Former law abiding gun owner shoots wife over dinner

[gollygee]

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2013/06/argument_over_cooking_led_up_t.html#incart_2box

[malaise]

1. Bet if there were no gun in that home she'd still be alive

Ah well.

[kelliekat44]

209. +++1 million!!! but stop making sense. nt

[BainsBane]

238. Don't be silly

More and bigger guns would allow her to live 12 lives.

[valerief]

253. No, no, no. If there were a DOZEN guns in the house, she'd still be alive. Gungeoneer logic. nt

[liberal N proud]

2. But law abiding gun owners don't commit gun violence

Except when they do!

[onehandle]

3. Yep. Gun owners are often law abiding up until the moment they shoot their wife. nt

[malaise]

6. Yep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023046007

[CTyankee]

11. It was exactly what happened in my family.

Lost a beautiful niece at age 24, four months after her joyful wedding. Shot by a law abiding stepgrandfather in a drunken rage. The young men who were ushers at her wedding were her pall bearers at her funeral. Saddest day of my family's life.

[reflection]

15. Oh man, how horrible.

I'm so sorry. That is beyond comprehension.

[CTyankee]

93. In a way, it was just as well that my father's recent stroke at the time rendered him unable

to know what had happened to his granddaughter. He did ask why so many people were coming over to the house...

[malaise]

80. Good grief

How sad

[CTyankee]

90. my brother collapsed by the side of her coffin. He was never the same after that.

He would get very agitated when anyone would refer to his daughter's death as "the accident." He made it very clear that "she was murdered."

[malaise]

111. I agree with him

It was no accident

[CTyankee]

119. I don't think her stepgrandfather really aimed at her. He was drunk and angry, went for the

gun which he always kept loaded on his bedside table. From the account of my niece's mother, who was there and also wounded, he just started shooting. He was upset that his wife, who was dying of cancer, was leaving him out of her will. He wounded her and my sister in law as well as killing my niece and then turned the gun on himself. My brother wasn't there (he and his wife were estranged). My former s.i.l. has to live with that memory forever in her head and I can't comprehend how terrible that must be for her.

[oldhippie]

208. That's really sad, CTyankee .....

What an awful and traumatic experience. I can see how that would influence your feelings about guns and gun owners. I may disagree with your philosophy on gun ownership, but I can certainly understand where you are coming from.

[CTyankee]

210. Thank you, oldhippie.

The really sad thing is hearing these stories over and over and over again. The same type of scenario. Now think about the multiplier effect on family after family after family, who have to live with this memory. We can't keep doing the same thing (nothing) and expecting a different outcome. You know what that is a definition of.

[southernyankeebelle]

112. And rightfully so. I am so sorry for his lose. You never get over it really.

[CTyankee]

122. Well, he's gone now. A stroke took him at age 67 back in 2004.

He was sort of out of it the last few years of his life with two other strokes...

[southernyankeebelle]

146. It's sad all around.

[still_one]

155. You have left me without words except to say I am so sorry for you and your familly's loss

[CTyankee]

157. Thank you. You are a kind person.

[Heidi]

4. Just an(other) isolated incident. Nothing to see here.

Move along, folks. Move along.

[el_bryanto]

5. Gosh those law abiding gun owners sure are terrifying. I hope I never run into one. nt

[Pelican]

52. Depending on your state...

... odds are excellent that you run across them every day.

[el_bryanto]

60. Oh no! Well please reassure me that no law-abiding gun owner would post at DU! nt

[pipoman]

7. One of the .001% of gun owners who kill someone annually, huh..

[EOTE]

23. There are around 30,000 gun deaths every year.

So, unless nearly the entire country owns guns, your math doesn't quite work out. Also, considering that guns are responsible for more than 2/3rds of homicides in this country, these responsible gun owners are "responsible" for far more than their fair share of murder.

[hack89]

26. Only a third of those gun deaths are crimes

which, when talking about "law abiding gun owners" killing people, needs to be taken into account.

I don't view suicides as criminals - they are victims.

[EOTE]

32. They are victims who likely wouldn't be dead without guns.

There's a reason that guns are so commonly used in suicides. They're damned effective.

[hack89]

44. But are they "law abiding gun owners" who are suddenly not anymore?

there is a meme being pushed that all gun owners are irresponsible and one small step away from being violent killers.

The numbers say otherwise. My only point and the only point of the poster you were replying to.

[EOTE]

46. Considering that suicide is illegal, yes.

They are victims as well, of course, but they'd be far less likely to be victims if guns weren't so readily available.

[jberryhill]

54. Where is suicide illegal?

Assisting suicide is illegal in many jurisdictions, and attempting suicide is illegal in some jurisdictions.

But suicide per se is not illegal anywhere. Name one person who has ever been sent to jail for it.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. That's a widely accepted meme, isn't it?

last time I looked, couldn't find such a statute either.

[EOTE]

59. It's the attempt that's illegal.

And yes, that's not applicable to all of the U.S. and it's obviously not enforced very frequently. That's all beside the point, though. And that point is that there would be a fuck less successful suicides if guns weren't so readily available.

[metalbot]

218. There would be less suicides in Fiji if paraquat were illegal

Fiji has a sizable Indian minority, who were brought in by the British as labor during the 19th century. Many of the modern Indian-Fijian families still practice arranged marriages, and it's not uncommon for women to be married off to a husband on another island, where she knows nobody and is surrounded by her husband's family. These women have a very high suicide rate. The rate was high enough that the Fijian government felt they needed to take some preventive steps, so they brought in some consultants to make recommendations. The consultants discovered that about 2/3 of the suicides were committed by women who ingested Paraquat, a highly toxic herbicide. About 1/3 of the women hung themselves.

The consultants did come up with a recommendation: to lower the rate of suicide among Indian-Fijian women who are pushed into arranged marriages, the government should do more to tighten access to paraquat.


Which, of course is insane, because it completely misses the point about why these women commit suicide.

[hack89]

58. You can lump suicides with murderers if you want

I understand why gun controllers need to do it - 30,000 sounds much more impressive than 10,000

[EOTE]

61. I'm not lumping them together at all.

11,000 is FAR too many annual gun homicides, no need to inflate that number at all. Of course, there would be a fuck less torn apart families and temporarily depressed people who would be alive today if guns weren't so readily available for suicide as well. No need to fuck around with numbers, the gun nuts do plenty enough of that.

[hack89]

64. So distinguish between legal and illegal gun owners

and fix the real problems.

For example, in Chicago, legal gun owners are not responsible for the ongoing carnage there.

Decide what is more important - waging cultural wars against all gun owners or focusing on people that are doing the killing.


Btw - what laws would prevent suicides?

[EOTE]

71. Again, the great bulk of illegal gun owners were at one point legal gun owners.

So that distinction is utterly stupid. Also, guns being so incredibly available and so easy to obtain by legal gun owners makes it far easier for criminals and other people who shouldn't have guns to get them. Yes, background checks need to be universal, gun show loopholes need to be closed, but we also need to have sensible regulations on guns themselves.

And you can read about suicide laws on wiki, no need to derail the conversation for something so auxiliary to the conversation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation#United_States

[hack89]

89. I understand your need to blur the line between felons ...

and the average gun owner. Can't let the notion that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and represent no threat take root, can we? Unfortunately the American public is smarter than you.

I am with you on universal background checks, especially for private sales. My state has such laws and they work well. Beyond that, I think that quadrupling the size of the ATF and cracking down on illegal gun trafficking and sales would do more to reduce gun violence then most laws being discussed. Especially if coupled to new laws that significantly increase the penalty for using a gun in the commission of any crime. The place for violent offenders is in prison.

[EOTE]

92. I understand your need to obscure the facts surrounding gun nutters and their propensity for murder.

Of course, you can't point out any flaw in my logic, so you just rehash endless bullshit. I'm aware that the bulk of gun owners are not murderers. I'll also say that this particular fact is utterly worthless. There are far too many legal gun owners who shouldn't own guns. There are far too many guns that no owner, legal or otherwise should have access to. But like a good gun nut, you ignore anything substantive and simply insult my intelligence. No, the American public is not, on average, smarter than me. If you were to go by objective numbers, less than 2% of the American public is smarter than me. But far better to throw around baseless insults than discuss anything substantive. I did no blurring of any lines. I provided objective facts and numbers. God knows the gun nuts hate those things.

[hack89]

94. So what "sensible" laws do we need? nt

[EOTE]

95. I've already discussed that many times in this thread.

I won't cover them all, but I'll at least start.

Close the gun show loophole.
Universal background checks.
Universal firearm registration.
Magazine capacity restriction.

[hack89]

97. So we agree on three out of four

that's good, don't you think?

[EOTE]

104. Again, it's a start.

The disagreeing on what needs to be done I have no issue with. The distorting or outright lying about objective numbers is far less acceptable.

[hack89]

106. I don't hold it against you.

unfortunately that is the dynamic that DU gun discussions usually take.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Are you aware that these four items would do nothing for suicides?

Like, literally, nothing.

Your first two items are redundant to the third. With the third, the first two no longer exist.
The second can exist without the third, but would similarly make the first item no longer exist.

[EOTE]

103. No, that's not true.

Having less guns around means that they'd be less accessible to suicide victims.

How many of those guns used for suicides were purchased at gun shows where they wouldn't have been purchased otherwise? I'm sure you've got objective data for such a bold claim, unless you were talking out of your ass. Not to mention how stupid it is to suggest that if something doesn't reduce suicides, it needn't be considered. Gun nuts certainly do have pretty faulty logic.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. Well

"How many of those guns used for suicides were purchased at gun shows where they wouldn't have been purchased otherwise?"

You know full well no such data exists. So we are both speculating.
If someone is going to the effort to troll around at a gun show to get a gun for a suicide, pretty good bet it's premeditated enough they would have used one of the slightly less effective, but more accessible methods.

Are people who commit suicide statistically more likely to be ineligible to lawfully purchase a firearm with a background check? I doubt any data exists on that, but I'll be happy to look at it if you have some.

[EOTE]

108. It's speculating, no, flat out LYING to suggest that closing the gun show loop hole wouldn't reduce

suicides. A good bulk of successful suicides are done by firearm. Yet you say that taking a good number of firearms (especially the ones that people shouldn't have in the first place) off the street would not reduce suicides by firearm. THAT is the lie. You say that what I said would not reduce suicides by firearm and then accuse ME of speculating when I put the test to that lie. And people wonder why sensible people have an issue with gun nuts. Try using a bit of logic and get back to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. So you can show

a reduction in suicide by firearm in states that require background checks at gun shows, versus states that do not?

I would like to see that.

