12 times more women killed by men they know than strangers

[billbuckhead]

Domestic Violence and Guns:
A Lethal Combination

2nd paragraph

In the United States, over 4000 women are killed by homicide each year. According to a 1998 Violence Policy Center study, more than 12 times as many females were murdered by a male they knew (1,699 victims) than were killed by male strangers (138 victims) <1>. Up to 25% of women report being abused by intimate partners in their lifetimes, compared with 7.5% of men <2>. The violence tends to escalate over time and most violent incidents occur in the home <3>.

In Iowa, at least 68 women were killed in domestic violence murders between January 1995 and September 2003 <4>. One study found that 84% of females killed in Iowa between 1996 and 1998 were killed in domestic situations—the majority in domestic disputes or murder-suicides <5>.

One of the major risk factors for domestic homicide is the presence of a gun. Guns are used in 59% of all iDomestic Violence and Guns:
A Lethal Combinationntimate partner homicides of women, and 51% of such homicides of men, as well as in two thirds of intimate partner violence murders of spouses or ex-spouses <6>. In Iowa between January 1995 and September 2003, 63% of women killed in domestic abuse murders were shot <7>.

A gun in the home increases the risk of intimate partner or domestic homicide. One study found that a gun in the home makes a woman is 5.4 to 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of an domestic violence homicide <8>; if there is a history of violence, she is 14.6 times more likely to be a homicide victim <9>. Approximately one third of all women who are killed by their partners have either autopsy evidence of recent trauma or have previously reported injuries <10>.

In addition, the accessibility of a firearm often turns a domestic dispute into a fatality. A 1992 study found that domestic assaults involving firearms were 12 times more likely to result in death than those assaults not involving a firearm <11>. Overall, assaults that involve firearms are 3 to 15 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons <12>.

<http://www.ipgv.org/legis-dv.html>

All these guns in America aren't for defense against an out of control government, against Al Queda or even against criminals, no, the target of these guns are gun owners women.

[OpSomBlood]

1. "According to a VPC study"

Yeah...stick to your unbiased and ever-truthful sources, chief.

Don't trip over the bullet hose.

[billbuckhead]

4. Prove this liberal source wrong or shut up about it on this liberal websit

And while your at it put his in your opium pipe and smoke it.

P-I Focus: The strongest political weapon there is

JOAN BURBICK

Political theater thrives on flashy stage props. On April 17, as Vice President Dick Cheney held in his hands a flintlock rifle at the National Rifle Association annual convention in Pittsburgh, the room shook with deafening applause. A gift from the NRA, the rifle was no ordinary gun or badass military weapon from Rambo movies. A flintlock was the honored gun of revolutionary patriots. The gun of our founding fathers. The gun of red-white-and-blue America. Cheney and the 3,000 NRA members in the room were freedom fighters, tireless and true.

________________snip_____________________

Guns entered national politics in the 1970s. What is called the gun rights movement sprang into motion against a waning civil rights movement and a growing push for women's rights. One organizer of gun rights from the early '70s put it bluntly when I interviewed him. Conservatives were taking a beating. Something was needed to "reverse the flow in the pipes" of the civil rights movement. The social movements based on the rights of women and minorities had bolstered the Democratic Party. Conservatives who had fought against the gains of civil rights and the Equal Rights Amendment needed to counter. Enter the gun.

And when the gun spoke, it championed the cause of conservative and libertarian America. A proxy politics, the gun rights movement is a potent reaction to the social and political agendas of what is perceived as "liberal America." It takes aim at a range of social solutions for crime, international conflict and personal security. In America, the gun has become a litmus test for political beliefs.

__________________snip_______________________

<http://www.ipgv.org/legis-dv.html>

It's pretty galling these"Democrats" inthe J/PS form can quote Newsmax. American Enterprise Prostitute, Neal Boooortz andFree Republic over here in Democratic Underground and if we quote a proDemocratic source they hoot. These people aren't on our side and it's time Democratic Underground recognizes this. The further hypocrisy is that if we went to FreeRepublic and quoted VPC we would be banned. Talk about not defending ourselves. This bogus gun rights movement isn't about rights, it's about rightwing political power.

[OpSomBlood]

10. We "hoot" because the VPC's lies are well-documented.

They willingly spread the myth that the Assault Weapons Ban keeps machine guns off the streets. They invent scary-sounding terminology that is not actually used by the gun industry (or anyone else). They flat-out lie about which guns are covered by the AWB.

So pardon me while I "hoot" about your article which uses a VPC study as concrete evidence. And pardon me while I point and laugh at your ridiculous assertion that gun rights actually only exist to oppress women and minorities.

[iverglas]

20. talk about ...

They willingly spread the myth that the Assault Weapons Ban keeps machine guns off the streets.

... yer willing spreading of "myths" ... or what some might call "road apples".



(Eek ... I've linked to a pic of horseshit at Ronald Reagan's ranch.)


So pardon me while I "hoot" about your article which uses a VPC study as concrete evidence.

You ever heard of the concepts of primary sources and secondary sources? Didja happen to notice all those footnote numbers in the passages quoted by billbuckhead? Here's what they referred to, with some useful info highlighted:

<1> When Men Murder Women. Violence Policy Center. October 1999.
<2> Tjaden, P. Thoennes, N. Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington D.C.: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2000. NCJ 181867
<3> Rennison C, Welchans S. Intimate Partner Violence. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2000. NCJ 178247
<4> Iowans Killed in Domestic Abuse Murders: General Analysis of Cases. Crime Victim Assistance Division. Iowa Attorney General’s Office. September 2003.
<5> Gun Homicide: Domestic Demon. Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence. January 2000.
<6> Homicide Trends in the US. Intimate homicide and Homicides by relationship and weapon type. Washington D.C.: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2002. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid/tables/intweaptab.htm and http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm)
<7> Iowans Killed in Domestic Abuse Murders: General Analysis of Cases. Crime Victim Assistance Division. Iowa Attorney General’s Office. September 2003
<8> Bailey J, Kellermann A, Somes G., Banton J, Rivara F, Rshforth N. Risk factors for violent death of women in the home. Archives of internal medicine. 1997; 157: 777-782.
<9> Campbell J, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93:1089-1097.
<10> Arbunkle, J. Olson, L Howard, M. Brillman, J. Anctil, C. Sklar, D. Safe at home? Domstic violence and other homicides among women in New Mexico. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1996; 27:210-215.
<11> Saltzban L, Mercy J, O’Carroll P, Rosenberg M, Rhodes P. Weapon involvement and injury outcomes in family and intimate assaults. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1992;267:3043-3047
<12> Violence in America: A public health crisis—the role of firearms: the Violence Prevention Task Force of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Cre. 1995;38:13-168.
<13> Tolley L. State Domestic Violence and Firearm Laws. Los Angeles: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; 2003.
<14> Guns and Domestic Violence: A Deadly Combination. Information Update. The HELP Network. 2003.

Now, whatcha have here is the VPC serving mainly as a convenient secondary source, reporting the findings of the primary sources -- sources like the US Dept. of Justice, y'see.

Whatcha do now is go back to the passages quoted by billbuckhead (or heck, strain yourself and click on the link he gave), and match up any statistics or info that smells fishy to you with their source.

If the source is NOT the VPC or an affiliated or similar organization, let us know what the problem with the source is that, to your mind, invalidates its findings or claims.

