Another Anti Gun Study Uses Gangs To Boost Numbers...

[WinterBorn]

The fact that there are over 100k times in which a gun is used to stop a crime, and only 201 criminals shot dead pretty much disproves your theory that gun buffs are chomping at the bit to shoot people. This claim of yours that gun buffs fantasize about killing is as bogus as many of your "factoids".

Uh, no, not really. It just shows how bogus the 100K claim is.

Come on, check out some of your buddies here, like ChrisLoony and Ditchweed and Spambot, who spend a lot of time fantasizing about that happy day they can go plug them a minority criminal.

I can't believe that when that oppurtunity comes, you all pass it up.

Yeah, that is what you WANT to believe. But the numerous studies all point to hundreds of thousands of crimes stopped by civilians with firearms. In this thread there is the discussion of the guy in the convenience store who let the armed robber go. That is a civilian stopping a crime that did not result in a dead criminal. Your fantasies about gun owners being bloodthirsty is your own issue.

You never did say whether or not I stopped a "crime" when I went to my door with pistol in hand to see a couple shady looking people whose car had broken down.

Was that a DGU or not? And is self reporting the only way DGU info is collected. There is no police report to see. No crime committed. So how is DGU info collected?

No I didn't answer the question. It would depend on the circumstances beyond what you described. For example, did they see the gun? Did they leave, driving away in the broken down car?

Yes, DGU is mostly self reported, since there is no police report. But considering the large number of respondents to polls by numerous professional groups, I think it is safe to say that the smaller number (100k) is at least valid.

According to Kleck, 53% of those claiming DGU DID NOT SHOW A GUN. And I asked myself the same question; how is that DGU if I never showed the weapon.

But Kleck says it is and you all love what Kleck says. So it was a DGU that I can add to the stats. Cool.
Little bit suspect and I think having a 100 pound American Bulldog raising hell in the background was probably more pertinent.

But hey, if I want to report that I stopped a crime with a gun, well who's to know different. Right. Just like all these others reporting DGU. Who really knows what happened? Besides me.

If Kleck were the only one doing such studies, or if I were using Klecks study as the sole basis for my claims, that would matter. I'm not so it doesn't.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

Because you are obsessed with death. I posted quite a few detailed bits about how they formulate the DGU numbers. The 100k one is much smaller than what most experts consider accurate.

There are other gun whacks who consider 2.5 million "accurate". I think one of them is posting on this thread.

Of course, every other civilized country doesn't allow most of its citizens to have more guns than people, and oddly, they don't have anywhere near or crime rate.

If guns and prisons make us safer, why don't any of us feel particularly safe?

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

 

[zeke]

This is a pretty good breakdown of Kleck's methods...

Myth 3 - 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year can t be accurate Buckeye Firearms Association

The data for the Kleck study were collected using an anonymous nationwide random-digit-dialed telephone survey of 4,977 adults conducted from February through April of 1993 by Research Network, a telephone polling company located in Tallahassee, FL. After a few general questions about problems in their community and crime, those polled were asked "Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

Those who answered "Yes" were then asked whether their defensive use was against an animal or a person, asked to state how many defensive gun use incidents against persons had happened to members of their household in the last five years, and asked whether any of the incident or incidents had occurred in the last twelve months. Of those surveyed, 222 respondents reported DGUs within the past five years. All respondents reporting DGU, as well as 20% of those not reporting a DGU, were called back to validate their initial survey interviews. These raw data were then corrected for oversampling in the South and West regions, where gun ownership is highest; and oversampling for males, who are not only more likely to own guns, but also more likely to be victims of violent crime.

The weighted results (corrected for oversampling built into the survey) were these: 1.125% to 1.326% of respondents reported having personally been involved in a DGU incident within the past year, with 1.366% to 1.587% of households reporting a household member being involved in a DGU incident within the past year (which would include those DGUs mentioned above involving the respondent).

Calculations based on the estimated adult population of the U.S. and the estimated number of households in the U.S. show that at this rate there would be 2,163,519 to 2,549,862 DGUs in 1993 if considered on an individual basis, or some 1,325,918 to 1,540,405 DGU-involved households. For comparison, the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns in 1993 was 588,140, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.

