Texas Gun Owners Association

[ValhallaChaser]

Well, we have done it. WE have built a forum primarily for Texans and our struggle to support REASONABLE gun laws throughout Texas and the US. Please feel free to join our forum. You DO NOT have to be a Texan to join, not everyone is so blessed. http://txgoa.proboards.com/index.cgi and you are ALL welcome to join and participate there too!

[Codename46]

1. Whats your stance on extending CCW to college campuses? AWBs? etc

[ValhallaChaser]

8. Our Beliefs.....

Well, we're a statewide board, so some of our personal opinions might be mixed. However, as an organization, we believe that anybody that is QUALIFIED to carry should be able to do so anywhere. Statistics have demonstrated that those who possess permits or licenses are less apt to commit crimes that the average person. WE also believe that an individual should have a right to protect and defend themselves at ALL times. After all, when seconds count, the police are only MINUTES away ;)

[raimius]

10. sounds good to me

Stances backed by evidence and liberal civil-rights philosophy...sounds good to me.

[iverglas]

45. goodness gracious!

After all, when seconds count, the police are only MINUTES away ;)

http://txgoa.proboards.com/index.cgi

The Thin Blue Line
This section is dedicated to our Police Officers that have lost their lives in the line of duty!

ANY denigration of deceased police officers will be met with the same response as denigration of our troops

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[depakid]

2. What would "reasonable" gun laws look like?

More proliferation?

[Codename46]

3. You say "proliferation" as if it's a bad thing.

[depakid]

4. That's because the evidence shows unequivocally that it is.

[Codename46]

5. From a guy who fails to provide such "evidence" in past Gungeon threads

I find that hilarious.

[depakid]

7. The evidence is so overwhelming- and the common sense so obvious

That it's hardly worth arguing about with people who aren't interested in facts- but are instead looking merely to justify their dysfunctional obsessions.

[Hangingon]

9. Please show your work.

[Tejas]

12. there's that smell again

Your "facts" stink, probably because they're coming from the wrong orifice. Try doing without Bradyisms for a change. Make at least one attempt to speak on persoanl experience or knowledge concerning firearms, you might actually get at least some respect for your arguments.

[depakid]

15. Sometimes, you Texans are just laughable

and well deserve the sorry reputation you've earned around the country and around the world.

Yep- more guns = safer, freer and more economically secure society. Not to mention a "justice" system that's a model for everyone else to follow.

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

17. I feel pretty safe, free and economically secure, I'd say a lot of people who legally own guns do.

[depakid]

20. Owning certain sorts of guns is one thing-

allowing them to proliferate and find their way to irresponsible hands (or potentially volatile situations) is another.

College kids and campuses for example aren't people and places where you'd want concealed handguns to be carried around. That's just asking for trouble.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Most concealed carry laws exclude people under the ages of 21.

That would disqualify most college students, I see no problem with those who are licensed to carry firearms carrying them on a campus.

David

[depakid]

23. Not sure how much time you've spent on college campuses

but they're among the least desirable places (given the psychological pressures and clinical development pattern of mental illnesses) that you'd want people to walk around armed.

But, rather than focus on the negative- here's a look at whatmore responsible gun debates look like:

Rees to review gun laws

(note- semi-automatic pistols and rifles with high capacity clips or magazines are restricted outright- as are pump action shotguns, like the familiar pistol grip Mossberg). That's not at issue.

NSW Premier Nathan Rees says he is prepared to review gun ownership laws to stop weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

Figures from the NSW Firearm Registry obtained by the National Coalition for Gun Control show gun ownership has risen by the rate of 10,000 a year since 2004 - to 687,138 in October this year.

The coalition says the rise coincides with a deal cut by the NSW Government and the Shooters Party in the last week of Parliament to water down tough gun laws introduced in the wake of Tasmania's Port Arthur massacre.

But Mr Rees said the two issues were separate and there was a difference between criminals using guns to commit violent crime and responsible gun owners.

He said he was prepared to review the factors, such as inadequate security, which led to weapons finding their way to criminals.

The Government was also willing to work with the Commonwealth on national issues of gun control, including importations, he said. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible adults. The issue here is guns that find their way into the hands of criminals," Mr Rees told reporters. "We need to do everything we can to avoid that occurring and if that means toughening penalties and refining the law then we'll do it."

Mr Rees said the changes to the laws came about because people were being unfairly treated in some cases.

"There's been an injection of fairness in what were anomalies in the process and that's fair and reasonable," he said.

"The changes that were just made I see as fundamentally separate to changes we may make to reduce the number of criminals getting guns." Mr Rees said he would meet the coalition this week.

An amendment passed in the last week of (state) Parliament would now allow a person with an apprehended violence order to apply to the court to have it revoked, and have their firearms license reinstated. Previously, a person's firearm license was revoked when the order was taken out against them, banning them from keeping guns.

