and we all see you.

You fail again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong again. The FBI, as well as the BJS, the
> CDC, and various state agencies do in fact collect
> the data. That includes via the UCS, NCVS, and
> WISQARS databases among others.

LOL! Don't know who Gary Kleck is, do you. He's a poster-boy for awful research and sory-ass repetition of famously flawed methodologies. His surveys are rife with easily-corrected coverage and sampling errors, he makes no effort to weed out even blatant response errors, and his results cannot be reconciled with the results of reputable researchers, But why would a hopeless misguided dumbfuck like you care one whit about things such as that? Crawl back under your rock, wou worthless ignorant asshole.



>
> And in fact many 'actual researchers' do use these
> data. Including the recent National Research
> Council report which said:
>
>

Quote

> Almost all national survey estimates indicate that
> defensive gun uses by victims are at least as
> common as offensive uses by criminals, with
> estimates of annual uses ranging from about
> 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in
> the context of about 300,000 violent crimes
> involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the
> other hand, some scholars point to a radically
> lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive
> uses based on the National Crime Victimization
> Survey (Cook et al., 1997).
>

>
> And noted:
>
>

Quote

> Studies that directly assessed the effect of
> actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in
> which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in
> the sense of attacking or threatening an offender)
> have found consistently lower injury rates among
> gun-using crime victims compared with victims who
> used other self-protective strategies (Kleck,
> 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000;
> Tark and Kleck, 2004).
>

>
>
> >
> > There are of course actual FBI data for
> > justifiable homicides. While the NRA et al.
> claim
> > multiple millions of successful defensive gun
> uses
> > each year, there are typically about 250
> > justifiable homicides recorded annually, some
> few
> > of which actually do arise from gun-owners
> > legitimately if quite foolishly trying to
> defend
> > themselves. These same folks more often end up
> > getting themselves killed of course, and in the
> > meantime, they are mistakenly killing off other
> > innocent people at rates many times higher than
> > that. GUNS = DEATH. Having a gun in your home
> > increases the chances of your dying from a
> gunshot
> > wound by a factor of nearly four. Just sayin'.
> >
> > [More later if at some point I find another few
> > minutes to waste on you hapless fucktards.]
>
>
> Justifiable homicides are understood to represent
> only a subset of all legally committed homicides
> (due to definition and limited by reporting) and
> represent a far smaller number within the context
> of justifiable shootings. And a further very
> small subset of all defensive uses of firearms.
> In the same way that homicides are a very small
> subset of all violent crimes. But even using that
> as the basis, it implies a far larger number of
> defensive uses of a firearm (as above).
>
> Furthermore, even limiting the scope to
> justifiable homicides you're again wrong. The
> total is higher and the number of uses by private
> citizens are not "some few." Of the 665
> justifiable homicides in 2010, law enforcement
> officers justifiably killed 387. Private citizens
> justifiably killed 278. That is, over 40% of
> justifiable homicides were by private citizens
> protecting themselves.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Dude, do you have hobbies other than so regularly
> proving yourself to be nothing more than a
> monumentally brain-washed but otherwise completely
> impervious dumbfuck? You seriously need to buy a
> vowel here as you are literally operating without
> either a net or a clue.
>
> Let's recap...
>
> All this swimming pool nonsense is YOUR phony
> sideshow, the entire worthless lot of it having
> been dredged up as nothing but a grotesque,
> dishonest, childish, and cowardly smokescreen --
> something created by deliberately dishonest
> right-wing propaganda-mongers in a desperate
> attempt to delude mindless assholes and divert
> attention away from the cold, stark, and actual
> facts of widespread gunfire-related injury, death,
> and destruction. These wimpishly ignorant claims
> of yours are nothing but rotting, stinking dead
> fish flung by their right-wing handlers to pods of
> worthless trained-seal dumbfucks such as yourself
> who eagerly slurp them up and spit them back out
> again. Only pathetic incoherent losers actually
> swallow this sort of lame-ass claptrap, but you
> were fucking first in line for seconds on this
> sewage, weren't you? What an utterly worthless,
> mindless fucktard.
>

Yes, let's recap...

Beyond the above being just a bunch of idiotic nonsense in a lame attempt to save your ass after having it handed to you, how we got to pools was your claim related to a 4X higher danger of death due to the presence of a firearm in the home. Which is complete bullshit which you couldn't support.

First, it's bullshit just in terms of the number itself.

Second, the reason that such stats are disingenuously given as a "times X" multiplier is that the absolute number is extraordinarily small. Even "times X." Otherwise it would appear relatively insignificant versus other much more common and frequent events (i.e, pools, poisonings, trip and fall events, etc.).

That's how we got to pools. And the fact of the matter is that, as I showed above re pools, the dangers presented by many other common items and events in the home far outweigh any inherent danger of a gun in the home.


> BOTTOM LINE: Your adventure here has amounted to
> nothing more than one pathetic loser's lame-ass
> ignorant descent into manufactured deflection and
> obfuscation, something swallowed whole by a
> worthless, incompetent, shit-for-brains,
> right-wing, limpdick asshole too dumb to realize
> that he was being caged, force-fed, and fostered
> by the deceitful foot-soldiers of such fact-free
> feedlots as FOX News, the NRA, and the Heritage
> Foundation. Congratulations on being so easily
> pwned by these scumbag liars, you pathetic
> dumbass. What an entirely worthless piece of crap
> you amount to.
>

More nonsense that someone who has no facts says that's not worth responding to.


> Back in the real world that you have no awareness
> of, there are about 10 deaths per day attributable
> to drowning, most of them occuring in bathtubs,
> horse troughs, and various natural bodies of
> water, not in home swimming pools. This is
> because home swimming pools are actually among the
> safest possible places to swim, what with their
> having been designed and installed with safety
> standards in mind, plus the typical proximity of
> such pools to adult supervision, and of course the
> fact that those who own and use home pools are
> among the most likely people in the world to have
> completed swimming, first aid, and CPR classes.
> The eyes of the dumbfucks have just glazed over.


Like your like your understanding of gun stats, your knowledge of drowning stats.

No, pools are not the safest places. They are the most dangerous place with a higher number of drownings and near-drowning events. Particularly among children at 73% of fatalities. The difference isn't related to completing safety and swimming lessons, it's that when a drowning/near-drowning event happens there are more likely others there to assist post-event. That doesn't change the inherent danger presented, it simply betters somewhat the drowning survival rates for pools versus other more remote locations.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm#tab

In any case, this wasn't about downing stats and expanding the count of drownings beyond pools doesn't affect the relative higher dangers IN THE HOME as was the matter in question. Pools still are a greater danger. As are poisonings. As are trip and fall events. As are fires. As are any number of other common events.


> Meanwhile, there are nearly 500 victims of gunshot
> wounds every day, all of them occuring as the
> result of someone's having been shot with a
> fucking gun. Many of those victims had nothing to
> do with a gun themselves. They were shot anyway.
> No one ever drowned because someone else went
> swimming. About 85 of all those daily gunshot
> victims meanwhile die as the result of them.
> Yesterday, today, tomorrow Every fucking day,
> asshole. And about half the victims who don't die
> are so severely injured as to require
> transportation to a hospital emergency room. They
> face expensive treatment, then lengthy and
> typically painful periods of recovery. So again,
> among a range of awful outcomes, that's 85
> outright dead people per day as the result of
> gunshot wounds versus 2 or perhaps 3 at the
> outside that might be associated with home
> swimming pools. Which one is rare, asshole.
> Which one isn't. And who is the deluded,
> manipulated, ignorant, simplistic, uninformed,
> low-life, scum-sucking, dumbass, fucktard, asshole
> who just can't tell?


Again, having little to nothing to do with a gun in the home as was the subject.

Comparing an epidemic of shooting events by young black males aged 15-24 largely involving gang and drug violence and virtually exclusively using illegal guns has little to nothing to do with a gun in the home or, by eventual extension, to controls on legal gun ownership.

If you wanted to try to make a better, more coherent argument then you might cite suicide stats, which are the large majority of gun deaths overall, but unfortunately, again, you're not that smart and you don't know the subject well enough to make the argument. Which also will be shot down, but you could at least make a more reasoned attempt versus just parroting the same old disingenuous, manipulated crap like your 4X bullshit number.

And dude, lamely bumping your own post pretending that you're another poster really doesn't help your argument or credibility. lmao

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Accidental deaths, which were the subject
> starting
> > above with your bullshit stat above re being 4X
> > more likely to die due to a gun in the home and
> > the danger to children, are counted separately.
> > For ages 0-1, 1-4 and 5-9, accidental
> > firearms-related deaths are so infrequent that
> > they don't even make the top 10.
>
> LOL!!! You might want to beg, borrow, or steal
> something more than what your allowance will cover
> and invest that in some remedial reading classes.
>
>
> "Having a gun in the home increases the chances of
> your dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of
> almost four."
>
> There is nothing in there about intentional or
> unintentional or about adults versus children.
> Stupid worthless dumbfuck. All of that irrelevant
> nonsense is simply YOU desperately trying to stuff
> irrelevant things in there in assholish and
> doomed-to-humiliating-failure attempts to pretend
> that the cold, hard facts of the real world don't
> actually exist. You are just peeing on yourself
> here, loser.
>
> GUNS = DEATH
>
> YOU = ASSHOLE


Nope. As above, it does not. And lamely calling me an asshole won't make it so.

The reason you have to go with bullshit like this is that you can't back up your claims.

Sorry.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> LOL! Don't know who Gary Kleck is, do you. He's
> a poster-boy for awful research and sory-ass
> repetition of famously flawed methodologies. His
> surveys are rife with easily-corrected coverage
> and sampling errors, he makes no effort to weed
> out even blatant response errors, and his results
> cannot be reconciled with the results of reputable
> researchers, But why would a hopeless misguided
> dumbfuck like you care one whit about things such
> as that? Crawl back under your rock, wou
> worthless ignorant asshole.


Actually not beyond arguable points, but you don't have to use Kleck's numbers. You can use the low-end estimate cited by NRC and it still shows significant numbers of defensive uses.

As does your own (once again incorrectly given) stat re the data for justifiable homicides which I shot down using the actual numbers which show that 40% of which are by armed private citizens.

Again, sorry.

Here's an appropriate analogy of the beatdown Asshole Sighting provided to these gun nut Assclowns.

Sharpshooter utilizing a M82 Barret 50 Cal vs a troglodyte employing a fire stick.

Run away.

Noyoudint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's an appropriate analogy of the beatdown
> Asshole Sighting provided to these gun nut
> Assclowns.
>
> Sharpshooter utilizing a M82 Barret 50 Cal vs a
> troglodyte employing a fire stick.
>
> Run away.


Here let me explain the reality of how this, as always, has and will go.

Asshole will post more dumb deceptive stats and off-point tangential crap that's been shot down about a million times at this point.

I'll continue to post sourced facts from independent sources to refute his bullshit and demonstrate how his numbers are deceptive and manipulated.

Asshole will fall back, as he has already, to the usual insult posts with nothing offered otherwise because that's all he has.

I'll call him on his bullshit.

Asshole will get frustrated and continue further off point and making emotional 'think of the children' arguments.

