jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (103 posts)

Fox News Factoid

  1. Sychophantastic profile image83
    Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago

    Caught these little factoids about Fox News, courtesy of the Nielsen ratings:

    The median age of a Fox News viewer is 68.

    Only 1.1 percent of Fox News prime-time viewers are black.

    How do you think this affects how they cover the news and what they report?

    1. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think it does.  I think, personally, that how they cover news and what they choose to report is what is responsible for their viewer demographics.  Most people only watch what's comfortable for them, and something that doesn't challenge their established ideals.  If that's what older folks find attractive about Fox news, that's what's keeping them there.  Kind of a chicken/egg scenario.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        More like a seduction by reason of ignorance is what I see. The Fox Snooze "newscasts" are full of innuendo and supposition and provoke a reaction that allows Fox to exploit even the smallest slur or slip of the tongue into millions in commercial revenue. I will admit that they have a willing audience and that is the most troubling part of it.

        1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
          BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          What's even more disturbing though is the willing audience that allows themselves to be bamboozled by the lamestream media.  Fox "Snooze", as you call it, may be doling out its own brand of propaganda, but at least it isn't serving Kool Aid.

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I love it when Fox News watchers use this term "mainstream media" as some sort of defense mechanism to defray the enormity of bad reporting. Its like saying someone is a little pregnant or I am not as bad that fat person because I am only 50 pounds overweight. Nobody is defending the bought media in any statement. CNN, CBS, NBC or any other news media that reports with bias, misleading or unfounded truths is horrible. One should read Bernie Goldberg's "Bias" to get a good look at the way the news is reported on network television.

            "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts." - Abraham Lincoln

            1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
              BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The amusing thing about your reply is the way the media and our government are handling one of the situations you discussed.  Now, instead of confirming a person's status as "overweight", our government is instead redefining the parameters of a "healthy" person, the same way that they determined it wasn't fair that some kids were getting failing grades in school.  Instead of making people face up to their own failings and shortcomings, the government simply re-writes the rules so that everybody passes.  I'm sorry.  I know I'm thirty pounds overweight, but I'm working on that.  I don't need the government to tell me that I'm actually the new normal weight or that my 3.6 college GPA was too good, so now I'm equal to everyone that got a 2.0.  Sorry, just because government says it's right doesn't make it so.  Just as if CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox report it doesn't make it true.  People are just too lazy to fact check anything for themselves.  I have, though, and it amazes me to see just how much Fox news gets right.  Oh, and Miley Cyrus' twerking isn't news, people.  The more attention we pay to her, the less likely it is that she'll simply go away.

    2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image93
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Actually,  Roger Ailes, the founder and CEO of Fox News, sets the news agenda every morning for what can and cannot be discussed on the programs. People have been fired for deviations, for instance, showing Obama in a good light.

      1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
        BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hmmm...there's something good to report about Obama?  Really?

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The best news about Obama is that he is far less industrious than most of his predecessors and therefore is less productive, thank God.  Can you imagine if Obama had the work ethic of TR, the country would never recover from the hair brained lunacy all that leftist ideology wedded to all that boundless energy could produce.  So I guess there really is some good Obama news, he is lazy.

          1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
            BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Good point.  Unfortunately he's changing the rules so that Americans can get a free ride for being lazy too.  Once you eliminate work ethic from the marketplace, it'll be harder and harder to get people to go back to wrok when jobs are created, and even if they do become employed again, it will be even tougher to make them actually work for their paychecks since they've become accustomed to lying on a couch all day long and eating the free food our government has handed them over the years.  You can't legislate prosperity out of laziness.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Reality is conservative, once someone's belly is empty long enough he will learn to work.  The inevitable collapse of the American welfare economy will end lefty destruction of the work ethic, out of necessity.  It will take generations, but Americans will learn to work again. Sadly the glory that is, oops was, America is now gone.  The generations of Americans that built the greatest industrial, cultural, economic and military power in the history of humanity are long gone and their grand children are devouring the legacy of prosperity they inherited.  It is an ancient story.