Under the changes, shooting clubs would also no longer have their licenses automatically revoked for not disqualifying members who have been convicted of firearms offenses.

The mandatory 28-day waiting period before a second or third gun could be acquired had also been scrapped.

Police Minister defends gun laws amendments

Amendments to NSW laws proposed by the Shooters Party that remove a waiting period to buy guns are sensible, NSW Police Minister Tony Kelly said.

The change, which removes a 28-day waiting period for people wanting to buy a second gun, makes the system more efficient. "The whole purpose of the 28-day waiting period when you get your first gun is so the police could check you out," Mr Kelly told reporters in Sydney today.

"They've already done that because you've already got a license when you've got a gun." He said the authorities would perform random checks covering registered gun owners during the period of their five-year license.

More: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rees-to-review-gun-laws/2008/12/14/1229189429816.html

--------

Another fact based opinion:

'No justification' for changing gun laws

Figures from the NSW Firearm Registry obtained by the National Coalition for Gun Control show gun ownership has risen by the rate of 10,000 a year since 2004 - to 687,138 in October this year.

The coalition says the rise coincides with a deal cut by the NSW government and the Shooters Party to water down tough gun laws introduced in the wake of Tasmania's Port Arthur massacre.

"There is no justification in the NSW Upper House when the Shooters Party put up the amendments," Greens MLC Lee Rhiannon told reporters in Sydney on Sunday, referring to amendments seeking to allow people subject to domestic violence orders to purchase guns.

"The attorney-general initially did not come in on the debate. I challenged him twice on the floor of the house that he had to give an explanation. "Right now, we have a very dangerous situation in NSW."

National Coalition for Gun Control co-ordinator Sam Lee said there was a high risk of more weapons being sold on the black market and a repeat of the Port Arthur massacre.

"It is a simple equation. The more firearms in the community the more likely another massacre will occur," Ms Lee said. "Firearms in the hands of legal shooters are likely to be stolen and fall into the black market."

More: http://news.theage.com.au/national/no-justification-for-changing-gun-laws-20081214-6y3a.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Lots.

Most of the college students that I know that have concealed carry permits are former military personnel who are highly trained in their use. The Virginia Tech Massacre is the exact reason I would want a highly trained person with a concealed carry permit on a college campus. Obviously gun laws are quite different in Australia than they are in the US, comparing the two is a waste of time.

David

[depakid]

25. For every potential crazy cross fire situation at Virginia Tech

there would be exponentially MORE tragedies from shortsigted policies that allow the paranoid, the cowardly and the otherwise obsessed to have easy deadly force at their hands as emotionally strained or (alcohol induced) situations arise- as they do on every campus.

And you're right: gun laws are in fact different- though they weren't always that way- and the two countries share simlar histories and cultural attributes- which makes the compare and contrast that much more instructive.

America: Mass shootings every several weeks. Countless preventable tragedies, accidents and suicides. To the extent that they're mundane, and barely warrant a mention in larger city papers.

Australia: No mass shootings since 1996- when the people of the nation and at the time, the conservaive government had had enough. Now, any shooting -whether and accident or crime is front page national news. Often for many days or even weeks.

Hrd to argue with the results

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. What about the results of concealed carry permit holders?

You want to tout Australia's results. Concealed Carry Permit holders have stopped crimes in progress without the cross fire situation you speak of. They are the most law abiding members of society and you insist on calling them cowards while rejoicing in the cowardice of your own country in giving up it's firearms. How about you showing me some statistics of concealed carry permit holders injuring innocent bystanders? If the citizens of Australia felt like giving up their firearms for a little feeling of safety then so be it. The majority of American's don't feel that way and we have a Constitution that ensures that Right.

David

[depakid]

27. For every one of those situations, there are many , many times more

otherwise preventable tragedies.

What it often boils down to is a matter of risk assessment.

Fear (which can be a rational or irrational emotion) of certain visceral things often trumps the true risk of harm.

One "experiment" that one can do is ask a class or a group of people at work to raise their hands as to how one would be most likely to be injured and/or die.

Choose a few scary responses- like snakebite, bee stings or sharks- or school or work shootings, and then add in a few mundane though still improbable deals like lightening strikes or drowning or misuse/abuse of household firearms- (for obvious reasons, car accidents aren't appropriate to include- though they do kill tons of people who are afraid to fly on planes).

See how people respond.

In my experience, they tend to be afraid and avoid or overcompensate for improbable, emotional events, while being inclined to discount much higher risks- or even "rush in where angels fear to tread" on others.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. So about those statistics where CCW permit holders shoot bystanders?

Just to get back to the topic.

David

[depakid]

35. It wasn't the topic- but I recall citing where (and sort of how) you might find

cases from which you can extrapolate from (and understand the basis for) the common law presumptions American states (and other commonwealth nations) use to determine outcomes in litigated or prosecuted cases- both around the country and abroad.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. So your assertion was based on what?

