No one is going to take your guns

[daveman]

Really? Where's your proof that the CDC has an anti-gun agenda?

Keep in mind, this was in 1986 when Ronny Reagan appointed the head of the CDC.

Not that you'll accept any proof, but here it is:

Now go ahead -- screech "Nuh-UH!!" and stamp your feet like a small child. We both know you're going to.

I asked specifically what was your proof that the CDC had an anti-gun agenda in 1986, you posted a bunch of stuff showing they had one in the Clinton years.

In short, let's look at the sequence here.

1986, the Kellerman study confirms what everyone already suspected, that guns in the home are far more likely to kill household members than bad guys. This really isn't in dispute.

But Reagan and Bush were in the pocket of the NRA, so they didn't do all that much about it. Welll, reagan did come out for the Brady Bill after he left office.

Then Clinton comes along, and you have Waco and Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City and a bunch of you nutters forming militias because the passed a few common sense laws.

And suddenly, Gosh, Darn, we need to get the CDC out of the business of looking into guns!

Look, if you're going to ignore the evidence I present, you can eat shit.

Good Gaea, you're absolutely TERRIFIED of conflicting views. But then, your pussyhood has never been in doubt.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, it took a long time to change my mind, but the gun nuts have persuaded me. Guns are nothing but a tool. It is the people who have them that are the real problem....

Dare I say it "GUN NUTS" you got that right

Guns are not a TOOL.......they are a Lethal Weapon...........Designed to KILL.

I love it when people who know nothing about guns happily expose thier ignorance and then expect to be taken seriously.

Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[daveman]

Why, right here:

Again: Where did I say it was the entire left?

I said it was a suggestion by leftists.

Can you honestly not see how you erred?

Erred? Er, I didn't err. You erred. Let's break it down to the root:

"the leftist recommendation"

Recommendation is the noun, leftist the adjective. It means the recommendation is a leftist one, which means it carries the nature of "the left". Yet not only haven't you made that case (blanket generalization), you haven't even made the case for how it emanated from "the left" at all (strawman). Because number one, it came from a college campus written by nobody knows who, and number two, it's not even a political statement.

Ergo U R in error.

Not really.

Again, it's not even a political statement, so anyone could make it.



Glad to meetcha. Heard a lot about ya.



Seriously, you need a link for that?

OK, here:

gun1 [guhn] Show IPA noun, verb, gunned, gun·ning.
noun
1. a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance. (dic.com)

That does absolutely NOTHING to prove your claim that a woman using a gun to defend herself from a rapist is more likely to harm bystanders with it.

So, please link a study or statistics to prove this claim.

Suppose the nuclear bomb had never been invented. Then tomorrow you invent it, and you get to decide who gets one. Should everyone get one, to prevent aggressive countries from raping the weaker ones? Or should no one get one?

Comparing personal firearms to nuclear weapons. Wow.

So what's your bright idea? What can women do to deter rapists?

If they went out dressed like your avatar I think they'd be pretty safe, although personally I find it fetching, you wanton hussy.

Since I'm not a woman it would be almost as presumptuous to make that call as it would be to opine on abortion, but the simple answers are in no way limited to what she carries, but as far as that limited list there are several devices women know better than I that, if taken away as would always be attempted in such an encounter, would not produce a threat to those around her nor herself. Which would include, since we live in a gun culture, a fake or unloaded gun.

As to the analogy: obviously a nuclear weapon is far more serious than a simple handgun; but by the same token a simple handgun is far more serious than no gun at all.

But then you're not a woman either, so keep your space suit on. I think women can think for themselves without us patronizing them.

I'm not patronizing them. I'm saying they should have the option of buying a firearm, training with it, and carrying it in public to defend themselves should the need arise.

What's patronizing is telling them "Oh, don't worry your pretty little head about it. You're just a woman, so you wouldn't be able to shoot the bad guy without hitting an innocent bystander."

Now who do we know who's patronizing women like that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The far left has been going after the 2nd amendment as hard as they can.

They want to take away the guns so they can rule without fear of revolt or revolution.

Because they believe that the state should have a monopoly on force, thus making you dependent on the state for your security.

 

[daveman]

Is banning all-plastic/non-metal detectable guns an infringement according to the 2nd amendment?

No see Miller vs US

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

So the confiscation of weapons deemed illegal is in no way in violation of the 2nd amendment.

Then what's this thread about?

As usual, your interpretation is full of crap.

How in the world did you ever get hold of the ridiciulous idea that you're an intelligent human being?

