drew at barking moonbat is really a very talented cartridge designer. he was of immense help to me when i built my ar-15 in the .284 caliber "jj's brit" in projecting load performance and pressures for that cartridge.
well, he's at it again, and, so am i. he's drawn up some cartridge designs in .375 caliber, based and short cartridges of pistol length, and noted that they would make fine performers in an ar-15 pistol platform. http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/just_playing_with_guns_again/ .
i happen to agree. http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/freedom_in_the_sawdust/ . and, i've been working along the same line, proposing a .375" cartridge built on a 6.8mm rem spc cut to around 1.300" in caselength, and loaded moderately to around 1400 or 1500 fps from a 10" barrel, on the ar-15 platform.
both of drew's proposed cartridges feature longer cases, and he is expecting commensurately greater performance from his cartridges, ballistics suitable perhaps for deer and other game. i am thinking of milder performance, and fewer legs, something to supplant the .45 acp as a sub gun round.
i suggest that you go to barking-moonbat at http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/just_playing_with_guns_again/, and take a look. he does very good work. and, oh yes, his opinions on ballistic & performance matters are backed up w/ very careful analysis using the quick load program.
sure, you remember that part. nothing good ever happens to the idiot that volunteers, or, so it seems.
this is a cardinal rule among sheep.
you remember in the previous post, where i described the handler's attempt to segregate out the five sheep with the red collars, in order to pen them. and, how he and the dog induce the sheep to mill in a circle, so that the sheep/guys without the collars get cut away from the group.
well, it's the never volunteer thing, all over again.--
often times the sheep will get sorta stubborn, and they will kind of line up all abreast facing the dog, and they look stubborn. no problem for the dog, he just lies down. and, he picks a sheep or two to eyeball. and, as he is lying there, he just inches forward a little bit at a time, eyeballing the sheep he has picked out as the "weak sister." and, sooner or later, his dominating will prevails, and a sheep or two will break from the wall of defiance, and turn to try and get back into the back of the group, and force some other dumb ass sheep to face the indomitable will of the dog. and, the next sheep to come forward gets the same treatment, as the dog moves imperceptibly (to you and i) to the sheep.
pretty soon, the sheep are milling. and, then the dog gives them the old zoom around in a circle, and then the sheep are circling, and the handler moves into them, to cut some off from the rest.
the trick is not to induce all out panic, in which the sheep explode in every direction. the trick is to induce them all to be nervous and afraid about asserting their position as sheep in the world, and to avoid any assertion of right or position. not necessarily to induce outright fear, but, to break their collective and individual will to be brave, and to stand up to the dog's overweening aggressive behavior.
in other words, sheer unmitigated bluff. and, with a good dog, the sheep are bluffed, almost always. every now and again, they will blow up and run in all directions, but, not very often.
no sheep wants to lead, and no sheep wants to break from the flock. they will, but, only if forced. the herder & his dog simply apply a little force, as needed, over time to get what they want.
think about that for a bit.
john jay @ 10.26.2015
p.s. doug has asked in the previous blog "comments," who pays for the sheep dog in the $1200 suit. why, it is obvious. the guy w/ the money to spend, that's who. in other words, the usual suspects. soros. the trilateral commission. bill gates. gore. the guys who own the pastures upon which the sheep run, and from which they go to slaughter. to be eaten.
driving towards home i see a sign pointing down a gravel road, saying "sheepdog trial." i am wondering what did the dog do to get into such trouble that they brought him to trial? semantic queries/issues aside, i turn down the road toward a large field festooned with campers & pickups & kennels and quick, scampering little dogs.
so, for the next three days or so, i watch dogs and handlers herd sheep over a very large field. now, i have seen little blips on the tellie w/ dogs and sheep, but, i have never seen sheep herded by a dog over 4 or 500 acres of ground, comprised of rolling ground and gullies where the sheep and dogs pass out of sight of the handlers.
very interesting.
the first event involved a "lift" of five sheep about 475 yards out from the handler, in which the handler sets the dog loose to go fetch the sheep and bring them to him, through some gates in the middle of the field. now, the border collie is not a large dog, and some of them probably don't weigh over 25 pounds. but, the little buggers set out like streaks in an arc designed to bring them in behind the sheep, to perform their first task, called "the lift." put simply, this means to take control of the sheep, and get them moving away from where they are restrained by another handler and his dog.