[EOTE]

109. And do you really think that only the people buying those firearms will be the ones committing

suicide with them? Do you have any idea how many people who commit suicide do so with firearms that they don't own? Firearms that they wouldn't have had access to had some neglectful asshole who shouldn't own a gun had a gun in the first place? Thinking really helps, you know.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. What is the correlation between safe storage and background checks that should occur at gun shows?

Can you show that people who buy guns at gun shows are statistically more likely to leave guns laying around, negligently accessible to others?

[EOTE]

114. I can tell you if the gun show loophole were closed, less irresponsible assholes who shouldn't own

guns wouldn't. Would you disagree with that painfully obvious fact? Would you then agree, with more irresponsible assholes owning guns around, that more potential suicide victims would have access to guns? I wouldn't suggest that you would take these two painfully obvious things as facts. Most of the nutters have a very hard time with reality.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. I don't agree, and I think you should be able to demonstrate that claim with state by state

suicide by firearm data, wherein we find some sort of correlation between states with background check requirements, and a lower rate of suicide by firearm, versus states with no background check controls beyond the federal minimum, and those state's firearm/suicide rate.

This should be easy as pie to show.

[EOTE]

117. So brilliant the way that the gun nutter's mind works.

You can make an utterly idiotic claim with absolutely nothing to back it up and it's supposed to be taken as gospel. When I tell you an utterly common sense reasoning behind it, you claim the data doesn't exist. THEN you ask me to provide you that data you say doesn't exist. Good job, gun nutter. Even Loughner would be proud.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. But there is state by state suicide/firearm data.

I didn't ask for something that doesn't exist.

You made the claim, it would be nice if you provided something to back it up. I will accept a loose, non-scientific correlation.

[EOTE]

121. YOU made the claim. One which was auxiliary to what was being discussed.

YOU were the one who said that closing the gun show loop hole would NOT reduce suicides, even though I wasn't even speaking of closing the loop hole to reduce suicides (there are these little things gun nuts try not to talk about called homicides). You said that with absolutely no authority whatsoever. When I explained the common sense reasoning behind it, you said that the data does not exist. What you and so many nutters refuse to comprehend is that statistics are often a complicated thing. There are things like confounding variables and plenty of other things that make a nutter's mind swim. There IS a study that has been done regarding the association, but it's extremely flawed. Until a decent analysis has been done, we'll simply have to use common sense. God knows that's not a nutter's forte.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936974/

[AtheistCrusader]

123. Stop lying.

I said I doubt it, and asked for data. That is not a positive assertion that places the burden of proof on me.

You sound like an evangelical trying to maneuver the burden of proof of disproving a god onto me, when all I state is I do not recognize any credible evidence in favor of said supernatural being.

By all means, cite where I made a POSITIVE STATEMENT that places burden of proof on me. I'll wait.

(I'm reviewing CDC/National Vital Statistics Report (May 2013) right now, for you, apparently.)

[EOTE]

125. Christ, you DO know that your statements are available for all to see, right?

I know that the nutters know nothing in terms of logic or reason, but I'd think that even the looniest nutter would realize that.

Hmmm, let's see:

"Are you aware that these four items would do nothing for suicides?
Like, literally, nothing. "

Those are words that you wrote. I know this is mindblowing and all, but we can read them. Loony nutters need to realize that words mean things. Granted, I never said that closing the loop hole WOULD reduce suicides at the time, I merely expressed to you how that was common sense later. But God knows that bringing up common sense with you is utterly fruitless. Christ, stop your fucking lying, we can read, you know?

[AtheistCrusader]

131. I can show

that on page 145 of the National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 61, No. 4, May 8, 2013, that there are states with and without background check requirements at gun shows with PRECISELY THE SAME FIREARM INJURY RATE.

So I stand by that statement until you come up with something that SHOWS a correlation between background check requirements and a lower injury rate. You have made a very specific claim with ZERO evidence. I, on the other hand, have pulled up data, not knowing if it would help or hurt my one assertion, and found it certainly didn't hurt it. Your turn.

Your 'common sense'... is.. well, how did Twain put it?

Not common?

You asserted:
"How many of those guns used for suicides were purchased at gun shows where they wouldn't have been purchased otherwise?"
I replied:
"You know full well no such data exists. So we are both speculating."

There is no data on where firearms used in suicides were purchased. Does not exist. You come back at me with this crap:

"When I tell you an utterly common sense reasoning behind it, you claim the data doesn't exist. THEN you ask me to provide you that data you say doesn't exist. Good job, gun nutter. Even Loughner would be proud."

I asked you to provide state by state firearm injury data which does exist, that we may look for a correlation between it and states that prohibit gun show sales without background checks already.

You called me a liar first. You missed the mark. The data I asked for exists. The data we need to answer your earlier question does not. They were different questions.

[EOTE]

132. Christ, let's see if you have a functioning brain here.

Was it you or I that made the claim that closing the gun show loophole would not reduce suicides? If you can't even cop to the mindless bullshit written by your very fingers, is there any point in continuing this bullshit debate? Dear God, it's like gun nutters have completely abandoned any semblance of logic and instead insist on spewing their idiocy until others throw their hands up in annoyance. Nutters: good at shooting shit and saying stupid shit, not much else.

[AtheistCrusader]

135. I did make that assertion.

And in doing so, you have provided not a single shred of evidence to show otherwise, and done nothing but call me a liar and scream about common sense.

Common sense that does not jive with the CDC data I referenced multiple times above.
You made specific claims and have provided FUCKALL to back it up, beyond attempting to yell louder.

Does not hold water.

[EOTE]

136. So, you can make an assertion with nothing to back it up.

Then when I explain to you how your assertion is idiotic, I'M the one making unsubstantiated claims.

And you were so incredibly convinced that your original argument was correct and kosher that for several more posts, you lied in saying that you never even made that claim. Honest, rational people don't run away from the claims that they made. Nutters do.

On edit: Not to mention that the lie you made had nothing to do with the argument at hand. If there's one thing that nutters do better than lying, it's obfuscation.

[AtheistCrusader]

138. Except I provided that data when you called me on it.

You haven't.

You called me a liar, but I 'put up' when required. You have not. Shows who is being honest in this discussion, doesn't it?

[EOTE]

141. You provided nothing in terms of data.

I informed you that there was an actual study done on this, but it was extremely flawed. You should understand that there's a difference between numbers (not data) and an actual study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936974/

[AtheistCrusader]

144. I do. I asked for a correlation only.

It's very simple. You claimed common sense, not a peer reviewed standard.

The CDC data shows no correlation between firearm injury rate and gun show background check in states with similar gun control laws. The two states I cited (Wa and SD) have the same effective firearm laws. One difference. Washington State gun shows require a background check.

The firearm injury rate between the two states has a delta of less than 1/10th of one percent.

I don't have a problem with your assertion that the study is flawed. I give not one shit about that study, and it does nothing to prove your ALL CAPS ASSERTION OF COMMON SENSE ARGLE BARGLE

You also made some equally ridiculous claims without data:

"Yet you say that taking a good number of firearms (especially the ones that people shouldn't have in the first place) off the street would not reduce suicides by firearm."

Since when does requiring background checks for PRIVATE SELLERS THAT ALREADY OWN THE GUN take "firearms off the street"? Do you have any idea the issue you are talking about? These are private transfers. The gun is already in circulation.

[EOTE]

147. You didn't ask for anything, you made a statement.

One which, again because you seem incapable of reading anything that doesn't jibe with your views, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But I'll take one more jab at the stupidity: "Since when does requiring background checks for PRIVATE SELLERS THAT ALREADY OWN THE GUN take "firearms off the street"? Do you have any idea the issue you are talking about? These are private transfers. The gun is already in circulation."

Yes, the gun is already in circulation, to someone who purportedly has demonstrated the legal right to own a firearm. Do you understand that? Then, at a gun show, it could very well transfer to someone who shouldn't own a firearm and on the streets. Comprende? Do all you gun nutters think that one gun owner is just as good as the next? It's really hard to tackle this kind of idiocy.

That, and the fact that you've already admitted to lying twice in this very thread, should tell me that any further attempts at debate with you would be rather fruitless.

[AtheistCrusader]

153. That isn't what you said.

"EOTE (12,231 posts)
108. It's speculating, no, flat out LYING to suggest that closing the gun show loop hole wouldn't reduce
suicides. A good bulk of successful suicides are done by firearm. Yet you say that taking a good number of firearms (especially the ones that people shouldn't have in the first place) off the street would not reduce suicides by firearm. THAT is the lie. You say that what I said would not reduce suicides by firearm and then accuse ME of speculating when I put the test to that lie. And people wonder why sensible people have an issue with gun nuts. Try using a bit of logic and get back to me. "


Your proposals don't take guns off the street.

"Yes, the gun is already in circulation, to someone who purportedly has demonstrated the legal right to own a firearm. Do you understand that? Then, at a gun show, it could very well transfer to someone who shouldn't own a firearm and on the streets. Comprende? Do all you gun nutters think that one gun owner is just as good as the next? It's really hard to tackle this kind of idiocy. "

All this shit you just typed DOES NOT ADDRESS THAT POINT.

You whine about logic, but your claims have no logical basis. I didn't claim requiring background checks at gun shows wouldn't take guns off the street when you brought it up, but even if I had, actually, that statement I didn't make IS TRUE. All guns that GET ON the street in the first place are already background checked. Preventing someone from buying it that is legally ineligible from buying it doesn't remove the gun from the street.

Do you not see how inane your statements are? Screaming about logic when you make WHOLLY IRRATIONAL CLAIMS and call people liars for things that aren't actually untrue?

"It's speculating, no, flat out LYING to suggest that closing the gun show loop hole wouldn't reduce suicides."
No, it isn't. It is perhaps speculating to a degree, but certainly not lying. (Incidentally, this bit where you called me a liar is where decorum went out the window.) Otherwise I would be wrong about the CDC data.

[EOTE]

156. So, you don't believe that closing the gun show loophole will prevent those who shouldn't have guns

from owning them. Sterling logic there, champ. Yep, gun show attendees are all entirely honest and would never commit a crime. Listen, there's just no arguing with a gun nut. And by the way champ, if you don't want to be called a liar, you should probably stop lying.

[AtheistCrusader]

159. No, actually, halfway down this page, I

agreed it would help keep them out of ineligible hands.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3047064

(I note you just tried to change the subject of my objection)

Which is why I support not only background checks, but also registration. A key tool in combating straw purchases and the proliferation of firearms from legal ownership to black/grey markets.

What you just did was to create a strawman opposite what I am solidly on the record here at DU, all the way back to DU2, of SUPPORTING.