I'll continue to call him on his bullshit.

Asshole will become even more frustrated and eventually start talking about the size of my dick.

I'll laugh at him.

Asshole will abandon the thread only to reappear a few days later to try to slip in a 'last word' post hoping that I don't see it because he can't live with being shown to be a full of shit parrot.

And the circle of life will continue until the next thread where the same will happen again.

Facts are facts, my intellectually limited little fucktard. Having a gun in the home increases the chances of dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of nearly four. While being dwarfed by those from gunshot wounds, deaths related to home swimming pools have nothing to do with the discussiuon and are simply an example of the sort of meaningless deflective subterfuge that NRA-punked asshats and morons such as yourself are driven to in desperation in discussions such as these. You have meanwhile shot down exactly nothing. Here is what you have done. You have stumbled over basic English. You have stumbled over basic math and statistics. You have stumbled over basic logic. You have copied and pasted from waste-of-time propaganda sites that rely on the corrupt work of known hacks and charlatans. That's what you have done, and that's all you have done. You are a worthless gun-nut fucktard and nothing more. To sum up...

GUNS = DEATH and YOU = ASSHOLE

Noyoudint Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Asshole Sighting. I think you went easy on the
> You Lose loser. Well done Sir!

@Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brilliant! Too bad the loser won't read it.

Well we have to understand that the asshole here is really not much of a trophy. Just another corn-fed porker, slopped and fattened for the slaughter on the feedlots of the right-wing disinformation media. Language deficiencies, numerical deficiencies, logic deficiencies. He's just the sort of easily deluded bonehead that the propaganda-mongers focus their attention on. He's the sort that Karl Rove once talked about in claiming that if you can run a big enough majority among the stupid people, it won't matter how the smart people vote.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Facts are facts, my intellectually limited little
> fucktard. Having a gun in the home increases the
> chances of dying from a gunshot wound by a factor
> of nearly four. While being dwarfed by those from
> gunshot wounds, deaths related to home swimming
> pools have nothing to do with the discussiuon and
> are simply an example of the sort of meaningless
> deflective subterfuge that NRA-punked asshats and
> morons such as yourself are driven to in
> desperation in discussions such as these. You
> have meanwhile shot down exactly nothing. Here is
> what you have done. You have stumbled over basic
> English. You have stumbled over basic math and
> statistics. You have stumbled over basic logic.
> You have copied and pasted from waste-of-time
> propaganda sites that rely on the corrupt work of
> known hacks and charlatans. That's what you have
> done, and that's all you have done. You are a
> worthless gun-nut fucktard and nothing more. To
> sum up...
>
> GUNS = DEATH and YOU = ASSHOLE


As per my post above, you're too predictable. lol

You're not worth responding to directly at this point so I'll just use you as an example of the typical disingenuous gun argument.

The reason why Asshole can't cite any objective source for his bogus 4X number is that he has none.

The reason why his 4X number, and all bogus gun stats like that, is given as an NX multiplier is to obscure that the actual incidence rate is very low. i.e., Even accepting the 4X number for the moment, 4x a trivial number remains a trivial number.

The reason why he doesn't like anyone citing pools or any other comparable stats is that out of context "4X" appears impressive. Putting the actual small number in context relative to other very common causes, not so much. When it's actually 4X .0000001 and far exceeded by the number of trip/falls, poisonings, fire, asphyxiation, drownings, and other common causes, which anyone can see for themselves very easily by checking CDC or other objective sources, it kinda loses the intended effect.

All of which is why people attempting such arguments using misleading numbers always lose when faced with actual facts as here. And, as above, why they're then left with nothing other than weak attempts at insult posts out of frustration.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Noyoudint Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey Asshole Sighting. I think you went easy on
> the
> > You Lose loser. Well done Sir!
>
> @Asshole Sighting Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Brilliant! Too bad the loser won't read it.
>
> Well we have to understand that the asshole here
> is really not much of a trophy. Just another
> corn-fed porker, slopped and fattened for the
> slaughter on the feedlots of the right-wing
> disinformation media. Language deficiencies,
> numerical deficiencies, logic deficiencies. He's
> just the sort of easily deluded bonehead that the
> propaganda-mongers focus their attention on. He's
> the sort that Karl Rove once talked about in
> claiming that if you can run a big enough majority
> among the stupid people, it won't matter how the
> smart people vote.


Pretending to be other posters and bumping your own posts just makes you look even more pitiful. lol

You lose... again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As per my post above, you're too predictable. lol

What's predictable is the NRA-manufactured slop that has been pumped into your otherwise empty and useless brain. It's all been seen by the sentient dozens of times before and recognized by those as the absolute bucket of rotgut swill that it actually is. Predictably, you've not caught on. This again is because you are just another off-the-rack worthless, braindead, incompetent asshole.

> The reason why Asshole can't cite any objective
> source for his bogus 4X number is that he has
> none.

Have you gone off to see for yourself yet, asshole, or do you remain paralyzed by fear in that regard?

> The reason why his 4X number, and all bogus gun
> stats like that, is given as an NX multiplier is
> to obscure that the actual incidence rate is very
> low. i.e., Even accepting the 4X number for the
> moment, 4x a trivial number remains a trivial
> number.

There are more than 30,000 gun deaths every year, asshole. The chances of becoming one of those increase by a factor of almost four if a gun is kept in your home. There are also some 150,000 injuries inflicted by guns each year, about half of which are serious enough to require treatment at a hospital emergency room. The word "trivial" does not apply here. This is simply another case of your fucktardish linguistic deficiencies showing through. You should learn the actual meaning of words before you go trying to use them.

> The reason why he doesn't like anyone citing pools
> or any other comparable stats is that out of
> context "4X" appears impressive.

The reason that you so want to divert off into gossamer nonsense about swimming pools and accidental deaths of children aged 10-14 is because YOU CANNOT FUCKING ADDRESS THE ACTUAL POINT of widespread gun-inflicted carnage. You absolutely NEED to slither away like a little right-wing coward into completely irrelevant worlds and off-topics in order to have anything to say at all. This again is because you are nothing but a way out-of-your-league, dull-brained, stupid-shit, gun-nut asshole. Your posts lead to that very same conclusion each and every time. Talk about predictable.

You lose... again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pretending to be other posters and bumping your
> own posts just makes you look even more pitiful.
> lol

I have no idea who those other posters are. Your tin-foil hat theory that all posters recognizing you as a brainwashed total dumbfuck and asshole must really be just one guy is no less deranged and desperate than the rest of your worthless and fault-filled drivel.

By the way, the dry cleaner called. Your other clown-costume is ready for pickup.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As per my post above, you're too predictable.
> lol
>
> What's predictable is the NRA-manufactured slop
> that has been pumped into your otherwise empty and
> useless brain. It's all been seen by the sentient
> dozens of times before and recognized by those as
> the absolute bucket of rotgut swill that it
> actually is. Predictably, you've not caught on.
> This again is because you are just another
> off-the-rack worthless, braindead, incompetent
> asshole.
>
> > The reason why Asshole can't cite any objective
> > source for his bogus 4X number is that he has
> > none.
>
> Have you gone off to see for yourself yet,
> asshole, or do you remain paralyzed by fear in
> that regard?


Yes, I've looked. I know the numbers well. It's a bullshit stat. If you want to claim otherwise, then cite a specific, reputable source. Easy concept. You won't because you can't. Anyone with any sense knows that it's a bs number just based on the nature of the stat itself and what would need to be known in order to calculate such a number in any realistic way.


>
> There are more than 30,000 gun deaths every year,
> asshole. The chances of becoming one of those
> increase by a factor of almost four if a gun is
> kept in your home. There are also some 150,000
> injuries inflicted by guns each year, about half
> of which are serious enough to require treatment
> at a hospital emergency room. The word "trivial"
> does not apply here. This is simply another case
> of your fucktardish linguistic deficiencies
> showing through. You should learn the actual
> meaning of words before you go trying to use them.
>

Your 30,000/150K numbers are total deaths/injuries including everything from gang- and drug-related incidents which largely are restricted to specific groups and areas, suicide (the majority), and a very few accidents, most of which have little to nothing to do with any supposed increase in risk due to a gun in the home. Once again, as typical, you attempt to magnify the perceived risk by obscuring context. Try to stay focused.

Got that source yet?



> The reason that you so want to divert off into
> gossamer nonsense about swimming pools and
> accidental deaths of children aged 10-14 is
> because YOU CANNOT FUCKING ADDRESS THE ACTUAL
> POINT of widespread gun-inflicted carnage. You
> absolutely NEED to slither away like a little
> right-wing coward into completely irrelevant
> worlds and off-topics in order to have anything to
> say at all. This again is because you are nothing
> but a way out-of-your-league, dull-brained,
> stupid-shit, gun-nut asshole. Your posts lead to
> that very same conclusion each and every time.
> Talk about predictable.


I didn't divert, I corrected your own bs.

Anyone can look at the CDC or other similar stats for themselves and see that the facts are as I said. I have no problem providing any number of sources to support that, e.g.:

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html

See how that works when you're not trying to bullshit people?

And, once again, your lame attempts to insult me don't help your argument any. Sorry.

You lose... again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I've looked. I know the numbers well.

LOL! The numbers are everywhere and it does not appear that there is anything at all that you know well. Yopu, after all, are just a mindless fuckatrd. A gun in the home increases your chances of dying from an accidental gunshot wound. See if you can track down the difference. Particularly for females, a gun in the home increases your chances of dying from a homicidal gunshot wound. See if you can track down the difference. No matter who you are, a gun in the home vastly increases your chances of dying from a suicidal gunshot wound. See if you can track down the difference. Then add all those differences up. Plain as day, a gun in the home increases your chances of dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of almost four.

> Anyone with any sense knows that it's a bs number
> just based on the nature of the stat itself and what
> would need to be known in order to calculate such
> a number in any realistic way.

Feeble babbling. Anyone with any sense would recpognize you as a complte and worthless sham. All that is needed in this case is determination of whether a gun was present in the home of a victim. It's not that hard, You're just not too bright about these sorts of things, are you.

> Your 30,000/150K numbers are total deaths/injuries
> including everything from gang- and drug-related
> incidents which largely are restricted to specific
> groups and areas, suicide (the majority), and a
> very few accidents, most of which have little to
> nothing to do with any supposed increase in risk
> due to a gun in the home. Once again, as typical,
> you attempt to magnify the perceived risk by
> obscuring context. Try to stay focused.

These are accurate representations of the actual levels of annual gun-related deaths and injuries in this country. That's all anyone has suggested them to be. Did you have a dispute with any of them? I would doubt it, since if anything, they are understated.

> I didn't divert, I corrected your own bs.

LOL! You were cock-sure that your laughably diversionary and NRA-authored swimming pool nonsense was going to carry the day. What a total asshole. 10-14 year olds? That's maggot-level diversion, fucktard. You can't talk about guns, so you tried to talk about swimming pools. And fucked it up to boot.

