@4: none. reducing suicide by gun would require bravery on the part of gun owners - to be brave enough to rid their homes of guns and live without them. this would also reduce domestic shootings of family members.
Housing bubbles affect homebuyers and homesellers: mere homeowners are unaffected. And if you sell during the bubble...then you have to buy during the bubble.
@7, or almost as good -- if every gun owner kept his weapons locked up, when not in his personal possession, many perhaps most of the recent tragedies could've been prevented. Instead, too many gunowners leave them lying around or in a bureau drawer where they can be easily accessed by children or unstable adults.
@9: not really as effective if those gun owners with the keys and combinations are the ones who decide to kill themselves or their family members or maybe a bunch of innocent people at a local cafe. and often, they are.
The mother of one of the recently-discovered women went on tv back in 2004 and asked Sylvia Browne if her daughter was still alive. As if anyone needed reason to believe Sylvia Browne is a monster, she told the woman her daughter was dead. The woman died in 2006 believing her daughter was dead.
C'mon now, Goldy! I sent you guys a PRIMO Slog tip this morning about an 8 year-old kid who shot himself in the headwith an Uzi at a gun show and you went with a 23 year-old?
@4 I know folks here refuse to believe me, but while I support tougher gun regulations, my focus is primarily on educating the public that GUNS DON'T MAKE YOU SAFER. If we approached guns the same way we approached smoking and seat belts and drunk drivingâwith the intent of changing public attitudes toward gunsâwe could save thousands of lives.
I was annoyed by the NPR coverage of the kidnapping rescue story this morning. During the interview with the morning host, the reporter said repeatedly, "who knows what's been going on in that house" and "we don't yet know what has been happening to these women for the last decade".
Yes, you ass, we do. I trust NPR to avoid the salaciousness of other news sources and here the reporter was reveling in it.
@4 In 1996 Australia came to its senses and passed a slate of gun regulations. Yes it ended a few political careers as it took the willingness of enough conservative politicians to vote in favor to pass. So yes political suicide increased that year.
Thereafter suicide by gun did drop from 388 in 1995 to 162 in 2010. Suicide by any means no real change but that wasn't your question.
Seriously, it took me literally 60 seconds to find this (hint: in involved Wikipedia.) Do you guys understand the concept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
The sound of cicadas is like an electric hum. As a kid I always thought the sound was from the streetlights' electrical wires resonating or something due to the summer heat. I was long gone from the northeast before I actually knew what that ubiquitous summer sound was.
@16
"... my focus is primarily on educating the public that GUNS DON'T MAKE YOU SAFER."
And yet you continue to ignore any comments from anyone who has owned a gun who tells you that guns are dangerous.
Because this is about you trolling for page hits. Nothing else.
As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, guns are not magical.
A gun will not make you "safer".
A gun will not "protect" you.
Guns are dangerous.
But if a situation arises where you need a gun, you probably won't have time to go buy one.
Which means that it's time for another episode of EVERYONE'S favorite game show
STRANGER TROLLING BINGO!
Today's winning picks are:
Gun nuts!
Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
Suicide!
Assault weapons!
Apples and oranges!
You just do not care about X dead Y's!
Tautological tautologies!
Picking cherries!
I don't want to ban all guns but ... !
The NRA!
@32: Pot, there you go calling the kettle black again. Don't go casting aspersions about people ignoring contradictory facts when you're so blatantly guilty of such sins yourself.
Addressing your statement (and ignoring your tired copy + paste tantrum): contradictory anecdotes are not how reasonable adults respond to decades of statistical data.
@19: you mean like a years-long media barrage to convince everyone, straights & lesbians, too, to have safe sex and GIVE UP BAREBACKING that resulted in a huge reduction the AIDS infection rate?
Goldy's point has been stated by Goldy over and over and over.
His point is to make a sarcastic statement about a death or injury where a gun was involved by saying "because guns make us safer".
"Sufficiently rare, in fact, to render the decision to own a gun for the purpose of self-defence irrational in most cases."
Because you have failed to do any research does not mean that there are not multiple examples available where someone has used a gun for self-defense.
But since I did not limit my statement to "self-defense" your incorrect reading and lack of research is your problem.
@42
"I don't believe any of those groups were very effective, ..."
You can believe whatever you want to believe.
But the facts contradict you.
"... but more to point, that shit happened like 50 years ago!"
There is no time limit on oppression.
The government was unable or unwilling to redress the oppression.
"What have guns done for me lately?"
You seem to have a problem with reading.
I had just posted it in #32.
But if a situation arises where you need a gun, you probably won't have time to go buy one.
@41: I like this analogy.
Cue the National Whoopie Association. "You shouldn't have to get tested for STDs before you fuck someone! If we make that rule, it's only a matter of time until those 'nads-grabbing bureaucrats down in Washington lock up everyone's crotches. Well, they can pry my cock from my lubed-up hands! I'm going to build myself a bunker, fill it with dildos, and if the ATF* tries to take them away, I'm going to walk out with a raging boner and jerk off in front of those bastards."
@43: Yeah, if you find yourself in imminent danger, it's most likely too late to go buy a gun. But if you don't need the gun right away, what's wrong with waiting a week or so while they run a background check?
You just made an argument for universal background checks, numbnuts.
