McDonald's drive-thru: Let us play with FAMILY-GUN!? 12yr-old DEAD by own hands! Thanks, Again, NRA!

[JoeB131]

I'm 5 feet 1 inch tall and quite petite. If I want to use a gun to defend myself against . . . whatever . . . that is my goddamn right, and YOU are certainly not going to stop me.

again, a gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of a household than a bad guy.

 

[JoeB131]

Moron.....
You would prefer that all of these women suffer whatever these thugs want to do to them......instead of how the attack actually turned out when the woman had a gun to stop the attacker.......

Toddler reaches into purse and gun goes off, killing mom

HAYDEN, Idaho — A mom shopping at a Walmart store died Tuesday after her toddler, who was left in a shopping cart, reached into her purse and accidentally discharged her handgun, authorities said.

Veronica J. Rutledge, 29, of Blackfoot, Idaho, had gone to the store in this Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, suburb with four children in tow at mid-morning.

Her 2-year-old son, who was sitting in the shopping cart, reached into his mother's purse, causing the small-caliber handgun to discharge one time, said Lt. Stu Miller, Kootenai County Sheriff's Office spokesman.

Not to worry, though, if you do manage to use your pecker surrogate for self defense, the law will protect you, right?

Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - CBS News

Last Friday, Jacksonville mother Marissa Alexander was sentenced by a Florida judge to 20 years in prison for firing what she says was a "warning shot" into the wall after a physical altercation with her husband, Rico Gray.

The case has set off yet another controversy involving the state's "stand your ground" law, which is under intense scrutiny after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February. Critics, including Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), are crying foul.

How, they ask, could a 31-year-old woman in a relationship with a man who had a history of domestic violence, and whose actions did not result in any physical injury, be sentenced to two decades in prison while George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Martin, is out on bail?

"The Florida criminal justice system has sent two clear messages today," Rep. Brown said in a statement on May 11. "One is that if women who are victims of domestic violence try to protect themselves, the "Stand Your Ground Law" will not apply to them...The second message is that if you are black, the system will treat you differently."

Okay, how about a little levity before 2 Tiny Guy spooges his NRA Talkign points all over the thread.

Dog named Trigger accidentally shoots owner in the foot

A bizarre hunting accident has left a dog owner with a shot wound in their foot – and the gun was fired by a pet dog called Trigger.

Allie Carter, 25, was wounded during a waterfowl hunt on Saturday morning in northern Indiana when she left her 12-gauge shotgun on the ground without the safety catch on.



The hunter’s 11-year-old chocolate Labrador then stepped on the gun, managing to shot Ms Carter in the left foot, Indiana Conservation Officer Jonathan Boyd said.

Ms Carter had been hit with bird shot pellets and was treated in hospital for non-life threatening injuries. She was treated and released, Mr Boyd said.

 

[Correll]

12-year-old killed in shooting at McDonald's drive-thru was a spelling bee champion
The investigation revealed there were six people inside a vehicle going through the drive-thru. One of the 12-year-old's siblings, a teenager, was in possession of a gun. At some point inside the car, the gun was pulled out and was fired, striking the 12-year-old.
12-year-old killed in shooting at McDonald's drive-thru was a spelling bee champion

More responsible Gun Owners fully armed by the NRA.

Btw:
Minimum Age for Gun Possession: Subject to limited exceptions*, federal law prohibits the possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of 18.10Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition.Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Well, The NRA makes sure you have access and can play with handguns at 12.
Another DEAD person, as the fully co-sponsored by the NRA, and its members, and supporters!
THEY ALL Fully got another child dead on their hands here, again.

Killing over 37,000 more Americans every year,.
As ISIS types only score less than 60 maybe a year. FFS!

What a shit article.

No mention of whether there were any parents in the car, just mention of "family".


Sounds like the kid had a thug for an older family member and that was what got him killed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm 5 feet 1 inch tall and quite petite. If I want to use a gun to defend myself against . . . whatever . . . that is my goddamn right, and YOU are certainly not going to stop me.

again, a gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of a household than a bad guy.

That has been debunked over and over yet you keep posting it you lying piece of human garbage.

 

[JoeB131]

That has been debunked over and over yet you keep posting it you lying piece of human garbage.

stomping your feet and saying "I don't want it to be true" isn't debunking anything, bud.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That has been debunked over and over yet you keep posting it you lying piece of human garbage.

stomping your feet and saying "I don't want it to be true" isn't debunking anything, bud.

Repeating a lie is no prove of anything either retard

 

[JoeB131]

Repeating a lie is no prove of anything either retard

we have a scientifically reviewed study.

