About-face on Trump

[Pete at Home]

Trump's position on restricting immigration from countries that are riddled with groups that seek to murder Americans is problematic, but it looks a lot better to me than Obama and Hillary's program of punishing all Americans by restricting our civil rights in retaliation for Orlando, as if Islamism (imposition of Islamic law by force) had nothing to do with Orlando and other murders.

[D.W.]

You saying you happen to agree with one position spoken by this muppet or that you now intend to vote for him? 

[Pete at Home]

I'm voting for Bernie Sanders.

And I don't "agree" with Trump.  Indeed, I don't believe that Trump himself agrees with what he's saying to get votes.  What I said is that  find his position on this less repugnant than Obama's.

[D.W.]

I know what you mean.  Why I paused then went back to add "spoken by" after position.

[cherrypoptart]

ISIS is actually going to want Trump to get elected because he is playing right into their hands by sowing animosity against America by Muslims everywhere with his anti-Islamic rhetoric so that is actually going to cause more terror attacks by ISIS as they step up their efforts in the run up to the election in order to help Trump and turn more Americans against Muslims, like a realization of Manson's dreams of helter skelter. Trump is actually going to increase ISIS terrorism and get more Americans killed.

The only way to reduce this type of terrorism, in this instance by the son of a Muslim immigrant allowed in thirty years ago, is to actually allow millions more Muslims into America. The more Muslims a country has, the less terrorism it experiences. Well, maybe not everywhere. In fact, maybe not anywhere, but that's how it will work here because we're so special.

That's me trying to think like Obama and Hillary, by the way. I'm not quite sure I'm ready to buy it though.

[Pete at Home]

Oh, DW, time for you to make a choice.  Here's what Hillary's grave-dancing whores are saying now:

Bernie Sanders insults the Orlando dead by continuing his campaign

Sanders has yet to officially suspend his campaign and publicly congratulate Hillary Clinton on being the first woman to achieve a major political party’s nomination for the United States presidency. Instead, his people are hyping a “yuge” announcement about the future of his campaign, er, “revolution,” scheduled to happen via live stream Thursday evening at 8:30 p.m. Be sure to tune in, folks!

Sure, he made a statement calling the attack a “horrific atrocity.” But, honestly, those words ring hollow coming from a guy who voted against the Brady Bill, which mandated stricter background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases, five times. And hollower still when he follows up that statement with another one plugging his upcoming live stream event.

The tragedy in Orlando has officially made Sanders completely irrelevant. Who the hell cares about the future of his “revolution” when 49 people are dead? Who the hell cares about his personal political agenda when 53 people are still fighting for their lives? And who the hell cares if he has an axe to grind with Debbie Wasserman Schultz when ISIS is threatening the LGBTQ community?

Bernie Sanders’ problem has always been that, despite thinking he’s more in touch with everyday Americans than your average establishment politician, he’s not. That’s precisely why he lost the primary. And, frankly, the fact that he’s still pushing his agenda is insulting to the victims of the Orlando shooting, their friends and families and everyone who is grieving.

- Graham Gremore, Hillary's grave-dancing whore

[D.W.]

What choice is that Pete? 
I voted for him in the primary.  MI chalked up a win for him. 
I think the opinion (and I know many of my liberal friends share it to some degree) put forward in that piece exhibits a high level of incompetence.  Wanting it over as a HRC supporter is one thing.  Not understanding why it's not over yet is something else entirely. 

It being his campaign / revolution as opposed to the actual race for the candidacy.  I would like to think that the reasons to withhold a concession speech were obvious, but neither party has a monopoly on dumb.

I'm not sure if Bernie is more pro gun than the vocal part of the party or if he's just more realistic / pragmatic on gun rights.  Either way, it's another check in the "I like this guy" column for me.

