kelpdiver

Are they avoidable? Again, our rate is 25% lower than the global average and 35% lower than gunfree Japan. And short of elimination of gun rights, what changes would actually improve on that 20k figure? It's hard to view the inclusion of suicides as anything but number booster by gun control advocates who seek to inflate their figures. Kellerman's was the most outrageous example - of his 44x more likely to kill a family member, 43 were suicides. He and his followers of course never mention that detail. It's not by accident.

Most murders are not done by people we normally call "the criminal element". They are done by angry distraught spouses, and other family members, friends, and sometimes raging people that feel insulted or cheated. Where? In Canada? In America, most murders are criminals killing criminals. Old, and likely partisan source, but full of citations: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html more recent - few (recovered) guns confirmed as legal purchases http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/ most victims also criminals: http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/most-murder-victims-in-big-cities-have-criminal-record/ You might be fixated on a frequently cited statement that victims knew their killer in a majority of the time. And yes, when the relationship is known (55.9% of the time, a slight majority (54.3%) knew the person. But bear in mind that rival gang members qualify as an acquaintance, and .543 x .559 = only 30.4%. [url]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data[url] Also - half of murder victims are black, and (where known) 52.4 of the killers were black. For your thesis to be true (most murders not committed by criminals), blacks in America would have to be substantially more blood thirsty and prone to violence than everyone else, not due to economics or circumstance, but by nature. I'm fairly sure this is not the case, personally. They've proven quite effective with double digit deaths within my city this year. One or two unarmed citizens against one to ten thugs with a knife- if they want to kill, they will succeed. And we've seen too much of it. They lack range, that's the difference. Guns are used for: 1- self defense - 100k to million+ times per year. Even if you want to take the lower figure, that's sufficient to disprove your last false claim 2- hunting for food, occasionally for human protection. More historical. 3- sporting (target practice, etc) You posted a lot of whoppers in this one.

Who is Kellerman? If you mean John Kallend, I'm not relying on him at all. But I truly am not sure what you are talking about. Did you make up " If you sleep with a weapon nearby that is the weapon that is by far the most likely one to kill your wife. " Or do you have support for this claim? It's a classic gun control lie ("you're 44 times more likely to be killed with your gun than to kill an intruder").

It came from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-canada-has-a-gun-problem/article29642837/, though it was more focused on the rather high suicide rate by gun, which as I just noted, I don't particularly agree with. Its a bit at odds with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate which shows France and Germany with much lower rates, but confirms the overall that the EU nations tend to be significantly lower. And yes, being 2x some of them is still hardly bad. It's the overall murder rate that is less great. (to our citation troll - take notes!)

***. It's that simple. If you sleep with a weapon nearby that is the weapon that is by far the most likely one to kill your wife. Or you for that matter. *** And the one most likely to defend either of us. But most liikely it will spend its entire existence doing little besides occasional trips to the range. As I said, if you're going to rely on Kellerman for your arguments, you're on a fool's errand.

Since our suicide rate is about 25% lower than the global average, and below most of Europe and especially Japan, I'm not going to spend any time worried about the 20k suicides via gun. And since as I've noted, the criminal element of San Francisco is just as effective at killing people with knives, I'm going to remain concerned about why killings occur and how to stop them, not worry so much about the methodology. Only in a delusional mind does it make sense to tackle the problem by focusing so much energy on the weapon (long rifle) used least often.

It's amazing how you manage to show all 3 in most of your postings, though in this one you're focusing on shit shoveling. I'm sorry your thin skin couldn't handle being called out for citing hearsay as fact.

A) lower crime rates B) Blissful ignorance C) both? Having been victimized, my wife will take whatever actions she can to reduce chances of a repeat. Nice of you to want to dictate her options to 1- buy dog or 2- call 911. But we are now talking about the difference between citizens and subjects. That said.... "If Canada were included as part of the 31 countries that make up the wider European region, it would rank fourth in terms of gun-homicide rates. In terms of sheer numbers, only France, Germany and Italy have more gun deaths a year. Suddenly it seems as if Canada isn’t the haven of peace and gun harmony that people might think. And this is just homicides we’re talking about." Goes on to talk about the very high (by global standards) rates of gun related suicide in Canada. But I've said many times - why does it matter if a person gets killed or kills themselves with a gun versus another matter. Dead is dead. And for intentional homicides, Canada's rate of 1.4 is substantially closer to the USA's 3.9 than if you only measured for gun related murders. If you compared for similar demographics (ie, caucasions), the delta pretty much vanishes away. But in your mind...if we had to lock up our handguns, all this would go away.

