Fair enough. I typically don't count suicides in firearms deaths, and it's not just for "cherry picking" purposes. I believe that while some of those 34,000 people (honestly thats a surprising number) would be alive today if they didn't have access to a gun, the majority probably wouldn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Despite some of the loosest gun controls in the world, the US comes in decidedly mid-pack in worldwide suicide rates. While not having access to their first choice may dissuade some people, many will seek alternate methods.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/9/07-043489/en/index.html

While suicide by firearm is popular in the US, especially among males, other countries with much higher suicide rates gravitate toward other methods. Hanging, falls, poisoning, cutting, and something called "charcoal burning suicide." People are resourceful, no matter what is done to prevent it.

My "Lies" comment was made in reference to EMPIRE's comment that most gunshot deaths are from an owner's own guns, and if you remove suicides from the death counts, that is still patently false. Counting suicides, though, he is technically correct, so I apologize.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^Selektaa:
Lies.
http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm
>> ^EMPIRE:
>> ^Porksandwich:
Do I really want her and her ilk being armed?

well, in a way you do, since most victims of gunshots are killed with their own guns, so maybe this is actually evolution throwing us a curveball sayin': "you didn't think I could use firearms did you? "



As Mark Twain famously remarked, there are three types of lies: "lies, damned lies, and statistics." So I'll see your lies and I'll raise you some statistics.
During 2006--2007, firearm suicide and firearm homicide were the fourth and fifth leading causes of injury death in the United States, respectively. For youths aged 10--19 years, firearm homicide was the second leading cause and firearm suicide was the fifth leading cause of injury death nationally.
Read the rest for yourself here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm
I'd rather get my information fresh from the source (i.e. the CDC, which is where the above comes from) rather than a pro-gun ownership web site that's cherry-picking which facts about guns to report.

>> ^Selektaa:

Lies.
http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm
>> ^EMPIRE:
>> ^Porksandwich:
Do I really want her and her ilk being armed?

well, in a way you do, since most victims of gunshots are killed with their own guns, so maybe this is actually evolution throwing us a curveball sayin': "you didn't think I could use firearms did you? "




As Mark Twain famously remarked, there are three types of lies: "lies, damned lies, and statistics." So I'll see your lies and I'll raise you some statistics.

During 2006--2007, firearm suicide and firearm homicide were the fourth and fifth leading causes of injury death in the United States, respectively. For youths aged 10--19 years, firearm homicide was the second leading cause and firearm suicide was the fifth leading cause of injury death nationally.

Read the rest for yourself here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm

I'd rather get my information fresh from the source (i.e. the CDC, which is where the above comes from) rather than a pro-gun ownership web site that's cherry-picking which facts about guns to report.

Lies.

http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm
>> ^EMPIRE:

>> ^Porksandwich:
Do I really want her and her ilk being armed?

well, in a way you do, since most victims of gunshots are killed with their own guns, so maybe this is actually evolution throwing us a curveball sayin': "you didn't think I could use firearms did you? "

>> ^Porksandwich:

Do I really want her and her ilk being armed?


well, in a way you do, since most victims of gunshots are killed with their own guns, so maybe this is actually evolution throwing us a curveball sayin': "you didn't think I could use firearms did you? "

145 days, that's a stupid-fast gunshot in cosmic time. Such violence.

>> ^NetRunner:

Uhh, so acknowledging that the argument is dividing along right/left lines, while decrying the fact that it has done so...is perpetuating it?

I think you went beyond acknowledging when you made a statement on behalf of The Left™. I think there are a lot of people trying to make this partisan politics because they get an automatic support base if they succeed, but I also think the people who are doing that are a loud minority at this point. Most people, even the self-appointed judge/jury/executioners I mentioned before, have not allowed politics to shape their opinions IMO.

>> ^NetRunner:

Here's the rub, what are those investigations aimed at achieving? An investigation of the local police, and whether they conducted their side of things properly, or an investigation that might result in charges against Zimmerman? From what I've heard it's the former, not the latter.

I'm not sure it's plausible to get a new local investigation without showing some sort of negligence or wrong-doing in the first one. I also can't help but wonder if, even after all the investigations are complete, the case will be tossed out because SYG does protect Zimmerman here. Whether the law is right or wrong is a separate trial. It may be that this case is the first domino that starts the repeal of SYG, but it also may be that Zimmerman goes free because it was the law at the time. I'm not saying I'd be happy about that; just that it seems like a possibility.