it ain't that easy.
one dog approached the sheep much too quickly and aggressively from behind, and all five sheep exploded in five different directions at once, at a dead run. if you think sheep cannot run very fast and for some time, then you don't know your sheep.
most of the dogs come in from behind the sheep, and then settle down on the ground, and watch them for a little bit, and assess the sheep. the sheep have watched them approach from a long distance, i know, because i watched them in the binoculars: they see the sheep coming from a long distance. they really don't do much, because the handler at the pen and his dog have them bunched up .... the, the "pen" dog has them glued to the ground in his gaze. (don't ask me to explain it, and don't ask me why a good dog on point can hold a pheasant on the ground as the shot gunner approaches for the flush.)
and, then the dog approaches slowly, and, in a good "lift," gets the sheep moving in an orderly fashion, bunched up in a group, in the direction he wants. with the lift performed, the pen handler and his dog, move away without interfering or helping the dog in his task.
at first the sheep want back to their pen, and sometimes they move in a zig zag pattern for a bit, but the dogs apply subtle pressure, and get them going straight at a trot. this mastered, the dog gets them going in the direction he desires.
sometimes.
occasionally an independent minded sheep wants to split away, and does, and then the dog does something rather remarkable. he takes off like a proverbial rocket, and goes around the sheep in a round circle, and miraculously bunches them up again, comes in from behind, and settles down on all fours, and watches the sheep. and, then moves and pressures them, and brings them along.
he brings them to the handler. and, together, the dog and the handler put them in a small pen.
everyone claps.
at the end of the day, after watching handlers and dogs of varying degrees of skill, it is time to take the woollies back to the large pen across the field. so, they let 60 or 70 sheep loose, and one handler and one dog herd the sheep back over the 1/2 mile of so to the big pen. by themselves.
and, you know what? it is far easier for the dog and handler to herd the large group back over the ground than it has been for the dogs to bring them across the same ground in a group of five. the sheep flock up in a tight circle, and they do as the dog bids them, quite willingly. there are no displays of independence by an errant sheep, they simply go along.
the sheep press together, and they press their noses up the rear of the one ahead of them, and the ones behind them presses their noses into the rears of the sheep. and, so on and so forth. it is an orderly and decorous and even sort of stately process, the sheep from one pen where they mix in amazing & friendly order, to another pen, where they crowd in in amazing and friendly order.
sheep, in a large group, are far more docile and subject to discipline and direction, than they are in small groups, or as individuals.
the less experienced handlers and dogs get winnowed out of the competition, and the better handlers and dogs get presented with more complicated tasks. the final day of the competition features the "double lift" problems, in which the dog is sent to two separate pens to get 10 sheep from each pen, and then to bring the group of 20 back to the handler, after taking them back and forth across the field and through gates, a good deal of time during which they are out of sight behind ridges and in the bottoms of gullies.
after doing so, they bring the sheep into a large circle before the handler, who is standing on a bale. the handler goes to the ground, and they begin to separate the body of the sheep from five sheep who have had red collars place around their necks. the 15 sheep without the collars ultimately go into a holding pen, while the five with the collars are place into a small pen separate from their fellows.
here's is where it gets really very interesting.
did you know that sheep are ultimately quite contrarian. a sheep will not do what he wants to do, if someone is trying very hard to get him to do it. normally, the sheep wants to go to the pen, to be with his pals. (all sheep are pals, to simplify things a bit.) but, sometimes, when the handler and the dog want to separate the sheep from one group to go to the holding pen with his pals, the sheep refuses.
the solution that the better handler and dog teams use is to get the sheep milling about in a circle, which the dog induces by circling the sheep at breakneck speed, and then coming to a rest in between the circle and the pen, on all fours, stretched out, and "eyeballing" the sheep to induce conformity with the handlers direction. and, what the handler does, is to see a division among the sheep, into which he steps, and into which the dog darts with lightning light quickness. the dog cuts off 3 or 4 and sometimes 5 or 6 sheep off from the circling melee, and then the dog drives those sheep to the holding pen, while the handler keeps the sheep with the collars and their friends.
when the dog thinks he has the sheep away, he comes back to the handler. and, usually the sheep drift off to the pens, and are content to simply graze or watch things.