Upthread, what I challenged was that this issue of background checks at gun shows has no apparent utility in preventing suicides. It would be nice if it was that easy, actually. Then we could use the 2/3'rds or so of fatal firearm injuries as justification for background checks as well. Problem is, it doesn't. I can't even find people like the VPC using that claim without data/support. Which surprised me, because I assumed you had cribbed it from somewhere.

[EOTE]

163. You are utterly inconsistent.

If you agree that closing the gun show loophole would keep guns out of the wrong hands AND you believe that suicides by firearm increase when they're more readily available, you have to believe that closing the gun show loop hole would reduce suicides by gun. To not believe so would be idiotic. Oh, and by the way, another poster provided some very interesting information on access to guns and the rate of suicide by guns. You promptly ignored it like you do any information which contradicts your preconceived views. I eagerly await you to ignore it again. And it's a beyond a laugh to hear you complain about someone changes the subject.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-background-checks

[AtheistCrusader]

176. No.

Why can't you keep what I am saying in focus. What the hell.

"If you agree that closing the gun show loophole would keep guns out of the wrong hands"

It would HELP, sure. Registration is better because it cuts down on unlawful grey/black market transition of a firearm from a lawful owner to an unlawful owner, in spite of a requirement for a background check. (Intentional straw purchasers do not report those sales)

"AND you believe that suicides by firearm increase when they're more readily available"

I agree there is a correlation between successful suicide and firearm availability and can cite studies to back that up. I cannot cite a study that says suicides increase when guns are more readily available. That was not my claim. Suicide, and successful suicide don't completely overlap.

"you have to believe that closing the gun show loop hole would reduce suicides by gun."

No. Because in order for me to believe that, I would have to believe that some statistically meaningful number of people that commit suicide shop at gun shows, buy from unlicensed sellers (private transfer) AND would fail a NICS check if one were performed.

And, I do not believe a statistically meaningful number of people fall under all three of those criteria simultaneously.
However, source of gun used in a suicide isn't something that has been collected, to my knowledge. (The data point I stated earlier 'does not appear to exist'. Correct me if I am wrong.)

[EOTE]

179. Yes, I'm well aware that you don't believe in objective reality.

Remember this? http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-background-checks

Of course you don't because you ignore anything that doesn't fit into that nutter head of yours. And of course you again bring up the utterly idiotic canard of suicidal people going to gun shows to get their suicide gun. As if that has any matter of significance. As if only the owners of guns ever use them. It's a funny thing, the mind of a nutter. A very small thing as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

185. Remember where I objected to comparing states with MASSIVE delta in total gun laws?

One of the reasons the earlier study was flawed, actually.

If you include some outliers like, as I specified downthread, New York, California, Massachusetts, you skew the average. Those three states have quite a few other gun laws that I would say contribute to that delta.

Again, if I compare just states that have the gun show background check (not even universal background checks), the average is massively NOT in your favor.

The MJ article is crap. You ought to know that.

[EOTE]

189. So what part do you disagree with?

Do you disagree with the fact that more access to firearms equals more suicide deaths by firearm?

Or do you disagree with the fact that not requiring background checks at gun shows provides more access to firearms?

Truly, I'm very interested in hearing which one of those facts you disagree with.

[AtheistCrusader]

192. I've said it like ten times now.

I don't know why I think you might get it this time but here goes:

The delta in successful suicide by firearms when comparing texas and California, is not background checks at gun shows. It is a VAST ARRAY of much more interesting and effective gun laws.

Which is why Colorado compares unfavorably to SD, which is practically Somalia for all the regulation they have.

If I look at states WITH and WITHOUT background checks at gun shows, your death rate by firearm argument, suicide or malicious intent, doesn't matter, in both cases, it falls apart.

There are OTHER better laws in play here.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. Incidentally

The mortality rate for injury by firearm in Washington State and South Dakota is within 1/10th of one percent. In WA you cannot purchase a gun at the gun shows without a background check, in SD you can.

Glancing through Table 19 of that report I find no obvious correlation between states that allow no purchase at a show without BG check and a lower firearm injury rate, suicide or malicious use.

Edit: Colorado has a rate of 11.0, with no lawful transfer of firearms at a gun show without background check. Several points higher than Washington's self-policing shows, and SD's non-control at all of same shows.

[EOTE]

127. Do I really believe for one second that you could begin to comprehend intricacies of statistics?

Again, there are things like confounding variables that nutters would find, well, confounding. I provided a link to the myriad issues with the study currently done, but I don't expect for one second that you'd read it, or much less, understand it.

[AtheistCrusader]

128. I love how

it's just too complicated to explain. Doesn't that place MORE of a burden on you to establish your claim?

"common sense reasoning"

Yet the CDC data doesn't show it. So what the fuck do you base your 'common sense' claim in?

"Until a decent analysis has been done, we'll simply have to use common sense."

You seem to be using 'my opinion' and 'common sense' interchangeably.

"You can make an utterly idiotic claim with absolutely nothing to back it up"

I just looked through the CDC data on injury by firearms (fatalities) by state, and I see no correlation between states with background check requirements and a lower injury rate. Not even states behind (geographically) other states that also require checks.

Your assertion that I made an idiotic claim doesn't hold water.

[EOTE]

130. Again, are you truly unable to understand that YOU are the one who made the claim?

One which was entirely auxiliary to the discussion? I know gun nutters are accustomed to not being called on their bullshit, but I can't let this slide. YOU were the one who claimed that nothing I suggested would do anything to reduce suicide. You said so without even a shred of evidence. Do you not recognize this utterly simple fact? This is really basic stuff, even for the nutters.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. I did assert it would do nothing.

And that so blew your noodle you pretty much screamed at me that it was common sense. Common sense that does not jive with the firearm injury data I cited above.

Cluebat: the states with a lower firearm injury rate have a HELL OF A LOT MORE gun control measures in place than states that have a higher rate. States with JUST a difference in gun show background checks show little if any difference. (Less than 1/10th of one percent in the first correlation I spotted in the list.)

[EOTE]

134. So, you're a liar.

You lied when you said that, and you also lied when you said you didn't say that.

Frankly, you just can't stop lying. Why the hell should I continue to discuss with someone who not only lies with abandon, but then continues to lie about his own lies?

[AtheistCrusader]

137. That is the worst backpedal I have ever seen.

I challenged you and you accused me of lying. Straight up personal attack.

"It's speculating, no, flat out LYING to suggest that closing the gun show loop hole wouldn't reduce suicides."


CDC data doesn't show what you claim, and you have offered NOTHING to back up your claim. Not a thing. Just turning up the volume.

[EOTE]

139. YOU were the one to make the claim.

Something you are utterly incapable of understanding. Not to mention that the claim was completely irrelevant to the topic at hand (we need gun control to reduce the number of gun homicides). So you make an asinine claim that's completely irrelevant and then spend eons attempting to siderail the debate by picking apart my dismissal of your irrelevant claim. That's a few steps beyond idiotic. But nothing less than I'd expect from a nutter.

[AtheistCrusader]

140. I supported my claim. You have not.

I did over-state my "I said I doubt it, and asked for data." in post 123. I'll own THAT. But I did BACK THAT CLAIM UP with CDC data.

There is no clear correlation between states with and without background checks at gun shows versus the firearm injury rate.
Your assertion of common sense, isn't. You have offered no data.

[EOTE]

142. You have provided nothing in terms of data.

You seem to not even know what data is. Again, there has been a study of this (nothing you're remotely capable of doing, even haphazardly), it was extremely flawed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936974/

[AtheistCrusader]

145. Your study, not mine.

I agree it is flawed. I would point out ADDITIONAL ways in which it is flawed, especially if someone tried to use it in this context. An interesting study would be comparing two states with similar gun control laws, but a delta in this one particular law.

There are state pairs that will serve for this comparison, and Texas/California ain't it.

I offered you one state comparison per the CDC firearm injury rate. I specified the vital statistics report, page and table number.

You got bupkis dude. Nothing. Nada.

[EOTE]

152. You made a claim with zero to back it up.

Even you admit that there's no data to back it up that's not severely flawed. So, that was a lie. Then, you proceeded to lie about your own lie numerous times. This is all disregarding the fact that this issue had nothing to do with my argument in the first place. Then, you accuse me of having nothing. Gun nutters are assholes.

[AtheistCrusader]

161. You keep on using this word 'lie'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

A agreed that I over-stated in post 123. If you want to call that over-statement a lie, fine. But that is the only thing you've got here.

[EOTE]

165. You made a statement and then later on admitted you had no data to back up that assertion.

That's a lie. If there's one thing I'd like you to learn, it's that words mean things.

[AtheistCrusader]

173. And you're lying right now.

The mistake I made was saying I had not made a claim that required burden of proof (post 123). I did.

And I HAVE supplied that data. Do you want data, or a peer reviewed study? I have data. I have no peer reviewed study.

[EOTE]

175. You said that the laws I want would do nothing to reduce suicide (which wasn't the topic to begin

with). That was a lie. You then even admitted that you had no data to back that up. I try to get this conversation on track and you refuse to talk about anything else but your lie. You demand data to refute your assertion even though I've told you from the beginning that your only goal has been to derail the conversation. Then, when someone DOES provide data which not only refutes your assertion, but demolishes it and proves it to be the lie that it is and you conveniently ignore it. Is it any wonder that rational people think the gun nuts live in looney land?

[AtheistCrusader]

178. You still have not demonstrated that.

"That was a lie."

By all means, back that assertion up.
Because CDC data in states that have equal gun laws, except for the gun show background check requirement do not show a statistically meaningful delta in firearm related fatal injuries.

And we all know how firearms are much more likely to produce a fatality in a suicide than any other method.
Where is your source for that claim?

I don't care that it wasn't the topic, I made it the topic, ok? If you didn't want to talk about it you shouldn't have engaged on this issue.

[EOTE]

181. Do you think that access to firearms correlates with the rate of suicide by firearm?

Of course I wouldn't expect an honest answer from you. No reason to start now.

[AtheistCrusader]

187. As I said, it correlates to SUCCESSFUL suicide attempts.

Suicide and successful suicide are not the same thing.

[EOTE]

177. Oh, and just so you know, talking out of your ass knowingly is the same as lying.

A lie is something said that is not the truth. That's been the bulk of what you said here.

[AtheistCrusader]

180. Except the CDC data validates what I said. Thanks for playing.

[EOTE]

182. It does nothing of the sort. Not that I'd expect you to know if they did.

You and statistics are not friends. But thanks for playing.

[AtheistCrusader]

188. You and 'correlation' are not friends.

Blatantly obvious too.

[EOTE]

190. Here you go, champ.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation

Not terribly difficult. It's a very simple relationship. More guns, more deaths. No matter what you think about the causation, the correlation is damned easy to pick out. Which is why it gives me zero surprise that you don't see it.