222 DGU (over 5 years) reported out of 4,977 adults somehow extrapolates to 2,163,519 DGU to 2, 549,
Winterborn, you got to explain the math on that one. Even you don't seem to believe those numbers hence you've brought your estimate down to 100k. Which actually seems a reasonable number to me.

2.5 million? Bullshit.

But I wonder on the Kleck survey. Did it ask the random participants if they had anything to do with the confrontation that caused the DGU? Or were they just victims. That would be interesting to know.

 

[WinterBorn]

The fact that there are over 100k times in which a gun is used to stop a crime, and only 201 criminals shot dead pretty much disproves your theory that gun buffs are chomping at the bit to shoot people. This claim of yours that gun buffs fantasize about killing is as bogus as many of your "factoids".

Uh, no, not really. It just shows how bogus the 100K claim is.

Come on, check out some of your buddies here, like ChrisLoony and Ditchweed and Spambot, who spend a lot of time fantasizing about that happy day they can go plug them a minority criminal.

I can't believe that when that oppurtunity comes, you all pass it up.

Yeah, that is what you WANT to believe. But the numerous studies all point to hundreds of thousands of crimes stopped by civilians with firearms. In this thread there is the discussion of the guy in the convenience store who let the armed robber go. That is a civilian stopping a crime that did not result in a dead criminal. Your fantasies about gun owners being bloodthirsty is your own issue.

You never did say whether or not I stopped a "crime" when I went to my door with pistol in hand to see a couple shady looking people whose car had broken down.

Was that a DGU or not? And is self reporting the only way DGU info is collected. There is no police report to see. No crime committed. So how is DGU info collected?

No I didn't answer the question. It would depend on the circumstances beyond what you described. For example, did they see the gun? Did they leave, driving away in the broken down car?

Yes, DGU is mostly self reported, since there is no police report. But considering the large number of respondents to polls by numerous professional groups, I think it is safe to say that the smaller number (100k) is at least valid.

According to Kleck, 53% of those claiming DGU DID NOT SHOW A GUN. And I asked myself the same question; how is that DGU if I never showed the weapon.

But Kleck says it is and you all love what Kleck says. So it was a DGU that I can add to the stats. Cool.
Little bit suspect and I think having a 100 pound American Bulldog raising hell in the background was probably more pertinent.

But hey, if I want to report that I stopped a crime with a gun, well who's to know different. Right. Just like all these others reporting DGU. Who really knows what happened? Besides me.

I can see a few situations where a criminal could be chased away without ever seeing the gun. A warning shot would manage that. The sound of a someone racking a round into a pump shotgun could send one running.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is a pretty good breakdown of Kleck's methods...

Myth 3 - 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year can t be accurate Buckeye Firearms Association

The data for the Kleck study were collected using an anonymous nationwide random-digit-dialed telephone survey of 4,977 adults conducted from February through April of 1993 by Research Network, a telephone polling company located in Tallahassee, FL. After a few general questions about problems in their community and crime, those polled were asked "Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

Those who answered "Yes" were then asked whether their defensive use was against an animal or a person, asked to state how many defensive gun use incidents against persons had happened to members of their household in the last five years, and asked whether any of the incident or incidents had occurred in the last twelve months. Of those surveyed, 222 respondents reported DGUs within the past five years. All respondents reporting DGU, as well as 20% of those not reporting a DGU, were called back to validate their initial survey interviews. These raw data were then corrected for oversampling in the South and West regions, where gun ownership is highest; and oversampling for males, who are not only more likely to own guns, but also more likely to be victims of violent crime.

The weighted results (corrected for oversampling built into the survey) were these: 1.125% to 1.326% of respondents reported having personally been involved in a DGU incident within the past year, with 1.366% to 1.587% of households reporting a household member being involved in a DGU incident within the past year (which would include those DGUs mentioned above involving the respondent).

Calculations based on the estimated adult population of the U.S. and the estimated number of households in the U.S. show that at this rate there would be 2,163,519 to 2,549,862 DGUs in 1993 if considered on an individual basis, or some 1,325,918 to 1,540,405 DGU-involved households. For comparison, the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns in 1993 was 588,140, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.