 

[Clementine]

Turns out they lied.

Sherrie Questioning All: The gun grabbers always say "Registration does not lead to Confiscation." Hmm... Seems New York is proving that WRONG - Confiscating weapons, registered in state. Letter proving it

Yup, no one will take your guns. If you like your insurance you can keep it. Benghazi was totally the fault of a filmmaker. Never met Uncle 'DUI' before. I swear to protect and uphold the constitution of the United States of America. My name is Barack, er, Barry. Unemployment went down, now elect me again.

And yet the liberals will forget what he said yesterday and believe what he says today and they never catch on how the facts change on a daily basis with this administration.

There is only one reason government wants people to register their guns and that is so they know where they are when it comes time to confiscate them. The reason liberals go along with the lies is because they know he's trying to fool people and they approve of his reasons for doing so. People have never embraced socialism and need to be gradually sucked in.

 

[Geaux4it]

Well, it took a long time to change my mind, but the gun nuts have persuaded me. Guns are nothing but a tool. It is the people who have them that are the real problem....

Dare I say it "GUN NUTS" you got that right

Guns are not a TOOL.......they are a Lethal Weapon...........Designed to KILL.

And Kill they certainly DO../ HAVE.........1.35 odd MILLION Americans since J.F.K.

I hope you don't think THAT FIGURE IS NORMAL Vandal

The Irony Is That When You Catch The Perpertrators......YOU EXECUTE THEM

YOU SELL THEM THE WEAPON FREELY......WHEN THEY KILL WITH THEM,YOU EXECUTE

So it's not 1.350 Million,I have to add in the EXECUTIONS......Lets say another 500,000 since J.F.K. executed(someone could help me here on the number) Thanks.

But the true COST of the GUN......starts to multiply here.......Take in all the Maimed and Injured........Often a life of misery and on going health cost(not that you even have a health care system to talk of),the Sadness of those left behind,women,children,families,and the on going mental problems.....moreover the lost opportunities of children because of Economic hardship.

Fcuk Me,do I really have to explain more......the true cost of your insidious GUN CULTURE.


I'm the liq and tell it how it is.....Me I'd BAN GUNS..NOW..steve

 

[Pogo]

Again: Where did I say it was the entire left?

I said it was a suggestion by leftists.

Can you honestly not see how you erred?

Erred? Er, I didn't err. You erred. Let's break it down to the root:

"the leftist recommendation"

Recommendation is the noun, leftist the adjective. It means the recommendation is a leftist one, which means it carries the nature of "the left". Yet not only haven't you made that case (blanket generalization), you haven't even made the case for how it emanated from "the left" at all (strawman). Because number one, it came from a college campus written by nobody knows who, and number two, it's not even a political statement.

Ergo U R in error.

Not really.

Just say "I concede". It's easier.
Moving on...

That does absolutely NOTHING to prove your claim that a woman using a gun to defend herself from a rapist is more likely to harm bystanders with it.

So, please link a study or statistics to prove this claim.

You don't see that a woman -- or any person -- in possession of an instrument capable of long range death is more likely to cause harm than a person in possession of no such instrument?

Of course, if common sense doesn't prevail, there's also this:
>> individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05) <<
(here)

and this...
And this...

I mean, it's a little weird needing links for this. Kinda like funding a study to determine whether water is wet...

Comparing personal firearms to nuclear weapons. Wow.

So what's your bright idea? What can women do to deter rapists?

If they went out dressed like your avatar I think they'd be pretty safe, although personally I find it fetching, you wanton hussy.

Since I'm not a woman it would be almost as presumptuous to make that call as it would be to opine on abortion, but the simple answers are in no way limited to what she carries, but as far as that limited list there are several devices women know better than I that, if taken away as would always be attempted in such an encounter, would not produce a threat to those around her nor herself. Which would include, since we live in a gun culture, a fake or unloaded gun.

As to the analogy: obviously a nuclear weapon is far more serious than a simple handgun; but by the same token a simple handgun is far more serious than no gun at all.

But then you're not a woman either, so keep your space suit on. I think women can think for themselves without us patronizing them.

I'm not patronizing them. I'm saying they should have the option of buying a firearm, training with it, and carrying it in public to defend themselves should the need arise.

What's patronizing is telling them "Oh, don't worry your pretty little head about it. You're just a woman, so you wouldn't be able to shoot the bad guy without hitting an innocent bystander."

Now who do we know who's patronizing women like that?

