The gun-rights march organized by Helena, MT's repeat snipe hunters (2)

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Jan 1, 2017
10,923
1,635
290
D.C.
One of coolest things about Montana, besides the absolute beauty of the place is that it's a state with very near one million people in it.

On March 24, 2018, there was a gun rights march/rally in Helena, MT. The march was called "March for Our Guns." The organizing group's mission declaration includes the following remarks:
  • We cannot allow one more gun to be taken from our hands. We must make it our top priority to make sure that people of this nation continue to have the right to defend themselves.
  • March For Our Guns is created by citizens in Montana who will no longer risk the leftist agenda of seizing the opportunity to diminish our abilities to keep and bear arms
That's not particularly unexpected for a gun advocacy group. The mission also contains this statement:
  • Politicians are correct in telling us that now is not the time to talk about guns.
giphy.gif

Really? They think now is not the time to talk about guns, yet guns appear to be all they talk about!

The agenda for the march was:

upload_2018-3-28_6-41-51.png
Now one might wonder what is the gun-culture in Montana. Well, each of the following countries in 2015 had fewer guns than did Montana:

  • Libya -- pop. 6.29M
  • New Zealand -- pop. 4.63M
  • Honduras -- pop. 9.11M
  • Hungary -- pop. 9.87M
  • Cambodia -- pop. 15.76M
  • Congo -- pop. 78.74M
  • Jordan -- pop. 9.46M
  • Taiwan -- pop. 23.34M



Now this doesn't pertain to Montana so much as it does to the US and other countries (Click on the preceding sentence or on the images below; it's the same webpage destination):

upload_2018-3-28_6-47-11.png

upload_2018-3-28_6-53-56.png

upload_2018-3-28_6-50-4.png

upload_2018-3-28_6-50-54.png

upload_2018-3-28_6-51-55.png


Now any careful reader will quickly note that those death rates per 100K people are for whole countries whereas Montana is a state. Accordingly, one must too consider Montana's gun homicide rate per 100K, which, with all the guns in Montana should be very low, is, of course, a very safe place because more guns corresponds to more safety. The gun-related death rate in Montana is about 16 per 100K; however, suicides account for 80% of the 16, so if one removes them it's a bit over 3.2 per 100K.

So from that information one can deduce readily (notice I did not write "infer") what else those several countries, and scores more, had; however, I for those whose math skills are poor, I'll tell you: Fewer gun-related deaths per 100K people than did Montana is what they had.


The march organizers published the following instructions, which they called "General Rules and Foundations for this March."


upload_2018-3-28_6-55-59.png


Butter my butt and call me a biscuit !!!

Did you read the march "rules and foundations?" If you didn't, you should.

A gun-rights advocacy group held a march in Helena, MT, a town of ~31K people, the capital of Montana, and a "ruby red" state which has around a million people and more guns than several small countries and more than one rather populous country.
  • That group rails against liberals taking guns, yet they instruct their kindred marchers not to bring their guns to the march! REALLY !!?!?!!
A "more guns = more safety" group marching in "More Guns Than Many Places Montana" explicitly states that the march is "not armed" and cited safety, particularly that of children, as the reason for not having guns present! Yep, that's what they said, yet members of the group have no problem with guns being around kids, so long as the kids are in a classroom, which, frankly, makes shooting kids about as easy as catching fish in a bucket seeing as unlike the center of Helena, there's no place to run in a classroom.

Talk about "Mastercard" moments!
 
Thread Note:
The "(2)" in the thread title refers to this thread being a second version. In the first version of this thread, the links for some of the attached images didn't work and it didn't until I could no longer fix them come to my attention that they were "broken."

In addition to the title change, this thread's OP contains one image that was not in the original version and I've added a few more text-attached hyperlinks that will take one to the sites that contain the images.

BULLDOG --> TY for calling the broken links to my attention.

Another member did as well, but I don't recall who it was.​
 
Last edited:
One of coolest things about Montana, besides the absolute beauty of the place is that it's a state with very near one million people in it.

On March 24, 2018, there was a gun rights march/rally in Helena, MT. The march was called "March for Our Guns." The organizing group's mission declaration includes the following remarks:
  • We cannot allow one more gun to be taken from our hands. We must make it our top priority to make sure that people of this nation continue to have the right to defend themselves.
  • March For Our Guns is created by citizens in Montana who will no longer risk the leftist agenda of seizing the opportunity to diminish our abilities to keep and bear arms
That's not particularly unexpected for a gun advocacy group. The mission also contains this statement:
  • Politicians are correct in telling us that now is not the time to talk about guns.
giphy.gif

Really? They think now is not the time to talk about guns, yet guns appear to be all they talk about!