> Anyone can look at the CDC or other similar stats
> for themselves and see that the facts are as I
> said. I have no problem providing any number of
> sources to support that,

Tobacco company bullshit, asshole. Actually, that probably went right over your pimply little head, so I'll explain that the tobacco companies spent years cherry-picking and misrepresenting actual data to claim that there was no causal link between smoking and cancer. They knew their claims were lies from the get-go. They didn't care. They hid behind them anyway. The fucking NRA does the same asswipe thing. They tell you lies and you swim right along behind them and lap it all up like the worthless trained fucking seal that you are. Ork! Ork!, dumbass.

> See how that works when you're not trying to
> bullshit people? And, once again, your lame
> attempts to insult me don't help your argument any.
> Sorry.

My arguments do not need help. They are iron-clad, having been built from actual truth and fact. Insulting you meanwhile is all any sentient person could ever do. You are a repulsive and contemptible piece of gun-loving intellectual trash. By the way, are you aware that the American Academy of Pediatrics has advised its members to ask parents whether a gun is present in the home, and that if the answer is yes, to counsel that the gun be gotten rid of? Why do you suppose they do that, fucktard?

Historically accurate quotes about guns; from the men who helped build America, the guns peoples country of choice for freedom and democratic peaceful living away from tyrany and socialistic behaviors:

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson
"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster
"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison
"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone."
- James Madison
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker
"... arms ... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
- Thomas Paine
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts
" ... for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton


The truth hurts, don't it?

The truth is that you and the "You Lose" fucktard have no actual clue and no actual case to make here. You just stumble and fumble about, waiting to be hit on the head. Pathetic. The bottom line is still what it alwayts was...

GUNS = DEATH

YOU = ASSHOLE

By the way, there is no credible study showing that the supposed benefits of having a gun in the home can come even close to outweighing the well-established risks.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, I've looked. I know the numbers well.
>
> LOL! The numbers are everywhere and it does not
> appear that there is anything at all that you know
> well. Yopu, after all, are just a mindless
> fuckatrd. A gun in the home increases your
> chances of dying from an accidental gunshot wound.
> See if you can track down the difference.
> Particularly for females, a gun in the home
> increases your chances of dying from a homicidal
> gunshot wound. See if you can track down the
> difference. No matter who you are, a gun in the
> home vastly increases your chances of dying from a
> suicidal gunshot wound. See if you can track down
> the difference. Then add all those differences
> up. Plain as day, a gun in the home increases
> your chances of dying from a gunshot wound by a
> factor of almost four.


Then you can easily point to your source. It's simple - Put up or shut up.

As I said, you won't because you can't. And any that you would point to will be disingenuously manipulated to obscure the truth of the matter.



>
> > Anyone with any sense knows that it's a bs
> number
> > just based on the nature of the stat itself and
> what
> > would need to be known in order to calculate
> such
> > a number in any realistic way.
>
> Feeble babbling. Anyone with any sense would
> recpognize you as a complte and worthless sham.
> All that is needed in this case is determination
> of whether a gun was present in the home of a
> victim. It's not that hard, You're just not too
> bright about these sorts of things, are you.


Present in the home for what? Present in the home even if not involved? Present in the home involving suicides? Homicides? Accidents? Combined? For adults? Children? Where? Relative to what? Controlling for what external factors?

Your stat is a bullshit number created by anti-gun nuts to cast the risk of a gun in the home to be far greater than it really is.

Simple question - What is the actual rate? Not the multiplier. If you can calculate a multiplier than you must know the actual rate for a gun present and not and under what conditions. What are those rates?

Again, you can't answer because it's a bullshit number.


>
> > Your 30,000/150K numbers are total
> deaths/injuries
> > including everything from gang- and
> drug-related
> > incidents which largely are restricted to
> specific
> > groups and areas, suicide (the majority), and a
> > very few accidents, most of which have little
> to
> > nothing to do with any supposed increase in
> risk
> > due to a gun in the home. Once again, as
> typical,
> > you attempt to magnify the perceived risk by
> > obscuring context. Try to stay focused.
>
> These are accurate representations of the actual
> levels of annual gun-related deaths and injuries
> in this country. That's all anyone has suggested
> them to be. Did you have a dispute with any of
> them? I would doubt it, since if anything, they
> are understated.


Which does not address the matter of a gun in the home. It's just an attempt to present larger numbers to imply some greater risk. Sorry.


>
> > I didn't divert, I corrected your own bs.
>
> LOL! You were cock-sure that your laughably
> diversionary and NRA-authored swimming pool
> nonsense was going to carry the day. What a total
> asshole. 10-14 year olds? That's maggot-level
> diversion, fucktard. You can't talk about guns,
> so you tried to talk about swimming pools. And
> fucked it up to boot.


Nope, it wasn't NRA-authored it was an accurate presentation of CDC and CPSC stats, including a link to the source. And, again, you're typical attempt to twist what was said relative to 10-14 year olds isn't going to work either. In fact it counters your argument since again that's the only group where guns even creep into the top 10 causes of death at 10th place.


>
> > Anyone can look at the CDC or other similar
> stats
> > for themselves and see that the facts are as I
> > said. I have no problem providing any number
> of
> > sources to support that,
>
> Tobacco company bullshit, asshole. Actually, that
> probably went right over your pimply little head,
> so I'll explain that the tobacco companies spent
> years cherry-picking and misrepresenting actual
> data to claim that there was no causal link
> between smoking and cancer. They knew their
> claims were lies from the get-go. They didn't
> care. They hid behind them anyway. The fucking
> NRA does the same asswipe thing. They tell you
> lies and you swim right along behind them and lap
> it all up like the worthless trained fucking seal
> that you are. Ork! Ork!, dumbass.


You're really trying to equate CDC's stats with tobacco industry and the NRA?

Ork! Ork! Indeed. lmao


>
> > See how that works when you're not trying to
> > bullshit people? And, once again, your lame
> > attempts to insult me don't help your argument
> any.
> > Sorry.
>
> My arguments do not need help. They are
> iron-clad, having been built from actual truth and
> fact. Insulting you meanwhile is all any sentient
> person could ever do. You are a repulsive and
> contemptible piece of gun-loving intellectual
> trash. By the way, are you aware that the
> American Academy of Pediatrics has advised its
> members to ask parents whether a gun is present in
> the home, and that if the answer is yes, to
> counsel that the gun be gotten rid of? Why do you
> suppose they do that, fucktard?


You're a clown. As typical for blowhards like you, you have nothing but slanted bullshit which you very obviously can't back up. So, as I said, you have to fail to dumb attempts at insult out of frustration. Nothing unusual. I called it above. Ready to talk about the size of my dick yet or should we let you make yourself look silly a few more times first?

You lose... again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're a clown. As typical for blowhards like
> you, you have nothing but slanted bullshit which
> you very obviously can't back up. So, as I said,
> you have to fail to dumb attempts at insult out
> of frustration. Nothing unusual. I called it
> above. Ready to talk about the size of my dick
> yet or should we let you make yourself look silly
> a few more times first?

What? Your voice has become so feeble, I can barely hear you anymore. You know you are just another gun-nut asshole willing to say (or try to say) anything at all to defend his precious little hunks of metal that have no actual purpose other than killing and maiming people. More guns means more killing and maiming. It's as simple as that.

But here's another tidbit for you: The safe choice in the extremely unlikely event of ever being home during a home invasion is to hide or run. The dumb choice is to pull a gun. Assuming that you were actually stupid enough to keep one armed and loaded and that easily accessible. But who's to put such wanton stupidity past you?

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're a clown. As typical for blowhards like
> > you, you have nothing but slanted bullshit
> which
> > you very obviously can't back up. So, as I
> said,
> > you have to fail to dumb attempts at insult
> out
> > of frustration. Nothing unusual. I called it
> > above. Ready to talk about the size of my dick
> > yet or should we let you make yourself look
> silly
> > a few more times first?
>
> What? Your voice has become so feeble, I can
> barely hear you anymore. You know you are just
> another gun-nut asshole willing to say (or try to
> say) anything at all to defend his precious little
> hunks of metal that have no actual purpose other
> than killing and maiming people. More guns means
> more killing and maiming. It's as simple as that.
>
>
> But here's another tidbit for you: The safe
> choice in the extremely unlikely event of ever
> being home during a home invasion is to hide or
> run. The dumb choice is to pull a gun. Assuming
> that you were actually stupid enough to keep one
> armed and loaded and that easily accessible. But
> who's to put such wanton stupidity past you?


Still can't produce that source huh?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/22/carson-when-government-looks-more-like-foe-than-fr/?page=all#pagebreak

The senator readily referred to the Bundys and their supporters as “domestic terrorists,” but the current administration is reticent about applying the same term to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who admitted slaughtering more than a dozen people in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. What does this tell us about our government and its perceptions and alignments?

The massive show of federal force in the Bundy case is frightening because it gives us a brief glimpse of the totalitarian regime that awaits a sleeping populace that does not take seriously its voting responsibilities, and places in public office (and returns them to office) who do not represent traditional American values.

The fact that the ranchers were well armed and willing to literally fight for their rights probably tempered the enthusiasm of the federal forces to engage in further aggression. It was clear from the body language and some of the reported verbal responses of the government forces that they were not prepared to engage in lethal combat with fellow Americans.

Those Americans who are concerned about the possible future imposition of martial law after a financial collapse or some other event should take solace in knowing that many military and law enforcement personnel would likely refuse to obey commands inconsistent with freedom and American values. Such commands could emanate from any political party in the future, but it is likely that such a party would be one controlling an administration that selectively enforces laws and ignores or excuses corruption.

PHOTOS: Armed and liberal: Left-leaning celebrities who are pro-gun

Another important lesson from this incident is the value of a well-armed citizenry. The Second Amendment was crafted by wise citizens who recognized how quickly an enemy invasion could occur or how our own government could be deceived into thinking it had the right to dominate the people.

Such domination is considerably more difficult when people have arms and can put up significant resistance. This is the reason that brutal dictators like Fidel Castro, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler and Idi Amin tried to disarm the populace before imposing governmental control. Such domination could occur in America in the not-too-distant future if we are not vigilant.

We must be reasonable and willing to engage in conversation about how to limit the availability of dangerous weapons to criminals and very violent or insane people. In light of past worldwide atrocities committed by tyrants, though, to threaten the Second Amendment rights of ordinary American citizens is itself insanity. Those wishing to ban all assault weapons fail to understand the original intent of the Second Amendment.

Just as insidious as the attempt to limit weapons and ammunition to law-abiding citizens is the incessant invasion of privacy by the government. Unless there is reasonable cause for suspicion as determined by a court of law, there is no need for the government to know all the intimate details of our lives, including who we talk to, where we spend our time and money, or which weapons we own, provided we’re not purchasing tanks or fighter planes.

You lose... again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still can't produce that source huh?

What's the matter, bigshot? That's all you've got? No more stuff to strut, you worthless punked-out asshole? How much does it hurt to be so totally crushed and de-balled after setting yourself up with all that phony bravado, huh? Miserable little NRA weakling.

More for the fucktard from the tidbit file:
Guns = death, and more guns = more death. The populations of the fifteen states with the most guns and the six states with the fewest guns are just about the same. But the average resident of a high-gun state is six times more likely to die as the result of a gun accident For children aged 5-14, it's more than ten times.

Your dick is shriveling again, you helpless little wiener-boy.

