New Chicago Handgun Law was approved

[ShawnD1]

It's actually quite fascinating from a social and political view. Individuality is not the accepted norm and fitting it with the rest of society is really pushed.

A fine example.

lol japan. Where it's still ok to be a racist asshole.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally Posted by palehorse
You still haven't walked us through how handguns in the home are 70% more likely to be used to harm a friend or relative than in self-defense.

Or, just admit that you pulled it straight out of your ass so that we can move on...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

Expanded Homicide Data



That was for 2008 from the FBI. The people murdered in 2008 were killed by either a family member or aquaintance to the fat tune of 78%.

71% were knocked off by a gun

If you look at Table 10, you'll note that "Unknown" accounts for almost half of the total at 6,268, and the strangers is 1,742, that's 8010 of 14,180, where do you get 78%? Must be some new loony leftist math.

 

[palehorse]

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

Expanded Homicide Data

That was for 2008 from the FBI. The people murdered in 2008 were killed by either a family member or aquaintance to the fat tune of 78%.

71% were knocked off by a gun

Circumstances-42 percent during stupid arguments.

Do these numbers sound familar? These numbers are similar to the CDC numbers of 2 years prior concerning the 16 states.

Let me guess, the numbers are mis-interpreted, taken out of context, a lie, not important, or the best one yet the FBI is anti-gun.

Oh and you gun slingers accounted for stopping less than .5% of all the murders in the country in 2008. But 42% of the murders were committed by morons like yall. Not criminals, but dumb, stupid, retarded, slobs like yourselves. Yea, classical is bringing the noise.....with a little fluff and flare

As before link is provided.

Pale you Dummy, Tell me again, more guns equal................what exactly?

He takes the feed from Savard, Classy shoots and he SCORESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Top shelf! Top shelf! Top shelf!

This was your original assertion:

"a gun in the home 70% of the time or better will injure or kill a non criminal. Thats a fact."
​

Nothing in your many posts since has supported that initial statement. And, every time I have challenged you to produce statistics and research to back it up, you have resorted to posting completely erroneous stats that have no direct relationship with the original assertion.

So, for the last time, can you please back up your original assertion with some facts?

 

[classy]

[/I]




If you look at Table 10, you'll note that "Unknown" accounts for almost half of the total at 6,268, and the strangers is 1,742, that's 8010 of 14,180, where do you get 78%? Must be some new loony leftist math.

Concerning the relationships (if known) of murder victims and offenders, 23.3 percent of victims were slain by family members, 22.0 percent were murdered by strangers, and 54.7 percent were killed by acquaintances (neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

Just as the CDC report pointed out that when the known relationship is indentified, it accounts to over 70% of the time the death was the result of a family member or acquaintance. There is really no reason to believe that the unknown which if discovered would fall into that same category. Of course you won't see it that way because....well you know. But feel free to read and understand the FBI report, feel free. Get a cup of coffee, take a load off, get your read on. LOL

 

[xj0hnx]

Concerning the relationships (if known) of murder victims and offenders, 23.3 percent of victims were slain by family members, 22.0 percent were murdered by strangers, and 54.7 percent were killed by acquaintances (neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

Just as the CDC report pointed out that when the known relationship is indentified, it accounts to over 70% of the time the death was the result of a family member or acquaintance. There is really no reason to believe that the unknown which if discovered would fall into that same category. Of course you won't see it that way because....well you know. But feel free to read and understand the FBI report, feel free. Get a cup of coffee, take a load off, get your read on. LOL

I suggest you learn how to add, and read statistics before trying to use them again. Now post up the equation you used to get 8,010 (strangers + unknown) = 71% of 14,180 (total).

 

[classy]

This was your original assertion:

"a gun in the home 70% of the time or better will injure or kill a non criminal. Thats a fact."
​

Nothing in your many posts since has supported that initial statement. And, every time I have challenged you to produce statistics and research to back it up, you have resorted to posting completely erroneous stats that have no direct relationship with the original assertion.

So, for the last time, can you please back up your original assertion with some facts?

Ok lets look at numbers, facts. The homicides in both the 2006 CDC and the 2008 FBI reports show when the relationship has been known usually it accounts to over 70% for a family member or acquaintance. Now you can argue we have unknown cases. Many of those are probably unsolved or a lack of evidence in which to charge a person. But when the relationship is known its over 70%. Which means quite clearly, that the gun in your home will be used to kill another family member or someone you know like a neighbor or coworker. Its undeniable. The stats are clear, summations by both the FBI and the CDC. You just don't wanna admit you been owned, schooled, and smoked.

 

[classy]

I suggest you learn how to add, and read statistics before trying to use them again. Now post up the equation you used to get 8,010 (strangers + unknown) = 71% of 14,180 (total).