'Cause ya see, the VPC study (or any similarly distasteful source) was NOT USED AS CONCRETE EVIDENCE for anything but a minute (and quite readily verifiable) bit of the info in that article -- to be specific, the following:

According to a 1998 Violence Policy Center study, more than 12 times as many females were murdered by a male they knew (1,699 victims) than were killed by male strangers (138 victims).
<text cited to footnote 1>

One study found that 84% of females killed in Iowa between 1996 and 1998 were killed in domestic situations — the majority in domestic disputes or murder-suicides.
<text cited to footnote 5>

Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Utah have laws that require authorities to seize “deadly weapons” used in a domestic violence incident or in violation of a protection order.
<text cited to footnote 13>

“Victim advocates and prosecutors report that laws on firearm confiscation as part of protection order proceedings and misdemeanor cases vary substantially; enforcement is inconsistent, if not neglectful. State court judges are confused about the reach of the new laws and are thus reluctant to require defendants to relinquish their weapons. Some judges even allow domestic violence respondents to rearm themselves during hunting season. Furthermore, few cases are prosecuted due to lack of adequate coordination between state and local authorities and their federal counterparts at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the United States Attorney’s Offices".
<text cited to footnote 14>

Are we really to believe that you are alleging, let alone believe, that the VPC and/or its friends invented and falsely reported info about the relationship between homicide victims and offenders? info about US state laws? statistics about homicides in Iowa? statements by prosecutors?

Allow me to save you the bother of writing a response, and offer a multiple-choice response for you to choose from:

- gosh, 6 billion three hundred ninety-seven million eight hundred five thousand four hundred forty-four words; are your arms tired?
(we'll call that the red herring option, or what's known in my household as diversionary grooming)

- the VPC is not a credible source
(we'll call that the "proof" by blatant and extremely irrelevant and, in this instance, false assertion option)

- let's talk about how you really just want to take all weapons away from honest, law-abiding, god-fearing, salt of the earth citizens
(we'll call that the straw person option)

- ___________________________________
(okay, I'll give you complete freedom of choice; make up your own weird / wonderful / obnoxious / dumb retort and insert here, if you wish)

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

29. nah

The really really saddest thing is that I'm one of the few people who actually learns anything by hanging out here, by virtue of doing something other than

- responding to what other people say by misrepresenting what they say

- writing incomprehensible "rebuttals" to things other people say that are not remotely related to what they said

- making unfounded and/or outright false allegations about the sources and validity and truth of the things other people say

- making unfounded and/or outright allegations about other posters

- staging bizarre attacks on the honesty and intelligence of honest, intelligent public figures

... shall I go on?

Me, I actually take the opportunity to learn something when an unfamiliar (or suspect) fact or argument is presented, and I go read about it. (I'd be hard pressed to name an occasion when I learned much, if anything, from any said by any of our firearms control opponents, of course, since pretty much all we get from them is misrepresentations of other people's words, incomprehensible rebuttals, unfounded allegations, bizarre attacks ... what a lot of wasted energy all that involves, and what a truly odd way to spend one's time, is what I'd say if asked.) Being someone who reads and writes for a living, after many years of reading and writing for grants and scholarships and loans, it just comes natural like, I guess.

Anybody who hasn't tried it really oughta. There is satisfaction, and even a little thrill, in learning something one didn't know, and in putting the grey matter to work to figure something out. Ya never know what you might enjoy until you try it.

[OpSomBlood]

32. If typing endlessly makes you feel better, please continue.

But I'm only being honest when I say that nobody reads it.

[Scout]

98. speak for yourself, bub

I read the posts made by iverglas, and many other posters, in their entirety.

[iverglas]

99. heh -- ta, but ...

... you can feel free to skip the exchange between me and DoNotRefill following my "ya didn't get it" post in this thread, unless you're *really* interested in budgies/parakeets and Greek goddesses.

;)

[Liberal Classic]

73. I wholeheartedly agree

And have been calling for civility, too. Cheers, Iverglass.

I'd be hard pressed to name an occasion when I learned much, if anything, from any said by any of our firearms control opponents, of course, since pretty much all we get from them is misrepresentations of other people's words, incomprehensible rebuttals, unfounded allegations, bizarre attacks ... what a lot of wasted energy all that involves, and what a truly odd way to spend one's time, is what I'd say if asked.

Well, I would say that both sides have made good points on occasion which are promptly ignored. There has been plenty of misrepresentation of people's words and mischaracterizations of people's arguments from either side.

[DoNotRefill]

39. Opsom....

I read Iverglas's posts. Sometimes I agree with her, sometimes I think she's a trifle long-winded, and sometimes I think she's unintentionally hilarious, but I still try to read everything she writes, sometimes several times over to be sure I pick up all the nuances she's included. I often don't respond, because it'd take multiple treatises to cover every issue raised in each of her posts. But I do still enjoy reading them.

No matter how much we disagree with her, please, as a favor to me, extend to her at least some respect. Also, please keep in mind that, from my perspective and despite disagreeing with her 100% on this one issue, her posts are FAR better than the posts of some others on this board, who merely repeat the same unintentionally hilarious phrases over and over again without putting ANY thought into their positions. I can't remember her using the words "pimp" or "pantload" even ONCE since I've been here. And, you must admit that she does consistently bring up some very interesting points.

People of good will can disagree on an issue or five. I know Iverglas believes in her position 100%, just as we believe in our position 100%. And I know that she's a person of good will and integrity, just as most of the pro-gunners on this board are.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[DoNotRefill]

"Don't get saucy with me, Bernaise!!!"

Sorry, obscure reference.

If she really irritates you, put her on ignore. That's what it's there for.

I can only speak for myself. Speaking for myself, I generally enjoy her posts. And I think she has a LOT more to offer intellectually than some of the other anti-gunners. YMMV

[Liberal Classic]

75. It's good to be the king.

:D

[Liberal Classic]

74. Bully!

I agree 100% with everything you wrote. How often does *that* happen?

[billbuckhead]

40. Unbelievably shallow and foolish even for an apologist for the NRA

The tragedy is people like you who can't learn out of lack of courage. There are none so blind as he who will no see.

[OpSomBlood]

42. What about those who no learn grammar?

n/t

[billbuckhead]

82. Don't you really mean " What about those who have no learned grammar?"

:D

[T Town Jake]

44. Hilarious...

...and oh, soooo true....

[Columbia]

25. Correlation does not equal causation

Additionally, use of legitimate sources by a secondary agent does not mean the argument used by that agent is in itself legitimate.

[iverglas]

30. thus spake Columbia

If I had a clue what he was spaking about, I might bother thinking about it.

Shoorly he's not alleging that someone claimed something that no one claimed ...

[Columbia]

33. I expected as much

Smoke and mirrors eh, iverglas?

[iverglas]

36. whereas I *knew* as much

Shit and shuffling.

You can natter about correlation and causation and Santa's elves if you like. If you choose not to make the effort to make what you're saying coherent, by giving the slightest hint as to how it relates to a post that you are purportedly replying to, it ain't my problem, and it ain't no skin off my nose.

[Columbia]

37. How is your BP btw?

You always seem so tense all the time. That really is not good for your health. You should seriously try to relax a little more on occasion.

[OpSomBlood]

38. She lives in an anti-gun utopia.

One must wonder why she feels the need to "debate" the gun laws of a country she doesn't live in. It's a little bizarre.

[iverglas]

46. one wonders so many things

One must wonder why she feels the need to "debate" the gun laws of a country she doesn't live in. It's a little bizarre.

And sure and begorrah it would be ... if I'd ever done any such thing. I mean, apart from expressing my opinion that the second amendment to the US constitution (which I don't think qualifies as a "gun law") is a dog's breakfast, if anyone absolutely insists on knowing my opinion.

Can ya help me out and refer me to what you're talking about?

As if you were talking about something ...


Anybody notice how I haven't bothered suggesting that anybody here retract their flagrantly false allegations lately? It's fun from time to time, but unless you have a macro, *that* could get tiring for the fingers.

[OpSomBlood]

48. If I annoy you so very much, then kindly ignore my posts.

You're absolutely right. You never come to the Gungeon to debate U.S. gun laws. I must be imagining it all.

Whenever you deny you did something, that means it never happened. Bear with me, I'm still trying to adapt to these amazing and convenient laws of DU logic.

My bad. You're not a Canadian who tries to tell Americans what their laws should be. And you definitely never post text from Canadian laws in order to reinforce your points.

I apologize profusely.

[iverglas]

67. no, no, no - false corollary

Whenever you deny you did something, that means it never happened.

No, no, no. Pay attention now. We've established this:

Whenever OpSomBlood says that something is so, it is so.

