Don't worry, I'm sure your boyfriend will stand up for you.
South Texas Lawmaker Shot in the Head During "Celebratory" NYE Gunfire
A state lawmaker is recovering from what officials are calling a "stray bullet" to the back of his head after "celebratory" New Year's Eve gunfire broke out in his Rio Grande Valley neighborhood this weekend.
The McAllen Monitor reports that Texas Rep. Armando “Mando” Martinez
http://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/a...ry-nye-gunfire
Guns for funs!
Toddler being loaded into car seat shot on New Year’s Eve
https://twitter.com/LEX18News/status/815923922663247872/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
A toddler who was being loaded into his car seat in Kentucky was shot on New Year’s Eve, in an incident that his father connected to holiday revelers in a Facebook post, according to local media reports.
Dwight Mitc , a public information officer for the Louisville Metro Police Department, told The Washington Post on Monday that the shooting occurred about 10:45 p.m. Saturday as a woman was putting her son into a car seat.
That’s when the toddler was “struck by a projectile,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.acc82ab7d4bd
Hilarious, ridiculous how the police and military inflate their vocabulary to extreme bombast, and silly euphemisms
projectile? It was a ING BULLET!
Uhh...Boutons...shooting off guns like that is illegal.
Stupid people doing stupid things.
Kind of like your posts in here.
more guns means more gun violence. always has, always does. and you duped, conned gun fellators have blood on your hands.
lol bull . Prove the correlation you just drew.
And you, Boutons, have on your breath.
And his chin. And in his collapsed anus.
homicide isn't the only form of gun violence. many more are injured with guns than killed
AEI? A BigCorp whoring stink tank.
your imagination sucks
You're saying though the homicide rate dropped, gun related violence is directly proportional to gun ownership numbers. That then means something happened to either make guns less lethal (fewer gun related homicides) or that people suddenly began to shoot only to wound.
Which is it?
When you make a baseless claim like "more guns = more gun related violence" you fail to take into account things like multiple gun ownership. A person isn't more likely to be involved with gun related violence just because he owns more guns than one, at least it's not cause and effect. If anything it could be correlation vs causation. However it's likely that more people owning guns = more gun related violence. A person who is violent by nature will be gun related violent if they have a gun.
So then the common denominator that liberals like you choose to ignore is the person, not the gun. More people = more violence. More people with guns = more gun related violence. More people with cars = more car related violence.
People, not guns, kill people.
Last edited by DMC; 01-04-2017 at 09:37 AM.
Homicides are down, but comparing gun-saturated USA to other industrial countries shows gun violence and homicides far exceed those other countries that don't have the sicko perversion and obsession about gun ownership.
Only true if you consider high income countries. Why would you narrow down to high income countries as a comparison yet take most of your gun related info in the US from low income areas? According to you, the NRA members should be at the top of this list for gun related violence convictions, not just basic street thugs who don't know anything about the 2nd Amendment.
"Only true if you consider high income countries."
duh, of course.
BigGun and its marketing/propaganda division NRA are responsible for the gun industry LYING to you assholes about, perverting the 2nd Amendment. All this started when the NRA was taken over by BigGun puppets in the 1970s.
One of those lines is a raw number, the other is a rate.
I'm not arguing the implication but that is a misleading graph. A better comparison would be comparisons between the rate of gun ownership vs. rate of gun homicide.
But that wasn't the argument Boo made. He said more guns = more gun related violence. He didn't say anything about rate of ownership. Besides, someone owns the guns in the chart so wouldn't it be the same unless you mean new ownership, as in they didn't own a gun before?
So why are you then focused on low income states and Alaska? Also, what is the non-gun related violence rate in these same states? Are you saying these states have a higher gun population than states like Texas and California? Or do you mean to say they have a higher per capita gun ownership rate? Or isn't it really just about income/education level and the gun is just a convenient way to kill yourself/others?
Well for one thing I think you guys generally spend way too much time worrying about boutons daily unhinged hyperbolic rants, but besides that... "more guns" as it's generally argued would imply per capita. Otherwise you're not accounting for population growth or number of guns per owner.
eg, There is NO DOUBT that having a gun in the house INCREASES the risk of gun death or injury in that house. That's why slave state FL has blocked docs from asking (mentally ill) patients about gun ownership.
You assholes have got the "gun religion" and FACTS DON'T MATTER in the face your "gun beliefs".
Y'all are about as rational as Ken Ham and creationists.
Y'all been conned, propagandized by BigGun about the 2nd Amendment and suckered into "believing" a gun Makes You A Real Man.
And of course, more knitters with (illegal) guns means more dead knitters, so it's all good for you racists and BigGun profits.
Gun violence is a ‘contagious’ social epidemic
Gun violence is often described as an epidemic or a public health concern, due to its alarmingly high levels in certain populations in the United States.
It most often occurs within socially and economically disadvantaged minority urban communities, where rates of gun violence far exceed the national average. A new Yale study has established a model to predict how “contagious” the epidemic really is.
In a study published online on Jan. 3 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the researchers studied the probability of an individual becoming the victim of gun violence using an epidemiological approach.
“We want to take this epidemic of gun violence out of the criminal justice paradigm and put it in a public health context that focuses on victims and the reduction of trauma,”
The study also determined that an individual within these social networks was at the greatest risk of being shot within a period of about 125 days after their “infector,” the person most responsible for exposing the subject to gun violence, was the subject of gun violence.
These results provide evidence that gun violence is not just an epidemic, but it has specific network patterns that might provide plausible opportunities for interventions, notes Papachristos.
“There is a real value in understanding the timing of these events as a way to identify victims, and where we can insert resources such as violence- and harm-reduction programs into these networks.”
https://scienceblog.com/491151/gun-v...nceBlog.com%29
300M+ guns is a public health crisis, costing 10Ks of lives and $Bs in economic losses.
So then does having more than one gun in the house increase the chances even more?
eg, There is NO DOUBT that having a gun in the house INCREASES the risk of gun death or injury in that house. That's why slave state FL has blocked docs from asking (mentally ill) patients about gun ownership.
You assholes have got the "gun religion" and FACTS DON'T MATTER in the face your "gun beliefs".
Y'all are about as rational as Ken Ham and creationists.
Y'all been conned, propagandized by BigGun about the 2nd Amendment and suckered into "believing" a gun Makes You A Real Man.
And of course, more knitters with (illegal) guns means more dead knitters, so it's all good for you racists and BigGun profits.
If you ever drop the gy SJW schtick someone might have a convo with you.
The common factor is the person, not the gun.
It's what you're responding to, like it or not.
If you're going to say "more guns = more gun related violence" then you are the one who painted yourself into a corner. I don't have to assume you mean anything other than what you said.
Again, remove low income areas who likely have fewer guns per capita than higher income areas and see how the gun related violence drops.
Besides, if it's not a homicide, why does it matter if it's gun related? Is it naturally more evil or damaging if a gun is involved than a knife? No. If death is more likely, we can use homicide numbers, but those dropped so no one wants to discuss that.
The graph doesn't answer that either, though. It should show a line for total gun homicides if that's what you're arguing. Just because the rate went down doesn't mean total gun homicides went down.
You're accepting different definitions of "more" for the same graph to best suit your argument.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
