Report: Gun violence costs the US $229 billion each year.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america)

They got's to disarm you bro's hawks, what's the tab on shooting in Chicago by you bro's?

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. motor vehicle crashes in 2010 cost almost $1 trillion in loss of productivity and loss of life. The study was released in May 2014.

maybe you should work on banning cars. that at least wouldn't be interfering with our rights!

motherjones really hawks not very impressive are they, well may for you and those like you!

seahooker make s good point hawks why not take up banning cars!

don't-blameme: motherjones really hawks not very impressive are they, well may for you and those like you!

seahooker make s good point hawks why not take up banning cars!

Yes, Mother Jones, don't-blameme. And I don't see a shred of evidence from you to refute any claim made by the article's authors. All I see is your citing seahooker's red herring--an attempt to change the subject by babbling about motor vehicle crashes and, of course, the perennial favourite of gun nuts--banning cars. No seahooker didn't make a good point, she posted an irrelevant distraction from the original issue, logical fallacy--a red herring.

Hey shehawk if Obama would stop causing the price of ammo to go up it would be much cheaper for cops to shoot criminals and lower the crime. THIS IS AMERICA DUMBASS GO PEDAL YOUR BULLSHIT ELSEWHERE> STOP THE NEGROS FROM THE GHETTO FROM SHOOTING EACH OTHER AND CRIME DROPS! IT'S NOT A GUN PROBLEM IT'S A NEGRO CRIMINAL PROBLEM! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

hawks, you wouldn't know a red herring if it bitch slapped you with its tail.

you brought up cost as a reason to take away a right.

I brought up a larger cost with the enquiry, why don't you try to eliminate this problem where there is no right involved.

that is when, like most liberals confronted with reason, you went all stupid!

seahooker: According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. motor vehicle crashes in 2010 cost almost $1 trillion in loss of productivity and loss of life. The study was released in May 2014; maybe you should work on banning cars.

seahooker,

Maybe you should read the following articles and stop babbling about motor vehicle crashes and banning cars.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/gun-deaths-continue-to-surpass-motor-vehicle-deaths-in-missouri/article_c6b66d76-3d84-5b75-9e68-354c6cfb7a95.html (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/gun-deaths-continue-to-surpass-motor-vehicle-deaths-in-missouri/article_c6b66d76-3d84-5b75-9e68-354c6cfb7a95.html)


http://www.myarklamiss.com/story/d/story/gun-deaths-surpass-motor-vehicle-deaths-in-louisia/40674/KOEqfUaW0UKEL-lkbotrxg (http://www.myarklamiss.com/story/d/story/gun-deaths-surpass-motor-vehicle-deaths-in-louisia/40674/KOEqfUaW0UKEL-lkbotrxg)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/as-nra-meeting-opens-in-n_b_7041296.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/as-nra-meeting-opens-in-n_b_7041296.html)

http://www.wsls.com/story/28741678/gun-deaths-surpass-motor-vehicle-deaths-in-17-states-including-tn-va (http://www.wsls.com/story/28741678/gun-deaths-surpass-motor-vehicle-deaths-in-17-states-including-tn-va)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/18/gun_deaths_in_america_gun_deaths_outpace_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_at_least.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/18/gun_deaths_in_america_gun_deaths_outpace_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_at_least.html)

hawks, you idiot, you started the thread, remember. The thread was the true cost of gun violence!

seahooker: hawks, you wouldn't know a red herring if it bitch slapped you with its tail.

Wrong, seahooker! As you should realise by now, I'm quite good at spotting fallacies of argumentation and debate--red herrings and ad hominems, like the one you used to begin your reply.

you brought up cost as a reason to take away a right.

You're confused again, seahooker. I presented evidence of the true cost of gun violence in the United States. Remember?

I brought up a larger cost with the enquiry, why don't you try to eliminate this problem where there is no right involved.

No, seahooker. What you did, in actuality, was to attempt to interject a red herring into the discussion--attempt to change the original issue to one of your choosing, with the intention of never returning to the original topic. Isn't that right, seahooker?

that is when, like most liberals confronted with reason, you went all stupid!

What do you call it when you and our forum's other conservatives attempt to change the subject when you're confronted with facts, like what you are evidently trying to do here?

seahooker: hawks, you idiot, you started the thread, remember. The thread was the true cost of gun violence! [sic]

You're absolutely correct, seahooker. Yes. I started this thread and its topic  is the true cost of gun violence in the United States. So why did you respond by babbling irrelevant rigmarole about motor vehicle crashes and banning cars? Evidently you are the idiot in this discussion.

Apparently people in those states are better shots than they are drivers,ROFL

Saying "Gun deaths" with no demographics is worthless information that any MORON can post, nothing but a, ah, RED HERRING, simply no value add to any discussion, typical of an ignorant person.

60% of "gun deaths" are suicide, if someone wants to commit suicide there are a 1000 ways to do it, the gun is simply convenient. These deaths would not change significantly with stronger gun laws or taking my gun away. These people are DEAD regardless of any law you can pass.


About 3% are accidental deaths (between 700-800 deaths). although sad, It is an insignificant number based on total gun ownership, you can't fix stupid.


About 34% of deaths (just over 11,000 in both 2010 and 2011) make up the remainder of gun deaths and are classified as homicides.  Because of "political correctness" there are no real facts to determine how many of these are gang related, with an ounce of intelligence and some trend data/research, meaning patterns of behavior, meaning GANGBANGERS, you can easily surmise that 80-90% of the 34% are gang related, so who really cares except bleeding heart MORONS, I admire DEAD gangbangers. of the remaining 10% can be basically related to the commission of a crime, whether robbing your local 7-11 or IDIOTS arguing, Again a small percentage that only bleeding heart liberals lose sleep over.


But the MOST IMPORTANT statistic that you'll have to argue with BARAK OBAMA about.
But a new report commissioned by the White House titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319) suggests what many self defense gun proponents have been saying for years. The report, ordered under one of President Obama’s 23 Executive Orders (http://www.infowars.com/obamas-23-executive-orders-on-gun-control-doctors-become-snitches-gun-ownership-is-a-disease-and-more/) signed in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident, asked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Research Council and other federal agencies to identify the “most pressing problems in firearms violence.”
To the surprise of the authors and those who would no doubt have used the report to further restrict access to personal defense firearms, the study found that gun ownership actually saves lives and those who have a firearm at their disposal improve their chances of survival and reduce their chance of injury in the event they are confronted by a violent criminal:
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/white-house-study-finds-guns-save-lives-consistently-lower-injury-rates-among-gun-using-crime-victims_06272013 (http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/white-house-study-finds-guns-save-lives-consistently-lower-injury-rates-among-gun-using-crime-victims_06272013)

What is needed is criminal control not more failed gun control!

Sadly, democrats like 1965hawks oppose any effective form of criminal control!

D2D: What is needed is criminal control not more failed gun control. Sadly, democrats like 1965hawks oppose any effective form of criminal control.

D2D,

Your argument has serious flaws:

1. This thread is about the real cost of gun violence; your babbling about "criminal control" is irrelevant--an irrelevant distraction, a fallacy of argumentation and debate, a logical fallacy--a red herring.

2. Gun control hasn't failed in the United States. What has failed are this country's lax gun-control laws that were enacted to appease the NRA.

3. And, not surprisingly, your post  ends with an ad hominem attack against me. Apparently you expect those reading your reply to simply ignore the fact that you never really discussed the issue at hand. Isn't that right, D2D?   

 $229 billion each year taken out of the economy....for gun puzzies.

So gun violence has nothing to do with the acts of criminals, 1965hawks?

Guns themselves commit violence?

Gun control only controls the law abiding making it a complete failure every time it is tried!

1965hawks the truth is not an "ad hominem" attack!

Baretta19: Apparently people in those states are better shots than they are drivers,ROFL

No, Baretta19. Apparently you still don't realise that an appeal to ridicule, a logical fallacy--and also a fallacy of argumentation and debate--is no substitute for evidence to support an assertion. Your babbling that some persons are better shots than drivers is, in reality, an irrelevant (and rather idiotic) distraction away from the original topic--the high cost of gun violence in the United States.

Saying "Gun deaths" with no demographics is worthless information that any MORON can post, nothing but a, ah, RED HERRING, simply no value add to any discussion, typical of an ignorant person.

A report that details the high cost of gun violence in the US can hardly be called "worthless information"--embarrassing, shameful, and eye-opening information, yes, but most definitely not worthless information. Not surprisingly, an ignorant moron like you would argue that $229 billion--the true cost of gun violence in the US--is "worthless information."

Furthermore, the evidence you used to support your argument is, in actuality, irrelevant (yes, a red herring!). At issue here is the staggering cost of gun violence in this country, not the demographics of those committing the violence. In addition to that, your ludicrous babbling about the CDC's report is pointless as well. That report doesn't address the cost of gun violence in the US either. Does it, Baretta19?

D2D: So gun violence has nothing to do with the acts of criminals, 1965hawks?

Explain why you believe criminals commit all acts of gun violence? That is the gist of your question. Isn't it?

Guns themselves commit violence?

Neither I nor the report I presented for the forum's perusal made that claim. Whether you realise it or not, what you're obviously doing here is propping up a straw man to attack.

Gun control only controls the law abiding making it a complete failure every time it is tried!


Not only is your assertion untrue, it's irrelevant: At issue here is the true cost of gun violence in the US, the original topic that you and Baretta19 have carefully avoided discussing.

1965hawks the truth is not an "ad hominem" attack!

D2D, so far you've presented no truths to speak of in this thread. And that's not an ad hominem; that's a fact.

Child why are you concerned about legal acts of gun violence?

Why do you insist people must die at the hands of criminals instead of defending themselves?

Are you that opposed to legal acts of gun violence?

D2D: Child why are you concerned about legal acts of gun violence?

You're confused again, D2D. I'm concerned about all acts of gun violence.

Why do you insist people must die at the hands of criminals instead of defending themselves?

I've never made that claim; you're propping up another straw man to attack. Aren't you, D2D.

Are you that opposed to legal acts of gun violence?

D2D, are you ever going to stop posting irrelevant (and ludicrous) distractions in your obvious (and desperate) attempt to refocus attention away from the real issue at hand in this thread:the true (and shameful) cost of gun violence in the US of A?

Nope, you are condemning acts of self defense along with criminal acts!

The two are totally different!

Furthermore, the evidence you used to support your argument is, in actuality, irrelevant

FACTS are irrelevant? The response I'd expect from ignorance

That's the price of not addressing the social/economic problems that creates violence Hawk. Nothing more, nothing less.

Hawk/wvit..never can keep you two sisters straight...what is the true cost of abortion in this Country.  BTW...how long will you stay out of prison this time?

Hawks... May I ask "Do you have a plan that will work better and be less costly than the current one?"  What makes me think that you do not. 

As for gun laws...they don't get much more restrictive than Chicago's laws... However, that doesn't seem to stop the street violence. 

Seems 1965hawks ran when confronted by truth!

D2D: Nope, you are condemning acts of self defense along with criminal acts! The two are totally different.

You're confused again, D2D. When did I ever argue that defensive gun use (DGU) and criminal use of firearms are not discrete? But that's beside the point: At issue here is the true cost of gun violence in the United States, not whether DGU and criminal use of firearms are totally different. Why do you continue to attack straw men and ignore the original topic?

 

D2D: Seems 1965hawks ran when confronted by truth.

No, D2D. Apparently you and your supporters in this thread would rather blabber about everything except the original issue.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ru0bG9RwiGc/UA9XG1y-6NI/AAAAAAAAA5E/3XOqyePViI4/s1600/GC+Picture1.png)

QUESTION; HOW ARE GUNS DIFFERENT FROM ALCOHOL?WE HAVE SEEN WHAT "SENSIBLE LAWS" ACCOMPLISHED WITH PROHIBITION DOES ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND THINK THAT SOCIETY WILL REACT DIFFERENTLY IF WE OUTLAWED GUNS OR PASSED SO MANY RESTRICTIVE LAWS THAT ARE REALLY DESIGNED TO DO AWAY WITH GUN OWNERSHIP? IT SIMPLY DRIVES IT UNDERGROUND.

BUT AGAIN WHY DOES THE LEFT SAY THAT MUSLIMS ARE NOT DANGEROUS ONLY A FEW RADICALS ARE, BUT ALL GUN OWNERS ARE A DANGER?