Now, we could deduce a corollary from that:

Whenever OpSomBlood says that something is not so, it is not so.

because something being "not so" is in fact something being "so".

However, we simply cannot deduce from it:

Whenever iverglas says that something is not so, that means it is not so.

That would be like -- and hold onto your hat, here comes an analogy -- saying that we could deduce

The moon is made of green cheese.

from

The sky is blue.

No, I'm sorry to have to tell you that what you have done is to make an entirely new claim of your own, one that calls for substantiation.

... oh ... except that we know

Whenever OpSomBlood says that something is so, it is so.

Oops. It seems that what we have here is a situation in which, while

Whenever iverglas says that something is not so, that means it is not so.

has not been proved, it does not require proof -- because OpSomBlood said that it was so.

So oh. Never mind, eh?

Hey, can I get you to say "iverglas has ten million dollars in the bank"??


My bad. You're not a Canadian who tries to tell Americans what their laws should be.

Tell me: when your teachers explained to you how tools were made in the Iron Age, were they telling you how USAmericans should make tools in the 20th century? When they explained to you how slavery worked in the US in the 19th century, were they telling you that the US should re-adopt the slavery system?

(I would have offered an analogy involving your teachers explaining to you how, oh, governments are elected in other countries, or anything else about the contemporary world outside the US -- to stave off any moronic claims that I was comparing Canadian laws to Iron Age tools or 19th century slavery -- but I doubt that your teachers did explain such things to you, so I would just have been confusing you, and there's no need to do that.)

And you definitely never post text from Canadian laws in order to reinforce your points.

Now here it might look like we have a problem, because it looks like OpSomBlood is saying something that is directly contradicted by the evidence. And since what he says is always so, we'd have a conundrum if that were the case. So is he?

Whew, nope. I do post text from Canadian laws to reinforce my points. The problem that might arise is that I am not making the point that USAmericans should enact the laws I advocate that they enact, but OpSomBlood didn't exactly say that this is the point I am making when I post text from Canadian laws, so it seems that the universe is unfolding as it should.

The way we know that I don't post text from Canadian laws to reinforce the point that USAmericans should enact the laws I advocate is that I have never advocated that they enact any particular laws, except when a US law (or lack thereof) has been demonstrated to have a direct serious negative effect on Canada. And no USAmerican would ever think of advocating such a thing if a non-US law were having a direct serious negative effecton the US. Nooooo.


If I annoy you so very much, then kindly ignore my posts.

Another statement I have a hard time finding meaning in. Unless *I* annoy *you*, why would you even bother offering suggestions about what *I* do?? And if I annoy you, why don't you ignore my posts?? I don't give a crap, I just wonder (for a nanosecond) why you'd waste your time typing something as pointless as that ...

[DoNotRefill]

49. "is a dog's breakfast"

Ummm, Iverglas, I hate to ask this, but don't you normally spell "God" as "dog"?

Given that, what is the meaning of "God's breakfast"? Sounds pretty good to me, actually.....food fit for the Gods, and all that...

:evilgrin:

:duckandcover:
:quicklypullingonmynomexunderwear:

[iverglas]

68. yer morning treats

I know (because I've been asked at DU) that some folks don't know what a dog's breakfast is, so I just thought I'd offer assistance to anyone needing it.

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Community_Support/Feedback/Q_20751434.html

Meaning
A mess or muddle.
Origin
Derived from the unpleasant habit of dogs, rising early before the local townsfolk, or eating the mess of food dropped or vomited onto the pavement the previous night.

Yum.

Now a god's breakfast would indeed be a charming thing, one might think, and your comment a most witty one. But oh damn, not original. That's the problem with google; one can't claim one's novel witticisms as one's own, even when they are. (Remember my and several hundred other people's "brother can you paradigm", and my original economist joke that others have done much more cleverly ...)

Someone has even published a book by that name: http://www.carcanet.co.uk/scripts/webguild/scribe.cgi?book=1857547446

and others use the phrase in a more narrow sense, referring to their particular dog:
http://zionsvilleunitedmethodistchurch.com/PageManager/Default.aspx/PageID=183527

Now, just by the bye, "god" is indeed normally spelled "d-o-g", but when the writer is particularly exasperated, it is of course spelled "d-a-w-g".

All that being said, I must point out that we do know that the breakfast in question is diet coke, that being what I am sipping presently. Well, would be sipping, except I just ran out.

[DoNotRefill]

83. In that case....

shouldn't it be "a Goddess's breakfast"???

;)

[iverglas]

84. only if

I'm a "postress" here.

Early in my days in practice, I had a new young friend who was working for a civil liberties outfit and was growing increasingly peeved with her lawyer boss's sexism, and with some particular bit of non-inclusive or pointlessly gender-specific language. It may have been the insistence of some members of the profession on addressing me and other colleagues as "miss" (and of course then starting their letters to me with "Gentlemen:").

She suggested that I start calling myself a Barristeress and Solicitorette.

[DoNotRefill]

86. Just because you're the "postress" here....

doesn't mean you're not a Goddess, too. How do you define a Goddess? Well, definitions vary, but I like the "a female that has more than 5 beings that worship you" definition. If you've got pets, they qualify for the total count, and so do SOs. Between your pets and SO, I'm POSITIVE you can scrape together the required 4 more worshipers...

:BowingtothegoddessIverglas:

[iverglas]

87. ya didn't get it ...

I can be a god if I wanna. Don't have to be a goddess. Or a poetess, or actress, or any other pointlessly gender-specific special word for a "woman ___". Prime Ministress? I really really wanted to be a Barristress and Solicitorette, though. I thought that was hilarious. (You know: US lawyers are attorneys, Brit lawyers are barristers or solicitors, Cdn lawyers are barristers and solicitors.)

My young friend who suggested that was subjected to Phil Ochs in my car. One day she came to work having been amazed that when she watched the rerun of episode 1 of Family Ties, she knew what the music the hippie parents were playing was.

So this 5-worshippers rule: it applies to gods to? A more onerous requirement for goddesses would be unacceptable; likewise a less onerous requirement, goddesses being just as capable and competent when it comes to amassing worshippers as gods. So far I count 3 cats (Bouchée recognizes only herself as deity, like most female cats) and one co-vivant, all of whom know which side their bread is buttered on. If dead worshippers count, there are 5 dead cats, 1 dead baby raccoon, 2 dead budgies and a dead hamster in the backyard. Oh, and two dead squirrels and a dead pigeon or six. (What's a budgie? you say now.) I hasten to add that this is 20 years' worth of carnage.

But I think I prefer a less stringent definition: a woman who is adored. That's moi. Universally.

[DoNotRefill]

88. Too bad, you're a Goddess. If you don't like it, tough.

Unless, of course, you choose to switch gender to become a God (as omnipotent beings are allowed to do) or simply appear as a nebulous cloud shooting out thunderbolts or smog or tentacles or sunbeams or something along those lines, in which case you're simply classified as a deity, regardless of actual gender, until such time as you let people know your gender.

The 5 worshiper rule is non-gender specific. God, Goddess, Deity, makes no difference.

What's a budgie? Sorry, you obligated me to say that, since as one of your worshippers, I'm sort-of obligated to follow along. I have to assume by "budgie" you mean a parakeet-esque bird.

Now I've got a quasi-Greek/Roman Goddess image of you, kind of a parallel to Hera, except without the Zeus dependency/issues, and surrounded by the carcasses of small critters out in the back yard. Have you thought on what you want your divine powers to be yet? The thunderbolt gig is good, if a trifle overexposed, since the Greco-Romans AND the Norse used it. Have you considered being a water-elemental? I've always thought that would be a nifty power to have, very handy around the house, fun at parties, et cetera. You could always go the Zombie deity route, that'd be a nifty trick, although people have learned how to fight zombies, and I'm sure you're not a war-kind of super-being.

Anyway, as one of your devoted worshipers, let me know where you want to go with this... ;)

IF you require blood sacrifices.....too bad, you're not getting them.

