Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Ernie S.]

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

I asked for links. You provided one. I read the linked article and the most important 2 things I got were that #1, nearly 60% of shootings were committed by previously convicted criminals and that nearly 90% of offenders were black. These are hardly YOUR typical "gun nuts", not Conservative Constitution loving patriots or people who would be influenced by any new firearms legislation. You are dismissed. Have a nice life.

 

[Fishlore]

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that
there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

All leftist bullshit. As long as I have a gun, nobody will harm my family. Guaranteed. I know how to use it, I know when to use it. If anybody breaks into my home while I'm there, it will be the last thing they ever do.
In the meantime, you call 911. That will be the last thing YOU ever do.

Your rebuttal, "all leftist bullshit" says all anyone needs to know about you and your theories about guns. Thanks.

 

[hunarcy]

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

Interesting that you quote a study presented on The National Center for Biotechnology Information's webpage. I had no idea that this was part of their field of study. I am SHOCKED that you didn't quote a DOJ study, as it'd seem this was more in their bailiwick.

 

[Fishlore]

The gun crowd is composed of angry little boys of all ages whose defense of America's unique gun situation sheds much heat but little light. It is almost impossible for gun nuts to offer an opinion on the topic without a personal attack on someone. It's tiresome and reflects in its own way the significantly lower education level of the fringe right voter. Why these angry, defensive laddies worship their guns is easy to understand; why we continue to put up with them is less so.

 

[SmokeALib]

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that
there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

All leftist bullshit. As long as I have a gun, nobody will harm my family. Guaranteed. I know how to use it, I know when to use it. If anybody breaks into my home while I'm there, it will be the last thing they ever do.
In the meantime, you call 911. That will be the last thing YOU ever do.

Your rebuttal, "all leftist bullshit" says all anyone needs to know about you and your theories about guns. Thanks.

Glad to set you straight.

 

[Fishlore]

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

I asked for links. You provided one. I read the linked article and the most important 2 things I got were that #1, nearly 60% of shootings were committed by previously convicted criminals and that nearly 90% of offenders were black. These are hardly YOUR typical "gun nuts", not Conservative Constitution loving patriots or people who would be influenced by any new firearms legislation. You are dismissed. Have a nice life.

True to form, you missed the point. No one is claiming that most or even lots of gun crimes are committed by gun nuts. Most gun nuts are, as you pointed out "Conservative Constitution loving patriots" (at least as they understand the Constitution and patriotism). The role that gun nuts play in the tsunami of gun violence in the USA is one of enablers, not committers. Gun nuts create the laws which make legal or once-legal guns available to criminals in a way no other advance democracy would consider.

 

[kaz]

One observes the deflection to an imaginary idea about border policy and the usual fuzzy math statistics. Our noble and heroic gun nuts did manage to keep 3,00,009 guns away from the mentally upset shooter. Good for them! Alas, it was that three hundred and tenth gun that did the job.

There is the usual Schadenfreude over the fact that the police killed the guy, as if his death solved the problem. No thought at all about the tragedy of the survivors. It's all like a TV western to the "gun culture".

What law would have kept a shotgun out of this man's hands? As far as we know, he was not a felon and not judged insane. He got pissed off because he lost his job sounds more like a gang banger in Chicago pissed off over someone moving in on his drug turf than a hunter or target shooter. I'm betting he was a Democrat.

A law that required huntimg weapons to be kept under police control until signed out on a daily basis by legitimate hunters during the appropriate season would have kept the gun out of the home and hands of this deranged man. And, of course, he wouldn't have had the pistol at all. QUESTION ANSWERED

One of the factors proved by research into gun crime is that the relationship between guns in circulation and incidences of gun violence is not linear. The more guns in circulation, the more gun violence; however some guns are much more likely to be used in gun violence than others. A side-by-side twelve gage or black powder rifle is rarely the weapon of choice in a spree killing. Permitting .22 rifles out on the prairie isn't nearly as risky as allowing Glock 43s in the local bar.

Your law would need a Constitutional amendment in order to enforce. I suggest you work on that before you resume your stupidity.
I happen to own a "local bar" doofus and I am ALWAYS strapped when I'm in my place of business. No one has been shot and more importantly, no one has been stabbed because the ass that came at me reaching for his knife thought better when I stuck my Taurus in his sternum.
I suggest you grow up some before you talk guns with the adults.

