"Good kid with a gun fatally shoots 9 month old"

[Brain357]

How many deaths would it take to get the nutters to take it seriously?

Is there some magic number?

We take every death of a child seriously....which is why we support gun safety in K-12 schools....the anti gunners don't take it seriously except for the ability to use the dead children to get their phobia dealt with...guns.....I mean......can we accuse anti gunners of not caring that children die by drowning, or poisoning, or falls, or car accidents....how many dead children from all of those things will it take for anti gunners to take them seriously...since far more children die from those things than they do from accidental gun deaths.......

Since it isn't the number of children killed that worries anti gunners....since drowning, poisoning, and falling kill more children...then we have to assume that the only thing they care about is that 60-70 children die from guns....and they don't care about the rest....right?

A hollow argument. cars and swimming pools and ladders have designed uses as practical items. guns, on the other hand, are designed to kill and nothing else.

Ah....but they kill bad people who are raping, beating, stabbing, robbing or murdering innocent people.......can a ladder do that....? And guns keep the government from...say....rounding up 43 student teachers and murdering them...as happened in Mexico when the police and drug cartels...at the order of a Mexican Mayor....had them killed.....or say when 3 terrorists in a strict gun controlled country like france, attack some journalists with illegal, fully automatic weapons.....guns might just save their lives......right?

So your argument is more guns will keep you safe from guns? Does putting gasoline ion fire extinguishers help you safely deal with fires?

So your argument is more guns will keep you safe from guns?

Yes...definitely.....ask the 1.6 million victims of violent criminal attack if that gun saved them.....so yes....on an indivdual level...and on a national level...we didn't defeat the socialists in Germany with pixie dust and rainbows........

Does putting gasoline ion fire extinguishers help you safely deal with fires?

Not the right analogy......a gun in the hands of a good, law abiding person is the water, to the fire of a violent criminal intent on hurting other people....which is why when we have criminals hurting good people, what do we do? We send in good guys with guns to stop them.

Again defenses are mostly criminals defending against criminals.

 

[2aguy]

Well...since you mock the reality...there are 60-70 child gun accidental deaths each year....in a country of over 310 million people...with over 40 million gun owners (don't know the more exact number) in a country with over 310 million guns in private hands and 11.1 concealed carry permits......

sad but true....60-70 accidental gun deaths is a tiny number....compared to other hazards children face each day...falls, poisons in the home , drowning, car accidents.......so gun deaths are amazingly rare in our country......get real......

The issue is that gun accidents are totally unnecessary. Poisons in the home, water, cars, etc., are part of everyday life. None of those things are meant as and used as weapons to kill. Guns have only one purpose, to kill, or at least injure. They are purposely lethal. Comparing them to household cleaning products, medicines, swimming pools or bathtubs, automobiles, etc., is logically fallacious. Guns are not necessities of everyday life; all the other things are. Guns have only one purpose: they are lethal weapons. All the other things have reasonable, necessary purposes. This argument that the pro-gun people constantly put forth comparing guns to the objects we use in everyday life is a completely fallacious argument. It has no meaning.

The bottom line is not how many deaths are involved but something that is meant to kill as opposed to things which are simply objects used for ordinary, everyday life.

They are meant to kill bad people.....so there is that....

This argument that the pro-gun people constantly put forth comparing guns to the objects we use in everyday life is a completely fallacious argument. It has no meaning.

guns are used every year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives 1.6 million times....so yes, they are important tools for the weak, the old, women, the handicapped and others who might face violent, aggressive criminals....I know you say you and your family have been blessed to never face violent criminals....but others have not been so fortunate....people are robbed, raped, beaten, stabbed and murdered every single day in every state of this country and you, specifically, can't say which ones of us that will be.....

No one wakes up in the morning expecting to be raped or murdered...yet it happens to people every day....at least 1.6 million times a year.....and guns are known to be lethal unlike swimming pools, and household cleaning products......and all the other more numerous ways children are accidentally killed....

So 60-70 accidental deaths of children vs. 1.6 million times violent criminal attacks are stopped and lives saved.....even you can do that math.....

The 1.6 million number is made up. And kleck has said most defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. So criminals defending against other criminals.

Brain, you can make up whatever you want but Kleck was clear....self defense use of guns are 3-4 times as often as criminal use of guns...and the quote you take out of context is clear....he is referring to law abiding citizens carrying and owning guns even though it was not always legal in the 90s...but again....Florida started turning that around and now those states he was referring to also have concealed carry laws....so anyone who was practicing their 2nd amendment rights that may have been unConstitutionally abridged, now can without fear.....