and, as a matter of fact, after having done everything in their power to resist the dog and the handler in their endeavors, the sheep just sort of look around, waiting for the dog and the handler to tell them what to do. (if any of you do not think, that i think "republican congressmen" when i watch this, you simply don't understand the lessons to be learned from the sheepdog trials. it is to laugh, it is to cry.)
but, oft times, something odd happens. some of the sheep try to rejoin the collared sheep, and an exquisite calculus goes on with the dog and the handler trying to keep the separated sheep from coming back into the group, all the while trying to separate more sheep away. the goal is, stated again, to get the five collared sheep separate and into the gated pen.
sooner or later, the handler and the dog get the five collared sheep into a small group, with perhaps one or two other sheep who cannot be driven off. this is very amazing, because the sheep huddle up so closely together it is very hard to see them as separate entities, and all the while, they are milling in and out, and defying all attempts by the handler to separate them. sometimes the dog will come down and try to freeze a sheep in place, while the handler moves the rest away, while at other times, the dog just lies down and watches things, in a spot between the circle and the holding pen.
and, here, the sheep begin to display very individualistic impulses. a collared sheep or two will begin to make dashes for the holding pen, and i mean mad dashes, running like hell. the dog can do nothing more than run like hell after them, head them off, and drive them back to the ring. and, whereas with a large number of sheep, when a dash like this is made, most of the sheep hold still in the circle, still held in thrall by the handler. but, down into small groups, when the rest of the sheep see the mad dash for freedom, all hell breaks loose, and they, too, make a break for it, at break neck speed. sometimes when they break loose, they literally leak for joy as they escape the thrall of the handler and dog.
sometimes, the five or six are rounded up and back into the circle, ... , sometimes the entire 20 are brought back, ... , and, sometimes the handler and dog just run out of time and give up.
does the phrase "whip" mean anything to you?
the sheep get picked at random from the pens to be brought out to the lifts. (you doubt it? can you tell the difference between one sheep and another?) and, most often, the handler and the dog can exploit the adaptive strategies that sheep have adopted over the eons, calculated to most often benefit them. but, every so often, they run into an obstreperous sheep, or a group of sheep who abandon the dictates of the flock in favor of decision making for the benefit of the individual sheep. hey, i have no explanation for the sheep who leaps multiple times in the gallop after having done his bidding in a docile, if reluctant, fashion all day long. do you? and, it is back to the pen, and the flock, in the end.
for a moment, in all flocks, democracy and individualism flourishes, and, then, it is back into the pens. and, we all know where that ends. don't we?
john jay @ 10.26.2015
p.s. the first time a sheepdog meets you, s/he will likely approach you in a low slink, and will fix your eyes with hers/his, and s/he will lock up with you, to see if s/he can control you. it's nothing personal. s/he is just trying to assess you for the sheep you are.
lyndon johnson did the same thing. only he did it with a handshake and his hand on your forearm, to see if he could physically move you, all the time moving closer and closer to you. it's what the $1200 suit and the $600 shoes are for.
the w.h.o. has got the hanky wringers all worked up w/ the news that meat causes cancer. well, duh!!, something has to. nothing to worry about, just "processed" & "red".
a guy on pbs, whose name eludes me, but who runs a show on smoking meats on the barbie, has countered w/ the "tulsa torpedo." kielbasa sausage, wrapped in a thick slab of breakfast sausage and sliced hot wieners, wrapped in hot pepper jack cheese, wrapped in a weave of 8 very large strips of smoked bacon, all smoked and cooked for a couple three hours. (i am assuming that if you add other kinds of sausage, it won't be frowned upon.) it's gotta weight 5 or 6 lbs, i am thinking.
cook to 170 degrees fahrenheit or so, and sliced to preference. i am further assuming that you have to share w/ others, ... , but, to dream is to dream, eh?
looks good. who gives a shit about what the w.h.o. says? as kaiser wilhelm once said to a laggard troop on maneuvers, "what is the matter, idiot, do you think you are going to live forever?" no record of what the trooper said back to the kaiser.