(http://www.spingola.com/DeathStats.jpg)

(https://wiki-land.wikispaces.com/file/view/moregunsless_crime.jpg/76432099/moregunsless_crime.jpg)

Local5th: That's the price of not addressing the social/economic problems that creates violence Hawk. Nothing more, nothing less.

Local5th,

Gun violence is pervasive in the USA; actually it's epidemic. And your argument is the typical argument gun nuts use to rationalise that epidemic gun violence and the high costs associated with it.

In countries that have banned guns, gun crimes have gone up!!!

The law-abiding people are without guns for protection and the criminals KNOW this!!

The law-abiding people are literally defenseless!!!

It's the CRIMINALS that commit the gun violence and the CRIMINALS will ALWAYS find ways to have guns.

Why would any intelligent person want to take guns away from the law-abiding citizens? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

BTW....  Drug abusers always find ways to get drugs, especially the illegal drugs. How would making guns illegal be any different? How about prostitution? How about drunk
       driving? How about illegal immigration?  etc., etc., etc.!!!!!!

WWV10MHZ,

You're avoiding the issue:

The issue at hand isn't defensive gun use vs. violent crimes committed by offenders with guns (Reply #28).

The issue isn't a comparison of different causes of deaths (Reply #30).

And the issue isn't whether more guns in a society reduces criminal activity in that society (Reply #31).

The issue here is the true cost ($229 billion annually) of gun violence in America. Remember?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america)

When you break down gun violence demographically, you find clues to the social problems with crime.    Same with the idiocy of trying to ban certain semi-auto firearms when according to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles, any type of rifle.

But people, especially anti-gun nuts, are motivated by emotion over facts...


http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html)

WWV10MHZ: In countries that have banned guns, gun crimes blah blah blah blah blah blah....

Gun bans?

You're still avoiding the issue, WW; and still posting irrelevant distractions (red herrings). Why are you babbling about gun bans in other countries when the issue here is the $229 billion annual cost of gun violence in this country?

 

sweetwater5s9: When you break down gun violence demographically, you find clues to the social problems with crime.

sweetwater5s9,

You're confused again. At issue here is the annual cost of gun violence, not the demographical analysis of gun violence or "clues to the social problem of crime"--whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

LOL
 

 

Gun violence is pervasive in the USA; actually it's epidemic.

BUT THE LEFT REFUSES TO ADDRESS THE CAUSE! IT IS NOT THE PRESENCE OF GUNS BUT THE MINDSET OF THE PEOPLE. WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY, FACT IS IF WE HADN'T WE COULD NOT HAVE THROWN OFF THE YOKE OF BRITISH OPPRESSION BUT EVEN DURING THE DEPRESSION WE DID NOT HAVE THIS KIND OF VIOLENCE ON THIS SCALE AND YOU COULD BUY A GUN AT THE HARDWARE STORE!

WWV10MHZ: In countries that have banned guns, gun crimes blah blah blah blah blah blah....
 
 
 
such dishonesty is the currency of the ignorant gun puzzy.  incapable of believing facts or having the ability to work with the truth.

upyrwazoo: BUT THE LEFT REFUSES TO ADDRESS THE CAUSE! IT IS NOT THE PRESENCE OF GUNS BUT THE MINDSET OF THE PEOPLE. WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY, FACT IS IF WE HADN'T WE COULD NOT HAVE THROWN OFF THE YOKE OF BRITISH OPPRESSION BUT EVEN DURING THE DEPRESSION WE DID NOT HAVE THIS KIND OF VIOLENCE ON THIS SCALE AND YOU COULD BUY A GUN AT THE HARDWARE STORE!

upyrwazoo,

Here's what you and your supporters have refused to do throughout this thread: admit that guns in our society have resulted in a staggering, annual cost of $229 billion.

Look at the rigmarole you posted above. Does it address the issue? No, on the contrary; it carefully avoids even mentioning it! Instead you babbled about the "mindset" of the people, babbled about guns always being in this country, made an irrelevant allusion to the War of Independence, and then ended with an incredibly inane reference to the Great Depression.

Nothing you posted above was even remotely related to the issue at hand--the true cost of gun violence in America. You did a fine job of what you do best in this forum: blowing smoke out your arse.
 

Local5th: No, it's not epidemic. Actually it has decreased considerably over the past 10 to 20 years.

 Yes. Gun violence in the US is indeed epidemic.But the issue here is the costs of gun violence ($229 billion). Has that decreased considerably, Local5th?

My argument is to address the real problem. You want to address it like we did prohibition and the war on drugs. Tell me, how did that work out for us?


No, Local5th, truth is, all you want to do is do like all your supporters have done so far in this thread--carefully avoid admitting that guns in our society cost us $229 billion annually. Instead you would rather trot out irrelevant arguments--fallacious arguments that attempt to refocus attention away from the real issue--the true cost of gun violence in the US--and substitute original issue with irrelevant ones like prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. Of course, when that happens, the original issue won't ever be brought up for discussion again. Right, Local5th?

To: don't-blameme, seahooker, Hayes, Baretta19, D2D, Local5th, jst-the-fax, KensanIV, WWV10MHZ, upyrwazoo, , and sweetwater5s9

I began this thread with a report that says the true cost of gun violence in the US today is $229 billion.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-America (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-America)

The report, based on a special investigation, appears to be fairly recent. But the high costs of gun violence in the United States has been well-documented for quite some time now.

The High Costs of Gun Violence

The estimated costs of treating the gunshot injuries received during 1994 in the United States was $2.3 billion. The average cost of a gunshot injury was approximately $17,000, of which 49% was borne by taxpayers, 18% by private insurance, and 33% by other sources. While medical costs are a relatively small component of the total burden placed on society by gun violence, they represent a substantial cost to the medical care system.

Phillip J. Cook et al., JAMA, August 4, 1999.

Source: Gun Control: Opposing Viewpoints, Helen Cochran, Editor; Greenhaven Press (2003)

 
 

A study that claims lives saved via self defense are costs is asinine!

Again, I have the same question.

"Hawks... May I ask "Do you have a plan that will work better and be less costly than the current one?"  What makes me think that you do not. 

As for gun laws...they don't get much more restrictive than Chicago's laws... However, that doesn't seem to stop the street violence."

My guess would be EDUCATION and JOBS. 

What is your solution? 

Of course based on an Obama spokesperson, the same thing JOBS would work for ISIS too. 

MOTHERJONES IS FULL OF CRAP AND THIS ISNT THE FIRST TIME.

69hocker......  Guns are NEVER going away!!  American Citizens are GUARANTEED the right to have them by the US Constitution which will NEVER
  get the votes in the House and the Senate required to send it to the States where there would NEVER be enough votes to change gun ownership!!!!!

So, save your breath.

upyrwazoo: MOTHERJONES IS FULL OF CRAP AND THIS ISNT THE FIRST TIME.

And yours isn't the first time a right-winger in this forum has attempted to use a logical fallacy to refute a fact.

upyrwazoo, your logical fallacy is the Genetic Fallacy--judging something good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it comes.

WWV10MHZ, please use your gun for a good cause...
 
join the statistics of gun owners.

D2D: A study that claims lives saved via self defense are costs is asinine!

No, D2D. What's asinine is your ignoring the original issue (the high cost of gun violence in the US) and your ludicrous attempt to interject a red herring into this discussion (babbling about guns saving lives when used self-defensively)
                                                                                                                                       

Yes!  Prevent crime!

you go with that daniel.
 
with so much crime outside your front door. 

Okie-dokie, johniel.  I think I will. (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)


Nope.  Not a single incident.

Okay 65,,so gun violence causes money to be spent.
What's your point?
Did you only just recently figure that out?
Does it surprise you?
Are you asking a question?
What do you want folks to say?'ooh,,people using guns for good and bad reasons winds up causing money to be spent..let's stop using them to defend ourselves so what money we have won't be spent,,only stolen.'
Is THAT what ya want?

Hey,,about you go figure out the numbers of lives lost due to 'illegal gun use' then come back and talk about that like a reasonable minded compassionate human being should rather than harping on how much money is spent.
Heck,,even talking about how much money is 'stolen' thru illegal gun use would be way more appropriate for a reasonably compassionate half intelligent human being to talk about.

BTW,,have you figured out the cost of 'bad political leadership' or perhaps ill conceived educational policies cost in terms of dollar amounts?

Besides all that,,since you seem so hung up on money,,can you imagine how many folks would LOSE money if there were no guns at all?
Think of the revenue gov would lose if there were no guns.
Imagine the loss of commerce if there were no guns.
No guns,,no gun sales,,no gun accoutrement sales,,no taxes,,no fines,,less revenue for law enforcement to buy guns to keep guns off the streets.
No guns,,no way or reason for the talking heads to make money railing against them,,no reason to get money from gov to 'campaign' against guns.No way to tug heart strings to place and keep certain types in power or retain relevance.
No guns then no gun trauma for hospitals to bill insurance companies over,,less need for ACA,,less costs for overall health care.
IOW,,no way for those folks and companies to make money off of gun violence.(I imagine many hospitals in hi gun violence areas may wind up with a shortfall and have to raise prices for other types of care.)

anchoragedan:Yes!  Prevent crime!

Why do you and your supporters in this discussion continue to babble about crime and criminals? Why do you continue to avoid the issue?  Wht do you continue your attempt to interject a red herring into the discussion? The topic of this thread isn't crime prevention; it's the high cost of gun violence in the USA. Remember?

 it's the high cost of gun violence in the USA. Remember?

Yup, I remember. The price of everything has gone up.

What makes you think it is a high cost if you have nothing to compare it to?

The problem isn't firearms and some still do not get it, LOL...   

Because it's an important issue.


Wait.  First you asked me why I discuss the issue, now you're asking me why I'm avoiding it.  I tell you what, make up your mind on what you want to say and then you can get back to me.

Guns are inanimate objects.  They can not be violent ... or nonviolent.

Fool.

anchoragedan: Because it's an important issue.

Yes. It's an important issue, but that But issue isn't relevant here; it's an irrelevant distraction away from the original issue--it's a red herring. The original issue here is the high cost of gun violence in the United States, but you and your supporters continue to avoid that issue. Why?

Define gun violence.

What Hawky wants to avoid is the social and demographic issues related to violence and its cost in America.    It is a red herring to focus on an inanimate object.   And stupid.

byteryder7: Guns are inanimate objects.  They can not be violent ... or nonviolent.

Fool.

When did I ever argue that a firearm wasn't an "inanimate object," you idiot?

And what makes you believe  firearms can't be used to commit gun-related violence, you ignoramus?

And why do you, and your supporters in this discussion, continue to post ludicrous prattle in an attempt to ignore and deny the fact of the high cost of gun violence in the United States, fool?

What Hawky wants to avoid is the social and demographic issues related to violence and its cost in America.   What he is doing is a red herring...

Maybe Hawk is bemoaning the true cost of criminal activity, who just happen to use guns.

What Hawky wants to avoid is the social and demographic issues related to violence and its cost in America.    It is a red herring to focus on an inanimate object.   And stupid.

No. What's stupid is dopey5s9's attempt to ignore the findings of the report--the high cost of gun violence in the US--and interject red herrings into the discussion--babbling irrelevant poppycock about "inanimate objects" and "social and demographic issues."

anchoragedan: Maybe Hawk is bemoaning the true cost of criminal activity, who just happen to use guns.

Perhaps anchoragedan is trying to come up with another way to ignore the original issue of this thread--the high cost of gun violence in the US. Apparently anchoragedan--and a lot of the other discussants in this thread--believe all gun violence is caused by the criminal use of firearms.

anchoragedan: Define gun violence.


Gun violence is violence committed with the use of a gun (firearm or small arm). It may or may not be considered criminal.

sweetwater5s9: What Hawky wants to avoid is. blah blah blah....
(Reply #65)

anchoragedan: Maybe Hawky is bemoaning blah blah blah blah....
(Reply #66)

sweetwater5s9 and anchoragedan,

Your logical fallacy and fallacy of argumentation and debate: Ad Hominem--ignoring the argument itself and attacking the person making the argument instead.

Your posting irrelevant bullshit about "Hawky" conveniently avoids discussing the original issue.

Nope.


Violence by law abiding citizens is a good thing.  Agreed.  Especially when used to thwart criminal violence.  Is this what you want to discuss, Hawk?  The good type of violence?

Good violence is a good thing.  It's not a cost.

What Hawky wants to avoid is the social and demographic issues related to violence and its cost in America by trying to blame it on objects instead.

It's not a true cost hawk. And it won't be until you factor in costs saved by gun violence.

anchoragedan: Violence by law abiding citizens is a good thing [...] Especially when used to thwart criminal violence.