You have NRA propaganda.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I clearly see what the NRA Gun Nutter morons are all about.
Getting guns in the hands of mental peoples, just on one point.

Like that new law in 2017 allowing Mental peoples to buy/own guns
more freely unregulated.. That makes it even more dangerous.
Thanks goes 100% to this un-American Terrorist organization
called the NRA. As real Rational Americans, some 90%,
want fewer guns in these mental peoples hands.

You keep repeating that lie no law was passed allowing mentally incompetent people to own firearms what was done was a repel of Obama's bullshit reg that denied people the right to own firearms because they couldn't do their finances.

The Great Douche did sign a new law in 2017, getting guns into mentally unstable peoples hands more.
AS all Level One gun nutters are mentally ill. ALL Gun Nutters in or around the NRA are Mentally Sick
in the heads.. And these mentally ill got more guns into even more crazier hands, than
those level one morons, supplying the access to/of said weapons.
To arm the level 2 ISANE, if they can still count to now the difference.
President Trump Made It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns

Did you even ready your link?

"In February 2017, Trump signed a bill that undid a regulation from Barack Obama’s presidency which said the Social Security Administration would have to report certain mentally ill recipients and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database,"

unable to handle their own financial affairs?

and that's cause to prevent them from owning a firearm to protect themselves?

You want some cubicle monkey at the SSA to decide what you can and can not do, what you can, and can not own?

That's a DOCTORS decision, not a CUBICLE MONKEYS.

"Did you even ready your link?"

Will darling Leftist Maniacs never read what they post, get with the programme already

That was the Douche lies.. It did sign a new law.

Trump signs bill revoking Obama-era gun checks for mental illness..

Oh, the law that stripped basic rights from anyone who sought help managing their finances, scumbag?

Thanks for reminding us again just how much Obama was like Pol Pot.

 

[2aguy]

I'm 5 feet 1 inch tall and quite petite. If I want to use a gun to defend myself against . . . whatever . . . that is my goddamn right, and YOU are certainly not going to stop me.

again, a gun in your house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of a household than a bad guy.

Again...you have been shown that that 43 number is a lie, yet you keep using it...

Here is the actual redo of his study where even kellerman admits his 43 number was wrong....and he still didn't get it right, the explanation is below this link..

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;


This is an explanation of what he got wrong...
------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[2aguy]

Moron.....
You would prefer that all of these women suffer whatever these thugs want to do to them......instead of how the attack actually turned out when the woman had a gun to stop the attacker.......

Toddler reaches into purse and gun goes off, killing mom

HAYDEN, Idaho — A mom shopping at a Walmart store died Tuesday after her toddler, who was left in a shopping cart, reached into her purse and accidentally discharged her handgun, authorities said.

Veronica J. Rutledge, 29, of Blackfoot, Idaho, had gone to the store in this Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, suburb with four children in tow at mid-morning.

Her 2-year-old son, who was sitting in the shopping cart, reached into his mother's purse, causing the small-caliber handgun to discharge one time, said Lt. Stu Miller, Kootenai County Sheriff's Office spokesman.

Not to worry, though, if you do manage to use your pecker surrogate for self defense, the law will protect you, right?

Fla. woman Marissa Alexander gets 20 years for "warning shot": Did she stand her ground? - CBS News

Last Friday, Jacksonville mother Marissa Alexander was sentenced by a Florida judge to 20 years in prison for firing what she says was a "warning shot" into the wall after a physical altercation with her husband, Rico Gray.

The case has set off yet another controversy involving the state's "stand your ground" law, which is under intense scrutiny after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in February. Critics, including Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D-Fla.), are crying foul.

How, they ask, could a 31-year-old woman in a relationship with a man who had a history of domestic violence, and whose actions did not result in any physical injury, be sentenced to two decades in prison while George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Martin, is out on bail?

"The Florida criminal justice system has sent two clear messages today," Rep. Brown said in a statement on May 11. "One is that if women who are victims of domestic violence try to protect themselves, the "Stand Your Ground Law" will not apply to them...The second message is that if you are black, the system will treat you differently."

Okay, how about a little levity before 2 Tiny Guy spooges his NRA Talkign points all over the thread.

Dog named Trigger accidentally shoots owner in the foot

A bizarre hunting accident has left a dog owner with a shot wound in their foot – and the gun was fired by a pet dog called Trigger.

Allie Carter, 25, was wounded during a waterfowl hunt on Saturday morning in northern Indiana when she left her 12-gauge shotgun on the ground without the safety catch on.