          2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image93
            Dr Billy Kiddposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Those who argue that there is a culture of laziness ought to take a good look in the mirror.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That is so deep, thank you.  The wisdom contained in that little nugget will keep me thinking for a very long time.  How profound.  Where do people come up with things so simple and yet so simple.  It is as if all laziness was distilled into one bon mot  unworthy of a fortune cookie.

            2. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
              BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Really, Billy?  I look in the mirror everyday and see a man who never accepted a handout in his life and runs four successful businesses.  Do I see a culture of laziness?  Absolutely.  And it honed itself in your response. Have a nice day.

            3. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Isn't a one line comment ample demonstration of lazi....

              1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
                BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Isn't that sort of what I said, Retief?  Basically, logic is a concept that escapes most liberals and their mental faculties.  They think with their hearts.  And they vote with them too.  Unfortunately feelings won't fix the problems in this country.  We need people with knowledge and experience to repair the damage that's been done over the last five years.  We had the choice in 2012 of picking a business leader or re-electing the community activist to fix the economy.  It's not rocket science to figure out who would do the better job.

                We absolutely NEED to put people back to work and reduce the number of social services recipients or this country is doomed.  The only way to do that, though, is to stop putting onerous regulations on business to help them expand.  Obamacare and raising the minimum wage are both feel good ideas and the reason liberals voted for the POtuS, but they are both job killing mandates.  It's time we took a step back and fixed the problems a different way.  We're heading toward an abyss.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you should repeatedly tell that to your capitalist masters.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    They already understand it quite well.  It is the liberal, socialist, ones that don't get it, and they are in power for the nonce.  One day the capitalists will regain some control and can perhaps straighten out part of the damage done.

                  2. 60
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I had to re-read that a couple of times before I realized that it was a serious comment.  Once that realization struck, I found there was little left to say.

                  3. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
                    BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You're an idiot, John.  The only people who are slaves in this country are those who allow themselves to be.  Those who allow themselves to be led by the nose via the lamestream media.  Those who allow themselves to be fed and clothed via welfare and the government.  Those who think that capitalists, like the Jews in World War II, are the source of all the problems.  The Nazis tried that once before by forcing the willing sheeple to accept the righteousness of government by surrendering their firearms and praising the incompetence of their leaders.  Sorry, Johnny, I'm not willing to be "led by the nose", but you are more than welcome to have the ring installed.  It will look quite good on you, actually.

                2. 60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I was going for a humorous response, please do not let the narrow minds and hate filled hearts of lefties suck the humor from you.  We live, we die - most of what is in between is crap.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Narrow minds and hate filled hearts of lefties!

                    You're trying to tell me that that hate filled rant recently directed against me was by a leftie?

                  2. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
                    BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't worry, my friend.  I too go for the humor in the response, although my humor tends to be of the sharper "stick in the eye" sarcastic variety.  I've reached a point in my life where I subscribe to the Teddy Roosevelt school of liberal education.  I speak softly until liberals open their mouths to spout their ignorant rhetoric, then I hit them with a REALLY BIG STICK.   They usually yelp and limp off into the woods to lick their wounds, then gang up and return like pack animals grasping at illogical straws with their overactive imaginations of indignation.  The good news is, indignation in numbers can never overcome or overwhelm intelligent thought and insight.  Yet they will continue to try, unsuccessfully, to wear me down with bs. 

                    I'll just say this.  More people need to open their eyes to the damage that's being done to the freedoms and integrity of this country.  The US was founded to create opportunity through perseverance and effort and hard work.  The left would rather have the sheeple on leashes, eating from the scraps of their handouts.  To put it in an analogy that anyone should be able to understand, Conservatives are the hunters in society, fending for and living of themselves while liberals are the gatherers, content to live off the scraps provided by the people who actually do the heavy lifting.  At some point, the scraps will run out, though, and the have nots will try to overwhelm those who have.  Good thing hunters never surrender their spears.

    3. 61
      (Q)posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Fox covers the news? Since when?

      Fox creates propaganda and not much else.

      1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
        BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        At least they don't serve Kool Aid like the rest of the lamestream media.

    4. 83
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It says absolutely nothing about Fox News.  These same statistics are true for CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, ABC, and every other broadcast news.

