Disclaimer

Convieniently skipped over my qualifying statements about being mentally competent and of good mental health, huh? That's ok, I really am as evil as people say :devil:

I'm more concerned with saving the lives of people that desire to live, but that desire was overridden by another. Preventing suicides to bolster the metric of "saving lives" is noble, but to me it's interference in someone's personal choice regardless of the method they used to complete it. There are people that are mentally competent that no longer desire to live, and I respect that. I guess the long and short is, I think we need more information on suicide cases, state of mental health, and if access to firearms influenced the decision.

That's why I didn't care to discuss suicide and firearms. If someone wants to take their life, it's really not my business if that's the rational choice they made. Suicide is an issue and should get lumped into the mental health bucket, but I don't think the firearm has a drastic impact on the decision to commit suicide, just the ability to not reconsider that decision in the act of... Homicide is where I've been focusing the firearms discussion -- because at that point, the possessor or user of the firearm begins infringing on others' rights. And that also has many cultural factors that can't be addressed if the singular focus is "MORE GUNS" or "LESS GUNS" without additional support in other areas. But that discussion would've been more relevant to the other threads, not the one about publishing gun owners. We can start discussing registering and permits for firearms in some of those other countries to make comparisons there?

First, your Harvard link is bad, and you should feel bad for being bad at the internet when you go on to assert your intelligence > mine. Also, please tell me more about how you're an expert at Swiss gun culture because you visited a relative there once in 2004? If the murder rate is 0, and more guns increase the likelihood of murder, 0*additional risk is still ZERO. http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html#.UNusXneCWSo Holy crap! Ashland, OH also had zero murders and it's similar in pop. size to Kennesaw, and it doesn't MANDATE gun ownership. Crazy! Obviously Ashland has a zero murder rate because they have a liberal arts school there. That has to be the case... just like Kennesaw, one thing correlates and it's got to be the case. http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/ohio/ashland.html#.UNustXeCWSo Keep pulling that Swiss card http://www.ibtimes.com/us-gun-control-debate-what-can-we-learn-switzerland-732104 I understand and appreciate your oversimplification because "a child could figure this stuff out" and that's about the level of thinking you can handle, but we live in an adult world where the issues are a little more complex. You deserve a pat on the head for trying though, champ.

I wasn't even going to get into that... but, I think guns make it a quicker more viable option, since you actually have time to think about it if you're going to cut yourself, or take pills, or run your exhaust pipe into your passenger compartment. So, I think it would definitely reduce the number of suicides, by how much... http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.PDF I remember overhearing someone say that females are more likely to attempt suicide, while males are more likely to be successful. I don't know if you can connect the dots with that datasheet since "thoughts" are not "attempts". Though, males are more likely to use a firearm and if they're in an altered state it makes whatever thoughts/actions you're having in that altered state more permanent by using a firearm.

The Swiss has been researched and it's a myth that they're "gun nuts", but I can only provide the abstract of the academic research until it's released in Feb 2013: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22089893 But, here's a conversation with the head researcher: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/ And Kennesaw GA is questionable, I can only get crime statistics for the county, and they're just one small town in that county (not even the county seat) -- even so, I figured, if Kennesaw was so great, that'd constantly appear on cities with the lowest crime index or "safest places to live" -- they don't. They only appear on gun blogs and pro gun sites. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/search/5027854/ That's just one link, there are more. Ohh, you mean John Lott... the guy who was caught sockpuppeting as Mary Rosh (http://reason.com/archives/2003/05/01/the-mystery-of-mary-rosh) and who's research has been under fire by numerous academics who say his statistical model and use of econometrics was flawed? (http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm) The model that, since it was created, has been proven false by new data? That guy? Ok. That's the f*(king problem... people that think they're the smartest person in the room, and they're far from it. This is why research needs to be done to validate opinions. But no amount of statistics or analysis will convince you or Pokey about how it's just "liberal" number and you guys will go with your "gut feel" because "those are the facts" when they're far from it. That's the problem.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.htmlQuoted myself again because Craig needs to try again to read. Even if you just read the very first bold line. And if this is because I used the verbiage "deaths" when I was clearly talking about non-health related, unintentional deaths... you're really stretching.