[AtheistCrusader]

193. And here's where you fall on your face.

You haven't established that a LACK OF BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS EQUALS MORE GUNS.

That is how flawed your argument is.

Edit: This is a SECONDARY market.

[EOTE]

143. And I have no reason to back up anything, because I was not the one to make the claim.

This is well beyond asinine. You make a claim which has nothing to do with my argument, I deny that claim and then you go straight into derailing the conversation. Utter idiocy would be kind.

[AtheistCrusader]

148. Suicide was clearly discussed up thread. post 71 and up.

Speaking of derailing, you never even responded to my point that 3 of the 4 things you asked for are mutually redundant and useless in combination.

[EOTE]

151. Yes, it was to say that a lot of deaths caused by guns are by suicide and therefore don't count.

I never included suicides in my homicide number, so that's a non-sequitor at best. I kept the numbers completely objective. Utterly asinine logic. And your claim has no validity to it. We could have universal registration and still have guns purchased through gun shows. Registration could still have the ability to transfer, no? Say something of merit and I'll respond to it.

[AtheistCrusader]

162. So instead of screaming about COMMON SENSE AND LYING, why didn't you just

point out that suicide was an aside, and not relevant? I may have 'read into' the relevance by the discussion upthread, and that may even have been a mistake, but you set about personally attacking for LYING BY MERELY SUGGESTING that there was no correlation.

If it wasn't germane to your point (I accept that it may not have been intended so) why did you directly attack me for daring to question your 'common sense' assumption?

[EOTE]

164. Because I never brought up suicide to begin witih.

And yes, you are lying when you say openly that there is no correlation when you then go on to say that you had no data to back that up. And there IS a very well defined correlation between access to guns and suicide by guns. But you'll continue to pretend that doesn't exist.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-background-checks

[AtheistCrusader]

191. You have not correlated shit.

And you know it.

There is no correlation between the 4 items you wanted, and the suicide by firearm rate. None. You have had ample opportunity to provide one. There isn't. The MJ article doesn't either. It is flawed just like that study. If you ONLY compare states that have ONE variable difference (background checks at gun shows) the average is no longer in your favor.

I DO believe some gun control measures reduce access to and thereby reduce the number of successful suicides by firearm. The singular data point of background checks IS NOT THE DRIVER. Otherwise, Colorado would perform as well as California, and not worse than SOUTH GODDAMN DAKOTA which is basically unregulated beyond federal baseline requirements.

The CDC data makes it quite obvious that the SINGULAR DATA POINT of background checks is not the driver. (Correlation)

[EOTE]

194. I'm through with you.

You have done nothing but demonstrated your pig-headishness and complete inability to learn. YOU were the one to bring up how the laws I want would pertain to suicide even though that was unrelated to the discussion. YOU were the one to make the bullshit claim without an ounce of evidence to back it up (that's a LIE, champ. That makes you a liar). YOU were the one to completely ignore every piece of evidence that runs contrary to what you think you know. And YOU are the one who has completely refused to answer the questions I've posted to you at least three times now. Sorry, you can't teach a stupid dog new tricks (or pretty much anything at all, really). Have fun licking yourself, I don't need the distraction.

[AtheistCrusader]

195. I provided the evidence.

I provided the data. Thank you for not pretending you required a peer reviewed study to show it. That at least, was honest of you.

But it is dishonest to pretend I did not offer evidence. I can show you, per capita, comparing states with and without background checks at gun shows, that not only do some states perform the same, some of the background check states perform WORSE, leading one to (I would have thought) conclude that SOME OTHER LAW in the large list of delta between these states is responsible for that.

[jmg257]

149. Were you guys talking firearm injury rate or firearm suicide rate?

"States that have universal background checks, or stronger background check laws, have half the suicides that states that don’t have those types of laws in place,” said Dina Dariotis, of New Yorkers Against Gun violence ..."

"States with such a requirement have a gun suicide rate 50 percent lower than states that don't, even when their non-gun suicide rates are about the same. "

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-background-checks

Is this not true?

[EOTE]

154. Suicide rate.

And any information which doesn't back up what a gun nutter already believes will be promptly ignored.

[AtheistCrusader]

198. Hard to ignore what you haven't provided.

You didn't even come up with that mother jones article. Someone else provided it. And it is flawed, just like the study you yourself claimed was flawed, and for some of the same reasons. Background checks at gun shows is not the correlation comparing fatal firearm injuries between California and Texas, suicide or otherwise.

[EOTE]

201. I never said I provided it, I said you'd ignore it. And ignore it you did.

And it's quite clear that it's flawed because you don't believe in its outcome. Reality isn't the gun nutter's friend. How else can you describe the loony toons notion that not requiring background checks for firearms doesn't provide more access to firearms? That's not just showing a lack of understanding of reality, that's showing bone-headed idiocy. Par for the course, really.

[AtheistCrusader]

202. I didn't ignore it. I CHALLENGED IT.

As in, I believe it is invalid, for some of the same reasons we both believe that Texas/Cali study is flawed.

You cannot and have not shown a correlation between background checks and suicides, that is not similarly flawed as that study. As soon as I narrow the data to states that differ ONLY in that restriction, your argument evaporates.

Many of the states with JUST that restriction actually fare worse, though I would NOT go so far as to say that is the CAUSE for those states faring worse.

[EOTE]

203. A correlation is a relationship in sets of data.

The Mother Jones article clearly shows a correlation between whether or not a state requires background check for private firearm sales and gun suicides. Causation is not established (although I'm sure it could be rather easily), but correlation is very simply established. So much so that I'm sure that the great bulk of grade schoolers could recognize it. If you're unable to see a correlation there, I'm totally unable to help you.

On edit: Here's more information for you to ignore:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/health/17risk.html?_r=0

[AtheistCrusader]

205. No, it doesn't.

Are you seriously arguing the Cali/Texas study is valid? Well, get your happy ass on in there to defend it, because that's what you are doing.

There is NO correlation between states that ONLY differ on this requirement that is beneficial to your argument. As soon as you bring California, New York, and MA into the discussion, you are talking about much more than just background checks at gun shows.

You are being incredibly dishonest right now.

[EOTE]

206. Listen very closely, this is what I'm saying.

I'm saying that there is a correlation between states which allow the private sale of firearms without background checks and the rate of suicide by firearm. Very simple to recognize, and even the most idiotic gun nut has to acknowledge it. And I'll include some more articles below which detail the correlation between access to guns and rates of suicide by guns. I'm not talking about states which ONLY differ in this requirement because when you have to pick and choose which criteria you judge valid by a gun nut, you'll get absolutely nowhere. I'm saying what I've said a good dozen times now. I'll cut and paste to avoid irritation:

I'm saying that there is a correlation between states which allow the private sale of firearms without background checks and the rate of suicide by firearm.

I'm saying that there is a correlation between states which allow the private sale of firearms without background checks and the rate of suicide by firearm.

I'm saying that there is a correlation between states which allow the private sale of firearms without background checks and the rate of suicide by firearm.

You've denied this simple fact a number of times which shows that you really can't be trusted anywhere near numbers.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/14/does-gun-ownership-promote-suicide
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/health/17risk.html?_r=0

[AtheistCrusader]

212. You don't seem to hear what you yourself are saying.

"I'm saying that there is a correlation between states which allow the private sale of firearms without background checks and the rate of suicide by firearm."

A claim appears! Form of; assertion!

Now, let's dissect the rest of your post.

"Very simple to recognize, and even the most idiotic gun nut has to acknowledge it. And I'll include some more articles below which detail the correlation between access to guns and rates of suicide by guns. I'm not talking about states which ONLY differ in this requirement because when you have to pick and choose which criteria you judge valid by a gun nut, you'll get absolutely nowhere. I'm saying what I've said a good dozen times now. I'll cut and paste to avoid irritation:"

Ah! A different claim. (One that I happen to agree with and can cite sources for) Your offer of data does not correlate to your claim. Your mistake is in assuming that ACCESS TO GUNS IS HIGHER in states that allow private transfers at gun shows without a background check, predicated upon that restriction. A crucial point you have not established. You have assumed.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/14/does-gun-ownership-promote-suicide
Reason? Did you really cite reason.com? I'll allow it, but man, be careful who you do that with on this site, you gonna get yelled at.

"Within the United States, she notes, higher rates of gun ownership are associated with higher rates of suicide. But that relationship may not be causal:"

So not only does it NOT pertain to BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PRIVATE TRANSFERS AT GUN SHOWS, but the reason article even doubts the correlation. HOLY SHIT YOU GOT ME THERE DUDE.

"Taken together, the results presented in this paper suggest that much of the positive relationship between firearms ownership and suicide is driven by selection—individuals with above average suicidal tendencies are more likely to own a gun and to live in areas with relatively many gun owners. But because female suicide rates are less responsive to the rate of gun ownership than are male suicide rates [which is significant because women are substantially less likely to kill themselves with guns], it does appear that instrumentality effects also play some role. And finally, while suicide rates have been declining in the U.S. in recent years, the reduction in the fraction of households who own a gun does not appear to be the force that is driving this decline."

This reason article reads like a point by point takedown of your assertion. Good job reading it before you posted it.
And of course, none of it has any established link to background checks at gun shows. Excellent research work there.

"Sweden, with over twice as much gun ownership as neighboring Germany and a third more gun suicide, nevertheless has the lower overall suicide rate. Greece has nearly three times more gun ownership than the Czech Republic and somewhat more gun suicide, yet the overall Czech suicide rate is over 175% higher than the Greek rate. Spain has over 12 times more gun ownership than Poland, yet the latter's overall suicide rate is more than double the former’s. Tragically, Finland has over 14 times more gun ownership than neighboring Estonia, and a great deal more gun‐related suicide. Estonia, however, turns out to have a much higher suicide rate than Finland overall."

Clearly you did not read this article before you cited it. You just cited an attack on your softer position of 'gun availability increases risk of suicide'. (A position I disagree with, based on the rates of suicide WITHOUT guns in the nations cited, particularly Japan. This is a cultural issue, but whatever, your source not mine)


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/health/17risk.html?_r=1&

"When they looked at the 15 states with the highest firearm ownership, the researchers found that twice as many people committed suicide as in the six states with the lowest firearm ownership. The population in each group of states was about the same, the researchers said."

Note it talks about ownership, not background checks on private transfers at gun shows.

You have not established a link between per higher household ownership and states with no requirement for background checks at gun shows. You have also not shown a correlation between people who commit suicide, and those who cannot pass a background check that acquired their weapon of suicide at a gun show. A bridge quite beyond what you have already failed to provide.