222 DGU (over 5 years) reported out of 4,977 adults somehow extrapolates to 2,163,519 DGU to 2, 549,
Winterborn, you got to explain the math on that one. Even you don't seem to believe those numbers hence you've brought your estimate down to 100k. Which actually seems a reasonable number to me.

2.5 million? Bullshit.

But I wonder on the Kleck survey. Did it ask the random participants if they had anything to do with the confrontation that caused the DGU? Or were they just victims. That would be interesting to know.

Have you looked at the DGU data that I provided?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Because you are obsessed with death. I posted quite a few detailed bits about how they formulate the DGU numbers. The 100k one is much smaller than what most experts consider accurate.

There are other gun whacks who consider 2.5 million "accurate". I think one of them is posting on this thread.

Of course, every other civilized country doesn't allow most of its citizens to have more guns than people, and oddly, they don't have anywhere near or crime rate.

If guns and prisons make us safer, why don't any of us feel particularly safe?

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

I'd rather have Japan's 11 gun homicides than America's 11,101.

But....err... freedom!

 

[WinterBorn]

[

Because you are obsessed with death. I posted quite a few detailed bits about how they formulate the DGU numbers. The 100k one is much smaller than what most experts consider accurate.

There are other gun whacks who consider 2.5 million "accurate". I think one of them is posting on this thread.

Of course, every other civilized country doesn't allow most of its citizens to have more guns than people, and oddly, they don't have anywhere near or crime rate.

If guns and prisons make us safer, why don't any of us feel particularly safe?

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

I'd rather have Japan's 11 gun homicides than America's 11,101.

But....err... freedom!

So move to Japan.

 

[JoeB131]

I'd rather have Japan's 11 gun homicides than America's 11,101.

But....err... freedom!

So move to Japan.

Probably easier to FIX America.

By exposing the lies of the gun industry.

 

[zeke]

[

Because you are obsessed with death. I posted quite a few detailed bits about how they formulate the DGU numbers. The 100k one is much smaller than what most experts consider accurate.

There are other gun whacks who consider 2.5 million "accurate". I think one of them is posting on this thread.

Of course, every other civilized country doesn't allow most of its citizens to have more guns than people, and oddly, they don't have anywhere near or crime rate.

If guns and prisons make us safer, why don't any of us feel particularly safe?

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

No I think many guns makes YOU feel safe. Yet if a robber is interested in robbing you and comes up behind you and puts a gun to your head, it won't matter how many guns you have. The robber will take your money and your gun.

No law abiding citizen spends every single waking moment in defensive mode. Robbers will have the built in advantage of surprise.

No, to use your gun, the crime most likely will not be committed against you. Just like the guy who stopped the robbery in the Circle K. He was not the target. He did have the element of surprise over the robber. And ultimately the guy did the wrong thing by letting the robber go. Oh boy, another DGU with a poor outcome in that a criminal wasn't taken off the streets when the opportunity presented itself.

And according to another (Billc? gun fan on here, if you do shoot someone with your gun, most likely it will bankrupt you putting on your legal defense.

Most B&E's are done from 10am till 3pm. You know, when most people are working. What will your guns do for you then?

And my questions are not what will happen to you personally. But they do apply to a lot of people who are now armed that never were before and somehow they think that having a weapon will make them safer. Instead of thinking that a weapon in the home might be used on them. Or an accidental shooting of a loved one.

Not necessarily the case. But numbers (as Joe points out) do show a lot of death and injury by guns where the gun was used accidentally or on purpose against the gun owner.


Hey close to home again. 14 year old shoots herself in the leg and her dad in the leg while he was "teaching" her to fire a 9mm handgun. That worked out well. Least nobody died.

 

[zeke]

Uh, no, not really. It just shows how bogus the 100K claim is.

Come on, check out some of your buddies here, like ChrisLoony and Ditchweed and Spambot, who spend a lot of time fantasizing about that happy day they can go plug them a minority criminal.

I can't believe that when that oppurtunity comes, you all pass it up.

