Just another day in America. Guns keeping people safe... 8 dead... the dead can't be killed, therefore they're safe.

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Um, that didn't have anything to do with my point, but never mind.

Translation - "Yes, I stuck my foot in my mouth, but I won't admit it."

Have a nice day

 

[miketx]

nobody confiscated guns in Europe before WWII. In fact, there were still plenty of guns in private hands after WWI.

Nobody rushed out to defend their neighbor with one of those guns when the Nazis came to take away the Jews.

Just like no one in America rushed out with their guns to defend their Japanese neighbors when they were being rounded up by the US Government in 1942.

Guns don't protect you from tyranny. Because one man's tyranny is another man's "Yup, I can live with that, not my problem."

So the notion that I have to let Awake the Rapper or Joker Holmes have a military grade weapon because, gosh, darn, they might protect me from "tyranny" is just silly.

My guess is that when we find out more about Michael Haight, we are going to find out everyone in his life knew he was nuts, but he was able to get a gun, anyway.

Oh, wait... we are already hearing that.

Enoch City police chief Jackson Ames said his department was "familiar" with the family and had been "involved in some investigations with the family a couple years prior," but did not elaborate on the reason. Ames added that there had been no recent interactions with the family.

Who were the Haights? Police identify victims found in Enoch home

As a community remains in shock following the discovery of eight bodies found inside an Enoch home on Wednesday, officials released the identities of the victims who were members of one family.

www.fox13now.com

Come take them liar.

 

[DBA]

No, Cleetus, a deranged person with a gun is going to be able to kill people a lot easier than one with a baseball bat.

Yeah, just like a good guy with a gun will be able to defend himself a lot easier against someone with a baseball bat. You aren't too bright.

 

[miketx]

You just lie...all the time....

France, the Nazis, and Gun Control

In 1935, French prime minister Pierre Laval, who later served in the Vichy government during the Nazis' four-year occupation of France, commanded French citizens to surrender their firearms. Laval and France's ruling parties feared social revolution and banned "war" weapons, instituting strict gun registration policies. They believed that repressive limits on civilian gun ownership were necessary at a time of Depression-sparked unrest and ongoing conflicts among various political factions.

Strict time limits for firearms registration and harsh penalties for noncompliance, including forfeiture, fines, and imprisonment, were put in place.

Laval's government did not foresee the impact these restrictive measures would have on a Nazi-conquered France just five years later, when firearms surrender would be required under threat of death.

In Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance, attorney Stephen P. Halbrook explores the impact and efficacy of gun control measures on Wehrmacht-controlled France and how these measures hindered the French Resistance's fight against Nazi tyranny. The author asserts that Laval's 1935 gun control efforts left the French people vulnerable to the Nazi invaders and ill equipped to deal with the Nazi invasion of 1940, plus simplified the Nazi efforts to confiscate firearms and impede a French resistance.

Time for a History Lesson about Gun Control | Stephen P. Halbrook


Purportedly to fight violence in the streets, Germany’s Weimar Republic decreed gun registration in 1931, but warned that the records must not fall into the hands of radical elements. Hitler seized power in 1933 and used those very records to disarm political opponents and Jews in order to render them incapable of any form of resistance.


Political protest in France prompted Prime Minister Pierre Laval in 1935 to decree firearm registration and repression of the right to assemble. What could possibly go wrong?


The registration records were critical to the Nazis who overran France in 1940, imposed the death penalty for not turning in guns, and conscripted the French police to ferret out violators. Despite the chance of being executed, numerous French citizens did not surrender their firearms.


The very same Pierre Laval became the chief collaborator of the Nazis during the occupation. The newspapers regularly reported the names of gun owners shot by firing squads.
The brave French who had never registered their guns and retained them formed the basis for the Resistance. To be sure, they never had sufficient arms, and prewar restrictions on “military style” firearms hampered their efforts, leaving them to resist with inferior weapons. Yet they were able to commit acts of sabotage, gain intelligence, and sustain an underground movement to assist the Allies. After D-Day, they engaged in open armed resistance.


https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/v...rch="french gun confiscation 1935 fact check"

More important, as a historical matter, the passage of gun registration laws in Germany during the first part of the twentieth century is a complicated matter.


Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws essentially banning all gun ownership, in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919.
-------

But even before the Treaty was signed, the German parliament of the Weimar Republic enacted legislation prohibiting gun possession
----

First, in 1938, the Nazi regime reenacted strict gun control laws and regulations that required licensing and reporting for the acquisition, transfer, or carrying of handguns, and for dealing and manufacturing in firearms and ammunition.89 In this respect, the Nazis had in place stringent gun regulation, including strict reporting requirements. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition.