Well, it's some guy in a red space suit, since he's the guy who posted that "anti-gun nuts want women to be raped", on account of their not agreeing with your firearm solutions, which in turn indicates Dave knows what's best for them, does it not?

 

[Geaux4it]

Erred? Er, I didn't err. You erred. Let's break it down to the root:

"the leftist recommendation"

Recommendation is the noun, leftist the adjective. It means the recommendation is a leftist one, which means it carries the nature of "the left". Yet not only haven't you made that case (blanket generalization), you haven't even made the case for how it emanated from "the left" at all (strawman). Because number one, it came from a college campus written by nobody knows who, and number two, it's not even a political statement.

Ergo U R in error.

Not really.

Just say "I concede". It's easier.
Moving on...



You don't see that a woman -- or any person -- in possession of an instrument capable of long range death is more likely to cause harm than a person in possession of no such instrument?

Of course, if common sense doesn't prevail, there's also this:
>> individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05) <<
(here)

and this...
And this...

I mean, it's a little weird needing links for this. Kinda like funding a study to determine whether water is wet...

If they went out dressed like your avatar I think they'd be pretty safe, although personally I find it fetching, you wanton hussy.

Since I'm not a woman it would be almost as presumptuous to make that call as it would be to opine on abortion, but the simple answers are in no way limited to what she carries, but as far as that limited list there are several devices women know better than I that, if taken away as would always be attempted in such an encounter, would not produce a threat to those around her nor herself. Which would include, since we live in a gun culture, a fake or unloaded gun.

As to the analogy: obviously a nuclear weapon is far more serious than a simple handgun; but by the same token a simple handgun is far more serious than no gun at all.

But then you're not a woman either, so keep your space suit on. I think women can think for themselves without us patronizing them.

I'm not patronizing them. I'm saying they should have the option of buying a firearm, training with it, and carrying it in public to defend themselves should the need arise.

What's patronizing is telling them "Oh, don't worry your pretty little head about it. You're just a woman, so you wouldn't be able to shoot the bad guy without hitting an innocent bystander."

Now who do we know who's patronizing women like that?

Well, it's some guy in a red space suit, since he's the guy who posted that "anti-gun nuts want women to be raped", on account of their not agreeing with your firearm solutions, which in turn indicates Dave knows what's best for them, does it not?

All acceptable risk from true Americans. Communist traitors, not so much.

-Geaux

 

[Pogo]

Not really.

Just say "I concede". It's easier.
Moving on...



You don't see that a woman -- or any person -- in possession of an instrument capable of long range death is more likely to cause harm than a person in possession of no such instrument?

Of course, if common sense doesn't prevail, there's also this:
>> individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05) <<
(here)

and this...
And this...

I mean, it's a little weird needing links for this. Kinda like funding a study to determine whether water is wet...

I'm not patronizing them. I'm saying they should have the option of buying a firearm, training with it, and carrying it in public to defend themselves should the need arise.

What's patronizing is telling them "Oh, don't worry your pretty little head about it. You're just a woman, so you wouldn't be able to shoot the bad guy without hitting an innocent bystander."

Now who do we know who's patronizing women like that?

Well, it's some guy in a red space suit, since he's the guy who posted that "anti-gun nuts want women to be raped", on account of their not agreeing with your firearm solutions, which in turn indicates Dave knows what's best for them, does it not?

All acceptable risk from true Americans. Communist traitors, not so much.

-Geaux

So you're saying "true American" (whatever that means) can patronize women, but traitors to communism, not so much.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Now, do you have any actual material to contribute? Or are you just gonna troll from the sidelines like a dick?

 

[daveman]

Erred? Er, I didn't err. You erred. Let's break it down to the root:

"the leftist recommendation"

Recommendation is the noun, leftist the adjective. It means the recommendation is a leftist one, which means it carries the nature of "the left". Yet not only haven't you made that case (blanket generalization), you haven't even made the case for how it emanated from "the left" at all (strawman). Because number one, it came from a college campus written by nobody knows who, and number two, it's not even a political statement.

Ergo U R in error.

Not really.

Just say "I concede". It's easier.

I do concede, when I've been in error.

Such is not the case here.

Moving on...



You don't see that a woman -- or any person -- in possession of an instrument capable of long range death is more likely to cause harm than a person in possession of no such instrument?

Of course, if common sense doesn't prevail, there's also this:
>> individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05) <<
(here)

This study is flawed. It's ripped to pieces here: FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT

and this...