[Wayward Son]

ISIS is actually going to want Trump to get elected because he is playing right into their hands by sowing animosity against America by Muslims everywhere with his anti-Islamic rhetoric so that is actually going to cause more terror attacks by ISIS as they step up their efforts in the run up to the election in order to help Trump and turn more Americans against Muslims, like a realization of Manson's dreams of helter skelter. Trump is actually going to increase ISIS terrorism and get more Americans killed.

The only way to reduce this type of terrorism, in this instance by the son of a Muslim immigrant allowed in thirty years ago, is to actually allow millions more Muslims into America. The more Muslims a country has, the less terrorism it experiences. Well, maybe not everywhere. In fact, maybe not anywhere, but that's how it will work here because we're so special.

That's me trying to think like Obama and Hillary, by the way. I'm not quite sure I'm ready to buy it though.

Cherry, don't try.  You are incapable of doing so.  All you can do is create a two-dimensional straw man, and it looks damn silly. :p

[Wayward Son]

Trump's position on restricting immigration from countries that are riddled with groups that seek to murder Americans is problematic, but it looks a lot better to me than Obama and Hillary's program of punishing all Americans by restricting our civil rights in retaliation for Orlando, as if Islamism (imposition of Islamic law by force) had nothing to do with Orlando and other murders.

Except, Pete, this guy couldn't tell Sunni terrorists from Shiite terrorists (much like most Conservatives), so how much of a Islamist could he be?  He's just some Joe who mouthed the ideology, but couldn't care less about the substance.  He would have found some other convenient cause if he hadn't used this one.

And how many other people in the U.S. have been murdered with guns since Orlando?  Over three times by now (2.9 per 100,000 annually for 322 million people).  But no one is outraged at that, because a) it's spread out all over the country, and b) it happens all the time.

So tell me again how it's Islamism that I should fear, when I have well over a 300 times better chance of being killed by some American lunatic with a gun. 

[Pete at Home]

Trump's position on restricting immigration from countries that are riddled with groups that seek to murder Americans is problematic, but it looks a lot better to me than Obama and Hillary's program of punishing all Americans by restricting our civil rights in retaliation for Orlando, as if Islamism (imposition of Islamic law by force) had nothing to do with Orlando and other murders.

Except, Pete, this guy couldn't tell Sunni terrorists from Shiite terrorists

Neither can Hamas, and that never stopped them from being Islamist terrorists.

[Pete at Home]

He would have found some other convenient cause if he hadn't used this one.

Another convenient cause might not have involved shooting up so many people.

And how many other people in the U.S. have been murdered with guns since Orlando?  Over three times by now (2.9 per 100,000 annually for 322 million people).

Your linky reports gun HOMICIDES, not murders.  I see no reason to get "outraged" over another person's suicide.  It's a pretty screwed up calculus when you create moral equivalancy between people that take their own lives and those who murder strangers who pose no threat to them.

Your source also says:
"In the same period, an average of 517 people were killed annually in terror-related incidents."

But that's dishonest, because terrorist incidents like this one, and other islamist gun attacks, are treated by our brainwasher in chief as generic gun incidents and not terror incidents.

Would you tell Black Lives Matter that they shouldn't complain about cops killing black kids because they are far more likely to be killed by other black kids?  Can you see that it's a patronizing and hateful message?

[Wayward Son]

He would have found some other convenient cause if he hadn't used this one.

Another convenient cause might not have involved shooting up so many people.

Except that shooting people was the goal.  So whether it was Islam or Christianity or just homophobia, he would have found something that justified shooting.  (Otherwise he would have found justification in Islam for not shooting anyone. )

And how many other people in the U.S. have been murdered with guns since Orlando?  Over three times by now (2.9 per 100,000 annually for 322 million people).

Your linky reports gun HOMICIDES, not murders.  I see no reason to get "outraged" over another person's suicide.  It's a pretty screwed up calculus when you create moral equivalancy between people that take their own lives and those who murder strangers who pose no threat to them.

Your source also says:
"In the same period, an average of 517 people were killed annually in terror-related incidents."

