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.

Dan Savage's Blog this morning:

I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that's a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they "love the sinner, hate the sin." They're often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person's actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

As for what I said about the Bible...

A smart Christian friend involved politics writes: "In America today you just can't refer, even tangentially, to someone's religion as 'bullshit.' You should apologize for using that word."

I didn't call anyone's religion bullshit. I did say that there is bullshit—"untrue words or ideas"—in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying "motivated by faith")—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don't believe.

On other occasions I've made the same point without using the word bullshit...

We can learn to ignore what the bible says about gay people the same way we have learned to ignore what the Bible says about clams and figs and farming and personal grooming and menstruation and masturbation and divorce and virginity and adultery and slavery. Let's take slavery. We ignore what the Bible says about slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. And the authors of the Bible didn't just fail to condemn slavery. They endorsed slavery: "Slaves obey your masters." In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris writes that the Bible got the easiest moral question humanity has ever faced wrong. The Bible got slavery wrong. What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? I'd put those odds at about 100%.

It shouldn't be hard for modern Christians to ignore what the bible says about gay people because modern Christians—be they conservative fundamentalists or liberal progressives—already ignore most of what the Bible says about sex and relationships. Divorce is condemned in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus Christ condemned divorce. Yet divorce is legal and there is no movement to amend state constitutions to ban divorce. Deuteronomy says that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she shall be dragged to her father's doorstep and stoned to death. Callista Gingrich lives. And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone the third Mrs. Gingrich to death.

...and maybe I shouldn't have used the word bullshit in this instance. But while it may have been a regrettable word choice, my larger point stands: If believers can ignore what the Bible says about slavery, they can ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality. (The Bible also says some beautiful things that are widely ignored: "Sell what you possess and give to the poor... and come, follow me.” You better get right on that, Joel.)

Finally, here's Mark Twain on the Bible:

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.

I'm not guilty of saying anything that hasn't been said before and—yes—said much better. What is "bullshit" in this context but "upwards of a thousand lies" in modern American English? And while those slamming me most loudly for "pansy-assed" may be on the right, they are also in the right. I see their point and, again, I apologize for describing the walk-out as "pansy-assed." But they are wrong when they claim that I "attacked Christianity." There are untrue things in the Bible—and the Koran and the Book of Mormon and every other "sacred" text—and you don't have to take my word for it: just look at all the biblical "shoulds," "shall nots," and "abominations" that religious conservatives already choose to ignore. They know that not everything in the Bible is true.

All Christians read the Bible selectively. Some read it hypocritically—and the hypocrites react very angrily when anyone has the nerve to point that out.

Can't go wrong with Bukowski or Vonnegut.

And then there is this:

http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/

In reply to this comment by kymbos:
I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.

I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).

I'm green.

Ham on Rye.

>> ^kymbos:

I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.
I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).
I'm green.

>> ^luxury_pie:

>> ^longde:
Anyone else want to weigh in on @kymbos request of the Great American Novel? I think Twain' Huckleberry Finn is a must read (I actually reread this story every couple of years and still enjoy it).
What other candidates do people have?>> ^longde:
Huckleberry Finn>> ^kymbos:
I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.
I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).
I'm green.



I reread Catch 22 every 5 years or so, gets better every time.
edit: oh, not necessarily a classic, though.

Really? Because I couldn't get through it. I thought he just kept hammering the same points over and over and over again until I was bored to tears and stopped (kind of like American Psycho actually, I didn't need any more graphic depictions of murder to get the inanely shallow existence he led).


Pity, as I thought I'd like it. The general premise is good, hell it spawned the extremely common saying... but I was left wanting by the source material itself.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I like John Irving for that category - Cider House Rules or World According to Garp.>> ^longde:
Anyone else want to weigh in on @kymbos request of the Great American Novel? I think Twain' Huckleberry Finn is a must read (I actually reread this story every couple of years and still enjoy it).
What other candidates do people have?>> ^longde:
Huckleberry Finn>> ^kymbos:
I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.
I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).
I'm green.

>> ^longde:

Anyone else want to weigh in on @kymbos request of the Great American Novel? I think Twain' Huckleberry Finn is a must read (I actually reread this story every couple of years and still enjoy it).
What other candidates do people have?>> ^longde:
Huckleberry Finn>> ^kymbos:
I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.
I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).
I'm green.




I reread Catch 22 every 5 years or so, gets better every time.

edit: oh, not necessarily a classic, though.

Anyone else want to weigh in on @kymbos request of the Great American Novel? I think Twain's Huckleberry Finn is a must read (I actually reread this story every couple of years and still enjoy it).

What other candidates do people have?>> ^longde:

Huckleberry Finn>> ^kymbos:
I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.
I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).
I'm green.

Hey, thannks for the leads. I just watched some of Midnight in Paris, and realised I'd never read the classics. Would you suggest I start with your Connecticut one?
In reply to this comment by jonny:
[edit] woops, meant to reply on the talk post.

Twain is a great choice - definitely read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. It's LOL funny. Some of my favorites among the American classics are Poe, Emerson, Washington Irving, Walt Whitman, Joseph Heller, Vonnegut (is he counted as classic yet?). Edgar Allen Poe is a must. I first read The Pit and the Pendulum in my 30s and it scared the shit out of me. He clearly had access to the best drugs available in the world at the time. Other top Poe choices - The Black Cat, The Cask of Amontillado, and The Tell-Tale Heart.
In reply to this comment by kymbos:
I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.

I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).

I'm green.

Twain is a great choice - definitely read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. It's LOL funny. Some of my favorites among the American classics are Poe, Emerson, Washington Irving, Walt Whitman, Joseph Heller, Kurt Vonnegut, Gore Vidal (are those last two counted as classic yet?). Edgar Allen Poe is a must. I first read The Pit and the Pendulum in my 30s and it scared the shit out of me. He clearly had access to the best drugs available in the world at the time. Other top Poe choices - The Black Cat, The Cask of Amontillado, and The Tell-Tale Heart.
In reply to this comment by kymbos:
I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.

I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).

I'm green.

[edit] woops, meant to reply on the talk post.

Twain is a great choice - definitely read A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. It's LOL funny. Some of my favorites among the American classics are Poe, Emerson, Washington Irving, Walt Whitman, Joseph Heller, Vonnegut (is he counted as classic yet?). Edgar Allen Poe is a must. I first read The Pit and the Pendulum in my 30s and it scared the shit out of me. He clearly had access to the best drugs available in the world at the time. Other top Poe choices - The Black Cat, The Cask of Amontillado, and The Tell-Tale Heart.
In reply to this comment by kymbos:
I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.

I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).

I'm green.

Huckleberry Finn>> ^kymbos:

I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.
I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).
I'm green.

I'm reading Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club, which is a pretty good page turner.

I'm interested in reading some classic American literature if anyone would recommend some for a guy who has never really read any of the classics (like Mark Twain, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald).

I'm green.

The raisins commercials were created by claymation master Will Vinton, if I'm not mistaken. If you want to see AMAZING claymation, with texture and life and CG often fails to achieve, check out his feature "The Adventures of Mark Twain"