So, per Jagrs link... most homicides occur with a firearm, but non-fatal violent crime still occurs regardless of a weapon. Per the PDF: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf and Per the PDF: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf Since Jagrs PDF relies on victim interviews and therefore does not account for violent crime with homicide (Table 2), that's why the CDC PDF was also required. And I didn't understand Table 10 in his PDF on the difference between "incidents" and "victimizations" unless that was due to a terminology change because of the methodology change from 2008 to 2009. Total of 4.13M violent crimes 326k were KNOWN to have a firearm with another 225.7k where it was unknown what type of weapon they had or even if they had a weapon 16.8k homicides with 11.5k using firearms (and just for shittys clarification, black male was highest of that 11.5k at 5,574 followed by white males at 3,786 then by white females at 1,164 and black females at 642) Since the 4.13M violent crimes doesn't include homicide, technically, we'd have to add the additional 16.8k to that, but it's negligible given the large number of violent crime in general... so out of 4.13M crimes, 11.5k resulted in homicide by firearm (or 0.28%) of all violent crime with 7.9% of all violent crime using a firearm -- or a 3.5% likelihood of death when a firearm is present. Using the numbers for homicide without weapons, 5.3k out of 4.13M violent crimes (or 0.13%), with 72.6% of violent crime without a weapon. So, without a firearm in a violent crime, your chance of being murdered goes to 0.18%. 3.5% > 0.18% *This is only good for y2009

You missed the little color key up in the right corner. One color is homicide, the other is suicide. The boldness of the colors are the value. A lot of the backup information to make that chart is lacking, but the some of it corroborates with the CDC links.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/26/guns-kill-people-in-one-chilling-graph/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.htmlBut yea, go ahead and keep f*(king that chicken. I'm "wrong, wrong, wrong" as are the researchers at Harvard who probably put a lot more effort into their research than you did. I don't know where you get your numbers either... 9369 murders by guns? You just pull that out of thin air? Looks like it. Research is obviously not your strong suit. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf When Assault(homicide) makes Top 15 causes of death in the US, with the vast majority of homicides occurring with a firearm (11,493 out of all 16,799 total homicides in 2009) So, aside from health problems and intentional self-harm of suicides... firearms account for the vast majority of non health related, NON-ACCIDENTAL death.

Please do point out where I went wrong...

Your logic isn't flawed, and you sit there and use broad brush terms like "as all anti-gunners do" 1) You make the assumption I'm anti-gun, just because I'm open minded enough to see and understand an opposing viewpoint. I'm sorry you're incapable of fathoming that someone with opposing views may have some merit in their arguments. 2) I'm far from "emotionalizing" anything. Statistically and based on decades of case studies, more guns equal more deaths. Then you turn around and want to bust my balls about "emotionalizing" stuff "as all anti-gunners do" and you're the one talking about "intent" which is an emotional argument. 3) But, since you insist on using "intent" as your argument, it further solidifies mine. The vast majority of legal and responsible gun owners I couldn't care less about, but when someone's INTENTIONS are to harm people -- they aren't reaching for the keys to a Hayabusa or a Corolla.. they're getting access to guns. This is why no one has mandated a background check to buy cars or knives... 4) No where did I mention banning anything -- this was a debate about privacy, yet you're still stuck on this idea that this thread is another one about taking your precious guns away. I'm sorry that all this TALK is so scary for you Craig.

I'd love to see sources for that guarantee. I still can't get over why some folks don't understand the flawed logic in the bike/car/knife/any other object is the same as a gun and should be treated the same. If someone had ill intentions... I don't believe they thought, "I need to get a motorcycle/car/knife so I can quickly kill multiple people... those are definitely the appropriate tools for that."