it is reported from several sources that the shooter at oregon's umqua community college had a brief stint in the army, being discharged before completion of his basic training, and that he attempted to sign up for private advanced tactical training in california but that the provider of the course felt him unsuitable. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/foghorn/oregon-attacker-was-rejected-from-firearms-training-class/ . http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/oregon-gunman-targeted-christians/2015/10/02/id/694382/ . http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/oregon-gunman-was-army-basic-training-dropout/ .
it has also been noted that the shooter may have been targeting one of the men involved recently in thwarting a muslim terrorist attack on a french train, widely reported all over the world. this noted at american thinkier, http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/was_the_oregon_mass_shooting_an_islamist_attempt_to_assassinate_alek_skarlatos.html . that man is identified as alex skarlatos. in the same american thinker article, the author notes that isis claims credit & responsibility for the attack at the oregon school. http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/chris-mercer-harper-umpqua-college-shooting-roseburg-oregon-isis-islamic-state-news-videos-pictures-photos-attack-influence-terrorism/ .
for various reasons, i do not believe that the events referenced above were random acts.
i would suggest that people look into these background circumstances, and attempt to find any data or facts that suggest a central controlling influence or direction behind these school shootings in the united states. again, i do not believe them random, but, rather think that some overriding influence is inspiring them.
are these crazy bastards in cahoots with each other? is there a website somewhere that is saying, o.k., you're a certified crazy fuck, why don't you do something crazy and go out and shoot up some school kids, and do something constructive for society? set a wonderful awful example? hey, what i am saying is not any crazier than all these shootings going on.
all of this has gone way past coincidental. (it smacks of the old "agent provocateur" thing, that regimes and radicals used in the 19th century to provoke violence against each other. the burning of the reichstag, for instance, to give hitler the excuse to crack down on communists in germany, ... , the burning done by his own agents.)--
first we get a bunch of crazy bastards, with pumpkin heads, all fat and round and little piggy eyes, and on all the whacky damned drugs the screw ball shrinks can find to shove down their gullets, and shoot into their veins. the kid who shot the congress woman in arizona, looked just like a whole mess of them who were in psychiatric care, and medicated to the damned gills, and going out and shooting people. over and over. i didn't think it was an "accident" or a "coincidence" then, and i don't think these school shootings are simply unrelated.
the kid in umqua, did he move from california to oregon, just so he could shoot up a school? and, the day after the shooting at umqua community college in roseburg, oregon there are three other shootings in school settings, all over the country. hey, it's a big country, but, this stuff is ridiculous.
i practice law for 25 years, in criminal defense and prosecution, so i am not unfamiliar with the concept of "copy cat" killings, but this is something the likes of which i have never before seen. i simply cannot believe that all these separate individuals are waking up in the morning, and it pops into their heads, hey, i'll go shoot some school kids.
no, something organized is going on here. this is not coincidental. something purposeful is happening.
what, you think i am crazy? are we to believe that persons are so suggestible, that they see a school shooting, and they say to themselves, hey, i am gonna go out and get me some school shooting stuff, and blow people away? and, let's make that tomorrow morning, after breakfast, you know, a breakfast mcmuffin w/ a cup of joe, and let's go out and kill people at school?
nah, i ain't buying it. too concerted. it is not an accident. don't count on the left to ferret it out. it serves their agenda, too damned much. the kids that do this stuff, they don't seem to be racists or fascists, they don't seem to be inspired by what's-his-face, the norwegian killer of leftist students any "manifesto" or belief, as anders breivik, the killer of leftist children training to be activists. this does not smack of south american death squads, sponsored by repressive & regressive regimes and elements.--
no right wing agendas or doctrines being followed here. (the right does not seem to have spawned manifestos on killing the opposition, a great tradition of european leftists and radicals. and, god only knows what louis farrakhan, obama's great neighbor friend, thinks about that.)
these people doing the shootings, seem to be coming from the "progressive" elements of society, and they seem too much in lock step to simply be random examples of deranged people. there is nothing random in the targets they choose, and in the reaction they spawn in society.
it's just too damned tidy. and, too damned calculated to serve the left's public agenda. something is there.
well, i am hardly the one to say anything nice about jimmy carter, regarding him as the second worst president in u.s. history. (no one beats obama in this regard.)
still in all, jimmy carter rather hits the nail precisely on the head in his assessment of obama " ... on the world stage ... ."