Colorado is the eighth worst state in the nation for suicide per capita. South Dakota is 12th. Colorado requires background checks at gun shows, SD does not. Washington is 16th, also with a self-mandated requirement at the shows. (Not law, voluntary policing, and WA fares better than CO)

Of the five lowest guns per capita state, only two (New York and Rhode Island) have the background requirement on private sales at gun shows. (And actually, its on private sales, period, not just gun shows)

If I sort these states by NICS checks per capita (Your goal, increasing NICS/background checks, right?) Colorado is 10th on the list, the first state in the list with the background check requirement at gun shows.

No matter how I try and slice this data, I find no correlation between your claim and the data, that does not REQUIRE a massive delta in total gun laws between states being compared.


You are really making two claims, one I agree with, one I do not.

Claim one: "there is a correlation between states which allow the private sale of firearms without background checks and the rate of suicide by firearm."
Claim two based on your sources: 'There is a correlation between higher gun ownership and a lack of background checks on private gun sales at gun shows'

Because your whole argument hinges on guns MUST be more available to people contemplating suicide where background checks are not required at gun shows for private sales BECAUSE those background checks would REDUCE THE GUN OWNERSHIP RATE.

That's your argument in a nutshell. And you haven't supported it in any way. In fact, with your Reason.Com article, you yourself attacked your own position.

Edit: To support your claim you have to not only show the gun ownership rate is lower in states with the background check requirement, but you have to show their rate dropped IN RESPONSE to the enactment of the restriction.

[EOTE]

220. Both of my claims are accurate, I never claimed they were one and the same.

And I've also provided proof for both of them.

The fact that you have no idea as to the difference between correlation and causation has nothing to do with me. I can't be held accountable for your ignorance, if I was, I'd have absolutely no time of my own. Christ, I've been arguing with you all this time and I didn't even realize you didn't know the difference between causation and correlation. Fuck, what an utter waste of time you've been.

[AtheistCrusader]

221. No you haven't.

You're just making shit up now.

You even cited an article that lists multiple justifications why your assumption is crap.


"I never claimed they were one and the same."
So, why then, did you claim one, and then in the same breath promise evidence of the other?

You are very bad at this. All you have to do is establish your much-yelled-about link between gun show background checks, and a reduced availability of firearms (that I agree, reduction in availability can impact the firearm related injury rate).

So far, you have not shown a link between availability and GSBC's. You assume it. Arrogantly and with invective, you assume it. You haven't done a damn thing to actually show it.

[EOTE]

222. The fact you're unable to follow more than one concept at once is on you.

I was making two separate claims. Both of which were accurate. Again, the fact that you're too daft to realize that is not my fault. It's also not my fault that you don't know the difference between correlation and causation, something that even the C students in stats 101 get. The fact that you're asking me to prove causation when you've continually asked for correlation shows you're in way over your head. You can't even derail a conversation properly, all you've done is illustrate your stupidity in myriad different ways.

[AtheistCrusader]

237. Not gonna address your fuckup with the Reason article huh?

If I posted a large article citing multiple sources that attack my own claim, I wouldn't be pretending to be smarter than anyone else in the conversation.

Almost a hundred posts we've been going back and forth on this, and you have yet to show a correlation here:

"I'm saying that there is a correlation between states which allow the private sale of firearms without background checks and the rate of suicide by firearm."

You've repeated it up to four times in a single post. You've repeated it over and over. You've not done one fucking thing to show a correlation. You've posted umpteen sources that suggest availability of firearms influences the successful suicide rate, and I agree with all that. (And the Reason comparison between Japan and the US is flawed, but that's not my position to defend)

Here, I'll do it for you:

The correlation is multiple OTHER gun control laws. You can clearly see this when you compare Tx/Ca, versus Wa/Sd. I can take any high-rated gun control state (per VPC or the like) and compare it to any weak gun control state, and see an enormous delta in successful suicides with firearms. I take any two states with similar gun control laws, that differ on JUST the GSBC issue, and I do not find a significant delta in successful suicide with firearm. In some cases, I found the GSBC state fared worse. (Which actually suggests no correlation to GSBC's AT ALL)

You have data that logically shows something else, trot it on out. Otherwise, I suggest you concede defeat and move on.

[EOTE]

239. Bullshit, I've provided multiple links backing up the claim. Don't blame me if you don't know what

a correlation is. You've asked for a correlation but when I provide it, you persist in asking for a causation. They're not the same, champ and anyone with an IQ over 50 could tell you that. You're a perfect illustration of what happens when a person who can't make this simple distinction laughably attempts intelligent conversation. But keep it up, demonstrating your ignorance will at least show people that you're not to be trusted with anything resembling the truth. I'll post another one for you, this one from Harvard, but I'm sure that Harvard is an unacceptable source for you as well, probably don't have enough morons on staff for you to take them seriously. Here are some choice excerpts that you'll dutifully ignore:

Respondents with firearms in the home were no more likely to report suicidal thoughts, plans or attempts, but if they had a suicidal plan, it was much more likely to involve firearms. The higher rates of suicide among gun owners and their families cannot be explained by higher rates of suicidal behavior, but can be explained by easy access to a gun.

8. Differences in mental health cannot explain the regional more guns = more suicide connection.

We analyzed the relationship of gun availability and suicide among differing age groups across the 9 US regions. Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with suicide rates across all age groups, even after controlling for lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts

10. Gun owners are not more suicidal than non-owners

We analyzed data from the Second Injury Control and Risk Survey, a 2001-2003 representative telephone survey of U.S. households. Of over 9,000 respondents, 7% reported past-year suicidal thoughts, and 21% of these had a plan. Respondents with firearms in the home were no more likely to report suicidal thoughts, plans or attempts, but if they had a suicidal plan, it was much more likely to involve firearms. The higher rates of suicide among gun owners and their families cannot be explained by higher rates of suicidal behavior, but can be explained by easy access to a gun.

23. Reducing access to lethal means can begin to reduce suicide rates today

This editorial in an issue of the flagship public health journal devoted entirely to veteran suicide emphasizes the importance of the availability of firearms in determining whether suicide attempts prove fatal.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-background-checks

Ignore away, champ.

[AtheistCrusader]

240. No, still no correlation. For all your noise about me not understanding correlation...

And keep trotting out 'ignorance' and 'stupidity' and slinging it at me after your inability to read your own source earlier.

"Respondents with firearms in the home were no more likely to report suicidal thoughts, plans or attempts, but if they had a suicidal plan, it was much more likely to involve firearms. The higher rates of suicide among gun owners and their families cannot be explained by higher rates of suicidal behavior, but can be explained by easy access to a gun."

This has nothing to do with your claim. I agree with this statement, but it does not speak to whether the state having GSBC's alone, leads to fewer guns in fewer homes.

"We analyzed the relationship of gun availability and suicide among differing age groups across the 9 US regions. Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with suicide rates across all age groups, even after controlling for lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts"

Again, nothing to do with whether GSBC's lead to lower rates of possession in the home.

"We analyzed data from the Second Injury Control and Risk Survey, a 2001-2003 representative telephone survey of U.S. households. Of over 9,000 respondents, 7% reported past-year suicidal thoughts, and 21% of these had a plan. Respondents with firearms in the home were no more likely to report suicidal thoughts, plans or attempts, but if they had a suicidal plan, it was much more likely to involve firearms. The higher rates of suicide among gun owners and their families cannot be explained by higher rates of suicidal behavior, but can be explained by easy access to a gun."

Same. Nothing about a lack of GSBC's increasing the number of homes with a gun.

"This editorial in an issue of the flagship public health journal devoted entirely to veteran suicide emphasizes the importance of the availability of firearms in determining whether suicide attempts prove fatal."

Same.


You keep saying A is true because B-Z is true. B-Z, I agree, are all true or mostly true statements. We're not even really opponents on the Gun Control issue, honestly. But none of those facts in B-Z suggest anything at all about A.

You simply assume that GSBC's lead to a lower rate of gun ownership/guns present in fewer homes. And I challenge this because I see no mechanism here. I see no reason to suspect most consumers at a gun show don't already have multiple guns, or cannot pass a background check. I see no reason to suspect that people who go to gun shows that cannot pass a background check are likely to commit suicide. etc. What is your mechanism? Why do you believe that gun show background checks correlates to a lower rate of gun ownership per household?

You have to hit first time buyers, at a gun show, unable to purchase a firearm from a dealer with a background check, AND likely to attempt suicide to have any accompanying numbers to show for it.

[EOTE]

241. Just where is GSBC or gun show mentioned in the line I repeated over and over again?

Let me repeat it one more time for the particularly dense:

"I'm saying that there is a correlation between states which allow the private sale of firearms without background checks and the rate of suicide by firearm."

Regardless, I've shown the correlation many times, you simply don't know what a correlation is. Also, you seem to have this insanely stupid notion that only people who OWN guns are able to use them. In your mind every gun owner is perfectly responsible, just like the guy in the OP I guess. Utter idiocy.

[AtheistCrusader]

242. You tried that claim earlier.

So now where is your source that people who might have bought a gun at a gun show or private transfer without a background check are more likely than any other gun owner to leave a gun unsecured where a third party can obtain it and commit suicide?

Good fucking luck showing anything to back that assertion up.


With the exception of one state, GSBC's and Private Transfer background checks are the same thing. You do know that, right? (New Jersey I think, but I can double check that if you like.)

You have shown a correlation to stronger gun control laws across the board, but nothing about GSBC's/Private Transfer BC's. (Which are really the same thing)

[EOTE]

243. Christ, what you don't understand about this could fill volumes.

I've shown you proof dozens of times now, that you can't understand something so simple is not on me, that's you. I've shown you that more access to guns equals more gun suicides. Simple. I've also shown you that states that allow private transfer of gun ownership without background checks equals more guns and more gun suicides. Again, extremely simple. Really man, it's not my job to teach you such simple things. If you're unable to understand this ridiculously simple concept, then I don't think you should be having conversations with anyone until you educate yourself a little bit.

[AtheistCrusader]

244. No you bloody well haven't.

"I've shown you that more access to guns equals more gun suicides."
Yes you have, and I agree with that claim.

"I've also shown you that states that allow private transfer of gun ownership without background checks equals more guns and more gun suicides."

This is precisely what you HAVE NOT SHOWN.

Did you really just trot out the word 'proof'? Seriously? You haven't even shown EVIDENCE of that second claim, aside from someone else's link to that MJ article, which is clearly flawed when trying to answer the question of whether or not Background checks on private transfers = guns in fewer homes.