Local5th: It's not a true cost hawk. And it won't be until you factor in costs saved by gun violence.

Your ludicrous arguments continue to ignore the fact that gun violence--whether committed by "criminals" or the "law-abiding" cost us all--an annual cost of about $2.3 billion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040975/Gun-violence-costs-taxpayers-229-BILLION-year-Shocking-figures-revealed-new-study.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040975/Gun-violence-costs-taxpayers-229-BILLION-year-Shocking-figures-revealed-new-study.html)
 

Nope.  Only criminal violence costs us.  Law abiding violence benefits us.

Why do you ignore the fact the night is brighter than day?  Why do you ignore the fact that ice is hotter than fire?

There are many social ills that are costly to society.  DUI for instance.  Are you proposing any draconian restrictions for Drinkers?

I'm sure there are other examples as well, but lets work on this one... The True Cost of Driving Under the Influence.

You ready?

If you don't like that one, can we go for the True Cost of Drug Addiction?

Now you have a choice of two social ills that are probably far far more costly then Guns Violence.

And neither of them involve any Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

What Hawky wants to avoid is the social and demographic issues related to violence and its cost in America by trying to blame it on objects(certain objects) instead.

69BirdShitfoBrains here can't think for himself as most leftist don't

That's why he has to go back to the link when it's assumption are challenged.

A good example of his being stuck on stupid and a weak mind that is easily mislead!

sine-qua-non: 69BirdShitfoBrains here can't think for himself as most leftist don't.

And how is that puerile ad hominem relevant to the issue at hand, sine-qua-non?

 That's why he has to go back to the link when it's assumption are challenged.

That's all you airheads have done so far--posted nonsensical challenges. But that's all you've done. Not one of you have provided any evidence at all to refute the farticles claim that gun violence cost this country roughly $2.3 billion annually. And speaking of links and evidence: where's yours simple-minded sine?


A good example of his being stuck on stupid and a weak mind that is easily mislead!

No, sine-qua-non. Truth is, that bulshit you posted is a perfect example of what your dumb ass does best: showing us what an incredibly stupid and ignorant ass clown you really are. And since your weak mind allows you to be easily misled, you've become jivin' jim's zany court jester...the perfect moron and buffoon, the perfect right-wingnut ass clown.

Hawk, you exact same argument applies to many different forms of Social ills or general misfortunes. most all of which could be ameliorated by the banning or outlawing of something.  In many case that something serves no other purpose in life except happiness or death/injury.

Why don't we expend our efforts on these otherwise useless endeavors the kill/injure and thus create not only suffering and expense to those involved, but also costs to society in general. What is it about "Guns" that evokes such outright hatred.  Guns helped create this Nation, and after that kept this nation free.  It can be said Guns freed the Negro from Slavery.  Guns have put meat on the table for untold generations.  Guns have protected march of civilization across our land by affording protection from predators, two footed and four footed.   What is it about Guns that seems to make them such a profoundly Evil in the minds of so many?

Can you explain to us what the unmitigable evils of the Gun demands such devout hatred of them.

byteryder7: Guns helped create this Nation, and after that kept this nation free.  It can be said Guns freed the Negro from Slavery.  Guns have put meat on the table for untold generations.  Guns have protected march of civilization across our land by affording protection from predators, two footed and four footed. Guns blah blah blah blah blah blah....

Why do you conservatives continue to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the huge financial burden that guns place on our society? What is it about your precious little "inanimate objects" that demands such devoted love and affection, and such utter disregard for the health and safety of your fellow human beings?

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/04/the_high_cost_of_gun_violence.html (http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2015/04/the_high_cost_of_gun_violence.html)

 



 

I have not turned a deaf ear nor a blind eye to anything.

I have seen and I have heard it all from the anti-gun side over and over and over.  Each time I have rejected the absoluteness of their argument.

I have compromised where I feel controls or limitations are needed or otherwise productive with minimal infringement of Rights..  I do not ask for absolute "hands off", nor will I accept absolute "control".

1965hawks, name one nation that is crime free as a result of gun bans!

D2D: 1965hawks, name one nation that is crime free as a result of gun bans! [sic]

LOL. Still haven't figured it out yet ?

You're still confused, D2D. This discussion isn't about crime-free countries; it's about the high cost of gun violence in the US. Remember? And now, my little addled-brained pal, you tell me which other advanced country in the world pays such high cost for gun violence.   

What about the cost of crime and those costs gun ownership prevents?

Did you ever think about that?

Do you ever think?

D2D: What about the cost of crime and those costs gun ownership prevents, did you ever think about that?

D2D,

Despite your many attempts to change the subject of this discussion to the criminal use of firearms, the original issue remains--and always will be--the high cost of gun violence in the United States. Have you forgotten about that?


Do you ever think?

Yes, I do. But you proved to me a long time ago that you don't.

Self bragging is no bragging,, piss off you fking nobody. You top post your own thread just to call someone names. God what a LOW LIFE.

Hawk,
So where does the majority of "gun violence" in this Country occur and who commits it?

How much does each individual crime cost victims and society on average in the U.S.?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835847/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835847/)



(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IpHmFwTfEtk/U4uDOEmgKuI/AAAAAAAAKcE/wCPK4013s3s/s1600/total-cost-of-crime-per-offense-2014-usd.png)

Yes, you are exactly correct regarding the high cost of guns in the hands of thugs. That is exactly why we all realize that there is not an easy answer on how to stop crime and the proliferation of weapons.

Currently if Lamont has a pistol that can hold 6 shots, then DeMarcus (or whatever he is named) has to have one that holds 9 shots. so he can protect himself or if the brother disrespects him for some reason or if a drug deal goes wrong...everyone has a gun and is willing to use it.

I do not have an answer to how we can lower the cost of gun violence, however, I suspect it will have to start with education and jobs for those who occupy our ghettos. 

I suspect we have spent more on trying to solve the problem by doing the education and jobs angle than the cost of the actual violence.

So do we ignore it as they do in Africa and allow gangs of street thugs run amok? 

As long as we have living breathing humans, we will always have violence, if they didn't have guns, they would use sticks or rocks. It is the way of our species.. Can we change human nature? 

Some believe that we need to use the massive weapons and bomb humans back to the stone age and start all over.

Why do you conservatives continue to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to the huge financial burden that guns place on our society?

why do you leftists continue to turn a blind eye to the greatly larger financial burden that vehicles place on our society?

NONE of these costs are the result of ANY actions done by the LAW-ABIDING Gun Owning Citizens of America!!!!!

The costs due to gun violence in America are TOTALLY due to CRIMINALS using guns UNLAWFULLY!!!

The LAW-ABIDING Gun Owners of America should NOT be PUNISHED by the actions of CRIMINALS!!!!

exactly...if laws were created making life in prison, for anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime...and the death penalty for killing someone with a gun while committing a crime...I guarantee hawk's buddies would think twice before picking up heat!

Any study on the cost of gun violence in America is a fraud if it includes justifiable homicide and suicide!

1965hawks' study is a fraud!

D2D,
Tell me it ain't so...hawk a fraud? (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/cool.gif)

Yeah, I do so hate stating the obvious!

But, sadly, it needs to be said!

DaBoz: Self bragging is no bragging,, piss off you fking nobody. You top post your own thread just to call someone names. God what a LOW LIFE.

Who's bragging, DaBoz? Explain why you believe debunking the bogus arguments and absurd claims made by you and your misinformed, gun-nut pals is bragging. And, I especially want you to explain how my debunking your asininr arguments make me a "low life." What stupidity and ignorance you have, DaBoz! And apparently you have a king-size inferiority complex too. Tell you what you can do, DaBoz: Shut the fuck up and piss off, you ass clown!

D2D: Yeah, I do so hate stating the obvious!

D2D,

It's obvious why you hate stating the obvious: You would've had been to admit you are a moron a long time ago.


D2D: Any study on the cost of gun violence in America is a fraud if it includes justifiable homicide and suicide! 1965hawks' study is a fraud! [sic]

No, D2D. I'm not a fraud.  Truth is, as is always the case, you don't know what you're talking about.

Gun violence is violence committed with the use of a gun (firearm or small arm). It may, or may not be considered criminal. Criminal gun violence includes homicide (when and where ruled justifiable), assault with a deadly weapon, and suicide, or attempted suicide, depending on jurisdiction. Non-criminal gun violence may include accidental or unlimited injury or death.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence)

D2D, explain why you believe any study on the cost of gun violence in America is a fraud if it includes justifiable homicide and suicide.

WWV10MHZ: NONE of these costs are the result of ANY actions done by the LAW-ABIDING Gun Owning Citizens of America!!!!!

WWV10MHZ,

Where did you get the absurd notion that a so-called law-abiding gun-owning citizen in America" is incapable of using a gun to commit violence?

The costs due to gun violence in America are TOTALLY due to CRIMINALS using guns UNLAWFULLY!!!

Really? Is an accidental shooting that causes death or injury a criminal act? Generally speaking, is it a crime to use a firearm to commit a successful suicide?

The LAW-ABIDING Gun Owners of America should NOT be PUNISHED by the actions of CRIMINALS!!!!

You're playing the victim card (and arguing a red herring), WWV10MHZ. At issue here is the high cost of gun violence in America, not the punishment of so-called law-abiding gun owners in America, or the criminal use of firearms. And your pointless--and silly--penchant for tacking on long strings of exclamation points at the end of your sentences won't change that fact.

Not all violence Is bad.  So the cost shared for that is acceptable.

 Did you think it wasn't? (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/shocked.gif)

1965hawks, the study is a fraud!

You know it!

I know it!

Anyone capable of thinking knows it!

1965hawks, the study is a fraud! [sic]

D2D,

When you present evidence to support that claim I will believe you. But until then, you're just talking out your ass, just like you always do in this forum.

You know it!

I know no such thing, D2D. What I do know for certain, however, is that you're an imbecile.

I know it!

Well,you do know it by now.  After all, I remind you of your imbecility every time you post your rigmarole on this message board.

Anyone capable of thinking knows it!

Since you prove every day that you are incapable of thinking, you have no business at all trying to make an argument based on the premiss of someone's ability to think.

sine-qua-non: Not all violence Is bad.

Whether violence is good or bad isn't the issue here. At issue here is the high cost of gun violence in the United States.

jst-the-fax: So where does the majority of "gun violence" in this Country occur and who commits it?

jst-the-fax,

Your question is an irrelevant distraction away from the original issue--a red herring. The topic of this thread is the high cost of gun cost in this country, not where the majority of gun violence occurs in this country, or who commits it.

Any study that says justifiable homicide is a cost is a fraud!

Justifiable homicide is a benefit not a cost!

D2D: Any study that says justifiable homicide is a cost is a fraud!

You're still talking out your ass, D2D. Where's your evidence to prove the report on the high cost of gun control in the US is a fraud?

The good gun violence then as an agreeable shared cost
benefit, then lowers the cost of bad gun violence reducing the
overall cost of gun violence !

Apparently one is ten times more likely to be killed by a cop than by a terrorist
Yet we have no problem with arming everyone of these cops and finding that the
murders they use their guns for are an acceptable cost.  If we didn't we'd disarm
them all tomorrow and have less gun violence!

with that kind of logic Local5th...
 
imagine the cost-saving benifit to society were you to ... well, join the gun owning statistics.

What gun owning statistics are you talking about JW? I have owned guns my whole life without any negative consequences.

None of the gun violence which creates costly situations in America is the result of actions by Law-Abiding Gun Owners, period!

Gun violence is done by CRIMINALS and mostly by Negroes since they commit most of the crimes.

Everybody knows this!!!!

(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1350045/thumbs/o-GUN-VIOLENCE-CHART-570.jpg?6)

If Mother Jones said it

one can be reasonably certain

that it's just more readily debunked leftist kommie anti-American propaganda!

Suicides whether by drugs OD or by firearm sans suicide by cop, is not violence but IS a crime that no one has ever been tried for
making it unqualified to be included in the stats of any gun "violence" category!

As a former teacher of mine once said, "figures don't lie, but liars figure."


Nice meaningless chart there jock washer that tells nothing about how much those costs really are! Lol!

News flash to leftist....  The cost of Freedom and or firearms violence isn't free!
But feel free to revel in your slave mentality while us freemen laugh at your foolishness!
(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)
(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/107w9oy.gif)

what about FORBES?
 
 

Lost TAX revenue?
Oh yeah, let's through in tax refunds then.  No one but a dishonest Govt.
would included what they never had or what was never theirs in the first place! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

Take away the "Lost tax revenue" and under $4k sure ain't what mamma J did say
By a long long way!

