Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #122211
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.computer.workshop, alt.survival, comp.os.linux.advocacy, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, talk.politics.guns |
| Subject | Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... |
| Date | 2020-09-17 13:40 -0700 |
| Organization | Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - www.altopia.com |
| Message-ID | <dft74a.3l5.19.4@news.alt.net> (permalink) |
| References | <op.0qhyi4gewdg98l@glass> <op.0quqrtlzwdg98l@glass> <k947mfhqfcpgb9cnnc8hepkm4mh3kjgiam@4ax.com> <op.0q3ur0iewdg98l@glass> <hshvjqFrtsiU1@mid.individual.net> |
Cross-posted to 6 groups.
On 2020-09-17 1:35 p.m., Snit wrote: > On Sep 17, 2020 at 1:20:09 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" > <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 17:39:46 +0100, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Commander Kinsey wrote: >>> >>>> chrisv wrote: >>>> >>>>> Commander Kinsey wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> I bet you take a gun with you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's my right and I exercise it. I don't take it into a bar though, >>>>>>> that would be illegal. >>>>>> >>>>>> It should be illegal to even own one. >>>>> >>>>> Because making them "illegal" would prevent "bad" people from getting >>>>> them, right? >>>> >>>> Look on Wikipedia at the number of gun deaths in the USA compared to the UK. >>> >>> Evasion of my point, noted. >> >> Bullshit. America has more people dying because you all have guns. > > Correct... and with plenty of evidence to back this up. Here is some: > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05808.x/full > —— > The evidence linking firearms in the home to risk for suicide is reviewed. > These data come from epidemiological, case-control, quasiexperimental, and > prospective studies. The convergent finding from this wide range of studies is > that there is a strong relationship between firearms in the home and risk for > suicide, most firmly established in the United States. > —— > > http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 > —— > The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are > important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer > protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk > of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. > —— > > https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=206421 > —— > 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 U.S., where there are more guns, both men > and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. > —— > > http://jonathanstray.com/papers/FirearmAvailabilityVsHomicideRates.pdf > —— > We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there > are more homicides. > —— > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364 > —— > After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in > states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm > homicide. > —— > > Gun Research > > Summary (needs to be updated): > > Firearm laws are associated with reductions in homicide and suicide > Stand your ground laws are associated with a large increase in homicide > Guns being in a home have a stronger tie to homicide than does illegal drug > use and physical fights > Measures to reduce children getting ahold of arms have worked > 44% of gun-owning parents say that have a loaded and easily accessible gun in > the home > Removing rapid-firing firearms is associated with fewer homicides, mass > shooting, and suicides > Gun violence is a very big health issue > Many incidents of gun violence are not reported > Gun owners reach out to their representatives more than others to share their > views on gun. > > My commentary: While this research might suggest policies, I want to see far > more research. I want to see repetition and review. If the research matches my > intuition, fine. If it does not, fine. Let us have lots of research and have > it be reviewed by others. Let it be funded by others. Let it be made public > with no need for pay access. > > Let us work together to reduce our gun problem as we respect rights and > consider costs. > > Background Checks > > > https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989 > —— > Findings: We found evidence that stronger firearm laws are associated with > reductions in firearm homicide rates. The strongest evidence is for laws that > strengthen background checks and that require a permit to purchase a firearm. > The effect of many of the other specific types of laws is uncertain, > specifically laws to curb gun trafficking, improve child safety, ban > military-style assault weapons, and restrict firearms in public places. > —— > > https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868 > —— > We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from > 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous > implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated > with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., > background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also > associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm > unintentional deaths in children, respectively. > —— > > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743512003295 > —— > More background checks are associated with fewer homicide (IRR:0.93, 95% > CI:0.91–0.96) and suicide (IRR:0.98, 95% CI:0.96–1.00) deaths. Firearm > homicide deaths are lower when states have checks for restraining orders > (IRR:0.87, 95% CI:0.79–0.95) and fugitive status (IRR:0.79, 95% CI:0.72–0.88). > Firearm suicide deaths are lower when states have background checks for mental > illness (IRR:0.96, 95% CI:0.92–0.99), fugitive status (IRR:0.95, 95% > CI:0.90–0.99) and misdemeanors (IRR:0.95, 95% CI:0.92–1.00). It does not > appear that reductions in firearm deaths are offset by increases in > non-firearm violent deaths. > —— > > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379708003103 > —— > Performing local-level background checks was associated with a 27%-lower > firearm suicide rate (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.73, 95% CI=0.60, 0.89) and > a 22%-lower homicide rate (IRR=0.78, 95% CI=0.61, 1.01) in adults ≥21 years. > —— > > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235204001394 > —— > This study examined the relationship between state firearms homicides and > background checks for firearms purchases. Controlling for economic and social > conditions, the estimated number of firearms in circulation, offenders under > community supervision, and violent crime it was found that states with less > stringent background checks on firearms purchases were significantly > associated with firearms homicides. The large number of firearms circulating > within the United States makes it likely that a motivated—but > ineligible—person could obtain a firearm over the long-term in the secondary > firearms market. Effective state background checks, however, may temporarily > frustrate an unauthorized person from obtaining a firearm that, in turn, may > contribute to lower firearms homicide rates. > —— > Ownership Safety > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb05808.x/full > —— > The evidence linking firearms in the home to risk for suicide is reviewed. > These data come from epidemiological, case-control, quasiexperimental, and > prospective studies. The convergent finding from this wide range of studies is > that there is a strong relationship between firearms in the home and risk for > suicide, most firmly established in the United States. > —— > > http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506 > —— > The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are > important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer > protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk > of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. > —— > > > http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/26/among-u-s-gun-owners-parents-more-likely-than-non-parents-to-keep-their-guns-locked-and-unloaded > —— > 44% of gun-owning parents say there is a gun that is both loaded and easily > accessible to them all or most of the time when they’re at home. > —— > > https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=206421 > —— > 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 U.S., where there are more guns, both men > and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. > —— > > http://jonathanstray.com/papers/FirearmAvailabilityVsHomicideRates.pdf > —— > We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there > are more homicides. > —— > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364 > —— > After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in > states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm > homicide. > —— > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975 > —— > 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. > —— > > Swedler DI, Simmons MM, Dominici F, Hemenway D. Firearm prevalence and > homicides of law enforcement officers in the United States. American Journal > of Public Health. 