Look you can try all you want, you can dip and dodge. The fact is in the cases which all factors have been known, over 70% of the murders are either commited by another family member or acquaintance. You got a problem with the numbers, call the FBI. I am sure they will gladly tell you what you can do. hehehehehehehe

 

[classy]

Do I get a title or win a belt or something. Does this get me into the debate Hall fo Fame? I am beautiful, I am just to damn handsome, I float baby.

 

[chucky2]

Classy, I'm still not even sure where you're going with this????

I really don't care to delve into your numbers, lets say for the sake of argument they're 100% spot on.

And?

I'm still not seeing a reason we'd take guns out of the homes of law abiding citizens just because they might be used on a family member, acquanitence, etc.

So what's your point?

Chuck

 

[Moonbeam]

Guess I just need to beat this into your thick skull

Hehehehehe, you might want to take your thick skull and look up a few hundred thousand feet where I went sailing past you.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

If you ban guns, the only people left carrying them will be criminals which will leave innocent citizens defenseless.

Why is it so FUCKING hard for these people to get this through their heads. Honestly, this is ALL the reasoning everyone needs.

Fear. The "leaders" that keep implementing these retarded moonbeam batshit insane laws, want their servants to be living in fear. A person living in fear is more willing to give up freedoms and control for a sense of security.

 

[classy]

Here is an FBI report

The School Shooter:
A THREAT ASSESSMENT PERSPECTIVE

Link here
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/school/school2.pdf

The report is pretty good, but I want to point out something to poorhorse. The report was written by

Mary Ellen O'Toole, PhD
Supervisory Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation

She details out the an assessment called the FOUR-PRONGED ASSESSMENT APPROACH starting at page 10. When she reaches the family dynamic on page 21 she writes

Access to Weapons
The family keeps guns or other weapons or explosive materials in the home, accessible to
the student. More important, weapons are treated carelessly, without normal safety precautions; for example, guns are not locked away and are left loaded. Parents or a significant role model may handle weapons casually or recklessly and in doing so may convey to children that a weapon can be a useful and normal means of intimidating someone else or settling a dispute.

That is some very interesting language. Now for me that means it is highly probable with the attitude displayed here among quite a few I can only conclude its a high probability your kids will be dangerous because of you.

Now more guns will bring peace and harmony? Come again More guns will calm the stormy rivers, feed the hungry, provide warmth in the winter, and shade in the summer. Oh thou great 12 gauge pump, oh hear ye ole 9mm that glistens under the light of the moon................

 

[Moonbeam]

Fear. The "leaders" that keep implementing these retarded moonbeam batshit insane laws, want their servants to be living in fear. A person living in fear is more willing to give up freedoms and control for a sense of security.

Way to play moron. These politicians are voting to limit guns because their constituents live in a constant state of fear, you large and total jackass, and are demanding gun restrictions. It is the upside down like yourself who are blocking the functioning of democracy in the name of a gun religion. You are as nuts as any fundamentalist psycho-literalistic Christian, and you are probably one of 'them' too.

 

[classy]

Classy, I'm still not even sure where you're going with this????

I really don't care to delve into your numbers, lets say for the sake of argument they're 100% spot on.

And?

I'm still not seeing a reason we'd take guns out of the homes of law abiding citizens just because they might be used on a family member, acquanitence, etc.

So what's your point?

Chuck

Awww the white flag

Just pounding home some points, thats all. I am just the newsman.........

 

[chucky2]

Dude, what white flag???? I think you're thinking you made some kind of point here....

.....you haven't.

Let me make it clear: Why should I not be able to own a firearm, in my own home, because others have - maybe - had an issue with them?

I am failing to see how any of your statistics are answering that question.

I don't care that someone shot her husband because she just found out he cheated on her.
I don't care that some kid found an improperly secured handgun and blew his/her brains out.
I don't care that some teenage thought he'd be a badass and bring the gun out with his friends and ended up shooting someone.

None of that is my problem.

My problem is when some MF'er is breaking into my house, I'll be lucky to have time to reach for my gun let alone call the police, explain to 911 what's going on, wait for the police to come call an ambulance to try and save my body, etc.

F that.

That's what I'm saying: Your stat's so far cannot explain that, and therefore, mean nothing.

Chuck

 

[Kirby]

lol japan. Where it's still ok to be a racist asshole.

Well, the business was a brothel. So maybe they were concerned for their employees if too many foreigners frequented it.

 

[MotF Bane]

I suggest you learn how to add, and read statistics before trying to use them again. Now post up the equation you used to get 8,010 (strangers + unknown) = 71% of 14,180 (total).

Math isn't his strong suit. Neither is logic, reasoning, or communication for that matter. :awe:

 

[Murloc]

Dude, what white flag???? I think you're thinking you made some kind of point here....

.....you haven't.