in a column entitled "verbatim" by robert s. dudney, in the august 2015 issue of the "air force magazine", he notes comments by former u.s. president carter at the aspen institute, on june 25, 2015 to the effect:
"on the world stage, i think they [president obama's successes] have been minimal. ... just to be objective about it as i can, i can't think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than ... when he took over--you know, if you look at russia, if you look at england, if you look at china, if you look at egypt, and so forth. ... i would say that the united states' influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower now that it was six or seven years ago."
journal of the air force association: air force magazine, august 2015, vol. 98, no. 8, page 9, "verbatim" by robert s. dudney.
this from jimmy carter, who left u.s. foreign policy a shambles when he departed office. if anyone might have been expected to be "capable" of being supportive of obama's amateurish dithering in foreign policy, it might have been carter who followed certain unenlightened paths himself. (i say "dithering" if you still view obama's course as attempting to advance u.s. interests, as might be expected, rather than advancing the interest of international muslim terrorism, or the soviet line, or advancing the interests of putin, as i believe. if you view it in the latter vein, obama may be something of a genius. but, assuming that he is "on our side, which i do not, he is an absolute disaster. an absolute idiot, and carter was too kind.)
a very interesting observation from an interesting source.
john jay @ 10.09.2015
p.s. carter does not even throw obama a bone for the killing of obama bin laden. clearly, carter understands how little obama credit obama deserves for this, having done little more than come in from the golf course too watch bin laden's denouement. my guess is, he heard the story from impeccable sources.
the original article -- http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2015/10/the-obama-borg-media-minions-masters-of-deceit-.html . (if link is not "live," copy and paste to command line. typepad strikes again. jjj.)
i am just gonna print the "updates on statistics" that you probably missed. i doubt many will read this, but, here goes. maybe i can talk the people who published to republish these updates. hey, everybody needs to know what sort of unscrupulous liar obama is.
john jay @ 10.08.2015
update [no. 1], 10.05.2015. i finally found an article that did the mathematical analysis of the black murder rate upon blacks, using the per 100,000 standard of measurement. the article is --
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~roos/Courses/grstat502/phillipssp802.pdf . i am typing this out, because my computer will not copy the text of the pdf.
at page 359 of the pdf, you will find chart 2 of the study, entitled "means and standard deviations for variables by race/ethnicity." as a matter of interests, the statistical analysis was for the year 1990, in the united states of america.
at the top of the chart, you will find, (as i type the facsimile) --
[*** this is the standard of ___ per 100,000 of persons.]
on page 359 below the chart (excerpted above), is the following text.--
"table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the independent and dependent variable for the white, black and latino populations and reveals and reveals the large differences in the composition of each group. the homicide rate for each respective group highlights the striking difference in levels of violence. in 1990 the average black homicide rate was 33.7 per 100,000, a rate about 8 times that of whites (4.3 per 100,000), and almost 3 times that of latinos (12.4 per 100,000.)"
there you have it. assuming that black murders of other blacks run about the same now as in 1990, the black homicide rate is extremely high, in terms of deaths per 100,000 persons. that's a murder rate of almost 4%, which places you at a very high risk of being murdered if you live in or near a black neighborhood. end update [no. 1], 10.05.2015.
update no. 2, 10.07.2015. fbi statistics show for most recent year of compilations, that fists killed more victims of murder than rifles in the united states of america, according to the following post. http://teapartyupdate.com/youll-never-believe-what-the-fbi-says-is-deadlier-than-assault-rifles/ . less than 250 persons were killed in the united states for the tabulated year w/ rifles, the article claiming that fists accounted for more murders than such weapons. so much for the "scourge" of the fearsome assault rifle: maybe the left will want to ban "assault fists."end update no. 2, 10.07.2015 .
update no. 3, 10.08.2015.synthetic heroin from china kills 447 (2013) and 538 (2014) in florida alone, reported here, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article38134512.html , as reported in the miami herald newspaper. (i guess they hadn't been reading obama, lately, eh?) well, if you'll read update no. 2, below above, you will find for the last year in the compilation i've used, rifles were involved in about 258 murders (purposeful & criminal homicides), which means that in the state of florida alone, twice as many deaths have occurred from overdoses of synthetic heroin.
i guess we are gonna have to abolish synthetic heroin manufacture in china, eh, obama? i suppose if obama had a heroin used in the family, s/he would look just like him. end update, 10.08.2015.