The agenda for the march was:
Now one might wonder what is the gun-culture in Montana. Well, each of the following countries in 2015 had fewer guns than did Montana:

  • Libya -- pop. 6.29M
  • New Zealand -- pop. 4.63M
  • Honduras -- pop. 9.11M
  • Hungary -- pop. 9.87M
  • Cambodia -- pop. 15.76M
  • Congo -- pop. 78.74M
  • Jordan -- pop. 9.46M
  • Taiwan -- pop. 23.34M



Now this doesn't pertain to Montana so much as it does to the US and other countries (Click on the preceding sentence or on the images below; it's the same webpage destination):



Now any careful reader will quickly note that those death rates per 100K people are for whole countries whereas Montana is a state. Accordingly, one must too consider Montana's gun homicide rate per 100K, which, with all the guns in Montana should be very low, is, of course, a very safe place because more guns corresponds to more safety. The gun-related death rate in Montana is about 16 per 100K; however, suicides account for 80% of the 16, so if one removes them it's a bit over 3.2 per 100K.

So from that information one can deduce readily (notice I did not write "infer") what else those several countries, and scores more, had; however, I for those whose math skills are poor, I'll tell you: Fewer gun-related deaths per 100K people than did Montana is what they had.


The march organizers published the following instructions, which they called "General Rules and Foundations for this March."




Butter my butt and call me a biscuit !!!

Did you read the march "rules and foundations?" If you didn't, you should.

A gun-rights advocacy group held a march in Helena, MT, a town of ~31K people, the capital of Montana, and a "ruby red" state which has around a million people and more guns than several small countries and more than one rather populous country.
  • That group rails against liberals taking guns, yet they instruct their kindred marchers not to bring their guns to the march! REALLY !!?!?!!
A "more guns = more safety" group marching in "More Guns Than Many Places Montana" explicitly states that the march is "not armed" and cited safety, particularly that of children, as the reason for not having guns present! Yep, that's what they said, yet members of the group have no problem with guns being around kids, so long as the kids are in a classroom, which, frankly, makes shooting kids about as easy as catching fish in a bucket seeing as unlike the center of Helena, there's no place to run in a classroom.

Talk about "Mastercard" moments!
GUNS,GUNS,GUNS,GUNS,GUNS.............Not the person behind the gun, killing other people. Nope, just more insanity of the left thinking that all guns from law abiding citizens will stop gun violence...

Legal gun owner.......................Not a legal gun owner.

armed-beautiful-young-woman-rifle-neglected-house-33661054.jpg robbery.jpg
 
One of coolest things about Montana, besides the absolute beauty of the place is that it's a state with very near one million people in it.

On March 24, 2018, there was a gun rights march/rally in Helena, MT. The march was called "March for Our Guns." The organizing group's mission declaration includes the following remarks:
  • We cannot allow one more gun to be taken from our hands. We must make it our top priority to make sure that people of this nation continue to have the right to defend themselves.
  • March For Our Guns is created by citizens in Montana who will no longer risk the leftist agenda of seizing the opportunity to diminish our abilities to keep and bear arms
That's not particularly unexpected for a gun advocacy group. The mission also contains this statement:
  • Politicians are correct in telling us that now is not the time to talk about guns.
giphy.gif

Really? They think now is not the time to talk about guns, yet guns appear to be all they talk about!

The agenda for the march was:
Now one might wonder what is the gun-culture in Montana. Well, each of the following countries in 2015 had fewer guns than did Montana:

  • Libya -- pop. 6.29M
  • New Zealand -- pop. 4.63M
  • Honduras -- pop. 9.11M
  • Hungary -- pop. 9.87M
  • Cambodia -- pop. 15.76M
  • Congo -- pop. 78.74M
  • Jordan -- pop. 9.46M
  • Taiwan -- pop. 23.34M



Now this doesn't pertain to Montana so much as it does to the US and other countries (Click on the preceding sentence or on the images below; it's the same webpage destination):



Now any careful reader will quickly note that those death rates per 100K people are for whole countries whereas Montana is a state. Accordingly, one must too consider Montana's gun homicide rate per 100K, which, with all the guns in Montana should be very low, is, of course, a very safe place because more guns corresponds to more safety. The gun-related death rate in Montana is about 16 per 100K; however, suicides account for 80% of the 16, so if one removes them it's a bit over 3.2 per 100K.

So from that information one can deduce readily (notice I did not write "infer") what else those several countries, and scores more, had; however, I for those whose math skills are poor, I'll tell you: Fewer gun-related deaths per 100K people than did Montana is what they had.


The march organizers published the following instructions, which they called "General Rules and Foundations for this March."




Butter my butt and call me a biscuit !!!

Did you read the march "rules and foundations?" If you didn't, you should.

A gun-rights advocacy group held a march in Helena, MT, a town of ~31K people, the capital of Montana, and a "ruby red" state which has around a million people and more guns than several small countries and more than one rather populous country.
  • That group rails against liberals taking guns, yet they instruct their kindred marchers not to bring their guns to the march! REALLY !!?!?!!
A "more guns = more safety" group marching in "More Guns Than Many Places Montana" explicitly states that the march is "not armed" and cited safety, particularly that of children, as the reason for not having guns present! Yep, that's what they said, yet members of the group have no problem with guns being around kids, so long as the kids are in a classroom, which, frankly, makes shooting kids about as easy as catching fish in a bucket seeing as unlike the center of Helena, there's no place to run in a classroom.