Hey Gerry, NRA is winning, Winner.

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Gerry, NRA is winning, Winner.

LOL! The out-of-ammo dumbfuck 4-year olds are attempting to circle thw wagons. What a total farce!

I don't understand dumbfuck, can someone translate to english?

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't understand dumbfuck, can someone translate
> to english?

Ask another asshole, asshole.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Still can't produce that source huh?
>
> What's the matter, bigshot? That's all you've
> got? No more stuff to strut, you worthless
> punked-out asshole? How much does it hurt to be
> so totally crushed and de-balled after setting
> yourself up with all that phony bravado, huh?
> Miserable little NRA weakling.

Hey, the circus must be in town... the clown is back.

Apparently more than you've got since you're still talking shit and still can't produce that source.


> More for the fucktard from the tidbit file:
> Guns = death, and more guns = more death. The
> populations of the fifteen states with the most
> guns and the six states with the fewest guns are
> just about the same. But the average resident of
> a high-gun state is six times more likely to die
> as the result of a gun accident For children
> aged 5-14, it's more than ten times.
>


C'mon... Seriously? You're really going to try another bogus stat with no source after I've embarrassed with the other one? lol!

First, it's obvious just based on the "15 states blah blah" nonsense that it's a typical bs number that someone's cherry-picked data to work back to the conclusion that they want to reach.

Second, as in the case of the first as I noted above, you're still trying to play the multiplier game to make the actual risk look much greater than it realistically is. What are the actual numbers of incidents and rates?

Sorry, you're going to have to up your game if you want to play here. So...

- Post whatever biased source that you pulled your bs numbers from.

- I'll point out how they've been manipulated and shred it (again).

- You'll get even more frustrated and talk even more shit.


> Your dick is shriveling again, you helpless little
> wiener-boy.

Awww... and there it is. Like I said above:

"Asshole will become even more frustrated and eventually start talking about the size of my dick."

And, as I said, "I'll laugh at him."

lol

Hey Gerry, Did you just call yourself an asshole? I think you are finally coming around, Do you want a tryout for the winning team?

You lose... again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, the circus must be in town... the clown is
> back.

HINT TO THE BUS-FLATTENED ASSHOLE: Further advertising of your complete ignorance of the topic is only making your extremely bad situation that much worse. Since these tidbits were all selected from serious, well-known, and widely cited sources, if you were even the least bit familiar with the subject matter, you would have recognized at least many of them all by your pitiful little lonesome. But you didn't, did you. This is because you know ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING about any of this and are merely a passer-off of worthless NRA-manufactured slop that you have foolishly and ignorantly fallen for as if it weren't all a bunch of trumped up tripe and garbage. Dead fish for the pathetic gun-nut trained seals. Ork! Ork! That's exactly what limp-dick low-grade ignorant fucking ASSHOLES do.

The evidence is overwhelming, fucktard....

GUNS = DEATH

MORE GUNS = MORE DEATH

YOU = ASSHOLE²

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Gerry, Did you just call yourself an asshole?
> I think you are finally coming around, Do you want
> a tryout for the winning team?

I know you're supposed to throw the little ones back, but don't you have some like pre-algebra homework to be doing, asshole?

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey, the circus must be in town... the clown is
> > back.
>
> HINT TO THE BUS-FLATTENED ASSHOLE: Further
> advertising of your complete ignorance of the
> topic is only making your extremely bad situation
> that much worse. Since these tidbits were all
> selected from serious, well-known, and widely
> cited sources, if you were even the least bit
> familiar with the subject matter, you would have
> recognized at least many of them all by your
> pitiful little lonesome. But you didn't, did you.
> This is because you know ABSOLUTELY FUCKING
> NOTHING about any of this and are merely a
> passer-off of worthless NRA-manufactured slop that
> you have foolishly and ignorantly fallen for as if
> it weren't all a bunch of trumped up tripe and
> garbage. Dead fish for the pathetic gun-nut
> trained seals. Ork! Ork! That's exactly what
> limp-dick low-grade ignorant fucking ASSHOLES do.
>
>
> The evidence is overwhelming, fucktard....
>
> GUNS = DEATH
>
> MORE GUNS = MORE DEATH
>
> YOU = ASSHOLE²


^ More bullshit ranting.

No sources.

Want to try again?

You lose... again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ More bullshit ranting.

Accurate description of the situation. You are no more than one failed small-dick no-account NRA asshole.

> No sources. Want to try again?

LOL! There are lots of sources. Serious, independent, and widely cited sources. Having never seen any such thing, you simply can't imagine what they might be. Stupid worthless NRA-manipulated fucktard.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ^ More bullshit ranting.
>
> Accurate description of the situation. You are no
> more than one failed small-dick no-account NRA
> asshole.
>
> > No sources. Want to try again?
>
> LOL! There are lots of sources. Serious,
> independent, and widely cited sources. Having
> never seen any such thing, you simply can't
> imagine what they might be. Stupid worthless
> NRA-manipulated fucktard.


libtard?

Wow Gerry, what a flameout, like the end of a little sparkler..poof you're done.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ^ More bullshit ranting.
>
> Accurate description of the situation. You are no
> more than one failed small-dick no-account NRA
> asshole.
>
> > No sources. Want to try again?
>
> LOL! There are lots of sources. Serious,
> independent, and widely cited sources. Having
> never seen any such thing, you simply can't
> imagine what they might be. Stupid worthless
> NRA-manipulated fucktard.


Obviously there are many. Some of which are very good. None of which you can provide to support your bs numbers in any realistic way.

Look guy, as I did completely accurately earlier, let me explain how this is going to go. Really not hard to predict since I've argued the same many times with far better than you. You know, people who can actually make a reasoned, coherent, well-sourced argument versus your nonsense rants above.

I'm going to keep pressing you to support your bs stats with objective sources.

You can't so you'll continue to post more bullshit like you have thus far.

Every time you do, you'll just look even more pitiful and your dumb posts become more laughable.

Next dumb post you'd like to make?


Oh, and for those playing along at home...

Just as an example to put some context on the discussion here and show how the games are played with the "10X!!!"-type numbers which he's used in order to avoid the actual numbers and rate (using 2010 data here since it's an easy, accurate, objective source to pull and they don't really change much year-to-year):

- There are 57,283,060 children aged 0-14 in the US.
- There are somewhere around +300,000,000 guns in the US.
- There were a grand total of 62 accidental firearms-related deaths for the age group.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/FIREARM_DEATHS_AND_DEATH_RATES.pdf

Although individually tragic, in terms of overall risk the numbers are relatively tiny. Beyond that, the numbers have trended generally downward despite large increases in the numbers of guns (primarily a result of gun safety education campaigns versus gun control laws).

That's why disingenuous parties, as here, always give their stats in "10X!" form with no context beyond that; otherwise, they just don't have the same desired emotional effect.

Fucking Fucktard! I have no fucking facts you asshole. You fucking small dick, NRA fucktards are all the same. Spouting your facts against our drivel. Puhhleez ... We don't need facts you lying fucktard, no-penis, know-it-all. We just need to sieze your guns!

You lose... again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obviously there are many. Some of which are very
> good. None of which you can provide to support
> your bs numbers in any realistic way.

Here are a few, asshole...
----------
Lizotte AJ, Bordua DJ. Firearms ownership for sport and protection: two divergent models. Am Sociol Rev. 1980;45:229–244.

Glaeser EL, Glendon S. Who owns guns? Criminals, victims, and the culture of violence. Am Econ Rev. 1998;88:458–462.

Hemenway D, Barber C, Miller M. Unintentional firearm deaths: a comparison of other-inflicted and self-inflicted shootings. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42:1184–1188.

Richardson EG, Hemenway D. Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries, 2003 [published online ahead of print June 21, 2010].

Centers for Disease Control. Rates of homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children, 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997;46:101–105. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm.

Centers for Disease Control. WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999–2007. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths. Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33:477–484.

Price JH, Thompson AJ, Dake JA. Factors associated with state variations in homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm deaths. J Community Health. 2004;29:271–283.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Vriniotis M. Firearm storage practices and rates of unintentional firearm deaths in the United States. Accid Anal Prev. 2005;37:661–667.

Vyrostek S, Annest J, Ryan G. Surveillance for fatal and nonfatal injuries-United States 2001. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2004;53(SS-7):1–57.
----------

Recognize any of those, asshole? No? You really are kind of an ignorant dumbfuck know-nothing when it comes to guns, aren't you. Maybe the NRA just doesn't pass stuff like this your way. You know they don't really like independent, serious, widely cited sources at all. They prefer their own manufactured bullshit. You know, stuff cranked out for them by jackass hacks like Gary Kleck. LOL! Here are some more serious sources for your consideration, though...

---------
Sinauer N, Annest JL, Mercy JA. Unintentional, nonfatal firearm-related injuries: a preventable public health burden. JAMA. 1996;275:1740–1743.

Hemenway D. Private Guns Public Health. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2006.

Katcher ML, Meister AN, Sorkness CA, et al. Use of the modified Delphi technique to identify and rate home injury hazard risks and prevention methods for young children. Inj Prev. 2006;12:189–194.

Peterson LG, Peterson M, O'Shanick GJ, Swann A. Self-inflicted gunshot wounds: lethality of method versus intent. Am J Psychiatry. 1985;142:228–231.

Owens D, Horrocks J, House A. Fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;181:193–199.

Gibb SJ, Beautrais AL, Fergusson DM. Mortality and further suicidal behaviour after an index suicide attempt: a 10-year study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005;39:95–100.

Jamison KR. Night Falls Fast: Understanding Suicide. New York, NY: Knopf; 1999.

Miller M, Hemenway D. The relationship between firearms and suicide: a review of the literature. Aggress Violent Behav. 1999;4:807–814.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Goldstein CE, et al. Risk factors for adolescent suicide: a comparison of adolescent suicide victims with suicidal inpatients. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;45:581–588.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Allman CJ, Moritz GM, Wartella ME, Zelenak JP. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides: a case-control study. JAMA. 1991;266:2989–2995.
----------

And when you're done assimilating those, you can move on to these...

----------

Brent DA, Perper J, Moritz G, Baugher M, Allman C. Suicide in adolescents with no apparent psychopathology. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1993;32:494–500.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Moritz G, Baugher M, Schweers J, Roth C. Firearms and adolescent suicide: a community casecontrol study. Am J Dis Child. 1993;147:1066–1071.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Moritz G, Baugher M, Schweers J, Roth C. Suicide in affectively ill adolescents: a case-control study. J Affect Disord. 1994;31:193–202.

Brent DA, Baugher M, Bridge J, Chen T, Chiappetta L. Age- and sex-related risk factors for adolescent suicide. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999;38:1497–1505.

Conwell Y, Duberstein PR, Connor K, Eberly S, Cox C, Caine ED. Access to firearms and risk for suicide in middle-aged and older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2002;10:407–416.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467–472.

Cummings P, Koepsell TD, Grossman DC, Savarino J, Thompson RS. The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:974–978.

Kung HC, Pearson JL, Liu X. Risk factors for male and female suicide decedents ages 15–64 in the United States: results from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2003;38:419–426.