Btw, Criminal Justice was far and away the biggest cost so when you get burgled late at night remember, to save money on gun violence, always make a head shot the first shot!

It still didn't change from the first time you posted it JockWasher!

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/YahooIM/78.gif)

(http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/gray-80.jpg)

Nope, still no more believable

Jizz-Wanker2......  So, tell the other Negroes in your Southside Chicago Ghetto to start using something other than guns to kill each other and the
    cost of gun violence can come down.

How does that threaten you or your family or your property?

Jw2 says you have no right to commit suicide!

Jw2 says there in no cost in being a defenseless victim of crime!

Your $229 billion number is worthless by itself, Hawk. There's nothing to compare it with because they did not bother  to provide like comparisons for the war on drugs, obesity, illegal aliens, dinking, tobacco use, release of felons, etc.

Local5th, "The True Cost of Gun Violence in America," reply #45.

What makes you think it is a high cost  if you have nothing to compare it with?

Local5th, Ibid, reply #57.



Local5th,

There was really no need for the author's of the report to compare the costs of gun violence with the costs of something else o show the financial burden that gun violence places on the inhabitants of the United States. But since you insist that there be a comparison (apparently you believe a comparison will disprove the claims made in the report), see reply #111, posted by Jw2.

No, a comparative study would show how much is saved by
law abiding gun violence or presence as a deterrent and defense
of life and property. 

We know it will be a huge number because there
will be no judicial and less medical expenses!

Much of this suicide will go away once Obama leaves office.

the last three gun deaths - all in the month of April - in my semi-rural town
were suicides with a gun


No doubt liberal losers like you JW2, who are disappointed with life.   Around here we had a few druggies check out...but that was due to an overdose.  Hillary lost more voters. 

1965hawks says you have no right to commit suicide!

1965hawks says there in no cost in being a defenseless victim of crime!

(http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/chart-9-gun.jpeg)

Most gangbangers etc are male, JW...

Jw2 says guns are sexist!

Local5th: See Mexico. The outlawed guns and now blah blah blah blah blah....







See Mexico? No. See how your spurious argument has been debunked: You ridiculed the investigative report that was published by Mother Jones magazine, making the bogus argument that it was worthless because it didn't include a comparison with other costs. Your implication, of course, was obvious. You believed there was no comparison because a comparison would prove the report false. Well, thanks to Jw2, you have the comparison you demanded and, not surprisingly, your bogus argument was thoroughly and effectively debunked.

 
Bottom line, I don't give a shit about the blah blah blah blah blah ....

No. Bottom line: Your bogus argument has been debunked. Take a seat and shut the fuck up, Local5th!

Apparently, we should ban men

according to Ma Jones kommie rag! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

D2D: 1965hawks says you have no right to commit suicide! [sic] 1965hawks says there in no cost in being a defenseless victim of crime!

No, D2D. That's not what 1965hawks said; that's what your lying ass said, and I won't sit here and let a lying cocksukcer like you tell bald-faced lies on me--like you've done here--without responding. Now run along and tell jim I called you a lying cocksucker and be sure you don't forget to tell him the reason for my giving you that well-earned and befitting title.



 

69Hocker.....  The term is "BOLD-faced lies"!!!  How does one have a BALD-face? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?  LIB-IDIOT!!!!!!!!

you have the comparison you demanded and, not surprisingly, your bogus argument was thoroughly and effectively debunked.

Nothing was debunked. True there were several comparisons. However the the comparisons did not use the same variables and assumptions to determine cost.

Gun violence has been halved in in the last 20 years. Does that decrease mean we are now saving $229 billion each year because we relaxed our gun laws?

Local5th: Nothing was debunked.

Yeah...Right, you delusional fool.

HAHAHAHA


True there were several comparisons.

Yeah, Local5th, your bogus argument was debunked by the very comparisons you demanded--the comparisons you thought would disprove the claims made in the report of the true cost of gun violence in America. But like all the other fallacious and opinionated arguments you gun nuts are wont to present in this forum, yours was easily refuted with factual evidence. 


However the the comparisons did not use the same variables and assumptions to determine cost.

Local5th,

Your logical fallacy: Moving The Goalposts (also known as raising the bar)--refusing to concede or admit the fact that an opponent has opponent has refuted the initial argument and, in a desperate attempt to save face, the refuted arguer adds another point to the original argument and then claims that the initial arguments was never refuted. Of course, if allowed to continue, the issue will change with each refutation until the new argument bears no resemblance or relevance at all to the original argument . That's why the moving the goal posts logical fallacy is sometimes called argument by demanding impossible perfection--no matter how many times an arguer debunks an opponent's argument, the opponent denies the refutation and continues to trot out variations of the debunked argument or, if the opponent is really desperate, an entirely different and irrelevant argument will be substituted for the original argument and the whole process will begin anew.

Take a seat and shut the fuck up, Local5th; your argument has been debunked. Your smokescreen doesn't fool me. Accept the fact that you've lost another one.

Local5th:Gun violence has been halved in in the last 20 years. Does that decrease mean we are now saving $229 billion each year because we relaxed our gun laws?

The answer to your question is "No." And the illogicalness of your question is obvious: How can you argue that we are saving $229 billion if gun violence is costing us $229 billion a year?

And if gun violence has been halved in the past 20 years, that decrease didn't affect the cost of gun violence in America. evidently the costs have continued to rise. In 2008 the cost of gun violence in the US was $100 billion; today it's roughly $2.3 billion.

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Gun-violence-costs-nation-100-billion-a-year-1265606.php (http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Gun-violence-costs-nation-100-billion-a-year-1265606.php)

Looks like you've lost another one, Local5th.

HAHA
   

Hawk, you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it came up and kicked you in the nuts.

The cost of gun violence: $229B.   The individual right to keep and bear arms: priceless.

Chuck....   (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

WWV10MHZ: 69Hocker.....  The term is "BOLD-faced lies"!!!  How does one have a BALD-face? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?  LIB-IDIOT!!!!!!!! [sic]

To: WWV10MHZ
in re: bald-faced lie versus bold-faced lie

The original term was bald-faced lie and refers to a face without  a beard or moustache. The term dates back to a time when beards were quite common and were used to help mask facial expressions while making business deals. A bald-faced liar was not able to tell a lie without guilt on his face, thus, a bald-faced liar was not a good liar.

The more correct term is a bald-faced lie; it refers to a shameless lie. The teller does not attempt to hide the guilt. In recent years, the term bold-faced lie entered the lexicon. It is used metaphorically in speech. In the same way that a typesetter uses bold-face type to highlight specific text and set it apart, a bold-faced lie stands out in such a way as to not be mistaken for the truth.

Source: ask.com


WWV10MHZ,

So now you know how someone tells a bald-faced lie, you conservative ignoramus.

By the way, WWV10MHZ, is English your second language or is your atrocious punctuation due to your functional illiteracy? Could it be due to your obvious lack of education or is it due simply to the incredible stupidity and ignorance you display here in this forum?   

byteryder7: Hawk, you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it came up and kicked you in the nuts.

Really? If what you say were true, then I wouldn't had immediately recognised the ad hominem you posted above.

Take a seat and shut the fuck up, byteryder7! As is always the case, you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

chuck_curtis: The cost of gun violence: $229B.   The individual right to keep and bear arms: priceless. [sic]

To: chuck and WWV10MHZ,

Too bad that so-called priceless, individual, right to be armed in the America that you gun nuts are babbling about is the root cause of the $229 billion Americans must pay annually for gun violence in America. It never ceases to amaze me: the same people who are vehemently opposed to paying for universal heath care in America are the same people who defend the high cost of gun violence in America by citing their phony Second Amendment right to own the weapons used to cause America's gun violence, and the high cost it imposes on the inhabitants of America. 

Considering there is no individual right to collective healthcare, you shouldn't be all that amazed, hawks.

Spoken like the true slave mentality of a dumbfuck
Leftard who would give up his rights to be a slave

Dims have their nerve talking about the cost of our rights
when they impose 21 new taxes 7 of which are directly on the
poor for their fascist ACA boondoggle written by and for the big Insr. Co.'s

To be fair the Dims love the poor
Proof is that they make so many of them!

chuck_curtis: Considering there is no individual right to collective healthcare, you shouldn't be all that amazed, hawks.

And considering the fact that there's really no right of private gun ownership defined in the Second Amendment, Scalia's bogus interpretation notwithstanding, then I'd say we're even. But it's that fantasy right that you and your misled supporters desperately cling to. And it's that phony Second Amendment "right" that's the root cause of the tremendous financial burden (roughly $2.3 billion) imposed on the American people--more specifically, the American taxpayer--by the epidemic gun violence that you and your supporters adamantly defend. The same right-wingnuts who continually oppose the idea of their tax dollars being used to pay for Obamacare are apparently satisfied that their tax dollars are used to pay the outrageous tab of $229 billion for gun violence in the United States. What kind of sense does that make, chuck?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/taxpayers-gun-violence_n_3915434.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/taxpayers-gun-violence_n_3915434.html)

We can disagree about the existence of the individual right to bear arms (and where is comes from), but the difference between my view on that, and its costs, and of collective healthcare, and its costs, is an express difference, and so should not be meet with amazement.

As for the costs of gun violence, it is not the total monetary cost that concerns me so much.  My efforts would be more toward determining who is paying those costs and why.  It should be the responsible parties, and if it is not we should determine why not and how to make that so to the greatest extent possible.   Generally, however, what we find is that many of the monetary costs are, unfortunately, collectivized and that gets back to the root problem that collectivism brings in the first place.

The answer to your question is "No." And the illogicalness of your question is obvious: How can you argue that we are saving $229 billion if gun violence is costing us $229 billion a year?

And if gun violence has been halved in the past 20 years, that decrease didn't affect the cost of gun violence in America. evidently the costs have continued to rise. In 2008 the cost of gun violence in the US was $100 billion; today it's roughly $2.3 billion.

If it's gone from 100 billion to 2.3 billion that is a reduction hawk.

And it's not an illogical question. If gun violence has gone down by 50% so should the costs.

Another thing, suicides should be taken out of the equation. There are several advanced country's that have more restrictive gun laws and a higher suicide rate.  Case in point is Japan. Their suicide rate is twice ours.

69Hocker......

Have you noticed that your points of view are constantly trashed by nearly everyone here? Most people would get the message that those thoughts
   are way out of touch with reality.

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCqRcIDUEAAgS2E.png:large)

Hawks is one of those mindless posters who is capable of nothing more than parroting the party line!

Actually defending the logic of what he posts is something he cannot do!

The simple fact is self defense is not a cost to society!

Localt5th: If the cost of gun violence in America has gone from 100 billion in 2008 to 2.3 billion 2015, then that is a reduction, 1965hawks.

Local5th,

Your rebuttal is based on something that evidently you and I failed to notice: my typographical error.

In 2008, the annual cost of gun violence in the United States was $100 billion; today it's $229 billion, almost $230 billion--not the $2.3 billion on which your rebuttal is based. Actually there was an increase of $129 billion; and I'm sure you'll agree that's a lot more than $2.3 billion.

A billion is a thousand millions (1,000 x 1,000,000,000=1,000,000,000,000). That's 1 followed by 12 zeros; 1 x 10 raised to the 12th power; or 1E12.

229 x 1,000 x 1,000,000,000=229,000 x 1,000,000,000 =229,000,000,000,000 (229 billion). That's 229 followed by 12 zeros,  or 229E12, or 2.29E14.

2.29E14 rounded up = 2.3E14=230 billion; that's 230 followed by 12 zeros (230,000,000,000,000), not 2.3E12 (2.3 billion), 23 followed by 12 zeros (23,000,000,000,000)

So, as you can see, Local5th, there was no decrease. In actuality, the cost of gun violence rose from 2008 to 2015, a cost increase of 129%.


And it's not an illogical question. If gun violence has gone down by 50% so should the costs.

You haven't provided evidence to support your claim that gun violence has decreased by 50%, Local5th. On the other hand, I've shown that the cost of gun violence in the US increased by 129% in less than a decade.  And when you do provide that evidence, you'll have to provide evidence to support your claim that the cost of gun violence also decreased by 50% or more to validate your claim. 

Another thing, suicides should be taken out of the equation. There are several advanced country's that have more restrictive gun laws and a higher suicide rate.  Case in point is Japan. Their suicide rate is twice ours.