Talk about "Mastercard" moments!
GUNS,GUNS,GUNS,GUNS,GUNS.............Not the person behind the gun, killing other people. Nope, just more insanity of the left thinking that all guns from law abiding citizens will stop gun violence...

Legal gun owner.......................Not a legal gun owner.

View attachment 185123 View attachment 185124

Legal gun owner.......................Not a legal gun owner.


You're clearly too stupid for words....

What makes a gun owner be a legal gun owner is whether they legally obtained the gun they own, not whether they are male or female, not whether they wear a face mask of some sort, and not the stance they adopt when posing for a photo.

Federal law prohibits the purchase and possession of firearms by people who fall within certain categories, such as convicted felons, domestic abusers, and people with specific kinds of mental health histories.
  • a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
  • a person who is a fugitive from justice;
  • a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;
  • a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been admitted to a mental institution;
  • an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
  • a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  • a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, renounces his citizenship;
  • a person subject to a court order that was issued after a hearing in which the person participated, which order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or partner’s child, and which order includes a finding that the person is a credible threat to such partner or partner’s child, or by its terms prohibits the use, attempted use or threatened use of such force against such partner or partner’s child;
  • a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Federal law does not generally include other types of people identified by public health researchers as being at a significantly higher risk than the general population of being dangerous, including:
You will notice that the existential qualities that define the limits of eligibility for legal gun purchase and ownership, are not traits and statuses that lends themselves to pictorial depiction. Insofar as you attempted to convey the concept and status of legal ownership with an image of two individuals, it's clear you don't fully comprehend the concept you've attempted to portray. That you have done that is part of what makes you too stupid for words.

Because you are too stupid for words, you are also too stupid to again receive my notice. Ciao.


Notes:
  1. Subsequent criminal activity among violent misdemeanants who seek to purchase handguns: risk factors and effectiveness of denying handgun purchase
  2. Felonious or violent criminal activity that prohibits gun ownership among prior purchasers of handguns: incidence and risk factors.
  3. Legal status and source of offenders' firearms in states with the least stringent criteria for gun ownership
  4. Childhood Predictors of Young Adult Male Crime
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry Xelor, I had a hard time finding the information or making any useful sense of your data, it seemed to be pushing an agenda, rather than making sense or trying to be a useful policy making tool.

Are all gun deaths "violent gun deaths?"

What are the definitions they are using? Was suicide included in that definition?

Your link to the study didn't work, it only linked to the Home page of Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. I did a search for that report, and I did not find it. I wanted to know their definitions they were using. NPR is pushing out some biased data, and the report they link, either wasn't peer reviewed and was found lacking and removed, or it was debunked, b/c it no longer exists. (IOW, it is politically driven garbage. Do the leg work, and check your sources, don't just take NPR's and government hacks word for it.) Shit, for all we know, NPR fabricated those charts from scratch, b/c they don't exist at that site they linked.

Search | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

If your contention is that taking away guns is going to stop folks from committing suicide. well, I disagree.

However, we can't have a useful conversation about your data, b/c I believe NPR has purposefully obscured that issue.

When ever my kids and I listen to NPR in the morning, I ALWAYS point out when they are wrong and pushing an agenda, use some critical thought for pete's sake.

Here's an alternative source, even a source known for being liberal.

Mass Shootings Are A Bad Way To Understand Gun Violence

Gun Deaths In America
 
So you believe that the violent culture of the US will change if we get rid of guns?
This thread is about the dichotomy between the Montana March for Our Guns group's values and the actual behavior they instructed their adherents, members, devotees, supporters, etc. to exhibit at a rally the group organized to advocate for gun-rights and against restrictions on guns.

I don't mind answering the question you've asked; however, I won't answer it in this thread. Create a thread based on that question in the Politics subforum (or Political Satire, if your prefer) and I'll therein answer the question quoted above. (Please use the @mention feature to inform me of the thread's creation.)
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry Xelor, I had a hard time finding the information or making any useful sense of your data, it seemed to be pushing an agenda, rather than making sense or trying to be a useful policy making tool.

Are all gun deaths "violent gun deaths?"

What are the definitions they are using? Was suicide included in that definition?

Your link to the study didn't work, it only linked to the Home page of Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. I did a search for that report, and I did not find it. I wanted to know their definitions they were using. NPR is pushing out some biased data, and the report they link, either wasn't peer reviewed and was found lacking and removed, or it was debunked, b/c it no longer exists. (IOW, it is politically driven garbage. Do the leg work, and check your sources, don't just take NPR's and government hacks word for it.) Shit, for all we know, NPR fabricated those charts from scratch, b/c they don't exist at that site they linked.

Search | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

If your contention is that taking away guns is going to stop folks from committing suicide. well, I disagree.

However, we can't have a useful conversation about your data, b/c I believe NPR has purposefully obscured that issue.