[ValhallaChaser]

39. It's pretty rare...

.... and here's a snippet of one study:

" The Dade County police also recorded the following incidents involving defensive use of licensed concealed firearms: two robbery cases in which the permit holder produced a firearm and the robbers fled; two cases involving permit holders who intervened to attempt to stop a robbery, but the robbers were not apprehended (and no one else was hurt); one robbery victim whose gun was seized by the robber; a man who shot a pit bull that was attacking him; two cases of a citizen capturing a burglar; three cases of a burglar who was frightened off but not captured; one case of thwarted rape; and a bail bondsman who fired two shots at a fleeing bail-jumper wanted for armed robbery. There were no reports of permit holders shooting innocent people by accident."

from here: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3574822.html

The majority of the time, when a CCW'er produces a weapon, the threat (the bad guy) changes their mind. No shots are fired in the incident.

There is also a large group of license/permit holders that practice IDPA/ IPSC shooting drills. I've done it myself when I was living in Minnesota and had my license (permit).

[gorfle]

43. Precisely.

In my experience, they tend to be afraid and avoid or overcompensate for improbable, emotional events, while being inclined to discount much higher risks- or even "rush in where angels fear to tread" on others.

You are precisely right. This explains the motivation of many anti-gun folks - irrational, emotional fear of highly unlikely firearm crimes.

For example, in this country all rifles account for less than 3% of all homicides - less than occur by hands and feet. Yet there is constantly a hue and cry for "assault weapon bans".

[pipoman]

94. It seems to me that the fear is with people who make shit up

in their own minds to justify imposition of more laws to ease their fear.

Fear (which can be a rational or irrational emotion) of certain visceral things often trumps the true risk of harm.

Let's look for a couple of examples of just this in this subthread shall we?

Yep- more guns = safer, freer and more economically secure society.from post #15

Said with obvious sarcasm implying the opposite of coarse, that more guns = more dangerous, less free, and less economically secure society. Now is it true here in the US?



http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Now obviously there are more guns in the US in 2005 than there were in 1994 yet less crime. So, the common assertion that more guns = more crime is proven to be incorrect.

College kids and campuses for example aren't people and places where you'd want concealed handguns to be carried around. That's just asking for trouble. from post #20

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/20/cnnu.guns/index.html

We have a test group for this. Utah has allowed concealed carry permit holders to carry on college campuses since 2004. Guess what? No mass shootings, or even any incidents resulting in injury resulting from this.

For every potential crazy cross fire situation at Virginia Tech there would be exponentially MORE tragedies from shortsigted policies that allow the paranoid, the cowardly and the otherwise obsessed to have easy deadly force at their hands as emotionally strained or (alcohol induced) situations arise- as they do on every campus.

Any examples of "crazy cross fire" situations which have actually occurred involving concealed carry anyplace? Even though we know that there are literally hundreds of thousands of CCW holders in the majority of the states in the US? Sounds like "Fear of certain visceral things often trumps the true risk of harm." to me.

Also see above Utah State info which contradicts the last part of this statement.

And this doesn't even account for all of the other unfounded fear based arguments about OK corral scenarios and road rage scenarios which are oft sited in these conversations.

I contend that all of these overused excuses for usurpation of rights and freedom are based in irrational fear.

[gorfle]

42. Crazy cross fire situations.

For every potential crazy cross fire situation at Virginia Tech there would be exponentially MORE tragedies from shortsigted policies that allow the paranoid, the cowardly and the otherwise obsessed to have easy deadly force at their hands as emotionally strained or (alcohol induced) situations arise- as they do on every campus.

This has been the hue and cry every time a state has passed concealed carry laws. "There will be blood in the streets!" It just never came to pass. The fact of the matter is, as it has been posted here before, concealed carry permit holders are among the most law abiding citizens in the nation and they are less likely to cause collateral damage during a shooting than police forces are.

America: Mass shootings every several weeks. Countless preventable tragedies, accidents and suicides. To the extent that they're mundane, and barely warrant a mention in larger city papers.

Australia: No mass shootings since 1996- when the people of the nation and at the time, the conservaive government had had enough. Now, any shooting -whether and accident or crime is front page national news. Often for many days or even weeks.

Hrd to argue with the results

The difference is, the people of Australia now have a greatly reduced ability to resist tyranny by force of arms. You now enjoy your liberties at the whim of your government. So long as it remains benevolent and responding to the will of its governed you will be OK. Should it ever turn otherwise what will be your recourse?

[iverglas]

56. "you"?

The difference is, the people of Australia now have a greatly reduced ability to resist tyranny by force of arms. You now enjoy your liberties at the whim of your government. So long as it remains benevolent and responding to the will of its governed you will be OK. Should it ever turn otherwise what will be your recourse?

Who is this "you"?