You've tried to make that same argument before. It's illogical: Using a firearm to commit suicide is an act of gun violence; a person who dies of a self-inflicted gunshot wound dies a violent death. Suicide is the leading cause of gun deaths in the United States, it would be illogical to exclude deaths caused by suicide in a report on the costs of gun violence in the USA.

And, finally, your arguing about suicide rates in Japan is irrelevant in a discussion about the costs of gun violence in the United States. Comparing suicide rates in Japan with the cost if gun violence is a logical fallacy-- false analogy. The two are not analogous. Arguments based on logical fallacies are fallacious arguments--arguments with no basis in fact.

If gun violence has gone down by 50% so should the costs.



Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/shocked.gif)


Yep, a well armed public is our biggest deterrent to crime and violence
even to the point of lowering criminal gun violence/crime costs that the left uses
to demonize the 2nd amendment like any statist and enemy of freedom would, eh?

Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years ...


May 7, 2013 ... Gun violence in America has fallen dramatically over the past two decades ... of murders committed with a firearm is down too, though guns are still by ... that since he took office, gun ownership in America has soared - with FBI ...
usnews.nbcnews.com/ _news/ 2013/ 05/ 07/ 18108298-gun-violence-in-us-h as-fallen-dramatically-over-p ast-20-years-justice-dept-rep ort-finds

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Thanks for your BS commie side reporting there 69BirdBrain!

It's always amusing to see what the haters and losers are up to!

The societal cost of just one gun homicide averages $5million, according to the institute. That includes $1.6 millionin lost work; $29,000 in medical care; $11,000 on survivingfamilies’ mental-health treatment; $397,000 in criminal-justice,incarceration and police expenses; $9,000 in employer losses;and $3 million in pain, suffering and lost quality of life.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-21/shootings-costing-u-s-174-billion-show-burden-of-gun-violence

That being true Hawk if you reduce homicides by half you reduce annual costs by half.

We should ban violence in America.   That would save money.   Time to look at the demographics and profile violence in an effort to deter it.   Screw PC...

(http://www.motherjones.com/files/hhhh.jpg)

Medical deaths top both at 120,000 accidental deaths per year.

Of course Jw2's figures include self defense and suicide!

Liberals will to anything to skew the numbers!

Liars that they are!

Dont forget ...

Those numbers reflect 20 years of falling gun violence

and the accociated cost has also dropped dramatically! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

(http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20130201-webgunstats1.png.ece/BINARY/w620x413/webgunstats1.png)

 The exceptions to America’s declining crime rate are largely located in cities that have banned guns.

The Clinton Justice Department found there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year.

Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc.

of course, you can support your posted claims with a url link to information supporting your statements.
 
 

A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life. More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie.

The victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household.

According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. And according to the United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States.

England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

I can give you hundreds of links, JW...


https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylc=X1MDMjE0MjQ3ODk0OARfcgMyBGZyA3lteXktdC05OTkEZnIyA3NhLWdwBGdwcmlkAwRuX2dwcwMzBG9yaWdpbgNteS55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzEEcHFzdHIDBHF1ZXJ5A2d1bnMgc2F2ZSBtb3JlIGxpdmVzIHRoYW4gdGhleSB0YWtlBHNhYwMxBHNhbwMx?p=guns%20save%20more%20lives%20than%20they%20take&fr=ymyy-t-999&fr2=p%3Amy%2Cm%3Asa&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001&type=att_pc_my_portal (https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylc=X1MDMjE0MjQ3ODk0OARfcgMyBGZyA3lteXktdC05OTkEZnIyA3NhLWdwBGdwcmlkAwRuX2dwcwMzBG9yaWdpbgNteS55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzEEcHFzdHIDBHF1ZXJ5A2d1bnMgc2F2ZSBtb3JlIGxpdmVzIHRoYW4gdGhleSB0YWtlBHNhYwMxBHNhbwMx?p=guns%20save%20more%20lives%20than%20they%20take&fr=ymyy-t-999&fr2=p%3Amy%2Cm%3Asa&hspart=att&hsimp=yhs-att_001&type=att_pc_my_portal)

Looking at the gun chart that JW2 provided of 89 guns per 100 citizens... Not enough!  We need 100% of our citizenry fully armed. Mostly from the enemy within like JW.

I hope he has a sign in his front yard.  This house does not have any weapons and does not believe in violence.

Two houses sitting side-by-side on a city street.

One has a sign near their porch that says, "Protected By Smith & Wesson" .

The other house has no sign.

Which one will be targeted by burglars or home invaders......and which one will not?

 Notice Jw2 is military and civilian ownership!

The founders intended for all lawful able bodied citizens to be armed.    Is that a problem now?   It hasn't been for most of our history.   What changed besides LBJ's acts, etc?

sine-qua-non: May 7, 2013 ... Gun violence in America has fallen dramatically over the past two decades ... of murders committed with a firearm is down too.

What you say just might be true. But is it relevant to this discussion? No. it's a red herring. The issue at hand is the true cost of gun violence in the United States, not the dramatic decrease of gun violence over the past two decades or a decrease in the number of homicides committed with firearms. Obviously you're arguing the wrong point. Aren't you, sine-qua-non?

Hawk,
Use your "self-perceived" superior intellect...and tell me/us...which demographic/race/class, commits the vast majority of these gun violence crimes? 

sine-qua-non: Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet!

That's another red herring, sine-qua-non.  The issue here isn't whether soaring gun sales results in a decline in criminal activity.The issue here is the tremendous financial burden that gun violence imposes on the inhabitants of this country--a financial burden that's  shouldered mostly by American taxpayers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/taxpayers-gun-violence_n_3915434.html

sweetwater5s9: The founders intended for all lawful able bodied citizens to be armed.

Your assertion is irrelevant, sweetwater5s9. The issue here is the high cost of gun violence in the United States. Remember?

Is that a problem now?

To which problem are you referring, sweetwate5s9, your penchant for arguing the wrong point or the high cost of gun violence in the United States?

It hasn't been for most of our history. What changed besides LBJ's acts, etc?

Huh? What the hell are you babbling about, sweetwater5s9?

LOL

jst-the-fax: Use your "self-perceived" superior intellect...and tell me/us...which demographic/race/class, commits the vast majority of these gun violence crimes?

You're confused again, jst-the-fax. The issue here is the high cost of gun violence, not which race or class commits the most criminal acts using a firearm. Sounds like you're up to your old race-baiting tricks again. Isn't that right, jst-no-fax?

LOL


                                                                                                                                       

If you want to reduce the cost of gun violence I suggest you advocate longer prison sentencing for criminals and greater control of criminals on parole!

Insert Quote (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=207256.168;num_replies=180#top)
                           
D2D: If you want to reduce the cost of gun violence I suggest you advocate longer prison sentencing for criminals and greater control of criminals on parole!

Why do you and your fellow gun nuts continue babbling about criminals,D2D? The vast majority of gun violence in the US isn't committed by criminals.

sweetwater5s9: England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

But are England the other industrialised countries of the world burdened with the same high cost of gun violence as the United States?
 

 A lie!

You have no proof of that!

Basic to the debates on gun control is the fact that most violent crime is committed by repeat offenders. Dealing with recidivism is key to solving violence.
• 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
• 64% had been convicted of a crime.
• Each had an average of 11 prior arrests.150,151
• 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories).152
Most gun violence is between criminals. This should be the public policy focus.

150 Richard Lumb, Paul Friday, City of Charlotte Gunshot Study, Department of Criminal Justice, 1994
151 Homicides and Non-Fatal Shootings: A Report on the First 6 Months Of 2009, Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission, July 13, 2009
152 Firearm-related Injury Incidents in 1999 – Annual Report, San Francisco Department of Public Health and San Francisco Injury Center, February 2002

D2D: Hawks is one of those mindless posters who is capable of nothing more than parroting the party line! Actually defending the logic of what he posts is something he cannot do!


And evidently D2D still believes she can refute an argument by attacking the arguer instead of attacking the argument itself and pointing out where it lacks merit.

The simple fact is self defense is not a cost to society!

Here's the simple fact, D2D: The issue here isn't self-defense; it's the true cost of gun violence in America. Based on your non-stop babbling about self-defense, evidently that's a simple fact your simple-minded ass is incapable of comprehending. But that's your problem, not mine.

No the issue is self defense as you post it as a cost!

To: D2D
in re: Reply #184

The leading cause of gun violence in the US is suicide, not the criminal use of firearms. Remember?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/guns-suicide_n_3240065.html

The issue here is the high cost of gun violence in the United States; you continue to babble irrelevant bullshit about criminals and crime.

D2D: No the issue is self defense as you post it as a cost! [sic]

No, D2D. The topic of this thread isn't self-defense. That's what you are trying to make it.  The topic of this thread is "The True cost of Gun Violence in America." Remember? That's the issue here.

Suicide is a choice not a cost!

Self defense is not a cost and neither is suicide!

sine-qua-non: Dont forget .Those numbers reflect 20 years of falling gun violence and the accociated cost has also dropped dramatically! [sic]

sine-qua-non,

You forgot to support your claim by providing evidence that the cost of gun violence has "dropped dramatically" in the past twenty years. I've provided evidence to the contrary that refutes that claim. But perhaps I'll be persuaded to change my mind after perusing the evidence you provide.

Suicide and self defense are not costs!

Suicide and self defense are not costs!

D2D: Suicide and self defense are not costs!

D2D,

Explain why you believe using a firearm to commit suicide is not an example of gun violence. Explain why you believe a person using a firearm to wound or kill a person or persons in self-defense is not an example of gun violence.

There is no cost to the victim in suicide and no cost to society in self defense!

sweetwater5s9: A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life. More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie.

Irrelevant--a red herring: What you posted above has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand--the true (high) cost of gun violence in the United States of America.

The victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household.

Red Herring! What you posted above is irrelevant to the issue at hand, sweetwater5s9.

According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. And according to the United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States.

The topic of this thread is "The True Cost of Gun Violence in America." Explain how what you posted above is even remotely relevant to the topic of the thread, sweetwater5s9.

England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

D2D: There is no cost to the victim in suicide and no cost to society in self defense!

Yeah...right, D2D. That makes about as much sense as that exclamation point you tack on the end of your declarative sentences.

You forgot to support your claim by providing evidence that the cost of gun violence has "dropped dramatically" in the past twenty years. I've provided evidence to the contrary that refutes that claim. But perhaps I'll be persuaded to change my mind after perusing the evidence you provide.



That was not MY claim 69BirdBrain! 

Those numbers came from the FBI but thanks for the compliment!

No, I didn't forget to use common sense to come to that conclusion



Even counting for inflation a "dramatic drop" in gun violence and the costs associated

with it, is something one would not expect to rise, one must first have common sense

to see that.

See, if the cops don't write as many traffic tickets as last year, their revenue collection from the fines also drops which is a direct response to writing less tickets.
The same goes for gun violence, less violence means less costs!

  Apparently you can't see that which means you have no common sense or

Even uncommon sense!(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

As for me, I'll believe the FBI over MJ' Bull Shit known leftist propaganda magazine!
(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/shocked.gif)

End it .. NOW

byteryder7: End it .. NOW [sic]

Local5th: Agreed. Besides, the cost of gun violence is minimal compared to the annual cost of refrigerator assisted obesity (364.8 billion) in America.

Local5th,

As long as you continue posting irrelevant bullshit like  that rigmarole above, I'll continue debunking it.

Your obesity comparison was debunked several posts back. Remember?

sine-qua-non: That was not MY claim 69BirdBrain!  Those numbers came from the FBI but thanks for the compliment!

sine-qua-non,

Did the FBI say the cost of gun violence in the US had declined, or was that your claim?

Okay, you have no common sense and you can't comprehend what is posted

Looks like ...
MY WORK HERE IS FINISHED (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

Self defense and suicide are not costs!

huh,,what's the cause of gun violence?

harbin336: huh,,what's the cause of gun violence? [sic]

What's the topic of this thread, harbin 336? Is it the cause of gun violence or is it the cost of gun violence? Huh?

D2D: Self defense and suicide are not costs!

HAHAHAHA

sine-qua-non: Looks like ...MY WORK HERE IS FINISHED [sic]

sine-qua-non,

Truth is, your dumb ass never really got started here. So now you can take your stupidity and ignorance back to the eXcite nut house where it belongs. Go back! Get back to work doing what you do best-- being that message board's resident ass clown.

Local5th: Bullshit or not refrigerators, or forks if you prefer, kill more people per year than guns hawk. At a greater cost too. [sic]

That's bullshit, Local5th.