if you have ever doubted that the media is in servile obedience to obama, just like dutiful little borg ciphers, consider the reaction when obama suggested that the media compare the u.s. "gun violence" statistics with other causes of death, which he enumerated: instantly, the media sprang into action, and did as he suggested, without questioning what they were doing was in the service of truth and/or objectivity. the media perpetuated obama's falsehood, by "pimping the argument" by include suicide and accidental deaths involving guns in a heading under "gun violence," as described by obama.--
obama asked the media to prove that "guns" killed more people in the u.s. over the last ten years or so than the combined impact of foreign wars, aids and his media lap dogs responded with their usual moronic trip attacking gun ownership. (this is spite of their acknowledgment that gun violence and the murder rate continue to fall in this country, please see this chart from vox world, http://www.vox.com/cards/gun-violence-facts/gun-homicide-decline-crime-drop .) as a matter of fact, the murder rate per 100,000 is about 1/2 of what it was in 1981.)
vox world responded with an article, typical of the sycophant press, setting forth the obama claim with a series of graphs attempting to prove the lethal impact of guns on u.s. society, again in servile fashion failing to distinguish between gun violence, and death by suicide & accident. (which outnumber murder 2 to 1.) http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9446193/gun-deaths-aids-war-terrorism . the graphs, set in series, compared gun deaths in the united states over a 12 year period to deaths attributable to terrorism, the wars in afghanistan & iraq, aids, illegal drug overdoses and car crashes. ibid.
update no. 3, 10.08.2015.synthetic heroin from china kills 447 (2013) and 538 (2014) in florida alone, reported here, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article38134512.html , as reported in the miami herald newspaper. (i guess they hadn't been reading obama, lately, eh?) well, if you'll read update no. 2, below, you will find for the last year in the compilation i've used, rifles were involved in about 258 murders (purposeful & criminal homicides), which means that in the state of florida alone, twice as many deaths have occurred from overdoses of synthetic heroin.
i guess we are gonna have to abolish synthetic heroin manufacture in china, eh, obama? i suppose if obama had a heroin used in the family, s/he would look just like him. end update, 10.08.2015.
to some people vox world makes a point, ... , but, the facts are, the statistical proof put forth by vox that guns are mortally dangerous to society is "cooked," in other words, fabricated by the use of base deceit. the vox world graph posits that "guns" have killed roughly 30 to 33,000 people a year in the last 12 years.
update no. 2, 10.07.2015. fbi statistics show for most recent year of compilations, that fists killed more victims of murder than rifles in the united states of america, according to the following post. http://teapartyupdate.com/youll-never-believe-what-the-fbi-says-is-deadlier-than-assault-rifles/ . less than 250 persons were killed in the united states for the tabulated year w/ rifles, the article claiming that fists accounted for more murders than such weapons. so much for the "scourge" of the fearsome assault rifle: maybe the left will want to ban "assault fists."end update no. 2, 10.07.2015 .
if deceit, misdirection and obscuring facts constitute lying, than the entire vox world article is predicated upon lies. and, oddly enough, that lie is established by vox world's own words, and and in a previous article at vox world. at http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8721267/gun-suicide-gun-control , the blog/magazine acknowledges that roughly 2/3's of the deaths "caused" by guns are suicide or the result of accidents. you can discover this if you dig a little bit, but this fact is not set forth in the open at the obama inspired post.
the deceit lies in the representation in every graph, without further explanation or exegesis, that upwards of 30 to 33,000 people a year die in the united states via "gun violence." (and in the perpetuation of the myth that "guns" kill people, somehow without human direction.)
the deceit is the continued misrepresentation of that that the baseline figure of app. 30,000 deaths from guns, in 6 successive graphs, asserting that those people died from illegal homicide, which would include murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent conduct and as a direct result of criminal assault. that is not the case, and the fact that it is not is proved by vox worlds own admission that 2/3's of gun death result from suicide or accident, or like cause. statistics from the fbi and the center for disease control establish as fact that only about 11 to 12,000 homicides occur and have occurred in the united states each year, for the time period suggested by obama to his minions.