Kung HC, Pearson JL, Wei R. Substance use, firearm availability, depressive symptoms, and mental health service utilization among white and African American suicide decedents aged 15 to 64 years. Ann Epidemiol. 2005;15:614–621.

Dahlberg LL, Ikeda RM, Kresnow MJ. Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160:929–936.
----------

Anything from that group that rings a bell over there, chump? What? Nothing again? Face it, asshole. You are an illiterate here. You are WAY out of your league and have been from the get-go. You are just a squid -- a poorly programmed NRA nothing and nobody. When it comes to a discusson of guns, you arrive completely unarmed.

> Look guy, as I did completely accurately earlier,
> let me explain how this is going to go. Really
> not hard to predict since I've argued the same
> many times with far better than you.

LOL! I TOWER over you, you dissembled dumbfuck. Any serious person would, of course.

> You know, people who can actually make a reasoned, coherent,
> well-sourced argument versus your nonsense rants above.

Once again, all hard-boiled facts that you DON'T and WON'T address because you fucking CAN'T.

> I'm going to keep pressing you to support your bs
> stats with objective sources.

Really, how's that working out for you, fucktard? Is getting taken to the cleaners something you get off on perhaps?

> Oh, and for those playing along at home...
> There are 57,283,060 children aged 0-14 in the
> US. There are somewhere around +300,000,000 guns in
> the US. There were a grand total of 62 accidental
> firearms-related deaths for the age group.

LOL! Still with the bozo "accidental deaths among 0-14 year olds" nonsense, eh? It's been shat upon before. Having a gun in the home increases one's risk of dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of almost four. No age vector. No accidental versus deliberate vector. Stupid diversions and cowardly retreats into worlds of the utterly irrelevant and immaterial are not going to save the day for you. The facts will still be the facts.

> Beyond that, the numbers have trended generally
> downward despite large increases in the numbers
> of guns (primarily a result of gun safety education
> campaigns versus gun control laws).

Pathetic. Gun ownership rates have been declining for decades. 50% of US households once owned a gun. Now it's in the neighborhood of 30%. Guns still do kill nearly as many people as automobile accidents though.

> That's why disingenuous parties, as here, always
> give their stats in "10X!" form with no context
> beyond that; otherwise, they just don't have the
> same desired emotional effect.

Your peeing on yourself again. All the emotional effect anyone needs is right here: 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds annually. Some 150,000 suffer gunshot wounds but do not die as the result. About half of those do require treatment in a hospital emergency room however, These are complicated injuries, and survivors often face long and painful periods of treatment and recovery -- part of the reason why the ultimate cost of an average ER gunshot admission is nearly twice that of the next-most costly reason -- the aforementioned automobile accidents.

So here's another little tidbit for you to choke on but never reply to because you can't: The overall homicide rate for US youth aged 15 to 24 years is 14 times higher than the overall homicide rate for such youth in other developed countries (such as Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom.) I wonder why THAT is? But maybe it doesn't matter because the rates in all those other countries are so low? You know, a sufficiently fucked-up fool might actually fall for that sort of notion. (guffaw!)

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obviously there are many. Some of which are
> very
> > good. None of which you can provide to support
> > your bs numbers in any realistic way.
>
> Here are a few, asshole...
> ----------
> Lizotte AJ, Bordua DJ. Firearms ownership for
> sport and protection: two divergent models. Am
> Sociol Rev. 1980;45:229–244.
>
> Glaeser EL, Glendon S. Who owns guns? Criminals,
> victims, and the culture of violence. Am Econ Rev.
> 1998;88:458–462.
>
> Hemenway D, Barber C, Miller M. Unintentional
> firearm deaths: a comparison of other-inflicted
> and self-inflicted shootings. Accid Anal Prev.
> 2010;42:1184–1188.
>
> Richardson EG, Hemenway D. Homicide, suicide, and
> unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the
> United States with other high-income countries,
> 2003 [published online ahead of print June 21,
> 2010].
>
> Centers for Disease Control. Rates of homicide,
> suicide and firearm-related death among children,
> 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly
> Rep. 1997;46:101–105.
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.
> htm.
>
> Centers for Disease Control. WISQARS Injury
> Mortality Reports, 1999–2007.
> http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.
> html.
>
> Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearm
> availability and unintentional firearm deaths.
> Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33:477–484.
>
> Price JH, Thompson AJ, Dake JA. Factors associated
> with state variations in homicide, suicide, and
> unintentional firearm deaths. J Community Health.
> 2004;29:271–283.
>
> Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Vriniotis M.
> Firearm storage practices and rates of
> unintentional firearm deaths in the United States.
> Accid Anal Prev. 2005;37:661–667.
>
> Vyrostek S, Annest J, Ryan G. Surveillance for
> fatal and nonfatal injuries-United States 2001.
> MMWR Surveill Summ. 2004;53(SS-7):1–57.
> ----------
>
> Recognize any of those, asshole? No? You really
> are kind of an ignorant dumbfuck know-nothing when
> it comes to guns, aren't you. Maybe the NRA just
> doesn't pass stuff like this your way. You know
> they don't really like independent, serious,
> widely cited sources at all. They prefer their
> own manufactured bullshit. You know, stuff
> cranked out for them by jackass hacks like Gary
> Kleck. LOL! Here are some more serious sources
> for your consideration, though...
>
> ---------
> Sinauer N, Annest JL, Mercy JA. Unintentional,
> nonfatal firearm-related injuries: a preventable
> public health burden. JAMA. 1996;275:1740–1743.
>
> Hemenway D. Private Guns Public Health. Ann Arbor,
> MI: University of Michigan Press; 2006.
>
> Katcher ML, Meister AN, Sorkness CA, et al. Use of
> the modified Delphi technique to identify and rate
> home injury hazard risks and prevention methods
> for young children. Inj Prev. 2006;12:189–194.
>
> Peterson LG, Peterson M, O'Shanick GJ, Swann A.
> Self-inflicted gunshot wounds: lethality of method
> versus intent. Am J Psychiatry.
> 1985;142:228–231.
>
> Owens D, Horrocks J, House A. Fatal and non-fatal
> repetition of self-harm. Br J Psychiatry.
> 2002;181:193–199.
>
> Gibb SJ, Beautrais AL, Fergusson DM. Mortality and
> further suicidal behaviour after an index suicide
> attempt: a 10-year study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry.
> 2005;39:95–100.
>
> Jamison KR. Night Falls Fast: Understanding
> Suicide. New York, NY: Knopf; 1999.
>
> Miller M, Hemenway D. The relationship between
> firearms and suicide: a review of the literature.
> Aggress Violent Behav. 1999;4:807–814.
>
> Brent DA, Perper JA, Goldstein CE, et al. Risk
> factors for adolescent suicide: a comparison of
> adolescent suicide victims with suicidal
> inpatients. Arch Gen Psychiatry.
> 1988;45:581–588.
>
> Brent DA, Perper JA, Allman CJ, Moritz GM,
> Wartella ME, Zelenak JP. The presence and
> accessibility of firearms in the homes of
> adolescent suicides: a case-control study. JAMA.
> 1991;266:2989–2995.
> ----------
>
> And when you're done assimilating those, you can
> move on to these...
>
> ----------
>
> Brent DA, Perper J, Moritz G, Baugher M, Allman C.
> Suicide in adolescents with no apparent
> psychopathology. J Am Acad Child Adolesc
> Psychiatry. 1993;32:494–500.
>
> Brent DA, Perper JA, Moritz G, Baugher M, Schweers
> J, Roth C. Firearms and adolescent suicide: a
> community casecontrol study. Am J Dis Child.
> 1993;147:1066–1071.
>
> Brent DA, Perper JA, Moritz G, Baugher M, Schweers
> J, Roth C. Suicide in affectively ill adolescents:
> a case-control study. J Affect Disord.
> 1994;31:193–202.
>
> Brent DA, Baugher M, Bridge J, Chen T, Chiappetta
> L. Age- and sex-related risk factors for
> adolescent suicide. J Am Acad Child Adolesc
> Psychiatry. 1999;38:1497–1505.
>
> Conwell Y, Duberstein PR, Connor K, Eberly S, Cox
> C, Caine ED. Access to firearms and risk for
> suicide in middle-aged and older adults. Am J
> Geriatr Psychiatry. 2002;10:407–416.
>
> Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide
> in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J
> Med. 1992;327:467–472.
>
> Cummings P, Koepsell TD, Grossman DC, Savarino J,
> Thompson RS. The association between the purchase
> of a handgun and homicide or suicide. Am J Public
> Health. 1997;87:974–978.
>
> Kung HC, Pearson JL, Liu X. Risk factors for male
> and female suicide decedents ages 15–64 in the
> United States: results from the 1993 National
> Mortality Followback Survey. Soc Psychiatry
> Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2003;38:419–426.
>
> Kung HC, Pearson JL, Wei R. Substance use, firearm
> availability, depressive symptoms, and mental
> health service utilization among white and African
> American suicide decedents aged 15 to 64 years.
> Ann Epidemiol. 2005;15:614–621.
>
> Dahlberg LL, Ikeda RM, Kresnow MJ. Guns in the
> home and risk of a violent death in the home:
> findings from a national study. Am J Epidemiol.
> 2004;160:929–936.
> ----------
>
> Anything from that group that rings a bell over
> there, chump? What? Nothing again? Face it,
> asshole. You are an illiterate here. You are WAY
> out of your league and have been from the get-go.
> You are just a squid -- a poorly programmed NRA
> nothing and nobody. When it comes to a discusson
> of guns, you arrive completely unarmed.
>
> > Look guy, as I did completely accurately
> earlier,
> > let me explain how this is going to go. Really
> > not hard to predict since I've argued the same
> > many times with far better than you.
>
> LOL! I TOWER over you, you dissembled dumbfuck.
> Any serious person would, of course.
>
> > You know, people who can actually make a
> reasoned, coherent,
> > well-sourced argument versus your nonsense rants
> above.
>
> Once again, all hard-boiled facts that you DON'T
> and WON'T address because you fucking CAN'T.
>
> > I'm going to keep pressing you to support your
> bs
> > stats with objective sources.
>
> Really, how's that working out for you, fucktard?
> Is getting taken to the cleaners something you get
> off on perhaps?
>
> > Oh, and for those playing along at home...
> > There are 57,283,060 children aged 0-14 in the
> > US. There are somewhere around +300,000,000 guns
> in
> > the US. There were a grand total of 62
> accidental
> > firearms-related deaths for the age group.
>
> LOL! Still with the bozo "accidental deaths among
> 0-14 year olds" nonsense, eh? It's been shat upon
> before. Having a gun in the home increases one's
> risk of dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of
> almost four. No age vector. No accidental versus
> deliberate vector. Stupid diversions and cowardly
> retreats into worlds of the utterly irrelevant and
> immaterial are not going to save the day for you.
> The facts will still be the facts.
>
> > Beyond that, the numbers have trended generally
>
> > downward despite large increases in the numbers
>
> > of guns (primarily a result of gun safety
> education
> > campaigns versus gun control laws).
>
> Pathetic. Gun ownership rates have been declining
> for decades. 50% of US households once owned a
> gun. Now it's in the neighborhood of 30%. Guns
> still do kill nearly as many people as automobile
> accidents though.
>
> > That's why disingenuous parties, as here,
> always
> > give their stats in "10X!" form with no context
> > beyond that; otherwise, they just don't have
> the
> > same desired emotional effect.
>
> Your peeing on yourself again. All the emotional
> effect anyone needs is right here: 30,000 people
> die from gunshot wounds annually. Some 150,000
> suffer gunshot wounds but do not die as the
> result. About half of those do require treatment
> in a hospital emergency room however, These are
> complicated injuries, and survivors often face
> long and painful periods of treatment and recovery
> -- part of the reason why the ultimate cost of an
> average ER gunshot admission is nearly twice that
> of the next-most costly reason -- the
> aforementioned automobile accidents.
>
> So here's another little tidbit for you to choke
> on but never reply to because you can't: The
> overall homicide rate for US youth aged 15 to 24
> years is 14 times higher than the overall homicide
> rate for such youth in other developed countries
> (such as Australia, Canada, France, Germany,
> Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom.) I
> wonder why THAT is? But maybe it doesn't matter
> because the rates in all those other countries are
> so low? You know, a sufficiently fucked-up fool
> might actually fall for that sort of notion.
> (guffaw!)


dear **shole sighting,

do u have a life? what do u do for a lving?

do u have a life? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dear **shole sighting,
> do u have a life? what do u do for a lving?