But that's dishonest, because terrorist incidents like this one, and other islamist gun attacks, are treated by our brainwasher in chief as generic gun incidents and not terror incidents.

Would you tell Black Lives Matter that they shouldn't complain about cops killing black kids because they are far more likely to be killed by other black kids?  Can you see that it's a patronizing and hateful message?

I can understand you questioning the statistics, but you can't just dismiss them like that.  If suicides are counted as homicides (which sounds fishy to me, this being America), then what are the actual numbers.  You know it ain't zero.  So it is only two times?  The same amount?  I'm sure it isn't less.  Does it make your point that only 100 people were murdered with guns since then?  Only 50?  Does that make it all better?

You talk about dishonesty and the "brainwasher in chief," but what am I to make of you dismissing all those murders just because you doubt my source?  Give me the actual numbers and we'll talk.  Otherwise admit that we have at least a Orlando massacre each week by non-Islamists, if not more, and tell me again how we should blame Islam instead of our own laws and society. 

[Pete at Home]

You're the one making an affirmative case to change the law (not to mention the constitution.)  I think that the burden is on you to provide accurate and relevant numbers.

Murder is the intentional unlawful killing of a human being by another.

Homicide is the killing of a human being.  It's not even necessarily intentional, since homicide may be negligent, reckless, or even accidental without fault. 

Subtract from your gun homicide numbers all accidental gun deaths, and again, all suicides.  Then take out all inter-gang shootings, since if you aren't a gang member, you aren't going to die in an inter-gang shooting.
And also subtract the numbers killed by Islamists with guns, since obviously your 300 statistic is bullcrap if you're contrasting the islamist threat to the threat that guns pose you.

Better yet, if you don't like our bill of rights, then move to a country with one you like.

" tell me again how we should blame Islam"

Please don't play stupid.  I don't blame Islam.  I blame Islamism, which is a term coined and used by good Muslim to describe the evil that  spawns Islamist totalitarianism and terror.

[Wayward Son]

AFAIK, my numbers are accurate and relevant.  They are from a fairly reliable and authoritative source (BBC, which, IIRC, you have cited before).

You've made the affirmative case that they are not, so it is up to you to provide the correct numbers, or admit that, even if they are not completely accurate, they are in the ball park and we can use them for discussion purposes.

But right now you are implying that practically no one is murdered in this country, outside of gang warfare (which discounts collateral casualties, such as innocent bystanders).  Which is absolute bull-hockey, as any newspaper or police department will attest.

This country has been in the midst of a homicide epidemic for decades, and the NRA and other conservative organization have been in denial of the role guns play in that, because they love their guns more than they love human life.

And, BTW, I am not against the second amendment.  I am against people and organizations that refuse to even consider any common-sense restrictions on guns that might help prevent people from killing each other, and calling anyone who even mentions one trying to overturn the second amendment. 

[Pete at Home]

AFAIK, my numbers are accurate and relevant. 

I've shown that they aren't.  And there's little explanation, either.

They are from a fairly reliable and authoritative source (BBC, which, IIRC, you have cited before).

I cite BBC a lot because it's more navigable and searchable and I can usually find what I'm looking for.  But you could cite me a source that I consider truly reputable, like WSJ, etc., and I'd still call BS if they used statistics as sloppily as your source did, with regard to "gun homicides," without defining terms.  Here again I implore you to get out of the business of authority worship, and turn your brain back on.  There is no source so authoritative that the reader should turn off their faculties of critical thought.

You've made the affirmative case that they are not

I said critical thought, not creative attribution.  I did not say what you claim I said.

, so it is up to you to provide the correct numbers, or admit that, even if they are not completely accurate, they are in the ball park and we can use them for discussion purposes.

They aren't accurate; I doubt they are in the ball park, but they do suffice to start a discussion about what is to be done about the continued increase in gun homicides.

But right now you are implying that practically no one is murdered in this country, outside of gang warfare (which discounts collateral casualties, such as innocent bystanders).

