The Black Vault

by **rath** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:56 am

capricorn wrote:
blackvault wrote:Oh, and one last thing. Have a pleasant day

And... Thanks for coming.

I see you have crawled out from under your rock.

& please ... Come again.

by **rath** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:59 am

at1with0 wrote:ain't arguing with rath swell?

How would you know. Iv not seen you make a valid or cognitive argument yet.

by **rath** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:21 am

blackvault wrote:Oh look... more guns in households across my state... and yet.. less deaths and injuries.

Hmmmm... that couldn't be right.

Sacramento Bee wrote:California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall

By Phillip Reese

Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data.

Dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last year, up from 350,000 in 2002, according to records of sale tallied by the California Attorney General's office.

During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,800, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health.

Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11 percent drop, state health figures show.

Two caveats: State figures track gun sales, not ownership. They treat a family's first gun purchase the same as a collector's twelfth. Second, gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked.

These charts show gun injuries, deaths and sales trends over the last ten years.

Sources: California Attorney General's office; California Department of Public Health

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/507915 ... rylink=cpy

I like how they fake the figures to support their preconceived view.

During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,800, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health.

How often does a criminal who just committed a federal crime, go into a hospital, & ask for help removing the bullets in his chest or back?

Example ..... Guy walks into a hospital with a gun shot wound, fills out all the paperwork in triplicate. & then also explains it to the federal agents who seek to cart him off to a federal prison.

Most would do it the old fashion way. ( & not report it )

The Fact is most gun shot wounds & gun related deaths don't show up on the national statistics

How many illegal immigrants from Mexico, die from a gun shot to the head on U.S soil & don't get counted in the U.S figures.

by **greeney2** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:31 am

Bad enough you embarrass yourself denying the figures of your own criminal bureau, but to use Mel Gibson as an example for anything, given his worldwide shame of a reputation is pretty pathetic. Aside from turning a tragedy on all these dead people into another Rath anti-american rant, is typical of your caliber. No pun intended.

by **at1with0** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:17 am

What's so bad about Mel Gibson?

by **blackvault** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:35 am

at1with0 wrote:The assumption was one mass shooting per year. If there are n mass shootings, then the probability would then be n in 100,000...which is at least 1 in 100,000.

But is there really 1 mass shooting a year?

by **blackvault** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:36 am

rath wrote:
But i can't leave without point out your comment on Slander & libel ....... It can be said either way Slander & libel. Or Libel or Slander. as they are both very different things.

It's like running & walking you can also say walking & running.

Oh & a pleasant day to you as-well kind sir.

& a Happy New year as-well.

Yet again, you said "liable..." that's a different word than LIBEL. I wasn't talking about the order you said it.

by **at1with0** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:38 am

I don't know how many mass shootings but I would assume it's less than ten per year. If there are 100,000 schools then that would be less than 10 in 100000 which I think is 0.01% chance of it happening at any given school.

by **blackvault** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:38 am

rath wrote:One of the most powerful names in journalism ..... Hardly. ( maybe in the USA ..... but not globally )

One of the top 1000 web sites in the world ..... Hardly. ( maybe top 1000 in the USA ) but nowhere near the top sites on the net.
For example ( Google, Microsoft, News corporation, Wiki-leaks )

Did you not look at the SOURCE I referenced? Yet again, you want to ignore actual numbers, and revert back to the "Book of Rath facts." I mean this respectfully, but you continually ignore actual REAL stats and numbers, and replace them with whatever you want to believe in.

Oh, and yes, Beck has a global following whether you want to believe it or not.

by **blackvault** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:39 am

Offtopic :: at1with0 wrote:What's so bad about Mel Gibson?

LOL. Yeah, I'll second that! I'm a fan.

The Black Vault

Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

Re: Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

Share On:

Re: Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

Re: Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

Re: Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

Re: Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

Re: Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

Re: Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

Re: Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

Re: Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

Re: Connecticut school shooting: 18 children among 27 dead

The Social Network Buzz

Who is online