In the context of the shooting today of a police officer at Virginia Tech, I wanted to look at statistics for law enforcement killings, including the cause of death.
Given the surprising data in 2010 of a 37% jump in the deaths of law enforcement officers in 2010, reported
here, I was curious to see what those statistics were (so far anyway) for 2011. Given the lax gun regulation, it should not be a surprise that Florida and Texas lead the list. An increase as of mid-year of 12% (so far) of law enforcement officers deaths by firearms should be considered against the decline in crime overall in considering the impact of firearms on our society.
From the
National Law Enforcement Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund web site:
Preliminary 2011 Fatality Statistics
Law Enforcement Officer Fatalities
Preliminary 2011 Numbers
December 8, 2011
| 2011 | 2010 | % Change |
| Total Fatalities | 162 | 145 | +12% |
| Firearms-related | 58 | 52 | +12% |
| Traffic-related | 60 | 69 | -13% |
| Other Causes | 44 | 24 | +83% |
Please note: These numbers reflect total officer fatalities comparing December 8, 2011 to December 8, 2010. |
2011 Fatalities by State
| Texas | 13 | | |
| Florida | 12 | | |
| New York | 10 | | |
| California | 9 | | |
| Georgia | 9 | | |
| Ohio | 7 | | |
| Tennessee | 7 | | |
| North Carolina | 7 | | |
| Louisiana | 5 | | |
| Missouri | 5 | | |
| New Jersey | 5 | | |
| Michigan | 5 | | |
| Arizona | 4 | | |
| Alabama | 3 | | |
| Oregon | 3 | | |
| Pennsylvania | 3 | | |
| South Carolina | 3 | | |
| South Dakota | 3 | | |
| Virginia | 3 | | |
| Colorado | 2 | | |
| Hawaii | 2 | | |
| Illinois | 2 | | |
| Indiana | 2 | | |
| Iowa | 2 | | |
| Kentucky | 2 | | |
| Maryland | 2 | | |
| Mississippi | 2 | | |
| North Dakota | 2 | | |
| Oklahoma | 2 | | |
| Washington | 2 | | |
| Arkansas | 1 | | |
| Delaware | 1 | | |
| District of Columbia | 1 | | |
| Kansas | 1 | | |
| Maine | 1 | | |
| Massachusetts | 1 | | |
| Minnesota | 1 | | |
| Nebraska | 1 | | |
| Wisconsin | 1 | | |
| Wyoming | 1 | | |
Federal Agencies: 10
U.S. Territories: 3
Note: All data are preliminary and are subject to change. |
|
FL and TX are also two of our largest states.
ReplyDelete" Given the lax gun regulation, it should not be a surprise that Florida and Texas lead the list. An increase as of mid-year of 12% (so far) of law enforcement officers deaths by firearms should be considered against the decline in crime overall in considering the impact of firearms on our society."
ReplyDeleteSo which is it? Lax gun laws drive crime down but drive LEO deaths up? Or lax gun laws don't drive crime down but they still drive LEO deaths up? The double standards get confusing sometimes.
If you ranked states by population the list would be pretty much the same. Nothing to see here.
ReplyDeleteGreg wrote:
ReplyDeleteCould it be that population size and density have a lot more to do with these deaths than firearms?
No. There are plenty of other places that have equal or greater population density that do NOT have these problems.
As of the 2010 Census, here are the states (and territories) by population:
ReplyDeleteCalifornia, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington,Massachusetts, Indiana, Arizona, Tennessee,Missouri, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, Alabama,South Carolina, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah,Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Washington DC, Wyoming, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands.\
So we have for example, Tennessee ranked number 7 for law enforcement fatalities, but 17 for population; We have Louisiana ranked 9th for law enforcement deaths, but 25th in population; Pennsylvania is 6 in population, 16th for law enforcement deaths. Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Minnesota are tied at the bottom of the fatality list with 1 death each, Massachusetts is 14th in population, with Wisconsin 20th, and Minnesota 21st in population.
So, NO, it doesn't appear that those death stats track all that well with population density.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDeleteDG, I know I fall into the trap, but not every stupid comment made on this blog is made by Greg.
Do you want to know what I'm curious about? No? Well, I'm gonna tell ya, anyways.
ReplyDeleteThese numbers for LEO deaths, while statistically insignificant (according to folks who lurves 'em some gunz), are compiled by gummint agencies or nannywatchdogorgs to make a point.
I just find it odd that the MILLIONS of dgu's that happen every year aren't bein' tracked by the NRA and the other gungandaorgs. I mean we all KNOW that they happen, but nobody writes 'em down!
Dog,
ReplyDeleteThis is very basic statistics. If you talk about levels of deaths, you have to control for the population at risk for those deaths.
When the levels are so incredibly low, there will be random variation that affects the rank order.
Show me an instance of a stricter gun law causing a drop in this metric within a state over time.
Demo-
ReplyDeleteTwo things: statistical significance doesn't apply to the concept of a level by itself, and most DGUs go unreported making data collection difficult.
Here is a correlation of statistics that I'm seeing.
ReplyDeleteThere is a marked increase in law enforcement deaths, last year, and the first half of this year.
There is a steadily declining crime rate over decades.
There is a somewhat flat homicide rate but that too has declined.
Yet last year there was a 37% jump in law enforcement deaths? I plan to go into what the breakdown on cause was for 2010.