When ever my kids and I listen to NPR in the morning, I ALWAYS point out when they are wrong and pushing an agenda, use some critical thought for pete's sake.

Here's an alternative source, even a source known for being liberal.

Mass Shootings Are A Bad Way To Understand Gun Violence

Gun Deaths In America
I had a hard time finding the information or making any useful sense of your data, it seemed to be pushing an agenda, rather than making sense or trying to be a useful policy making tool.
Which organization's or individual's data are you having a hard time finding? (I know it's not, as you claim, mine because I referenced other folks' articles/data.) The University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation? The NPR article I hyperlinked has a link to that group's data.
From the linked article:
The numbers comes from a massive database maintained by the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which tracks lives lost in every country, in every year, by every possible cause of death.
The data themselves are found in the Institute's "massive database" to which the article refers. That database can be queried by anyone. Upon accessing the page to which NPR linked, the "path" to accessing it is: Results --> GDB Results Tool.

The Institute provides a user guide to help one understand the nature of the data contained in the database and to help one aptly use the tool provided for querying the database. One can, in CSV format, download the results one obtains from the queries one performs.

What are the definitions they are using? Was suicide included in that definition?
If you're referring to the "orange" graphs, no, suicides are not included in the figures. That's indicated at the bottom of the first "orange" chart.

As for the Institute's field/data definitions, you'll need to peruse their site or call them to ask

Your link to the study didn't work, it only linked to the Home page of Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
What study? NPR didn't indicate anything about a study; it indicated that the data were retrieved from a database:
The numbers comes from a massive database maintained by the University of Washington
The charts presented in the NPR is merely data retrieved from the Institute's database. The first note to the first image in the NPR article indicates the parameters for their chart: country, year, and gun deaths, not including those caused by self-harm, armed conflict and accidents.

In my OP, I referenced a study, however, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation didn't perform it. A group called "Movoto" did. The page to which I linked has a link to the survey they used to obtain the figures in their state-to-country gun ownership comparison table that I presented in my OP. I don't know whether they've exposed their methodology.

Off-Topic:
Are all gun deaths "violent gun deaths?"
This thread is about the dichotomy between the Montana March for Our Guns group's values and the actual behavior they instructed their adherents, members, devotees, supporters, etc. to do at a rally the group organized to advocate for gun-rights and against restrictions on guns.

I don't mind answering the question you've asked; however, I won't answer it in this thread. Create a thread based on that question in the Politics subforum (or Political Satire, if your prefer) and I'll therein answer the question quoted above. (Please use the @mention feature to inform me of the thread's creation.)
 
So you believe that the violent culture of the US will change if we get rid of guns?
Fewer firearm homicides will be a result.

So in your opinion there is an qualitative difference between firearm homicides and other types of homicide?
Do I truly, after having responded in post 9, have to expressly ask you yet again to take up the matter of the general culture of violence in the U.S. in a thread in which that is the topic?
 
So you believe that the violent culture of the US will change if we get rid of guns?
This thread is about the dichotomy between the Montana March for Our Guns group's values and the actual behavior they instructed their adherents, members, devotees, supporters, etc. to exhibit at a rally the group organized to advocate for gun-rights and against restrictions on guns.

I don't mind answering the question you've asked; however, I won't answer it in this thread. Create a thread based on that question in the Politics subforum (or Political Satire, if your prefer) and I'll therein answer the question quoted above. (Please use the @mention feature to inform me of the thread's creation.)

Hmmmm. . . .

For folks that understand Natural Rights, and gun safety, they probably didn't see much of a conflict there
I'm sorry Xelor, I had a hard time finding the information or making any useful sense of your data, it seemed to be pushing an agenda, rather than making sense or trying to be a useful policy making tool.

Are all gun deaths "violent gun deaths?"

What are the definitions they are using? Was suicide included in that definition?

Your link to the study didn't work, it only linked to the Home page of Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. I did a search for that report, and I did not find it. I wanted to know their definitions they were using. NPR is pushing out some biased data, and the report they link, either wasn't peer reviewed and was found lacking and removed, or it was debunked, b/c it no longer exists. (IOW, it is politically driven garbage. Do the leg work, and check your sources, don't just take NPR's and government hacks word for it.) Shit, for all we know, NPR fabricated those charts from scratch, b/c they don't exist at that site they linked.

Search | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

If your contention is that taking away guns is going to stop folks from committing suicide. well, I disagree.

However, we can't have a useful conversation about your data, b/c I believe NPR has purposefully obscured that issue.

When ever my kids and I listen to NPR in the morning, I ALWAYS point out when they are wrong and pushing an agenda, use some critical thought for pete's sake.

Here's an alternative source, even a source known for being liberal.

