Yup. That's all guns are for: to give to children and criminals. Great argument you have there. Meanwhile most everyone seems to think it's a good idea for the police to have them.
What are the chances that a home without a gun, will be the source of a stolen gun used by a criminal? What are the chances that an innocent child will be killed in a home without a gun by sibling or friend who might find a gun? ..and before you (*)(*)(*)(*) an moan about liberals, anti-gunners....blah..blah..blah...I own one handgun and two long guns...and I keep them locked up. I don't them as I have a home security system and two noisy (albeit, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)) dogs. My guns cannot and will not contribute to the gun problem in the US.
Oh. Okay then. I guess that's the final word on the subject. Some unidentified guy named Hemenway said so. I think I know who it is though. He also said: Great guy. I'm sure he equally looks down on the police, security guards, the elderly, woman, the physically disabled, and the military because they "couldn't defend themselves or couldn't protect others without using a gun."
I wonder where Dr. Hemenway was looking for credible studies? Maybe that's the problem. Given his disposition, I'm sure he diligently wandered around in his back yard for a few moments, found no studies laying around, and decided to call it quits. A little further inspection reveals that Obama's own search for credible studies uncovered 4 different studies that determined that victims who use guns in self-defense have consistently lower injury rates than victims who use other strategies to protect themselves (other strategies include stalling, calling the police or using weapons such as knives or baseball bats). source Further, Kleck and Tark write: source
So funny. The Federal assessment found the opposite of Dr Hemenway. It says it's possible that the risk of ownership outweighs the benefit, but that studies in support of this position were not conclusive. Weird. The Obama admin is obviously pro gun biased. What with all that skeet shooting he does. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=16
Wow. Why would he have children behind him when talking about an attack that left 20 children dead. Who says there aren't guns over here, dimwit? My father legally owned 2 guns, a double barreled shotgun and a bolt action rifle. We have some of the toughest gun laws in the world but there's still a fairly high level of gun ownership. As you constantly demonstrate, you simply don't know anything. It wasn't Obama who gutted the mental health system in America. That honour goes to Reagan. Uh what does the mentally ill have to do with anything? Statistically people who are mentally ill are less likely to hurt people than those who are "sane" And if you want statistics, lets have some Typically, there are approximately 30,000 US deaths due to firearms in the US each year. There's only 364.25 days in the year to fit all those in. In 2007 according to the Centers for Disease Control Faststats and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control WIQARS Leading Causes of Nonfatal Injury Reports: 48,676 people were intentionally shot who survived. (NCIPC) 18,610 people were unintentionally shot who survived. (NCIPC) 17,352 suicides (intentionally shot themselves who died) (CDC) 12,632 criminal firearm deaths (killed in a crime by guns) (CDC) This does not include deaths of people intentionally or unintentionally shot for legal reasons (Like the police shooting a suspect). The above total is 97270 people shot in the US in 2007. About a third (29984) died, and it is likely that the total number of Americans shot is at least 100,000 given that all types of gunshot injuries/deaths are not included. In the US, every day during 2007, about 266 Americans were shot. Every day, a third of them (82 daily) died. That's 10 times as many people getting shot in the US every day as died at Sandy hook. On a typical day. Sandy hook was just newsworty as it was a large amount of people in one place. And I know you will crank out the whole "AAAAGHRGH HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE IN CAR ACCIDENTS" line but Cars are used by most Americans every day multiple times, and are not designed to hurt people. Guns ARE designed to hurt people, and most people (aside from you) don't even touch their guns every day. If you put the amount of times guns are used beside the times Cars are used and tot up those injuries guess which comes out on top. But you would rather 266 people are injured every single day in the US b gunshot than any kind of gun control happen.. After all you might lose your manhood.
Theres nothing in either of those sources that indicates qhat you just said. The first just talks about some Obama executive orders and setting up of an inquiry, and the second says the picture is murky at best and that having a gun in the home could increase your risk of injury. But the consisnentt thing is that RESISTANCE my the victim reduces injury, not just resistance by gun. You know, when you quote something it would be nice if it actually said what you think it said. Basically it says that the results are unreliable and further study is needed, and this study is not to be relied upon. You bolded it so you obviously thought that line was important, but you obviously did not understand it. Probably pulled it from another website. In addition"defensive use" is coulored by the fact that under the stand your ground laws someone could shoot someone else in the back and still claim self defense. The self defense argument has even been used by criminals robbing other people. who shot someone and claimed self defence. When the other person is dead, it's your version of events versus a corpses version of events. That fact alone makes self defence cases very problematic. And sadly, the vast majority of the 266 people shot in the US every single day are not criminals who were shot by someone defending themselves. And criminals in America are far more likely to have a gun. The fantasy of guns used by screaming people in fear of their lives is a fantasy, and if it wasnt then the NRA would be doing more than recycling the same 4 cases in their literature.