      "Americans aged 65 and older are still the largest segment of nightly news viewers, but their viewership has declined dramatically since 1993 'from 75% down to 40% in 2012,' the Pew study said."

      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/bar … PPBhl.dpuf

      Top 25 Broadcast Shows in Black Households (Source: The Nielsen Co.):

      http://targetmarketnews.com/storyid12061301.htm

  2. Sychophantastic profile image83
    Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago

    Obama is lazy? If that isn't a classic, racist, "those black people don't understand hard work" sort of response, I don't know what is. It's fairly easy to come up with statistics for the number of vacation days various presidents have taken. Despite the Fox News/Drudge Report/craptastic conservative bs news sources assertions that Obama golfs too much and takes too many vacations, the facts show that he has taken less vacations than both Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/fighting-words/l … us-1388659

    Having said that, anybody with half a brain understands that presidents don't really take vacations, they just travel. They're basically always working, always tied into what's going on.

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And there it is, the narrow, hate filled lefty mind finds its way to one of two explanations for anyone objecting to lefty politicians, racism and sexism.  Interesting how when lefties look at Obama they see his skin color and yet it is everyone else that is racist.

      1. Sychophantastic profile image83
        Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hardly. The "lazy" moniker has a long history of being used against black people and is frequently code for the n-word. It is particularly offensive when the charge is made when facts contradict it.

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Vomit your hatred on someone else.

          1. Sychophantastic profile image83
            Sychophantasticposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I love it. Typical racist reverse racism/hatred tactic. Call out hatred and racism and be charged with hatred and racism. Beautiful GOP strategy.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Vomit your hatred on someone else.  Call me racist again and I will flag your response.

  3. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 2 years ago

    People who receive government assistance for food are lazy and refuse to work, is that what you're claiming?
    94 percent increase in unemployment from 2007 to 2011. Your job goes away and you get lazy, is that it?
    Check out these nuggets on myths and realities of the SNAP program. Including incentives to work.
    Poor people are not all lazy. Not all rich people are industrious. But Fox reporters are lazy pseudo journalists with no regard for the veracity of what they say.  Excerpt and link to story:
    "This laziness, partisan hackery and lack of regard for basic accuracy is what separates Fox News from outlets that merely have opinions."
    http://www.thenation.com/blog/167999/it … -stupider#

    About SNAP Program and People Who Receive SNAP Benefits
    ]http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight … ities.aspx

    The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.
    SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period.

    Work Requirements

    SNAP doesn’t do enough to encourage participants to get a job, and the program needs stronger work requirements.

        SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.
        The SNAP benefit formula is structured to provide a strong work incentive – for every additional dollar a SNAP participant earns, their benefits decline by about 24 to 36 cents, not a full dollar, so participants have a strong incentive to find work, work longer hours, or seek better-paying employment.[xxxiii]

    1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
      BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Guess your theory explains why the average SNAP recipient actually eats better than I do, given that I have always worked in some capacity or other throughout my life but can't afford the steaks and seafood that I see in the cart of virtually every food stamp user.  It amuses me.  I can spot them three lanes away and I'm never wrong about it.

      By the way, I love how the racist argument rears its ugly head whenever someone dares to challenge the POtuS' incompetence.  I'd vote for Ben Carson, Allen West or Herman Cain before the moron we currently have in the White House.  At least those three understood the challenges of growing up black and didn't use it as a crutch or urge black people throughout the world to do the same. There's racial pride and then there's the incompetence of our POtuS and the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons of the world.  You want to find the cause of modern racism?  You don't need to look any farther than those three idiots.

    2. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      People who receive government assistance for food are lazy and refuse to work, is that what you're claiming?

      That is what you have decided to read.

      http://www.thenation.com/blog/167999/it … -stupider#

      Interesting, using a magazine entirely populated with rabid leftists to criticize a television network not entirely populated by rabid anythings.

      The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession,

      Didn't the recession officially end in mid-2009? Shouldn't that participation number be coming down?