That statement/claim is as true as yours re guns. [sic]

Uh-uh, Local5th. Your preposterous assertion isn't true; it's bullshit.

A social and demographic problem as usual when you look at the cost of violence with a firearm...  No wonder the left hates profiling.

sweetwater5s9: A social and demographic problem as usual when you look at the cost of violence with a firearm...  No wonder the left hates profiling.

And, as usual, sweetwater5s9 is still attempting to interject a red herring into a discussion--attempting to blame gun violence on a certain demographic--and ignoring the original issue: the true cost of gun violence in this country.
 

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns>

This is a fact that has been learned in EVERY country whenever the Govt takes away guns from law-abiding citizens!

Ysine-qua-non: Looks like ...MY WORK HERE IS FINISHED [sic]



Yep, I debunked your mama jones propaganda with the

FBI's own numbers for the last 20 yrs.


Now, admit you are a leftstded dupe as you have been exposed again here

stop your childish ad hominum attacks and STFU!

Nothing but unreasoning denial from 1965hawks!

How sad!

Guns are tools that are essentially no different conceptually from a hammer,knife,screwdriver,fish hook,stick,wrench,pen or ballot.
All are used by the hand of man.

Tabulating the cost of gun violence is,,in itself a 'red herring' unless one deducts the value added thru the use of guns.
You use it as a question to attack rather than an answer for problems.

How about asking,,what's the price paid for:
Despotic tyranny.
Slavery.
Suppression of free speech.
Religious oppression.
Genocide.
Fascism.
Communism.
Socialism.
Thuggism.

???

Or maybe,,what's the cost of no guns?
Despotic tyranny.
Slavery.
Suppression of free speech.
Religious oppression.
Genocide.
Fascism.
Communism.
Socialism.
Thuggism.
Freedom to have a gun is right up their with all the other freedoms guns have enabled throughout history.
Without guns,,what kind of life would you have,65?
Would you even be alive without them having been used?

harbin336: Guns are tools that are essentially no different conceptually from a hammer,knife,screwdriver,fish hook,stick,wrench,pen or ballot. All are used by the hand of man.

Your argument's irrelevant, harbin336. The topic here is the cost of gun violence in the United States, not whether a firearm is a tool. Your assertion is an irrelevant distraction away from the original topic--a red herring.

Tabulating the cost of gun violence is,,in itself a 'red herring' unless one deducts the value added thru the use of guns. [sic]

Uh-uh, harbin336. Your argument is as fallacious as those made by Local5th and D2D.

You use it as a question to attack rather than an answer for problems.

You're confused again, harbin336. I'm using the facts of the Mother Jones investigative report to attack (and debunk) the fallacious argument you and your supporters have made throughout the course of this thread.

How about asking,,what's the price paid for:
Despotic tyranny. Slavery.Suppression of free speech.Religious oppression.Genocide.Fascism.Communism.Socialism.Thuggism.? [sic]

Because none of those things are relevant to this discussion. The topic of this discussion is "The True Cost of Gun Violence in America." Remember?



Or maybe,,what's the cost of no guns? Despotic tyranny. Slavery. Suppression of free speech. Religious oppression. Genocide. Fascism. Communism. Socialism. Thuggism. [sic]

What about you sticking to the original issue and stop trying to interject red herrings into the discussion, harbin336?

Freedom to have a gun is right up their with all the other freedoms guns have enabled throughout history.

What's the issue here, harbin336? is it freedom, gun ownership, or the true cost of gun violence in the United States? Why do you continue to evade the issue? Why do you continue your attempt to interject red herrings into the discussion?

Without guns,,what kind of life would you have,65? [sic]

Is life without guns the issue here or is it the true cost of gun violence in the US, harbin336?

Would you even be alive without them having been used?

Question: What's the cost of them being used?
Answer: $229 billion.

That's the issue here, harbin336. The true cost of gun violence in America.

http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2015/04/countries/united-states/the-true-cost-of-gun-violence

Nothing is more irrelevant than your desperate posts about the Bill of Rights that you cannot change, hawk...  Get used to it.  Work on the social and demographic problem associated with violence instead of ignoring the problem.

sweetwater5s9: Nothing is more irrelevant than your desperate posts about the Bill of Rights that you cannot change, hawk... [sic]

What desperate posts have I made about the Bill of Rights, sweetwater5s9? You must be talking about harbin336. In a desperate attempt to interject red herrings into this discussion, she just posted a load of irrelevant rigmarole about rights and freedom. But I reminded her that the issue here is the true cost of gun violence in America. I'm not attempting to change anything about the Bill of Rights. Truth is, harbin336 attempted to change the subject by introducing an irrelevant distraction away from the original issue (a red herring), just like you're doing here, sweetwater5s9.

Get used to it.

I already have. I've gotten use to spotting the logical fallacies that you, harbin336, and my other right-wing opponents use in this forum. And, needless to say, I've become quite good at debunking them.

Work on the social and demographic problem associated with violence instead of ignoring the problem.

Speaking of ignoring, why are you ignoring the original issue--the true cost of gun violence in America--and continuing to blabber on and on about social and demographic problems. That's your obvious problem, sweetwater5s9--avoiding the issue and arguing the wrong point. That's the problem you need to work on.

WWV10MHZ: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns> [sic]

I haven't said a word about banning guns. Have I, WWV10MHZ? Your red herring--using a debunked NRA bumper-sticker slogan, at that!--was incredibly stupid and rather silly, to be perfectly honest.

LOL 

This is a fact that has been learned in EVERY country whenever the Govt takes away guns from law-abiding citizens!

The topic of this thread is "The True Cost of Gun Violence in America." Babbling about criminals, gun bans, and the government taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is pointless and irrelevant. When will you and your pals in this discussion learn that fact, WWV10MHZ?

1965hawks everything you have said on guns is pointed at one objective, their being banned for civilian use or possession!

You can deny it all you want but in the end you are a totalitarian gun grabber!

Wrong!

Countries with gun bans have plenty of well armed bad guys and usually they run the government!

Harbin, Don't expect too much from the left side of the board.  They spend too much time transmitting and not enough time receiving. 

Studies show homicides go UP when guns are banned.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Every place that has been banned guns has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

For an example of homicide rates before and after a ban, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (source here (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary) see Table 1.01 and the column marked “Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population”).  After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996.  The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates.   The homicide rate only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004.   Despite the huge (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/115783/hosb0912.pdf) increase (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/143957/hosb0113.pdf) in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.


http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities


The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let’s hope more people are catching on.

WWV10MHZ: Studies show homicides go UP when guns are banned.

WWV10MHZ,

Why are you posting irrelevant information? Why are you babbling about gun bans and an increase in homicides? Let me remind you again: The topic of this thread is "The True Cost of Gun Violence in America." It cost over $2 billion dollars a year in hospital charges to treat victims of firearms-related injuries. I'll remind you again: That's the issue here. Your posting red herrings about gun bans causing increased homicides won't change that fact and, of course, allows you to conveniently avoid discussing the real issue.



 

D2D: 1965hawks everything you have said on guns is pointed at one objective, their being banned for civilian use or possession! [sic]

D2D,

Explain how my posts about health costs of gun violence is "pointed at the objective of banning firearms for civilian use or possession." Point out in the following article where it advocates even the remotest suggestion of banning the possession of firearms for private use in the United States of America.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11543070/Annual-economic-cost-of-US-gun-violence-is-700-for-every-American.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11543070/Annual-economic-cost-of-US-gun-violence-is-700-for-every-American.html)


You can deny it all you want but in the end you are a totalitarian gun grabber!

Here's what you can't deny, D2D: You're avoiding the real issue at hand--the true cost of gun violence in the US. The annual economic costs of the epidemic gun violence in the US totally dwarfs the national economies of many other countries. But you would rather dodge the issue by posting NRA-poppycock. "Totalitarian gun-grabber?" Yeah...Right, D2D.

LOL   

What else could your objective be?

D2D: What else could your objective be?

Well, it certainly isn't your insinuation that I'm a "totalitarian" who wants to "grab" somebody's gun.

HAHA

D2d, His agenda is to repeat unfounded and debunked by the FBI commie crap

from known sources of antiAmericanism !

I thought it was obvious! ???

Work on the social and demographic problem associated with the high cost of violence in America instead of ignoring the problem and blaming an object, hawk.   If you have the guts to be honest with the social and cultural issues affecting violence ?

sine-qua-non: D2d, His agenda is to repeat unfounded and debunked by the FBI commie crap from known sources of anti-Americanism ! I thought it was obvious!  [sic]

sine-qua-non,

Here's what's really obvious: Both you and your pal D2D attacked the arguer instead of attacking the argument itself and providing evidence that refutes it. And you can stop harping on the article you posted about the FBI. The article said nothing at all about the cost of gun violence, which, of course, is the topic of this thread--the topic that you and your supporters in this thread continue to avoid discussing.

I thought it was obvious!

Don't believe everything you think, sine-qua-non.

sweetwater5s9: Work on the social and demographic problem blah blah blah blah blah....

I'll remind you again that the "social and demographic problem" isn't the issue at hand, sweetwater5s9. That's the red herring you continually attempt to interject into the discussion with the objective of shifting attention away from the main issue: the true cost of gun violence in the United States. And I'll remind you of that every time you attempt to change the subject by trying to introduce an irrelevant distraction into this discussion.


 

How is saying "self defense and suicide are not costs" equal to attacking the messenger?

read it again 69 BirdBrain moron!

i never attacked you or your stupid hairbrained kommie post

iI let the FBI debunk your post and you whacky opinions!
btw, it said gun viloence was falling for the last twenty years!
that means so are the costs, a fact your MJ article completely ignores
when it totally skews their propaganda that semi-liteate dupes like you
suck up like mothers milk!


(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)


apparently, you are another semi literate as was Ho-Duddy!

D2D: How is saying "self defense and suicide are not costs" equal to attacking the messenger?

D2D,

At issue here is the cost of gun violence. Evidently you're still denying the fact that guns used to kill or wound--even in self-defense--are acts of gun violence, just as using a gun in an attempt to take your own life is an act of gun violence. Apparently you still can't comprehend the tremendous financial burden that gun violence imposes on the American people. Despite your repeated denial, defensive gun use that results in death or injury and using a firearm in a failed attempt to attempt suicide--or using a firearm to complete a suicide--does indeed add to the true cost of gun violence in America.

69Hocker.......

Well, DUH!!!  Negroes shooting up other Negroes in the ghettos is costing Normal America lots of $$$$. Everybody KNOWS that!!!

Do you have any info on LAW-ABIDING Citizens causing any of these high costs? ? ? ? ?

You won't find any. It doesn't happen!!!! Normal People don't whip out guns at the slightest provocation and start shooting.

Why should Normal Law-Abiding Citizens be punished for crimes committed by the dregs of society? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

To: sine-qua-non

in re: Reply #244

You began by denying you attacked me or my posts, even though you specifically referred to me as "69 BirdBrain" and referred to my post as a "kommie post." So that makes you a bald-faced liar. Doesn't it, sine-qua-non?

There was nothing at all in your post to refuted my argument that gun violence in America places a tremendous financial burden on the American people. You're arguing that FBI statistics say gun violence has fallen in the US over the past twenty year, but that's not the issue at hand. The issue here is the high cost of gun violence.

Your logical fallacy: non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow")--Your argument's conclusion does not follow the premise upon which it is based. You're arguing that since FBI statistics say incidents of gun violence have declined in the United States; therefore, the costs of gun violence have declined in the US. But the FBI statistics you provided as evidence makes no such claim. The defect in your argument is obvious: You're arguing your personal opinion as fact (a fallacious argument) and, in addition to that, your personal opinion is based on the logical fallacy of your erroneous deductive reasoning.

Finally, your silly babbling about "Ho-Duddy" neither undermines my argument nor supports yours. In actuality, what it does is underscore your inability to defend your spurious argument by using logical fallacies and fallacies of argumentation and debate.   

Work on the social and demographic problem associated with the high cost of violence in America instead of ignoring the problem and blaming an inanimate object, hawk.   If you have the guts to be honest with the social and cultural issues affecting the cost of violence ?

WWV10MHZ: Well, DUH!!!  Negroes shooting up other Negroes in the ghettos is costing Normal America lots of $$$$. Everybody KNOWS that!!! [sic]

WWV10MHZ,

I'm not going to waste my time responding to your vitriolic, race-baiting rigmarole today. And don't respond to anymore of my posts until you do what I've asked you to do: Define a "Normal American."