:evilgrin:

[iverglas]

89. damn

IF you require blood sacrifices.....too bad, you're not getting them.

And here I had a particular Blood sacrifice in mind that I had a hankering for. Just the one, maybe?

Budgie:


except that site calls them "budgie parakeets", which I've never heard. That one resembles Norman, so called for his psychotic exploits during his short life.

This one looks like Bunge


so called because when I found him on the telephone wire in the back yard, and showed him to the Texan then-co-vivant and said I'd just found a budgie, he thought I'd found a parakeet with which I was obviously acquainted, whose name was Bungee. Bunge turned out not to be a him, and the grotesque protuberance under her tail turned out to be a herniated egg sack, and she most definitely did not worship me. In fact she flew at me in a rage and tried to kill me by pecking my face, most times she saw me, and very deliberately ate all my books, because she regarded herself as the one true domestic goddess and me as a threat to her intimate relationship with the Texan. We took her to see Pet Semetary at an old movie theatre in a small Ontario town one gloomy October day, having checked out of our motel and it being too chilly to leave her in the car -- to the thrill of the kids working there and the kids lined up for the late show when we left.

Google has other budgies on offer, but not if you have your filter on I'd think; I'll let gentle readers do their own viewing by removing the spaces:
http://www.addicks.fsnet.co.uk/nat/beaches/budgie . jpg
Don't ask me where the budgie is.

There are all kinds of parakeets besides the budgies you people call parakeets, of course. But I've gathered that a real budgie-type parakeet is slightly different from a budgie, a little longer and more elegantly tapered, compared to the cute pudgie budgie (this parakeet is for you to colour):



But then the budgies we get here are probably just from parakeet mills anyhow. And I don't believe you knew what a budgie was without asking google, either.

Now for my divine powers, if I can't have blood sacrifices, or even a Blood sacrifice, it hardly seems worthwhile. Something in the way of striking down annoying people who do not behave themselves appropriately deferentially would seem to be in order.

I have this book at home, mid-late 19th century "told for the children" edition:



and have had the set of 8 illustrations photographed, and framed them for the living room wall. None of the ones at ebay seem to be the same version I have. I'm rather fond of Persephone, who is pictured as she took up the pomegranate and applied it to her nose. Married to Hades ... I can relate. But I'd have to say, more of a Demeter, "lesser god(dess)" though she is called. The power to freeze things. Zap, you're frozen. Try saying "lesser god(dess)" now. Nothing permanent, just a time out until I'm not so annoyed. I'll go with that for now.

[DoNotRefill]

90. Ohhhh....pictures to color! Thank you, God(dess), May I Have Another???

BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!

:loveya:

Actually, I learned what a Budgie was from reading Harry Potter. Book 5, I think, has a "water-skiing Budgerian" on the news, so I had to dig up the meaning.

As for the blood sacrifice, depends on what you want sacrificed, and how much blood it involves. If it is an ant or a spider or a cricket or a grasshopper (the jumping kind, not the "young grasshoppah" kind), we can arrange it if it'll make you happy. If it has more than a spattering of blood, it's not likely, unless, of course, you want me to make a sacrifice of my own blood, but it might take a while, since my nosebleeds are infrequent now (cold season is over).

BTW, a NSFW warning woulda been nice on the .jpg. My wife's gonna come home, check the history of my browser, and think I've switched sides. ;)

[iverglas]

91. noooo ...

I shall be no more specific about the ... Blood ... I wanted sacrificed; a question not of "how much", but of "how many". You may call me Sphinx if you like. A true acolyte would have figured it out and done it by now. If a mod wasn't looking, anyhow.

"a water-skiing Budgerian" -- wazzat, somebody from Budgeryland? Budgeria? Perhaps you were attempting to refer to a budgerigar.

The final "r" seems to be pronounced, at least in North American talk, although I believe that the original name, which would have been bestowed by the Australian Aborigenes, was pronounced the way it is spelled in one variant: budgerigah. As in, indeed, "young grasshoppah".

Google politely suggested that I might have meant "Bulgarian", but offered this:

http://www.essex.ac.uk/ECPR/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/grenoble/ws22/wagemans.pdf

"Second and of vital importance, PI should also be understood in terms of conventional Schattschneiderian political competition or Budgerian selective emphasis." Obviously. And obviously from the LSE. Reminds me of when a young colleague became fascinated with all the words on the German car sites he was browsing, and for no apparent reason emailed me a list of them. Not knowing what else to do, I defined them:

Kunststoffbeplankung go away and hit yourself over the head with a large piece of wood

http://www.birdworld.com.au/records/parrots/budgie.html

"Small parrot with little sexual dimorphism." Yeah, but watch out for those herniated egg sacks. And a male budgie will often do to your thumbnail what a male dog does to your leg. Except the dog doesn't vomit up things to feed your leg.

"(cold season is over)"? Ha. Demeter might just disagree.

"NSFW warning"? Gentle reader, I know not what that is, but I did refer to google filters, and refrain from connecting the dot. And the url did contain the mention "dicks". The goddess helps those who help themselves. If you were to switch sides, btw, the goddess would expect better taste: http://www.addicks.fsnet.co.uk/nat/beaches/beaches.htm
I think "self-fixated exhibitionist" would be a better description for this one than "naturist". A blast of cold air would seem to be just the ticket, and is heading his way.

[DoNotRefill]

92. Oh, God(dess), let me consult the Book of Potter....

My mistake. Here's what the book says: "And finally, Bungie the budgie has found a novel way of keeping cool this summer..." and then a sentence later: "If they had reached water-skiing Budgerigars..."

Having not read the Potter book in a while, I recalled the word "budgerigars" as "budgerians" (probably my feeble mind's attempt to "americanize" the word), and for that I grovel at the feet of my God(dess) to beg forgiveness and mercy.

:grovel:
:grovel:
:grovel:

BTW, "NSFW" stands for "not safe for work", another Americanism (well, OK, actually a "fark-ism", but FARK is american....twisted, but american).

As for a "true acolyte", I don't know if you want to paste that label on me.....I've always been a bit of a religious dilletante, except for Militant Agnosticism, which I'm pretty good at. I don't know much about the mythology of the Sphinx, other than the typical stuff schoolkids learn (riddle game, you win, you can pass, you lose, you get "et", riddle involving 4, 2, and 3) Oh, wait a minute, I think we better let it go at that..... ;)

[iverglas]

45. armchair psychology/medicine

(DoNotRefill thinks I'm "unintentionally hilarious" ... and is probably just being clever enough to get the arid intentional humour, but not experienced enough to realize what it is.)

You ask about my blood pressure, as if what goes on here was of the slightest concern to me. Honestly. Such delusions of importance as some people evidently suffer.

I know that typing out 1000 words of organized thought must seem a Herculean task to some folks. Since the speed at which I do it is limited only by this idiot new keyboard, which makes it hard for my pinkies to keep up with my brain, please allow me to assure you all, yet once again, that you have no cause for concern. I get loads of work done in between entertaining myself hunting up facts and figures and synthesizing and analyzing them for my own enjoyment. I feel distain and even contempt for those who prefer to engage in ad personam argument or otherwise dishonest and unpleasant discourse; I feel pity for those who are actually too stupid to understand what I or anyone else writes, but they earn the same distain or contempt if their response is to engage in the same dishonesty and unpleasantness, which is a choice, not a disability.

I just can't get over the hubris, or projection, or flat-out invention, that must be present in order to make statements like those.

Lighten up, man! I don't give a crap about your health, no need to pretend you do about mine. I don't hang out here to give you hypertension, or soothe your troubled brow, or for any other purpose having to do with you or anybody else. Ye all are not the centre of my universe, or even major celestial bodies in it. Take all that energy wasted on pretending to even think about my or anyone else's well-being, and devote it to saying something worth reading. That's my advice, since we seem to be tossing advice around.

[DoNotRefill]

50. Nah, Iverglas...

I pick up on when you're being intentionally funny. Sometimes I find things you say in all seriousness to be funny too. I'm sure I've posted some things that've unintentionally gotten you chuckling, too.