>> ^NetRunner:

That's the most generous of my theories, but I don't really think it's that. The things they're pushing back against aren't the handful of people saying calmly "this is why the Stand Your Ground law is bad policy", they're pushing back hardest against the people who're suggesting this was some sort of racially motivated murder. They've apparently lost all sense of reason and proportion when it comes to defending white guys who get accused of being racist.

There are absolutely some weird reactions in all this which are based on race. I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference whether Zimmerman is a racist or not. I guess it could make the difference between murder and a lesser charge, as it could be used to establish motive, but here and now it's a minor issue for me. Whether or not he is a racist will not effect this stage in the process. That won't come into play until a trial begins.

>> ^NetRunner:

I agree, there's a real danger of the "Zimmerman needs to be charged" camp making it impossible for Zimmerman to be tried in an impartial manner. Most of the stuff I see though is people collecting evidence of one type or another that suggests the shooting wasn't in self-defense, as a way to demonstrate the need for a trial. Case in point, the video up top showing Zimmerman looking uninjured and unmolested some 20-30 minutes after the altercation with Martin.

It seems to me like that's what you need to do if you want to convince people that there needs to be an investigation and a trial -- you cast doubt on the story that Zimmerman told the police, which was the reason they released him without further investigation.

Truth is, I think it's going to be hard to build a solid case against Zimmerman at this point, mostly because the opportunity to collect the evidence that could've convicted or conclusively exonerated him is gone now. That's why the police's refusal to conduct an investigation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting feels so criminal to a lot of people.

I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

I worry that the "public investigation" ruins the eventual trial if it goes too far. This video seems like extremely weak evidence. The poor quality could easily be hiding cuts and bruises. I'd put more weight in police documentation and hospital records (or the lack thereof) than this video to establish whether Zimmerman had injuries.

I agree that a lot of evidence has been lost to time now. Examination of the gunshot wound can probably still tell us a lot about the altercation, fortunately. Showing who was on top of who at the time of the shooting will probably go a long way toward telling the real story by itself.

It's certainly making me hard.. Ooh! >> ^spoco2:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I Will see this movie.
[Edit: at 4:10 you can hear the Nazi motorcycles--LOL (oh, and the gunshot--Ha!]

Yeah, and the spaceships right at the start... who cares really? When they try to do movies with no sound in space (action ones anyway), they do seem remarkably lifeless.
It's not exactly a hard sci fi sort of movie now is it?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I Will see this movie.
[Edit: at 4:10 you can hear the Nazi motorcycles--LOL (oh, and the gunshot--Ha!]


Yeah, and the spaceships right at the start... who cares really? When they try to do movies with no sound in space (action ones anyway), they do seem remarkably lifeless.

It's not exactly a hard sci fi sort of movie now is it?

Hahah! I love how the black guy has a dark suit.

And the gunshot, as someone said. But also the fact that internal combustion engines even work on the moon.

I Will see this movie.

[Edit: at 4:10 you can hear the Nazi motorcycles--LOL (oh, and the gunshot--Ha!]

>> ^marinara:

I'm really tired of youtube. This is why we need net-neutrality. So we can just leave youtube behind.
And this is happening more and more, literally 2 days ago, they took down a JFK conspiracy video. supposedly due to violent content (a certain gunshot)
really this is a huge problem.
It only takes a few takedowns... to shift the expectations of people. People will start editing what they say, just so there is no chance of being taken down.


FYI, governments have bad track records with keeping things open and free, ask Bradly Manning.

I'm really tired of youtube. This is why we need net-neutrality. So we can just leave youtube behind.

And this is happening more and more, literally 2 days ago, they took down a JFK conspiracy video. supposedly due to violent content (a certain gunshot)

really this is a huge problem.
It only takes a few takedowns... to shift the expectations of people. People will start editing what they say, just so there is no chance of being taken down.

While they're playing the attack ad on Newt Gingrich, we're hearing the Young Turks studio noise in the background, right? The ad doesn't actually play what sounds like a muted gunshot at 2:57-3:03 in the video, just when they mention the healthcare plan?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57341685-504083/florida-mans-cell-phone-video-captures-argument-with-mother-in-law-gunshots/