But there is a 12% increase in firearm deaths for just this year. Even if you allow that the numbers are so small as to have a disproportionate impact on the percentages, the law enforcement numbers should be trending down not up.
In this context, there have been loosening of firearm regulation, including carry.
What no one has answered here is that this man who did the shooting should not have done it, should not have had the gun to do it.
If we are going to be a 'gun culture' we have to do more to condemn this kind of behavior, and more to make sure that people who do not have proper impulse control don't get their hands on guns.
That demented, fact averse poor thinking idiots even have FFLs is a concern, per the conversation democommie reported here. Those are not isolated incidents or rare occurrences.
Your "seeing" a correlation doesn't really cut it. That's not how we do things in the social sciences.
ReplyDeleteMAGunner says nothing to see here, but I thought there was. I wish I had a dollar for every time one of you pro-gunners said most cops are killed in car accidents, not by guns.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, Dog Gone.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe table shows that more police are killed in car accidents than in gun related incidents.
Btw, does "firearm-related" include suicide?
MAgunzloon (I'm smelling weerd'dbeardy) sez:
ReplyDelete"Show me an instance of a stricter gun law causing a drop in this metric within a state over time."
Not likely gonna happen in this ountry, not while assclowns can buy gunz in NH,VT,ME,CT & RI (for instance) and carry them into another state.
Check some countries in europe like the U.K., France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal that have either strict or very strict gunzlawz--and enforce them. Switzerland is currently looking at revamping some of their laws, in light of a spate of shootings by citizens who use their military issued weapons to do the deed.
Where, oh where, are those DGU stats?
Data for DGUs is unavailable for the same reason we don't know the levels of back alley abortions: they're not reported.
ReplyDeleteGreg the status of your comments has been addressed under 'Where Seldom Is Heard a Discouraging Word".
ReplyDeleteThe following was an observation by Laci, but he's been tied up all morning in court, although he managed a brief phone call a little while ago from his cell phone:
ReplyDelete"that other causes had jumped by +83% is sort of meaningless since that is a blanket category that includes other causes of death:
One officer lost his/her life due to each of the following: aircraft accident,
beating, electrocution, officer falls to his/her death, bomb blast, crushed,
and strangled.
b>The main point,
For 13 years in a row, traffic-related incidents have been the leading cause of officer fatalities, but for the first half of 2011, firearms-related fatalities have out-paced traffic-related fatalities as the primary cause of law enforcement deaths, with 40 officers shot and killed. This represents a troubling 33% increase
from 2010, when 30 officers were killed by gunfire. "
And that cause of LEO deaths has increased further THIS year so far.
"MAgunowner said...
ReplyDeleteData for DGUs is unavailable for the same reason we don't know the levels of back alley abortions: they're not reported.
December 9, 2011 4:07 PM"
That's another fucking lie by your gunzloonz. Every DGU that you find out about is pushed by FuckTheNew'sCorpse and the Rush's dittodickheads (among other reichwing lieganda outlets). That there is a paucity of them reported is due to their scarcity not the gunzloonz' reticence in thumping their chests about what heroes they are.
I'm sorry I couldn't really follow that, demo. English please.
ReplyDeleteI really love it when the gunzloonz start to whine about not being able to follow the conversation 'cuz it ain't in plain english.
ReplyDeleteThere are no words in a foreign language in that last comment, meatpuppet--lot's of half-assed neologistic constructs, bizarre compound "words" and the like, but all in english--if you're having trouble reading it that is your problem.
I find democommie both clear and lucid.
ReplyDeleteRather he has a very unique and stylized form of writing. I'm sure I could find other examples of well regarded writers who also use somewhat uniquely personal stylized forms of writing, but still manage not only to communicate well, but with greater nuance and emotion.
Yes, his style it is a real cacophony of cacography.
ReplyDeleteAh, the classic “lie told by statistics”- the old “percent increase” trick. Was 2010 a big increase in officer fatalities? Or was there a big decrease in 2009? Let us look at the whole picture:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html
Here we see all officer fatalities over the past several hundred years. Wow, look at that- 2009 had the fewest officers killed since 1959. 2010, which is portrayed as this big problem year by using the “percent increase” trick was actually the third lowest of the past 10 years. Couple that with the fact that we are talking about relatively low numbers (one or two hundred) which means you can get big swings in percentage- another trick of “percent increase”. It doesn’t tell the whole story. Is it really meaningful to say there was a 300% increase in officer fatalities between 1806 and 1808? Because technically it is true.
Do us a favor Dog gone, place this data in a nice visual graph over whatever time period you find relevant, and then remake your point about trends.
Oh, dear me, TS counters with HIS numbers.
ReplyDeleteDo those numbers by any chance factor in advances in medical science--the advent of Lifeflight, well trained and equipped paramedics, the availability of skilled thoracic and neurologic surgeons, life support systems and such that simply didn't fucking exist in 1959 or for most of the next 30 years. Do they factor in the increase in incidence and frequency of police officers wearing body armor?
Cuz, y'know, TS, your numbers only tell YOUR side of the story. Gollywhiz.
Actually, looking at year to year changes does take technology changes out of the equation.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteYes, his style it is a real cacophony of cacography.
But that is really only significant if you are reading out loud....LOL!
Nice turn of phrase, and excellent alliteration Anon! Very clever.
"Actually, looking at year to year changes does take technology changes out of the equation.
ReplyDeleteDecember 9, 2011 8:37 PM"
Talk about not making sense. What is it that you're saying? That the report shows all of the items I mentioned being factored in? Or are you saying that they don't matter?