  4. 61
    Roland Dupreeposted 2 years ago

    I'm a white male, 68 and I despise Fox News, as well as the clowns like Rush Limblob, the NRA, the tea party, Karl Rove, the Koch Brothers, Citizens United, and Bush's wars of choice, and the mixing of religion and state. So not all of us children of the 60's have gone to seed.

    1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
      BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Guess you just proved Churchill's adage.  If you're under thirty and conservative, you have no heart.  If you're over thirty and liberal, you have no brain.  Proof positive.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The problem with conversations like this is there is no room to argue the middle. To talk about what we have in common and stop having to point a finger in the opposite direction to gain some sort of legitimacy in an argument if you will. All the while the problem continues and no agreement or change is met. Fox News is an aberration that was commercially set against the overwhelming liberal media. People who were looking for those arguing points suddenly had a competing television source to quote and refer too. And as we all know if it is written or published it must be true wink . So what is to be done? Can we put away our pride and start finding solutions instead of fault? What is so wrong with having a conservative approach to some problems and what is wrong with thinking a little progressively about what can be done to better the future? I myself get caught up in the fervor to prove a point and sometimes even offend my own principles. I hope we can at least begin to find some solutions rather than kicking the can down the road for others to solve even worse circumstances due to our inattentive wrangling of the issues.

        1. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
          BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Here's the problem with your argument, Rhamson.  You have just taken a side just with your choice of words just now.  You called Fox News an "aberration".  This is by and large the way the left views the truth.  The lamestream media continues to lie and twist the truth to make the left sound like the saviours of the universe when in reality, their policies are destroying the one pinnacle bastion of freedom left in the world.

          As an example, whenever there is a mass shooting anywhere, the lame stream media will go on a rant about the disproportionate safety or lack thereof in communites where guns are allowed.  This is, however, a false notion, given the total lack of credibility of that argument.  In Texas, for instance, the freedom to carry guns there is legendary.  Yet how often do you hear of mass shooting reports coming out of Texas?  I'll tell you.  Not often.  Conversely, Chicago has the strictest gun laws of any city in the continental US.  During one weekend in 2012, though, over 160 gun related crimes were committed, one third of them killings.  Gun violence in Chicago is the norm rather than the exception, yet the lamestream media refuses to report on it or its direct correllation to the absence of legal guns in a city where cops refuse to get involved in crime fighting for fear of their own lives..

          By the same token, there is the ongoing sordid lack of journalistic coverage of the Knock-Out game which the same lamestream media refuses to acknowledge or report.  I myself know a victim of the game and have, at one point, been a potential target of it.  As a proponant of, and a purveyor of a concealed carry permit (which are very tough to get in ultra-liberal New York), I was personally able to avoid what could have been a very messy confrontation.  Guns, when used responsibly, are a deterrent to criminal activity, yet, according to the lamestream media and your liberal leaders, all guns are bad.  I suppose that's why the Diane Feinsteins and Jim Carreys of the world refuse to travel without armed bodyguards while the rest of us can remain potential victims of crime since criminals will readily lay down their arms whenever a new gun control law is passed.  I love, too, how our liberal elite also think that criminal masterminds will willingly adhere to the ammunition limitation and only rob banks at gun point with seven rounds in the magazine since carrying more is against the law.

          Frankly, the media needs to get off its collective ass and start reporting the news instead of trying to hide it for the liberal agenda.  Until that happens, news outlets like Fox are completely necessary.  If you stick your head in the sand and pretend the world around you doesn't exist, it still won't go away even if the rest of the news outlets like CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC tell you it's gone.  If you believe everything they tell you, you're just not paying attention.  And that, my friend, is the biggest tragedy of all since it proves your utter and total ignorance of the truth.

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you for proving my point.

          2. Quilligrapher profile image90
            Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Hello Bernie. It is nice to be able to chat with you here.

            After brushing away the rhetoric and hyperbole, I hope you do not mind if I point to areas of your post that also suffer from false notions and a lack of credibility.