[T Town Jake]

55. No, Iver...

...what you do is TYPE a lot, but you don't SAY much. Your points are always obscured in a blizzard of snide half-questions, vague tautological ellipses, and obscure syllogisms that leaves one saying, HUH? It's almost academic philosophical textbook speak, and nearly as indecipherable. And I think there's a very good reason for that, too: it's because your argument is inherently weak, and the blizzard of words helps disguise that central fact.

[Columbia]

70. Reminds me of that wonderful Simon & Garfunkel song

"And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking,
People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence."

Actually, it describes pretty well what takes place down here everyday...

[Scout]

100. do you have reading comprehension problems?

I find iverglas's posts to be quite logical, well reasoned, and well documented. I occasionally find it necessary to look up a word or two, but hey, it helps me learn more new things.

[Hrumph]

72. If you're trying to PROVE your point,

then don't perpetuate propaganda of any flavor. Liberal BULLSHIT is no better than freeper BULLSHIT. If you're going to dismiss material out of hand simply because you deem the source to be idiologically bankrupt that's fine. But you can't then quote material from their "liberal" counterpart and claim any fidelity to the truth or any sort of intellectual honesty on the issue.

VPC, and all it's brady bunch spin-offs and sister organizations, are no better than the freepers.

BTW... Last I checked, sarah brady was still a republican. The brady campaign has assumed a low profile relative to the VPC but the VPC is still under the brady organizational umbrella. Material published by these people is HARDLY balanced or unbiased.

[iverglas]

77. calling it a spade, eh?

VPC, and all it's brady bunch spin-offs and sister organizations, are no better than the freepers.

Well, that would be the opinion of some. Not of many in the Democratic Party, I gather, but there ya go.

If you're trying to PROVE your point, then don't perpetuate propaganda of any flavor. Liberal BULLSHIT is no better than freeper BULLSHIT.

And that would be oh so relevant, if it weren't just your opinion, i.e. that the material in issue is "liberal bullshit".

You know -- calling it a spade doesn't actually make it one, eh?

And repeatedly saying nasty things about a source isn't actually demonstrating that the source is unreliable.

If you're going to dismiss material out of hand simply because you deem the source to be idiologically bankrupt that's fine. But you can't then quote material from their "liberal" counterpart and claim any fidelity to the truth or any sort of intellectual honesty on the issue.

Look, T Town Jake! It's another straw fella!

I don't gather that sources like John Lott and newsmaxwhatsit are dismissed out of hand because they are "id<e>ologically bankrupt". I believe they are dismissed out of hand because they have repeatedly been demonstrated to lie. They have, more specifically, been repeatedly demonstrate to lie in the service of a particular agenda, one that is not shared by most people who call themselves Democrats, I gather.

This doesn't mean that there are no occasions when they tell the truth. It simply means that s/he who cites them has a bit of a heavier burden when it comes to establishing that they are telling the truth.

Last I checked, sarah brady was still a republican.

Isn't that just heart-warming? And doesn't it just demonstrate how fair-minded firearms control advocates are?

I do wonder what explains this:

"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." - Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control, to Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January. 1994, Page 3.

oft-cited on the net, bizarre though it is on the face of it.

But ... how many years ago might that have been when you "checked"? And did you actually "check"? Goodness; are you offering yourself as a credible source?

Oh dear: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html
It looks like Sarah Brady hasn't been a Republican for a while, if that report is accurate. And the National Educator "is something other than a professional magazine for school teachers". Oh look! The perpetrators and perpetuators of this quotation fraud are citing a neo-Nazi source. Quelle surprise.

And there ya go: I'm not endorsing anything said at that site, nor am I willing to accept anything else it says at face value. But it sure does seem to have researched those phoney quotes thoroughly and in good faith, and its conclusions seem quite reasonable and well-founded, so I don't have any reason to go calling it names and pooh-poohing what it says just because I don't like what I see of its conclusions on other matters. I'm not going to cite it when its own source is Gary Kleck, of course, because that's just dumb, and deceitful -- which we know Gary Kleck is.

[Hrumph]

79. Actually, I agree with a lot of that.

Well, that would be the opinion of some. Not of many in the Democratic Party, I gather, but there ya go.

And just what are you trying to imply? (he asked knowingly)

And that would be oh so relevant, if it weren't just your opinion, i.e. that the material in issue is "liberal bullshit".

It would seem that all anyone can offer on this subject is their own opinion. Any "fact" introduced by one side of the debate is instantly dismissed as propaganda. Surely you realize this. I believe you at least make an effort at serious debate, though it does get tiresome having to dig through all the condesention to find it.

I don't gather that sources like John Lott and newsmaxwhatsit are dismissed out of hand because they are "id<e>ologically bankrupt". I believe they are dismissed out of hand because they have repeatedly been demonstrated to lie. They have, more specifically, been repeatedly demonstrate to lie in the service of a particular agenda, one that is not shared by most people who call themselves Democrats, I gather.

And it has been repeatedly proved, also, that VPC has been proved to lie. Where Newsmax and John Lott claim to unbiased, VPC's agenda is right out there in the open. Forgive me if I look at their publications with a jaundiced eye.

But ... how many years ago might that have been when you "checked"? And did you actually "check"? Goodness; are you offering yourself as a credible source?

Actually, I checked just this morning as I wrote the message. Admittedly, it was a cursory check. I stand corrected. I said nothing about the quote you reference but somehowe I get the feeling you're trying to pin it on me.

Again, admittedly, I come and go from this forum. If Kleck has been "proven" to be a liar, then perhaps you can clear up just what it is he lied about.

But my whole point, which you either missed or ignored, was that this debate is wasted bandwidth if we can't even agree on what constitutes a "fact." And when someone (anyone) introduces something that seems incontrovertable the the other side just ignores it. It appears to me as though the anti crowd is more guilty of this than the other but I'll admit that my perspective may be a bit skewed - If it can be demonstrated when the pro side has simply ignored "facts" entered into evidence by the antis.

[iverglas]

80. the bottom line

But my whole point, which you either missed or ignored, was that this debate is wasted bandwidth if we can't even agree on what constitutes a "fact."

I haven't yet seen anyone identify anything in the article quoted in the initial post in this thread that does NOT constitute a fact. All I've seen is attacks on the secondary source that completely fail to address what it and its sources said, and attacks on the person who posted it.

And it has been repeatedly proved, also, that VPC has been proved to lie. ... If Kleck has been "proven" to be a liar, then perhaps you can clear up just what it is he lied about.

I guess we're even. I've asked more than once for clarification as to what the VPC is alleged to have lied about, and got nowhere.

But at short notice, and using a study that approximates Kleck's results as a proxy for his results: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt

Private citizens sometimes use their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are sometimes invoked as a measure of the public benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys yield far higher estimates of the number of DGUs.

Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of 2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994 telephone survey conducted by Florida State University professors Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz. The 2.5 million figure has been picked up by the press and now appears regularly in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, editorials, and even Congressional Research Service briefs for public policymakers.

The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and Gertz instrument and provides a basis for replicating their estimate. ...

... Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are in the right ballpark, millions of attempted assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the 12-month period. According to these results, guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07 million incidents of violent crime in 1994, according to NCVS data.)

... For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!

NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases. ...

The author goes on to identify so many problems with the methodology and the interpretation of the results that I'm afraid I can't see any explanation for Kleck's bizarre claims other than dishonesty, myself.

Kleck is known up in these parts: http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/ConstitutionalChallenge.html

On February 21-22, 2000 the Supreme Court of Canada heard a provincial constitutional challenge against Canada’s new gun control legislation. The challenge was initiated by the Alberta government, joined by the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the territories.