I looked at the report, I don't see any discussion of the former and the latter is gonna require some citations from you.
Democommie: “Do those numbers by any chance factor in advances in medical science…”
ReplyDeleteLook at whatever timeframe you want Democommie. 2009 is still a statistically low year for officer deaths, which allows one to use a true statistics to “tell a lie with statistics.” Do you not get what I am saying about percent increase/decrease? What significance is to say there was a 300% increase in officer fatalities between 1806 and 1808? This isn’t about medical advancement, it is about data analysis. Dog gone could use the same stat hundreds of times throughout history to make her point. It could also be disproved hundreds of time with the following “percent decrease”.
Here is the data, plug it into a spreadsheet and make a graph. Look at the year to year fluctuations throughout history. Look at how since we are talking about small numbers, one event like 9/11 can have a major statistical impact.
1791 1
1792 1
1794 1
1797 1
1806 1
1808 4
1810 1
1811 1
1816 2
1818 1
1823 2
1825 2
1827 1
1828 1
1830 1
1836 4
1838 1
1839 1
1840 1
1841 1
1842 1
1843 2
1844 1
1845 3
1847 1
1848 1
1849 3
1850 3
1851 5
1852 4
1853 5
1854 10
1855 7
1856 7
1857 14
1858 10
1859 9
1860 9
1861 9
1862 5
1863 10
1864 10
1865 8
1866 13
1867 17
1868 14
1869 22
1870 21
1871 19
1872 23
1873 21
1874 25
1875 12
1876 25
1877 18
1878 41
1879 23
1880 30
1881 40
1882 40
1883 34
1884 40
1885 51
1886 41
1887 36
1888 50
1889 38
1890 52
1891 49
1892 58
1893 48
1894 57
1895 51
1896 41
1897 40
1898 67
1899 57
1900 64
1901 68
1902 80
1903 82
1904 74
1905 63
1906 68
1907 86
1908 111
1909 79
1910 85
1911 117
1912 95
1913 107
1914 109
1915 121
1916 149
1917 160
1918 146
1919 197
1920 186
1921 223
1922 226
1923 214
1924 248
1925 224
1926 222
1927 250
1928 239
1929 253
1930 286
1931 249
1932 261
1933 222
1934 229
1935 208
1936 182
1937 180
1938 182
1939 117
1940 126
1941 137
1942 119
1943 84
1944 88
1945 107
1946 132
1947 121
1948 134
1949 102
1950 110
1951 131
1952 117
1953 115
1954 131
1955 117
1956 107
1957 115
1958 109
1959 110
1960 128
1961 136
1962 137
1963 136
1964 148
1965 137
1966 160
1967 190
1968 189
1969 193
1970 217
1971 244
1972 225
1973 268
1974 280
1975 238
1976 201
1977 189
1978 214
1979 213
1980 206
1981 203
1982 195
1983 192
1984 182
1985 176
1986 178
1987 182
1988 194
1989 195
1990 158
1991 147
1992 161
1993 157
1994 178
1995 181
1996 139
1997 171
1998 169
1999 143
2000 162
2001 240
2002 157
2003 149
2004 165
2005 162
2006 155
2007 189
2008 141
2009 122
2010 152
TS:
ReplyDeleteYour "graph" lacks the information that would include how many officers survived gunshot wounds in any of those years and why they survived them.
I hope for the sake of your employer that you are not a statistician, because your grasp of statistical data is tenuous.
I'm having to retype this comment, since it was deleted before. Dog Gone, note that I'm using your numbers. Is that a good enough source?
ReplyDelete1. Traffic fatalities still lead firearms deaths.
2. Other causes jumped by nearly double from 2010 to 2011. That appears to be the area of concern.
3. The numbers in question are so small as to make random fluctuations appear huge. The increase in firearms related deaths was six.
4. As has been observed, there is nothing here to indicate what type of firearms related deaths we're talking about. Suicide and accident would count in that category.
5. If you listed the American states by population, the two lists would look remarkably the same. The top four states in the list of deaths are also four of our most populous states. It's no surprise that Wyoming had only one death. There aren't many people in Wyoming.
6. The number of deaths per state isn't broken down by type. Texas may have many more car wrecks than California--we can't tell from the numbers presented.
7. States with signifcantly different gun laws have similar numbers. California and Georgia both have nine. You can blame guns coming from other states on California's deaths, but how do you account for Georgia, a gun-friendly state? The two have the same number. Massachusetts and Arkansas also have the same number, despite again having wildly different gun laws. Georgia and Arkansas are much the same in their laws. If lax gun laws were responsible, every state with lax laws ought to have many more deaths.
This:
ReplyDelete"1. Traffic fatalities still lead firearms deaths."
did not get any more intelligent the second time it was typed. Traffic deaths and traffic injuries are the result of MILLIONS of people driving BILLIONS of miles every year. The usage of firearms being compared to the usage of automobiles is like comparing an apple to a fucking orange grove.
"States with signifcantly different gun laws have similar numbers. California and Georgia both have nine."
California has ALMOST EIGHT FUCKING TIMES as many people in it as Georgia. If both states had the same rate of LEO's being killed then CA would be looking at over 70 fatalities.
the rest of your comment is equally invalid.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteAnd there are hundreds of millions of guns and a hundred million or so gun owners in America. Traffic deaths are still ahead of firearms deaths for law enforcement officers.