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

Fishlore's plan is to lie prostrate on the ground and cry like a baby and see how that works

 

[kaz]

The flood of illegal guns entering the USA from New Brunswick is a shocking scandal. Those French Cartels have no mercy. We get halberds, muskets, the occasional blunderbus, even Gatling guns! Why just last week authorities nabbed three voyageurs trying to sneak in a British-made brass twelve pounder. We need more alert gun culture experts like you to awaken sleeping Americans to the real cross-border threat. Be on your guard!
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix!

Possessing a gun harms nobody. Criminalizing the possession of a gun is absurd, as no harm has been committed, so there should be no crime.

Liberals watch too much TV. they actually believe that guns give off an aura of evil. So when you have a gun, an argument with your wife in their mind would become a shooting. If that were true, hammers would have the same effect. Or a fist. The idea that a gun would suddenly create violence where otherwise none would exist is the infantile intellect that they are

 

[kaz]

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

I asked for links. You provided one. I read the linked article and the most important 2 things I got were that #1, nearly 60% of shootings were committed by previously convicted criminals and that nearly 90% of offenders were black. These are hardly YOUR typical "gun nuts", not Conservative Constitution loving patriots or people who would be influenced by any new firearms legislation. You are dismissed. Have a nice life.

True to form, you missed the point. No one is claiming that most or even lots of gun crimes are committed by gun nuts. Most gun nuts are, as you pointed out "Conservative Constitution loving patriots" (at least as they understand the Constitution and patriotism). The role that gun nuts play in the tsunami of gun violence in the USA is one of enablers, not committers. Gun nuts create the laws which make legal or once-legal guns available to criminals in a way no other advance democracy would consider.

You're full of it, it's illegal for felons to buy guns. No one is making that legal. Yet felons get guns anyway without sweat. That's the point, all you're doing is making it harder for responsible citizens to have them. And when they are home in your safe, you don't have one. Note all the shootings in "gun free zones," why do mass shooters keep going to those?

 

[kaz]

It is always a pleasure to see one of our gun nuts defend his views by name calling and boastful claims. The idea of American policy guided by an Alabama saloon keeper is hilarious Thanks.

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

All leftist bullshit. As long as I have a gun, nobody will harm my family. Guaranteed. I know how to use it, I know when to use it. If anybody breaks into my home while I'm there, it will be the last thing they ever do.
In the meantime, you call 911. That will be the last thing YOU ever do.

Liberals don't want you to protect yourself with a gun, they want you to call government to protect you with guns. You see, government can use guns in ways that you can't and they aren't affected by the aura of evil like you are, so it's safe for government to use them and not you. Citizens can't be trusted to do things that government can do better for us. Government is better than we are at everything. Which is why they kill blacks with them. Or that's not why.

Liberals are idiots

 

[kaz]

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

I asked for links. You provided one. I read the linked article and the most important 2 things I got were that #1, nearly 60% of shootings were committed by previously convicted criminals and that nearly 90% of offenders were black. These are hardly YOUR typical "gun nuts", not Conservative Constitution loving patriots or people who would be influenced by any new firearms legislation. You are dismissed. Have a nice life.

True to form, you missed the point. No one is claiming that most or even lots of gun crimes are committed by gun nuts. Most gun nuts are, as you pointed out "Conservative Constitution loving patriots" (at least as they understand the Constitution and patriotism). The role that gun nuts play in the tsunami of gun violence in the USA is one of enablers, not committers. Gun nuts create the laws which make legal or once-legal guns available to criminals in a way no other advance democracy would consider.

Yes, you mentioned your view that the way to keep guns from criminals is to keep them from legal gun owners who don't commit crimes. Now do you have an idea that actually makes sense?

 

[dannyboys]

The gun crowd is composed of angry little boys of all ages whose defense of America's unique gun situation sheds much heat but little light. It is almost impossible for gun nuts to offer an opinion on the topic without a personal attack on someone. It's tiresome and reflects in its own way the significantly lower education level of the fringe right voter. Why these angry, defensive laddies worship their guns is easy to understand; why we continue to put up with them is less so.

Ironic you would post: "Without a personal attack on someone" then go on to make a number of personal attacks.
Permanent Ignore 'Laddie'.

 

[kaz]

The gun crowd is composed of angry little boys of all ages whose defense of America's unique gun situation sheds much heat but little light. It is almost impossible for gun nuts to offer an opinion on the topic without a personal attack on someone. It's tiresome and reflects in its own way the significantly lower education level of the fringe right voter. Why these angry, defensive laddies worship their guns is easy to understand; why we continue to put up with them is less so.