Yes, quite a rich life thank you. I am director of a local educational charity and continue to provide research and analytical services on a pro bono basis to some former clients with whom I maintain a continuing relationship. None of those of course is the NRA. I don't work with scum.

The Asshole "Asshole Sighting" is so crazy and bigoted my entire family went to Chantilly and bought handguns today.

Children fall into 5 gallon paint buckets with water in them too.

Ban everything! Says the Asshole

I am Scared! Of Crazy People! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Asshole "Asshole Sighting" is so crazy and
> bigoted my entire family went to Chantilly and
> bought handguns today. Children fall into 5 gallon
> paint buckets with water in them too.
> Ban everything! Says the Asshole

You see what knee-jerk, clod-like stupid will do to you? I've not called for the banning of anything. I've only noted that GUNS = DEATH amd MORE GUNS = MORE DEATH. These are simple facts confirmable by anyone willing to conduct or explore serious research on the topic.

And More seats on planes = more plane crash victims. Speed limits over 10 miles a hour = more auto deaths. Ladders taller then 3 feet = more deaths. More people going to the beach = more drownings.

Now give us some meaningfull stats. As In

% of Womem who carry a concealed hangun who successfully resist a attack.By display of the firearm or use of it against an attacker

% of Women who have no firearm protection who are attacked,and beaten, raped or murdered.

We can start there.

Nice shot, game over.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here are a few, asshole...
> ----------
> Lizotte AJ, Bordua DJ. Firearms ownership for
> sport and protection: two divergent models. Am
> Sociol Rev. 1980;45:229–244.
>
> Glaeser EL, Glendon S. Who owns guns? Criminals,
> victims, and the culture of violence. Am Econ Rev.
> 1998;88:458–462.
> ...


Don't look now but your desperation is showing.

So you cut and paste a reference list taken from:

Quote

Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home
American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine November/December 2011 5: 502-511, first published on February 2, 2011

or from someone else's post based on it that you Googled up as another knucklehead like you did down the page here:

http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=127742&p=1876990


But at least it saved you from coming up with another paragraph of your standard bullshit. Now which are you citing as the source for your 4X number?



> LOL! I TOWER over you, you dissembled dumbfuck.
> Any serious person would, of course.
>
> > You know, people who can actually make a
> reasoned, coherent,
> > well-sourced argument versus your nonsense rants
> above.
>
> Once again, all hard-boiled facts that you DON'T
> and WON'T address because you fucking CAN'T.
>
>
> Really, how's that working out for you, fucktard?
> Is getting taken to the cleaners something you get
> off on perhaps?


^ Same old bullshit... Just like I said...


> LOL! Still with the bozo "accidental deaths among
> 0-14 year olds" nonsense, eh? It's been shat upon
> before. Having a gun in the home increases one's
> risk of dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of
> almost four. No age vector. No accidental versus
> deliberate vector. Stupid diversions and cowardly
> retreats into worlds of the utterly irrelevant and
> immaterial are not going to save the day for you.


Um, no dummy. That was in response to your own post citing (yet another) unsourced stat as below:

> just about the same. But the average resident of
> a high-gun state is six times more likely to die
> as the result of a gun accident For children
> aged 5-14, it's more than ten times.
>

All that I did was to use CDCs stats (with the source provided (see how that works? It's easy. Really. You should try it.) as given for a the wider age range of 0-14 including those under 5. Which is to your benefit given that it picks up a few more even though they are very rare events within that age group.


> The facts will still be the facts.

The fact is that there were a total of 62 accidental firearms-related deaths in 2010 over that entire age group (including the group as you bound it). That number is generally representative across the longer time frame. No matter how you try to make it appear larger using multipliers and relative comparisons, it remains a total of 62.


> Pathetic. Gun ownership rates have been declining
> for decades. 50% of US households once owned a
> gun. Now it's in the neighborhood of 30%. Guns
> still do kill nearly as many people as automobile
> accidents though.

Boy, you just love trying to play games with those relative numbers don't you? lol I'm not sure whether you're doing it intentionally or if you've just been subjected to parroted bs stats for so long that you don't realize it. Either way, unfortunately, it just makes you look even more disingenuous when I call you on it...

First, although the *percentage* likely has decreased to some degree for a variety of reasons, your 30% number is based on the low end of a number of polls, seveaerl of which are far higher and none of which are claimed to be particularly accurate. It's also directly contradicted by harder objective data from gun purchase applications, concealed carry registrations, sales numbers, etc, including very large increases among women and minorities specifically purchasing guns for personal protection (i.e., it's very clearly not just old white men adding to their collection).

Second, even assuming your 30% or whatever percentage, with growth that percentage still represents a larger absolute number. The number grows by about 10 million per year now.


> Your peeing on yourself again. All the emotional
> effect anyone needs is right here: 30,000 people
> die from gunshot wounds annually. Some 150,000
> suffer gunshot wounds but do not die as the
> result. About half of those do require treatment
> in a hospital emergency room however, These are
> complicated injuries, and survivors often face
> long and painful periods of treatment and recovery
> -- part of the reason why the ultimate cost of an
> average ER gunshot admission is nearly twice that
> of the next-most costly reason -- the
> aforementioned automobile accidents.


Nobody questions that there are large numbers of gun-associated deaths and injuries. The more substantive questions arise when you start breaking the numbers down to understand what drives them, who's involved, where, etc. And, more specific to the discussion here, the matter of "the risk of a gun in the home" as you posed it. As typical for your side of this debate, you present those numbers as if they are all the same and that all directly related to that risk. They are not.


>
> So here's another little tidbit for you to choke
> on but never reply to because you can't: The
> overall homicide rate for US youth aged 15 to 24
> years is 14 times higher than the overall homicide
> rate for such youth in other developed countries
> (such as Australia, Canada, France, Germany,
> Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom.) I
> wonder why THAT is? But maybe it doesn't matter
> because the rates in all those other countries are
> so low? You know, a sufficiently fucked-up fool
> might actually fall for that sort of notion.
> (guffaw!)


Because of largely young black males 15-24 involved in gang and drug-related crime shooting each other which centers in a number of specific urban locations and has little to nothing to do with legal gun ownership? Awww... did I spoil the ending for you?

Game set match!

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, quite a rich life thank you. I am director
> of a local educational charity and continue to
> provide research and analytical services on a pro
> bono basis to some former clients with whom I
> maintain a continuing relationship. None of those
> of course is the NRA. I don't work with scum.
>

What this means is I am paid to agitate in community forums, like Fairfax Underground, based on the desires of my employers. With respect to the eventual outlawing of the possession and use of all firearms by other than regime-approved individuals (including military, police, and armed transport services)...I am paid to participate in threads such as these.

I've got a playbook at hand that can be viewed as sheetmusic for the concerto that I provide. Part of this playbook relates that I should do my best to enflame the anger of you fucktards by cussing at you...which is kind of fun...and talking about how those opposing the regime's point of view about eliminating lawful gun ownership all have small penises...which they do.

Fuck you fucktard gun nuts talking about women needing anything more than a real loud whistle! No self-respecting woman would want a gun. And she certainly wouldn't need a gun to distract attention from that itsy-bitsy penis fucktard gun nuts try to compensate for.

To repeat. I don't work with scum. I work with those who favor the regime's goals of rationing freedom to those that are deserving. And fucktard gun nuts are not part of the regime's rationing scheme.

>But the average resident of a high-gun state is six times more likely to die as the result of a gun accident For children aged 5-14, it's more than ten times.

While this fact may be true it doesn't really provide any meaning. What is the overall accidental death rate? Has the availability of guns increased the accidental death rate or are guns simply yet another means for stupid people to kill themselves?

it is just a matter of choice.

it is okay to chooose to abort a baby.

it is okay to not chooose to protect your family with a gun.

thanks for making it clear.

i can choose to not abort a baby, right?

but why can't i choose to protect my family with a gun?

Everytime a gun control issue is posted on FXU a hand full of anti gun people show up and then LOL AKA Asshole Sighting AKA Actually shows up and rants on and on with cut and paste BS rigged info from liberal anti gun sites. The foul mouthed Ass Clown was caught here in this thread with cut and paste BS from the "American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine"as shown above. Then when facts are presented and a challenge to show % of women with firearms vs without being raped beaten and killed they go away.

Owning a firearm is a US right to bear Arms to protect yourself and your family. It is your right .

Get lost anti self defense creepy gun control clowns.

More Seats On Planes More Death Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And More seats on planes = more plane crash
> victims. Speed limits over 10 miles a hour = more
> auto deaths. Ladders taller then 3 feet = more
> deaths. More people going to the beach = more
> drownings.

And by your asshole brand of non-logic, all those extra people lounging at the beach must mean fewer deaths in airplane crashes. Did you correct for that, you ignorant dumbfuck? More to the point, while there are risks inherent in every activity, all of the above have further purposes that make their tiny risks worthwhile. Airplane crashes last year killed more than 30,000 fewer people than guns. Did you realize that? Do you assholes fucking realize anything at all?

Guns in the home meanwhile bring huge risks and have no further purpose at all. Their one and only purpose is to kill people -- most likely you, a family member, a friend, or a neighbor. Guns in the home do not provide the safety and security against strangers that foolish guntards suppose and imagine in their alarmingly complete states of ignorance. There are no serious studies that show such a thing. Instead, every serious study shows that guns in the home increase your risk of dying from a gunshot wound -- by a combined factor of almost four. When there is a gun in the home, you are more likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound, you are much more likely to die from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and you are more likely to die from a gunshot wound inflicted by others. If your neighbors also have guns in the home, well congratulations -- your chances of dying from a gunshot wound just increased further still. The simple facts are that proximity to guns raises the risks. It is only mindless brainwashed fucktards and assholes who have any difficulty at all in grasping this.