Atlanta is a metropolitan region of similar composition to cities in California, and the population numbers are closer between California and Georgia than Georgia and Wyoming. Or even Arkansas. We have lots of guns in Arkansas, but only one police offier fatality (from whatever cause).
Care to address the other points?
Greg, Don't forget that airplane accidents are also on the rise for LEO deaths!
ReplyDeleteWe need to relax firearms laws.
We need to make it easier for criminals to get their hands on guns--Isn't that what you're really saying, Greg?
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I'm saying that I haven't seen a system that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals without also keeping them out of the hands of good citizens. I'm saying that the numbers presented in this article don't justify new gun control measures. Don't try to push me to exaggerations that I don't make.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteYour original comment about California and Georgia was fucking stupid. You make comments that have no validity. I'm not arguing with people who are morons--that would be you.
I haven't seen a system that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals without also keeping them out of the hands of good citizens.
ReplyDeleteReally, Greg, can you provide examples of this?
Don't try to push me to exaggerations that I don't make.
Greg, I'm just trying to get you to back up what you say with facts. You can do that--can't you?
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteCalifornia and Georgia have this in common: densly populated metropolitan areas with large stretches of open countryside. They have more in common than do Georgia and many of the states with only one fatality.
The problem that you and Laci the Dog and Dog Gone have is that you toss out claims that I'm a moron or that I don't have critical thinking skills without bothering to show in detail why you say that. It's easy to make the claim; it's much more difficult to show how that claim is true.
Laci the Dog,
I've looked at what gets proposed here. Mental health evaluations before allowing anyone to have a gun, no carrying of a concealed handgun without establishing need, a registration system on all firearms, and on and on. All of that could work in a country that doesn't start out with a lot of guns and gun owners to begin with, but that's not the situation in America. To get there from here would require a too much intrusion into our private lives and liberties.
GC wrote:
ReplyDelete"The problem that you and Laci the Dog and Dog Gone have is that you toss out claims that I'm a moron or that I don't have critical thinking skills without bothering to show in detail why you say that. "
We show you in perfect detail why you fail at critical thinking.
You believe, among other failings, that citing something from Massad Ayoob on a legal case is the same as presenting the legal case - which we're still waiting for from you btw.
You believe Chic Gaylord is an historic source, when he is not an historian.
You believe that a staged publicity photo - where the caption even acknowledges the inaccuracy of the photo - is a credible piece of evidence for something, without looking at all the other photos of the man - and he was NOT camera shy - or illustrations from the period, that show him using a holster.
Apparently you think that because you don't accept wikipedia in writing from your students - who don't appear for the most part to be among the academic overachievers of this world - that you are somehow big on source material.
It boggles my mind that someone who does such sloppy research to support his thinking can be allowed to teach, heck can be allowed near a classroom except as a student himself.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteAre you still going on about a picture? It's a picture. Let it go. It has nothing to do with the statistics given in this article. Focus on these statistics. I have analyzed these statistics. Anything that you say about Massad Ayoob or James Butler Hickok is irrelevant to these statistics.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDelete"Are you still going on about a picture? It's a picture. Let it go."
This from a guy who obviously has a really hard time LETTING GO of that same picture (never mind the one that makes him look like a total idiot--the one that HE put up on the internet).
"California and Georgia have this in common: densly populated metropolitan areas with large stretches of open countryside."
There are more people in LA County than there are in the STATE of GA. WTF point are you trying to make?
You made an incredibly stupid statement and then you, as usual, attempt to change the focus of the argument. You're a fucking idiot who really should stick to playing paintball on your own time. This game is way too far over your head.
You keep complaining about others not answering your questions (although they actually have done so--your refusal to understand not being their problem) yet you don't bother to answer others' questions. Does your galpal carry her gun everywhere she goes? Do you still insist that everybody who calls an M-16 a rifle knows less than you do? Do you carry a gun on the campus where you teach? If you do carry a gun will you be cuttin'n'pastin' a copy of the campus rules for firearms for students, faculty and administrators? Are these questions too difficult for you to answer or are you afraid that you'll be caught in yet another lie?
Are you still going on about a picture? It's a picture. Let it go. It has nothing to do with the statistics given in this article. Focus on these statistics. I have analyzed these statistics. Anything that you say about Massad Ayoob or James Butler Hickok is irrelevant to these statistics.
ReplyDeleteActually the two are related, your bad grasp of statistics, and your bad grasp of legal matters, and your bad grasp of self defense, and your bad grasp of historical accuracy.
They all point to a pattern of poorly informed ideas where you fail utterly to support your contentions.
I think I've already addressed your observations, and whatever I may have missed was covered perfectly well by Lacii and democommie.
You consistently conflate dissimilar things and then erroneously call them similar when they are not.
You don't know a reliable or credible source from bullshit, and you can't use critical thinking to free yourself from being a helpless victim of random violence if you were trapped in a wet paper bag.
You can't think, you don't think, and you lack an informed opinion. Further, you fail to recognize genuine expertise, and call the disconnect on your part elitism or superiority on the part of others.
It is not. You are simply substandard in your information and what you do with it that you call thinking.
If you wish that to change, you will need to do so by producing credible sources, including for all the other bullshit things you've said, and then you will need to demonstrate that you understand those sources and their significance.
So far, you fail on all counts, and because of it, we have a low opinion of what you write here.
That would apply to your comments on this post, and most of the comments on the other posts.