He was clear that most defenses involve criminal behavior by the defender. So in regards to your quote that means 4x as many armed criminals are defending against unarmed criminals. So what?

And no carrying doesn't explain it either as most defenses aren't while carrying. And it's always been legal to defend your home. Unless of course you are a felon...

Sorry Brain...you can distort what he said all you want to push your anti gun agenda....he made pretty clear it was law abiding citizens carrying guns illegally for protection against actual criminals...but again...that was in the 90s...when states were violating the civil rights of law abiding citizens and keeping them from carrying guns through unconstitutional laws.....

Now.....all states have some form of carry process....and the majority actually don't stop law abiding citizens from carrying guns...as per the Constitution.......to the tune of 11.1 million permitted carriers...probably a lot more since many states do not require a permit to carry...so when a law abiding citizen uses a gun to stop a criminal today....they aren't breaking the law anymore.....

 

[Brain357]

The issue is that gun accidents are totally unnecessary. Poisons in the home, water, cars, etc., are part of everyday life. None of those things are meant as and used as weapons to kill. Guns have only one purpose, to kill, or at least injure. They are purposely lethal. Comparing them to household cleaning products, medicines, swimming pools or bathtubs, automobiles, etc., is logically fallacious. Guns are not necessities of everyday life; all the other things are. Guns have only one purpose: they are lethal weapons. All the other things have reasonable, necessary purposes. This argument that the pro-gun people constantly put forth comparing guns to the objects we use in everyday life is a completely fallacious argument. It has no meaning.

The bottom line is not how many deaths are involved but something that is meant to kill as opposed to things which are simply objects used for ordinary, everyday life.

They are meant to kill bad people.....so there is that....

This argument that the pro-gun people constantly put forth comparing guns to the objects we use in everyday life is a completely fallacious argument. It has no meaning.

guns are used every year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives 1.6 million times....so yes, they are important tools for the weak, the old, women, the handicapped and others who might face violent, aggressive criminals....I know you say you and your family have been blessed to never face violent criminals....but others have not been so fortunate....people are robbed, raped, beaten, stabbed and murdered every single day in every state of this country and you, specifically, can't say which ones of us that will be.....

No one wakes up in the morning expecting to be raped or murdered...yet it happens to people every day....at least 1.6 million times a year.....and guns are known to be lethal unlike swimming pools, and household cleaning products......and all the other more numerous ways children are accidentally killed....

So 60-70 accidental deaths of children vs. 1.6 million times violent criminal attacks are stopped and lives saved.....even you can do that math.....

The 1.6 million number is made up. And kleck has said most defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. So criminals defending against other criminals.

Brain, you can make up whatever you want but Kleck was clear....self defense use of guns are 3-4 times as often as criminal use of guns...and the quote you take out of context is clear....he is referring to law abiding citizens carrying and owning guns even though it was not always legal in the 90s...but again....Florida started turning that around and now those states he was referring to also have concealed carry laws....so anyone who was practicing their 2nd amendment rights that may have been unConstitutionally abridged, now can without fear.....

He was clear that most defenses involve criminal behavior by the defender. So in regards to your quote that means 4x as many armed criminals are defending against unarmed criminals. So what?

And no carrying doesn't explain it either as most defenses aren't while carrying. And it's always been legal to defend your home. Unless of course you are a felon...

Sorry Brain...you can distort what he said all you want to push your anti gun agenda....he made pretty clear it was law abiding citizens carrying guns illegally for protection against actual criminals...but again...that was in the 90s...when states were violating the civil rights of law abiding citizens and keeping them from carrying guns through unconstitutional laws.....

Now.....all states have some form of carry process....and the majority actually don't stop law abiding citizens from carrying guns...as per the Constitution.......to the tune of 11.1 million permitted carriers...probably a lot more since many states do not require a permit to carry...so when a law abiding citizen uses a gun to stop a criminal today....they aren't breaking the law anymore.....

No he made it clear that most defenders are involved in criminal behavior. You are making up the rest.

 

[2aguy]

They are meant to kill bad people.....so there is that....

guns are used every year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives 1.6 million times....so yes, they are important tools for the weak, the old, women, the handicapped and others who might face violent, aggressive criminals....I know you say you and your family have been blessed to never face violent criminals....but others have not been so fortunate....people are robbed, raped, beaten, stabbed and murdered every single day in every state of this country and you, specifically, can't say which ones of us that will be.....