in point of fact, this is a little bit low, if the fbi statistics on violent crime are to be believed. the fbi statistics on "murder victims" relate that some 12 to 13,000 people are murdered by guns each year in the united states. this compilation is for calendar year 2013, which i assume to be representative.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls , table 8, expanded homicide data, from 2009 through 2013.
of those victims, around 6000 to 6500 were killed by handguns, and other firearms comprise the rest. interestingly enough, knives were used in the commission of murder just under 2,000 times in that year, and blunt instruments, strangulation, and fists and hands accounted for another 1800 or so murders per year. in short, the use of blunt instruments, strangulation and fists accounted for almost 2/3's the number of deaths per year as did handguns, the great bugaboo of the gun control crowd.*** yet you will not find obama nor minions asking for the regulation of blunt instruments, fists or means of strangulation, such as silk handkerchiefs and the like.
now, i would be the last person to say that 11 or 12,000 deaths a year are in any sense trifling.
but, the united states is a big country, numbering well over 300,000,000 persons. that's a lot of people, and a lot of things happen to a lot of people in this country.
in the vox world articles (links above) it is set out that around 40,000 people a year die in automobile accidents. that's nearly 4 times the rate of deaths by murder, or the commission of criminal violence by the use of firearms. i hear no cry for the abolition of cars.
the united states center for disease control has an interesting page which is a statistical summary of accidental deaths in the united states, which i am assuming to comprise an analysis of yearly deaths. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm . it lists all unintentional injury deaths at approximately 131,000 in the united states, which is 41.3 deaths per 100,000 person. this gross number breaks down into the following causes: unintentional falls account for 30,208 deaths a year, or 9.6 deaths per 100,000; 33,804 automobile deaths a year, or 10.7 deaths per 100,000; and, this stunner, 38,851 deaths attributable to accidental poisonings, or a death rate of 12.3 deaths per 100,000 .
this involves 131,000 accidental deaths involving such instruments as ladders, roof tops, and whatever else people contrive to use to secure their doom, as compared to 10 to 12,000 deaths from firearms. this involves, and includes, 38,851 deaths from accidental poisonings, as compared to the use of guns in criminal murders and homicide, or the "gun violence" that obama asked to be set forth to further his agenda to disarm the american public.
think about that a bit.
the cdc deaths lists for homicide, including homicide by firearms/guns is basically as related in the fbi statistics.
the cdc chart on suicides is most interesting. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm .
it lists all suicide deaths at 41,149: of those, firearms suicides number 21,175; suffocation suicides number 10,062; and poisoning suicides number 6,637. it is abundantly clear that hangings, ropes, and bare hands, & plastic bags place over the head, along with purposeful drug overdoses & other poisoning come very close to suicides listed as attributable to guns, totalling 16,699 deaths. (let's just call it 17,000 deaths by suicide, not attributable to guns.) there are 41,149 suicides listed by the center for disease controls statistics, and the sub-total figures list some 4,000 or so deaths not accounted for in the chart. 17,000 plus 4,000 "no attributable cause" adds up to roughly 21,000 by my calculation. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm .
this means that suicides by gun are equaled by suicides caused by other means, to include those suicides commissioned by rope, plastic bags, caustic home cleaners, "no attributable cause," and those other means of death chosen by people who end their lives. in short, guns account for roughly 1/2 the deaths from suicide, and other more prosaic methods not decried by obama and the media account for the other 1/2. it suggests quite clearly, that where there is a will, there is a way.
it is disheartening, in the very least, that people choose to end their lives, but, certainly, guns seem no more dismaying cause of death than other commonly used methods to kill ones self.
and, finally, let us not forget those deaths that are inflicted upon the general population by the medical establishment due to negligent care.
now, the following is taken from a blog dealing with this subject, and the writer's bias is definitely to show that gun ownership, and use, do not lead to as many deaths as negligent and substandard medical care. http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/medical-malpractice-deaths-nine-times-higher-than-gun-homicides-lets-end-the-ama/ . that needs to be acknowledged,by me, from the start.
but, the sources of the numbers and information are from legitimate sources, and sources most assuredly not sharing the acknowledged bias of the blog's author. in short, though the blog writer may have an agenda (which i share), the statistics cited do not.
the sum of the report(s) indicate nearly 100,000 people a year dying from medical malpractice and mistreatment, with an additional 80,000 or so people injured by the same means. (malpractice appears pretty lethal.)