@41, no, i'm suggesting that gun owners, specifically those that only own a gun for "protection" should stop being such pussies and get rid of their guns. get a dog, get a baseball bat, anything but a gun.
although i wouldn't object to a relentless celebrity gun safety campaign that would penetrate the small reptilian brains of america's mouth breathing hicks encouraging purchase and use of trigger locks, gun safes, etc., and even offering rebates like SCL does for LED lights or new refrigerators.
@36, 40, 43: Once again, by ignoring those that challenge your hypocrisy, you prove nothing but your own lack of integrity, and by extension, lack of worth as a member of this community.
@50: Gay Dude for Raindrop unwittingly did a great service to this blog during the 2012 election when he was basically a magnet for the insane cut and paste frenzy of Fairly Unbalanced. To use geek parlance, he kept F.U. aggro on him to free up other people to have rational discussions.
Now that Gay Dude is just Raindrop again, that has ended, and now F.U. is just crapping up threads indiscriminately.
@51: I've seen a few people say that raindrop is the former Romney shill/bottom, though raindrop wasn't on my radar back then, so I can't make that assumption until I've seen something more concrete to link the two.
As for fairly.unbalanced, I would pity him for the breakup that's clearly affected him so deeply if he showed any interest in a real discussion. (I guess he hasn't made - or is unconvinced of - the raindrop/GD4R connection, or we'd all know it.) Instead, I'll have to be content to continually point out his hypocrisy and hope it will help convince others here to dismiss him the same way he dismisses rational discourse.
/serious question
//and follow-up, have any of those regulations been proposed?
no gun = no shooting.
I believe you.
Good luck (honestly), that's going to be a tough battle. Your biggest opponent is probably Hollywood.
Yes, you ass, we do. I trust NPR to avoid the salaciousness of other news sources and here the reporter was reveling in it.
Thereafter suicide by gun did drop from 388 in 1995 to 162 in 2010. Suicide by any means no real change but that wasn't your question.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region…
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/mo…
Seriously, it took me literally 60 seconds to find this (hint: in involved Wikipedia.) Do you guys understand the concept that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
Seriously, learn how to read.
Hilarious!
"... my focus is primarily on educating the public that GUNS DON'T MAKE YOU SAFER."
And yet you continue to ignore any comments from anyone who has owned a gun who tells you that guns are dangerous.
Because this is about you trolling for page hits. Nothing else.
As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, guns are not magical.
A gun will not make you "safer".
A gun will not "protect" you.
Guns are dangerous.
But if a situation arises where you need a gun, you probably won't have time to go buy one.
Which means that it's time for another episode of EVERYONE'S favorite game show
STRANGER TROLLING BINGO!
Today's winning picks are:
Gun nuts!
Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
Suicide!
Assault weapons!
Apples and oranges!
You just do not care about X dead Y's!
Tautological tautologies!
Picking cherries!
I don't want to ban all guns but ... !
The NRA!
Beat a straw man for big bonus points!
Addressing your statement (and ignoring your tired copy + paste tantrum): contradictory anecdotes are not how reasonable adults respond to decades of statistical data.
I like your analogy.
The claws do not make the cat safer.
But they do give the cat options that a declawed cat does not have.
that sounds like a good plan.
"Goldy's point is that, ..."
Goldy's point has been stated by Goldy over and over and over.
His point is to make a sarcastic statement about a death or injury where a gun was involved by saying "because guns make us safer".
"Sufficiently rare, in fact, to render the decision to own a gun for the purpose of self-defence irrational in most cases."
Because you have failed to do any research does not mean that there are not multiple examples available where someone has used a gun for self-defense.
But since I did not limit my statement to "self-defense" your incorrect reading and lack of research is your problem.
Here's an example that will upset racists such as yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for…
"I don't believe any of those groups were very effective, ..."
You can believe whatever you want to believe.
But the facts contradict you.
"... but more to point, that shit happened like 50 years ago!"
There is no time limit on oppression.
The government was unable or unwilling to redress the oppression.
"What have guns done for me lately?"
You seem to have a problem with reading.
I had just posted it in #32.
But if a situation arises where you need a gun, you probably won't have time to go buy one.
Cue the National Whoopie Association. "You shouldn't have to get tested for STDs before you fuck someone! If we make that rule, it's only a matter of time until those 'nads-grabbing bureaucrats down in Washington lock up everyone's crotches. Well, they can pry my cock from my lubed-up hands! I'm going to build myself a bunker, fill it with dildos, and if the ATF* tries to take them away, I'm going to walk out with a raging boner and jerk off in front of those bastards."
*Department of Ass, Tits, and Fucking
You just made an argument for universal background checks, numbnuts.
although i wouldn't object to a relentless celebrity gun safety campaign that would penetrate the small reptilian brains of america's mouth breathing hicks encouraging purchase and use of trigger locks, gun safes, etc., and even offering rebates like SCL does for LED lights or new refrigerators.
Now that Gay Dude is just Raindrop again, that has ended, and now F.U. is just crapping up threads indiscriminately.
As for fairly.unbalanced, I would pity him for the breakup that's clearly affected him so deeply if he showed any interest in a real discussion. (I guess he hasn't made - or is unconvinced of - the raindrop/GD4R connection, or we'd all know it.) Instead, I'll have to be content to continually point out his hypocrisy and hope it will help convince others here to dismiss him the same way he dismisses rational discourse.