> Now give us some meaningfull stats. As In
> % of Womem who carry a concealed hangun who
> successfully resist a attack. By display of
> the firearm or use of it against an attacker

While I can certainly understand your desire to run away from it, the topic here has been guns in the home. Very few women are raped in the home. Except of course those living with neanderthal right-wing gun-nut barbarians posing as husbands and boyfriends. Every woman who feels she needs protection in the home from such animals should have it. Increase the chances of the bastard's dying from a gunshot wound during a rape attempt. That's perfectly fine by me.

> We can start there.

Haven't seen an indication yet that you could actually start ANYWHERE. Just another NRA-manufactured goober-piece with the serial numbers filed off. Stupid stammering slobbering dumbshit.

Federalist Papers

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html


SCOTUS rulings in Heller and McDonald

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice shot, game over.

LOL! God, but you're stupid. Not just about guns, but about every fucking thing you've ever unwisely chosen to post about. An across-the-board ignorant fucktard and asshole, so far as anyone can tell.

>
Posted by: Asshole Sighting ()

Date: May 04, 2014 08:02AM


True The Vote ! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nice shot, game over.

LOL! God, but you're stupid. Not just about guns, but about every fucking thing you've ever unwisely chosen to post about. An across-the-board ignorant fucktard and asshole, so far as anyone can tell.<

The ASS HOLE speaks again For Itself!

You lose... again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Face it, dude, things are hopeless for you here. There is no path back from such a beating as you have taken. Your stumbling fumbling bumbling ignorant ass has been kicked, gouged, sliced, diced, chopped, hacked, stomped, trampled, crushed, and mangled at every turn. The tainted asshole flesh has, bit by bit, been ripped from your worthless asshole bones. You have left now exactly what you had to start out with. FUCKING NOTHING. You are just a dust-in-the-wind douchebag and have only proved that further here.

> Don't look now but your desperation is showing.

Oooh! Such big words for having never had anything to back any of them up. No-account little scum-sucking schoolboy fucktard.

> So you cut and paste a reference list taken from:
> Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home
> American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine
> November/December 2011 5: 502-511, first published
> on February 2, 2011

Sources, baby. First you want them, then you hate them. Did you read the article, by the way? It's a form of meta-analysis that surveys and summarizes more than a hundred other serious, independent, often-cited studies on guns done over the course of more than thirty years. But of course you wouldn't have read a thing like that. Assholes have a marked aversion to serious, independent, and widely-cited sources. They prefer a suck-ass reliance on known assholes sponsored by lying pukes and fraudsters such as the NRA. You are left with a stinking puss-bag for a brain as the result. But if you HAD somehow managed to read it, you would have recognized various of the points presented from having already seen them highlighted in my posts -- points directly based as always on just these sorts of serious, independent, and often-cited sources -- the sort of honest and factual research that makes simpleton gun-nut assholes like you so piss-in-your-pants uncomfortable.

> ...or from someone else's post based on it that you
> Googled up as another knucklehead like you did
> down the page here:

Such a fucktard! You've now managed to establish that there is more than one person who is this much smarter, better-read, and more adept than you. Let me assure you that everyone I know is in fact smarter, better-read, and more adept than you. Some of them own guns. But none of them is a mindless ignorant fucktard incapable of accepting reality. They can all make their way through basic English, basic math and statistics, and basic logic, thus giving themselves a HUGE advantage over you, a helpless, hapless, fucktard and totally talentless asshole.

> But at least it saved you from coming up with
> another paragraph of your standard bullshit. Now
> which are you citing as the source for your 4X
> number?

Still sitting on your fat and useless ass, eh? That's how you got to be this stupid to begin with, you know. So lie there like a lump of blubber some more. It will really serve you well in the long-run. Assuming you aren't accidentally shot to death in the meantime. You have meanwhile been led to water. Drink it.

> Same old bullshit... Just like I said...

Same old ass-reaming as you've been receiving from the get-go. You're a fucking incompetent, you know. If it weren't for the humor in it, none of this would have been worth my time. You are nothing more than a hopeless and pathologically disinformed dumbfuck!

> Um, no dummy. That was in response to your own
> post citing (yet another) unsourced stat as
> below:
>
> [...the average resident of a high-gun state
> is six times more likely to die as the result
> of a gun accident. For children aged 5-14,
> it's more than ten times.]

Once again, that's from a serious, independent, widely-cited study of the type that you and other gun-tard assholes never read but that can be easily found on the internet. These google skills of yours seem to be letting you down. You use them, you look like more of an asshole. You don't use them, you look like more of an asshole. Kind of an assholish trend going on there for obvious underlying reasons.

> All that I did was to use CDCs stats (with the
> source provided (see how that works? It's easy.

As has been repeatedly pointed out above, all you did was try to deflect off into totally irrelevant bullshit topics, typically botching the fucking data from over there as you went. Complete asshole failure on your part.

> The fact is that there were a total of 62
> accidental firearms-related deaths in 2010 over
> that entire age group (including the group as you
> bound it). That number is generally
> representative across the longer time frame. No
> matter how you try to make it appear larger using
> multipliers and relative comparisons, it remains a
> total of 62.

It remains the same worthless goober-asshole deflection that it has always been, you fucking dickwad. Having a gun in the home increases a resident's risk of dying from a gunshot wound by a factor of almost four. There is no age vector. There is no intention vector. It is a blanket fact. There are meanwhile more than 30,000 fatal gunshot wounds every year in this country, along with at least 150,000 non-fatal gunshot wounds, about half of which require treatment in a hospital emergency room. These are typically followed by long, painful, and expensive recovery periods.

> Boy, you just love trying to play games with those
> relative numbers don't you? lol I'm not sure
> whether you're doing it intentionally or if you've
> just been subjected to parroted bs stats for so
> long that you don't realize it. Either way,
> unfortunately, it just makes you look even more
> disingenuous when I call you on it...

Complete nonsense from a failing goober math-tard. A is larger than B. A is ten times as large as B. It's all relative, fuckwad. That's how comparisons work. Maybe hire an after-school math tutor or something.

> First, although the *percentage* likely has
> decreased to some degree for a variety of reasons,
> your 30% number is based on the low end of a
> number of polls, seveaerl of which are far higher
> and none of which are claimed to be particularly
> accurate.

So fucking mealy-mouthed feeble. About 50% of households once owned a gun. Now it's about 30%. End of fucking story, douchebag. The polls you are appealing to seek to estimate the percent of the population that lives in the roughly 30% of households that owns a gun. Just like gun ownership, household size tends to increase as you move downward along the intelligence and income scales.

> It's also directly contradicted by harder objective
> data from gun purchase applications, concealed carry
> registrations, sales numbers, etc, including very
> large increases among women and minorities specifically
> purchasing guns for personal protection (i.e., it's
> very clearly not just old white men adding to their
> collection).

Attention, you mindless dumbfuck. The question is whether a gun is owned. How or why any gun came to be owned is not relevant in any fucking way. Once again, you can't do numbers and have to run off into the weeds of irrelevancy because the plain and simple facts simply fry your worthless ass in a heartbeat.

> Second, even assuming your 30% or whatever
> percentage, with growth that percentage still
> represents a larger absolute number. The number
> grows by about 10 million per year now.

Hmmm. This math/stat stuff is really confusing to you, isn't it. There are presently fewer than 125 million households in the US. The number increases by roughly 1 million per year. The roughly 30% of households that own guns do needlessly own more than 300 million of them, but the actual number of guns would not be relevant. Owning one gun makes you one gunowner. Owning ten guns does not make you ten gunowners. Stupid dumbfuck. No matter how many guns are involved, that 30% is still 30% and not 50%, and it never will be 50% again. Rates of gun ownership are declining and have been for decades. The era of the white male cracker is coming to an end.

> Nobody questions that there are large numbers of
> gun-associated deaths and injuries.

Hmmm. Do you know anyone who has assiduously tried to ignore the fact or explain it away through resort to assholes and/or mindless irrelevancy?

> The more substantive questions arise when you
> start breaking the numbers down to understand what
> drives them, who's involved, where, etc. And,
> more specific to the discussion here, the matter
> of "the risk of a gun in the home" as you posed
> it. As typical for your side of this debate, you
> present those numbers as if they are all the same
> and that all directly related to that risk. They
> are not.

Simple bullshit. Failed attempts at obfuscation through crafting distinctions without a difference. Dead is dead, pinhead. A long, painful and expensive recovery is a long, painful, and expensive recovery. Gunshot wounds are what cause those things. People with guns are what cause gunshot wounds. It's that fucking simple, moron.

> Because of largely young black males 15-24
> involved in gang and drug-related crime shooting
> each other which centers in a number of specific
> urban locations and has little to nothing to do
> with legal gun ownership? Awww... did I spoil
> the ending for you?

LOL! No, the clownish, knee-jerk, and time-honored douchebag tool of race was hardly either disconcerting or disappointing. We can rely on downscale goober-thinkers to turn to it with regularity after all. But the problem here isn't poor young black males at all. It is poor young black males with guns. Black or not, other countries have their own poor young minority males as well. But theirs don't have guns. Hence, vastly smaller numbers of people end up being killed or grievously wounded. It's the guns that cause the problems, dumbo. As I've been noting from the outset...

GUNS = DEATH

MORE GUNS = MORE DEATH

YOU = ASSHOLE

By the way, is your penis in need of repair?
.
Attachments:

JimmyMadison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Federalist Papers
>
> SCOTUS rulings in Heller and McDonald

Nobody shoots the really small fish in a barrel.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am Scared! Of Crazy People! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Asshole "Asshole Sighting" is so crazy and
> > bigoted my entire family went to Chantilly and
> > bought handguns today. Children fall into 5
> gallon
> > paint buckets with water in them too.
> > Ban everything! Says the Asshole
>
> You see what knee-jerk, clod-like stupid will do
> to you? I've not called for the banning of
> anything. I've only noted that GUNS = DEATH amd
> MORE GUNS = MORE DEATH. These are simple facts
> confirmable by anyone willing to conduct or
> explore serious research on the topic.

The Brady Bunch has been producing research findings for years but offer nothing but fiction. I like the one where they said 65% of NRA members supported the Brady bill. Silliness at best.

The Brady Bunch? Come back when you can afford an adult admission.

We have read you rants aginst gun ownership so.

What is your agenda?? Complete ban on all firearms? Ban on some?
Ban on "Ass" sult firearms" Semi Auto Handguns ?? Revolvers?
Would single shot rifles and shotguns be Ok? Ban on hunting with firarms?

What new laws would you support if you had a magic "ass" wand?? And you could Ban Ban Ban with Obama and Hillery's smiling approval.

Explain that if strict gun control laws were enacted how that would
effect Police officer safety if they carried firarms that criminals would need and find ways to take because firearms would become bad "ass" magic wands.
So police would also need to be disarmed like British Bobbies years ago.

Hey Gerry, You missed, again.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Face it, dude, ...
> ...bunch of other bullshit ad nauseam.
>>

More of your same old bullshit. You really don't need to respond sentence by sentence. And it's particularly tedious when you say nothing. You realize that nobody reads all of that mess right? Maybe if you put as much effort into actually making an argument versus writing a bunch of crap, you might be able to present some coherent point. Doubtful in your case, but give it a shot (no pun intended).