No one wakes up in the morning expecting to be raped or murdered...yet it happens to people every day....at least 1.6 million times a year.....and guns are known to be lethal unlike swimming pools, and household cleaning products......and all the other more numerous ways children are accidentally killed....

So 60-70 accidental deaths of children vs. 1.6 million times violent criminal attacks are stopped and lives saved.....even you can do that math.....

The 1.6 million number is made up. And kleck has said most defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. So criminals defending against other criminals.

Brain, you can make up whatever you want but Kleck was clear....self defense use of guns are 3-4 times as often as criminal use of guns...and the quote you take out of context is clear....he is referring to law abiding citizens carrying and owning guns even though it was not always legal in the 90s...but again....Florida started turning that around and now those states he was referring to also have concealed carry laws....so anyone who was practicing their 2nd amendment rights that may have been unConstitutionally abridged, now can without fear.....

He was clear that most defenses involve criminal behavior by the defender. So in regards to your quote that means 4x as many armed criminals are defending against unarmed criminals. So what?

And no carrying doesn't explain it either as most defenses aren't while carrying. And it's always been legal to defend your home. Unless of course you are a felon...

Sorry Brain...you can distort what he said all you want to push your anti gun agenda....he made pretty clear it was law abiding citizens carrying guns illegally for protection against actual criminals...but again...that was in the 90s...when states were violating the civil rights of law abiding citizens and keeping them from carrying guns through unconstitutional laws.....

Now.....all states have some form of carry process....and the majority actually don't stop law abiding citizens from carrying guns...as per the Constitution.......to the tune of 11.1 million permitted carriers...probably a lot more since many states do not require a permit to carry...so when a law abiding citizen uses a gun to stop a criminal today....they aren't breaking the law anymore.....

No he made it clear that most defenders are involved in criminal behavior. You are making up the rest.

No I'm not ....read what he said.....

 

[Brain357]

The 1.6 million number is made up. And kleck has said most defenses are by people involved in criminal activity. So criminals defending against other criminals.

Brain, you can make up whatever you want but Kleck was clear....self defense use of guns are 3-4 times as often as criminal use of guns...and the quote you take out of context is clear....he is referring to law abiding citizens carrying and owning guns even though it was not always legal in the 90s...but again....Florida started turning that around and now those states he was referring to also have concealed carry laws....so anyone who was practicing their 2nd amendment rights that may have been unConstitutionally abridged, now can without fear.....

He was clear that most defenses involve criminal behavior by the defender. So in regards to your quote that means 4x as many armed criminals are defending against unarmed criminals. So what?

And no carrying doesn't explain it either as most defenses aren't while carrying. And it's always been legal to defend your home. Unless of course you are a felon...

Sorry Brain...you can distort what he said all you want to push your anti gun agenda....he made pretty clear it was law abiding citizens carrying guns illegally for protection against actual criminals...but again...that was in the 90s...when states were violating the civil rights of law abiding citizens and keeping them from carrying guns through unconstitutional laws.....

Now.....all states have some form of carry process....and the majority actually don't stop law abiding citizens from carrying guns...as per the Constitution.......to the tune of 11.1 million permitted carriers...probably a lot more since many states do not require a permit to carry...so when a law abiding citizen uses a gun to stop a criminal today....they aren't breaking the law anymore.....

No he made it clear that most defenders are involved in criminal behavior. You are making up the rest.

No I'm not ....read what he said.....

I did. You are just trying to candy coat it. Again it has always been legal to defend your home and that's the majority of defenses.

 

[2aguy]

We take every death of a child seriously....which is why we support gun safety in K-12 schools....the anti gunners don't take it seriously except for the ability to use the dead children to get their phobia dealt with...guns.....I mean......can we accuse anti gunners of not caring that children die by drowning, or poisoning, or falls, or car accidents....how many dead children from all of those things will it take for anti gunners to take them seriously...since far more children die from those things than they do from accidental gun deaths.......

Since it isn't the number of children killed that worries anti gunners....since drowning, poisoning, and falling kill more children...then we have to assume that the only thing they care about is that 60-70 children die from guns....and they don't care about the rest....right?

A hollow argument. cars and swimming pools and ladders have designed uses as practical items. guns, on the other hand, are designed to kill and nothing else.