Ironic you would post: "Without a personal attack on someone" then go on to make a number of personal attacks.
Permanent Ignore 'Laddie'.

Oh yeah, Fishlore does that all the time, it's a hoot, isn't it?

 

[Ernie S.]

So how do you protect your family when an armed criminal breaks into your home and heads towards your daughter's bedroom? A hammer? A cell phone? Guess what - Too late. Your daughter is dead and so are you and your wife.
Dumass.

In that once-in-several-lifetimes scenario you so colorfully describe, the odds are at least as good that the armed criminal will plug you as that you will plug him and an even better chance that one of the stray shots in the shoot-out will go through the bedroom wall and kill your daughter. In the meanwhile, there is a much higher probability of accidental death from your firearm than successful crime fighting.

That said, I have no objection to your keeping a gun on the premises for protection subject, of course, to background checks and safety requirments. Waving it around at the local bar is a bit more of a concern, although should you manage to take out Ernie S., we would all breathe easier.

I offered real life events and you reply with unsubstantiated bullshit. Prove your statement that there is an even better chance that a stray bullet will go through a wall and kill my daughter. (who happens to live 1,200 miles away) Prove that there is a higher probability of an accidental death due to my firearm than its use in preventing a crime.
I expect statistics from the CDC or FBI or a peer reviewed study. Please provide links and pertinent graphs and tables. In other words: You are not a recognized authority on anything but bullshit you can't back up. I refuse to believe a word you say.

Put up or shut up.

SmokeALib was the gentleman with the daughter in the bedroom to whom I was responding. Were I interested in refuting your ignorance so rudely expressed, I would probably say something like:
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.1 That is, a gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent person in the home than a threatening intruder.

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5

Footnotes substantiating these observations could be included although the idea of any self-made redneck laying aside his phallic prosthesis to investigate social science research is so implausible as to inhibit such an impulse. Nonetheless

1. Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 J. Trauma 263, 263, 266 (1998).
2. Garen J. Wintemute, Guns, Fear, the Constitution, and the Public’s Health, 358 New England J. Med. 1421-1424 (Apr. 2008).
3. Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 Am. J. Epidemiology 929, 935 (2004).
4. David Hemenway, Private Guns, Public Health 78 (2004).
5. Charles C. Branas, et al, Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault, 99 Am. J. Pub. Health 2034 (Nov. 2009), at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/pdf/2034.pdf

Thanks for your repeated use of the term "bullshit" to lend a spurious aura of credibility to your infantile tirade. Your response strengthens my argument immeasurably. You have got to be the wisest barkeep in 'Bama.

I asked for links. You provided one. I read the linked article and the most important 2 things I got were that #1, nearly 60% of shootings were committed by previously convicted criminals and that nearly 90% of offenders were black. These are hardly YOUR typical "gun nuts", not Conservative Constitution loving patriots or people who would be influenced by any new firearms legislation. You are dismissed. Have a nice life.

True to form, you missed the point. No one is claiming that most or even lots of gun crimes are committed by gun nuts. Most gun nuts are, as you pointed out "Conservative Constitution loving patriots" (at least as they understand the Constitution and patriotism). The role that gun nuts play in the tsunami of gun violence in the USA is one of enablers, not committers. Gun nuts create the laws which make legal or once-legal guns available to criminals in a way no other advance democracy would consider.

Look! Anyone who quotes Kellerman is an idiot. Kellerman's study has been refuted by dozens of experts INCLUDING Kellerman himself. Back to ignore.

 

[danielpalos]

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia. That is my plan.

 

[hunarcy]

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia. That is my plan.

You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.

 

[kaz]

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia. That is my plan.

Well regulated means by the militia, not by the government. Remember we're talking about a freedom from government, not a power of government

 

[kaz]

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia. That is my plan.

You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.

Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?

 

[hunarcy]

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia. That is my plan.

You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.

Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?

I'm a ho????

 

[kaz]

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia. That is my plan.

You have no idea what a well regulated militia is.

Been reading the responses and recognizing you're going down like the ho you are?

I'm a ho????

The idea that in the bill of rights, which protects our liberties, the founding fathers gave government the power to "regulate" guns is just stupid. Regulated doesn't mean government regulations.

Why would they write that guns are a personal liberty (in the ... Bill of Rights ...), but then say it's up to government what rights we have?