In the fall of 1998, in a 3-2 decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the law. Not only did Chief Justice Fraser find the law to be a valid exercise of the federal government’s criminal law power, she also reaffirmed the importance of licensing and registration to any effective gun control system because these are: "... about the protection of public safety from the misuse of ordinary firearms. This is to be accomplished through a simple but compelling concept - individual responsibility and accountability for one’s ordinary firearms. This is a small price to pay for the privilege of being allowed to possess and use a dangerous weapon." However, the provinces have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

(The constitutional challenge was on jurisdictional issues (whether the law was intra vires the federal govt. as an exercise of its criminal law powers), not on "rights" issues. The decision is here for anyone interested:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2000/vol1/html/2000scr1_0783.html -- the SCC upheld the law.)

Rebuttal Evidence in Support of the Law

In response to the Government of Alberta’s affidavits we filed rebuttal evidence. This included:

... Dr. Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University regarding flaws in Mauser and Kleck arming for self protection study methodology

Dr. Mary Foster, Professor, Ryerson University regarding flaws in Mauser polling methodology

Affidavits Against the Law

Affidavits filed by the Government of Alberta include:

... Gary Kleck, professor at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University

The Government of Alberta’s Rebuttal Evidence

Professor Gary Mauser refuting our affidavits
Professor Gary Kleck refuting our affidavits
Senator Anne Cools on firearms and domestic violence

... While the Alberta Government claims that there is no "proof" that gun control works, the standard of "proof" it is demanding goes far beyond what is required for justice reforms. Dr. Neil Boyd, Criminology professor at Simon Fraser University argued that the detailed evaluation of the 1977 legislation provides stronger evidence of the effectiveness of gun control than is available to support on most other reforms. Dr. Martin Killias, criminologist, University of Lausanne, has suggested that demands for conclusive "proof" are often a strategy for delay.

Alberta’s case also relies heavily on the work of Gary Mauser, Professor of Business Administration at Simon Fraser University and pro-gun advocate with the BC Wildlife Federation. The methodology used in his study on arming for self-protection was challenged in the sworn affidavit of Jens Ludwig, Assistant Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown University. Mauser’s research has been funded by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Langley Symposium, a pro-gun organization. Alberta’s expert on domestic violence is Senator Anne Cools.

(It's a Canadian in-joke that no comment is made on Sen. Anne Cools & her "expertise". She is a viciously stupid person, appointed to the Senate over 20 years ago by way of getting a number of birds stoned at once: the first black Senator, a woman, an immigrant, blah blah. She has made "father's rights" her hobbyhorse for several years, and demonstrated her vicious, woman-hating, sucking-up stupidity over and over. She sat in the Senate as an embarrassment to the Liberals until last week, when she defected to the viciously stupid Conservative Party. "Alberta's expert on domestic violence is Senator Anne Cools" -- 'nuff said.)

So all in all, it seems to me that what gets ignored --

And when someone (anyone) introduces something that seems incontrovertable the the other side just ignores it.

-- is when someone offers rebuttal to the allegedly incontrovertable evidence offered in opposition to firearms control and in favour of some variety of unrestricted access to firearms, which rebuttal is virtually always ignored.

[iverglas]

81. btw

I said nothing about the quote you reference but somehowe I get the feeling you're trying to pin it on me.

Not at all, and I didn't mean to convey any such impression. I was just googling around for confirmation of Brady's political affiliation, and encountered it repeatedly, so headed for the debunking because it looked so utterly bizarre, and just by the bye so completely inconsistent with being a Republican as you asserted she was. I suspected I'd read she was no longer a Republican, but I was a good deal more suspicious about the claim (not by you, you see) that she was a commie.

If Kleck has been "proven" to be a liar, then perhaps you can clear up just what it is he lied about.

Here, you ascribe content to me that wasn't mine. What I actually said in the post you responded to, pretty much as a toss-off in making a different point, was:

I'm not going to cite it (GunCite) when its own source is Gary Kleck, of course, because that's just dumb, and deceitful -- which we know Gary Kleck is.

And I stand by the assessment that someone who propagates material, as truth and scientifically determined fact, that someone who has expertise in such matters cannot help but recognize as bizarrely improbable and hopelessly flawed, is plainly deceitful. (And someone who does it without having the expertise needed for the job, which is how I'd describe our own northern counterpart Gary -- Gary Mauser, a professor of business adminisration for cripes' sake -- is deceitful in perhaps a different way).

[RoeBear]

2. I guess you proved that...

...more women should be taught how to use guns.

[billbuckhead]

8. Feminism won't succeed copying the bad habits of men.

Just like on the world stage, the answer is less weapons not an arms race between the sexes. Eye for eye leaves the whole world blind.

[BushHater2004]

93. message deleted

n/t

[HawkerHurricane]

3. Over the top comment

"All these guns in America aren't for defense against an out of control government, against Al Queda or even against criminals, no, the target of these guns are gun owners women."

What the gun was bought for and what it is used for are two different things. You may argue that guns are unneeded; that they are used too often for murdering innocents; But to claim that's what they are bought for is going too far.

[billbuckhead]

5. Unfortunately after Bambi, the main target of guns in America are family,

coworkers and neighbors. Guns are bought to have the power of life and death and that's how they are really used. That's the ugly truth. That's why I've been calling our promiscuous gun laws and their equally lax enforcement a slow motion terrorism that used by the rightwing in this troubled nation to divide us.

I've been reading your posts for a longtime and have confidence Hawker Hurricane aren't like that but there are posters in this forum who have said they would shoot purse snatchers and kill people who steal food from their house. There are far too many powerful weapons easily put in the hands of troubled minds. I saw this with my own eyes at the Buckhead business district massacre.

[FeebMaster]

7. Bill bill bill bill bill.

I keep telling you, most of the gun control of the last 30 or so years has been passed by Republicans. If the AWB is renewed, it will be renewed by a Republican. Are you following me?

[Columbia]

9. I think

There is also a poster here who said he bounces "heads up and down off the pavement like a basketball."

A perfect example of why we need guns and the kind of people we need to protect ourselves and our loved ones from.

[billbuckhead]

11. Only if they hit me first or threaten me first like the poster did.

"Bill, I know an 8 1/2 month pregnant woman who could undoubtedly kick your.....never mind.

If you ever come to Virginia, let us know. We'd love to have you as our guest."
The "Deliverence" picture is nice touch.

Real friendly, you gunners, but I know what you are as I grew up with many of you. The kind of people who sucker punch you from behind in a dark parking lot cause you stood up for an underdog or their girlfriend flirted with you, then after they get bloodied they run away whining about going to get their gun.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[billbuckhead]

13. Or his or your violent tendencies. i don't own a killin machine .

Or whore for big corporations making killing machines.

Gee, you have to buy a military style machine gun to protect yourself from an unarmed liberal who always stands up for the underdog. Make me wonder what side you and yours really are on. Well, I know and it's not the good guys.

[DoNotRefill]

16. Military style machine gun?

What's that?

I own some real machineguns that were at one time issued to the US military. Does that make them "military style"? Of interesting note, not a SINGLE machinegun that I own has a bayonet lug on it. They weren't issued with them. Funny how that works.

[Columbia]

19. Ok MrB

Bouncing "heads up and down off the pavement like a basketball" and exacting violent retribution on people you don't like are just such commendable acts.

I can't believe DU even has think about having such filth on here. You've really outdone yourself this time, MrB.

[OpSomBlood]

27. Tell me where I can buy a military-style machine gun!

Because all I ever see in licensed shops is semi-automatics. You must have one hell of a hookup!

[OpSomBlood]

14. Hypocrisy...it's not just for breakfast anymore.

Apparently, every gun owner is inherently violent. Never mind the people who are actually admittedly violent, especially when they are on the anti-gun side.

[billbuckhead]

15. opSomeBloodman would shoot an unarmed purse snatcher

and calls an unarmed defender of underdogs violent. As far as I'm concerned an assault rifle is halfway to premeditated murder, but that's not violent to some one who calls himself OpSomBlood,

[OpSomBlood]

18. Please post a link to where I said I'd shoot a purse snatcher.

Oh, and thanks for pointing out my "violent" username. Actually, my nickname in college was Blood, and it had nothing to do with violence.