Ah....but they kill bad people who are raping, beating, stabbing, robbing or murdering innocent people.......can a ladder do that....? And guns keep the government from...say....rounding up 43 student teachers and murdering them...as happened in Mexico when the police and drug cartels...at the order of a Mexican Mayor....had them killed.....or say when 3 terrorists in a strict gun controlled country like france, attack some journalists with illegal, fully automatic weapons.....guns might just save their lives......right?

They kill only about 230 bad guys in defense each year. There are around 600 accidental deaths each year.

They kill only about 230 bad guys in defense each year. There are around 600 accidental deaths each year.

230.....we'll go with that number....which shows that with over 40 million gun owners, 11.1 million concealed carry permit holders and 1.6 million defensive gun uses each year on average.....only 230 times have law abiding citizens been forced to use their guns to kill their attackers....which shows the incredible restraint, and control of regular citizens in the face of violent, aggressive criminal attack....

600 accidental deaths.....in a country of over 310 million people......tragic, each one, but a tiny, tiny number....and as more people have bought, own and carried guns....the gun murder rate has gone down, not up, and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up......

So about 3x more innocent people are accidently killed than criminals are intentionally killed. That's what I was saying.[/QUOTE]


So.....600 accidents out of over 310 million people.....really?

And as to 230....again....one of the primary memes of the irrational anti gunners is that regular, law abiding citizens cannot control guns in a self defense situation....that they will be unable to use the gun, or they will be irrational and just start shooting uncontrollably.....this number shows that under the extreme stress of a surprise, violent criminal attack....gun owners, some carrying the guns in public, only kill when they are absolutely required to to save their lives......this number should be praised, not condemned.....

 

[2aguy]

Brain, you can make up whatever you want but Kleck was clear....self defense use of guns are 3-4 times as often as criminal use of guns...and the quote you take out of context is clear....he is referring to law abiding citizens carrying and owning guns even though it was not always legal in the 90s...but again....Florida started turning that around and now those states he was referring to also have concealed carry laws....so anyone who was practicing their 2nd amendment rights that may have been unConstitutionally abridged, now can without fear.....

He was clear that most defenses involve criminal behavior by the defender. So in regards to your quote that means 4x as many armed criminals are defending against unarmed criminals. So what?

And no carrying doesn't explain it either as most defenses aren't while carrying. And it's always been legal to defend your home. Unless of course you are a felon...

Sorry Brain...you can distort what he said all you want to push your anti gun agenda....he made pretty clear it was law abiding citizens carrying guns illegally for protection against actual criminals...but again...that was in the 90s...when states were violating the civil rights of law abiding citizens and keeping them from carrying guns through unconstitutional laws.....

Now.....all states have some form of carry process....and the majority actually don't stop law abiding citizens from carrying guns...as per the Constitution.......to the tune of 11.1 million permitted carriers...probably a lot more since many states do not require a permit to carry...so when a law abiding citizen uses a gun to stop a criminal today....they aren't breaking the law anymore.....

No he made it clear that most defenders are involved in criminal behavior. You are making up the rest.

No I'm not ....read what he said.....

I did. You are just trying to candy coat it. Again it has always been legal to defend your home and that's the majority of defenses.

And again you know nothing about self defense.....or the prosecution of people defending themselves even in their own home...especially before the Castle Doctrine was passed...because before....there was a requirement to retreat from the attacker even in your own home and you had to prove you could not retreat...or suffer the legal consequences.......

 

[Brain357]

A hollow argument. cars and swimming pools and ladders have designed uses as practical items. guns, on the other hand, are designed to kill and nothing else.

Ah....but they kill bad people who are raping, beating, stabbing, robbing or murdering innocent people.......can a ladder do that....? And guns keep the government from...say....rounding up 43 student teachers and murdering them...as happened in Mexico when the police and drug cartels...at the order of a Mexican Mayor....had them killed.....or say when 3 terrorists in a strict gun controlled country like france, attack some journalists with illegal, fully automatic weapons.....guns might just save their lives......right?

They kill only about 230 bad guys in defense each year. There are around 600 accidental deaths each year.

They kill only about 230 bad guys in defense each year. There are around 600 accidental deaths each year.

230.....we'll go with that number....which shows that with over 40 million gun owners, 11.1 million concealed carry permit holders and 1.6 million defensive gun uses each year on average.....only 230 times have law abiding citizens been forced to use their guns to kill their attackers....which shows the incredible restraint, and control of regular citizens in the face of violent, aggressive criminal attack....