Yeah, that is what you WANT to believe. But the numerous studies all point to hundreds of thousands of crimes stopped by civilians with firearms. In this thread there is the discussion of the guy in the convenience store who let the armed robber go. That is a civilian stopping a crime that did not result in a dead criminal. Your fantasies about gun owners being bloodthirsty is your own issue.

You never did say whether or not I stopped a "crime" when I went to my door with pistol in hand to see a couple shady looking people whose car had broken down.

Was that a DGU or not? And is self reporting the only way DGU info is collected. There is no police report to see. No crime committed. So how is DGU info collected?

No I didn't answer the question. It would depend on the circumstances beyond what you described. For example, did they see the gun? Did they leave, driving away in the broken down car?

Yes, DGU is mostly self reported, since there is no police report. But considering the large number of respondents to polls by numerous professional groups, I think it is safe to say that the smaller number (100k) is at least valid.

According to Kleck, 53% of those claiming DGU DID NOT SHOW A GUN. And I asked myself the same question; how is that DGU if I never showed the weapon.

But Kleck says it is and you all love what Kleck says. So it was a DGU that I can add to the stats. Cool.
Little bit suspect and I think having a 100 pound American Bulldog raising hell in the background was probably more pertinent.

But hey, if I want to report that I stopped a crime with a gun, well who's to know different. Right. Just like all these others reporting DGU. Who really knows what happened? Besides me.

I can see a few situations where a criminal could be chased away without ever seeing the gun. A warning shot would manage that. The sound of a someone racking a round into a pump shotgun could send one running.

53% of the 222 people who said they had experienced DGU claimed they didn't show a gun. According to that most beloved study by Kleck.

That seems to be more than a "few situations." Either that, or the Kleck study altogether is bullshit.

The Kleck survey asked about warning shots also.

Did you read the Kleck survey?

 

[WinterBorn]

I'd rather have Japan's 11 gun homicides than America's 11,101.

But....err... freedom!

So move to Japan.

Probably easier to FIX America.

By exposing the lies of the gun industry.

The USA has 4.7 homicides per 100k population. Japan has 0.3 homicides per 100k.
The USA has 12.0 suicides per 100k population. Japan has 21.4 suicides per 100k.

Seems to me as though both nations have too many deaths in those two areas.

 

[rightwinger]

[

Because you are obsessed with death. I posted quite a few detailed bits about how they formulate the DGU numbers. The 100k one is much smaller than what most experts consider accurate.

There are other gun whacks who consider 2.5 million "accurate". I think one of them is posting on this thread.

Of course, every other civilized country doesn't allow most of its citizens to have more guns than people, and oddly, they don't have anywhere near or crime rate.

If guns and prisons make us safer, why don't any of us feel particularly safe?

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

I'd rather have Japan's 11 gun homicides than America's 11,101.

But....err... freedom!

So move to Japan.

Why don't you just move to Somalia?

 

[zeke]

This is a pretty good breakdown of Kleck's methods...

Myth 3 - 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year can t be accurate Buckeye Firearms Association

The data for the Kleck study were collected using an anonymous nationwide random-digit-dialed telephone survey of 4,977 adults conducted from February through April of 1993 by Research Network, a telephone polling company located in Tallahassee, FL. After a few general questions about problems in their community and crime, those polled were asked "Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

Those who answered "Yes" were then asked whether their defensive use was against an animal or a person, asked to state how many defensive gun use incidents against persons had happened to members of their household in the last five years, and asked whether any of the incident or incidents had occurred in the last twelve months. Of those surveyed, 222 respondents reported DGUs within the past five years. All respondents reporting DGU, as well as 20% of those not reporting a DGU, were called back to validate their initial survey interviews. These raw data were then corrected for oversampling in the South and West regions, where gun ownership is highest; and oversampling for males, who are not only more likely to own guns, but also more likely to be victims of violent crime.

The weighted results (corrected for oversampling built into the survey) were these: 1.125% to 1.326% of respondents reported having personally been involved in a DGU incident within the past year, with 1.366% to 1.587% of households reporting a household member being involved in a DGU incident within the past year (which would include those DGUs mentioned above involving the respondent).