Why don't you go ask the CDC (which is gov't) and then get back to me. They may or may not keep stats but they do report them. There is a difference. In any case, do you have a point? If you have stats that contradict the gov't stats, go ahead and post them. to risk (or participate) in beating this dead horse: your citation did not give CDC stats. The top of it shows the CDC's list for leading causes of death, but the rest came from a variety of sources, some more useful than others. I'd say they spent more time on the snarky graphics than in collecting the information. That skydiving rate of 1 in 101,083 looks to be an estimate for risk of dying in a single jump, measured by dividing the approx number of jumps in a year by the number of deaths. But the risk of an active skydiver dying in a year has routinely been around 1 in 1000. 20 some people per year out of 2x,000 active USPA members. With the average annual jump count around 100, the two figures back each other. Motorcycling as a mode of transportation also sees a death rate around 1 in 1000 per year. Not racing, as indicated in your cite. Scuba diving is probably about half as dangerous per dive as skydiving, though it's very difficult to measure the dive count, and a significant portion of the deaths are cardiac types that were likely to happen anyway. Having already identified 3 suspect numbers, the prudent person dismisses it entirely. Skydiving isn't safe, and you've spent enough time in the sport to know this. Ask a planeload of jumpers for recommendations for a physical therapist or orthopedic surgeon. Do the same on a dive boat and count how many fewer answers you get.

did you make a decision? You're right to look for gear - particularly at small places (and even at larger ones when we're talking about suitable rigs for the 215lbers), relying on rentals means waiting longer between jumps. Students often get precedence since their jumps have to align with their instructors (and they're paying a double hundred bucks a jump!). I was your weight when I got to your situation. It was hard finding a complete package - I ended up buying a new container, but found a Triathlon 220 used, and then later moved to a new Tri 210 ,and finally a Pilot 210. When I stepped away, I had absolutely no trouble selling it at an excellent price. It was a bit remarkable - nearly no depreciation after 5 years. There's a key thing to keep in mind - newish rigs for 'big boys' will always sell easy. So you shouldn't worry too much about multiple downsizes in the same container. If you get to that point, get a new container. Potentially with the thinner fabrics that came out in the last 10 years, you can get get bigger canopies into a smaller space, and then downsize to the regular fabric. Maybe...talk to the gear vendors. But again, don't optimize for a future maybe over the current. I found a pretty big difference in difficulty between a WL of 1.1 and 1.2, though I'll say I was a poor flarer. I think the 1.1 target is a more sensible one for the first rig. 1.2 + one other factor (hot day, DZ at altitude, zero wind) can equal a bad tumbling landing, or worse if you misread the wind direction.

When you live in a society that is not over run with weapons, you can sleep soundly at night without a loaded firearm on your night stand. Which means your toddler will not use it to shoot his sister, and your depressed teenage son will not have it nearby when he feels suicidal. That is the whole point of gun control. You give you the right to treat guns as toys, and in exchange you get a large reduction in the likelihood of being shot. It's a bargain I'm glad of, but many Americans don't see the benefit of. I don't have a toddler or a suicidal teenager, so what are you protecting me from? I do have a constitutional right to self defense using hand guns. Mandating that I ask an intruder, however unlikely, to wait while I go to the safe and open it, eliminates that right. Your premise of course starts with a straw man. We don't have a society that is free of risk. My wife sleeps more soundly (and at all) because she knows we have a defensive means beyond hoping that the alarm will result in the police showing up 15 minutes later in time to assist. Your other premise is that these sort of restrictions produce a large reduction in the risk of being shot. If you're citing Kellerman as the basis for that belief, that's unfortunate. His awful research is the reason why the CDC has its funding ban on the subject.

The entire point of guns for self defense is a bit lost if you make it as difficult as possible for family members to access them. In post 106 - you blame the home owner for this gun being made available for an illegal sale to a felon, though given how little is known, it's unlikely you knew anything of the circumstances of the burglary. Would hardening here reduce one source of guns for black market sales? Certainly, with some costs. Will reducing that source change the actual level of sales? Far less certain....so long as we can't stop the import of billions of dollars in guns, how would we stop the import of other illicit goods?

This is why this forum would be better if you could ignore individual users. You made up shit to try to score points in an argument. "My aunt sezs...." And now you're spamming the thread with 'cite please' diarrhea that really should be called out by moderators as it adds nothing to the discussion. (BTW, in the first one, the citation comes from the article I responded to - no need to provide anything additional).