The data has nothing to do with guns, democommie. The data is total officer deaths on the line of duty. My point doesn’t have anything to do with guns either, but simple data analysis. Dog gone is trying to show us a disturbing trend based on two data points (or three adding the incomplete 2011). Two data points does not a trend make.
ReplyDeleteIs you point is that the percent increase in officer death between 2009 and 2010 is meaningful? Was it just as meaningful the first hundred times it happened? Was the decrease between 2008 and 2009 meaningful?
You have the whole data set. So you can look at whatever time period you feel is relevant if you want to make some point about modern medicine. You’ll still see the same effect- that 2009 was a statistically low year which opens the door for the classic “lie with statistics” that I mentioned.
Note, in a different thread Laci tied to use this against me. This doesn’t mean that all statistics are lies. It doesn’t even mean that all “percent change” stats are manipulative. They absolutely can be used honestly so long as the time frame/data sample is appropriate. Using only two data points is NEVER relevant in statistics.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteSo I analyzed the numbers presented here, and you can't deal with what I had to say. You jump to other topics unrelated to this article. Would you please focus on one thing at a time? The statistics that were presented in no way suggest that there's a problem. If you disagree, stop attacking me as a person and answer how there's a problem shown in the numbers.
Democommie,
1. It's none of your business what my partner does. She can speak for herself on that topic if she chooses.
2. An M-16 is an assault rifle or carbine. It's not a battle rifle on the order of the FN-FAL or the M-1 Garand or the classic bolt action rifles of the two world wars.
3. I've already answered this question. It's illegal for me to carry a gun into the buildings, and I don't carry there. The parking lot is legal.
So I analyzed the numbers presented here, and you can't deal with what I had to say.
ReplyDeleteI can deal with what you have to say, but it has already been addressed well by MikeB, Laci and democommie.
I have never avoided a single thing you've had to say. I might point out that it is poorly informed and poorly reasoned, but I address it.
You jump to other topics unrelated to this article. Would you please focus on one thing at a time? The statistics that were presented in no way suggest that there's a problem.
There is nothing acceptable about these numbers. There is nothing about these numbers which indicates everything is hunky dory fine.
YOU clearly did not cross reference population, gun laws (stringent or lax) and the rates of deaths. You did not reference why we have so much worse numbers than places which have better, stricter gun regulation in other countries as reflected in THEIR law enforcement numbers.
By what criteria in your wildest imagination can you properly call these numbers acceptable?
They are NOT. Many of these deaths were preventable, avoidable, under different firearm laws and policies.
Beginning with far fewer firearms. If this many law enforcement officers are dying, if as many other human beings are dying as occur in this country, we are doing something wrong. The common denominator to that wrong is guns.
The common denominator to NOT having those kinds of death and injury stats has been proven by all the other countries with fewer guns and more stringent licensing and registration.
Now YOU stop dodging,and answer my challenge to produce information.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI'm not dodging anything. I used the numbers that you presented in this article. I compared states in which there are strict gun laws to those of similar population that have what you call lax gun laws--Texas and California, for example. Both are states with densly populated cities, both have tens of millions of total citizens, and yet their gun laws are radically different. And yet, their deaths (from all causes, not just firearms) are similar. Compare Washington to Massachusetts. Their populations are almost the same number, and their death count (again, from all causes) is about the same, and yet, the two have radically different gun laws.
If your idea that the availability of guns is the cause of gun deaths, we should see a much higher number in states with so-called lax laws. Yes, guns can cross borders, but in states with easy access, the guns don't have to cross anything. They're already present. There's no registration system in the "lax" states. Shall-issue licensing makes carrying a gun much easier. In those states, there should be a significant difference in the number of deaths. But there isn't. We see no correlation between gun laws and law enforcement officer deaths. There is a much stronger correlation between population size and density and those deaths.
You go on to say that compared to other countries, we have a much higher rate of gun deaths in the total population. That's true. We have a lot more guns--orders of magnitude more guns--than those countries ever had. Strict gun control may work for those countries, but they were starting much closer to zero than we've ever been. Even if eliminating all guns from America were a desirable goal--it's not, in my view--doing so would require an invasive and coersive approach that would be unacceptable, given our culture and history. We can't get there from here without a radical change in who we are and how we think.
You want information? You've seen how some gun owners think. There are many others like us who don't come here to express their opinions. You can see them on any discussion board related to firearms. Do you really believe that you can get us to change our minds so much as to come to your position? If we don't change, do you really believe that the kind of measures that you propose would be accepted in this country?
Now what other questions do you want answered?
Greg Camp:
ReplyDelete"1. It's none of your business what my partner does. She can speak for herself on that topic if she chooses."
But IT was my business that you had to mention, in the first place, that you had bought her a gun and arranged for her to attend a class on proper perpblastin' technique? So, I'm guessing the answer is that you don't know what she does or that you know that she doesn't share your obsessive attachment to teh gunz.
"2. An M-16 is an assault rifle or carbine. It's not a battle rifle on the order of the FN-FAL or the M-1 Garand or the classic bolt action rifles of the two world wars."
Now we're seeing the Greg Camp MGPU--MA1aGC* in action.
These comments:
"I'd refer you to Jeff Cooper's opinions about the M-16, but he's not regarded as a reliable source here. Let's observe, though, that said carbine shoots a .22 caliber bullet."
"The M-16 isn't a battle rifle. It's a carbine. It fires an intermediate power cartridge of low caliber."