do we hear obama borg calling for banning doctors, regardless of the extent of their carnage? hint: we do not.
this article opened with a link to a chart showing that the murder rate has "sharply" declined since 1981. this is fact. why then, do the media tools of the left call for gun bans, and call for your rights to own and possess guns to be abridged? does it really have to do for a concern for public safety?
it does not. were that in fact the case, the gun grabbers would also be calling for banning ladders, and ropes, and household poisons, and all the other instrumentalities and causes of accidental and criminally inflicted death. but, you do not see any impassioned pleas for banning ladders, rope and kitchen knives, do you.
politicians and gun grabbers are not opposed to guns ... indeed, when hillary or obama appear on the stump, they are accompanied by body guards and a security apparatus armed to the damned teeth. the politicians do not hate guns, they hate the guns that you have in your possession. period. if they grab your guns, they are not giving up theirs, ... , indeed, what you will find is that the wealthy, the privileged, the left will continue to legally and illegally own guns, to protect themselves from you. and, you can be damned certain that those who man the apparatus of the state will be armed, to include automatic "assault guns," with only one conceivable target, and that is you.
it is you they fear. it is you they intend to control. because, they feel, rightly or wrongly that if you are deprived of your guns, then you will not have either the will or the means to assert your grievances against their rule, or to deprive them of their rule. they want the situation to be, that you are unable to rise up and fight them.
most homicides in the u.s. (68 percent in 2011) are committed with guns, so it should come as no surprise that the gun homicide rate dropped over this period, too. michael planty and jennifer truman of the bureau of justice statistics found that between 1993 and 2011, gun homicides fell 39 percent, and non-fatal firearm crimes fell 69 percent.
americans seem unaware that things are getting better. in 2013, pew found that 56 percent of people think gun crime is more common than it was 20 years ago, with only 12 percent correctly saying it's less common.
please note: that if statistics defining the misuse of guns by young black males ages 12 to 35 in new york city, detroit, atlanta, los angeles and the other urban messes in this country (created by black leftist controlling the city politics), were taken from the murder and violent assault charts, then the united states would have one of the lowest murder & violent crime rates in the world.
the truth is, young blacks kill young blacks, out of all proportion to the use of firearms by whites. simple as that.
blacks and black liberals should bring their own house in order, before they attempt to abridge and interfere w/ the gun owning rights of whites, and other groups in the country. you may not like that, but, it is truth.
if you do not feel that to be the case, then refute the assertion and argument. i really don't think that you want to get into a statistics argument w/ me on this point of contention. you will loose.
update, 10.05.2015. i finally found an article that did the mathematical analysis of the black murder rate upon blacks, using the per 100,000 standard of measurement. the article is --
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~roos/Courses/grstat502/phillipssp802.pdf . i am typing this out, because my computer will not copy the text of the pdf.
at page 359 of the pdf, you will find chart 2 of the study, entitled "means and standard deviations for variables by race/ethnicity." as a matter of interests, the statistical analysis was for the year 1990, in the united states of america.
at the top of the chart, you will find, (as i type the facsimile) --
[*** this is the standard of ___ per 100,000 of persons.]
on page 359 below the chart (excerpted above), is the following text.--
"table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for the independent and dependent variable for the white, black and latino populations and reveals and reveals the large differences in the composition of each group. the homicide rate for each respective group highlights the striking difference in levels of violence. in 1990 the average black homicide rate was 33.7 per 100,000, a rate about 8 times that of whites (4.3 per 100,000), and almost 3 times that of latinos (12.4 per 100,000.)"
there you have it. assuming that black murders of other blacks run about the same now as in 1990, the black homicide rate is extremely high, in terms of deaths per 100,000 persons. that's a murder rate of almost 4%, which places you at a very high risk of being murdered if you live in or near a black neighborhood. end update, 10.05.2015.
i can tell you right now, that i will not give up my guns because of the misconduct and misbehavior of urban black males. simple as that.
*** i once defended a young woman who plead guilty to the death of a man by the use of a 40 ounce bottle of beer, by hitting him over the head during the commission of robbery. i had a friend whose sister was killed by being beaten over the head w/ a river rock. not all deaths attributable to homicide are committed with guns.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3985642/firearm%20homicide%20deaths.png)