Overstated.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

ACCIDENTAL DEATHS
Myth: Accidental gun fatalities are a serious problem
Fact: Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.189 For
example, compared to being accidentally killed by a firearm, you are:
&#8226; Five times more likely to burn to death
&#8226; Five times more likely to drown
&#8226; 17 times more likely to be poisoned
&#8226; 17 times more likely to fall
&#8226; And 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident

Fact: In 2007, there were only 54 accidental gun deaths for children under age 13. About 12
times as many children died from drowning during the same period.190
Fact: In 2007, there were 999 drowning victims and 137 firearm-related accidental deaths from
ages 1-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1. Thus, the risk of drowning in a
pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and nearly 500
times for children ages 0-5.191
Fact: Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year &#8211; the equivalent of almost three fully loaded
Boeing 747 jet crashes per day &#8211;
or about 286 times the rate of all
accidental firearm deaths.192
This translates into 1 in 6 doctors
causing an accidental death, and
1 in 56,666 gun owners doing
the same.

Fact: Only 2% of gun deaths are
from accidents, and some
insurance investigations indicate
that many of these may not be
accidents after all.193
Fact: Around 2,000 patients
each year &#8211; six per day &#8211; are
accidentally killed or injured in
hospitals by registered nurses.194
Myth: Handguns are unsafe and cause accidents
Fact: Most fatal firearm accidents involve long guns, which are more deadly. These are
typically hunting accidents.195
Fact: Handguns have triggers that are difficult for small (child) hands to operate, and are rarely
the cause of accidents.196
Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns
Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.197
Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for
protection
Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens
kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000198 despite American citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times
every year.
Fact: Most firearm accidents are caused by people with various forms of poor self-control.
These include alcoholics, people with previous criminal records, people with multiple driving
accidents, and people who engage in other risky behaviors.199
​

And this...

Not sure why this is relevant to women using firearms to defend themselves against rapists, but I'll play along.

It reinforces the need for non-gun-owning parents to train their children not to handle weapons at all, and for gun-owning parents to handle weapons safely.

Doesn't it?

I mean, it's a little weird needing links for this. Kinda like funding a study to determine whether water is wet...

Seriously? You really don't know how debate works?

I'm sorry -- I didn't know I was just supposed to take your word for it because you said it. Funny how you don't do that for me, but insist I do it for you, huh?

If they went out dressed like your avatar I think they'd be pretty safe, although personally I find it fetching, you wanton hussy.

Since I'm not a woman it would be almost as presumptuous to make that call as it would be to opine on abortion, but the simple answers are in no way limited to what she carries, but as far as that limited list there are several devices women know better than I that, if taken away as would always be attempted in such an encounter, would not produce a threat to those around her nor herself. Which would include, since we live in a gun culture, a fake or unloaded gun.

As to the analogy: obviously a nuclear weapon is far more serious than a simple handgun; but by the same token a simple handgun is far more serious than no gun at all.

But then you're not a woman either, so keep your space suit on. I think women can think for themselves without us patronizing them.

I'm not patronizing them. I'm saying they should have the option of buying a firearm, training with it, and carrying it in public to defend themselves should the need arise.

What's patronizing is telling them "Oh, don't worry your pretty little head about it. You're just a woman, so you wouldn't be able to shoot the bad guy without hitting an innocent bystander."

Now who do we know who's patronizing women like that?

Well, it's some guy in a red space suit, since he's the guy who posted that "anti-gun nuts want women to be raped", on account of their not agreeing with your firearm solutions, which in turn indicates Dave knows what's best for them, does it not?

No, it doesn't.

I'm saying women should have the option of arming themselves.

Anti-gun loons don't WANT them to have that option.

 

[Geaux4it]

Just say "I concede". It's easier.
Moving on...



You don't see that a woman -- or any person -- in possession of an instrument capable of long range death is more likely to cause harm than a person in possession of no such instrument?

Of course, if common sense doesn't prevail, there's also this:
>> individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05) <<
(here)

and this...
And this...

I mean, it's a little weird needing links for this. Kinda like funding a study to determine whether water is wet...






Well, it's some guy in a red space suit, since he's the guy who posted that "anti-gun nuts want women to be raped", on account of their not agreeing with your firearm solutions, which in turn indicates Dave knows what's best for them, does it not?

All acceptable risk from true Americans. Communist traitors, not so much.