The hunter’s 11-year-old chocolate Labrador then stepped on the gun, managing to shot Ms Carter in the left foot, Indiana Conservation Officer Jonathan Boyd said.

Ms Carter had been hit with bird shot pellets and was treated in hospital for non-life threatening injuries. She was treated and released, Mr Boyd said.

And now for the truth.....with over 320 million people in this country and close to 600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense....what is the number of people accidentally killed with guns...vs. other means of accidental death...

The Truth...from the CDC, WISQARS data site...

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

poisoning......58,335

falling.......34,673

suffocation...6,610

drowning......3,786

 

[2aguy]

Repeating a lie is no prove of anything either retard

we have a scientifically reviewed study.

You have NRA propaganda.

No, we have Kellerman, the guy who actually made up that number.....changing the number and still getting it wrong...


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;


====

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[toobfreak]

Thanks, Again, NRA!

Why, YOU'RE QUITE WELCOME BAZ! Oh, and ----- -- go suck an egg. Spelling Bee champion? Sounds more like the kid was an IDIOT, and this is just nature's way of cleaning up the planet of one less person who doesn't belong here. Take your anti-NRA agenda and bigotry, bend over with it and shove it up yer ass.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Repeating a lie is no prove of anything either retard

we have a scientifically reviewed study.

You have NRA propaganda.

No you don't retard The study was bogus and was proven to be bogus. By science.

 

[JoeB131]

Again...you have been shown that that 43 number is a lie, yet you keep using it...

Here is the actual redo of his study where even kellerman admits his 43 number was wrong....and he still didn't get it right, the explanation is below this link..

When you give me a quote no better yet, a you-tube video of Kellerman saying he got it wrong, you'll have credibility. Not someone paraphrasing what he might have said.

Thanks.

 

[2aguy]

Again...you have been shown that that 43 number is a lie, yet you keep using it...

Here is the actual redo of his study where even kellerman admits his 43 number was wrong....and he still didn't get it right, the explanation is below this link..

When you give me a quote no better yet, a you-tube video of Kellerman saying he got it wrong, you'll have credibility. Not someone paraphrasing what he might have said.

Thanks.

Moron...I gave you his actual study...where he changed the number......I gave you a link and a quote.....moron.

This is his follow up study....where he changed the number......


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;


And this is the peer review of his work showing how he got it wrong...again...

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[LuckyDuck]

Only in the USA.

Only in the USA???
Hmmm. Well, in various areas of Africa, you have "child soldiers" carrying AK-47's and killing people. In Afghanistan and tribal areas of Pakistan, you have armed kids who will kill you in the name of Allah. Gun incidents occur in those and other nations as well, we just don't get the statistics from such nations.
The child you speak of, had an irresponsible parent. When I was a kid, I learned not only how to hunt, but about the dangers of firearms and the guns were locked up. The NRA teaches "gun safety," which includes the fact that firearms should have trigger-locks or be in gun-safes if not in use. I put in 23 years in the military, am very familiar with many types of firearms and with the exception of my Glock-30, all others are locked in my gun-safe, no one knows the combination but me and the Glock is on my person. My daughter has her own pistol and has her own safe.
As I've said in other posts, there are approximately 300 million firearms legally owned by approximately 80+ million private citizens and almost all of those 80+ million firearms owners are responsible and no threat to you. There will always be some idiot that doesn't take ownership seriously and thankfully, they are in the "extreme" minority.

 

[JoeB131]

Moron...I gave you his actual study...where he changed the number......I gave you a link and a quote.....moron.

Actually, you took one quote out of context and pretended it said what it didn't say.

The 43 number stands and Kellerman has never taken it back, ever.

 

[there4eyeM]

A firearm that a two year old could set off like that was irresponsibly handled by the adult 'in charge'.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I seriously doubt the teenaged shooter or the victim were members of the NRA

Just saying.......

The NRA got a new law signed by the Great Douche in 2017.
That Mentally Defective peoples can have guns! All NRA Doing.
All NRA leaders and members and supporters are Mentally Deflective
Sub-Human Moron Gun Nutters. It's just that simple.

These LOSERS are fully responsible for 99% of the dead people in America by guns.

 

[2aguy]

Moron...I gave you his actual study...where he changed the number......I gave you a link and a quote.....moron.

Actually, you took one quote out of context and pretended it said what it didn't say.

The 43 number stands and Kellerman has never taken it back, ever.

No...I gave you the link to his redo study...and I gave you a link as to why that study is still wrong.......