600 accidental deaths.....in a country of over 310 million people......tragic, each one, but a tiny, tiny number....and as more people have bought, own and carried guns....the gun murder rate has gone down, not up, and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up......

So about 3x more innocent people are accidently killed than criminals are intentionally killed. That's what I was saying.

So.....600 accidents out of over 310 million people.....really?

And as to 230....again....one of the primary memes of the irrational anti gunners is that regular, law abiding citizens cannot control guns in a self defense situation....that they will be unable to use the gun, or they will be irrational and just start shooting uncontrollably.....this number shows that under the extreme stress of a surprise, violent criminal attack....gun owners, some carrying the guns in public, only kill when they are absolutely required to to save their lives......this number should be praised, not condemned.....[/QUOTE]

And it shows there are far less defenses by the law abiding than you claim.

 

[2aguy]

Ah....but they kill bad people who are raping, beating, stabbing, robbing or murdering innocent people.......can a ladder do that....? And guns keep the government from...say....rounding up 43 student teachers and murdering them...as happened in Mexico when the police and drug cartels...at the order of a Mexican Mayor....had them killed.....or say when 3 terrorists in a strict gun controlled country like france, attack some journalists with illegal, fully automatic weapons.....guns might just save their lives......right?

They kill only about 230 bad guys in defense each year. There are around 600 accidental deaths each year.

They kill only about 230 bad guys in defense each year. There are around 600 accidental deaths each year.

230.....we'll go with that number....which shows that with over 40 million gun owners, 11.1 million concealed carry permit holders and 1.6 million defensive gun uses each year on average.....only 230 times have law abiding citizens been forced to use their guns to kill their attackers....which shows the incredible restraint, and control of regular citizens in the face of violent, aggressive criminal attack....

600 accidental deaths.....in a country of over 310 million people......tragic, each one, but a tiny, tiny number....and as more people have bought, own and carried guns....the gun murder rate has gone down, not up, and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up......

So about 3x more innocent people are accidently killed than criminals are intentionally killed. That's what I was saying.

So.....600 accidents out of over 310 million people.....really?

And as to 230....again....one of the primary memes of the irrational anti gunners is that regular, law abiding citizens cannot control guns in a self defense situation....that they will be unable to use the gun, or they will be irrational and just start shooting uncontrollably.....this number shows that under the extreme stress of a surprise, violent criminal attack....gun owners, some carrying the guns in public, only kill when they are absolutely required to to save their lives......this number should be praised, not condemned.....

And it shows there are far less defenses by the law abiding than you claim.[/QUOTE]


No....it just shows that they only have to kill 230 criminals...the rest....as the studies show...are scared off, held for police or shot and injured, and not killed........why is it that you irrational anti gunners always think that regular, law abiding citizens who just want to live their lives just can't wait to kill a stranger.........or that most criminals won't run away rather than attack an armed victim........?

 

[2aguy]

And here is Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

 

[Brain357]

They kill only about 230 bad guys in defense each year. There are around 600 accidental deaths each year.

They kill only about 230 bad guys in defense each year. There are around 600 accidental deaths each year.

230.....we'll go with that number....which shows that with over 40 million gun owners, 11.1 million concealed carry permit holders and 1.6 million defensive gun uses each year on average.....only 230 times have law abiding citizens been forced to use their guns to kill their attackers....which shows the incredible restraint, and control of regular citizens in the face of violent, aggressive criminal attack....

600 accidental deaths.....in a country of over 310 million people......tragic, each one, but a tiny, tiny number....and as more people have bought, own and carried guns....the gun murder rate has gone down, not up, and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up......

So about 3x more innocent people are accidently killed than criminals are intentionally killed. That's what I was saying.

So.....600 accidents out of over 310 million people.....really?

And as to 230....again....one of the primary memes of the irrational anti gunners is that regular, law abiding citizens cannot control guns in a self defense situation....that they will be unable to use the gun, or they will be irrational and just start shooting uncontrollably.....this number shows that under the extreme stress of a surprise, violent criminal attack....gun owners, some carrying the guns in public, only kill when they are absolutely required to to save their lives......this number should be praised, not condemned.....

And it shows there are far less defenses by the law abiding than you claim.