See?  See what you just did with that italicized part?  You turned the part of your brain on that allows critical thinking.  Yes indeed, there are innocent deaths collateral to gang violence.

This country has been in the midst of a homicide epidemic for decades

Decades?  Try centuries.  Read your history.  I defy you to show me a period in US history, from Bloody Kansas until the present day, that the term homicide epidemic didn't apply?

And, BTW, I am not against the second amendment.  I am against people and organizations that refuse to even consider any common-sense restrictions on guns that might help prevent people from killing each other, and calling anyone who even mentions one trying to overturn the second amendment.

I'm very open to discussing gun restrictions.  What I oppose is beginning any discussion of gun restrictions based on lies, hysteria, and grave-dancing.  When a politician stands on a fresh grave, lies about who did it, and calls for broad laws that affect our civil rights, I can't help but think Patriot Act.

 The number of people injured in the Paris attacks on November 13th has also been increased from 352 to 368 and the number of people killed by one from 129 to 130 so the total casualties for Paris alone is now 525.

Clue in, Mr. Obama.  That's more people did in mass shootings than occurred in the entirety of the Obama administration.

[Pete at Home]

How's New York Times as a source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

On Wednesday, a Washington Post article announced that “The San Bernardino shooting is the second mass shooting today and the 355th this year.” Vox, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, this newspaper and others reported similar statistics. Grim details from the church in Charleston, a college classroom in Oregon and a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado are still fresh, but you could be forgiven for wondering how you missed more than 300 other such attacks in 2015.

At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982.

What explains the vastly different count? The answer is that there is no official definition for “mass shooting.” Almost all of the gun crimes behind the much larger statistic are less lethal and bear little relevance to the type of public mass murder we have just witnessed again. Including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 a.m. gang fight in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others. Or that a late-night shooting on a street in Savannah, Ga., yesterday that injured three and killed one is in the same category as the madness that just played out in Southern California.

While all the victims are important, conflating those many other crimes with indiscriminate slaughter in public venues obscures our understanding of this complicated and growing problem. Everyone is desperate to know why these attacks happen and how we might stop them — and we can’t know, unless we collect and focus on useful data that filter out the noise.

That's my position.  Collect and focus on useful data, filter out the noise, and THEN discuss legislative remedies.

Standing on top of a pile of dead bodies like Obama and yelling for change, is a great way to stir up a lynch mob, but a really crappy way to get a working solution to anything.

[Pete at Home]

For at least the past decade, the F.B.I. regarded a mass shooting as a single attack in which four or more victims were killed. (In 2013, a mandate from President Obama for further study of the problem lowered that threshold to three victims killed.)

same source.

When we began compiling our database in 2012, we used that criteria of four or more killed in public attacks, but excluded mass murders that stemmed from robbery, gang violence or domestic abuse in private homes. Our goal with this relatively narrow set of parameters was to better understand the seemingly indiscriminate attacks that have increased in recent years, whether in movie theaters, elementary schools or office parks.

The statistics now being highlighted in the news come primarily from shootingtracker.com, a website built by members of a Reddit forum supporting gun control called GunsAreCool. That site aggregates news stories about shooting incidents — of any kind — in which four or more people are reported to have been either injured or killed.

It’s not clear why the Redditors use this much broader criteria. The founder of the “shooting tracker” project, who currently goes by the handle “Billy Speed,” told me it was his choice: “Three years ago I decided, all by myself, to change the United States’ definition of mass shooting.” It’s also not clear how many of those stories — many of them from local outlets, including scant detail — are accurate.

Yeah, that's a great basis for changes in constitutional policy.

[Wayward Son]

Quote from: Wayward Son on June 20, 2016, 06:22:26 PM

AFAIK, my numbers are accurate and relevant.

 

I've shown that they aren't.  And there's little explanation, either.

Not even close, Pete.  You've made assertions that the data from the Justice Department included suicides and accidental shootings, but you've have not provided any proof, or any estimate of how much of the data comes from such incidents.  You've simply brushed it away, saying because you think it's tainted, you don't need to address it.  That is very sloppy thinking, and proves nothing.