TMZ wasn't referenced to be a 'news source'... it was referenced because it makes money on being provocative and exposing our society's penchant for voyeurism into others' lives. Which is what the NY article did.. made money for page views. So you can say it has no informational value or now castigates gun owners, but that's really in the eyes of the reader. Its like asking 'What does the painting/poem/music/article mean to you?'. It means different things to different people. I know I don't look at those gun owners as evil, so I'm not judging them and putting a scarlet shell casing on their lapelles... if others' are, that's their issue. I don't fear guns, nor do I immediately ostrasize someone that chooses to not own any or owns 400 of them. I personally wouldn't have published that, but I'm also some guy living in Ohio that has nothing to gain from such a list.

That's what happens when you have a society obsessed with guns... obsessed with having them vs. obsessed with curtailing them. If people took a more moderate stance it wouldn't be a big deal and we wouldn't have laws that put gun owners on lists... has anyone researched why that provision was added to NY law? And what about States Rights? If NY wants to put people on lists...NY should be able to. They're not infringing on the right to own or possess, just making requirements to do so. Tom posted earlier that the correct move would've been... leaving NY. I'm not advocating for lists or even taking a stance on whether or not they should've been published. Legally its OK, and if the editor asked a reporter to do the research and run a story, do you tell your boss no? It'll bring revenue to the paper and may earn a promotion? Tough call. There are a lot of issues in play here. Your opinion that its morally reprehensible is fine, but there are a lot of things that are 'morally reprehensible' that the govt sticks its nose into... like gay marriage. The GOP tends to do the legislating of moral issues, so I'm curious to see who added this 'list' provision into the original NY law.

The gun owners records are more complicated to get that court docs. The newspaper had to submit a FOIA request... when I can just go to the local muni court website and look up traffic violations, right now. Someone took the time to submit the request, get the information, and then make a map to display it in aggregate. I guess if it weren't gun owners, they probably wouldn't have exerted the effort... but that's provocative, and makes for provocative news, which means more web traffic and revenue. So, blame the profit motive? That's also how TMZ works...

So I guess the gun owners that want privacy need to bring a bigger stack of cash than those that don't care, or want a list made... That's how it works, I guess.

Again, apples and oranges. My bikes don't fire lethal projectiles -- at least they shouldn't or weren't designed to. And, as with anyone who has had legal action (traffic cites, etc.) that's all public record. So my name IS on a list somewhere -- I knew that when I complied with getting my license and submitted to the rules of the road. I suppose if someone wanted to dox me that bad, they could -- they'd have old information, but if someone REALLY wanted to get my information, I'm sure I've left enough crumbs to follow and enough people know me that we'd have mutual connections that may've crossed paths before that they could find me. But what does singling me out have anything to do with a list of gun owners? If someone thought a list of old traffic cites would make for interesting news, I suppose I'd end up on that list whether I liked to or not.

You mean like possessing multiple rifles that aren't used to hunt? Mama said don't sign an agreement that isn't agreeable. It's only the gun owners' fault for being ignorant or compliant. "Gov't Tyranny!" They should've risen up and had an NY revolution -- but the Second Amendment doesn't include a right to privacy when owning such munitions, does it?

"Editor’s note: Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011." http://www.lohud.com/article/20121224/NEWS04/312240045/The-gun-owner-next-door-What-you-don-t-know-about-weapons-your-neighborhood And the people that applied for permits should've known the law... it's written into the law that names and addresses are public record. But, go ahead and yell at the journalist and newspaper, not the NY legislature for adding it to the law. You don't want it to be public record, then change the law by voting the people in to do it... or just don't apply for permits. It's not rocket surgery.

But that's not really how it works. You're making the assumption of guilt to prove innocence, not -- how it's written into law. How do we prove all the food in restaurant adverts are real? Or that Sylvester Stallone really didn't kill all those people? I really don't care either way, but people are making a big deal over this are the silly ones. He was using it in a dramatic manner for news purposes, not in the offense of committing a crime. I'd rather have that law on the books if only for it to be used as an excuse to be able to tack on some additional consecutive time during sentencing if an extended magazine was used in the commission of a crime.

Yes, because as the only logical solution to fight guns is with "more guns", the only logical solution to a "people" issue is to throw "more people" at it.

Anyone confirm it wasn't just a TV prop?

The less engineers in this world, the better.

I'll just follow you until you head back north... like a puppy you're babysitting, except much more needy and demanding.