Calculations based on the estimated adult population of the U.S. and the estimated number of households in the U.S. show that at this rate there would be 2,163,519 to 2,549,862 DGUs in 1993 if considered on an individual basis, or some 1,325,918 to 1,540,405 DGU-involved households. For comparison, the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns in 1993 was 588,140, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.

222 DGU (over 5 years) reported out of 4,977 adults somehow extrapolates to 2,163,519 DGU to 2, 549,
Winterborn, you got to explain the math on that one. Even you don't seem to believe those numbers hence you've brought your estimate down to 100k. Which actually seems a reasonable number to me.

2.5 million? Bullshit.

But I wonder on the Kleck survey. Did it ask the random participants if they had anything to do with the confrontation that caused the DGU? Or were they just victims. That would be interesting to know.

Have you looked at the DGU data that I provided?

Isn't that the Kleck survey that I have been referring to? Or something different?

 

[WinterBorn]

[

Because you are obsessed with death. I posted quite a few detailed bits about how they formulate the DGU numbers. The 100k one is much smaller than what most experts consider accurate.

There are other gun whacks who consider 2.5 million "accurate". I think one of them is posting on this thread.

Of course, every other civilized country doesn't allow most of its citizens to have more guns than people, and oddly, they don't have anywhere near or crime rate.

If guns and prisons make us safer, why don't any of us feel particularly safe?

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

No I think many guns makes YOU feel safe. Yet if a robber is interested in robbing you and comes up behind you and puts a gun to your head, it won't matter how many guns you have. The robber will take your money and your gun.

No law abiding citizen spends every single waking moment in defensive mode. Robbers will have the built in advantage of surprise.

No, to use your gun, the crime most likely will not be committed against you. Just like the guy who stopped the robbery in the Circle K. He was not the target. He did have the element of surprise over the robber. And ultimately the guy did the wrong thing by letting the robber go. Oh boy, another DGU with a poor outcome in that a criminal wasn't taken off the streets when the opportunity presented itself.

And according to another (Billc? gun fan on here, if you do shoot someone with your gun, most likely it will bankrupt you putting on your legal defense.

Most B&E's are done from 10am till 3pm. You know, when most people are working. What will your guns do for you then?

And my questions are not what will happen to you personally. But they do apply to a lot of people who are now armed that never were before and somehow they think that having a weapon will make them safer. Instead of thinking that a weapon in the home might be used on them. Or an accidental shooting of a loved one.

Not necessarily the case. But numbers (as Joe points out) do show a lot of death and injury by guns where the gun was used accidentally or on purpose against the gun owner.


Hey close to home again. 14 year old shoots herself in the leg and her dad in the leg while he was "teaching" her to fire a 9mm handgun. That worked out well. Least nobody died.

My guns will do what they are designed to do. What that is depends on the particular firearm.

No, my guns will not help if the breakin is between 10am and 3pm. But then, I am not in any danger then.

But if they happen in the middle of the night I do not have to hide and wait for police to arrive and hope that they hurry.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

Because you are obsessed with death. I posted quite a few detailed bits about how they formulate the DGU numbers. The 100k one is much smaller than what most experts consider accurate.

There are other gun whacks who consider 2.5 million "accurate". I think one of them is posting on this thread.

Of course, every other civilized country doesn't allow most of its citizens to have more guns than people, and oddly, they don't have anywhere near or crime rate.

If guns and prisons make us safer, why don't any of us feel particularly safe?

Fewer guns might make you FEEL safe. But in a free society, safety from crime is an illusion, at best.

I'd rather have Japan's 11 gun homicides than America's 11,101.

But....err... freedom!

So move to Japan.

Why don't you just move to Somalia?

Because I prefer our freedoms to the illusion of safety. Joe obviously does not.

 

[JoeB131]

I'd rather have Japan's 11 gun homicides than America's 11,101.

But....err... freedom!

So move to Japan.

Probably easier to FIX America.

By exposing the lies of the gun industry.

The USA has 4.7 homicides per 100k population. Japan has 0.3 homicides per 100k.
The USA has 12.0 suicides per 100k population. Japan has 21.4 suicides per 100k.

