PH Gunfight thread

[kepPNW]

The initiative funding wasn't in question. Lumpy said it wasn't written by Washingtonians, and that's what I was asking about.

my bad I missed that question. I don't know. If it wasn't I'd like to know, but I'm assuming it was. I don't really know how much it matters as its still concerning the campaign had so much out of state money.... If I made up a rule nobody would listen but if Bloomberg suddenly showed up giving me a million dollars thats what matters.

Bloomberg made the news, but Bill Gates and Paul Allen both contributed similar amounts (or more?), if I remember correctly. At any rate, tossing his name around only girds the loins of fellow right-wingers, just as talking about the Koch Bros (who, arguably, exert *far* more influence on things that actually matter) only inflames the lefties in the crowd. Citizens United must be overturned!

[xrp]

Compare and contrast...

you are an imbecile and don't know much history.

Democrats Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ got us into WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam, respectively.

I guess it was George Bush then, huh?

[retired jerry]

I don't think Peder's comment was goofy. If your child marries someone that owns a gun, they are more likely to be shot.

Probably better to broaden it though. Teach your children to not put up with abuse in any form. I bet beating and verbal abuse are way more common but also damaging.

[Lumpy]

"Everyone in my extended and immediate family possesses guns... None of us has ever shot at any family member, friend, or visitor to our homes."

And no one in my extended family have needed a gun to protect themselves.

I don't believe he said that anyone in his family owned a gun for protection, did he? Sure, anyone can speculate.

I am knowingly going against my own standards of evidence, and I am doing it reluctantly, when I accuse Blomberg of being directly involved in writing I594. It is very upsetting to me when someone so wealthy and so greatly disconnected from the vast majority of americans and their daily life uses their wealth to legislate the lives of people that aren't even in the same place the rich person lives. I believe their money can be used to directly lift up and support those that most need assistance, not to make legislative changes in states they have no stake in. His name is all over Everytown for Gun Safety, the group is a big supporter of WA Gun Responsibility group which promoted I594, Bloomberg is clearly a gun rights abolitionist, and the rich wash each other's backs and provide financial and media support to each other all the time. That is how politics works much of the time, deals made with no knowledge to anyone else about what influenced the decisions people of power and influence make but the ends being the primary concern.

If I gather enough evidence to move my hypothesis up to theory, I'll be more than happy to share it.

[Koda]

I don't think Peder's comment was goofy. If your child marries someone that owns a gun, they are more likely to be shot.

but thats not what Peder said. He said ...more likely to be shot BY your spouse in an act of domestic violence (paraphrased). I do agree that its goofy to think if you teach your children to not marry gun owners they will be less likely to marry into a violent or abusive relationship.

I am knowingly going against my own standards of evidence, and I am doing it reluctantly, when I accuse Blomberg of being directly involved in writing I594. It is very upsetting to me when someone so wealthy and so greatly disconnected from the vast majority of americans and their daily life uses their wealth to legislate the lives of people that aren't even in the same place the rich person lives. I believe their money can be used to directly lift up and support those that most need assistance, not to make legislative changes in states they have no stake in. His name is all over Everytown for Gun Safety, the group is a big supporter of WA Gun Responsibility group which promoted I594, Bloomberg is clearly a gun rights abolitionist, and the rich wash each other's backs and provide financial and media support to each other all the time. That is how politics works much of the time, deals made with no knowledge to anyone else about what influenced the decisions people of power and influence make but the ends being the primary concern.

(emphasis mine) 100% agree.

[kepPNW]

I don't think Peder's comment was goofy. If your child marries someone that owns a gun, they are more likely to be shot.

but thats not what Peder said. He said ...more likely to be shot BY your spouse in an act of domestic violence (paraphrased).

I'll play. How is what Jerry said substantively different?

My read was that simply having a gun in the house increases the odds of getting shot. Which has been demonstrated to be categorically true.

Sure, there may be those incredibly rare occasions where that happens as gunplay breaks out between an intruder and a resident, and you could feel free to add that into the mix. But on the whole, most gun violence within a household would be amongst inhabitants and invited guests.

I do agree that its goofy to think if you teach your children to not marry gun owners they will be less likely to marry into a violent or abusive relationship.

