The plan was to steal tools. Then customers drew their guns

A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans' willingness to say they had guns is unclear. However, the new data suggest that attitudes may again be changing. At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades -- a finding that may be related to Americans' dampened support for gun-control laws. However, to ensure that this year's increase reflects a meaningful rebound in reported gun ownership, it will be important to see whether the uptick continues in future polling.

SURVEY METHODS

 

Are you confusing statistical validity with scientific reproducability? And it is very telling that the same gun proponants who question the data from polls are the same ones who constantly quote Kleeck to prove that defensive use of guns saves more lives than than the number of people who die from guns.

 

They do, by a big margin. More children die from swimming pool incidents than gun accidents.

 

Bunk, the NRA, my favorite civil rights organization, is funded mainly by it's members. That's called democracy. Planned Parenthood spends 10 times as much on political advocacy than the NRA.

 

Yes, it's my fault that Americans are not proud of their country. I put a "spell" on them.

 

I presented questions to myself? What does that mean?

 

Are you trying to tell me that the gun manufacturers are "breaking even"? I don't believe that.

 

Wait, you're not even American? Then why in the hell do you care? And why should I even give your opinion the time of day? Mind yer own business.

 

Because I am a humanitarian and I care about the world.

Because you haven't figured out that my logic and knowledge are superior to yours and you think there still is a chance that you can bluff your way out.

The world is my business.

 

Actually answer the question that was presented to yourself previously in the discussion.

How would a reduction in the number of murders actually be achieved? What system mechanics are in place to insure a reduction of firearm-related murders would not be replaced with an increase in murders in other categories?

 

Sorry, but I have no idea what you trying to say. Your usage of "yourself" is very strange. It must be incorrect,

I explained this already just a few posts ago.

 

Earlier this guy claimed to be a vet. Possible I suppose but evidently not an American vet. He also earlier claimed to have been mugged multiple times and used his massive macho fist to beat off his assailant. I always doubted that story but now I see even if it happened it wasn't in America. Wonder what story he will fabricate next?

 

Except for the fact that no such explanation was ever presented. Try again, and do be sure to actually provide an answer this time around.

How would a reduction in the number of murders actually be achieved? What system mechanics are in place to insure a reduction of firearm-related murders would not be replaced with an increase in murders in other categories?

 

OK.

 

Thus meaning that no actual answer is possessed on the part of yourself.

 

Again the misuse of "yourself". No problem. I express myself well while yours is possessed by grammatical gremlins in spite of yourself, meaning you have no actual answers to your own questions thus being the parameter that you yourself have set up for your own self which prevents you from realizing that I (myself) have provided all the clues (i's dotted and t's crossed) for anyone (himself, herself, yourself, themselves) to understand that your anchor has been weighed and you are well off the topic and out to sea.

 

You're doing a song and dance to avoid the question. A man named X was going to kill someone(Y) but you took his gun away.
Did you save Y's life? No, because X got a knife and stabbed Y to death. X could've used a baseball bat, or a cast iron skillet or dozens of other things to kill Y with. All you did was transfer Y's name from the 'killed by firearm' column to the 'stabbed to death' column.

 

You are not paying attention. Or maybe you are just inexperienced in the real world.

According to you, X couldn't shoot Y in the kitchen because I took his gun away. So he reached for a knife but I grabbed it away from him. So he ran to the garage to get baseball bat but I beat him to it and threw it out the window. So he dashed back into the kitchen and went for the cast iron skillet but I kicked it from his reach. So he ran rampant all over the house trying to get hold a dozen other things but I was too quick for him. Pant! Pant! Out of breath, he slapped Y across the cheek with an open hand that caused Y to keel over and die.

 

Another non-answer. Typical of you. If Y had a gun she may have been able to defend herself.
Try and come to grips with this-----we have the right and we have the guns and all you have are flapping gums. Flappity flap.

 

Typical of you not to realize that if X had a job and no gun he wouldn't even consider shooting anyone and Y would be safe at home even without locking the door. That's all there is to it.

 

Because only those who do not have legitimate careers engage in murder, correct? No individual who is working a job has gone and murdered another individual for whatever reason?

 

Thank you for helping me to prove my point.

 

There is no actual or legitimate point on the part of yourself. Employment does not preclude someone from committing murder.

 

Think maybe you are being trolled?

 

The logic and facts of myself outdo the lack of both of yourself, except in the matter of superior absurdities in which yourself are the definite champion and far greater than myself.