69Hocker.....

Well, for one thing, Normal People are NOT Negroes shooting up other Negroes in ghettos!

That's NOT normal in most of America, in case you hadn't noticed.

sweetwater5s9: Work on the social and demographic problem associated with the high cost of violence in America instead of ignoring the problem and blaming an inanimate object, hawk.   If you have the guts to be honest with the social and cultural issues affecting the cost of violence ?

I'm not ignoring the issue the issue, sweetwater5s9. But you are. At issue here is the high cost of "inanimate object" violence in America. But you continue your fallacious attempt to refocus attention away from the high cost of "inanimate object" violence onto the "social and demographic problem." (Apparently you prefer to use right-wing code words like "inanimate objects" for "firearms" and "social and demographic problem" for "blacks and Latinos." Huh, sweetwater5s9? So that mean you're a racist but you aren't as rabidly racist as WWV10MHZ. Isn't that right, sweetwater5s9?   

Define a Normal American.

Peaceful.reasonably law abiding,non violent,just wants to provide for themselves and their families,wants peace,prosperity and as little gov oversight or control in their life as is possible.

They have pride and self respect and do not wish to have,,or claim to have need of,,anyone else footing their bills or supplying all their wants on the backs of others.
(They are anti-slavery.)

They don't go out of their way to take from others and don't want others to take from them.

They keep their private life private and only want others to do the same.

They really don't care what others do,,or think as long as their own toes don't get stepped on.

They simply want life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness,,among other Creator endowed freedoms and rights for themselves and everyone else.

AND,,being NOT naïve,,with a healthy dose of cynical skepticism,,they don't trust in nor count on,,politicos doing their best for all of the citizens as they know those folks are not the ones that have what it takes to be trustworthy since they chose that field of endeavor.

69Hocker.......

Why don't you admit that it's NOT Law-Abiding Citizens that are the cause of gun violence in America and that they should NOT be punished for
  the actions of CRIMINALS? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Should all autos be banned because of the high cost of accidents?

Should all narcotics be banned because some people abuse them?

Should all sex be banned because there are prostitutes?

.......  Many other silly examples could be used to show the silliness of your argument.

WWV10MHZ: Well, for one thing, Normal People are NOT Negroes shooting up other Negroes in ghettos! That's NOT normal in most of America, in case you hadn't noticed.

Here's what I've noticed, WWV10MHZ: I've noticed that very time I've asked you to define what a "normal American" is, you always respond with an example of your bigoted personal opinion. But that's beside the point. At issue here is the high cost of gun violence in the US, not black-on-black crime in the US.

harbin........  Excellent post!!!  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

65 blurted:
I'm not ignoring the issue the issue, sweetwater5s9. But you are. At issue here is the high cost of "inanimate object" violence in America.

Inanimate objects can not commit violence without a human wielding it.
Not once has a gun decided to commit violence to defend or attack someone or something.
The issue you are obfuscating is an issue of 'violent actions committed by humans against or because of other humans'.
If not,,then you would be lumping in all tragedies associated with autos,hammers,knives,clubs,rocks and even glass ashtrays since they too are inanimate objects.

Typical Lib/Dem knee-jerk solution: Punish Law-Abiding Gun Owners due to the violent gun crimes committed by CRIMINALS!!!!!!!

Jizz-Wanker2 is too stupid to know how to post an image!!!!

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/rolleyes.gif)

WWV10MHZ is too stupid to recognize facts and work with the truth...


This gun owner was 100% legal and responsible...up to the point he couldn't manage his relationship and became a murderer and made his child an orphan, that the state (with taxes from us) will now have to care for.

Cops: Mother killed in murder-suicide (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nwitimes.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fporter%2Fcops-mother-killed-in-murder-suicide%2Farticle_4a2137ec-91f5-53b7-a63c-9a3c0f3b5914.html&ei=JvFQVbmQJsGHsAX6mIDIAQ&usg=AFQjCNGKnilYdbAUhM3D-0tqFWBBpZXZrA&sig2=T4AL0RYjDdumgbofEjGGzA&bvm=bv.92885102,d.b2w)


he was white as all can be, too.

To: harbin336
in re: Reply #252

You can't define what a "normal" American is until you define "normal." You didn't do that; you gave examples of what your personal opinion of a "normal" American is. And when you define that so-called American, then explain why a "normal" American is incapable of committing gun violence and, thus, aren't responsible for the costs of gun violence in the United States of America.

WWV10MHZ: Why don't you admit that it's NOT Law-Abiding Citizens that are the cause of gun violence in America,...

Because such an admission would fly in the face of reason, logic, and reality. Your question is based on the preposterous premiss that would have us believe that so-called law-abiding citizens are incapable of committing acts of gun violence. Your argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of incidents of gun violence aren't criminal acts.

...and that they should NOT be punished for the actions of CRIMINALS? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [sic]

Explain how pointing out the high cost of gun costs in the United States is "punishing" law-abiding citizens, WWV10MHZ.

Should all autos be banned because of the high cost of accidents?

Your question is a red herring, WWV10MHZ. What relevance does banning motor vehicles have in a discussion about the staggering costs of gun violence in the US?

Should all narcotics be banned because some people abuse them?

That's another red herring. What effect would banning narcotics have on reducing the costs of gun violence in the United States, WWV10MHZ? Do you see how irrelevant your question is?

Should all sex be banned because there are prostitutes?

Would banning sex reduce the cost of gun violence in the United States? See how irrelevant your question is, WWV10MHZ? See how easy it is for a critical reader to spot its logical fallacy?
.......  Many other silly examples could be used to show the silliness of your argument. [sic]

Yes. You could continue posting more of your silly red herrings, WWV10MHZ. But none of your fallacious arguments would change the fact of the true (and high) cost of gun violence in America.  And, by the way, it's your arguments that are silly in this thread, not mine.

LOL

WWV10MHZ: Jizz-Wanker2 is too stupid to know how to post an image!!!! [sic]

Does an advocate's inability to post an image on this message board mean that the advocate's argument is automatically refuted or debunked?

WWV10MHZ: Why don't you admit that it's NOT Law-Abiding Citizens that are the cause of gun violence in America.


oh, like this white law-abiding citizen?


Pair Identified In Murder/Suicide (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=newssearch&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDIQqQIoADAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chattanoogan.com%2F2015%2F5%2F11%2F300164%2FPair-Identified--In-MurderSuicide.aspx&ei=pvdQVeOlNcHEsAWUwoH4DA&usg=AFQjCNFbuvQLy5ac9qTHJLjxW_4jP84X9A&sig2=SHcVZI20rOozwhm-oCFtmw&bvm=bv.92885102,d.b2w)

you were told what it means

the fact that you demonstrate the traits of a semi-literate is obvious!

the true cost of criminal gun violence has been dropping for twenty years
according to the Govt.  Because your kommie MJ doesnt mention that fact
harms the rags credibility and all those who quote its articles!

harbin336: Inanimate objects can not commit violence without a human wielding it.

You're attacking a straw man, harbin336. I've never made that claim in this thread and, needless to say, I won't waste my time trying to refute it. And by the way, your assertion is a red herring: At issue here is the financial burden that gun violence places on the shoulders of the American taxpayer, not whether guns--deadly weapons per se!-- can act on their own volition. Apparently you gun nuts never get tired of trotting out that shop-worn NRA baloney. 
Not once has a gun decided to commit violence to defend or attack someone or something.

First point out where I made that preposterous claim in this thread. Then explain why you're babbling about an "inanimate object" endowed with a conscience...something that you've already admitted was an impossibility.

The issue you are obfuscating is an issue of 'violent actions committed by humans against or because of other humans'. [sic]

Uh-uh, harbin336. The issue that you and your gun-nut pals are ignoring here is the topic of this thread: "The True Cost of Gun Violence in America." It's you and your supporters in this discussion who are the obfuscators; it's you who continue to cloud the original issue with your non-stop stream of absurd and illogical arguments based on you unsound reasoning, flawed logic, fallacies of argumentation and debate, logical fallacies and prosperous claims.  But it goes without saying, however, that all of your obfuscations have been all for naught--none of your silly arguments have changed the fact that Americans--the American taxpayer, to be exact--shoulder the tremendous financial burden caused by gun violence in this country.


If not,,then you would be lumping in all tragedies associated with autos,hammers,knives,clubs,rocks and even glass ashtrays since they too are inanimate objects.

Based on its popularity in this forum, evidently you gun nuts must truly believe your "inanimate object" argument is an iron-clad argument. Well, obviously it isn't. Truth is, it's rather inane.

LOL

HAHAHA

sine-qua-non: you were told what it means [sic]

sine-qua-non,

Neither you nor any of your supporters have yet to define either "normal" or "normal American." (You would think that WWV10MHZ, our forum's resident racist, would be the first to step forward and define what is apparently his favourite term.) All you've done is post the typical opinionated crap you right-wingers are wont to spew in this forum. Not surprisingly, none of you hyper-patriots--who wrap yourselves in Old Glory and arrogantly demean those you deem "un-American"--can offer a definition of a "normal American." All you can do is spew code words and catchphrases you evidently gleaned from your favourite anti-American websites and right-wing media outlets.

Jw2,

Notice how WWV10HMZ shut the fuck up when confronted with evidence of white, law-abiding citizens committing gun violence. Where's that redneck's vociferous and vitriolic race-baiting now? Where did that rabid white supremacist slink away to hide...under a white hood, perhaps?

okay, since you have no answer for my post but to refer to
someone elses post means i was a solutely correct about you 69BirdBrain!
not that i needed more evidence LOL!


btw, FBI data is not 'personal opinion' to most literate folks! (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif): okay, since you have no answer for my post but to refer to someone elses post means i was a solutely correct about you 69BirdBrain! [sic]

Huh?  What the fuck are you babbling about, sine-qua-non?

HAHAHA
not that i needed more evidence! LOL [sic]

You don't need more evidence, sine-qua-non. What you really need is something to replace that humongous turd that's taking up all the space in your cranium...a BRAIN.


btw, FBI data is not 'personal opinion' to most literate folks!

Were your dumb ass went astray was when you used FBI statistics showing a decrease in violence and then posted your opinionated argument that the FBI statistics showed that the cost of gun violence had also declined, when the article you posted made no such claim whatsoever. That's the lie you made up, sine-qua-non--a lie most literate and critical readers have no difficulty in spotting. 

69Hocker......

I didn't STFU. I left the computer since I have much better things to do than sit around jousting with Libs/Dems/Idiots.

As far as Jizz-Wanker's post is concerned......  If some POS committed murder/suicide, then they are a CRIMINAL.

LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS are NOT CRIMINALS!!!!

If you obey the Law, you are NOT a CRIMINAL.    DUH!!!!!

What is so difficult about that for you Lib-Idiots to understand? ? ? ? ? ? ? (In Jizz-Wanker's case, being illiterate, it's understandable.)

LAW-ABIDING Citizens must not be punished for the acts of CRIMINALS!!!! DOUBLE DUH!!!!!

 WWV10MHZ: If some POS committed murder/suicide, then they are a CRIMINAL.

WWV10MHZ,

 You're arguing your personal opinion as fact again. Generally speaking,taking ones own life is not considered a criminal act.

LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS are NOT CRIMINALS!!!! [sic]

You're attacking a straw man. I never said the law-abiding are criminals. My argument is that the law-abiding don't become criminals until they commit a crime or they ar convicted of a crime.

If you obey the Law, you are NOT a CRIMINAL.    DUH!!!!! [sic]

When did I ever argue the above to be untrue, WWV10MHZ?

Answer me this, WWV10MHZ.Why are so such a right-wingnut moron? And, oh by the way, don't think I haven't noticed that your racist ass has carefully avoided mentioning the acts of gun violence that Jw2 brought to your attention. If the perpetrators had been black, you would had immediately launched into another of your racist tirades about criminal "Negroes." Isn't that right, you racist peckerwood? But this time the shooters were white, so, not surprisingly, your racist ass has remained quite. Isn't that right, you racist KKK nutcase?

69Hocker......

How can you POSSIBLY not understand that LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS are NOT CRIMINALS? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS must not be punished for the acts of CRIMINALS!!!!  DUH!!!!

Owning a gun is LAWFUL and GUARANTEED by The Bill Of Rights.

Why do you want to punish people doing something LAWFUL? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

What does your continuing rant about the cost of gun violence have to do with LAW-ABIDING Citizens possessing guns? ? ? ? ?