Let me make it clear: Why should I not be able to own a firearm, in my own home, because others have - maybe - had an issue with them?

I am failing to see how any of your statistics are answering that question.

I don't care that someone shot her husband because she just found out he cheated on her.
I don't care that some kid found an improperly secured handgun and blew his/her brains out.
I don't care that some teenage thought he'd be a badass and bring the gun out with his friends and ended up shooting someone.

None of that is my problem.

My problem is when some MF'er is breaking into my house, I'll be lucky to have time to reach for my gun let alone call the police, explain to 911 what's going on, wait for the police to come call an ambulance to try and save my body, etc.

F that.

That's what I'm saying: Your stat's so far cannot explain that, and therefore, mean nothing.

Chuck

1. it doesn't happen so often that a guy comes into your house and kills you before stealing. Most thiefs either wait for people to get out or just point a knife at you.

You listed 3 things that you don't care about.
Well, all these things may happen to you too, it's not that those gun owners were expecting it.

 

[PeshakJang]

Way to play moron. These politicians are voting to limit guns because their constituents live in a constant state of fear, you large and total jackass, and are demanding gun restrictions. It is the upside down like yourself who are blocking the functioning of democracy in the name of a gun religion. You are as nuts as any fundamentalist psycho-literalistic Christian, and you are probably one of 'them' too.

Don't be afraid, moonbeam. You're a child... a scared, shivering child... alone in the cold. You cling to the politician like others cling to guns... begging for protection from whatever is outside your door. Don't be afraid, moonbeam. You fear how real the world is... you fear other people like you... because deep down you hate everyone else, and you know that they hate you. Please, please Mr. Mayor... keep me from hurting myself... the thought of pain is too much to bear for a little child. Don't be afraid, moonbeam. Every night you bow your head and say thanks to the holy men and women you elected to save you from yourself... they know best... they'll keep the wolves outside your door. You can sleep tonight, little child... we won't let anything happen to you, little child. Don't be afraid, moonbeam.

 

[HumblePie]

■In 2008, law enforcement agencies submitted supplemental homicide data to the FBI for 14,180 murders.

■Of the homicides for which the type of weapon was specified, 71.9 percent involved the use of firearms. Of the identified firearms used, handguns comprised 88.3 percent. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 8.)

All this number proves is that criminals prefer to use guns. No brainer there and how does strict gun laws stop criminals from using guns again?

■Concerning the relationships (if known) of murder victims and offenders, 23.3 percent of victims were slain by family members, 22.0 percent were murdered by strangers, and 54.7 percent were killed by acquaintances (neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.). (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

So 23.3% are murders from family members. Of this percentage I would wager a higher percentage were not previous criminals. It was passion of the moment. In these cases, either owning a gun or not owning a gun will be an effective deterrent. In these cases strict gun control laws may prevent some of these crimes of passion from being lethal because the assailant has to use a less lethal implement on hand. However, If someone who "loves" you to the point they want to kill you then there is nothing going to stop them so chances are the gun control laws would not prevent the murder from happening. Just prevent the murder from being committed with a gun. This is the worst kind of crime period.

The next number of 54.7% of murders happen by acquaintances. Here's a little factoid for you buddy. People just don't typically on the spur of the moment go from being law-abiding to buying a gun and turning into a criminal. Most criminals are career criminals and they ARE your neighbors, they can be that strange guy down the street, and they sometimes have kids and show up for PTA meetings. They can be mob, mafia, gang, or freelance criminal. They are acquaintances for a reason. That is because you don't really know jack-shit about the person other than the name they gave you, if it's real, and their face. These are the guys that work for air-conditioning companies to get inside houses to scan the place to see what home defenses you have before they break in to steal your shit. This category is NOT FRIENDS. Having a gun, a dog, and an alarm system is a deterrent to criminals from this category 9 times out of 10. Sometimes the murder is not intended but usually that is not the case. They come into your home to rape, pillage, and leave bodies. If you can't protect yourself or your family then you are at their mercy.

The last category of 22% of murders from strangers. These are the random acts of violence. From someone going "postal", to a random stray bullet from a drive by killing a bystander, to a mugging in a dark alley; these are all about being in the wrong place at the wrong time kind of murders. In some cases having a gun to defend yourself is a very effective deterrent such as against someone going postal or when being mugged. In other cases, having a gun or not having one makes no difference such as being the victim of a stray bullet, or hit by a drunk stranger driving, or any other number of random things that can happen where one person kills another either through intent or criminal negligence. Most of the murders in this category are rarely done by intent but in about a third of these cases owning a hand-gun for the victim would have made a difference. The other 2/3rds it wouldn't have mattered one way or another.