Australians seem to be funny. They seem to think that elections are the way to change government.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/home/

2007 Federal Election

After governing for eleven and a half years, the Howard government was defeated, Prime Minister John Howard suffering the indignity of becoming only the second Prime Minister to lose his seat at an election. After less than a year as Labor Leader, Kevin Rudd becomes Australia's 26th Prime Minister.

Oddly enough, US voters seem to be of the same view.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Up till now voting has seemed to work and I hope it always will.

[gorfle]

76. Who is this "you"

Who is this "you"?

Anyone who lives in a country where the citizenry does not enjoy free and unfettered anonymous access to firearms as an ultimate recourse to tyranny.

Australians seem to be funny. They seem to think that elections are the way to change government.

So does much of the civilized world. We do not keep firearms for the days when elections work, we keep firearms for the days when they do not.

[iverglas]

77. ah

So does much of the civilized world. We do not keep firearms for the days when elections work, we keep firearms for the days when they do not.

And in what year will the 4th of Never fall in your country?

Strikes me it fell in the year 2000, but I guess I was confused ...

[gorfle]

95. Take it up with our founders.

And in what year will the 4th of Never fall in your country?

Our founders, who were far more wise in the ways of governance than you our I, built this safeguard into our Constitution because they believed in being prepared for the eventuality of tyranny. You've made your disdain for "old dead white guys" plain many times in the past, but the way I see it, nothing fundamental has changed about human nature to invalidate their insight into it nor their precautions to safeguard against it.

Others may choose to abandon essential liberty for the sake of safety, and they may even achieve it. I hope it lasts and they never have reason to regret their choice.

[gorfle]

41. Responsible gun debate...

(note- semi-automatic pistols and rifles with high capacity clips or magazines are restricted outright- as are pump action shotguns, like the familiar pistol grip Mossberg). That's not at issue.

This is ridiculous. Presumably, then, you can have a semi-automatic shotgun, but you can't have a pump shotgun? For my Christmas stocking this year I just got a replacement firing pin retractor for my grandfather's circa 1929 Winchester Model 12 pump shotgun. The technology dates to the turn of the century. So a 100-year old shotgun technology is disallowed for some reason?

The Government was also willing to work with the Commonwealth on national issues of gun control, including importations, he said. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible adults. The issue here is guns that find their way into the hands of criminals," Mr Rees told reporters. "We need to do everything we can to avoid that occurring and if that means toughening penalties and refining the law then we'll do it."

I don't think anyone has a problem with tough penalties for criminals and "refining the law" so long as such refinements only impact criminals and not law-abiding citizens.

The mandatory 28-day waiting period before a second or third gun could be acquired had also been scrapped.

Presumably the purpose of a waiting period is to discourage "heat of passion" crimes. If you already own a firearm, a waiting period serves no purpose other than as an inconvenience.

[Tejas]

48. uh, quoting an Australian gun-hater fuels your argument how?

Really, you've GOT to be kidding.

?

[iverglas]

57. so which bits of what the "gun-hater" said

were lies?

Perhaps you would distinguish them from the bits you'd just rather ignore.

[Tejas]

97. depakid can answer for himself - n/t

[gorfle]

40. College concealed carry

College kids and campuses for example aren't people and places where you'd want concealed handguns to be carried around. That's just asking for trouble.

Most states have an age limit of 21 for concealed carry. Since most "college kids" start school at 18-19, this means they are juniors or seniors before they can qualify for a concealed carry permit anyway.

But all this is beside the point.

If a concealed carry permit holder can safely walk down main street surrounded by thousands of his fellow citizens, why not a college campus?

[raimius]

96. How so?

How is a college campus vastly different from an office building, church, supermarket, department store, sidewalk, appartment, or bank? Most college drinking occurs off-campus. Other places and environments create similar (or higher) levels of stress. If a person can walk into any of the previously mentioned places and act responsibly, what is different in a dorm, classroom, quad, or student union?

[Xenotime]

98. Thank you for standing up for the victims.

The last thing we need is guns going off in class or somebody shooting a teacher for a bad grade.

[Tejas]

47. If you'd care to brag about your state, feel free. - n/t

[spin]

13. I for one am interested in your overwhelming evidence...

If it is indeed so good, I might change my viewpoint.

As for common sense:

Opponents of one of the traditional views of common sense sometime regard reliance on common sense (in its disguise as "received knowledge") as an impediment to abstract and even to logical thinking. This view appears especially popular in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with "probably correct" or experimentally verified results. A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Participants in political debates sometimes appeal to common sense, particularly when they have exhausted other arguments. For example, partisans have attacked civil rights for African Americans, women's suffrage, and homosexuality — to name just a few — as contrary to common sense. Similarly, opponents of many scientific and technological advances have invoked common sense. Such misuse of the notion of common sense exemplifies the fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

[Howzit]

14. Yes; that is why all those guns brought into DC from Virginia cause all that homicide

Now why don't the even larger number of guns in Virginia cause trouble in Virginia? Could it be because the ratio of law abiding gun owners to gun wielding crooks is high in Virginia and low in DC?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Good response I'm guessing he'll fail to answer.

