Gun violence lands US lowest life expectancy among rich nations

Ooooo ! excuse me . - You've got that wrong , me dear .


I've been a licenced shotgun owner for many years - used to go wildfowl +pheasant /pigeon etc . shoots ., even a bit (once ) of deer stalking (got one) in Scottish highlands , until I grew up and sold my guns. - Legally .

...

 

Then you should be able to appreciate the fact that guns can be used for more than just killing people.

 

Probably make a Martians eyes water too, I'd imagine..

 

Sure , I do - however , I hope you'll appreciate the difference in shooting /killing pheasants/wildfowl and the manner in which many americans , far too often , use guns , - - do you ?

btw - I would'nt recommend you arming yourself with Assault rifles /high power semi-automatic handguns, which I understand prevalent amongst US gun owners , for Pheasant or Grouse shoots in Scotland.

...

 

According to an American Org called Women against Gun Violence

9 children are killed by guns every day with guns

40% Households with children have guns

46 Suicides committed every day with guns

34 people are murdered every day with guns


======

Shocking .

..

 

Look for their greenish teeth.

 

This is a lie. Putting the word "scientific" does not make it any less a lie.

If you feel strongly about disarming yourself by all means do so. If you want to make an argument that members of high risk groups should have a more difficult time getting arms then you might have a point. What happens when the high risk groups are eliminated in this study?

 

In your quote how is "child" defined?
How many suicides would occur if a gun was not available? Are there no other lethal methods?
How many murders would occur without guns? Do you believe the number is zero?

How many people's lives and limbs are saved every day because of the presence of guns?

 

As it is so often said, "guns don't kill people. People kill people."

I'm more inclined to think that our morbid side and the need to make money are more responsible for all of the shootings
that are happening, rather then guns being available.

Video games, action movies and even television are filled with shootings and gore. They are causing us to become insesitive
to violence. Even my favorite tv shows like NCIS and Bones apparently think that you have to show more "gore" to draw viewers. Maybe the
writers are losing their touch and need the gore to draw attention away from the story lines. While I still enjoy the shows, I like them less and less as they try to out-do each other in the crime scenes and autopsy rooms.

How do we expect kids to act when they grow up thinking that violence is the norm. Maybe if violence ceases to be "big
money", these violence would cease to be "second nature".

 

I believe blaming anyone other that the monster is nonsense.

I believe there have always been monsters among us. Before video games. Before movies. Before television.

We need better ways to stop monsters once they reveal themselves.

 

Unless......you were the woman in Atlanta who needed a gun to protect herself from the criminal about to attack her and her two children. How would you respond to her need in that situation?

 

I fully agree.

However, the worse influence of all, on US social violence?

The fact that the US state use violence, murder, and larger guns, as a routine part of their strategy.

Does not put them in a position to take the moral high ground.

On anything at all.

Ever.

 

Not to disrespect old-timers, however, the value of an 87 year old to society with regard to economic activity is???? Shouldn't we all die at 60 or so? Although the retirement rate in Europe might be 26, here in the USA it is 65 going on 67. That is OLD. No hearing, no sight, no motor function. I repeat, the value is?

Warren Buffet is symbolic. In reality, he is fat, stupid and old. He has a team of workers trying to sustain his "image".

 

You might find that some oldsters with wealth and power might decide that youngsters that make asinine statements are the one that should die. Of course that would be age prejudice of a different sort.

 

I've been saying "bring it on" every day since the age of 10 and I am now 44. There aren't many that like it hot in the USA.

 

I did not see anywhere in the OP that directly linked violent deaths to gun ownership as it purports. Seems they took snippets of other stats and wove them together to create their assertion. An example of the way Stats can be manipulated....A hurricane tragically kills hundreds of people. About 2/3 of them were gun owners therefore, one can report that 2/3 of those that died were gun owners. Combine those stats with others that show gun-owner deaths, mix in some gun suicide stats and 'violent crime' stats Viola! One can fit all those stats into an anti-gun argument.