            The harsh reality of facts seem to contradict your misperception that mass shooting reports coming out of Texas are “not often.” The number of mass shooting sprees in Texas actually ranks as the second highest in the nation. Texas has had 14 separate mass killings involving guns since 2006 compared to California’s 22. {1}

            In addition, the number of deaths in Texas during 2010 due to injury by firearms is 11.0 per 100,000 population. This ratio is even greater than the 10.1 rate for the entire USA. {2}

            Unfortunately, the credibility in your post sinks deeper with distorted and slanderous statements about Chicago and its police force. “Conversely, Chicago has the strictest gun laws of any city in the continental US… Gun violence in Chicago is the norm rather than the exception, yet the lamestream media refuses to report on it or its direct correllation [sic] to the absence of legal guns in a city where cops refuse to get involved in crime fighting for fear of their own lives.”

            Following a misleading statement about mass killing in Texas, your post attempts to compare mass shooting incidents in Texas to individual criminal gun activity in Chicago. Such a comparison is hardly reasonable or rational. However, a more genuine comparison would be the 14 mass killings in Texas to the 3 in Chicago (resulting in 14 victims) during the same period. {3}

            Your post goes on to slander an entire police force by saying Chicago “cops refuse to get involved in crime fighting for fear of their own lives.” Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof and you did not provide any.

            If I may point out, since you mentioned how tough it is to get a carry permit in ultra-liberal New York, it is interesting to note that New York State had only 6 incidents (just one in NYC) resulting in mass shooting deaths compared with the 14 in gun toting Texas. {4}

            Obviously, these observations are not about gun control or suggesting a need for more legislation. The shortcomings in your post are all about the presence of misleading rhetoric and hyperbole and the glaring absence of minimal fact checking.

            How sad it is, in a post containing so many false notions and a persistent lack of credibility, the ultimate irony comes at the very end. “That, my friend, is the biggest tragedy of all since it proves your utter and total ignorance of the truth.” Unfortunately, such pompous statements reflect poorly on one’s own understanding of truth not to mention the size of their ego.

            I really hope you enjoy a sun filled, fun filled day, Bernie.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
            {1}
            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … p/2820423/
            {2} http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/fi … er-100000/
            {3} Ibid.
            {4} Ibid.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I wonder what other tid bits Bernie has to share from the Fox vault of "facts"?

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Not sure what these numbers actually mean, but the murder rate for Texas in 2010 was 4.9 per 100,000, California was 4.8 and the US as a whole was also 4.8.  {1} All of these are in line with recent years, as compiled by the UNODC by the small arms survey.{2}

              I recognize that there will be a handful of firearm related deaths that were NOT murder, but accidental - it is very difficult to believe that the rate would be 6.1/100,000 - considerably higher than the murder rate. 

              I also have to wonder just why the title there was "Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms..." instead of simply "homicide rate by guns" or something similar, as is usually the case.  It's almost as if the authors are trying to hide something behind the statistics; to spin the numbers into something they aren't. 

              {1} http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder- … te#MRalpha
              {2} http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp … hip/table/

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                CDC placed accidental firearm death at around 0.3/100,000 in 2010

              2. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this



                Hey there, Wilderness. I appreciate your taking time to comment on my post.

                Without dissecting the methodology and data sources of both studies, I would venture to say the titles imply that the “murder rate” in the  http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder- … te#MRalpha study is a subset of the “all deaths” rate used in the http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/fi … er-100000/ data set.

                I must admit I was really surprised by this comment. “I also have to wonder just why the title there was "Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms..." instead of simply "homicide rate by guns" or something similar, as is usually the case. It's almost as if the authors are trying to hide something behind the statistics; to spin the numbers into something they aren't.”

                Your wondering about the differences between the titles of the reports causes me to wonder also. It come across as an attempt to cast doubt over the published results by implying without a good reason, “the authors are trying to hide something behind the statistics; to spin the numbers into something they aren't.” It is justification to wonder if you are trying to spin the differences in the two titles into a red herring to discredit data you can not otherwise challenge. It certainly is not productive to toss around unsupported accusations. It is just a thought.