[DoNotRefill]

23. And isn't OpSom...

from Operation Sombrero?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[FeebMaster]

28. That's nothing.

FeebMaster is actually an acronym for my constant fantasies about gunning down minorities in the streets. I'll let you figure it out. ;)

[DoNotRefill]

21. You're making some pretty big statements....

care to back them up?

Where has OpSom said anything about shooting an unarmed purse snatcher? And how do you NOT consider somebody who proudly boasts of "bouncing their head off the pavement like a basketball" to be non-violent?

BTW, here at least, the conduct you claim to have taken part in (the bouncing of heads off pavement bit) would be enough of a legal justification for a person to use lethal force to stop the attacker (you).

Which is more violent? Ownership of an assault weapon that is never fired, or bouncing people's heads off the pavement like a basketball? Here, ownership of an AW is not only not considered violent, it's considered legal. Bouncing people's heads off the pavement like a basketball, however, qualifies as attempted murder, and is punishable by a sentence in State prison of twenty years or more, no parole.

[iverglas]

24. and what are you a shining example of?

My own understanding of the tales in question were that they were reports of things that happened at least a couple of decades ago, mainly at a time when the poster in question was an adolescent in what seems to have been a violent, hostile, misogynist and racist milieu. Damn, I'd thought that defending one's self and others against violence was s'posed to be a good thing.

Care to enlighten us as to any of the misdeeds of your own misspent youth?

Care to stop misrepresenting what the tales you are talking about actually were and meant, in any event?

[Columbia]

31. Nice of you to defend him, iverglas

What happened to your little discourse on due process eh?

You should be admonishing this guy's violent tendencies (which he has not apologized for) instead of defending him.

Here is his post:

I grew up in a tough Western Pa steeltown at the base of the Applachian mountains. In junior high the school bus dropped us off 40 minutes before school opened and we were unsupervised, all we had to do for fun was fight. I was on the high school rifleteam my sophmore year and gave up on it because of the Vietnam war and football was more fun. Instead of spending months in detention for fighting, I could beat the crap out of preppies from the good side of town, Italians from the bad side of town and hillbillies from the ridge and steal their girlfriends. I started at tackle on a class AAAA football team with a winning record in one of the toughest conferences in America at 175 lbs. I also ran the 440 and consistantly beat black guys from Pittsburgh. The team was so tough it won the WPIAL championship my freshman year. A third of the team went to college and half a dozen went jail. I think a couple are still in there. Our team wasn't as good but we still very violent. I dated black girls when hardly any white guys did in the mid seventies. In college I worked my way up to dunking a basketball at 6' ft tall. I have two gay sisters who are married to other women with children. I have a brother who is a state trooper. In my prime, I'd beat most of these silly walter mitty gunloving asses heads up and down off the pavement like a basketball. I've been shot at several times and didn't get hit. I guarandamnedtee you I ain't scared

Go ahead and defend him, iverglas. Is this the kind of playmate you want in your sandbox?

[iverglas]

41. I'm just not concerned

What people did when they were 14 (you did note the reference to junior high school in there?), evidently about 30+ years ago, really just doesn't much interest me. I'm quite sure it doesn't interest you or any of your fellow snivellers, either.

Kinda missed some of the context in that quote of yours, didncha?

My girlfriend grew up with a guncreep brother who terrorized their family with guns and molested her.

billbuckhead didn't grow up in Beverley Hills. Sounds like one of those places where you maybe couldn't count on 911 to protect you, hm?

Not to mention that the passage you quote was in direct response to this ludicrous and intentionally demeaning assertion:

Bill, I know an 8 1/2 month pregnant woman who could undoubtedly kick your.....never mind.

(really, do we not all recognize the "you're a girlyman" gambit when we see it?).

Location, location, location, eh?

[Columbia]

52. And you believe he's different now?

You seem to have missed the part regarding him being in college and then right after talking about bouncing heads up and down on pavement. That kind of behavior is decidedly NOT minor youthful indiscretion. Considering he speaks of those times with pride and not regret, it seems that he has not changed in the least bit since those times.

And do you really believe that a "you're a girlyman" post would excuse the type of action exhibited in MrBuckhead's post?

Bashing people's heads repeatedly into the ground is justified how?

If any of us RKBA advocates had said such a thing, would you have defended us too?

[billbuckhead]

47. Who am I supposed to apologize to? YOU?

A dozen guys who hit me first from behind trying to make a small town name for themselves. Guys I played football with and against who were trying to hurt me as well. The mini riot in Wilkensburg after our all white team beat an almost all black team that had aspirations of good season that we ended in a close game. The guy with mental problems who came after me with a BASEBALL BAT when I was unarmed and I pinned him to ground without hurting him. The senior high hillbilly bullies on the bus who tried to get the little kids to give them blowjobs? The guy who jumped me in the alley cause I was with a black girl earlier in the evening?

Am I supposed to apologize to you, who thinks guns would make any of this better. I guess we could have had a Columbine, but 30 years ago before "gun rights movement", even this rough crowd thought that resorting to a gun was weak.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[-..__...]

78. misdeeds of a misspent youth?

Funny how errors in judgment or youthful abandonment can comeback and haunt an otherwise law abiding adult some 20/30/40 years later.

Take the arcane Massachusetts firearms laws for example...

If Buckhead had been arrested and adjudicated a "youthful offender"; under current MA law he/she would be prohibited for life from ever owning or possessing a firearm. The circumstances would be irrelevant.

[DoNotRefill]

17. Bill, please quote where I threatened a single hair on your head.

Be specific.

If you think I'd sucker punch ANYBODY from behind, you're gravely mistaken. Same deal with my wife.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[DoNotRefill]

51. PM me a phone #....

and I'll call you to arrange it.

[billbuckhead]

54. Give me your's first since you're so brave and have guns as well

I don't trust people with guns.

[DoNotRefill]

56. and I don't trust....

people who want to come to my house but will not even give me a phone # to call them at.

BTW, if you're serious about coming for a visit, you need to know beforehand that there ARE guns in my house.

[billbuckhead]

59. Give me your landline phone number and I'll call you

Trust but verify.

[DoNotRefill]

63. Trust but verify???? BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!

Dude, YOU'RE the one claiming you want to come to my house. Therefore, it's YOU who needs to "trust" first.

You want me to give out my personal information. OK, fine. But in order for me to do that, I need something from you to indicate that you're serious. A valid phone number is acceptable to me.

You want to come visit? Ok, fine, we'll put you up for the night and feed you. You want to come visit but will not even give a phone number that you can be reached at? I don't think so.

[T Town Jake]

61. "Unfortunately after Bambi"...

...Hilarious...just too, too rich for my ticklish ribcage...

[HawkerHurricane]

65. Some subjects I should just know better...

A gun is a tool. It is a tool for killing things. It has several secondary purposes, including poking holes in things at range and threatening to kill things. BUT because a gun is used to kill a family member does NOT mean that's what it was bought for.

I find the whole gun ownership issue irratating. The 2nd amendment is pretty clear; but both sides try to ignore parts of it. Anti Gun folks like to leave out the phrase "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". The pro gun folks ignore "a well regulated militia". (emphasis on well regulated).

Some laws controling guns is needed. I'm told they exist, but aren't enforced.

Many laws attempting to control guns are so poorly written, I think the NRA wrote them as part of an effort to discredit gun control laws.

I own 2 guns; one is a Navy Cap and Ball revolver, supposedly captured during the Civil War in Mobile. It probably wouldn't fire even if I had ammunition for it; and if it did it might blow up in my hand. It's a decorative piece only.
The other is a imatation 'Brown Bess' musket. It does fire. It takes me 5 minutes to load it. I don't keep it loaded. As far as home defense, give me 5-10 minutes warning, and I'll meet you at the door with a load of buck and ball. Otherwise, I'll use a baseball bat or the Kukri, it's too expensive to use as a club.

[Columbia]

6. Hey MrB

How come you don't post in the GIN threads anymore?