No....it just shows that they only have to kill 230 criminals...the rest....as the studies show...are scared off, held for police or shot and injured, and not killed........why is it that you irrational anti gunners always think that regular, law abiding citizens who just want to live their lives just can't wait to kill a stranger.........or that most criminals won't run away rather than attack an armed victim........?[/QUOTE]

Well it does show most aren't blood thirsty killers. As you know I think there are around 100k defenses and with that number still a low head count.

 

[Brain357]

And here is Kleck....

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck Ph.D.

The authors concluded that defensive uses of guns are about three to four times as common as criminal uses of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey confirmed the picture of frequent defensive gun use implied by the results of earlier, less sophisticated surveys.

Too bad it's mostly criminals doing the defending.

 

[mudwhistle]

Real Time Estimate
Top 7 Causes of Death
Since 1 Jan, 2013
Cause Annually To Date
Tobacco: 529,000 1,088,358
Medical Errors: 195,000 401,190
Alcohol Abuse: 107,400 220,963
Vehicle Accidents: 42,000 86,410
Suicide: 29,350 60,384
Drug Abuse: 25,500 52,463
Firearm Homicide: 10,828 22,277


In 2007 There Were 2,423,712 Total Deaths from All Causes
We List 53,196 Deaths from the Top 10 Causes in the Tables Below

Ages: 0-1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ All Ages
Age Group 0-1
352 Deaths for Ages 0-1 = 0.01 % of All Deaths
Cause of Death Deaths
1 Homicide Unspecified 174 49.43% of Group
2 Homicide Other Spec., classifiable 86 24.43% of Group
3 Homicide Suffocation 30 8.52% of Group
4 Homicide Firearm 15 4.26% of Group
5 Homicide (Other) 15 4.26% of Group
6 Homicide Drowning 11 3.13% of Group
7 Homicide Poisoning 11 3.13% of Group
8 Homicide Fire/burn 5 1.42% of Group
9 Homicide Struck by or Against an Object 4 1.14% of Group
10 Homicide Cut/pierce 1 0.28% of Group


Death by homicide using strangulation as a means is higher than firearms.

Should we make hands illegal too?


Leading Causes of Death in the United States

 

[Yurt]

no it is not. because death is the ultimate issue and both cause many deaths. you just don't care when people die in a car accident because it does not further your agenda.

Sorry but cars are used daily by most people. Guns will not be needed by most people their entire life. They really can't be compared.

irrelevant to the issue at hand, DEATHS. alcohol is not needed by most people, yet, that is still legal and used to break the law when people drive. drunks kill more people than guns. it is wholly relevant to the topic.

Except if you calculate it by the hour of use. Then cars look safe compared to guns.

great, then compared by the hour of use, nukes pose less risk than cars using your logic

How many times have nukes been used?

How else can you compare something used daily by most people to something most people will never need to use? The death count shouldn't be at all close.

like i said, you believe nukes are less dangerous than cars based on hours of use.

such logic is absurd.

and obviously people use guns to defend themselves on a daily basis. again, your logic is absurd.

 

[Brain357]

Sorry but cars are used daily by most people. Guns will not be needed by most people their entire life. They really can't be compared.

irrelevant to the issue at hand, DEATHS. alcohol is not needed by most people, yet, that is still legal and used to break the law when people drive. drunks kill more people than guns. it is wholly relevant to the topic.

Except if you calculate it by the hour of use. Then cars look safe compared to guns.

great, then compared by the hour of use, nukes pose less risk than cars using your logic

How many times have nukes been used?

How else can you compare something used daily by most people to something most people will never need to use? The death count shouldn't be at all close.

like i said, you believe nukes are less dangerous than cars based on hours of use.

such logic is absurd.

and obviously people use guns to defend themselves on a daily basis. again, your logic is absurd.

No it is not. When was the last time a nuke was used? I would be more worried about being shot or in a car accident than being nuked.

Most people won't use a gun for defense daily, but most do use a car. Most people won't ever use a gun for defense.

 

[Yurt]

irrelevant to the issue at hand, DEATHS. alcohol is not needed by most people, yet, that is still legal and used to break the law when people drive. drunks kill more people than guns. it is wholly relevant to the topic.

Except if you calculate it by the hour of use. Then cars look safe compared to guns.

great, then compared by the hour of use, nukes pose less risk than cars using your logic

How many times have nukes been used?

How else can you compare something used daily by most people to something most people will never need to use? The death count shouldn't be at all close.

like i said, you believe nukes are less dangerous than cars based on hours of use.

such logic is absurd.

and obviously people use guns to defend themselves on a daily basis. again, your logic is absurd.

