Multiple Shooting-of-the-Week 1/30/13

[Andy9o8 2]

Not to be confused with last week's.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57566719-504083/arizona-office-shooting-update-3-injured-multiple-rounds-fired-in-shooting-attack-report-says/

OK, back to our dull lives.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Far less than the causes below, lets focus on whats really killing people

Jan 1st to date

Abortion: 98889
Heart Disease: 53351
Cancer: 44882
Tobacco: 28548
Obesity: 25040
Medical Errors: 15905
Stroke: 12247
Lower Respiratory Disease: 10105
Accident (unintentional): 8866
Hospital Associated Infection: 8075
Alcohol: 8156
Diabetes: 5939
Alzheimer's Disease: 5369
Influenza/Pneumonia: 5014
Kidney Failure: 3488
Blood Infection: 2729
Suicide: 3010
Drunk Driving: 2758
Unintentional Poisoning: 2590
All Drug Abuse: 2040
Homicide: 1370
Prescription Drug Overdose: 1223
Murder by gun: 937
Texting while Driving: 488
Pedestrian: 408
Drowning: 319
Fire Related: 285
Malnutrition: 226
Domestic Violence: 119
Smoking in Bed: 64
Killed by Falling Tree: 12
Struck by Lightning: 7
Mass Shooting: 0
Spontaneous Combustion: 0

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Andy9o8 2]

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about spontaneous combustion.

[billvon 3,107]

Interesting. You have spread out gun deaths into accidental deaths, homicides, suicides etc. If you just took "deaths by shooting" it would be #4 on that list. (30,500 in 2010) It looks much better for gun supporters the way you did it.

[Anvilbrother 0]

No no this list is for January 2013. It's from a site that takes the previous years death totals and averages it out to show what could be happening now. Obviously actual totals for jan 2013 would be impossible to put together like this. I know at my work we don't send in cause of death reports to our medical director but quarterly.

It probably gives a good idea of what we are up to in the death categories compared to last year. It's updated by the second. Let me find the link.

It also does not have the mass shootings data in the right box even noted on the website for some reason.

I can't find the site, I found it by a search on another computer, but now my iPhone is getting different results. It was called roman332.com or something. It used CDC and a hole bunch of data to do it.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

I can't find the site, I found it by a search on another computer, but now my iPhone is getting different results. It was called roman332.com or something. It used CDC and a hole bunch of data to do it.

Funny you should bring up CDC, considering that their research on gun violence was gagged, courtesy of the NRA's lackeys in Congress (at least one of whom now expresses regret that he was the NRA's point man on this).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bignugget 0]

"Heart Disease: 53351
Cancer: 44882
Tobacco: 28548
Obesity: 25040 "

Im with you brother but you think taking away peoples guns is hard.....try taking away their cheeseburgers and smokes.

Watch Speakers Corner then.

[PigsInSpace 0]

Quote

Interesting. You have spread out gun deaths into accidental deaths, homicides, suicides etc. If you just took "deaths by shooting" it would be #4 on that list.

You consider suicide to be a gun problem?

[Anvilbrother 0]

Funny you keep bringing up half of that story

Quote

Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, explained his aim was to make the public see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (Quoted in William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1994.)

A newspaper article on two other leading anti-gun propagandists, Dr. Katherine Christoffel and Dr. Robert Tanz of the Children’s Hospital in Chicago, explained their “plan to do to handguns what their profession has done to cigarettes … turn gun ownership from a personal-choice issue to a repulsive, anti-social health hazard.” (Harold Henderson, “Policy: Guns ‘n Poses,” Chicago Reader, Dec. 16, 1994.)

Many of the propaganda articles were widely disseminated by a credulous media eager to tout supposedly scientific proof that guns were bad. The most popular of these articles was built around a one-sentence factoid that asserted the dangers of guns far outweighed the protective benefits.

Finally, in 1996, Congress cut off gun control funding for the CDC—mainly because the NRA demonstrated to legislators the CDC was buying political misinformation rather than science.

They gagged that son of a bitch that was purposly trying to skew the numbers.


Also it barred RESEARCH, not REPORTED ACCIDENTS AND DEATHS. Those listed on the CDC website are accurate.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

Far less than the causes below, lets focus on whats really killing people

How about you call up some of those parents in Newtown and tell them their kids are statistically insignificant. I'm sure they'll see the light and realize they have nothing to feel bad about if you explain it to them. You'd really be doing them a favor.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kawisixer01 0]

So seeing though the media is quite obviously trying to tie into our natural recency learning method by reporting every mundane shooting in the united states now, things that typically go unreported or are relegated to the back page. I'm sure they are going to do likewise with all other preventable and unfortunate deaths every day throughout the country right? I'm sure there is no agenda behind reporting every single story from every corner of the country they can find huh? I wanna see front page the daily report on every deadly car accident, drunk driving fatality. Let's make big front page news out of every skydiving accident or fatality. You know as well as I do the media is attempting to twist public perception by over reporting and over exposing. They did it after 9.11 with "terrorist threat levels" to con people into accepting the freedom losses in the patriot act an their doing today to try and get buy in to take away 2a.

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

Quote

Interesting. You have spread out gun deaths into accidental deaths, homicides, suicides etc. If you just took "deaths by shooting" it would be #4 on that list.

You consider suicide to be a gun problem?

Well, duh if you ban guns then people won't be able to commit suicide by shooting themselves.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[billvon 3,107]

> I'm sure they are going to do likewise with all other preventable and unfortunate
> deaths every day throughout the country right?

No. Why would they? "213 people die of heart disease on Tuesday" just isn't that interesting to people. Would you watch a news show that was nothing but reports of heart disease for an hour?