"The M-16 and the AK-47 are assault rifles, following in the tradition of the MP-44 Sturmgewehr."**
aside from their self- contradictory qualities, demonstrate your amazing backpedalfu.
You did say, after being given a longish reading assignment, that you had no time for further comments. Since that comment you have furnished a FUCKTON of comments on later threads--a FUCKTON.
"3. I've already answered this question. It's illegal for me to carry a gun into the buildings, and I don't carry there. The parking lot is legal.
December 12, 2011 2:29 AM"
So you will be happy to furnish your empoyer's written rules re: firearms on campus. I can't wait.
* Movable Goal Post Unit--MA1aGregCamp
** But, wait, the StG44 and it's variants all fired a MUCH bigger bullet than the M-16. So, how can one be an assault rifle and the other not. Oh, wait, that's right you decided that I'd already forgotten your insistence on the M-16 being a carbine.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteRather than working so hard to be stupid, why don't you just relax.
1. My partner isn't a firearms enthusiast. She's pleased to enjoy me in my interests. My point in mentioning her was to say that she's one woman who isn't in danger from a man with guns. Beyond that is none of your business.
2. An assault rifle is a carbine. A carbine is a shortened rifle, often of reduced power from a full battle rifle. To be an assault rifle, the weapon must also have full auto capacity. Yes, the modern military calls the M-16 it's rifle, period, but that's not my problem. I'll stick with the proper names for things. Everything that I've said on the subject of the M-16 is consistent. I can't help it if you refuse to understand what I mean.
3. Mike Beebe, the current governor of Arkansas, used to be the attorney general. During that time, he gave a ruling about the law regarding concealed carry that said that carry outside the buildings is fine. The law specifically says that carry into a building is illegal. It was Beebe's opinion that inside doesn't mean outside. Refer to Opinion No. 2003-372, a letter to Representative Scroggin, dated 23 Dec. 2003.
Shorter Greg Camp:
ReplyDelete1.) I have no fucking idea what my girlfriend does. I don't even know if she still has the gun or if she sold it to some crackhead or hillbilly heroin addict.
2.) I AM completely full of shit on the M-16 thread, but if I admit to that then my credibility with my fellow gunzloonz will crumble*.
3.) I can't furnish the written rules backing up my contention.
So, Greg, buddy. Here's the thing. You make mistakes about shit, then you lie about it. When your lies are exposed you double down on teh burnin' stoopit.
I've got an idea, just tell me which campus you teach on and I'll contact the University PD, they'll be happy to furnish that information.
Also, when you have some time, I mean when you're not too busy spouting nonsense on other threads, get in touch with those folks who are too fucking stupid to know that the M-16 is regarded as carbine by you and your vast horde of followers and educate their asses. Let me know how that works out for you, putz.
* This is a fantasy, in any case. You never had any credibility here.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI gave you the information on concealed carry at a college campus. If you can't accept what I told you, that's your problem. There is nothing else to say, since I gave you the source of the ruling. That's all there is. I know, it's astonishing that some states don't worship control.
As for my partner, since we live together, I have a good idea of what she does. I know where the gun in question is. If you're planning to steal it, let me know when you're coming by. Otherwise, why do you need to know?
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteYou're lying again. Each and every State University campus in Arkansas has their own policies on armed students and faculty. All you have to do is tell me where you teach. I'll take of the rest. Of course if you can't or won't tell me where you teach it's just one more lie to stack on top of the other ones.
You know where your partner's gun is? Which means that she isn't carrying it everywhere. So, once again, rather than tell the truth when pressed you get evasive. You're a lying sack of shit.
Nothing more to say about the M-16? One more case of you blathering authoritatively when you don't know wtf you're talking about.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteIt may shock you to learn this, but I still appreciate a measure of privacy. I have no intention of inviting you into my private life. There are things that are simply none of your business. It's not that there's anything wrong going on; it's simply that we have the right to go through our lives without your approval. I see no reason to say any more than what I've already told you.
With regard to the M-16, have you heard the phrase, "asked and answered"?
You remind me of the child who keeps asking why, why, why, why, why. . .
"It may shock you to learn this, but I still appreciate a measure of privacy. I have no intention of inviting you into my private life. There are things that are simply none of your business. It's not that there's anything wrong going on; it's simply that we have the right to go through our lives without your approval. I see no reason to say any more than what I've already told you."
ReplyDeleteYou're a liar and a fucking coward. I was already aware of both of these things but you're proving them to the other folks who read here. You are probably breaking the law, just like MAssivelystupidGunowner, in carrying your piece where you're not allowed to.
Thanks for confirming your complete lack of honesty, you gutless bastatard.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of consistency, I do hope to see you pestering Dog Gone about the details of her life that she prefers to keep hidden. Really, how can you justify calling me a fucking coward or a gutless bastard because I don't feel like discussing too many details of my private life in a public forum? Would you like to let us know where you live and where you can be found at various times of the day? Would you be comfortable describing the details of your household belongings to the world? If it's cowardly to believe that some things aren't subject to public scrutiny, then I'm sure you'll post an article about those things soon.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteYou make the claim that you carry a 1911 .45 autoloader everywhere you, including the school where you teach. You won't reveal where you teach because it's part of your private life? Do you honestly think finding you poses that much of a problem for someone who wants to do that? I'm not coming looking for you, you clown. You're not carrying a pistol to school, or if you are, you're breaking the law. Prove me wrong by showing a copy of the rules for CCW on the campus you teach on, or STFU about what a brave and fearless gunslinger you are.
