Basejumper.com - archive

 

Suicide is still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S., representing 55% of total 2005 gun deaths nationwide. In 2005, the U.S. firearm suicide total was 17,002, a 1.5% INCREASE from 2004 suicide deaths. -Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics

 

Anyone follow this logic?

I was illustrating how misleading the statistics are. While there were more gun related American deaths per capita in DC than in Iraq, over half the deaths in DC were likely suicides.

To answer your question...

"More than half of all suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms. In 2006, 54.6% of all suicides in the U.S. were committed with guns. -Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics "

 

No, I'm pulling the stats from this website and including the CDC thing at the end to make my posts look more credible.

http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

 

The deaths in Iraq were prob not all firearms related. I used stats for the US because I could not find stats for DC. My point is that suicides should not be included when arguing a point of safety. Just because more Americans die due to firearms related deaths in DC than in Iraq, does not at all mean that DC is more dangerouse. Also, people living in or visiting DC, for the most part, have the choice to avoid the more dangerouse areas, while soilders in Iraq do not. I'm not saying that I am for or against pulling out, but to use that one stat to say that it is safer to be in Iraq than in DC is foolish.

There are times I'd rather be in Iraq or Afghanistan...

 

I think comparing DC gun deaths including suicides to combat deaths in Iraq is comparing apples to oranges.

Take away the suicide deaths and it would be a closer truth.

I can almsot assure that "most" comabat deaths are not suicide...

my 2 pennies...

Yes, it is still death, but if other people choose to take their own lives, it does not make the public any less safe.


It is foolish to apply this to saying that it is more dangerouse to live in DC than to be a soilder in Iraq. In DC most people have the choice to avoid the violence, while soilders in Iraq are expected to confront it. Most who live in DC will never be shot at or even see anyone else being shot or shot at. Do you think the same could be said for most soilders in Iraq?

 

You are failing to look beyond the numbers and see the big picture. Not everything is as simple as 2+2=4.

1. 2112 deaths, majority being IED and vehicle accidents.
2. How can you believe either of those numbers? Is there anything backing that up?
3. What about non US soldiers? Coalition forces, Third country nationals, and Iraqi's?
4. Is 160,000 including tcn's, ln's (local nationals = Iraqi's) and coalition forces?
5. Average over 22 months? Was the average computed right after a brigade deployed to theater or left theater?

It's all BS. Not sure who's agenda, or even what the agenda is, but putting out info like that, and stating it as fact, seems to me to be some sort of persuasion at work.

 

 
Your quibaling. DC is a rough town. My old partner Tom got lost there... couldn't find a freeway. He was in the milatary at the time and had just gotten back from a war zone. He wound up in the wrong part of town and wound up driveing around for an hour with a gun in his lap. He was that spooked. He said it was way scarier then the war.

Lee

guys like to go with a boom, so shooting yourself in the head is most likely to happen with males. females usually choose a quieter way of leaving..

comparing the entire population of DC to a segment of the population in Iraq?

seems like someone is cherry picking data to make a political point.

I really doubt the military is killing itself! I bet someone else is involved. thus the sample only really includes the victims. the DC sample should include far more shooters as well as the victims.

oh, and maybe LeRoy or someone else can chime in on how strict the gun control laws are in the military. I bet they have some serious limitations on their use! if so, one can then argue that these limitations save lives compared to DC!

Really? That's your reply? Every number I used in my post was from your initial post. Apples to Oranges crate? I'm making a point about the numbers from your post being skewed for some persuasive purpose.

 

Yep, you read that right. No need to question it.


Really? The political point being that even with the strictest gun laws in the nation, statistically a soldier is less likely to die from a firearm death in Iraq then a citizen in D.C.


Really, never read stats on military suicides. I guess it's all a myth then if you doubt "the military is killing itself"...How about "friendly fire" ever heard of that?


Gun control in a war zone? Limitations on their use? How about you come under fire, you fire back for use. Deaths result.

Again, gun restrictions are failing in D.C. that's the point of the statement. Is there a "doh" emoticon that can be inserted here.

Is this still fucking being argued?

Dave, come on, why? You know
Tizzy c/would argue water is wet
or not wet depending on her mood.

Be productive, go watch some porn.

aw...Tom...you're no fun.

It doesn't. I'm in Iraq and from all the entering a combat zone briefings and all the other briefings I've been through, and from the Medical training I received designed around this war, I know that the majority of us soldier, and coalition forces deaths are due to IED's and vehicle accidents.

You stating "How about you come under fire, you fire back for use. Deaths result." shows that you even argue things you have no idea about. Why?

ROE and EOF are gone over every mission before we go out.

Rules of Engagement: You must have PID (positive identification), you have the right to defend us soldiers, coalitions forces and Iraqi's from heinous or violent crimes, do not damage Iraqi infrastructure i.e. mosques, schools, power plants, ect..., however, if PID is acquired you have the right to self defense.

