead to elevated suicide rates is like saying or implying forks make people fat.

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, wherever that survey came from, it doesn't particularly say much about a lot of divides: *plenty* of liberals own guns, (Likely not a huge percentage of guns *owned,* of course: it's just not necessarily a big political *deal* or defining identity-contest thing.

(Frankly, accordingly, I'm not too surprised about the happiness statistics, since people with guns tend to have a lot more time outside, maybe even an outdoor hobby, or getting out on the land.. )

Whether or not I own a weapon is really kind of a practical decision about if it's more trouble than it's worth, (Trust me, I've been tempted, being down here in this climate with all the rhetoric directed against people like *me,*) It can make sense if you're far from help and/or have occasion to hunt with firearms. Or, sometimes, in a particularly dangerous/threatening area, but in a lot of places, that can make it the more of a liability.

The notion 'Liberals/northerners don't know about guns/want to take all guns away everywhere' is sometimes something more about the gun-crowd's self-image than reality. The notion that some people think they need to 'oppose their government' or 'target centrist Democrats'... At the firing range.... to protect their right to 'defend themselves' from everyone else with assault rifles (Or random dudes walking around with thirty-round pistol magazines) cause someone said Not Getting Ripped Off Quite As Bad On Corporate Health Insurance Is Socialism, Therefore Obama Is Stalin...' Well, *that's* how the 'gun nuts' end up sounding just like dangerous fanatical loonies, and of course, that's a political tool to make them feel more 'beseiged' when there's more hyperbole about people who live in dense areas wanting to put a bit of a cap on how many shots are being thrown around their kids.

It's like, hey, you can have a nice stereo, that doesn't mean the world's out to ban cars just cause they talk about a noise ordinance when people think they 'need' to shake the ground with stadium-sized subwoofers and a loose license plate. Only in this case it's about something deadly.

On a practical level, yeah, 'how much freakin firepower do you really want on the street' is a valid concern for our government of the people, by the people, and for the people: that mentally-messed-up dude used a ridiculously-big magazine to shoot twenty people in a crowd. If some heroic gun-owner had been there, in a place to do it any faster than the people who wrestled him to the ground, it wouldn't have taken anywhere *near* that many bullets to stop him. What the shooter bought wasn't for 'protection' ...it was to become the terror these gun rights are supposed to 'protect against.'

So, speaking of me calling for maybe considering this a time to take a step back and think about maybe turning this to a time of national healing and sanity, maybe we can at *least* discuss this practical part *sensibly* rather than in such a polarized, absolutes-in-no-holds-barred-tug-of-war way?

Why do we really need that big a pistol magazine on the streets? Cause people think it's 'cool?' (Is that thing even going to feed very reliably if you needed it to save your life?) Does someone think they're Neo Anderson or something? What's the deal? Are trenchcoats full of pistols just out of style for the 'Going Postal' market segment? Why is that worth it?

[jeffkrol]

In the wake of the shooting of a congresswoman and 19 other people, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told the news media Saturday that he blamed "the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business."

"The bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," he said. "And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

Bingo. Take it from me. I lived in Phoenix in the late 1990s while writing for The Arizona Republic. Dupnik got it exactly right.

Raise your hand if you have had it with the drama capital of America,

My hands up........... let's sell it to Mexico.......
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/09/navarrette.arizona/?hpt=C2
bit of my left wing "stuff"........

What happened in Arizona yesterday was not an isolated incident, but rather the culmination of a long stream of threats and attacks, most in response to the Congresswoman's support for health care reform.

In November of 2009, a staffer fearing for Rep. Giffords' safety called authorities after a visitor dropped a handgun during another "Congress on your Corner" event at a local Safeway in her district.

And on March 22, 2010, just hours after Rep. Giffords cast her vote in favor of health care reform, a vandal jumped a gate and smashed the glass front door of her Arizona office.

It was just days later that the now infamous map featuring Rep. Giffords' district in the crosshairs was posted by Sarah Palin's PAC. In announcing the map, Palin issued a chilling tweet urging her supporters "Don't retreat. Instead — reload!" Incredulously, through a spokesperson, Sarah Palin is denying that the crosshairs on her map targeting 20 Democrats who voted against health care reform represents gun sights.

As if the crosshairs weren't clear enough, Jesse Kelley, Rep. Giffords' Republican opponent in a hard fought race for reelection held an event two months later that makes the stakes all too clear. He asked supporters to donate $50 in order to "shoot a fully automatic M16" to "get on target" and help "remove Gabrielle Giffords." Sarah Palin subsequently praised Jesse Kelly on Fox Business News saying: "I don't feel worthy to lace his combat boots."

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 01-09-2011 at 05:41 PM.

[ChatMechant]

Then the conversation is meaningless since you have all the answers. My supercilious definition comes to mind. Hmmm. We will agree to disagree and that will be it.

Good Luck

i don't think i was saying that i had all the answers. i just don't believe much in the way of "surveys" and "statistics".

[redrockcoulee]

One point in the firearm argument is that Canada with gun control, 24% of people own firearms. I would assume that in the area I live it would be higher, less urban, ranchers and farmers and lots of hunters.

Tom: comparing two such distinct societies and making comparisons is a statistical game. A comparison of Canadian rates before and after gun control and compare those two rates with the rates in the States before and after Canadian gun control came into effect would have meaning. I do not know how the two countries compare, just that after gun control the numbers of suicide especially among males and accidental shootings decrease according to the Association of Police Chiefs (a report that the government suppressed until after a vote on abolishing the registry was done).

To All; isn't name calling and labelling those who have or do not have guns or are for or against gun control just rhetoric instead of discussing if there is or is not a problem and solutions. I always wonder why limiting the type of weapons is not allowed as it would "lead to taking away all weapons" when limiting morphine does not seem to limit ones access to Tylenol.

I am glad that most of the year I never even see a gun. But during the summer I see lots of young people with guns, guns and more guns or yes also tanks.

[seacapt]

I find it apalling how several members have taken this tradgedy and turned it into a political arguing point. It is truely shameful the lack of reverance and respect demonstrated by using this event to spew the same sort of hate speak that you blame it on.

[redrockcoulee]

I should have either added to the last paragraph that I work on a military base or left the entire paragraph out.

[gokenin]

I find it apalling how several members have taken this tradgedy and turned it into a political arguing point. It is truely shameful the lack of reverance and respect demonstrated by using this event to spew the same sort of hate speak that you blame it on.

I completely agree with you

[SteveM]

I don't agree with the gag order some are calling for. People are appalled and there is no shame in pointing at responsible parties...or at least parties that stir the pot then say "who me?" when something happens.

[johnmflores]

I find it apalling how several members have taken this tradgedy and turned it into a political arguing point. It is truely shameful the lack of reverance and respect demonstrated by using this event to spew the same sort of hate speak that you blame it on.

agreed.

[jogiba]

I find it apalling how several members have taken this tradgedy and turned it into a political arguing point. It is truely shameful the lack of reverance and respect demonstrated by using this event to spew the same sort of hate speak that you blame it on.

Right, Palin and more guns is part of the solution and not part of the problem.


[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8P1ff9naCI[/YT]

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDPRYXL-D-k[/YT]

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYzH9BBiinM[/YT]








[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7046bo92a4[/YT]