That would be goofy, so it's probably a good thing Peder didn't say that. Right?

[retired jerry]

"I don't believe he said that anyone in his family owned a gun for protection, did he?"

What does that have to do with anything?

My point is that individual familes are too small to draw any conclusions

From the source of the wiki article that water referred to http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

In 2011, the most recent year, per 100,000 people:
10.3 gun deaths
3.6 homicides from guns
6.3 suicides from guns
0.3 unintentional gun deaths
0.1 undetermined gun deaths
1.5 homicides not from guns

None of us here have extended families anywhere close to the required 10,000 level.

3.6, 6.3, and 1.5 are all so small you shouldn't worry about them, instead, worry about CDC:
191 per 100,000 heart disease
185 cancer
41 accidents
17 flu and pneumonia

Since there are more suicides than homicides, it suggests not having a gun would be safer. Yeah, there could be people with guns that scared off a bad guy so there was no homicide at all, and other cases, but I don't have any data for that.

I assume most of the homicides were drug dealers shooting each other on the street or something that has nothing to do with a bad guy breaking into your house. If you're trying to prevent someone breaking into your house and killing a family memeber, I bet the number is tiny.

And I'm not saying you shouldn't have a gun. Those 41 accidents were caused by automobiles or motorcycle driving or mountain climbing or whatever and I don't think those should be prohibited.

I'm just saying that having a gun to protect yourself is not consistent with the data - you're more likely to kill yourself or someone you didn't intend to than to prevent a bad guy from doing you harm.

Having guns for hunting is fine.

Having guns because you incorrectly think you're protecting yourself is fine.

Having guns because they're cool toys is fine.

What am I doing, wasting my time looking up statistics about gun deaths??? I must be crazy. I should just shoot myself

[Koda]

I'll play. How is what Jerry said substantively different?

on is intentional one is not.

I do agree that its goofy to think if you teach your children to not marry gun owners they will be less likely to marry into a violent or abusive relationship.

That would be goofy, so it's probably a good thing Peder didn't say that. Right?

Right. Maybe Peder would like to chime in and clarify his statement...

I tell my daughter not to date gun owners - as nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers!

I'm just saying that having a gun to protect yourself is not consistent with the data - you're more likely to kill yourself or someone you didn't intend to than to prevent a bad guy from doing you harm.

seems like whats missing from all that data is how many times guns saved lives. Its also my opinion that criminals shooting criminals (drug deals...) ans suicides should be left out of the equation.

[kepPNW]

I'll play. How is what Jerry said substantively different?

on is intentional one is not.

One what? Just saying, it really seems you're grasping. Statistics don't apply to the individual, but they are conclusive. And if you're dead, as a result of having a gun in your house, does it matter whether or not it was done intentionally?

I do agree that its goofy to think if you teach your children to not marry gun owners they will be less likely to marry into a violent or abusive relationship.

That would be goofy, so it's probably a good thing Peder didn't say that. Right?

Right. Maybe Peder would like to chime in and clarify his statement...

I tell my daughter not to date gun owners - as nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers!

Seems very clear to me. I really can't see any way to take it to the extreme you did there. Afterall, most rape victims know (and often live with) their assailant. Abusers use the tools at hand. If there's a gun handy...

[retired jerry]

"seems like whats missing from all that data is how many times guns saved lives. Its also my opinion that criminals shooting criminals (drug deals...) ans suicides should be left out of the equation"

I could only find data for homicides. It seems like data for saved lives would be tainted by either guns rights or gun regulations partisans. But, if there's data anywhere, great...

If you shoot and kill a bad guy in self defense, is that classified as a homicide I wonder? That would have been included. Or if you got your gun out and he got his and shot and killed you.

I assume most people don't have guns. If you're arguing that they should own guns to save lives, then there would be homicides in the data now because they don't have guns.

I agree, the data can not be directly analyzed to conclusively show that owning a gun will, or will not save lives.

I think suicides from guns "should be left in the equation". That is a risk of owning a gun. If you don't own a gun, you're less likely to kill yourself. Guns make it easier. I think homicides would be more likely to be in high poverty areas, but suicide would be more evenly distributed.