Archive for Wednesday, January 9, 2013, 11:39 am – Page 2

2009 university study: Gun owners 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.


gun cartoon sales surge

Yesterday I posted "Mother of 9 year-old killed in Tucson shooting demands a plan to end gun violence; Giffords, Kelly launch anti-gun lobby campaign." It's gratifying to see a common sense movement take shape... finally. Rachel Maddow discussed that very thing here:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I also posted the eye-opening "VIDEO: Here’s proof that carrying a gun won’t protect you in a crisis." It's worth nine minutes of your time, believe me.

Today a friend linked me to a study that concluded that gun owners are 4.5 times more likely to be shot than people not in possession of a firearm.

Via the American Journal of Public Health:

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time. [...]

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

Not enough for you? The Harvard School of Public Health, the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and and Arthur Kellermann--of Rand Health and Emory School of Medicine-- all did similar studies with similar goals that resulted in ...ta-daa!... similar results!

For example, an excerpt from Johns Hopkins:

When states expand firearm prohibitions to high-risk groups, and adopt comprehensive measures to prevent diversion of guns to prohibited persons, fewer guns are diverted to criminals, and there is less violence. [...]

[P]oliticians who want to correct flaws in our current laws, which enable dangerous people to get guns, could do so knowing that there is broad support for those policies, the reforms are constitutional, and the policies would enhance public safety.

And from Harvard:

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.  Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

And Kellerman:

Kellermann states that as an emergency room doctor, he noted that the number of gunowners injured by their own gun or that of a family member seemed to greatly outnumber the number of intruders shot by the gun of a homeowner... On net, a firearm in the home represents a greater risk overall than the protection it may offer against intruders, either indirectly or by discouraging potential assaults.

There are studies and more studies, both sides claiming the truth is on their side. But when it comes to common sense gun safety, it seems obvious that erring on the side of prevention while still allowing people to own non-military weapons and lower capacity gun magazines among other rational, reasonable suggestions is the way to go.

Nobody is taking away gun ownership rights. Nobody is knocking on your door to yank your firearms away and trample on your rights. And as Rachel Maddow noted, if the military actually turned against its fellow U.S. citizens, well, we'd be way past the point where personal weapons could or would be very effective.

One more thing. This post from a few days ago was heartening: Pres. Obama willing to take on NRA, special interests via executive action on gun safety measures.

And it was confirmed today by Veep Joe: Biden: Obama exploring executive orders to combat gun violence.


"One day a single-payer system will provide better care at less cost and aggravation."


sign single payer health care smaller

Today's L.A. Times letter to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re "Another surgery — while knee-deep in the red tape," Column, Jan. 6

Steve Lopez asks, "Can't we switch to a healthcare system instead of a paper-shuffling, profit-driven, CEO-bonus-building system?" Great question.

There are dozens of for-profit health insurance companies astride the U.S. healthcare "system." Besides profits for their owners, their premiums must pay for exorbitant executive salaries and benefits, lobbyists in Washington, political contributions, marketing programs, lawyers and lawsuits, redundant computer systems and staffs trained to deny claims. These parasitical organizations contribute nothing to actual healthcare.

One day a single-payer system will provide better care at less cost and aggravation. As Winston Churchill said, "Count on Americans to do the right thing — after they've tried everything else."

Ed Carstens

Santa Clarita


Video Mid Day DIstraction & Fundraiser- Gadgets to Make You Healthy, Happy


Three months have gone by in one of the craziest election years I've ever seen. We're hoping you had as much fun (and angst) as we did on the ride, and if you can, a donation to keep us running would be greatly appreciated.

It's just the two of us, with Lucian handling the tech stuff, doing this whole shebang, day after day. We love it and love interacting with ya'll, but the server
and all sorts of sundry tidbits need to get paid. If we somehow brighten your day, educate or even irritate you at times, please consider a donation, big or small, to keep us bumping along. If everyone who dropped by on a daily basis dropped a coin in the bucket, we'd be done in no time. If you'd like a snail mail address, email me at paddy at thepoliticalcarnival dot net. Thank you.



WePay Donate

If these buttons aren't working, the ones in the right sidebar are also active.


Video- The Daily Show: Scapegoat Hunter - Gun Control


Cartoons of the Day- Chuck Hagel to Defense?



Hagel to Defense




Democrats Re-Establish Lead in Party Affiliation



But EVERYONE says we're a center right country!! Could the pundits be wrong?

PRINCETON, NJ -- An average of 47% of Americans identified as Democrats or said they were independents who leaned Democratic in 2012, compared with 42% who identified as or leaned Republican. That re-establishes a Democratic edge in party affiliation after the two parties were essentially tied in 2010 and 2011.


Gallup has measured party identification and leaning consistently since 1991. During that time, Democrats have usually held an advantage, including the high margin of 12 points in 2008, the year President Barack Obama was elected. Republicans have held an advantage in only one year -- 1991, when President George H.W. Bush enjoyed record-high approval ratings after the Persian Gulf War. The two parties were essentially tied in 1994-1995, 2001-2003, and 2010-2011.

In 2012, 31% of Americans identified as Democrats, with an additional 16% initially saying they were independent but when asked if they leaned toward either party, they said Democratic. Meanwhile, 28% of Americans identified as Republicans, with another 14% leaning toward the GOP.


Video- Lindsey Graham Threatens To Halt Brennan's CIA Confirmation Over Benghazi


Is there anything Princess Sparkle does these days other than throw temper tantrums and pout? Geez. Via.