                As an added exercise, I looked to the data at the CDC. I used the following search Query Criteria if you would like to verify my results:
                Title: Total Deaths from Firearms, Texas, 2010   
                Autopsy:    All
                Gender:    All
                Hispanic Origin:    All
                ICD-10 113 Cause List:    Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34), Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74), Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (*U01.4,X93-X95), Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (Y22-Y24)
                Place of Death:    All
                Race:    All
                States:    Texas (48)
                Ten-Year Age Groups:    All
                Urbanization:    All
                Weekday:    All
                Year/Month:    2010
                Group By:    Cause of death
                Show Totals:    True
                Show Zero Values:    False
                Show Suppressed:    False
                Calculate Rates Per:    100,000
                Rate Options:    Default intercensal populations for years 2001-2009 (except Infant Age Groups)

                {1}

                Not too surprising, the results were remarkably similar to those I put into my earlier post. My search yielded a total rate of 10.7 deaths per 100,000 in Texas during 2010 from the designated gun related causes.

                I have to tell you, Wilderness, I love following your provocative comments. Keep up the fine work.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                {1} http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The comment on the title was because I trust the UN figures, and they vary from yours by over 200%.  That's not a discrepancy; that's a different data base being used.  One that has something to do with the term "injury"?  I don't know.

                  I can't seem to make heads nor tails of the link to the cdc; it all deals with illnesses, not gunshot wounds.  For some reason I can't find gun wounds at all, let alone the near 11/100,000 you say is there.  I'm being told that, for the title of "Total deaths by Firearms, Texas, 2010" that the age group of 85+ has a rate of 14,755.6 per 100,000.  Somehow I doubt that - help me out?

                  In addition, if I'm reading the http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/fi … er-100000/ link correctly, it applies ONLY to medicaid cases.  Their entire data collection comes from medicaid, and this makes the number even more suspect as that will not be even a majority of cases.  Is it possible that a person, on Medicaid, that has been shot goes to the ER and gets treated and counted, a week later goes to a clinic to get stitches out and gets counted.  A month later goes to a doctor and gets counted?  A really stupid scenario, but I really am at a loss to explain what I'm seeing here.

                  1. Quilligrapher profile image90
                    Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Good evening, Wildernes. I am happy to help you out.

                    Confusion reigns supreme. The UNODC report only counts murders and the data I used includes ALL deaths from injuries caused by firearms.

                    First, the UNODC report printed in the Washington Post says that it only covers murders! The leading sentence makes this clear by stating “per capita rate of firearm-related murders.” The table indicates 3.2 homicides (murders) per 100,000 in the USA. {1}

                    Secondly, the data I provided encompass the rate of ALL Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms not just murders. The ratio reported for the entire USA is 10.1 per 100,000. {2}

                    Look at the notes at the bottom of the kff.org page. You will find, “Causes of death attributable to firearm mortality include ICD-10 Codes
                    W32-W34, Accidental discharge of firearm; Codes
                    X72-X74, Intentional self-harm by firearm;
                    X93-X95, Assault by firearm;
                    Y22-Y24, Firearm discharge, undetermined intent; and
                    Y35, Legal intervention involving firearm discharge. {3}

                    My comparison search Query Criteria used for the CDC Wonder database included…
                    ICD-10 113 Cause List:   
                    W32-W34, Accidental discharge of firearms,
                    X72-X74, Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms,
                    *U01.4,X93-X95, Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms, and
                    Y22-Y24, Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent. {4}

                    Notice the latter does not include “Y35, Legal intervention involving firearm discharge.” This may explain the slightly lower death rate results. Furthermore, murders, as reported by the UNODC, are included in sub-categories X93-X95 in both searches.

                    Then we have the introduction of even more misleading and meaningless confusion about Medicare cases. You wrote, "In addition, if I'm reading the http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/fi…er-100000/ link correctly, it applies ONLY to medicaid cases. Their entire data collection comes from medicaid, and this makes the number even more suspect as that will not be even a majority of cases". 

                    Just stick with the page containing the data. Ignore your imaginary, highly creative, totally misleading Medicare scenario. smile Do not wander off following clearly labeled side-bar links to other unrelated Medicare data bases. Instead, read the notes at the bottom of the data page that lists the sources of the data:
                    “Sources
                    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
                    National Center for Health Statistics.
                    Underlying Cause of Death 1999-2010 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released 2012.
                    Data are from the Multiple Cause of Death Files, 1999-2010, as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. Accessed on May 10, 2013.”
                    {5}

                    How to navigate the CDC Wonder data base will make a good topic for another post tomorrow.