-Geaux

So you're saying "true American" (whatever that means) can patronize women, but traitors to communism, not so much.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Now, do you have any actual material to contribute? Or are you just gonna troll from the sidelines like a dick?

I just make the point, that all the statistics that are bounced around by the anti- gun loon crowd, in the end, are useless. Because clearly it is acceptable risk for true Americans who will not relinquish their second amendment rights. It's non-negotiable. Traitors and other leftist who want to stomp on the Constitution and Bill of Rights are fighting a losing battle. But by all means, have at it. Those efforts will just continue to fail like Obama's Presidency.

It's all good

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Not really.

Just say "I concede". It's easier.

I do concede, when I've been in error.

Such is not the case here.

This study is flawed. It's ripped to pieces here: FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT

Overstated.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

ACCIDENTAL DEATHS
Myth: Accidental gun fatalities are a serious problem
Fact: Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.189 For
example, compared to being accidentally killed by a firearm, you are:
• Five times more likely to burn to death
• Five times more likely to drown
• 17 times more likely to be poisoned
• 17 times more likely to fall
• And 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident

Fact: In 2007, there were only 54 accidental gun deaths for children under age 13. About 12
times as many children died from drowning during the same period.190
Fact: In 2007, there were 999 drowning victims and 137 firearm-related accidental deaths from
ages 1-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1. Thus, the risk of drowning in a
pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and nearly 500
times for children ages 0-5.191
Fact: Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year – the equivalent of almost three fully loaded
Boeing 747 jet crashes per day –
or about 286 times the rate of all
accidental firearm deaths.192
This translates into 1 in 6 doctors
causing an accidental death, and
1 in 56,666 gun owners doing
the same.

Fact: Only 2% of gun deaths are
from accidents, and some
insurance investigations indicate
that many of these may not be
accidents after all.193
Fact: Around 2,000 patients
each year – six per day – are
accidentally killed or injured in
hospitals by registered nurses.194
Myth: Handguns are unsafe and cause accidents
Fact: Most fatal firearm accidents involve long guns, which are more deadly. These are
typically hunting accidents.195
Fact: Handguns have triggers that are difficult for small (child) hands to operate, and are rarely
the cause of accidents.196
Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns
Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.197
Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for
protection
Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens
kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000198 despite American citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times
every year.
Fact: Most firearm accidents are caused by people with various forms of poor self-control.
These include alcoholics, people with previous criminal records, people with multiple driving
accidents, and people who engage in other risky behaviors.199
​

Not sure why this is relevant to women using firearms to defend themselves against rapists, but I'll play along.

It reinforces the need for non-gun-owning parents to train their children not to handle weapons at all, and for gun-owning parents to handle weapons safely.

Doesn't it?

Seriously? You really don't know how debate works?

I'm sorry -- I didn't know I was just supposed to take your word for it because you said it. Funny how you don't do that for me, but insist I do it for you, huh?

I'm not patronizing them. I'm saying they should have the option of buying a firearm, training with it, and carrying it in public to defend themselves should the need arise.

What's patronizing is telling them "Oh, don't worry your pretty little head about it. You're just a woman, so you wouldn't be able to shoot the bad guy without hitting an innocent bystander."

Now who do we know who's patronizing women like that?

Well, it's some guy in a red space suit, since he's the guy who posted that "anti-gun nuts want women to be raped", on account of their not agreeing with your firearm solutions, which in turn indicates Dave knows what's best for them, does it not?

No, it doesn't.

I'm saying women should have the option of arming themselves.

Anti-gun loons don't WANT them to have that option.

 

[Geaux4it]

This young woman sure was glad she had a firearm.

-Geaux

[youtube]s1-Kz3vU5DY[/youtube]

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm always off my meds, since I don't take any meds, girl!

And there is the problem! Yer batshit insane and not taking the drugs your shrink prescribed! Might be time for you to step up to a prefrontal lobotomy, then.

I'm fairly anti-drug.

What can I add to my smoothies?

Crushed glass.

 

[Geaux4it]

Dave- Sorry I chased off your whipping boy in the gun debate. They don't like facts.

-Geaux

 

[Pogo]

Not really.

Just say "I concede". It's easier.

I do concede, when I've been in error.

Such is not the case here.