Mass Shootings Are A Bad Way To Understand Gun Violence

Gun Deaths In America
I had a hard time finding the information or making any useful sense of your data, it seemed to be pushing an agenda, rather than making sense or trying to be a useful policy making tool.
Which organization's or individual's data are you having a hard time finding? (I know it's not, as you claim, mine because I referenced other folks' articles/data.) The University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation? The NPR article I hyperlinked has a link to that group's data.
From the linked article:
The numbers comes from a massive database maintained by the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which tracks lives lost in every country, in every year, by every possible cause of death.
The data themselves are found in the Institute's "massive database" to which the article refers. That database can be queried by anyone. Upon accessing the page to which NPR linked, the "path" to accessing it is: Results --> GDB Results Tool.

The Institute provides a user guide to help one understand the nature of the data contained in the database and to help one aptly use the tool provided for querying the database. One can, in CSV format, download the results one obtains from the queries one performs.

What are the definitions they are using? Was suicide included in that definition?
If you're referring to the "orange" graphs, no, suicides are not included in the figures. That's indicated at the bottom of the first "orange" chart.

As for the Institute's field/data definitions, you'll need to peruse their site or call them to ask

Your link to the study didn't work, it only linked to the Home page of Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
What study? NPR didn't indicate anything about a study; it indicated that the data were retrieved from a database:
The numbers comes from a massive database maintained by the University of Washington
The charts presented in the NPR is merely data retrieved from the Institute's database. The first note to the first image in the NPR article indicates the parameters for their chart: country, year, and gun deaths, not including those caused by self-harm, armed conflict and accidents.

In my OP, I referenced a study, however, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation didn't perform it. A group called "Movoto" did. The page to which I linked has a link to the survey they used to obtain the figures in their state-to-country gun ownership comparison table that I presented in my OP. I don't know whether they've exposed their methodology.

Off-Topic:
Are all gun deaths "violent gun deaths?"
This thread is about the dichotomy between the Montana March for Our Guns group's values and the actual behavior they instructed their adherents, members, devotees, supporters, etc. to do at a rally the group organized to advocate for gun-rights and against restrictions on guns.

I don't mind answering the question you've asked; however, I won't answer it in this thread. Create a thread based on that question in the Politics subforum (or Political Satire, if your prefer) and I'll therein answer the question quoted above. (Please use the @mention feature to inform me of the thread's creation.)

I was more interested in an article explaining where they got their numbers to tell you the truth.

Most research articles reveal that sort of thing. How are they coming up with the raw numbers?

Sorry I am having a hard time taking this data seriously, it conflicts with all other known scholarly research, even the stuff from the CDC, etc.


It really isn't helpful to compare the liberty we have here in the US to other nations, because most Americans can agree, we have no desire to be like those in other nations. If we did, we would move there or throw out the Constitution.


29572961_1939056409737801_4989696823241277456_n.jpg

Arrests for offensive Facebook posts are increasing in London
 
So you believe that the violent culture of the US will change if we get rid of guns?
Fewer firearm homicides will be a result.

So in your opinion there is an qualitative difference between firearm homicides and other types of homicide?
Do I truly, after having responded in post 9, have to expressly ask you yet again to take up the matter of the general culture of violence in the U.S. in a thread in which that is the topic?
Odd you chastise me, but not cnm.

If you wish to be taken seriously, be consistent.
 
So you believe that the violent culture of the US will change if we get rid of guns?
This thread is about the dichotomy between the Montana March for Our Guns group's values and the actual behavior they instructed their adherents, members, devotees, supporters, etc. to exhibit at a rally the group organized to advocate for gun-rights and against restrictions on guns.

I don't mind answering the question you've asked; however, I won't answer it in this thread. Create a thread based on that question in the Politics subforum (or Political Satire, if your prefer) and I'll therein answer the question quoted above. (Please use the @mention feature to inform me of the thread's creation.)

Hmmmm. . . .

For folks that understand Natural Rights, and gun safety, they probably didn't see much of a conflict there
I'm sorry Xelor, I had a hard time finding the information or making any useful sense of your data, it seemed to be pushing an agenda, rather than making sense or trying to be a useful policy making tool.

Are all gun deaths "violent gun deaths?"

What are the definitions they are using? Was suicide included in that definition?

Your link to the study didn't work, it only linked to the Home page of Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. I did a search for that report, and I did not find it. I wanted to know their definitions they were using. NPR is pushing out some biased data, and the report they link, either wasn't peer reviewed and was found lacking and removed, or it was debunked, b/c it no longer exists. (IOW, it is politically driven garbage. Do the leg work, and check your sources, don't just take NPR's and government hacks word for it.) Shit, for all we know, NPR fabricated those charts from scratch, b/c they don't exist at that site they linked.

Search | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

If your contention is that taking away guns is going to stop folks from committing suicide. well, I disagree.

However, we can't have a useful conversation about your data, b/c I believe NPR has purposefully obscured that issue.

When ever my kids and I listen to NPR in the morning, I ALWAYS point out when they are wrong and pushing an agenda, use some critical thought for pete's sake.

Here's an alternative source, even a source known for being liberal.