                    I hope all is going well for you, Wilderness.
                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                    {1} http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp … hip/table/
                    {2} http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/fi … er-100000/
                    {3} Ibid.
                    {4} http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html
                    {5} kff.org

            3. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
              BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Quilligrapher.

              It's interesting that you quote USA Today as your source of statistics in your reply to mine from a while ago.  USA Today is one of the lamestream media rags that are actually part of the problem.  Reporting the statistics that you want to doesn't make them true.  I prefer facts to back up my arguments.

              The facts I used in my statements can be verified by visiting the state's law enforcement websites and national crime databases.  They should be easy enough to find, if you have the intellect to look them up.  As for the statement about cops refusing to answer calls, 911 incidents have become part of public record and you can actually hear officers say on 911 recordings that they will refuse to enter "hot zones" until situations have defused themselves.  I take that to mean, "when the shooting stops".

              By the way, I would have responded sooner, but some idiot (you know who you are) had me banned from posting since I evidently offended their sensibilities by refusing to venerate or genuflect to the liberal viewpoint.  As I'm sure the same individual will do so again since I referred to him/her as an idiot.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The only person that can "have you banned" is you; everyone else can only draw the attention of the moderators, who will determine if you have violated the rules.  Only you can violate the rules when you make a post.

              2. Quilligrapher profile image90
                Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Hi Bernie. Nice to see you back from your banning.

                You can only diminish the force of facts with other facts. Their validity allows them to stand on their own merits independent of the reputation of the messenger that delivers them. Dismissing another’s facts because you disapprove of the editorial policies of the source is a common tactic of those who are unable to produce any facts of their own. Since you made the claim, the responsibility for providing supporting evidence falls on you.

                You stated, “Yet how often do you hear of mass shooting reports coming out of Texas? I'll tell you. Not often.” Existing data indicates Texas ranks second highest in the nation for mass shooting. Your claim is untrue and you have yet to produce a single fact to prove otherwise.

                “By the way,” you said, “I would have responded sooner, but some idiot (you know who you are) had me banned from posting since I evidently offended their sensibilities.”

                The only person to blame for your time out is you. You earned it; you own it.

                Nice to see you back in the game, Bernie.
                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          3. 83
            Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You are absolutely correct here.  Thank you for saying what needs to be said.  Well put.

    2. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      ahem... child of the 60s - born in 1946?

      Limblob - name calling?

      Despise? A bit strong doncha think? Especially since it appears from your list that it is conservative issues/symbols/icons that you despise.

      as to the "not gone to seed" part, well.... perhaps I have just formed an incorrect first impression.

      GA

    3. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Not gone to seed but still making sure the seeds are separated from the buds before rolling.

  5. 83
    Education Answerposted 2 years ago

    Well, it appears somebody has played the race card.  It was only a matter of time.  I wish we could just debate, minus the race card.

    http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRiHxDU_rOiCq0k7T0kjgOe8x0sgXlhxsPip8U0ULIMp7Cn7PWl

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There are so many lefties whose minds are so twisted that the only things they can see is skin color and sex organs.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        Of course nobody on the right are at all interested in skin colour and sex organs are they!

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I will not be called a racist or a sexist.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            But you're quite happy to apply blanket accusations!

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "so many" sounds like a small blanket.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Well define how many you meant by "so many".

                1. 83
                  Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  98,300,429.5 - rounded to the tenth

  6. Kathleen Cochran profile image87
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    Lesson to be learned:  don't call people idiots.

  7. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
    BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago

    Just because it isn't said does not make it untrue, however.

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There are many truths left unspoken and left for others to discover for themselves because there is more power in discovery than telling.

  8. BernietheMovieGuy profile image79
    BernietheMovieGuyposted 2 years ago

    That wouldn't happen to be the same way that Obama "owns" the affordable care act, would it?  Oh yeah, that's right.  It's Bush's fault.

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      roll

 
working