This study is flawed. It's ripped to pieces here: FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT

Overstated.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

ACCIDENTAL DEATHS
Myth: Accidental gun fatalities are a serious problem
Fact: Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.189 For
example, compared to being accidentally killed by a firearm, you are:
&#8226; Five times more likely to burn to death
&#8226; Five times more likely to drown
&#8226; 17 times more likely to be poisoned
&#8226; 17 times more likely to fall
&#8226; And 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident

Fact: In 2007, there were only 54 accidental gun deaths for children under age 13. About 12
times as many children died from drowning during the same period.190
Fact: In 2007, there were 999 drowning victims and 137 firearm-related accidental deaths from
ages 1-19. Firearms outnumber pools by a factor of over 30:1. Thus, the risk of drowning in a
pool is nearly 100 times higher than from a firearm-related accident for everyone, and nearly 500
times for children ages 0-5.191
Fact: Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year &#8211; the equivalent of almost three fully loaded
Boeing 747 jet crashes per day &#8211;
or about 286 times the rate of all
accidental firearm deaths.192
This translates into 1 in 6 doctors
causing an accidental death, and
1 in 56,666 gun owners doing
the same.

Fact: Only 2% of gun deaths are
from accidents, and some
insurance investigations indicate
that many of these may not be
accidents after all.193
Fact: Around 2,000 patients
each year &#8211; six per day &#8211; are
accidentally killed or injured in
hospitals by registered nurses.194
Myth: Handguns are unsafe and cause accidents
Fact: Most fatal firearm accidents involve long guns, which are more deadly. These are
typically hunting accidents.195
Fact: Handguns have triggers that are difficult for small (child) hands to operate, and are rarely
the cause of accidents.196
Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns
Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.197
Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for
protection
Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens
kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000198 despite American citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times
every year.
Fact: Most firearm accidents are caused by people with various forms of poor self-control.
These include alcoholics, people with previous criminal records, people with multiple driving
accidents, and people who engage in other risky behaviors.199
​

Not sure why this is relevant to women using firearms to defend themselves against rapists, but I'll play along.

It reinforces the need for non-gun-owning parents to train their children not to handle weapons at all, and for gun-owning parents to handle weapons safely.

Doesn't it?

Seriously? You really don't know how debate works?

I'm sorry -- I didn't know I was just supposed to take your word for it because you said it. Funny how you don't do that for me, but insist I do it for you, huh?

I'm not patronizing them. I'm saying they should have the option of buying a firearm, training with it, and carrying it in public to defend themselves should the need arise.

What's patronizing is telling them "Oh, don't worry your pretty little head about it. You're just a woman, so you wouldn't be able to shoot the bad guy without hitting an innocent bystander."

Now who do we know who's patronizing women like that?

Well, it's some guy in a red space suit, since he's the guy who posted that "anti-gun nuts want women to be raped", on account of their not agreeing with your firearm solutions, which in turn indicates Dave knows what's best for them, does it not?

No, it doesn't.

I'm saying women should have the option of arming themselves.

Anti-gun loons don't WANT them to have that option.

Well then I have no idea who you're addressing, because I haven't declared wanting to take away anyone's "options".

I love the sig line though.

And btw, yes it does. Unless you're a woman or are willing to have the operation (be sure to alert Novasteve), you can't presume to speak for them.

 

[Pogo]

All acceptable risk from true Americans. Communist traitors, not so much.

-Geaux

So you're saying "true American" (whatever that means) can patronize women, but traitors to communism, not so much.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Now, do you have any actual material to contribute? Or are you just gonna troll from the sidelines like a dick?

I just make the point, that all the statistics that are bounced around by the anti- gun loon crowd, in the end, are useless. Because clearly it is acceptable risk for true Americans who will not relinquish their second amendment rights. It's non-negotiable. Traitors and other leftist who want to stomp on the Constitution and Bill of Rights are fighting a losing battle. But by all means, have at it. Those efforts will just continue to fail like Obama's Presidency.

It's all good

-Geaux

What in the blue **** are you babbling about?
Where have I said anything about anyone relinquishing any rights?

Maybe you should spend more time reading and less time putting up increasingly cluttered posts that say increasingly nothing.

 

[theliq]

Well, it took a long time to change my mind, but the gun nuts have persuaded me. Guns are nothing but a tool. It is the people who have them that are the real problem....

Dare I say it "GUN NUTS" you got that right

Guns are not a TOOL.......they are a Lethal Weapon...........Designed to KILL.

I love it when people who know nothing about guns happily expose thier ignorance and then expect to be taken seriously.

Further proof that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

We have the facts ..You are Losers...We speak the truth..You accept VIOLENCE as NORMAL because you are ABNORMAL.

Forget all this BULLSHIT.....I caught you out.steve

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you drunk?