You insisted on making an issue of your partner's firearms training and her carrying of a gun. Apparently she doesn't carry the gun, or you don't even know if she's carrying it. That must be very comforting when the two of you are together. What happens if a single perp attacks both of you? Will you let her shoot them, because it's only polite to let ladies be first?
The M-16 issue which you seem not to want to get into anymore is, once again, you sounding off on a subject in which you apparently think other people have no knowledge.
You may have noticed I'm not making a lot of specious claims about my bravery or my ability to sort out who constitutes a threat to my safety. I don't bother dog gone about facts about her personal life because she's not making claims that I think are bullshit. She knows who I am.
The hat thing is you being ridiculous--you and nobody else.
You want to play the wounded martyr, go for it, it doesn't play well.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI told you that I don't carry my handgun into the campus buildings. You may believe me or not. I don't care. I've shown you the reference to the relevant law. You may look at it or not. There is nothing in the faculty handbook on the subject. Beebe's opinion stated that an institution that wishes to ban carry on the grounds must post signs declaring that, but there are no signs where I work. Again, you may believe me or not.
Why do you care whether my partner carries her gun or leaves it at home? Does that really matter to you? It's her choice to make, not yours and not mine.
I have no interest in being a martyr. I'm just tired of a lot of fool questions about nothing, especially when I keep answering point by point.
GC writes:For the sake of consistency, I do hope to see you pestering Dog Gone about the details of her life that she prefers to keep hidden.
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing Greg, while I may not publish that information publicly, it doesn't mean that I haven't verified it for other people privately, including some here.
I document my claims. I document them with better sources of information than you do, and I don't make claims I can't back up - unlike YOU.
THAT would be the defining difference here.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI don't give a damn what you've told Democommie or Laci the Dog. You hold yourself up as superior to those of us who also have a carry license and carry a gun. I want to know how you justify that claim. This isn't a question of historical interpretation or legal philosophy. This goes to your personal credibility. You attack us for carrying a handgun. You call us fearful. You tell us that we lack good judgement. And yet, you apparently did the very same thing that we do. You're one of us. So how is it that you're better than we are? Don't yammer on about sources. This is about you. How can you claim to be better than we, when it appears that you are one of us?
ROFLMAO
ReplyDeleteI'll be happy to answer your questions Greg just as soon as you respond to my very reasonable requests.
You have time for endless and usually pointless comments here, so you clearly have the time and energy to do so.
I will give you one clue. I got my permit in response to a very specific threat, that was confirmed to be a very real threat, by both the courts and police.
Not some vague general, 'it could happen' kind of fear that you suffer from, apparently, of random violence.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteIt's ridiculously easy for you to prove that you're within the bounds of the law. Simply give me the name of your employer, and the campus on which you work; I'll do the rest.
One of the larger problems with giving people like you any personal information (which I have not, btw asked you for) is that a lot of folks, including me are a little bit reluctant to having someone who is armed and testy knowing anything more about us than they already do. Given your self-report that you will deal with someone who threatens you WITH your gunz, well, you see where I'm going with this?
Now, then, knowing--for an absolute certainty--that you will dispense with proper firearms handling procedure when it suits your larger purpose (looking like a twerp with a big ol' hogleg) what makes you think I'd be happy with setting myself up as a target. Oh, btw, other gunzloonz--gunzloonz who lurk on this thread--have made threats against people. Of course I might threaten to come looking for you with an ice chisel, a framing hammer or one of my many corded and cordless power tools but what's the likelihood of that happening. How many ambushes with chain saws or drive-bys with weed whackers have you seen in the news lately?
No, Greg Camp, I think that when it comes to irrational fuckwads going after people they disagree with, the gunzloonz hold a considerable lead.
Gunz are not tools, you are, though.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI don't care whether you believe me or not. I've answered your questions. I'm not going to name my school because I'm expressing my personal opinions here. I'm not representing the college.
Dog Gone,
I've answered your questions. Take those answers or don't. I don't care.
So you were threatened, and you concluded that a handgun was an appropriate response. And yet you go on and on about non-violent responses. About how a cell phone is more effective. Why didn't you just promise to call the cops if the person threatening you came around? Why did you believe yourself qualified to use the handgun effectively?
Greg, try that both Dog Gone and I are fairly good researchers--neither of us have found you listed on the faculty of any institution of higher learning in Arkansas.
ReplyDeleteGC writes:I've answered your questions. Take those answers or don't. I don't care.
ReplyDeleteYou did not answer them adequately. What was required for an adequate answer was clearly specified.
So long as you fail to answer those questions adequately - because the reality is that you HAVE NO GOOD ANSWERS, you'll just have to remain curious I guess.
Or start reading your way through the archives.
And we will continue to point out your inability to provide adequate answers to challenges - ANY challenges we have presented to you.
YOU can't meet the standard we require of ourselves or others.
What a load of crap that you are unable to do that, but presume to know enough to teach others.
Greg, has it sunk in yet that we regard you with contempt for your inadequate ability to respond to challenges that you provide credible sources for your statements?
ReplyDeleteGC writes - as just another example of why we have contempts for his poor ability to think or reason well -
And yet you go on and on about non-violent responses.
No. I go on about non-violent responses for peaceful protesting. I 'go on' as you call it about non-lethal force in other situations.
You conflate the two improperly, and appear to be unable - or unwilling, and intellectually too dishonest to admit it - that the two are the same when they are not.