Mass Shootings Are A Bad Way To Understand Gun Violence

Gun Deaths In America
I had a hard time finding the information or making any useful sense of your data, it seemed to be pushing an agenda, rather than making sense or trying to be a useful policy making tool.
Which organization's or individual's data are you having a hard time finding? (I know it's not, as you claim, mine because I referenced other folks' articles/data.) The University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation? The NPR article I hyperlinked has a link to that group's data.
From the linked article:
The numbers comes from a massive database maintained by the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which tracks lives lost in every country, in every year, by every possible cause of death.
The data themselves are found in the Institute's "massive database" to which the article refers. That database can be queried by anyone. Upon accessing the page to which NPR linked, the "path" to accessing it is: Results --> GDB Results Tool.

The Institute provides a user guide to help one understand the nature of the data contained in the database and to help one aptly use the tool provided for querying the database. One can, in CSV format, download the results one obtains from the queries one performs.

What are the definitions they are using? Was suicide included in that definition?
If you're referring to the "orange" graphs, no, suicides are not included in the figures. That's indicated at the bottom of the first "orange" chart.

As for the Institute's field/data definitions, you'll need to peruse their site or call them to ask

Your link to the study didn't work, it only linked to the Home page of Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
What study? NPR didn't indicate anything about a study; it indicated that the data were retrieved from a database:
The numbers comes from a massive database maintained by the University of Washington
The charts presented in the NPR is merely data retrieved from the Institute's database. The first note to the first image in the NPR article indicates the parameters for their chart: country, year, and gun deaths, not including those caused by self-harm, armed conflict and accidents.

In my OP, I referenced a study, however, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation didn't perform it. A group called "Movoto" did. The page to which I linked has a link to the survey they used to obtain the figures in their state-to-country gun ownership comparison table that I presented in my OP. I don't know whether they've exposed their methodology.

Off-Topic:
Are all gun deaths "violent gun deaths?"
This thread is about the dichotomy between the Montana March for Our Guns group's values and the actual behavior they instructed their adherents, members, devotees, supporters, etc. to do at a rally the group organized to advocate for gun-rights and against restrictions on guns.

I don't mind answering the question you've asked; however, I won't answer it in this thread. Create a thread based on that question in the Politics subforum (or Political Satire, if your prefer) and I'll therein answer the question quoted above. (Please use the @mention feature to inform me of the thread's creation.)

I was more interested in an article explaining where they got their numbers to tell you the truth.

Most research articles reveal that sort of thing. How are they coming up with the raw numbers?

Sorry I am having a hard time taking this data seriously, it conflicts with all other known scholarly research, even the stuff from the CDC, etc.


It really isn't helpful to compare the liberty we have here in the US to other nations, because most Americans can agree, we have no desire to be like those in other nations. If we did, we would move there or throw out the Constitution.


29572961_1939056409737801_4989696823241277456_n.jpg

Arrests for offensive Facebook posts are increasing in London

I was more interested in an article explaining where they got their numbers to tell you the truth....How are they coming up with the raw numbers?
The answer to your question is published on the Institute's site.

Are you availing yourself of the Institutes links and drop-down link lists at the tops of its webpages, or are you expecting me to put in links and descriptions for the Institute's website? If the latter, well, Dante said it well enough....

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate.
-- Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
It really isn't helpful to compare the liberty we have here in the US to other nations
What I've, in this thread's OP, compared and contrasted is the dichotomy between March for Our Guns' rhetoric -- I included in my post a link in which a group member expressed the notion that "more guns = more safety" -- and the very specific action the group bids their supporters to take -- don't bring guns to the march -- in the name of safety. If more guns = more safety, what better segment of a community for which to provide more safety than "youth," yet the foreseeable presence of "youth" is why the group instructs its marchers not to bring their guns.

Do you have something to say about the actual thread topic?

So far, you have refrained from remarking on the incongruity the OP highlights. You've:
  • Griped about how difficult you found it to find the data that was presented, even though the webpage you cited when you so griped had on it a link to a page from which you could access the data.
  • Attempted to object to the data's legitimacy, saying you can't tell from where the data came, even though the page to which I directed you contains links that take you explanations of from where the data come.
  • Asked me whether the international rates include suicides even though the first "orange" graph in the OP states clear that they do not.
  • Completely missed the contextual and rhetorical purpose of the death rate information in the OP. That information is there to provide a quantitative frame of reference the extent of the gun culture in MT and to show a simple group of facts: that MT's gun/gun use culture is such that, disregarding suicides, MT has a higher death rate per 100K people does not suggest that "more guns = fewer gun-killed people" and March for Our Guns seems, based on the instructions they published, seems to agree that the mere presence of guns increases the risk of someone being shot, despite their rhetoric during the march.
And now you're grousing about comparing the U.S. to other nations when the central points of comparison is March for Our Guns' rhetoric and their behavioral instructions for an advocacy event they organized in small town in their own state.