So, in other words, you got caught copying some other dumbshit's post, none of which supports your 4X stat. Live with it.


>
> Once again, that's from a serious, independent,
> widely-cited study of the type that you and other
> gun-tard assholes never read but that can be
> easily found on the internet. These google skills
> of yours seem to be letting you down. You use
> them, you look like more of an asshole. You don't
> use them, you look like more of an asshole. Kind
> of an assholish trend going on there for obvious
> underlying reasons.


Once again, it doesn't matter where it came from or how you try to make it look larger on a relative basis. The total number is 62.


>
> As has been repeatedly pointed out above, all you
> did was try to deflect off into totally irrelevant
> bullshit topics, typically botching the fucking
> data from over there as you went. Complete
> asshole failure on your part.
>

Uh, no dummy. No deflection at all. I responded very directly to your typical bs attempt to use "10X" to make the number seem larger than it is.

No matter how you attempt to make it appear larger, the total number remains 62.


> It remains the same worthless goober-asshole
> deflection that it has always been, you fucking
> dickwad. Having a gun in the home increases a
> resident's risk of dying from a gunshot wound by a
> factor of almost four. > There is no age vector.
> There is no intention vector. It is a blanket
> fact.


Still no source huh?


> There are meanwhile more than 30,000 fatal
> gunshot wounds every year in this country, along
> with at least 150,000 non-fatal gunshot wounds,
> about half of which require treatment in a
> hospital emergency room. These are typically
> followed by long, painful, and expensive recovery
> periods.
>

Once again, as typical, you disingenuously and inappropriately attempt to use aggregate numbers to imply "risk."

Of the 31,672 firearms deaths in 2010...

19,392 were suicides ~87% of which were males, the vast majority of which were white middle-aged males with a history of mental illness, substance abuse, and/or prior suicide attempts. So, unless you're a middle-aged white guy with mental/substance abuse issues, then any associated risk drops dramatically.

That leaves 11,078 homicides, the vast majority of which were younger black and Hispanic males (~72%), the vast majority of which were associated with drug-, gang-, and related criminal activity, the vast majority of which was centered in specific selected urban areas. So again unless you're part of that demo, any risk further plummets and has little to nothing to do with having a legally-owned gun in the home.

That leaves 1,202 accidental, LEO- and justified homicides, and a trivial number of other/unknown.

665 were justifiable homicides (387 by LEOs and 278 by private citizens) which, by definition, were justified uses of deadly force.

Which leaves ~537 accidental/unintentional/other firearms-associated deaths which might legitimately be assigned to your "risk."

That plus some smaller subsets of atypical suicides and homicides from above represents the real-world numbers on which any degree of "risk" would be based.


> Complete nonsense from a failing goober math-tard.
> A is larger than B. A is ten times as large as
> B. It's all relative, fuckwad. That's how
> comparisons work. Maybe hire an after-school math
> tutor or something.
>

2 is greater than 1.

10 X 1 = 10.

They're still trivial numbers. You and others use multipliers with no context provided in order to obscure that that the actual numbers are rather small.


> So fucking mealy-mouthed feeble. About 50% of
> households once owned a gun. Now it's about 30%.
> End of fucking story, douchebag. The polls you
> are appealing to seek to estimate the percent of
> the population that lives in the roughly 30% of
> households that owns a gun. Just like gun
> ownership, household size tends to increase as you
> move downward along the intelligence and income
> scales.


The 30% still is a larger number even though the relative percentage may be smaller.


> Attention, you mindless dumbfuck. The question is
> whether a gun is owned. How or why any gun came
> to be owned is not relevant in any fucking way.
> Once again, you can't do numbers and have to run
> off into the weeds of irrelevancy because the
> plain and simple facts simply fry your worthless
> ass in a heartbeat.

It's pertinent to who owns the weapons, especially when they are new buyers, and for what purpose.

>
> Hmmm. This math/stat stuff is really confusing to
> you, isn't it. There are presently fewer than 125
> million households in the US. The number
> increases by roughly 1 million per year. The
> roughly 30% of households that own guns do
> needlessly own more than 300 million of them, but
> the actual number of guns would not be relevant.


Sure it would. Even by your own idiot math. "More guns = more death." Remember? lol

And, by your stats, which again are based on polling and suspect, assuming ~30% is a representative level, that 1 million increase would represent some ~300,000 new households with guns. (Yes, you'd need to adjust for whatever new uptake-rate, the point being it's still more even though the percentage may not change.)

All of this not considering that firearms-related homicide deaths have declined greatly since the 80-90s yet the number of guns and gun owners has increased greatly. Go figure...


> Owning one gun makes you one gunowner. Owning ten
> guns does not make you ten gunowners. Stupid
> dumbfuck. No matter how many guns are involved,
> that 30% is still 30% and not 50%, and it never
> will be 50% again. Rates of gun ownership are
> declining and have been for decades. The era of
> the white male cracker is coming to an end.


Sure it would by your argument. More guns in circulation, more risks of leaving one unattended, being stolen, etc.

And, unfortunately for your argument, women and minorities are buying plenty. ~20% of new buyers.


>
> > Nobody questions that there are large numbers
> of
> > gun-associated deaths and injuries.
>
> Hmmm. Do you know anyone who has assiduously
> tried to ignore the fact or explain it away
> through resort to assholes and/or mindless
> irrelevancy?
>

You?


> Simple bullshit. Failed attempts at obfuscation
> through crafting distinctions without a
> difference. Dead is dead, pinhead. A long,
> painful and expensive recovery is a long, painful,
> and expensive recovery. Gunshot wounds are what
> cause those things. People with guns are what
> cause gunshot wounds. It's that fucking simple,
> moron.

Shock stat - guns are involved in 100% of gun deaths! lmao

As above, dead is not dead as it relates to the risk of a gun in the home.

>
> LOL! No, the clownish, knee-jerk, and
> time-honored douchebag tool of race was hardly
> either disconcerting or disappointing. We can
> rely on downscale goober-thinkers to turn to it
> with regularity after all. But the problem here
> isn't poor young black males at all. It is poor
> young black males with guns. Black or not, other
> countries have their own poor young minority males
> as well. But theirs don't have guns. Hence,
> vastly smaller numbers of people end up being
> killed or grievously wounded. It's the guns that
> cause the problems, dumbo. As I've been noting
> from the outset...
>
> GUNS = DEATH
>
> MORE GUNS = MORE DEATH
>
> YOU = ASSHOLE
>
> By the way, is your penis in need of repair?
> .


It's directly on point when the numbers that you cite for "risk" include them and the simple fact is that's a huge part of the number. You're not actually going to try to deny that are you? I mean I know it causes some bleeding heartburn. Which is not restricted to the US btw. Wherever you find organized criminal activity, gangs, and illicit drug trade, regardless of race, you'll find far greater violent crime and murder. Which is dramatically reflected in our own large reduction in gun deaths from the height of the urban crack epidemic.

OK "Asshole" I Will Bite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We have read you rants aginst gun ownership so.

Interesting. I haven't posted any rants against gun ownership. I have pointed out a variety of well-supported facts about guns and gun ownership based on serious, independent, and widely-cited scholarship. Assholes can only leap to one conclusion. This is due to their exceedingly low intellectual capacity.

You lose... again (and again) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More of your same old bullshit. You really don't
> need to respond sentence by sentence.

Hey, dumbfuck! It's come full circle. You had nothing to start with and now you've got nothing to end with. Well, other than a massive case of butthurt. You're otherwise a fucking corpse. You've fucking Klecked yourself at every turn, you hopeless NRA moron. You've died a dozen different deaths here. Fucked up the language. Fucked up the statistics. Fucked up the logic. Fucked up the sources. You've fucked up everything. That's because you don't know anything at all beyond what's been pumped into your foolish little head by the goons at the NRA. Just another pathetic gun-turd asshole getting his clock cleaned on the internet. No big deal, loser. It happens every day.

So, you aren't even a good joke anymore. You can feel free to fall over and die now. Worthless. Asshole.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again (and again) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > More of your same old bullshit. You really
> don't
> > need to respond sentence by sentence.
>
> Hey, dumbfuck! It's come full circle. You had
> nothing to start with and now you've got nothing
> to end with. Well, other than a massive case of
> butthurt. You're otherwise a fucking corpse.
> You've fucking Klecked yourself at every turn, you
> hopeless NRA moron. You've died a dozen different
> deaths here. Fucked up the language. Fucked up
> the statistics. Fucked up the logic. Fucked up
> the sources. You've fucked up everything. That's
> because you don't know anything at all beyond
> what's been pumped into your foolish little head
> by the goons at the NRA. Just another pathetic
> gun-turd asshole getting his clock cleaned on the
> internet. No big deal, loser. It happens every
> day.
>
> So, you aren't even a good joke anymore. You can
> feel free to fall over and die now. Worthless.
> Asshole.

I know I'm wasting my keystrokes here but it would be to your advantage
to read the Federalist Papers before spouting such gibberish. You are
looking foolish to those of us who have read them. You also might consider
reading the SCOTUS rulings in Heller and McDonald. I know it's probably
beyond your comprehension but you really need to do some homework.

Chi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know I'm wasting my keystrokes here but it would
> be to your advantage to read the Federalist Papers
> before spouting such gibberish. You are looking
> foolish to those of us who have read them. You
> also might consider reading the SCOTUS rulings in
> Heller and McDonald. I know it's probably beyond
> your comprehension but you really need to do
> some homework.

Wow, what a colossal DUMBFUCK. None of those make any commentary at all on the plagues of death and destruction that are caused by guns in 21st century. Not in most other countries, of course. Just in America and a few traditionally violent and animalistic societies.

I know this because I have actually read and understand the Federalist (and anti-Federalist) Papers, along with Heller and McDonald and understand them and the much broader array of research and writing on the topic FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR better than you do. Stupid pinhead.

Asshole Sighting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lose... again (and again) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > More of your same old bullshit. You really
> don't
> > need to respond sentence by sentence.
>
> Hey, dumbfuck! It's come full circle. You had
> nothing to start with and now you've got nothing
> to end with. Well, other than a massive case of
> butthurt. You're otherwise a fucking corpse.
> You've fucking Klecked yourself at every turn, you
> hopeless NRA moron. You've died a dozen different
> deaths here. Fucked up the language. Fucked up
> the statistics. Fucked up the logic. Fucked up
> the sources. You've fucked up everything. That's
> because you don't know anything at all beyond
> what's been pumped into your foolish little head
> by the goons at the NRA. Just another pathetic
> gun-turd asshole getting his clock cleaned on the
> internet. No big deal, loser. It happens every
> day.
>
> So, you aren't even a good joke anymore. You can
> feel free to fall over and die now. Worthless.
> Asshole.


^ More of the same old crap.

I'm happy to let my posts stand on their own versus yours for anyone reading this thread. You discredit yourself with your own nonsense.

Thanks.

The simple facts are:

1. the Supreme Court is ruling correctly on this issue.
2. I am more likely to live if I have a gun when I'm confronted by a bad guy who has a gun.
3. If you take the guns away from law abiding citizens, the bad guys won't give theirs up.