Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #122209
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.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 20:35 +0000 |
| Organization | Sourthern Nevada Institute of Technology |
| Message-ID | <hshvjqFrtsiU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <op.0qhyi4gewdg98l@glass> <op.0quqrtlzwdg98l@glass> <k947mfhqfcpgb9cnnc8hepkm4mh3kjgiam@4ax.com> <op.0q3ur0iewdg98l@glass> |
Cross-posted to 6 groups.
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. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
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