No it is not. When was the last time a nuke was used? I would be more worried about being shot or in a car accident than being nuked.

Most people won't use a gun for defense daily, but most do use a car. Most people won't ever use a gun for defense.

the issue is not worry, rather the DANGER and DEATH amount posed. it doesn't matter if most people don't use it, that is wholly irrelevant. most people won't use nukes either. yet, we can agree that a nuke is far more devastating than either a gun or a car.

you guys claim to care about the deaths, yet you don't give a shit about auto deaths.

 

[Fugazi]

I do not know the law in a case like this, but rather than take away everyone's guns, the parent/parents should be charged with negligent homicide, and never be allowed to own a gun again.

 

[Brain357]

Except if you calculate it by the hour of use. Then cars look safe compared to guns.

great, then compared by the hour of use, nukes pose less risk than cars using your logic

How many times have nukes been used?

How else can you compare something used daily by most people to something most people will never need to use? The death count shouldn't be at all close.

like i said, you believe nukes are less dangerous than cars based on hours of use.

such logic is absurd.

and obviously people use guns to defend themselves on a daily basis. again, your logic is absurd.

No it is not. When was the last time a nuke was used? I would be more worried about being shot or in a car accident than being nuked.

Most people won't use a gun for defense daily, but most do use a car. Most people won't ever use a gun for defense.

the issue is not worry, rather the DANGER and DEATH amount posed. it doesn't matter if most people don't use it, that is wholly irrelevant. most people won't use nukes either. yet, we can agree that a nuke is far more devastating than either a gun or a car.

you guys claim to care about the deaths, yet you don't give a shit about auto deaths.

Nukes have more potential, but cars and guns are killing way more people. If nukes aren't being used then cars and guns are bringing way more death.

It's not a matter of don't care, but it needs to be a fair comparison. Of course cars kill more than guns, they are used far more. And we do a lot to make them safer.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Fucking liberals.

If it wasn't for the "evil gun", your sorry asses wouldn't be living in a free country.

 

[2aguy]

230.....we'll go with that number....which shows that with over 40 million gun owners, 11.1 million concealed carry permit holders and 1.6 million defensive gun uses each year on average.....only 230 times have law abiding citizens been forced to use their guns to kill their attackers....which shows the incredible restraint, and control of regular citizens in the face of violent, aggressive criminal attack....

600 accidental deaths.....in a country of over 310 million people......tragic, each one, but a tiny, tiny number....and as more people have bought, own and carried guns....the gun murder rate has gone down, not up, and the gun accident rate has gone down, not up......

So about 3x more innocent people are accidently killed than criminals are intentionally killed. That's what I was saying.

So.....600 accidents out of over 310 million people.....really?

And as to 230....again....one of the primary memes of the irrational anti gunners is that regular, law abiding citizens cannot control guns in a self defense situation....that they will be unable to use the gun, or they will be irrational and just start shooting uncontrollably.....this number shows that under the extreme stress of a surprise, violent criminal attack....gun owners, some carrying the guns in public, only kill when they are absolutely required to to save their lives......this number should be praised, not condemned.....

And it shows there are far less defenses by the law abiding than you claim.

No....it just shows that they only have to kill 230 criminals...the rest....as the studies show...are scared off, held for police or shot and injured, and not killed........why is it that you irrational anti gunners always think that regular, law abiding citizens who just want to live their lives just can't wait to kill a stranger.........or that most criminals won't run away rather than attack an armed victim........?

Well it does show most aren't blood thirsty killers. As you know I think there are around 100k defenses and with that number still a low head count.[/QUOTE]

As you know I think there are around 100k defenses and with that number still a low head count

Yes....you feel that, not think it, since you haven't done any research on your own......whereas 19 other groups have actually researched the topic.....


Here are the studies cited from kleck's report....note.....only the National Crime Victimization Survey is as low as 108,000 per year....all the rest, and these aren't even all of the studies, are way over that number....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
Field...1976....3,052,717
DMIa 1978...2,141,512
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68
Kleck...2.5 million
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409
Hart...1981...1.797,461
Mauser...1990...1,487,342
Gallup...1993...1,621,377
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..



NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey)....108,000


Notice, the 3 different groupings of stats from the research listed so far.....not one of them approaches the NCVS number of 100,000.....yet you claim to know that is the correct number....