2015; 105:2042-48. > —— > Differences in rates of homicides of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) across > states are best explained not by differences in crime, but by differences in > household gun ownership. In high gun states, LEOs are 3 times more likely to > be murdered than LEOs working in low-gun states. > —— > > https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/pdf/10.1377/hlthaff.12.4.142 > —— > Ironically, many people consider guns to be part of the solution to violence > rather than part of the problem. This viewpoint is best illustrated by a 1988 > paper, "Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force." In the heated > atmosphere that surrounds gun control, firearm researchers tend to be judged > by the acceptability of their findings rather than by the rigor of their > methods. After one team of investigators published a study that linked higher > rates of homicide with readily available handguns, the research director for > the National Rifle Association (NRA) demanded that two of the study's authors > be investigated by the NIH office of scientific integrity. His petition was > dismissed following internal agency review. > > The NRA also has sought to block further firearm-injury research. Shortly > after the study described above was published, the NRA published a blistering > attack in its official journal, American Rifleman. On the same page the NRA > encouraged concerned members to write to the assistant secretary for health to > protest "the use of federal tax dollars by the Centers for Disease Control to > conduct anti-gun pseudo-scientific studies disguised as research into the > 'epidemiology of violence'." > —— > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4167105 > —— > Results. We found no robust, statistically significant correlation between gun > ownership and stranger firearm homicide rates. However, we found a positive > and significant association between gun ownership and nonstranger firearm > homicide rates. The incidence rate ratio for nonstranger firearm homicide rate > associated with gun ownership was 1.014 (95% confidence interval = 1.009, > 1.019). > Conclusions. Our findings challenge the argument that gun ownership deters > violent crime, in particular, homicides. > —— > > But many in America want to deny this because... um... feelings? > > >> So either everyone is clumsy over there, or in the UK baddies don't have so >> many guns, by an order of magnitude. Think about it, you wanna shoot >> someone. In the UK you have to obtain one illegally, which could be >> difficult. In the USA, just get one in Walmart. > > i was looking for you
Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10 | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-09-10 20:13 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-10 22:03 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-09-10 23:43 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-09-11 06:54 -0500
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-11 15:49 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-09-11 11:32 -0600
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-11 17:42 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Gremlin <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-09-27 01:00 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-27 01:57 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-12 23:15 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-12 22:23 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-13 21:11 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-13 20:16 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-09-12 22:40 -0600
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-13 05:35 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-13 21:10 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-13 20:19 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-13 22:43 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-13 21:56 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-13 23:42 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-13 23:17 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2020-09-13 16:25 -0700
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-13 23:34 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-14 00:32 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-13 23:45 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-14 21:59 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-14 21:57 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-15 23:37 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-15 23:43 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-20 20:42 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-21 03:38 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-23 23:08 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-24 02:57 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-23 23:53 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-24 02:55 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2020-09-24 07:21 -0700
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-24 19:08 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-13 21:08 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-13 20:22 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-13 22:32 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-13 21:36 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-13 22:44 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-13 21:51 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-14 22:50 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-14 21:58 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-15 22:52 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-15 21:55 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... anonlinuxuser <linuxuser@noone.net> - 2020-09-13 18:20 -0600
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-14 01:08 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-09-17 11:39 -0500
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-17 21:20 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-17 20:35 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2020-09-17 13:40 -0700
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-17 20:46 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2020-09-17 13:53 -0700
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-09-17 16:45 -0500
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-17 21:51 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2020-09-17 15:01 -0700
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-18 00:56 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2020-09-17 18:03 -0700
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-09-18 05:41 +0000
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-09-17 17:20 -0500
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-17 23:32 +0100
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2020-09-17 19:08 -0500
Re: speaking of spammy crossposting.... "Commander Kinsey" <CFKinsey@military.org.jp> - 2020-09-18 21:35 +0100
csiph-web