[EOTE]

245. Apparently you're not capable of looking OR reading.

What I've shown you doesn't even need reading skills to comprehend. Take a look at that chart again, would you? Kind of like asking a camel to do a jig, but what the hell. If you're not the graph type and instead would like to read some interesting information which doesn't jibe with your current views (LOL). Here is the result:


"More background checks are associated with fewer homicide (IRR:0.93, 95% CI:0.91-0.96) and suicide (IRR:0.98, 95% CI:0.96-1.00) deaths. Firearm homicide deaths are lower when states have checks for restraining orders (IRR:0.87, 95% CI:0.79-0.95) and fugitive status (IRR:0.79, 95% CI:0.72-0.88). Firearm suicide deaths are lower when states have background checks for mental illness (IRR:0.96, 95% CI:0.92-0.99), fugitive status (IRR:0.95, 95% CI:0.90-0.99) and misdemeanors (IRR:0.95, 95% CI:0.92-1.00). It does not appear that reductions in firearm deaths are offset by increases in non-firearm violent deaths."

But what the hell do those stupid scientists know?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-background-checks
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850436

[AtheistCrusader]

246. FINALLY you post something that MIGHT show what you claimed.

Again, the mother jones article (that you did not provide) is a piece of shit in this context, and does not show what it purports to show at all.

The second link, is actually the first piece of evidence that you have posted so far that MIGHT show what you claim. Congrats for finally doing it. Couple problems though...

"This study examines the relationship between the types of background-information check required by states prior to firearm purchases, and firearm homicide and suicide deaths."

"Several study limitations are acknowledged, and further research is called for to ascertain causality."


Now, I'm trying to figure out how to review it without paying the thirty bucks cover charge, but that first bit about the TYPE of background check suggests that it reflects actual hits, and thus denials. So it pertains not to whether a check was performed, but rather, whether the state actually reports misdemeanor domestic violence, mental health records, and the like to a central database that can be checked. Rather than performing checks on more people, what this really shows is a more comprehensive check tends to find more people that are disqualified.

It doesn't seem to show anything about comparing states that do or do not perform background checks on private transfers. HOWEVER, it may show that incidentally. Still the causality caution suggests it might not show that at ll.

ClincialKey looks like they have a trial edition. I'll have a look. I want to know why they say "More background checks are associated with fewer homicide and suicide deaths." when most of the abstract talks about deeper checks into state databases and better reporting to those database, not more checks.

[EOTE]

247. Causation is not the same thing as correlation, I shouldn't need to tell you that again.

But, like a child, you refuse to learn. And I also shouldn't need to derail a conversation to disprove every bullshit, completely unsubstantiated claim that you make. The fact that they were able to show correlation in spite of those limitations shows that the data is very clear on this. But you keep on pretending to ask for one thing while demanding another. Look all you want, it's quite clear to you that science only applies when it agrees with your viewpoint, so in your bizarre reality, science doesn't exist. Must be a pretty shitty world.

[AtheistCrusader]

248. My objection wasn't predicated on causality.

It is on whether the study shows what you purport that it shows, without the weaknesses in the MJ study.

NICS is a baseline for background checks. It does not contain all potential disqualifying records. That abstract clearly states that it purports to show that states that go beyond that NICS baseline to misdemeanor DV, mental health records, and other disqualifications correlate to lower death by firearm, for murder and suicide.

It ALSO Comments on background checks in general, but it is actually pretty ambiguous about that claim, so I want to see the data and how they controlled for the comparison between states.

So, hold off on that victory lap just yet, and also, quit misrepresenting what I said. The causality comment was not the only problem I had with the abstract of the study matching up to your claim.

[EOTE]

249. There's no dealing with incredibly irrational people.

At least you seem to be admitting that your claim made to derail the conversation through a non-sequitor is complete bullshit. Why would you note that the study did not claim to show causality when I never said it did in the first place? I'm not misrepresenting what you said, I'm showing that pretty much everything that you've said is complete bullshit. I don't believe you intend to look at the data at all, but in the off chance you did, it would be dismissed, just as you've dismissed every other piece of objective reality presented.

[AtheistCrusader]

250. I will dismiss it ONLY if it fails to show what you claim it shows.

Remember, I told you earlier, I would accept a correlation, without causation as evidence, if you could show it.

If the study attempts to show causation and it isn't found, that might be interesting too, even if it did suggest a correlation. But that wasn't the standard of evidence I asked for earlier. You provided what I asked for, now I intend to review it.

(But I don't intend to pay 30 bucks for the privilege.)

[EOTE]

252. Hell, if you won't accept information when it's free and served to you on a platter, I certainly

wouldn't expect you to pay for it. Not paying for an article I can understand, but remaining intentionally ignorant is not something to be striven for.

[AtheistCrusader]

254. You keep personally attacking me with shit that doesn't apply.

You didn't offer the evidence I asked for till now. Don't pretend you did. This is the FIRST thing you offered that suggests a correlation between private transfer background checks, and a statistically meaningful decline in murder/homicide by firearm.

[EOTE]

255. I offered quite a bit of evidence.

But at least now you seem to admit that your initial claim was bullshit (even though I didn't initially refute it in the first place). Maybe next time try not to derail conversations with bullshit claims that no one attempted to negate in the first place. It's just good manners.

[AtheistCrusader]

256. I may well retract that initial claim

if this study turns out to contain what you claim it does.

But no, you offered quite a bit of evidence about the efficacy of OTHER gun control laws, not this particular issue. Much or all of it true, which I repeatedly admitted, but not relevant to the GSBC/Private transfer issue. If you think you did, what do you imagine is different about my reaction to this study, versus the other shit that you kept throwing out?

[AtheistCrusader]

166. I would challenge that specifically on the comment I made upthread

about including states with MUCH MORE than just that one specific requirement. The Texas/California rates study was similarly flawed. A better comparison is Wa/SD or even worse for that claim, Colorado/SD.

Its the opposite of what you expect. Only when you include California, MA, NY, do you skew the average the other way, and they have a LOT more restrictive gun control in play rather than just comparing a state with or without a background check requirement.

[EOTE]

167. You wanted a correlation, you've got a correlation.

States which require background checks for private firearm purchases have about half the rate of suicide by firearm than states that don't. Do you not believe that figure? You asked many times for that correlation and when it was provided, you conveniently ignore it. That surprises me not.

[AtheistCrusader]

183. No, you don't get to say that.

Because that's not the correlation.

In states with EQUAL gun control laws EXCEPTING background checks at gun shows, there is no statistically meaningful delta. In fact, some states with NO controls perform better, per capita, than some states that DO.

When you compare Cali/Texas you don't get to claim the background checks at gun shows are the correlation. You're entirely making that up. They have an ENORMOUS list of differences in gun laws between the two states. The correlation could be any or all of them together.

Where the comparison is made with a SINGLE variable (background checks at gun shows) there is no correlation. YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE OF A CORRELATION THAT ISN'T AT LEAST AS FLAWED AS THE STUDY YOU YOURSELF CALLED 'FLAWED' (Which I agree it is flawed)

[EOTE]

186. The correlation is due to gun laws.

States with more gun laws have less gun deaths than states with less gun laws. You wanted a correlation and that is, without a doubt a correlation. And, there is also, without a doubt, a correlation between access to firearms and suicide by firearms. What of that would you disagree with? I'd honestly like an answer to that question, but I'm guessing you're just going to spout more bullshit and distract from your various mistruths.

[AtheistCrusader]

199. Not universally true, but much much better, and I would accept that statement.

That's all I've been trying to get you to acknowledge actually. This entire tangent is based on your personal attack for 'merely suggesting' that background checks at gun shows is not responsible for that delta, and asking you to support it.

I generally agree with your statement in that paragraph.

I would have dropped this long ago, but you insisted.

[DreamGypsy]

168. Does this help

You can get a pdf for the full report here.

[rrneck]

197. This might be more helpful.

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

[AtheistCrusader]

200. I totally agree with that statement/chart.

Note the difference between the claim in the chart, versus post 108. The two claims are not the same.

If he had said THIS, I would not have disagreed. The claim is generally true.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

88. what is an acceptable number of gun murders for gundamentalists?

[hack89]

91. None

the issue is how we solve that problem.

I would:

1. Legalize drugs and remove the profit incentive for inner city drug gangs.
2. Focus the legal system like a laser on violent offenders. Use a gun in the commission of any crime and spend a very long time in prison.
3. Single payer health care with full mental health coverage to reduce suicides.

I also support universal background checks and magazine size limits - in fact I support most proposed gun control laws with the exception of an AWB and gun registration.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

223. You have to register your car and to vote and for the selective service. why not your gun?

AWB is something you are against. What is the purpose of the AWB? Why do we need them? Squirrel Hunting? Pest control?

If you're a collector, buy the damn gun the same way people buy tanks, with cement in the barrel so it cannot be fired.

I agree with your three things. . .how do you stop the abusive husband/wife from shooting their spouse and kids?

How do you prevent the psycho boyfriend/girlfriend from saying "if I can't have them, no one can?"

The rest of the civilized world has gun control and less gun crime than we do. Hell. even China does. Even India does. Why can't we do the same?

I know, the latter part of the 2nd amendment is the most important. The former part means nothing and all those other amendments mean nothing too. Especially the 4th.

[hack89]

224. The ACLU opposes registration due to privacy issues

I agree with the ACLU.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

225. Where is your privacy for registering the vote?

Selective privacy. . .and actually, there is no right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

The ACLU is wrong on this one. Registration of a gun is not a privacy issue. It's a life saving issue. If they believed it was a privacy issue, they should be against ALL registration, including Selective Service.

Wait. . .are those crickets I hear? Phil Ochs was right. . .love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal.

[hack89]

226. No one knows what my ballot says.

the right to abortion is predicated on a Constitutional right to privacy. Do you really want to go there?

[Nanjing to Seoul]

227. You still have to register. And I know all about the privilege of privacy

Because before 1973, the privilege of privacy didn't extend to abortion. And before 1963 and Dorlee Mapp, it didn't extend to owning pornography.

So, again, you are okay with registering your car, your vote, your son for the selective service, registering for social security. . .but not registering your gun.

Odd logic to me.

BTW, we have no rights. we have privileges and if you read the news on DU, our privileges are getting smaller and smaller, more narrow and more controlled. Rights aren't rights if they can be granted and taken away.

I believe in restricting the privilege of owning assault rifles to go hunting. You see no problem with rabbit hunting with one.

[hack89]

228. I have an unregistered car sitting in my garage

because it does not go on public roads I do not have to register it.

Just like guns. No need to register if in my house. Have to get a license (CCW) to carry in public.

I use my AR-15s for competitive target shooting. They are the standard for the sport.