[russ1943]

19. Richmond murder rate has routinely been higher than DC.

How do you conclude, state as fact, that guns (whether a larger number or not), don’t cause trouble in Virginia?

It really isn’t “appropriate” to compare a city to a state. Apples, oranges.

On the other hand, the capital city of Virginia has exceeded, that is, it has had a higher murder rate (the crime most closely related to firearms) than DC in four of the last five years.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. That's odd, Richmond’s homicide rate on pace to reach 37-year low

Link here: http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/RHOM07_20081206-211651/144281/

Got a link for your stats?

David

[russ1943]

28. FBI's UCR, not a news article.

What it (Richmond) is “on pace to” is speculation from a newspaper article describing less than a years statistics.

I used the FBI’s UCR statistics comparing Richmond Va. To Washington DC. for the complete years 2003 thru 2007.

In 2003, 4, 5, & 6 Richmond’s murder rate was higher than DC’s

Refer to Table 8 for each year and city.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. I don't see table#8 anywhere on your linked page.

[russ1943]

31. It takes time and effort.

I’m to provide lessons on how to find statistics within the FBI”s UCR?
You have to open each years data.
You’ll also have to calculate rates using population and murder figures for each year and each city.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. I use them often, as you'll be able to tell by my other response.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Found it, 281 murders statewide in VA and 181 in the District in 2007, thanks.

Quite the telling statistics. I bet the District is proud.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. More people murdered in DC than in 23 states.

These stats just keep making the District look great.

David

[russ1943]

37. Using "them" is different from understanding "them".

32. Found it, 281 murders statewide in VA and 181 in the District in 2007, thanks.
Quite the telling statistics. I bet the District is proud.

33. I use them often, as you'll be able to tell by my other response.

34. More people murdered in DC than in 23 states. These stats just keep making the District look great.

The FBI's UCR for 2007 that I've referenced shows Virginia experienced an estimated 406 murders.
I'll repeat, comparing the number of people murdered (instead of the rate) in the city known as DC to any one , or two or 23 STATES (the district is not a STATE)is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. The 281 was a total from your table 8.

I guess that's just cities though but it doesn't correlate with Table 5's numbers at all. The 23 states figures are from Table 5. You may be right about comparing the states and cities. It may be unfair to compare a cities with states, Colorado has 8 times the number of residents that DC has, yet had 28 fewer murders. Denver has roughly the same number of residents as DC yet only had 47 murders. So we have Denver, where gun ownership is extremely high, at 47 murders and DC, where gun ownership was effectively banned, at 181 murders. I'm thinking the root cause of this increase in murder rates isn't the result of gun ownership. Maybe instead of building the new Capitol Hill visitors center congress should have hired a lot more law enforcement officers to police the District.

David

[russ1943]

49. Table 8 doesn't give State Totals

You don’t seem to understand.
All 50 states, every one of them, have lower murder rates than the city that is the District of Columbia.
No one is pointing out the Districts murder rate as one to be emulated or envied, it is terrible.

My post was in response to the (repeated) claim that nearby Virginia was so much better. In the capital of Virginia, the city of Richmond has also had a terrible murder rate, even worse (higher) than the District in four of the last five years.
As far as cities go there are at least still a dozen cities with terrible murder rates worse than the District for 2007.
Gary, Indiana,
Camden New Jersey
Youngstown Ohio
Compton California
New Orleans Louisiana
Richmond California
Birmingham Alabama
Baton Rouge Louisiana
Detroit Michigan
Baltimore Maryland
St Louis Missouri
Newark New Jersey

(In 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003 Richmond’s murder rate also was worse than the District’s).


There is no table or record I can find anywhere, that shows only 281 murders for the State of Virginia in 2007. Table 5 clearly shows 406.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html

VIRGINIA, Offenses Known to Law Enforcement, by State by City, 2007
Table 8 doesn’t present State totals, it shows city totals within States.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_08_va.html

Unless of course you totaled all the cities and came up with 281, in which case I’d suggest you may have been mislead by the fact that not all murders are committed within cities, or some such other unknown variable.

Regarding your speculative newspaper article; Remember Richmond's Project Exile?

No matter, whatever they're doing to diminish gun crime, especially murder is to be commended, however short lived.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Okay.

Yes I should have said 281 murders reported within cities in Virginia, my mistake. I think the point of the poster was that there are lots of cities with liberal gun laws that have very low murder rates and cities with very strict gun laws that have very high murder rates. I think it is apparent that criminals don't seem to obey gun laws very well. Thanks for the respectful discussion.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. I understand your point about rates, but DC still has murders than 23 states.