In ALL the cases listed above, these are for CRIMES done by criminals. These are not reported cases of little 8 year old Timmy shooting himself with a gun he finds. In most cases where there is intent to murder, a gun is used by the criminal, and a gun by the victim would have been an effective deterrent if used properly.

■Concerning the known circumstances surrounding murders, 42.0 percent of victims were murdered during arguments (including romantic triangles) in 2008. Felony circumstances (rape, robbery, burglary, etc.) accounted for 22.9 percent of murders. Circumstances were unknown for 35.3 percent of reported homicides. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 12.)

Motive for murders has no bearing about guns. Guns do not cause love triangles. Stupid people cause love triangles. There is NO effective deterrent from someone wanting to kill you over a love triangle. Removing guns from this situation would NOT STOP the 42% of victims being murdered during arguments. The other 22.9% and 35.3% of possible motives involving intent to murder a gun would most certainly be an effective deterrent.

■Law enforcement reported 616 justifiable homicides in 2008. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 371 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 245 individuals. .

Again what does this number prove except that guns can be used for justifiable homicide correctly in defending yourself, loved ones, and others?

Thanks classy for using FBI data to disprove your own case, whatever it may be, and giving yourself a nice self pwnage. Using common sense when viewing data certainly shows exactly WHY allowing law abiding citizens with no criminal record to legally carry for self defense would go a long way to reduce non justifiable homicides overall.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Well, the business was a brothel. So maybe they were concerned for their employees if too many foreigners frequented it.

I am not sure if the Google could confirm what I have to say but here goes:

I work at a company that has to send some of its people over to Japan. I heard mention that there are normal night clubs and then others only for Japanese men (and women). The one guy that came back had found out that it is because the Japanese women love the American men and the Japanese men are jealous and so have the Japanese only clubs.

 

[palehorse]

Ok lets look at numbers, facts. The homicides in both the 2006 CDC and the 2008 FBI reports show when the relationship has been known usually it accounts to over 70% for a family member or acquaintance. Now you can argue we have unknown cases. Many of those are probably unsolved or a lack of evidence in which to charge a person. But when the relationship is known its over 70%. Which means quite clearly, that the gun in your home will be used to kill another family member or someone you know like a neighbor or coworker. Its undeniable. The stats are clear, summations by both the FBI and the CDC. You just don't wanna admit you been owned, schooled, and smoked.

You have once again failed to support your original assertion. Perhaps its your own assertion that you don't understand?

Let me put it this way: your original assertion does not match any of the stats that you've provided since. I highly suggest you sit back and think about what you first wrote.

Here's your first and last clue: "non-criminal"

Good luck, Jr...

 

[palehorse]

Way to play moron. These politicians are voting to limit guns because their constituents live in a constant state of fear, you large and total jackass, and are demanding gun restrictions. It is the upside down like yourself who are blocking the functioning of democracy in the name of a gun religion. You are as nuts as any fundamentalist psycho-literalistic Christian, and you are probably one of 'them' too.

Exactly what effect do you believe handgun restrictions will have on the criminals who cause those citizens to "live in a constant state of fear"?

Please spell it out for us.

 

[nobodyknows]

Here is an FBI report

The School Shooter:
A THREAT ASSESSMENT PERSPECTIVE

Link here
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/school/school2.pdf

The report is pretty good, but I want to point out something to poorhorse. The report was written by

Mary Ellen O'Toole, PhD
Supervisory Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation

She details out the an assessment called the FOUR-PRONGED ASSESSMENT APPROACH starting at page 10. When she reaches the family dynamic on page 21 she writes


That is some very interesting language. Now for me that means it is highly probable with the attitude displayed here among quite a few I can only conclude its a high probability your kids will be dangerous because of you.

Now more guns will bring peace and harmony? Come again More guns will calm the stormy rivers, feed the hungry, provide warmth in the winter, and shade in the summer. Oh thou great 12 gauge pump, oh hear ye ole 9mm that glistens under the light of the moon................

LOL, your are comedy gold!!

Ask yourself whose lives would be safer if the guns were taken away? The criminals, Law Enforcement and the Goverment Officals.

Of course the rich and affluent people will still have their guns and bodyguards armed to the teeth.

 

[xj0hnx]

Look you can try all you want, you can dip and dodge. The fact is in the cases which all factors have been known, over 70% of the murders are either commited by another family member or acquaintance. You got a problem with the numbers, call the FBI. I am sure they will gladly tell you what you can do. hehehehehehehe

BWAHAHAHAHA dip, and dodge? you haven't stopped dodging. Here I'll post the actual numbers again ...

Now post up the equation you used to get 8,010 (strangers + unknown) - 14,180 = 6170 (friends,family,acquaintances) = 71% of (total).

From Table 10, this time actually look at it instead of copy pasting. You have been ripped to pieces by your own sources, even normally leftish posters are now saying you've lost it.