>v\You know as well as I do the media is attempting to twist public perception by over
>reporting and over exposing. They did it after 9.11

You really, honestly think the media should have not covered 9/11? Or reported it after they reported the 213 people who died of heart disease that day, and all the traffic accidents in Des Moines?

The reason they reported on 9/11 is that that's what people want to see. If they don't see it they change the channel. Capitalism is why they report on what they do, and you (the consumer) drives that. So if you want to know who's to blame for what the media reports on - look in the mirror.

[kawisixer01 0]

I'm not talking about the actual 9/11 reporting, I said the after reporting on the "terrorist threat level" and such alarmist things to monger your fear and make things seem worse than they really are. On a daily basis they were reporting on all the big scary things in the world, all the big scary people plotting against us and why we needed to give in to things such as warrantless wiretapping and warrantless searches. Why we needed to accept indefinite detentions and why we should be comfortable with violating the gist of our constitution and due process. Why the country should get comfortable with things such as water board torture and locking away "enemy combatants" in a US held military base with no charges and no due process, all in the nature of "making our country safer"...after all safety is what you want right, safety at any cost right? Now instead of safety against the "terrorists" it's "for the children".

[piisfish 140]

I don't understand how this can happen in an openly pro-gun state ? How come the criminal wasn't shot by at least 12 citizens ?

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I don't understand how this can happen in an openly pro-gun state ? How come the criminal wasn't shot by at least 12 citizens ?

Could be because people who carry, do so for their own personal protection, Not to protect others. If you pull a gun and shoot someone who is not a direct threat to you, one could find themselves the target of either a criminal prosecution, or a civil lawsuit, thanks to the scumbag lawyers who dominate our political and legal systems.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

"Heart Disease: 53351
Cancer: 44882
Tobacco: 28548
Obesity: 25040 "

Im with you brother but you think taking away peoples guns is hard.....try taking away their cheeseburgers and smokes.

Watch Speakers Corner then.

Doomberg has already started it

Go nanny state

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[LexMark 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Interesting. You have spread out gun deaths into accidental deaths, homicides, suicides etc. If you just took "deaths by shooting" it would be #4 on that list.

You consider suicide to be a gun problem?

Well, duh if you ban guns then people won't be able to commit suicide by shooting themselves.

Sure. because there aren't any other ways to commit suicide, and in countries like Japan where gun control is very strict, there are almost no suicides at all. Right?

[Anvilbrother 0]

I will say it again here is proof you are spreading half the story and twisting facts, what do you have to say?


Funny you keep bringing up half of that story

Quote
Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, explained his aim was to make the public see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (Quoted in William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1994.)

A newspaper article on two other leading anti-gun propagandists, Dr. Katherine Christoffel and Dr. Robert Tanz of the Children’s Hospital in Chicago, explained their “plan to do to handguns what their profession has done to cigarettes … turn gun ownership from a personal-choice issue to a repulsive, anti-social health hazard.” (Harold Henderson, “Policy: Guns ‘n Poses,” Chicago Reader, Dec. 16, 1994.)

Many of the propaganda articles were widely disseminated by a credulous media eager to tout supposedly scientific proof that guns were bad. The most popular of these articles was built around a one-sentence factoid that asserted the dangers of guns far outweighed the protective benefits.

Finally, in 1996, Congress cut off gun control funding for the CDC—mainly because the NRA demonstrated to legislators the CDC was buying political misinformation rather than science.

They gagged that son of a bitch that was purposly trying to skew the numbers.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

They gagged that son of a bitch research scientist that who was purposely trying to analyse and disseminate FACTS.

Fixed it for you (including the spelling)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Could you just address the subject correctly instead of trying to sidestep?

Yes or No
Did Dr. Mark Rosenberg the person who used to oversee research into gun violence and prevention at the Centers for Disease Contro say his aim was to make the public see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.”

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Could you just address the subject correctly instead of trying to sidestep?

Yes or No
Did Dr. Mark Rosenberg the person who used to oversee research into gun violence and prevention at the Centers for Disease Contro say his aim was to make the public see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.”

I never spoke to the man, how should I know?

However, just like smoking - if that's what the research shows, it's a reasonable position to take.

If you gag the research you'll never get the answer. And that appears to be the goal of the NRA, just like the tobacco lobby tried to gag research on smoking.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Let me show you then since you are trying to further side step the question.

Quote

Top CDC official in 1989 had announced, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” [P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.] Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted and disavowed any pre-existing agenda. But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly — and banned.” [William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994, quoted by Kates, et. al. in Tennessee Law Review article mentioned below]. The preponderance of evidence points to a political agenda at the CDC.

YES the man did say that.

So why would you have the CDC do any "research" if BEFORE a study started they already proved they were biased, and planned on steering the results?

You can have theories about what might happen ahead of the research, but not outright say you are going to bend the public's views ahead of time.

I say good on them for stopping that research, its about like global warming. How much money was pumped into "research" where the organizations clearly were biased, and would give you whatever result you were paying for.

I would love to see a neutral fact only based research. Simply find out the facts, and state them, don't handpick cases to make one side better than the other that's wrong.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I would love to see a neutral fact only based research. Simply find out the facts, and state them, don't handpick cases to make one side better than the other that's wrong.

So would we all. The NRA is determined to prevent that from happening.

[Anvilbrother 0]

If their goal is to prevent ANY research then I'm with you and kallend....shocker, but after that 1994 CDC scandal I bet they are really gun shy(yep) of who will ever get to do a neutral fact based study.


Think of it this way, wouldn't the uspa want to guard themselves from a group that from the onset says their goal is to stop skydiving by showing the sport in the worst light even if they have to be dishonest.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,