Disclaimer

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?

You haven't answered my question, you haven't debated it, you haven't even actually addressed it. If prevalence is more murder, then why can these places (among many many others) exist in clear defiance of your assertion and Harvard's study?

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

I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I'm smarter than you. I have proof of it. I can see that if guns in greater numbers were the catalyst for more death, then it would be universal and there couldn't be areas like El Salvador with an extremely low gun rate and astronomical gun murder rate, and places like Switzerland where most households have guns yet gun murders are rare.

It's not about you being a liberal anti-gunner, which you are. It's about common sense and you have none. Zero. Zilch.

A child could figure this stuff out, but you're so drunk on googling stuff that asserts the absurd you won't see it. Afraid your worldview will crumble if you accept a simple, undeniable, and utterly obvious truth?

That's pretty sad, man.

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.

Concentrating on suicide for a moment. If a suicidal person did now have a gun available to them, what do we all think would happen? Would that person kill themselves using some different means, or would that person not kill themselves?

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

Based on data about suicides in 16 National Violent

Death Reporting System states in 2009, 33.3% of

suicide decedents tested positive for alcohol, 23%

for antidepressants, and 20.8% for opiates, including

heroin and prescription pain killers.

it makes whatever thoughts/actions you're having in that altered state more permanent by using a firearm.

I read it, and it's horseshit.

For the third time, explain Switzerland and Kennesaw Georgia.

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.

If one word of that study held up (and that study is directly contradicted by Lott's work), then Switzerland would be experiencing gun crime and violence, yet it's so statistically low to be insignificant...as in non-existent.

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.

Stop dancing, and answer my fucking question. Stop googling bullshit and think. Use your own words.

Use some of that impressive logic.

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.

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Quoted 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

How can guns be the first AND second leading causes of death in 15-24yo? (and other age groups where it appears twice)

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.

You know that line, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people?”

It’s true, so far as it goes. But in the United States, when people

decide to kill people, or kill themselves, they typically reach for a

gun.

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

But 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.

Pot, "Kettle, you are black."

Please do point out where I went wrong...

There's nothing flawed my logic, it is sound and tenable. You and Magz are the ones demonizing one object over another, because 800 years ago someone invented a weapon that works on the same principle. Guns are used for all manner of things totally unrelated to killing, and conversely cars and knives are used for murder or breaking the law every day accounting for many many times more deaths than so-called assault weapons. Intent and the user determine injury or malice, just as they do with a bike, or a gun, or a pair of boxcutters.

You're politicizing and emotionalizing this idea of design, just as all anti-gunners do.

If I wanted to kill a shit ton of people, I wouldn't choose a gun. Requires commitment, aim, and presence. A lot of risk, too. A bomb is much better at the job, and can be done without me even being there. Diesel (not a weapon) + fertilizer (not a weapon) plus a detonator and I can kill hundreds while I'm removed from the action.

I can just veer my truck into a long line of people outside a bar or movie theater, and kill 10-20 pretty easily. Probably a better chance of surviving that than trying to shoot 10-20 in a crowded mall.

In fact, I'd say that to kill en masse I would almost certainly not choose a gun. And, if I were to choose a gun, I could patiently kill people all day long from a safe distance using a single-shot bolt gun in a large hunting caliber. In fact, it's a superior weapon than an AR-15 in regards to power and lethality.

The AR has many real-world, practical uses. It's a wonderful light and accurate utility rifle, and I've taken small game with it and I compete at Camp Perry in matches with mine. But, even if it had no such uses, it's still precisely the kind of weapon the 2nd was written to protect - the same guns as those which can be brought against us or can be attacked by (to include criminals, the police, mobs, and even foreign invaders as unlikely as that may be).

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.

let us publish everything anyone owns that someone else thinks isn't needed.

don't you have an $8000 orange busa, jrmmiii? i think you also have an orange SV liter squid bike that you got a ticket with (public info fo sho) your name and address belongs on a list somewhere. no complaints from you, right?

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.

Didn't your mama tell you just because you "can" do some things doesn't mean you should!

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.

No. However considering he held it in his hand and said; "This is a 30 round magazine" if I was on the jury I'd need HIM to prove it was a prop, not the prosecution to prove it wasn't.

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.

Only if Gen3 picks me up from CLE on her way to Cbus.