[iverglas]

55. crimes closely related to firearms

Robbery is another. Some robberies are purse-snatchings without actual assaults or threats, for example, but the rate of firearm robbery (and the rate of homicide during robbery) is hugely higher in the US than in other comparable societies.


US national robbery rate, 2007: 147.6/100,000
DC's robbery rate, 2007: 724.3/100,000.

This is a bit of a secondary source:

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Richmond&state=VA

but it states that Richmond's homicide rate "Is 6.08 times the National Average", and its robbery rate "Is 2.68 times the National Average", which would be 395.6/100,000 - well below the DC rate, but still way higher than the national average, and the Virginia state average of 99.2/100,000.

For comparability, it states that Washington's robbery rate "Is 3.11 times the National Average". So it seems to be using figures that give Washington a robbery rate of 459/100,000 (the 1966 rate!) -- i.e. signficantly understating the rate for both cities, it seems.

Goodness, here's another source:

http://safety.fizber.com/virginia/richmond/

which states: "So far in 2007 there have been 973 robberies". Population 191,785; no idea how much of 2007 that figure covers, but that's looking rather high.

This one:

http://www.easybackgroundchecks.com/va-virginia/richmond-background-check.htm

says: "Robberies: 987" for 2006, for a rate of 504.3/100,000.


Pretty high robbery rate, whatever the numbers actually are, it seems.

[iverglas]

50. Could it be because ...

... the ratio of law abiding gun owners to gun wielding crooks is high in Virginia and low in DC?

No.

Happy?

I'll bet there are lots of ratios that are high in Virginia and low in DC.

Home owners to renters.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0780145.html

DC 2007: 47.2% (lowest in the US by far)
Virginia 2007: 71.5%


High income earners to low income earners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Median household income (2007 dollars)

Virginia (9th): $59,562
DC (16th): $54,317
(medians; distribution needed for comparison)

Race is always a factor in income distribution, and obviously in comparisons between VA and DC:

"In terms of race, Asian-Americans households had the highest <national> median household income of $57,518, European-American households ranked second with $48,977, Hispanic or Latino households ranked third with $34,241. African American or Black households had the lowest median household income of all races with $30,134."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

20 highest-income counties by median household income (2006 & 2007)
50 highest-income counties by personal per capita income (2005)
100 highest-income counties by per capita income (2000)
100 highest-income counties by median household income (2000)
- Virginia tops every single one of those lists


Housed to unhoused.


Employed to unemployed.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm

Oct. 2008
Virginia 4.4%
District of Columbia 7.4%


Things like that. Off the top of my head.

[iverglas]

44. I look forward to more such gems

I'll have to make this one of my first stops for humour.

http://txgoa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=humor&action=display&thread=18&page=1

The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Now think about this:

Gun Owners

The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do"

Fact: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

Yes, "concern for the public at large" just oozes from this.


I look forward to statistics on the number of doctors who have:

- robbed their patients (robbery = theft + violence/threat)
- killed their intimate partners / estranged spouses
- intentionally killed a patient

and suchlike entertaining grist for comparison with gun owners.



typo fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. You can add in anything you want.

Suicides, murders. The numbers would still favor the gun owners.

David

[iverglas]

53. you're a gas, Davey

You can add in anything you want.
Suicides, murders. The numbers would still favor the gun owners.

Er, doctors commit suicide at a higher rate than gun owners? Er, so?

Doctors commit murder at a higher rate than gun owners? Really? I look forward eagerly to those stats!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. Let's try and explain this.

700,000 doctors 120,000 deaths

80,000,000 gun owners, at most 50,000 deaths

Do you get it now?

[iverglas]

58. I get it all

700,000 doctors 120,000 deaths

Accidental deaths, in the course of providing medical care.

80,000,000 gun owners, at most 50,000 deaths

Accidental and intentional deaths, in the course of ...?


I was even willing to accept the numbers for the sake of argument, to demonstrate the stupidity of the argument.

But now I think I'll require that you back them up with something -- that 700,000 doctors 120,000 deaths.

Hell, why just go for 120,000?

http://www.naturodoc.com/library/public_health/doctors_cause_death.htm

Doctors Are the Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.
Cause 250,000 Deaths Every Year
By Joseph Mercola, D.O.

The U.S. health care system may contribute to poor health or death. According to Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 250,000 deaths per year are caused by medical errors, making this the third-largest cause of death in the U.S., following heart disease and cancer.

Deaths Per Year -- Cause
106,000 Non-error, negative effects of drugs
80,000 Infections in hospitals
45,000 Other errors in hospitals
12,000 Unnecessary surgery
7,000 Medication errors in hospitals
250,000 Total deaths per year from iatrogenic* causes

* The term iatrogenic is defined as "induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially to pertain to a complication of treatment."

I'm afraid I'm having a bit of a hard time identifying even 120,000 deaths CAUSED BY DOCTORS in that list ...