 

The state in general maintains its authority with a monopoly upon the legitimate use of force, and that typically includes violent force. Unfortunately, people have a difficult time accepting this reality.

 

Why don't you move the to "real District of Columbia" and see how long you last without a gun? Why live in a Georgetown bubble? Once in a while the real world coincides with fantasyland visions of how life "should be".

 

I have been to some of the most dangerous areas in the District of Columbia. I have had no problems walking around.

 

So as a "tourist", you haven't had any problems walking around? What about when you go to work and you come home and all of your belongings are gone? Tourism is a pseudonym for "I have SEEN black people and they haven't attacked me so I can maintain my liberal beliefs". My argument is that you haven't really SEEN black people unless you live with them for several years.

 

No, I do not live among a black/African-American majority. I am a college student at American University, which is located in Tenleytown, a Caucasian majority neighborhood. However, I have numerous friends that are black/African-American. I have had no problems with them, and they have had no problems with me.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I do not live among a black/African-American majority. I am a college student at American University, which is located in Tenleytown, a Caucasian majority neighborhood. However, I have numerous friends that are black/African-American. I have had no problems with them, and they have had no problems with me. Either way, I see no reason how race (an illusionary social construct) has anything to do with my comments regarding the state. My statement is a fact. The state does maintain a monopoly upon the legitimate use of force. Failure to recognize such is ignoring reality.

 

I repeat :
"
There is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.
Hemenway, David, PhD. “Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home.” (American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. May 5, 2011)


See if you can disprove "David Hemenway, PhD, Director, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health"

====

And for misterveritis saying

Yes it is scientific - and can be downloaded here :

http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502


Calling it a lie does'nt make it a lie - unless you can back up your apparent daft accussations


tata ...



.

 

According to the org. "Women Against Gun Violence " more women have been disarmed by assailants and killed with their own guns than those who've actually succeeded in frightening off an attacker

THey say : " DID YOU KNOW?

Women are more likely to be shot by an intimate partner than killed by a stranger.
•Over 90 percent of female homicide victims are killed by someone they know (VPC, p. 3, based on 2008 data).


•Women are more than twice as likely to be shot to death by their male intimates as they are to be shot, stabbed, strangled or killed in any other way by a stranger (Kellermann, p. 1).

•For non-fatal injuries treated in emergency rooms, women are 3.6 times more likely than men to be shot by a current or former spouse than by a stranger (Wiebe, p. 405).

•When firearms are used in a family or intimate assault, death is 12 times more likely than if another weapon is used (Saltzman, p. 3043).

•An abuser’s access to a gun is associated with an 8-fold increase in the risk of homicide (Campbell, p. 1090).

•Firearms appear to be more common in homes where battering has occurred (36.7 percent) than in the general population (16.7 percent) (Sorenson and Wiebe, p. 1412).

•In two thirds of battered women’s households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner used the gun against the woman, usually threatening to shoot/kill her (71.4 percent) or to shoot at her (5.1 percent). (Sorenson and Wiebe, p. 1412).

•Batterers threaten their victims with guns by threatening to shoot them, cleaning, holding or loading a gun during an argument, threatening to shoot at a pet or person the victim cares about, and shooting a gun during an argument with the victim (Rothman, p. 62).

•The health-related costs of rape, physical assault, stalking, and homicide by intimate partners exceed $5.8 billion each year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003).

----

FACTS .

...
.

 

Well, you disagree with those who know. The Economist, for instance, is always full of evidence. I'm afraid yours is Republican 'fact', and exists only in their closed universe. Soon we'll be quoting Wikipedia at one another doubtless. I'll just agree with the world, you with Murdoch and his lying foxes. Enjoy!

 

Guns are more likely to be turned on a family member than a bad guy so the NRA is anti family. The Japanese are longest lived by 4 more years than we Americans. The Brits are 2 more years longer lived than we Americans. A lot of hysteria in this thread