If you think the data is not accurate, then show my why you think so, why you think this was not taken into account with this estimate, and what a more accurate estimate is.  That's critical thinking.  Not just saying, "well, I don't think it's true," and then ignore it.  That's how climate change denialists work.

I'm very open to discussing gun restrictions.  What I oppose is beginning any discussion of gun restrictions based on lies, hysteria, and grave-dancing.  When a politician stands on a fresh grave, lies about who did it, and calls for broad laws that affect our civil rights, I can't help but think Patriot Act.

I'm glad you're open to discussing gun restrictions.  But why aren't you open to discussing Hillary's suggestions?

You've made a broad, vague statement about "Hillary's program of punishing all Americans by restricting our civil rights," but you haven't discussed what they are or why you object to them.  So far, all I've heard is the same rhetoric as from the NRA, who say that any gun restrictions are taking away our Second Amendment rights. 

So if you want to discuss gun restrictions, let's discuss gun restrictions.

If you don't think the data is accurate, then find some accurate data, and we can discuss that.

But if you want to make vague, broad attacks on Hillary, then you will get vague, broad answers, as in: the only people who object to Hillary's proposals are gun nuts and those who hate Hillary on other grounds.  We don't have enough restrictions on guns in America.  We are killing each other at a ridiculous rate, and not just from mass shootings.  More restrictions on guns will reduce the number of homicides in this country, and there is no sane reason not to implement them.  You may be offended that Hillary, et al, are using this latest mass shooting to justify calling for more gun control.  But that is just using the visible tip of the iceberg--the part that everyone is looking at now--to get people's attention on the rest of the ice chunk.  Restricting the easy access to guns will help prevent the next mass slaughter, and the next domestic dispute where the husband takes out a gun and shoots his wife.  No, homicides will never be eliminated in this or any country.  But guns are the deadliest weapons individuals can easily obtain (deadlier than knives, bats, etc.), so making them less available will save lives.

So don't freak out over those who use the Orlando massacre as an excuse to go after guns.  Because it was a problem before Orlando, and is still a problem afterward.

[D.W.]

WE think it's tainted because historically it has been tainted every time.  I haven't looked at the data so you are correct that we are (or at least I am) being lazy on this one.  Did this number drop sharply this year?  I believe suicides count for over half of gun related deaths in this country.  Something around 60%

Seeing the numbers on gun violence constantly include that makes a lot of us less trusting of some of these statistics.  Now I've seen argued that they should be included.  Which is fine, as long as it is understood by all what is being counted. 

[Pete at Home]

Quote from: Wayward Son on June 20, 2016, 06:22:26 PM

AFAIK, my numbers are accurate and relevant.

 

I've shown that they aren't.  And there's little explanation, either.

Not even close, Pete.  You've made assertions that the data from the Justice Department included suicides and accidental shootings, but you've have not provided any proof, or any estimate of how much of the data comes from such incidents.  You've simply brushed it away, saying because you think it's tainted, you don't need to address it. 

Don't be an ass.  I've no resources to determine what the accurate numbers are.  I do have the talents and resources to demonstrate that the numbers you presented me are crap.

My proposal is simple.  Stop obfuscating.  Get good numbers, then let's talk.

You've made a broad, vague statement about "Hillary's program of punishing all Americans by restricting our civil rights," but you haven't discussed what they are or why you object to them.  [snip cheap well-poisoning shot]

Nothing vague about what I said.  The Supreme Court has said repeatedly and consistently that any curtailing of a fundamental constitutional right needs to be narrowly tailored and based on solid information.  So standing on a fresh grave and bellowing for vaguely defined change presents a clear and present danger to civil liberties.