About how a cell phone is more effective.
It is effective, and a viable alternative to your vigilante poorly-determined taking of law into your own hands. You have demonstrated here that you are not qualified to make those decisions - the ignorance of mens rea being just one example of many instances.
Why didn't you just promise to call the cops if the person threatening you came around? Why did you believe yourself qualified to use the handgun effectively?
I'd be delighted to outline all of that to you in depth and detail. I have excellent answers to your questions.
Ah, but poor inept you, you have to provide credible sources to our challenges, which you are unable or unwilling to do. Poor contemptible you. Guess you'll just have to wonder.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteSo you're leaving the doubts about your qualifications to carry a handgun. You're not going to clear that up. Fine. You're a hypocrite. Every time you call one of us stupid or dangerous, know that you're one of us.
Laci the Dog,
Checking up on me? Well, you know my name and where I live, which is more than any of us can say about you. I don't hide behind a pseudonym.
Funny Greg.
ReplyDeleteSo you're leaving the doubts about your qualifications to carry a handgun. You're not going to clear that up. Fine. You're a hypocrite. Every time you call one of us stupid or dangerous, know that you're one of us.
I don't think you can fairly say that something I've answered half a dozen times is 'leaving doubts'.
You're right; I DO refuse to clear that up for YOU until you comply with my previous request to you.
I have a perfectly sound premise to call you stupid and dangerous, and can easily show you how I am NOT, emphatically 'ONE OF YOU', LOL.
If you are in contact with Weer'd Beard, you know my name, Greg. You might not know where I live these days though.
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, I am an attorney with actual experience with gun laws--in particular those of Washington, DC.
So, trust me, you are way out of your league if you want to argue with me about DC v. Heller.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou're not one of us? No, you don't believe in our rights. But if you claim to be safer than we are, you'll have to prove that.
GC
ReplyDeleteYou're not one of us? No, you don't believe in our rights. But if you claim to be safer than we are, you'll have to prove that.
Easy peasy.
I'm safer than you are because I know and understand mens rea.
I'm safer than you are because I have no need to carry to be safe from crime like you do.
I'm safer than you are because I genuinely avoid lethal force EXCEPT when there is a clear unambiguous danger.
I'm safer than you are, most of all, because I can correctly differentiate between fact and fiction in regard to firearms, UNLIKE YOU.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWe do understand all of the things that you named. Does it occur to you that those of us who live in states that require training have been through the same kind of carry class that you have? It would just pain you to admit that you're not better than everyone else on the planet.
But you still haven't explained your belief that you were justified in carrying a handgun.
GC wrote
ReplyDeleteWe do understand all of the things that you named. Does it occur to you that those of us who live in states that require training have been through the same kind of carry class that you have? It would just pain you to admit that you're not better than everyone else on the planet.
Clearly you don't. Your words condemn you, including but not limited to your insistence that you had no need to know the intent of someone you found in your house before shooting them. Clearly you do not understand or believe that lethal violence is the last resort. Rather you contort yourself to prove you just want to blast someone when you get the chance.
Your words can not be undone by saying 'we understand that stuff'.
The hell you do.
But most of all - you have an utterly mistaken idea of what a gun should be used for and what it can AND CANNOT do.
And that would be where our carry classes differed completely.
"I don't care whether you believe me or not. I've answered your questions. I'm not going to name my school because I'm expressing my personal opinions here. I'm not representing the college."
ReplyDeleteIOW, you were lying about carrying your gun to school. Or you were lying about being a LAGO when doing so. Considering your need to be seen as a big, strong, shootist there really isn't a better explanation for your refusal to provide information that would prove you to be something other than a liar.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you live, nor do I want to. I don't know where you teach--although that information is a matter of PUBLIC record and would not be difficult to obtain.
You're a poseur and a liar, live with it.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't expect you to understand, but when I say that I'm not speaking for the college, that doesn't mean that I break the law. I'm just expressing my opinions. I am not representing the college. I do follow the law.
Dog Gone,
Someone has just broken into your house. What is that person's intention? Are you incapable of seeing the danger that this person represents?
GC writes:
ReplyDeleteSomeone has just broken into your house. What is that person's intention? Are you incapable of seeing the danger that this person represents?
Unlike you Greg, I will not make an assumption about what that intent is, I will find out what it is.
I should have plenty of time to do that after calling 911, In the interval I can ask polite questions of the intruder as he or she lies quietly on the floor with a large dog on his chest, teeth bared inches from his throat, growling at him, surrounded by other large dogs, waiting to correct his behavior if he makes a wrong move.
I trained the lab quite well in that regard, as he demonstrated on my step brother.
I also know that none of the dogs will allow an unknown adult anywhere near me, if I am asleep.
So I sleep very well, unafraid of intruders, without having to place a loaded firearm under my pillow.
"I wouldn't expect you to understand, but when I say that I'm not speaking for the college, that doesn't mean that I break the law. I'm just expressing my opinions. I am not representing the college. I do follow the law."
ReplyDeleteTrust me on this, Greg Camp. I am fucking absolutely, 100%, beyond any doubt, positive that you don't speak for anyone except yourself and certainly not for the college. I am also sure, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you're a lying sack of shit who has no business carrying a gun of any kind anywhere any time while on your employers property.
I know that you have this absurd notion that your word is worth something, it's not. You can't furnish anything to back up any of the nonsense that you spout. Go fuck yourself, you lying scumbag.