Of course gun violence is costly to society. Go after those CRIMINALS!!!  Make sure their penalties are severe enough that they would never consider
   committing violence with a gun. There are Laws already in existence to control guns from being with CRIMINALS - ENFORCE THEM!!!!!

BTW - It's a proven FACT that Negroes disproportionately commit much more gun violence than other people. Everybody knows that!! Ask a Cop.

African Americans make up 57% of all gun murders, according to data from the 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Report (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010).

60% of handgun murders are committed against blacks and 27% against whites.

the babble you read is just you not understanding the post
due to the obvious fact that you are a semi-literate like ho duddy was

ill explain it slower this time just fir you ! K ?

no, i never said the FBI said the cost of gun violence
had dropped in the last twenty years although gun violence has dropped
so, the logical and common sense person would see the correlation there
as a decrease in the corresponding "costs"

apparently, you and the kommie rag you quote are dishonest
for not mentioning that FACT
and
have neither common sense or a logical mind
so you most likely wont get the concept of correlation, as
you have demonstrated here.

you said that the FBI data was a "personal" opinion which it most
certainly not, just facts you are to stupid to deal with without being told
what to think!

......and, you are directing your comments to whom? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Work on the social and demographic problem associated with the high cost of violence in America instead of ignoring the problem and blaming an inanimate object, hawk.   If you have the guts to be honest about the social and cultural issues behind the cost of violence in America?

69Hocker has a severe case of wishful thinking that banning all guns will somehow end gun violence.

Guess who's the Poster Boy for naivete'!!!!!   DUH!

Banning something has NEVER stopped people that want it from getting it. Look at tobacco and alcohol and drugs and prostitution - and guns worldwide.

It's basic Human Nature to want something that's hard to get.

If guns are outlawed, ONLY outlaws will have guns.  It's as simple as that!!

WWWV10MHZ: How can you POSSIBLY not understand that LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS are NOT CRIMINALS? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [sic]

You're attacking a straw man, WWWV10MHZ. I never make the claim that the law-abiding were criminals.

LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS must not be punished for the acts of CRIMINALS!!!!  DUH!!!! [sic]

Why do you gun nuts believe that pointing out the deleterious effect guns have on the people of this country "punishes"  the law-abiding in this country?

Owning a gun is LAWFUL and GUARANTEED by The Bill Of Rights.

What does that assertion have to do with the issue at hand (the high cost of gun violence in this country).

Why do you want to punish people doing something LAWFUL? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [sic]

You're arguing the wrong point: In actuality, the high cost of gun violence in America punishes the American taxpayer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/taxpayers-gun-violence_n_3915434.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/taxpayers-gun-violence_n_3915434.html)

What does your continuing rant about the cost of gun violence have to do with LAW-ABIDING Citizens possessing guns? ? ? ? ? [sic]

Nothing at all, WWV10MHZ.

You're the one who continues to try to introduce that red herring into our discussion.

Of course gun violence is costly to society. Go after those CRIMINALS!!! [sic]

You're still confused, WWV10MHZ. Gun violence isn't limited to the criminal use of firearms.

Make sure their penalties are severe enough that they would never consider committing violence with a gun. There are Laws already in existence to control guns from being with CRIMINALS - ENFORCE THEM!!!!! [sic]

Points well-taken, WWV10MHZ. But in this discussion they're red herrings: At issue here is the cost of gun violence in this country, not the prosecution of those who use firearms to commit crimes.

BTW - It's a proven FACT that Negroes disproportionately commit much more gun violence than other people. Everybody knows that!! Ask a Cop.

Now let me ask you this: Why do racist gun fetishists like you always attempt to rationalise gun violence in the United States by blaming African Americans and other minorities? Why not instead demand that Congress pass laws that emulate those that are in effect in all the other advanced nations of world, where access to firearms are strictly regulated and where the criminal use of firearms by all races and ethnicities is practically non-existent?

African Americans make up 57% of all gun murders, according to data from the 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Report (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010).














Yeah, WWV10MHZ. But the topic here isn't who commits gun murders; it's the cost of gun violence in the US. You keep ignoring the fact that gun violence is not limited to crimes committed using firearms.

60% of handgun murders are committed against blacks and 27% against whites.

But that statistic is irrelevant in a discussion about the cost of gun violence in the United States. It's another red herring, just like all the other assertions you made in your post. Stop trying to interject red herrings into the discussion, WWV10MHZ, and deal with the original issue...the cost of gun violence in America.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/02/news/economy/gun-violence-insurance/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/02/news/economy/gun-violence-insurance/index.html)

gun supporters are incapable of acknowleging facts, let alone offering a solution to the problem....
 
 
other than suggesting more people should have guns.
 
 
which isn't the answer.  (http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/smileys/Thinking/3.gif)

nope, thats not an answer for socialist slave mentality and  kommies

its THE only answer for freedom minded folk whom love liberty!


thanks for clearing that up JW
(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/Smileys/classic/hattip.gif)

69Hocker has a severe case of wishful thinking that banning all guns will somehow end gun violence.

Uh-uh. Our forum's resident racist can neither undermine my argument nor defend his. So he's reduced to posting puerile insults in the mistaken belief that a logical fallacy (ad hominem) is a substitute for factual evidence.

Guess who's the Poster Boy for naivete'!!!!!   DUH!

Guess who can't defend his preposterous claims and absurd arguments and has resorted to posting silly ad hominems.
Hint: He's our forum's resident racist.

HAHA

Banning something has NEVER stopped people that want it from getting it. Look at tobacco and alcohol and drugs and prostitution - and guns worldwide.

Um...WWV10MHZ, why are you babbling about banning firearms, tobacco, drugs, and prostitution in a discussion about the costs of gun violence in the United States. Apparently you're confused again. It's either that or you're purposely trying again to interject red herrings into our discussion. But you wouldn't be foolish enough to try that stunt again. Would you, WWV10MHZ? 

It's basic Human Nature to want something that's hard to get.

Huh?

If guns are outlawed, ONLY outlaws will have guns.

Wow! A debunked NRA bumper-sticker slogan. Sorry, WWV10MHZ. Your babbling about outlaws and banning guns is irrelevant here. Give up, fool! 

 It's as simple as that!! [sic]

No, WWV10MHZ. What's really "simple" is the simple-minded bullshit you continue to post here.

HAHA

sweetwater5s9: Work on the social and demographic problem associated with blah blah blah blah blah blah....

Here's something for you to work on, sweetwater5s9--the original issue:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america)

69Hocker.....

So, what, exactly, IS your point?  What is the objective of posting something concerning the "True Cost of Gun Violence in America"?

Do you want guns banned? Do you NOT want guns banned?

Is it OK for Law-Abiding people to own guns?

Do you want severe penalties for persons who commit gun violence?

Are you saying that Negroes DO NOT commit most of the gun violence in America in spite of the FBI facts?

Are you saying the outlawing of guns will NOT result in outlaws being the people with guns?

Do you want MORE guns in the hands of Law-Abiding Citizens or LESS?

Whatever I say results in you saying I'm wrong, everything!

What the heck are you trying to say? ? ?  Since the TRUE COST of gun violence in America is X, then we must ________________________________.

Please fill in the blank so we know what this thread is really about!!!!!!!!!

Work on the social and demographic problem associated with the high cost of violence in America instead of ignoring the problem and blaming an inanimate object, hawk.   If you have the guts to be honest about the social and cultural issues behind the cost of violence in America?


Stop reading trash from Mother Jones and answer the real issues....

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/18/2426140100000578-2879650-image-a-75_1418933416016.jpg)

sine-qua-non: no, i never said the FBI said the cost of gun violence
had dropped in the last twenty years... [sic]

I know, sine-qua-non. I believe it was Local5th(?) who originally made that claim.

...although gun violence has dropped [sic]

Yes. Apparently it has dropped, according to FBI statistics.

so, the logical and common sense person would see the correlation there
as a decrease in the corresponding "costs" [sic]

Your assertion isn't necessarily true, sine-qua-non.

Your logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "After this, therefore, because of this")--A logical fallacy committed when someone argues that since event Y followed event X, then event Y must have been caused by event X. For that reason, the fallacy is sometimes called the Chanticleer fallacy, an allusion to the old fable in which the rooster Chanticleer believed his crowing immediately before sunrise caused the sun to rise.

Your assertion takes the FBI statistic far beyond its limits. Yes. According to the FBI violence has declined, but there is no mention of the cost of gun violence also declining . That claim is yours, not that of the statistic you cited. Furthermore, your claim is based not on fact but on your "common sense." In other words your argument is based solely on your personal belief, your strongly held belief, your gut feeling. In actuality, you made an assumption, based on your "common sense"--read, unsupported personal opinion--and concluded that just because the occurrence of gun violence had declined, then, therefore, the costs of gun violence must had also declined.  But, of course, your argument is easily debunked using facts.

Read the following articles, sine-qua-non, and you'll see that the costs of gun violence in the United States continues to increase, not decrease:

$100 billion
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Gun-violence-costs-nation-100-billion-a-year-1265606.php (http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/Gun-violence-costs-nation-100-billion-a-year-1265606.php)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/taxpayers-gun-violence_n_3915434.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/taxpayers-gun-violence_n_3915434.html)

http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/02/news/economy/gun-violence-insurance/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/02/news/economy/gun-violence-insurance/index.html)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/gun-violence-costs-health-care_n_2965248.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/gun-violence-costs-health-care_n_2965248.html)

$229 billion
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america)



apparently, you and the kommie rag you quote are dishonestfor not mentioning that FACT

Apparently you're still a stupid and ignorant ass clown, sine-qua-non.

HAHA


and have neither common sense or a logical mind

But you possess common sense and a logical mind. Huh, sine-qua-non? Yeah...Right!

HAHAHAHAHAHA


so you most likely wont [sic] get the concept of correlation, as
you have demonstrated here.

Truth is, sine-qua-non, you've put on another classic demonstration of your stupidity and ignorance, something you're wont to do in this forum. Thanks for the laughs, you blithering idiot.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

you said that the FBI data was a "personal" opinion which it most
certainly not, just facts you are to stupid to deal with without being told
what to think! [sic]

No, you lying Dummkopf. That's not what I said. I said your fallacious argument--that gun costs must've decreased because gun violence has decreased--is obviously based on your own personal opinion, not on actual  FBI data. And, by the way, stop pretending you know how to think; you're only fooling yourself.

LOL 

sweetwater5s9: Stop reading trash from Mother Jones

Hmmmmm. I wonder why sweetwater5s9 wants me to stop reading Mother Jones.

Oh wait! I know! She can't refute the results of that magazine's investigative report on the true cost of gun violence in America that I used to support my argument.

LOL

 and answer the real issues.... [sic]

Truth is, sweetwater5s9, what you and your supporters in this discussion really need to do is stop wasting your time posting gun-lobby rigmarole. This is the real issue this thread: "The True Cost of Gun Violence in America:"

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america)



 

 
(http://www.aesopsretreat.com/forum/richedit/upload/2kf79447d77f.jpg)

Well, it is a Black Spider.......

byte.....  It's probably a White Police Officer shooting that unarmed Black spider!!!!

Quick!!  Call Al Sharptongue and Jesse Jackass and Loretta Lynchmob and the DOJ!!!  Get the marching and riots and looting started!!!!!!!

another 2nd ammendment supporter...



]](http://lethallystupid.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/idiot-female-pointing-gun-at-child.jpg)

[/img]] (http://[/img)

So you think Second Amendment supporters point toy guns at children?

Liberals start young....

 (http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Bestiality_a4c862_200875.jpg)

Libs/Dems continue to blame Law-Abiding Citizens for gun violence in America.

Libs/Dems ignore the FBI-documented facts that Negroes are the direct cause of over 60 percent of gun violence and will never mention it since
   it's not PC to say Negroes do anything incorrectly.

Libs/Dems always want to pass NEW Laws rather than enforce existing ones.

If the SOBama Regime would actually enforce existing Gun Laws in the areas where the majority of gun violence is always taking place, then the
  amount and cost of gun violence would GO DOWN!!

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the authorities need to go where that 60 percent of gun violence is taking place and START STRICT
  ENFORCEMENT of existing gun laws!!!!  Maybe they're afraid of being accused of PROFILING? ? ? ? ? ? ?

when it's finally realized that gun toting ain't manhood

gun violence will go down

When liberals finally realize gun control is a failure and criminal control is what is needed violent crime will decrease dramatically!

gassadio wants to disarm the police

so they can beg for their lives like the French police did with the terrorist!


maybe he imagines police using his own particular form of logic on criminals
to disarm them.  good luck with that!