Maybe you can do better.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. That's interesting, so you disagree with the Title of the article you linked to?

[iverglas]

66. duh

What's your guess?

Got any evidence to support the moronic claims about people accidentally killed by doctors, yourself, yet?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. So you want me to provide you evidence for what you posted?

or are you saying doctors are killing these people intentionally?

David

[iverglas]

70. give it a rest

I posted it to show the stupidity of the claim.

I sure do wish that someone who wants to make the claim would post something to support it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. So you don't think people die from Doctors mistakes?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. To answer your question, no. How is your family doing btw?

[iverglas]

83. in 12 hours

my sister should be halfway through the 4-hour surgery to remove her stage 3 tumour. (edited to note: So far all has gone as well as possible -- no spread of the cancer, and tumour shrunk sufficiently with chemo/radiation to make surgery by local hospital possible without having to go to the "team" in the big-city cancer hospital.) No medical error so far. She will be in hospital 5 days, will have a reversible ileostomy, and will begin heavy-duty chemo in mid-late January.

My mother has her next CAT scan conveniently scheduled for two days after my sister's surgery, at the same hospital. The diagnosis from the surgery last month is follicular lymphoma; it was difficult to diagnose because it is very early and low-grade. This is a complicated one to figure out, and I'm still working on it, but it seems her prognosis is likely good.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. I hope all goes well.

My dad is still recovering from colon cancer. February will be 2 years. They were able to take about an 12 inch section of his colon and reattach everything. He was in the hospital 10 days. Studies have shown that family staying with someone in the hospital can significantly reduce some of those errors we have been discussing, I don't know if that is possible in your families case. Hang in there.

David

[iverglas]

88. my sister is a pig

She has refused to allow anyone to even go to hospital with her (a 30-minute drive to be there at 6 am), just as she refused to tell anyone but me and her partner about the cancer for weeks, and never did tell our brothers (my mother finally did). However, her partner and my mother will be allowed to see her when she comes out, and anyone may visit her from the next day on. Not possible to stay in hospital overnight with an adult patient ... well, I did sleep in a chair in a waiting room one night years ago when my friend whom I was birth coaching decided to go into false labour just as I was serving Christmas dinner to a collection of friends and clients without other plans for the evening ... but otherwise not generally.

My dad had a horrible bedsore when he was dying of melanoma in hospital. Sometimes they just can't be prevented/treated. And that is *not* physician error -- nor was the staph infection he got at his IV site when he was awaiting transfer to the big city hospital for a pacemaker implant. But those things *are* counted in the moronic screed reproduced at the lovely new Texas gun owners forum.

He also had a large section of tubing removed a few years earlier, when he became very ill after having his head drilled to treat the subdural haematoma caused by the roller coaster, and the emergency surgery resulted in a diagnosis of Crohn's disease he'd never known he had, and an intestinal bypass.

So many apparently genetic defects (my sister's cancer could be related to our dad's melanoma, or our female ancestors' breast and uterine cancers ...), I just sit and wait to find out which I'll be struck by.

Them odds is higher than death by physician error, I would bet a large amount.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. Sorry.

My parents genes have earned me high cholesterol and hypertension. Such is life though. I agree with you about most bed sores, some though are caused and made worse by inattention, the staph infection could have been a nursing error if the IV site was cleaned improperly, hard to say either way. Sounds like you have had a rough time of it, hope it all improves. That's ridiculous not letting people stay with adult patients, I can't possibly imagine a justification for that.

David

[iverglas]

92. what ...

My parents genes have earned me high cholesterol and hypertension.

... you thought I didn't get them?? Ha. Metabolic syndrome and all that jazz, also from the pater's side. (Along with, for fuck's sake, psoriasis! Very very minor, fortunately.) Watch out for the type II diabetes susceptibility.


I actually have no idea whether it's possible to stay with adult patients overnight. In critical situations, a patient would be in ICU with limited visiting hours anyhow (as my dad was when first admitted for what led to the pacemaker); in chronic situations (like when he got the bedsore) it wouldn't be sensible.

I do know how often I get to rub my hands with that icy-cold antiseptic stuff ... and get Raynaud's attacks as a result ...

Speaking of which: time to go stick my hands in the freezer and dig out the tortillas to make the low-carb mu shu chicken thingies with.

My own super dooper low-carb cheesecake for dessert! One-quarter of a blueberry orange with chocolate graham crust (okay, I bought that) cheesecake: about 45 grams of carb. Stupendous.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. They gave me a great pancreas, it's the liver that's not so good.