You looked at my links even less hard than Dr. Hemenway searched for credible studies that show that the risk of ownership outweighs the benefit provided by ownership. The link I posted contains access to the entire report generated by the inquiry that Obama set up. Beyond that, you quoted the third post in the series which details the exact point in the report that I was speaking about (which I found by reading the first link). Knowledge takes effort. People not willing to put forth the effort usually have limited knowledge. Hemenway asserted that his studies were reliable and the studies that showed a benefit to gun ownership were not credible. The federal assessment says the exact opposite. They looked at the field of studies and found that the studies that detail a benefit are compelling, and the studies that detail high risk are not conclusive. The call for further study is not a refutation of previous study, but the assessment specifically says that studies showing that risk outweigh benefit were not conclusive. Again, that's exactly the opposite of Hemenway. It's funny that you think I "probably pulled it from another website." You didn't even read the content of the site I gave you. I guess clicking the little button that says "read" was too much to ask. 1. If it is then were are the credible studies that support your argument? The Federal government couldn't find them. Are they in Hemenway's backyard? 2. Random word salad about stand your ground, and vague baseless claims about the specifics regarding the "vast majority" of incidents are obvious attempts to distract from the discussion.
A) Obama had children behind him to take advantage of and politicize the deaths of children for his own political ideological advancement. Why what was your answer? B) This violates forum guidelines "Who says there aren't guns over here, dimwit?" Secondly to answer your question, No one did except for you. Here is my exact sentence "Thank god you guys don't like guns in Ireland." Now what part did you confuse me of being a dimwit of when in fact you didn't comprehend a remedial sentence correctly. Dimwit? yes, just definitely NOT me. C) You failed at your statistics. I clearly asked you a specific question and you answered everything except for the question I asked. You did this because you fingers refuse to type the answer. D)Im also sooo glad you decided to cite CDC statistics. Here you go: Using your stats above you have proven second hand smoke in the United States by a vast margin is far more deadly than all your gun deaths combined. 82.36101579 Gun deaths per day 137.2683596 Second hand smoke deaths per day Now to prove how smart I am. This is what I said. "Lastly here is something I guarandamtee you will not answer. List the % of gun deaths at the hands of legal gun owners." You will note you did not provide the answer and my prediction is now historical fact. You provided every stat you could cut and past except for the one I asked. If you really cared about children as you lefties say you do why arent you fighting cigarettes first over guns since we have just proven with math that second hand smoke is nearly twice as deadly as a gun. That's not including the deaths of smokers just the people they drive by smoke down. Like the ones Owebama used as pawns in his attack on the 2nd. Post ownage.
It's very simple they've got to get rid of the evidence. Anyone who thinks Sandy Hook wasn't a staged false flag event hasn't viewed all the evidence. This event has been treated different than any similar event in our history.
No one in the public has actually viewed the evidence outside of what we all saw on TV that day. Your basing your position on nothing but ignorance, lies and misinformation. The CT State Police are treating this shooting with the families in mind...trying to cause no more harm to the families while trying to make sure all information that is made public is correct. Sorry if you don't like that, too effin bad.
Dude, you obviously haven't even read your own reports. What you are saying is totally false and is contradicted even by a cursory glance at the reports you are citing yourself. I'm not going to waste my time. Now as for some fun Ok. If you want to be owned, I'll indulge you. The number of illegally owned guns used in crimes amounts to around 85%. Now do you know where the evil lust crazed criminals get those guns? YOU. Yep, in the vast majority of cases, they get them by robbing "responsible gun owners" like yourself. That means that guns are not only utterly useless in preventing burglaries and robberies, but the widespread gun ownership in America actually makes violent crime more likely as it increases the amount of guns in criminal hands. AND it will make YOUR HOUSE more likely to be burgles as criminals will be robbing you specifically to get your gun collection. And how will they know that you have a gun? Well, people like you cant resist getting off on the feeling of power you get from feeling your gun in public. Oh and you know the other big source of illegally used firearms? Its firearms owned by convicted felons who are barred from owning guns, who are supplied by people "who believe in the second amendment" and supply the responsible gun owner with their new gun collection for FREEDOM!! You know, people like you. As for your stupid cigarette analogy, again it fails for the same reason that the Car analogy fails (which I notices you didn't address) The number of times cars are used versus the times Guns are used numbers in the Millions. And the number of times people are exposed to cigarette smoke in the Us versus the number of times they are exposed to bullets entering their tender flesh numbers in the millions. One guy smoking in a restaurant can expose 150 people to cigarette smoke easilly, and he does it without thinking about it. Lansa had to work at it to kill his 26 kids and 