Seems to me as though both nations have too many deaths in those two areas.

Well, no, you see, given our culture considers suicide a sin, and theirs considers it honorable, our suicide numbers are WAY too high.

But nice attempt to spin the numbers, bud.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is a pretty good breakdown of Kleck's methods...

Myth 3 - 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year can t be accurate Buckeye Firearms Association

The data for the Kleck study were collected using an anonymous nationwide random-digit-dialed telephone survey of 4,977 adults conducted from February through April of 1993 by Research Network, a telephone polling company located in Tallahassee, FL. After a few general questions about problems in their community and crime, those polled were asked "Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

Those who answered "Yes" were then asked whether their defensive use was against an animal or a person, asked to state how many defensive gun use incidents against persons had happened to members of their household in the last five years, and asked whether any of the incident or incidents had occurred in the last twelve months. Of those surveyed, 222 respondents reported DGUs within the past five years. All respondents reporting DGU, as well as 20% of those not reporting a DGU, were called back to validate their initial survey interviews. These raw data were then corrected for oversampling in the South and West regions, where gun ownership is highest; and oversampling for males, who are not only more likely to own guns, but also more likely to be victims of violent crime.

The weighted results (corrected for oversampling built into the survey) were these: 1.125% to 1.326% of respondents reported having personally been involved in a DGU incident within the past year, with 1.366% to 1.587% of households reporting a household member being involved in a DGU incident within the past year (which would include those DGUs mentioned above involving the respondent).

Calculations based on the estimated adult population of the U.S. and the estimated number of households in the U.S. show that at this rate there would be 2,163,519 to 2,549,862 DGUs in 1993 if considered on an individual basis, or some 1,325,918 to 1,540,405 DGU-involved households. For comparison, the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns in 1993 was 588,140, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.

222 DGU (over 5 years) reported out of 4,977 adults somehow extrapolates to 2,163,519 DGU to 2, 549,
Winterborn, you got to explain the math on that one. Even you don't seem to believe those numbers hence you've brought your estimate down to 100k. Which actually seems a reasonable number to me.

2.5 million? Bullshit.

But I wonder on the Kleck survey. Did it ask the random participants if they had anything to do with the confrontation that caused the DGU? Or were they just victims. That would be interesting to know.

Have you looked at the DGU data that I provided?

Isn't that the Kleck survey that I have been referring to? Or something different?

There was more than published work or survey quoted. I am sure that at least 2 of them were not Kleck's work. Not sure about the other.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Because I prefer our freedoms to the illusion of safety. Joe obviously does not.

Uh, I don't consider "Freedom" to let Joker Holmes be able to buy a small arsenal and mow down moviegoers.

Honestly, i'm not feeling free if I have to worry about that sort of thing.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'd rather have Japan's 11 gun homicides than America's 11,101.

But....err... freedom!

So move to Japan.

Probably easier to FIX America.

By exposing the lies of the gun industry.

The USA has 4.7 homicides per 100k population. Japan has 0.3 homicides per 100k.
The USA has 12.0 suicides per 100k population. Japan has 21.4 suicides per 100k.

Seems to me as though both nations have too many deaths in those two areas.

Well, no, you see, given our culture considers suicide a sin, and theirs considers it honorable, our suicide numbers are WAY too high.

But nice attempt to spin the numbers, bud.

Oh, so now I am spinning the numbers. You insist on using the suicide numbers when it helps your argument, but demand it not be used when it doesn't? lmao

And cultural differences only apply when they are in your favor?

This is why you are laughed at and ridiculed. You are simply dishonest.

 

[WinterBorn]

[

Because I prefer our freedoms to the illusion of safety. Joe obviously does not.

Uh, I don't consider "Freedom" to let Joker Holmes be able to buy a small arsenal and mow down moviegoers.

Honestly, i'm not feeling free if I have to worry about that sort of thing.

Again you focus on the tiniest minority of shooting deaths. Less than 1% of gun deaths, as a matter of fact.

And you also insist that gun dealers be able to do psychological evaluations over the counter in a shop. But you give mental health professionals a free pass for not taking steps to prevent their patients from killing people. Your hypocrisy is astounding.