For folks that understand Natural Rights, and gun safety, they probably didn't see much of a conflict there
...And if they are willing and able to present a cogent and coherent argument that soundly and with representational faithfulness connects all that stuff to the actual topic of this thread, I'd read it and perhaps respond to it. That may be a doable thing, but I'm certain it's not doable in the space and time most USMB members are willing to devote to developing their thoughts for posting here.
 
So you believe that the violent culture of the US will change if we get rid of guns?
Fewer firearm homicides will be a result.

So in your opinion there is an qualitative difference between firearm homicides and other types of homicide?
Do I truly, after having responded in post 9, have to expressly ask you yet again to take up the matter of the general culture of violence in the U.S. in a thread in which that is the topic?
Odd you chastise me, but not cnm.

If you wish to be taken seriously, be consistent.
Odd you chastise me, but not cnm.
I must conceive that you think it odd and mention it as such because you don't understand these concepts and their applications:


That's what I get for responding to you like a civil person and asking you to pose your question in a thread where the U.S.' violent culture is the topic rather than this one where it is not. Why you didn't simply delete your question and present it in a new thread where it would be the focus of conversation is beyond me. I thought you'd have done just that because you actually wanted to have a discussion along that topical line. Clearly you really didn't want that at all.

Believe it or not, mature people who actually want to discuss a topic will do that -- CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality and CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality and CDZ - Anarchy: Moral Imperative or Inherently Immoral?. See how easy it is to do. When I asked the other member about creating a new thread, I knew it was his thread, and if he was okay with going off-topic in his own thread, well, fine. For whatever reason, he opted to create a new thread, and I responded as I'd indicated I would: CDZ - Anarchy: Moral Imperative or Inherently Immoral?.



The fact that I haven't gotten one of these...

Round-tuit1.jpg

...to ask him to refrain from responding to off-topic remarks, when the fact of the matter is that -- along with the rest of my life -- your requests for information that has been right in front of your face the whole time are what has occupied my posting time in this thread. And, IIRC, not one of your posts has actually addressed the thread topic.

It's worth noting that I shouldn't have had to ask you or anyone to refrain from making or responding to off-topic remarks.
The fact that I do ask you to refrain from off-topic remarks has no bearing on anything or anyone but you.
 
So you believe that the violent culture of the US will change if we get rid of guns?
Fewer firearm homicides will be a result.

So in your opinion there is an qualitative difference between firearm homicides and other types of homicide?
Do I truly, after having responded in post 9, have to expressly ask you yet again to take up the matter of the general culture of violence in the U.S. in a thread in which that is the topic?
Odd you chastise me, but not cnm.

If you wish to be taken seriously, be consistent.
Odd you chastise me, but not cnm.
I must conceive that you think it odd and mention it as such because you don't understand these concepts and their applications:


That's what I get for responding to you like a civil person and asking you to pose your question in a thread where the U.S.' violent culture is the topic rather than this one where it is not. Why you didn't simply delete your question and present it in a new thread where it would be the focus of conversation is beyond me. I thought you'd have done just that because you actually wanted to have a discussion along that topical line. Clearly you really didn't want that at all.

Believe it or not, mature people who actually want to discuss a topic will do that -- CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality and CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality and CDZ - Anarchy: Moral Imperative or Inherently Immoral?. See how easy it is to do. When I asked the other member about creating a new thread, I knew it was his thread, and if he was okay with going off-topic in his own thread, well, fine. For whatever reason, he opted to create a new thread, and I responded as I'd indicated I would: CDZ - Anarchy: Moral Imperative or Inherently Immoral?.



The fact that I haven't gotten one of these...

Round-tuit1.jpg

...to ask him to refrain from responding to off-topic remarks, when the fact of the matter is that -- along with the rest of my life -- your requests for information that has been right in front of your face the whole time are what has occupied my posting time in this thread. And, IIRC, not one of your posts has actually addressed the thread topic.

It's worth noting that I shouldn't have had to ask you or anyone to refrain from making or responding to off-topic remarks.
The fact that I do ask you to refrain from off-topic remarks has no bearing on anything or anyone but you.

If you continue to try to lawyer me on trivial technicalities that sap my enjoyment from participation here, I will refrain from engaging with you.

As it is, it appears there are precious few members that will bother with your verbosity now, so don't press your luck.
 
Fewer firearm homicides will be a result.

So in your opinion there is an qualitative difference between firearm homicides and other types of homicide?
Do I truly, after having responded in post 9, have to expressly ask you yet again to take up the matter of the general culture of violence in the U.S. in a thread in which that is the topic?
Odd you chastise me, but not cnm.

If you wish to be taken seriously, be consistent.
Odd you chastise me, but not cnm.
I must conceive that you think it odd and mention it as such because you don't understand these concepts and their applications:


That's what I get for responding to you like a civil person and asking you to pose your question in a thread where the U.S.' violent culture is the topic rather than this one where it is not. Why you didn't simply delete your question and present it in a new thread where it would be the focus of conversation is beyond me. I thought you'd have done just that because you actually wanted to have a discussion along that topical line. Clearly you really didn't want that at all.