[iverglas]

34. let's see now

According to a 1998 Violence Policy Center study, more than 12 times as many females were murdered by a male they knew (1,699 victims) than were killed by male strangers (138 victims)

Let's try a 2003 Statistics Canada report.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/031001/d031001a.htm

Men are more likely to be killed by a stranger than women. In 2002, 1 in 5 male victims were killed by a stranger, compared with 1 in 14 female victims.

Huh. That would be 13 times as many female persons murdered by male persons they know as female persons killed by male strangers.

I just bet that the VPC isn't lying about the 1998 US stats, somehow.

For good measure:

Including homicides committed by current or ex-boyfriends or girlfriends, 44% of all female victims and 8% of all male victims were killed by someone with whom they had a relationship at one point in time, either through marriage or dating.

I surely do wish that some big brave person would stand up and point at something in that VPC article that is false, or even that there is good reason to suspect might be false ...

[billbuckhead]

53. Don't expect bravery from the Walter Mitty's hiding behind guns

The whole "gun rights movement" was focused grouped around trying to take advantage of white males insecurity about the what happened in the sixties and seventies when blacks, women and other minorities started standing up for their rights. The corporate Republicans were also scared, so they banded together with the scared middle class and lower class white men, wrapped themselves in the flag and the second amendment in a pact to defend their privileged positions.

[OpSomBlood]

57. I am not white.

Several of the other pro-gun posters at DU aren't, either. A few are gay. Many women would rather arm themselves than be a victim...I've seen this firsthand at CCW classes.

So please, spare us all the race card. If you're against individual ownership, fine. But don't drag the race and gender bait behind the boat expecting to get bites. Your assertion is absurd.

[billbuckhead]

60. ConnieRice, ClarenceThomas, J.C. Watts, aren't white either

and Bill Clinton was the first black President. Race ain't just pigment.

[Liberal Classic]

76. Sorry, I don't agree

Bill Clinton ethnicity is anglo.

Race ain't just pigment.

Pigment is at most what race is, and in fact race is less.

[T Town Jake]

62. You see, Op...

...you're a double figment of your own imagination - we all know, after all, that there is simply no such thing as a pro gun Democrat. They simply don't exist. But a pro gun Democrat who also happens to be a member of a racial minority? Why, they're figments of their own imaginations twice over!
</sarcasm>

[OpSomBlood]

66. Don't two figments cancel each other out?

I must be a white woman-hating racist...I own guns!

Thanks for helping me to see the light!

[DoNotRefill]

64. It's kind of hard to take anything serious....

that cites Kellermann. See endnote #8

[iverglas]

69. I do not know this Kellerman

I know a Kellerman, but probably not that one.



http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

Somebody bitches about the VPC being the source. I demonstrate that
(a) the VPC is a very minor source;
(b) the material for which the VPC is the source is independently verifiable

... and somebody bitches about a Kellerman. Maybe we could start over, lay out all the objections, and deal with them in some sort of organized fashion?

Here's what the study by Kellerman and several others -- published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, which I assume to be a peer-reviewed professional/academic journal, and undoubtedly based on independently verifiable data -- was quoted as saying:

a gun in the home makes a woman is 5.4 to 7.2 times more likely to be the victim of an domestic violence homicide<.>

Are you suggesting that this is false? Has it been disproved? Can you offer access to the disproof? I don't know; help me out.

If you aren't, or it hasn't, or you can't, did you have a point? Has so much of what these authors have written been disproved or debunked that it is reasonable to approach anything else they write with grave suspicion, and even to disregard it unless is verified from an independent source? In that case, can this statement really not be verified from an independent source -- can the sources used by the authors in reaching the stated conclusion not be accessed by someone who wanted to? Is it proper to claim that something can be dismissed out of hand, or disregarded, even when its source is demonstrably suspect, when it appears that it can be readily verified by someone who actually wanted to? Does any problem there might be with the soundness/validity of that particular conclusion (I can just never remember which word describes which problem) make anything else stated in the article false, or unworthy of belief?

Or is this just an old ad personam argument?



you know.

[library_max]

101. As a matter of fact,

Archives of Internal Medicine is one of the top-tier medical journals in the United States. That means it is one of the most prestigious and reputable. College professors rank journals this way when they're trying to decide how much an article counts toward promotion and tenure. It's based on their acceptance rate and the degree of influence their articles carry in future journal citations (how often their articles are cited in other journals). And of course, as iverglas says, they have to be refereed by independent scholars.

[Liberal Classic]

71. Much the same in cases of child rape

Most children are not sexually abused by strangers, but by friends of the family, relatives, or other adults with some relationship to the child such as a day care worker.

There were variations in these overall patterns when the relationship of perpetrator to the child victim was considered. Less than 3 percent (2.5%) of parents committed sexual abuse; however, 28.9 percent of other relatives, 19.3 percent of daycare providers, 16.4 percent of residential facility staff, and 11.2 percent of unmarried partners of parents committed sexual abuse (figure 5-3). More than one-third (36.9%) of perpetrators who were in "other" types of relationships to the child victims—including camp counselors, school employees, and hospital staff—committed sexual abuse.

Source U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services:

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/chapterfive.htm#character

I believe in cases of sexual assault against adults, only around one third of rape victims described their attacker as being a stranger.

More than six in ten rape or sexual assault victims stated the offender was an intimate, other relative, a friend or an acquaintance.

Source U.S. Dept of Justice:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

Also from the same source:

Family members were most likely to murder a young child -- About one in five child murders was committed by a family member -- while a friend or acquaintance was most likely to murder an older child age 15 to 17.

For murder victims, 44% were related to or acquainted with their assailants; 13% of victims were murdered by strangers, while 43% of victims had an unknown relationship to their murderer in 2000.

There seems to be a generally accepted notion in this country that rape and murder are largely impersonal crimes. However, statistics do not bear this out, especially in crimes against children, but even to a large degree in violent crimes against adults.

As Mark Twain once remarked, "Get your facts straight first. Then you can distort them anyway you want." I am not going to draw any sweeping conclusions from the figures I have just cited. In my opinion, issue advocacy groups such as the Violence Policy Center and the National Rifle Association take statistics and try to get them to fit their preconceived notions. Additionally, the accuracy and completeness of government is sometimes itself the question, especially concerning crimes like sexual abuse which are often far underreported. Though such figures are useful in limited circumstances, we must be careful not to make sweeping generalizations.

My purpose, however, was to illustrate the that much of the violent crime that occurs is perpetrated by people familiar to the victims in some way. I am not going to draw a sweeping generalization, but I will say that to me, this means that there is something deeper going on than just the issue of firearms.

[Romulus]

85. two comments

1) were the firearms legally owned?
2) were "the crazy guy from down the block" and "the stalker after one date/saying hi on the elevator" included in the "people known?" If so, the claims of husbands being controlled by guns and killing their wives is rubbish.

From the DOJ:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm

Most murder victims were familiar with their assailants.

Spouses and family members made up about 15% of all victims
About one third of the victims were acquaintances of the assailant
In 14% of all murders, the victim and the offender were strangers
The victim/offender relationship was undetermined in about one third of homicides

Victim/Offender Relationship, 1976-2000

Total 100.0% 512,599
Intimate 11.4% 58,409
Non-intimate 54.8% 280,999
Undetermined 33.8% 173,190

In recent years -

About one third of female murder victims were killed by an intimate
About 4% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate
Of all female murder victims, the proportion killed by an intimate was relatively stable until 1995 when the proportion began increasing
Of male murder victims, the proportion killed by an intimate has dropped.

[Retired AF Dem]

94. You really give a shit?

If a woman shot her attacker she would be an asshole according to some here.

[billbuckhead]

95. Any quote to prove that?

O8)

[FeebMaster]

97. Here you go.

Post 65

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=61535

[Bowline]

96. The answer is obvious...ban men!

If we don't allow women access to men we could stop these senseless murders.

[library_max]

102. Another practical and sensible solution from the RKBA crowd.

Cancel reality, turn the universe inside-out, just don't touch my guns.