In response to your mindless complaint that I haven't addressed supposed proposals that you can't even be bothered to identify (other than saying that Clinton supposedly supports them) here is one specific measure that I'd like to discuss: narrowly tailored bipartisan legislation that would ban persons on the no fly list from purchasing firearms.  The measure also introduces a right to appeal one's placement on the list, something horribly lacking from the no fly list at this point.

NRA supporters complain that one would have to be denied buying a firearm before one could protest the list.  That seems to me a weak argument... 

[D.W.]

With the addition of an appeal I think it's worth doing.  I think it's worth the few denied gun sales just to institute an appeals process for the no fly list.

[Wayward Son]

Don't be an ass.  I've no resources to determine what the accurate numbers are.  I do have the talents and resources to demonstrate that the numbers you presented me are crap.

My proposal is simple.  Stop obfuscating.  Get good numbers, then let's talk.

OK, Pete, I did not realize you had limited access to the internet and could not do your own research.  So I spent a couple of minutes and found these two sites.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm

Both put average U.S. gun deaths at around 31,000/year, accidental deaths around 700, and homicides at 11,000.  Which pretty much matches the figures presented by the BBC.

So your contention:

Your linky reports gun HOMICIDES, not murders.  I see no reason to get "outraged" over another person's suicide.  It's a pretty screwed up calculus when you create moral equivalancy between people that take their own lives and those who murder strangers who pose no threat to them.

...is completely fallacious.  Suicides have already been removed from that number.  It is only the homicides that are counted.

At 11,000 gun homicides a year, that means that 211 murders were committed in the week after Orlando, on average.  Actually, four times the slaughter.

But since it is spread out, and can be attributed to gangs or domestic disputes or such, we ignore them.

And this number ignores the 11 people accidentally killed by guns during that week, or the 350 who took their own life.

Which bring us back to my initial point.  I still had a four times better chance of being killed by a non-terrorist than a terrorist that week.  So which is the bigger problem?

Nothing vague about what I said.  The Supreme Court has said repeatedly and consistently that any curtailing of a fundamental constitutional right needs to be narrowly tailored and based on solid information.  So standing on a fresh grave and bellowing for vaguely defined change presents a clear and present danger to civil liberties.

A fair point, as long as you remember that the NRA et al also bellow that any curtailment of gun rights, whether it is narrowly tailored or not, regardless of how solid the information is, is "a clear and present danger to civil liberties."  Which is why such an object rings hollow.

When all gun restrictions are characterized as complete gun restrictions, it doesn't matter if the call is vague or not.  You (i.e. Hillary) will be characterized as "trying to take away our guns."

In response to your mindless complaint that I haven't addressed supposed proposals that you can't even be bothered to identify (other than saying that Clinton supposedly supports them) here is one specific measure that I'd like to discuss: narrowly tailored bipartisan legislation that would ban persons on the no fly list from purchasing firearms.  The measure also introduces a right to appeal one's placement on the list, something horribly lacking from the no fly list at this point.


NRA supporters complain that one would have to be denied buying a firearm before one could protest the list.  That seems to me a weak argument...

 
Why should I identify what you're complaining about? I don't know exactly which proposal you're against.  Why should I tell you what her proposals are??  So you can pick and choose which one you were thinking of?

As far as the specific measure you mention, I do have problems with it because it is so easy and arbitrary to get put on that list.  But common sense does dictate that if someone is so dangerous that we forbid them from flying on a commercial airplane, they should be too dangerous to buy a semi-automatic gun.  Duh!

Which still makes me wonder which proposals you are talking about.

[Pete at Home]

OK, Pete, I did not realize you had limited access to the internet

Right, like I've never told you that.

So I spent a couple of minutes and found these two sites.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm

Both put average U.S. gun deaths at around 31,000/year, accidental deaths around 700, and homicides at 11,000.  Which pretty much matches the figures presented by the BBC.
 

GIGO.  Center for Disease Control says it needs millions of dollars to answer the questions that Wayward thinks that he's just answered in 3 minutes of googling.  During which he's determined that all homicides are "murder."   

I tried, folks.