6 adults. How many times have you deliberately poisoned someone by blowing in their face? The fast majority of gun injuries happen by people deliberatly using their gun on someone else. So PROPORTIONALLY, cigarette smoke is far less dangerous than gunfire. AND I haven't seen anyone chasing and killing kids with a lit cigarette either. Oh and Ireland was the first country to totally ban cigarette smoking in a public inclosed space. So we put our money where our mouth is, and pubs et al are actually pleasant to go into now. AND, AND like you the Cigarette lobby campaigned viciously about FREEDOM! and if you force people to go outside to smoke girls will be raped! I'm not joking about that, that was an argument that people actually pushed seriously. Of course in the event, far from the people of Ireland being enslaved, it was wildly popular and compliance was nearly 100%. And, sadly, the young girls of Ireland have their virginity intact despite the hoards of sex crazed criminals waiting to pounce on them when they nip outside for their carcinogens. That was fun. Oh yeah you haven't discussed the criminals shooting unarmed people in the back and getting away with it because they were doing it in self defense DESPITE ME BRINGING IT UP 4 TIMES! http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/
You suck at admitting you're wrong. It's there for everyone to read. Just because you only gave it a cursory glance, doesn't mean everyone else will. False. The percentage of guns in the illegal market that were stolen from a private residence is only 13%. In the vast majority of cases criminals get the guns from straw purchasers who buy the guns illegally. And since you're not going to read the link I'll paste a photo of the relevant info right here: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/Commerce_in_Firearms_2000.pdf
LOL Laughable. Your argument is if it weren't for law abiding citizens owning guns "CRIMINALS" wouldn't have any to steal and then use them. Ive already proven using your statistics that second hand smoke kills more per day PERIOD. If 85% of gun crimes are at the hands of criminials that number gets even more deadly. A normal person would focus on punishing the criminals who are committing 100% of the crimes using 85% illegal firearms. Again using you stats. I didn't read any of your other comments. Not worth my time. All I can say is since you so opposed to guns, what on earth do you possibly think you can or are ever going to do about it besides sit there and pout. Lets hear it. If you don't like the United States Constitution, you don't have to live here, you can mind your own business and keep living in Ireland and worry about your own alcohol problems. Speaking of which 88 alcohol deaths per month in Ireland, whats your population? 4.5 million. 6E-07 % chances of being killed in Ireland on any given day from Alcohol related causes 2E-07 % Chances of being killed in the US from guns for any reason Guess you shouldn't be throwing stones from your candy glass house.
First of all that wasn't MY statistics. they were YOURS. In fact I actually checked that out when you mentioned it. SHOCK AND HORROR, you were LYING http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/ That makes second hand cigarette smoke far less dangerous than gunfire. That only took me exactly 20 seconds to find out. How does it feel to have your whole talking point shot down? I'm sorry that your faith in Rush Limbaugh has been momentarily shaken. And who said anything about criminals? Illigally held gins includes guns bought outside Chicago and brought into the city, you know because responsible gun owners like you NEEEED THEM, and felons who second amendment heros give guns to. And its funny that you mention the second amendment, which, as we found out 3 pages ago includes the phrase "well regulated Militia" which as we found out means "not sick or mentally ill male between 18 and 40" that sounds like gun regulation to me. And nice sneering about Ireland? But stunningly we are able to defend our families from the marauding bands of criminals without guns and in a heavily regulated environment? And, since you seem to want to believe gun regulation will have no effect on crime, want to know what percentage of violent crime in Ireland involves guns? AND how many of our schools have been shot up by responsible gun owners in the last 90 years? The answer is 0.28% and zero. In fact, of the 84 homicides reported by police in 2007, 18 (21 per cent) involved firearms. That's 10 less than you have die in a single day. Gosh, its almost like gun regulation has an effect, after all. Who knew?
HAHHAHA I was lying eh? You just quoted the number I used. Post # 134 you said "In the US, every day during 2007, about 266 Americans were shot. Every day, a third of them (82 daily) died." Thanks for proving to everyone you cant comprehend your own writing and you cant even do division after you called me a dimwit. You just called me a liar and posted a link to prove my lie, your link says: Exposure to secondhand smoke causes nearly 50,000 deaths each year among adults in the United States Do the math Einstein. We were talking about death. Keyword being deaths. I expect to see you calculations of death per day on using the two stats YOU CITED. (I Even posted the post# for all to see) P.S. Alcohol in ireland also kills more people per capita than our scary US guns. You have no business even judging our second amendment. That right is reserved for people that fought for it. It has nothing to do with you. Deal with your own child killing alcohol problems or like I said come over here and try to take the guns from us. Oh wait you cant. All you can do is sit there pout, insult people and have an adult try and teach you division. Now retract your accusation I lied or it will be reported. Ive just proven that accusation was not correct.