Believe it or not, mature people who actually want to discuss a topic will do that -- CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality and CDZ - The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality and CDZ - Anarchy: Moral Imperative or Inherently Immoral?. See how easy it is to do. When I asked the other member about creating a new thread, I knew it was his thread, and if he was okay with going off-topic in his own thread, well, fine. For whatever reason, he opted to create a new thread, and I responded as I'd indicated I would: CDZ - Anarchy: Moral Imperative or Inherently Immoral?.



The fact that I haven't gotten one of these...

Round-tuit1.jpg

...to ask him to refrain from responding to off-topic remarks, when the fact of the matter is that -- along with the rest of my life -- your requests for information that has been right in front of your face the whole time are what has occupied my posting time in this thread. And, IIRC, not one of your posts has actually addressed the thread topic.

It's worth noting that I shouldn't have had to ask you or anyone to refrain from making or responding to off-topic remarks.
The fact that I do ask you to refrain from off-topic remarks has no bearing on anything or anyone but you.

If you continue to try to lawyer me on trivial technicalities that sap my enjoyment from participation here, I will refrain from engaging with you.

As it is, it appears there are precious few members that will bother with your verbosity now, so don't press your luck.
As it is, it appears there are precious few members that will bother with your verbosity now, so don't press your luck.
I'm not longing for less quietude. Quality, not quantity, is what matters to me.

I will refrain from engaging with you.
You do as you see fit. I don't mind posting editorials.
 
One of coolest things about Montana, besides the absolute beauty of the place is that it's a state with very near one million people in it.

On March 24, 2018, there was a gun rights march/rally in Helena, MT. The march was called "March for Our Guns." The organizing group's mission declaration includes the following remarks:
  • We cannot allow one more gun to be taken from our hands. We must make it our top priority to make sure that people of this nation continue to have the right to defend themselves.
  • March For Our Guns is created by citizens in Montana who will no longer risk the leftist agenda of seizing the opportunity to diminish our abilities to keep and bear arms
That's not particularly unexpected for a gun advocacy group. The mission also contains this statement:
  • Politicians are correct in telling us that now is not the time to talk about guns.
giphy.gif

Really? They think now is not the time to talk about guns, yet guns appear to be all they talk about!

The agenda for the march was:
Now one might wonder what is the gun-culture in Montana. Well, each of the following countries in 2015 had fewer guns than did Montana:

  • Libya -- pop. 6.29M
  • New Zealand -- pop. 4.63M
  • Honduras -- pop. 9.11M
  • Hungary -- pop. 9.87M
  • Cambodia -- pop. 15.76M
  • Congo -- pop. 78.74M
  • Jordan -- pop. 9.46M
  • Taiwan -- pop. 23.34M



Now this doesn't pertain to Montana so much as it does to the US and other countries (Click on the preceding sentence or on the images below; it's the same webpage destination):



Now any careful reader will quickly note that those death rates per 100K people are for whole countries whereas Montana is a state. Accordingly, one must too consider Montana's gun homicide rate per 100K, which, with all the guns in Montana should be very low, is, of course, a very safe place because more guns corresponds to more safety. The gun-related death rate in Montana is about 16 per 100K; however, suicides account for 80% of the 16, so if one removes them it's a bit over 3.2 per 100K.

So from that information one can deduce readily (notice I did not write "infer") what else those several countries, and scores more, had; however, I for those whose math skills are poor, I'll tell you: Fewer gun-related deaths per 100K people than did Montana is what they had.


The march organizers published the following instructions, which they called "General Rules and Foundations for this March."




Butter my butt and call me a biscuit !!!

Did you read the march "rules and foundations?" If you didn't, you should.

A gun-rights advocacy group held a march in Helena, MT, a town of ~31K people, the capital of Montana, and a "ruby red" state which has around a million people and more guns than several small countries and more than one rather populous country.
  • That group rails against liberals taking guns, yet they instruct their kindred marchers not to bring their guns to the march! REALLY !!?!?!!
A "more guns = more safety" group marching in "More Guns Than Many Places Montana" explicitly states that the march is "not armed" and cited safety, particularly that of children, as the reason for not having guns present! Yep, that's what they said, yet members of the group have no problem with guns being around kids, so long as the kids are in a classroom, which, frankly, makes shooting kids about as easy as catching fish in a bucket seeing as unlike the center of Helena, there's no place to run in a classroom.

Talk about "Mastercard" moments!
GUNS,GUNS,GUNS,GUNS,GUNS.............Not the person behind the gun, killing other people. Nope, just more insanity of the left thinking that all guns from law abiding citizens will stop gun violence...

Legal gun owner.......................Not a legal gun owner.

View attachment 185123 View attachment 185124

Cruz was a legal gun owner....until he brought the weapon onto school grounds and shot 17 children.
 
The image below is what one should see where one sees an "X" indicating a broken link in the OP. The link isn't broken; one can click on it and be taken to the correct page.

upload_2018-4-10_0-48-41.png
 

Forum List

Back
Top