In this respect, the Nazi gun laws were more restrictive than those under the Weimar Republic.
----

Fourth, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population.

Oh....and why we don't want licenses for gun owners...the Germans did it.....

Thus, the 1928 Law put into effect a strict licensing scheme that covered all aspects of firearms-from the manufacture to the sale, including repair and even the reloading of ammunition."°
-----

Finally, with regard to disarming the Jewish population, there is no dispute that the Nazis did disarm Jewish persons aggressively-of all firearms, as well as "truncheons or stabbing weapons. ' , 129 The Minister of the Interior, Frick, enacted Regulations Against Jew's Possession of Weapons on November 11, 1938, which effectively deprived all Jewish persons of the right to possess firearms or other weapons. It was a regulation prohibiting Jewish persons from having any dangerous weapon-not just guns.
-----

Moreover, prior to that, the German police and Nazis used the 1938 firearms law as an excuse to disarm Jewish persons. In Breslau, for instance, as Halbrook reports, the city police chief decreed the seizure of all firearms from Jewish persons on the ground that "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy"' -using the language from the 1928 and 1938 firearms laws.131

And no matter what post, it won't stop lying. All that pos does is lie.

 

[JoeB131]

In 1935, French prime minister Pierre Laval, who later served in the Vichy government during the Nazis' four-year occupation of France, commanded French citizens to surrender their firearms. Laval and France's ruling parties feared social revolution and banned "war" weapons, instituting strict gun registration policies. They believed that repressive limits on civilian gun ownership were necessary at a time of Depression-sparked unrest and ongoing conflicts among various political factions.

Except the guns weren't confiscated, just registered.

Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance | Stephen P. Halbrook

Nazi Germany invaded France in 1940. In every occupied town, Nazi soldiers put up posters that demanded that civilians surrender their firearms within twenty-four hours or else be shot. Despite the consequences, many French citizens refused to comply with the order. In Gun Control in...

www.independent.org

Taking advantage of a prewar 1935 French gun registration law, the Nazis used registration records kept by the French police to easily locate gun owners to enforce their demand that firearms be surrendered. Countless French citizens faced firing squads for refusing to comply. But many French citizens had resisted the 1935 decree, preventing the Nazis from fully enforcing the confiscation order. Throughout the Nazi occupation, the French Resistance grew, arming itself to conduct resistance activities and fight back against the occupation.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, just like a good guy with a gun will be able to defend himself a lot easier against someone with a baseball bat. You aren't too bright.

Actually, a good guy with a gun is 43 times more likely to lose a family member than kill a bad guy with that gun

 

[JoeB131]

Translation - "Yes, I stuck my foot in my mouth, but I won't admit it."

Have a nice day

No, it really didn't... This wasn't a case of a judge releasing someone.
This is a guy who murdered his family because his wife was dumping him, and his little Mormon ass couldn't take it.

GUess he's not getting into the Celestial Heaven... off to the outer darkness with you!

 

[pknopp]

You don't need a gun to murder your family. A Quick trip to walmart will get you what you need.....for a lot less too...18.00 for a bottle of anti-freeze....

Despite confessing to police that she poisoned her husband, son and daughter with antifreeze, Diane Staudte says she is innocent.

Mother convicted of poisoning her family maintains her innocence

Diane Staudte was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in 2016.

abcnews.go.com

I never argued you needed a gun to kill people.

 

[westwall]

Actually, a good guy with a gun is 43 times more likely to lose a family member than kill a bad guy with that gun

A claim debunked decades ago, yet here you are trotting it out as if it means something.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've yet to see a gun grow little hands and feet and go on a murderous rampage on it's own.....Same with knives, machetes, vehicles, or any other inanimate object folks use to off each other with.

It's funny when people bring up issues out of the blue that they believe are their "winning issues".

The reality is, on the other hand, that people with guns are empowered. We know this because where there's easy access to firearms, there's often a higher rate of gun murders.

3/4 of all murders in the US happen with guns. It's not a coincidence. That your response to the deaths of people is to bring up some tired, nonsensical argument.... well.... are you "pro-life"?

 

[JoeB131]

A claim debunked decades ago, yet here you are trotting it out as if it means something.

Stamping your little feet and saying "I don't want it to be true" does not constitute debunking.

 

[miketx]

Actually, a good guy with a gun is 43 times more likely to lose a family member than kill a bad guy with that gun

Lying scum repeats the same lie over and over.

 

[miketx]

Stamping your little feet and saying "I don't want it to be true" does not constitute debunking.

Everyone can see that's not what happened, liar.

 

[Auld Phart]

No, it really didn't... This wasn't a case of a judge releasing someone.
This is a guy who murdered his family because his wife was dumping him, and his little Mormon ass couldn't take it.