So with our privileges getting fewer and fewer, your reaction to take away more of them? What's wrong with turning the tide and actually restoring rights? Too radical an idea for you.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

229. Talk to me when your family member dies. I look at Newtown and realize that could have

been my classroom.

So, as I keep saying to all gundamentalists. . .how many shot up classrooms and gun murders must we have before people stop jacking off on their guns and move towards sensible gun control?

Don't answer. I know what you will say. More NRA talking points. Just go into my "gundamentalist" ignore pile. I have no patience for people who think guns are more important than life.

[hack89]

230. Ok. Have a good life. nt

[carolinayellowdog]

126. "sounds more impressive" or "arouses more anguish about the effects of guns in our society"?

I think the prevalence of suicide by guns is an argument for control thereof.

[hack89]

129. Or it is an argument for comprehensive mental health care.

just exactly what laws with eliminate suicide by guns?

[JDPriestly]

85. It may seem incredible, but sometimes people commit suicide to

punish others.

[hack89]

86. But are they criminals? Or just selfish assholes? nt

[Hoyt]

207. What about wounds, intimidation, bigotry bolstered by ones guns, etc.

[hack89]

216. Not my guns. nt

[snooper2]

29. you meant to say suicides not homicides

How long has DU been debating this and basic facts aren't clearly stated?

[EOTE]

31. No, I meant to say deaths. Which is what I DID say.

Confused?

On edit: Also, gun deaths ARE responsible for 2/3rds of homicides as well. Out of about 16k homicides per year, 11k are from guns. Not terribly difficult math here.

[snooper2]

35. Yes

"considering that guns are responsible for more than 2/3rds of homicides"

[EOTE]

39. They ARE responsible for 2/3rds of homicides.

What confuses you here? Should I have said ~68% instead? Would you be more amenable to that math? Or is math simply not your thing?

[snooper2]

43. I see, 2/3rds and 2/3rds, depends on what you are looking at

If looking at all homicides, guns cause 2/3rds,


If looking at all gun deaths, suicides account for 2/3rds,


See, I learned there were more than 2/3rds today. It's a bad day unless you learn something new-



In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[5] Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

[EOTE]

50. Editing.

I believe I see what you're saying here, sorry for the rudeness and snark.

Guns cause 2/3rds of homicides. That's all I was trying to say.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Cause?

I think you meant 'used in'.

Pretty sure I've never seen a gun jump up and shoot someone for the hell of it.

[EOTE]

72. Ah, so guns don't kill people, people kill people.

So we just need to get rid of gun owners. Gotcha.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. There are certainly some people in possession of firearms that should not be.

That's an excellent place to start. Glad we are on the same team.

[EOTE]

77. That's a start, but it's only a start.

Once background checks are universal and the gun hole loophole has been closed and sensible regulations have been placed on the guns themselves, I'd consider that to be a bit more of a start.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. As a gun nut in favor of at least the two items you specified...

the best way to get them done is to put them to a vote directly with no sneaky bullshit amendments on mag capacity, etc. That stuff is a poison pill every time.

Want universal BG checks?

Small excise tax on gun sales to fund FFL transfers, and require them for all ownership transfers. Done. Add nothing else to that bill.
(and none of this BS about defining a ridiculously narrow scope of 'transfer', need to allow shared ownership, loans, etc)

Do that, and that public support percentage number will actually rally and get it done. Otherwise, we will keep this delta between the percent that supports it in survey, but opposes it at the polls and public comments, when the details of the bill specifics appear.

[EOTE]

84. Calling the nutters on their bullshit numbers is essential as well.

If the gun nuts continuously lie about objective data, that needs to be called out at every opportunity.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Yeah, math is hard.

2011 FBI Unified Crime Report:

"Total murders1" "Total firearms" Handguns Rifles Shotguns "Firearms (type unknown)" "Knives or cutting instruments" "Other weapons" "Hands, fists, feet, etc.2"
12,664 8,583 6,220 323 356 1,684 1,694 1,659 728

8.5k=11k, please recalibrate your equipment accordingly.

[EOTE]

75. You certainly seem to have a hard time with it.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

The numbers I was using were from 2010. Regardless, the percentage of murders from firearms stays relatively consistent. Of course the gun nuts will continue to obfuscate the issue picking on worthless minutiae.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. That's not true.

Year over year, with a just a couple hiccups, the total number is trending DOWN. (2012 seems to have been a slightly worse year, but as you can see from your link, 2011 was a massive improvement over 2010)

(2010 to 2011 was a -1.3% downward trend in murder.)

http://socialcapitalreview.org/new-doj-report-u-s-firearm-homicide-rate-at-18-year-low/

We could be doing better (and the preliminary 2012 numbers didn't look great, but it's not baked yet) but that's an improvement.

[EOTE]

83. The number has been going down. The percentage has NOT.

We're not talking about a rate here, we're talking about a percentage of the whole. Homicides have been relatively consistently at 2/3rds committed by firearm.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. Before I go rifling through the FBI UCR data to falsify that, what would you say

your +/- is on that '2/3rds'?

[EOTE]

100. I'd say maybe +/-4%

Certainly over the past few decades it's been pretty consistent.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Fair enough.

I'll take that at face value because, I am not kidding, the FBI UCR data is impossible to slice and dice in a reasonable time frame. It's like they make it intentionally hard to use.

[EOTE]

45. I think you have your basic facts wrong.

That's not surprising though. What would be surprising would be gun nuts stating something truthfully or not trying to obfuscate issues when they're clearly in the wrong.

[snooper2]

56. See post #43, what defines a gun nut?

Only gun I have is a broken .22 sitting in the garage with some art work on it-


You can call me a speed nut though, trying to get a good deal on a Nova a couple blocks down so I can turn it into this-

&nofeather=True

[EOTE]

66. That's a far more productive and less dangerous hobby.

And I'm sorry if I jumped the gun, so to speak, in accusing you of being a gun nut. However, whenever I hear people attempting to downplay the role that gun violence has in American society, that's the conclusion I tend to draw (pun intended?).

[Scootaloo]

158. But those are all "Thugs" and "criminals" see?

"Law abiding gun owner" is a no true scotsman fallacy.

[EOTE]

160. That's it precisely.

Which is why it's so unfruitful and beyond frustrating arguing with gun nuts. All this talk about how we need to make sure we're separating the legal, honest, God-fearing gun owners from all the thugs and criminals. Of course, if anyone were to try and suggest that the maniac mentioned in the OP shouldn't own a gun maybe a week ago, the gun nuts would be out in full force. There's just no getting to these people.

[tblue]

28. Tell that to their kids.

Your stat is still too many. Not worth it.

[EOTE]

41. Way too many.

And well above the average.

[LanternWaste]

81. Precious salt for the wounds of the victims, huh...

Precious salt for the wounds of the victims, huh...


(sic of one, half a dozen of the other; and both as petulant and irrelevant as the other.)

[pipoman]

233. Statistical truth is salt in the wounds of victims?

No, statistical truth is salt in the wounds of gun control advocates who aren't interested in actual stats in favor of hyperbolic anecdotes, statistics don't bother victims...any more than pointing out the statistical probability of being killed by a drunk driver is salt in the wounds of dui victims..nice try though..

[kestrel91316]

118. Awesome way to trivialize 30,000+ senseless deaths every year!

[pipoman]

231. Awsome way to pretend

that if every gun on the planet disappeared tomorrow nobody would ever murder or be murdered again..ffs..yeah, 20k people of the 35k who commit suicide annually wouldn't commit suicide in the absence of guns, eh? Oh, guns are more effective huh? There are times when that is a good thing when considering botched suicides..Frankly I strongly believe people should be allowed to commit suicide if their circumstances are so they have no hope and those people shouldn't have to shoot themselves to effectively end their own life.

And people who wish to kill someone today, will no longer wish to kill that person tomorrow when the guns magically disappear, eh? So of the 10K homicides with guns how many are saved in the absence of guns?

As for the 10k which are unintentional (around 600), and homicides some justified and lawful, most unlawful. Anyway, that leaves us with around 10,000 out of around 125,000,000 gun owners. Of coarse of those 10,000 the vast majority are committed by people unlawfully in possession of a firearm, so the number is actually even smaller than the .001%.

Of coarse I'm not claiming it doesn't happen, just that if this is the statistical standard for too dangerous for society, things are going to look a lot different..We should always legislate based on statistical need, not anecdotal examples..

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Edit, just looking at the math..I guess it is .008% not .001%..nonetheless..

[Progressive dog]

8. He needed the gun for self defense

so that makes it alright.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. To tie up the loose ends here...

It would appear that Nancy Kovach will not be cooking dinner.

Glad we were able to settle that.

[tblue]

30. You're a bum for making me lol.

[raccoon]

10. I bet anything he'd been drinking. Boys and girls, alcohol and guns don't mix.

Of course, drinking/drugging or not, if the guy hadn't had a handgun handy, she'd probably still be alive.

[tblue]

33. People and guns don't mix.

Too many examples to list.

[TorchTheWitch]

251. that's what his father said on the 911 call

That his son was drunk.

But apparently, after 200+ posts no one is really interested in talking about this incident, they want their gungeon crap in GD spoiling every thread about a shooting incident (or even a non-shooting killing incident) all about pro vs. anti guns. Why they have to hijack and ruin every thread with the pro/anti gun endless argument and ruin a current events thread instead of making their own to have that endless argument or take it to the gungeon where it belongs is beyond me. It's fucking rude as hell.

[rurallib]

12. if only there had been some other gun-toters at dinner

they could have shot him before he shot her.
Then no one would have been hurt.

[bowens43]

13. most gun owners are law abiding until they're not.....

every gun owner is a potential murderer with his/her finger planted firmly on the trigger just waiting for someone to piss them off

[hack89]

27. And every beer drinker is a potential drunken driver.

with his/her hands planted firmly on the steering wheel and poised to reckless kill someone.

Because we know that responsible use of alcohol is impossible.

[rrneck]

36. ...

[Pelican]

73. Hmm....

[toby jo]

14. Most folks who keep guns in their homes have not a drop of violence

in their wee little souls, looking for an out. Oh no.

Assholes.

[malaise]

16. What I want to know is what goes on in a man's head that makes him decide

that the way to settle an argument over who should cook is to go for his gun and kill her.
How angry are you over something so stupid that 'consequences' do not enter your brain.

[siligut]

20. Few other skills of negotiation and if alcohol was involved, those few skills were halved

Though, I would bet it was her resistance to his 'obvious' authority that led him to seek to prove it to her, VIA A BULLET.

[cynzke]

21. A Nutcase who should not own a gun in the first place.

[tblue]

38. Obviously he had other problems.

That can't be the only reason.