Escalation of Force: First, visually and verbally signal the potential threat by yelling or with a flashing light. If that doesn't work, fire multiple flares in the general direction of the threat, if that doesn't work fire a warning shot to either side of the vehicle (crew serves are not to be used for warning shots), if that doesn't work crew serve to grill to disable the vehicle and if necessary crew serve to kill to disable the threat. No warning shots are to be fired on dismounts.

Crew serve basically means machine gun, typically a M2 50 cal, a M240b 7.62mm or a M249 saw 5.56mm

 

You ever been into womens boxing? You're pretty good at bobbing and weaving.

It doesn't, it has to do with the statistical bs you posted that either implies DC is very dangerous or that Iraq isn't. The latter I see as very disrespectful, especially when it's coming from someone that I assume hasn't been here. Shit blows up a lot, mortars come it at random, it's not a vacation. A guy that I helped with an ingrown toenail, 20 years old, died a month ago when the driver of the vehicle he was gunning in, lost control of the vehicle and it rolled over and crushed him. I'm also a gunner and I've been lucky, and I'm sure a lot of people come over here and go home. There are a lot of jobs where all you have to worry about is mortars. There are jobs where mostly you worry about IED's and there are jobs where you have to worry more about small arms fire. We prepare for that though and were medically prepared for war as well.

Here's another side to it, where are the DC numbers? Maybe it's using the total of people that live in DC when the total that are in DC on the average day could be 3 times larger, skewing the numbers.

Sorry about the rant

You left out PID. How about, you get sniped in the head, no one even knows it happened for 20-30 seconds because your slumped over the machine gun in your turret, no one knows where it came from, no one returns fire. Or less violent, bullets hit the side of your truck, you hear it, but have no idea where it came from. Again your just pulling shit out of your ass to have something to argue about.

 

Dearest - Statistics are devided in 2 categories :
Random and Non-Random.

100,000 soldiers in the field, all at equal exposure to the outside elements (read : shit that can kill them) - random

100,000 people in the metro area, positioned at varying distances from the violent hotspots - NON-RANDOM

What I mean is that the relevant sample in the DC case is significantly smaller than in the Iraq case.

 

me ?

I am just against idiots.
Against using invalid supporting data.
Against making unsubstantiated claims.
Against making conclusions based on convenience sampled data.
Against people landing in the trees when there are nice grassy areas to land in.
And of course against ginger-headed people.

 

I am not getting this one, sorry.

 

Another great example of things being made up. When did I say that I like to point out idiots? Please point that out in the context of this conversation.

 

How is this relevant to this thread ?

 

Haha.
you ask an irrelevant question, and get an irrelevant answer. Now I have to defend it ?

no thanks.

 

Correct until proven incorrect? That explains a lot about your posts and how much debate that ensues.

Actually, I was drunk posting. The right track would have been to leave this argument and go to bed long before I did. I would like to appologize to other readers for helping to keep this thread going. I promise, for the good of the community, to resist the urge to reply to Tizzy in the forums anymore.

There have been 2 so called Soldiers that have used grenades to kill other Soldiers on purpose, but that is NOT the norm.


open source from WIKI:
In military or police operations, the rules of engagement (ROE) determine when, where, and how force shall be used. Such rules are both general and specific, and there have been large variations between cultures throughout history. The rules may be made public, as in a martial law or curfew situation, but are typically only fully known to the force that intends to use them. The ROE should comply with the generally accepted martial law.

U.S. Military ROE
The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” the following breakdown:

Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply.
Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply.
Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points.
Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include: Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows.
Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm or weapon.

if it did, I missed it.

the quote you originally cited discussed fatalities of US soldiers. it made no apparent reference to HOW they died. obviously some died from IED's. some believe it is a statistically significant amount. apparently, you do not.

the comparison appears to be about ALL deaths of a select cohort vs only gun deaths in a general cohort.

further, the select cohort conveniently omits the population responsible for the killing.

the general cohort includes the killers.

whether financial statements or a medical study, data becomes most meaningful when collected and processed in a consistent manner. the original quote appears to fail that simple test, thus I would not trust any conclusion derived from data sets compiled so disparately.


p.s.
I'd love for the data to support the conclusion. that permits me (and others) to learn. data that fails to support conclusions just appears to be propaganda.

 LEE . Ya boy,... LOL, been there and cruzed around there in that (cough snicker) Beautiful part of town in our nations capitol. For some strange reason I felt kind of like I "Did not belong" and prety Naked without a hand gun. I think everyone that goes to the Smithsonian and then sees all the national monuments and the Wall. Should then take a little trip to the backside of DC before leaving. To then get the Full DC experience & also of what our Government really wants us all to become like.
.

hey ray, whats up brother... when we getting that militia going?

just to ensure you know I was joking in a thick skinned base jumper way. Hell someone took that same pic and did something simular to me years back... hell kinda looks like me anyway... all sexy and white!

No worries, I had a great laugh

Naw, that kid has more hair