[Pete at Home]

In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

I've shown above that homicides include over 1000 deadly shootings by police, which Wayward would have us believe are *all* murder.  Wayward also would have us believe that any gun homicide in self defense is an act of "murder."

[LetterRip]

There were 69 individuals were killed with guns in Chicago this past week.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-shootings-memorial-day-20160530-story.html

[Pete at Home]

There were 69 individuals were killed with guns in Chicago this past week.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-shootings-memorial-day-20160530-story.html

From your link:

Chicago police have said the violence has been fueled by gang conflicts and a proliferation of guns, mixed with weak gun law enforcement. The department has blamed most of the violence on a core group of about 1,300 people whom they have used data analytics to pinpoint. The department has called them "strategic subjects."

Makes more sense to list and disarm 1300 people than an entire city of 2,719,000 who the police admit that they are unable to protect.

The linked article cherry picks the stories.  I have to wonder if any of the killings in the number were justified, e.g. self-defense, preventing the now dead person from harming others.

[cherrypoptart]

I'm wondering how many of the people who murdered someone using a gun in Chicago had previous convictions for gun crimes but were set free to do it all over again and worse after doing a light prison sentence. How much would a mandatory 20 year sentence for gun crimes (that have no element of self defense involved) help to reduce gun violence? I'm talking about four guys who put on masks and rob a convenience story using a gun and get busted and sentenced to three to eight years because nobody actually got hurt. Why not get tougher on those types of criminals instead of the law abiding citizens? Of course it won't stop all gun violence especially many of the high profile mass shootings but since the mass shootings are a very small percentage of all gun violence anyway it seems like keeping the violent gun using criminals locked up for a long, long time might help a lot. Of course then the gun grabbers will cry about "mass incarceration".

[Wayward Son]

OK, Pete, I did not realize you had limited access to the internet

Right, like I've never told you that.

Sorry, Pete, but I forgot.  I don't hang on your every word.

So I spent a couple of minutes and found these two sites.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm

Both put average U.S. gun deaths at around 31,000/year, accidental deaths around 700, and homicides at 11,000.  Which pretty much matches the figures presented by the BBC.
 

GIGO.  Center for Disease Control says it needs millions of dollars to answer the questions that Wayward thinks that he's just answered in 3 minutes of googling.  During which he's determined that all homicides are "murder."   

I tried, folks.

So have I.

Pete, I asked before, if you have a better estimate, let me know and we'll use that.  I don't say that what I found is absolutely true.  They are just the best estimates that we have.  If you have a better one, or if you think they should be changed in some way, let me know.

If you think that 1000 murders should be removed from the estimate because they are "police shooting," fine, let's remove them.  If there are any other number that should be modified, let's take a look at it.

But you can't just dismiss the numbers because they are not completely accurate.

Well, actually, you can.  We could wait until some definitive studies have been made, and then discuss it then.

But, of course, that would also mean we cannot discuss any problems with gangs or Islamic terrorists.  We don't know if they are a bigger problem than domestic disputes or cop killings.  So any calls for cracking down on gangs or vetting Muslim immigrants are premature, too.

In fact, why are we discussing the Orlando shootings at all?  We don't have a good number on how many people were killed.  They say it was 49, but it could be 51, or 57, or 60.  Or maybe it was 47 or 27.  We don't know how many of them died from heart attacks or low blood sugar.  And without a certain number, we can't make comparisons at all.

But that also means that, without any estimates to work with, I can say anything I want.  So, Pete, you're wrong.  A vast majority of gun deaths come from regular people murdering each other.  Only a couple or so of "terrorist related" deaths occur each year.   Only homicidal maniacs want us to keep guns, in order to weaken the United States so it can be taken over by Mexico.  It's quite obvious if you look at what's happening.

Of course, that's only an opinion, but it's just as good and just as justified by the facts as any other.  In fact, better, since it comes from me.   So why don't you start thinking right and start thinking like me.

After all, since we can't even make estimates, you can't prove me wrong.