[malaise]

49. Not according to his friends and neighbors

I have one rule in my life - trust no man with a gun

[Marengo]

115. How about women with knives?

Just a quick sample from Google:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-05/news/bal-mother-charged-in-killing-of-2yearold-boy-20121205_1_first-degree-murder-kitchen-knives-child-abuse

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/mother-murders-severely-autistic-son-cops-article-1.1371310

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/mother-used-knife-kill-her-children-herself-southwest-valley-home

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/01/prosecutor-chicago-mom-stabbed-7-year-old-son-100-times-then-turned-knife-on-5-year-old-daughter/

[malaise]

169. This thread is about a husband shooting his wife dead

Focus

[Marengo]

171. Uh Huh. A man, MAN ...in the singular

Yet, you've made it about ALL men who possess firearms.

"I have one rule in my life - trust no man with a gun"

So, I've provided some links concerning woman who have killed using knives.

Using your logic, "trust no woman with a knife" another of your life's rules.

Hey, I could also provide some links concerning men who have killed with implements other than firearms.

Perhaps you would then need to expand your life rules to include "trust no man with a(n) (insert implement here)".

[mercuryblues]

17. The article is

all about how wonderful he is.

"John was quiet, friendly," Newman said. "He was always a good kid," Newman said.

"Even today, he is a good, hard worker. He's done a lot of things for me."

Everyone always says he's the nicest guy in the world, always going out of his way to help people," Johnsen said

"He seemed happy at work that day," he said about Monday.

"Everyone is saying this couldn't happen simply because he loves his children so much that he wouldn't put them through this. Those kids mean the world to him,

I guess the person he killed in cold blood only rates a name.

[gollygee]

18. I noticed that too

It really puts into perspective to me that supposedly nice people with guns can still be dangerous. I'm sure he considered himself one of the people who is safe with a gun.

But she doesn't get anything written about her. It's all about how nice he is.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Yeah, that's pretty weak assed reporting.

I mean, it's good to show something of the background of a killer, so other people don't whistle their way past other potential risks, shrouded in confirmation bias, when warning signs show, but come on... Can we put at least some of the focus on the victim?

[tblue]

40. It's saying, "Anyone could do it.

Even your sweet, thoughtful neighbor."

That's freaking scary. All the more reason to have strict gun control.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. I tend to doubt such claims.

I've seen it too many times. 'Oh he was such a nice boy, no one ever thought he might do this'. And I'm thinking 'bullshit, I knew that guy, I'm only surprised he didn't kill someone sooner'.

Sometimes humans have trouble speaking ill of the dead, when that is precisely what we should be doing, and they have earned all the slings and arrows that can be lobbed their way.

Not knowing more details, I have no idea what gun control measure could have prevented this. Interested to see what comes of it, and what, if anything, could reasonably have been done.

[cynzke]

22. Isn't That What You Read

In the news, when they arrest serial killers.

[Lurker Deluxe]

24. .

"Kovach was arraigned in Kalamazoo County District Court Tuesday afternoon on a charge of open murder and a charge of felony firearm."

That seems to suggest that the gun was, in fact, not legal.

Which makes the OP false.

[Robb]

25. Felony use of firearm. He shot someone.

Jesus fucking Christ.

[Lurker Deluxe]

34. uhh

"murder and felony firearm"

Not felony use of a firearm.

Felony firearm is generally a charge that means the person was not legally allowed to have a firearm, usually a convicted felon.

[Robb]

42. Carrying or possessing when committing or attempting to commit crime.

Michigan. Look it up.

[DreamGypsy]

170. "felony firearm" are does not necessarily mean the gun was illegal...

... or that the shooter was not allowed to own a firearm, at least not in Michigan.

I couldn't find any explicit elaboration (yet) of the actual charges against the defendant in this crime, but in another Michigan case: Hullihen faces open murder, felony firearm charges in double murder (note the use of "felony firearm")

the description in the text of the articles says:

He faces two counts of open murder and two counts of committing a felony with a firearm and is being held at the Osceola County Jail without bond.

[billh58]

213. In Hawaii, being convicted

of "committing a felony with a firearm" automatically increases the minimum sentence to 20 years. Our per capita firearm death rate is the lowest in the nation because of this, and other sensible gun laws such as mandatory registration.

[The Straight Story]

37. More like "Alcohol" was the cause - but we don't like to talk about that

Let's blame guns, cause that is easy for us mentally.

[Deep13]

48. I'm all for stricter regulation on booze too.

[The Straight Story]

51. What would you propose?

A three day waiting period on beer?

[Deep13]

55. I'll let the experts do the proposing...

..but our culture is not only pro-drinking, it is pro-intoxication.

[snooper2]

65. Well then who the fuck would sit on the side of the boat ramps

And mock people as they try to load their shit?

&nofeather=True

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Holy shit, this is my new sport.

I will be a damn CHAMPION

[CokeMachine]

172. That was funny -- Thanks!! nt

[otohara]

67. Alcoholic Law Abiding Gun Onwers???

Oh boy, I bet there's millions of so-called-law-abiding gun owners with a booze problem.
No one is safe in America from gun violence...fucking guns.

[The Straight Story]

69. Don't forget cars - 700k injured by drunk drivers...common theme in violence/etc - alcohol

So let's just ban everything but booze and we will all feel more safe.

[otohara]

215. Cars vs Guns

I know when I get in my car there's a chance I might get in an accident - it's happened 3 times in my life. I do not expect to walk out the door and get body parts blown out by some nut with a gun. This gun/car thing gets really old - when I drive, I could possible kill someone in an accident. I absolutely know I won't be shooting anyone accidentally or with malice ever!

Cars vs Guns = FAIL

[hack89]

70. No one is safe in America from alcohol

alcoholics can kill or maim you in so many ways.

[Deep13]

47. Every criminal is a former law-abiding person. nt

[leeroysphitz]

62. During a dinner or because of a dinner?

[Turbineguy]

76. It's a good thing he had a gun!

Otherwise she might still be alive!

[leftyladyfrommo]

78. The most dangerous place for a woman in the US

is in her home.

Pretty sad.

[samsingh]

87. she should have been armed with an assault rifle while serving dinner

[billh58]

101. Now see what you

have done? You've riled up the Gungeon crowd, and they are swarming like angry law-abiding bees. Even though they are slowly losing their NRA-purchased influence on politicians everywhere, they still have delusions of relevance and influence.

Oh well, they ARE fun to watch (from a safe distance)...

[LittleBlue]

105. You guys are wasting your time with this anti-gun thing

The Newtown shooting was the most horrific act, it should have been the end of the gun debate.

Why did gun owners win? Simple, they comprise the majority. They want their guns, and there's nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. Newtown was more effective than arguments will ever be.

Throw in the towel. We lost, the NRA won, it's over. As much as gun violence deaths pain me, expending more political capital to fight a losing battle is folly. Newtown should have taught everyone that guns are here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.

[Paladin]

150. Retrieve the NRA's 2012 Enemies List.

It may take some effort, because the NRA took it out of circulation immediately, just as soon as they realized what a huge public relations fuck-up they had committed by distributing the list. You can still find it on Google. Take a look at the hundreds of distinguished groups and individuals that the NRA classifies as enemies. Get a feel for the social, cultural, professional and political segment of society to which Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin deem themselves superior, by comparison. I'd rethink your surrender---it puts you on the side of some really shitty company.....

[ceonupe]

174. OP FAIL

The shooter was a convicted felon in possession of firearm.


his right to own posses or even touch a gun were removed prior to him killing his wife. he should not have had a gun just based on his record alone.

[BainsBane]

184. Wasn't it grand of the NRA to fight so relentlessly

for him to be able to possess that gun?

[ceonupe]

196. who advocates for felons with guns beside chitown based on rearrest rates

outside of the NRA fighting for states to create rules that allow long ago converted felons to petition courts to receive their gun rights back where has the nra advocated for felons to have guns or to shoot their wifes.

If you mean because they dont support universal background checks and thus felons have a way to break the law and buy guns they are not legally allowed to buy under the threat of at least 5 years fed time. Yes you can make the case by not supporting background checks the NRA is not doing all it could to support the goal of preventing the felons form getting guns. But the NRA im sure looks at it from the side of limiting the interference on legal gun buyers. Its a balance that i personally believe the NRA is on the wrong side of.

I think the NRA should focus on alternative legislation that resolves some of their issues (some legitimate) on guns back ground checks like secure ways for private citizens to voluntarily preform background checks on prospective purchasers or even a system that would allow Universal checks without storing information to create a register of owners or guns. but who are we kidding both sides make way to much issue and gain intensity and the public is distracted from other issues while again nothing substantial on the roots of 80% of our gun violence is never addressed.

I guess until black kids start coming to school and shooting white kids in the crossfire between rival gangs no one will look at the root causes. No one will ask where the fathers are.

[billh58]

219. The NRA does much more

than NOT support background checks -- it advocates guns for felons:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/felons.htm

[BainsBane]

236. Obviously they are protecting felons access to guns

They make profits and that is all they care about. They represent the gun lobby and profits are all they care about. When black kids shoot white kids they are tried as adults for 1st degree murder and capital murder whenever possible. When white kids shoot black kids, they are applauded and rewarded with hefty defense funds, on the off chance they are even prosecuted. Gun culture is racist to the core.

[billh58]

211. The NRA apologists

are out in force today attempting to persuade the majority of the American people that they really, really, only want what is best for the rest of us: more gunz.

They actually believe that all of the gun violence problems will be solved just as soon as everyone is armed in public, and SYG laws are enacted nationwide. Arms manufacturers and arms dealers are rubbing their hands in anticipation of even more profits.

The only problem with the NRA "cold dead hands" die hard gunners' plans, however, is that the American people are waking up, and they are beginning to realize just how much harm the unfettered proliferation of guns in our society has caused. It may take a while, but sane gun regulation is happening, and the national conversation will keep the need for regulation and oversight in the public consciousness.

Change is coming, and the Gungeoneers are showing how frightened they are. This is a good thing.

[BainsBane]

235. And they claim we aren't rational

[gollygee]

217. Where did you read that?

In Michigan, "felony firearm" just means that he committed a felony with a firearm, not that he is a felon with a firearm. He is being charged with killing his wife with a firearm, killing is a felony, therefore he is being charged with committing a felony with a firearm.

[RedCappedBandit]

204. But everyone who met him just knew he was responsible!

[rl6214]

214. And what's your point?

Every criminal was at one time law abiding. Are YOU going to start the bureau of pre crime?

[Eleanors38]

232. Their point is to stigmatize. And it isn't working.

Been going on for decades, and they claim the debate has changed. Sounds like an old Bee Gees tune to me.

[gopiscrap]

234. One more reason why I say guns are evil and

should be banned!!!!