Actually my cholesterol is ok, my triglycerides are really bad, well they were. My brothers fasting cholesterol on three medications and a very good diet was 900. The price of getting old i guess. Thanks for clarifying on the overnight stays. My dad is very old and was in a private room, I stayed with him to help him to the bathroom and such. The nurses weren't so good either, they seemed to be more responsive if I was there. Go easy on the cheesecake.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. Here's something.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/500_err.html

[iverglas]

79. it sure is

Based on a recent report on medical mistakes from the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, Carvey might fairly be characterized as one of the lucky survivors. In its report, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, the IOM estimates that 44,000 to 98,000 Americans die each year not from the medical conditions they checked in with, but from preventable medical errors.

A medical error, under the report's definition, could mean a health-care provider chose an inappropriate method of care, such as giving a patient a certain asthma drug without knowing that he or she was allergic to it. Or it could mean the health provider chose the right course of care but carried it out incorrectly, such as intending to infuse a patient with diluted potassium chloride--a potassium supplement--but inadvertently giving the patient a concentrated, lethal overdose.

Quite the estimates -- differing by over 100%, and yet still not reaching the ones in the nonsenses I referred to.

And still not addressing PHYSICIAN error specifically.

And still not answering the question I askied: the circumstances in which someone would be killed by accidental shooting ... and how they compare to the circumstances in which someone would die as a result of medical error ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. I guess it would depend on the type of error.

Accidentally giving the wrong medication vs. encouraging an unnecessary surgery that results in a patients death. I would say the 2nd bears more legal and moral responsibility. The circumstances in which people die by accidental shootings vary greatly. People who accidentally shoot people are often charged with crimes. Doctors are usually only charged when their actions are completely beyond the pale.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. Here's some more.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php

[iverglas]

81. uh huh

"If we could focus our efforts on just four key areas - failure to rescue, bed sores, postoperative sepsis, and postoperative pulmonary embolism - and reduce these incidents by just 20 percent, we could save 39,000 people from dying every year," said Dr. Collier.

So now doctors are responsible for "failure to rescue" ... and bed sores ...


I don't think anyone has suggested that physician error is not responsible for any deaths.

Me, I'm still wondering how being treated incorrectly by a physician who is providing medical care can conceivably be compared to being shot by someone who is handling a loaded firearm.


Just think ... if we banned doctors, nobody would ever die.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. In the US it is the physician who is ultimately responsible for patient care.

I'd guess that's how the blame all gets put on them. May be different in Canada. Thanks for clarifying your position though.

David

[iverglas]

85. nah

If the orderly giving you a bath goes away for a nap and you drown, the doctor will be neither responsible nor blamed. Really.


typo fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. Baths aren't medical procedures.

[iverglas]

89. precisely

and yet all indications are that the numbers cited by people claiming to demonstrate that doctors are more dangerous than firearms include deaths in hospital that had nothing to do with physicians.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. Some of them clearly are nursing errors, housekeeping errors, etc in which Dr's aren't responsible.

I think things should be done to minimize both deaths from firearms and medical errors, including those involving doctors.

David

[raimius]

11. A would also like to see the evidence

Every time I have seen a straight more guns = more crimes claim, they have been based on a few areas with high percentages of firearm ownership and crime, but the person making the claim could not account for places where there are high rates of firearm ownership and low crime rates. That is because crime rates are not ONLY affected by gun ownership, but a host of factors. I have yet to see a study which isolates the gun ownership variable to adequately make a conclusion. If there is one, please present it.

[iverglas]

46. really?

Every time I have seen a straight more guns = more crimes claim, they have been based on a few areas with high percentages of firearm ownership and crime, but the person making the claim could not account for places where there are high rates of firearm ownership and low crime rates.

How about the really quite simple fact that where there are "high rates of firearm ownership and low crime rates", the firearms in question are NOT handguns?

Just in case you were thinking of Canada (a relatively high rate of firearms ownership), for example.

The data are fairly readily available. Do your own study.

[Howzit]

59. SO if handgun are the problem, why the push to ban scary looking rifles?

As in bill HR 1022 and a few others.

[iverglas]

60. and you're asking me ...

why?

[Howzit]

61. Because you know everything

Especially with regard to firearms law in the US

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. So every place with high handgun ownership rates has high crime rates?

Is that your assertion?

David

[iverglas]

67. it seems to be your assertion, Dave

If you want to know what my assertion was, try reading my post again.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. No it was yours.

Here it is, "the really quite simple fact that where there are "high rates of firearm ownership and low crime rates", the firearms in question are NOT handguns"

There are plenty of places with high rates of handgun ownership and low crime rates. Unless you have some evidence that handguns cause crime?

David

[iverglas]

71. really?

There are plenty of places with high rates of handgun ownership and low crime rates.

Why don't you give us some facts?


Unless you have some evidence that handguns cause crime?

Since I haven't said that (and only a person with some sort of psychosis would say it), why are you talking about?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. Yep.

I own 4 handguns and there is very little crime at my house.

David

[chrisa]

16. What evidence? nt

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

6. Welcome to DU

[Jack_DeLeon]

99. I'm already a member of the TSRA, I'll check your board out...