GUess he's not getting into the Celestial Heaven... off to the outer darkness with you!

where is your proof he was Mormon?

5 kids?

That's only proof you're a moron.

 

[2aguy]

It's funny when people bring up issues out of the blue that they believe are their "winning issues".

The reality is, on the other hand, that people with guns are empowered. We know this because where there's easy access to firearms, there's often a higher rate of gun murders.

3/4 of all murders in the US happen with guns. It's not a coincidence. That your response to the deaths of people is to bring up some tired, nonsensical argument.... well.... are you "pro-life"?

And you fail to mention the fact that normal Americans with guns save lives every single day, more lives than are taken when criminals shoot other criminals in democrat party controlled cities....

Guns in the hands of normal people stop rapes, robberies, murders, beatings, stabbings, kidnappings, and even mass public shootings......not to forget that the mere presence of guns in America keeps our government from murdering us in our millions, unlike in Europe where they banned and confiscated guns, then went on to murder 15 million people......men, women and children.

Lives saved....based on research? By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct

that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—

==========
A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

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 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)


2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey

Clinton's study by the DOJ....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.



n the third column of Table 6.2, we apply the Kleck and Gertz (1995) criteria for "genuine" DGUs (type A), leaving us with just 19 respondents. They represent 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known Kleck and Gertz estimate of 2.5 million, shown in the last

While ours is smaller, it is staistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. to the when we include the multiple DGUs victim. defensive reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 milli

While ours is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference petrator; in most cases (69 percent), the is due to sampling error. Note that when we include the multiple DGUs reported by half our 19 respondents, our estimate increases to 4.7 million DGUs.
----

As shown in Table 6.6, the defender fired his or her gun in 27 percent of these incidents (combined "fire warning shots" and "fire at perpetrator" percentages, though some respondents reported firing both warning shots and airning at the perpetrator). Forty percent of these were "warning shots," and about a third were aimed at the perpetrator but missed. The perpetrator was wounded by the crime victim in eight percent of all DGUs. In nine percent of DGUs the victim captured and held the perpetrator at gunpoint until the police could arrive.

Obama's study...

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence |The National Academies Press

 

[2aguy]

Stamping your little feet and saying "I don't want it to be true" does not constitute debunking.

This does....

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

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

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

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

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more: CDC’s Antigun Agenda On Display: So-Called Experts Abuse Our Trust
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

In 1993,Dr. Kellermann, who was funded in 1991 by a CDC grant, had to soften the ’43 times’ number to ‘2.7 times.’ He concluded, “Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” Kellerman thought the 2.7 number would not sound quite so impossible.
These papers, and many others from the medical community, were criticized by researchers who statistically showed that Kellermann’s conclusions were wildly wrong. Kellermann used a technique that depended on matching subjects and controls, except that the subject and control groups did not match. The subject group lived a very high-risk, alcohol and drug-filled lifestyle, while the controls did not.
Kellermann had singled out people who exist at the edges of society. Kellermann did not study normal gun owners, just criminals who had guns, but he exaggerated his findings.

Because of this confusion, Kellerman helped change American gun politics by injecting unwarranted fear into the gun debate. Too many journalists just read the conclusion of a “scientific” paper, and skip over the rest as too complex for them.

Despite these serious methodological problems, Kellermann’s results are still widely accepted in the public health field.​

Public-health advocates appear willing to run with any published study, regardless of how weak its methods, just so long as the findings are congenial to their assumption that guns are dangerous.
Then, in 1996, after Congress requested Kellermann’s original data, which he failed to release, Congress cut funding to the CDC for advocacy research. No funding was cut for medical research, just advocacy research.

CDC’s Antigun Agenda On Display: So-Called Experts Abuse Our Trust

 

[westwall]

Stamping your little feet and saying "I don't want it to be true" does not constitute debunking.

Correct. You should stop. Time for you to grow up.

 

[miketx]

Stamping your little feet and saying "I don't want it to be true" does not constitute debunking.

Why do you keep doing it then?

 

[1srelluc]

It's funny when people bring up issues out of the blue that they believe are their "winning issues".

The reality is, on the other hand, that people with guns are empowered. We know this because where there's easy access to firearms, there's often a higher rate of gun murders.

3/4 of all murders in the US happen with guns. It's not a coincidence. That your response to the deaths of people is to bring up some tired, nonsensical argument.... well.... are you "pro-life"?

Odd that, in my AO we are armed to the teeth yet we have a very low gun crime rate....So how do you square that?

A few weeks back a local grandma held a ne'er-do-well at gun point till the cops finally arrived and toted him off to jail.....She did not ventilate him.....That happened about 3 miles away from me.

He was held without bond too.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Irrelevant British subject is irrelevant.