His thesis is that anything sort of being killed is ok. "Obviously, whites are not immune to all crime. There was an outbreak of “gooning,” random beatings of pedestrians by youth mobs. One of my neighbors moved after he was strong-armed for his laptop. But those incidents fall far short of shootings, so they’re not going to make the news in a city with two murders a day." We have that flawed mentality in San Francisco - that "quality of life" crimes don't matter to the victims.

I'd want to be paid in cash at the start of every day, or a retainer where the check has cleared.

They deserve criticism for it, though they can get a bit of cover in that the regulations and standards were looser in their time. And similar to the way her husband got in more trouble for the cover up than the actual 'crime,' HC lied prolifically trying to avoid responsibility, and it again speaks to character. Or it would if she weren't running against Trump. I can't evaluate her in absolute terms, I have to do it relative to him.

By the time his suspension (without pay) is over, he will be too old to be able to run again. So, he is removed. but were he not so old, that would not be the case. That's the problem. Maybe they're taking the lazy route because of his age, less process around suspension.

You chimed in to a response that very clearly blamed the homeowner for allowing his gun to be stolen and then (allegedly) sold to the man that was shot in Charlotte. So that groups you in with golerk, and it's quite fair to hold you accountable for it. It doesn't take high tech equipment to break a 6' safe, particularly if it's not bolted down to the floor. A crowbar, a hacket, a sledgehammer, or a number of cutting tools common to the garage. 1/4" steel is a premium choice costing $2000 or more. Most are thinner. And no, it doesn't take 3 hours - it's at most 10-20 minutes. And if the homeowner wants a handgun accessible in the bedroom, but still locked, it will be a much smaller box. How much is too heavy? Harley motorcycles weigh ~700lbs (300kg) and routinely two big guys defeat wheel locks by just dead lifting the whole bike onto a sling or flat bed.

With 538 it is important to read those details. They throw a lot of modeling at these questions (first known for sports predictions) but a lot rides on those decisions, just like any other. They're not always right, IMO.

was he ever really in it? Didn't even meet the 15% threshold to join the debates. And honestly, if you're voting Libertarian for its polices and not just because you hate the two primary party choices, well their policies around foreign policy is basically "ignore." Can't be surprised that their candidate doesn't think about it.

E-mails should be. It's part of a long pattern of disdain for rules and transparency. I'd also include the shameless carpetbagging in NY, but that's a personal peeve of mine. No question she's got the experience and intelligence for the position. It's the character bits....if the GOP had put up a non crazy person, I wouldn't be voting for her. (Of course, in living in California, it doesn't really matter. Shrub pissed on the state so badly that the GOP is unlikely to ever win here again, despite dominating it up until the Clinton win in 92.)

> The court found him guilty of all six charges of violation of the canons of judicial ethics. Moore's term is to end in 2019, but because of his age, 69, he cannot run for the office again. Gov. Robert Bentley will name a replacement for Moore. the outcome then is ok, but why is a repeat offender being suspended rather than removed? Is this a 3 strikes type deal?

That value is not the polling - that is their estimation of likelihood to win 270 EC votes. In other words, they place the odds of the end of the world at still greater than 1 in 3. In mid August, it was 1 in 9. And just 4 days ago, it was nearly a coin flip. Those wild gyrations are all about the fairly close polling in the key battleground states where either candidate could still win. It only take a 5% shift in a state like Florida to substantially move the winner odds. So a slight improvement, and it does seem like South Park is describing Trump's campaign goal accurately (try to lose), but I'll feel safer when it's back up to 89-11.

there is no such thing as "burglarproof," particularly without spending 5-10k $ and installing something that weighs in excess of a ton. All these safes buy you is time, just as they do with their fireproofing. Most of the safes approved by the California DoJ for storage requirements can be cut into in a couple minutes, using common tools. Smaller ones (< 500 lbs) can just be carried away, particularly for renters who cannot drill into the floor. Blaming the victim with no actual knowledge of the event is akin to blaming the truck owner in Nice for all those dead people. IF the dead man did in fact buy this stolen .380, he is the only person to blame here. It really shouldn't be necessary to say this, and if the facts do land here, how soon will all of you apologize to the cops you vilified?

Why shy from the more salient part of this article? The officers are being prosecuted for 2nd degree murder, not even manslaughter. And BTW, the boy's autism seems irrelevant. It had no bearing on the events. "Charged with second-degree murder and second-degree attempted murder, Greenhouse and Stafford await separate trials for shooting a man with his hands in the air and murdering his autistic son. Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/judge-releases-video-cops-killing-autistic-boy/#ZjFg9PIF3sKujfj7.99"