Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

What are you prattling on about?

A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.

Except, it isn't much of a deterrent. For all of our gun ownership and gun carrying populace, crime in the US isn't meaningfully lower nor in any way deterred as compared to any modern industrialized nations that have more gun control in place.

The data shows it's not a deterrent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

What are you prattling on about?

A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.

Anonymous wrote:I see you annoyed a devoted gun nut, OP.

You're right. Concealed carry is a joke, and just another pathetic attempt by the NRA to link toting around a dangerous weapon to the idea of freedom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not hard to get a concealed carry permit in Va. If I wanted to carry a gun, I would.

And you like the idea of being out and about with dozens of people carrying concealed weapons liable to do who knows what if someone cuts them off in traffic or steals their parking space or looks at them the wrong way after they just got dumped by their girlfriend? You like the safety of being around a whole rack of armed individuals many of whom have anger management issues or who are emotionally unstable or who have strong personal prejudices and biases towards certain races, religions, sexual preferences, etc. along with who knows how many people who are just plain stupid - - you like the idea of them all walking around carrying concealed weapons?

Anonymous wrote:It's not hard to get a concealed carry permit in Va. If I wanted to carry a gun, I would.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

What are you prattling on about?

A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.

Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010

Useless blather?

It's certainly worth considering the dangers that a gun inherently brings, and increased risk of suicide or accidental shooting are certainly among them. However, those statistics are not valid because they don't account for how much crime is prevented from the deterrence factor, nor do they count the next level of how many invasions were stopped when the thug was confronted with a gun. Look, I don't own any guns. However, I know that many people in my neighborhood do. Criminals are aware of this, to a significant degree. Knowing that, even in more rural, remote areas far away from police stations, many homeowners are armed is a significant deterrent to crime against home and property. You simply can't deny this.

Okay...and? Alarm systems are deterrents. You can't deny this. Dogs are deterrents. You can't deny this. Hell even leaving a few friggin lights on is a damn deterrent to many criminals. You can't deny this. You telling me the only reason you feel safe is because your neighbor is packing heat, which by the way is more likely to be used to blow his own damn head off?

Yes, alarms and light bulbs and dogs are deterrents. I am not proposing that we ban any of those. Did you think I was? You think my neighbors are more likely to blow their own heads off? More likely than what? Many of them are FBI agents; does that change your opinion, and if so, why? Also, if you were in my situation, would you be willing to put a sign on your mailbox that says this is one of the few houses in the neighborhood in which there are no guns? If not, why not?

Lol - I'm sure you love walking around posing as a concealed carrier like all your FBI neighbors. Probably yell at people for not curbing their dogs...stick out your chest and order grandma to "move it or lose it" when she's taking too long to push her cart down the aisle at the grocery store...gets you off doesn't it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

What are you prattling on about?

A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.

Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010

Useless blather?

It's certainly worth considering the dangers that a gun inherently brings, and increased risk of suicide or accidental shooting are certainly among them. However, those statistics are not valid because they don't account for how much crime is prevented from the deterrence factor, nor do they count the next level of how many invasions were stopped when the thug was confronted with a gun. Look, I don't own any guns. However, I know that many people in my neighborhood do. Criminals are aware of this, to a significant degree. Knowing that, even in more rural, remote areas far away from police stations, many homeowners are armed is a significant deterrent to crime against home and property. You simply can't deny this.

Okay...and? Alarm systems are deterrents. You can't deny this. Dogs are deterrents. You can't deny this. Hell even leaving a few friggin lights on is a damn deterrent to many criminals. You can't deny this. You telling me the only reason you feel safe is because your neighbor is packing heat, which by the way is more likely to be used to blow his own damn head off?

Yes, alarms and light bulbs and dogs are deterrents. I am not proposing that we ban any of those. Did you think I was? You think my neighbors are more likely to blow their own heads off? More likely than what? Many of them are FBI agents; does that change your opinion, and if so, why? Also, if you were in my situation, would you be willing to put a sign on your mailbox that says this is one of the few houses in the neighborhood in which there are no guns? If not, why not?

Lol - I'm sure you love walking around posing as a concealed carrier like all your FBI neighbors. Probably yell at people for not curbing their dogs...stick out your chest and order grandma to "move it or lose it" when she's taking too long to push her cart down the aisle at the grocery store...gets you off doesn't it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

What are you prattling on about?

A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.

Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010

Useless blather?

It's certainly worth considering the dangers that a gun inherently brings, and increased risk of suicide or accidental shooting are certainly among them. However, those statistics are not valid because they don't account for how much crime is prevented from the deterrence factor, nor do they count the next level of how many invasions were stopped when the thug was confronted with a gun. Look, I don't own any guns. However, I know that many people in my neighborhood do. Criminals are aware of this, to a significant degree. Knowing that, even in more rural, remote areas far away from police stations, many homeowners are armed is a significant deterrent to crime against home and property. You simply can't deny this.

Okay...and? Alarm systems are deterrents. You can't deny this. Dogs are deterrents. You can't deny this. Hell even leaving a few friggin lights on is a damn deterrent to many criminals. You can't deny this. You telling me the only reason you feel safe is because your neighbor is packing heat, which by the way is more likely to be used to blow his own damn head off?

Yes, alarms and light bulbs and dogs are deterrents. I am not proposing that we ban any of those. Did you think I was? You think my neighbors are more likely to blow their own heads off? More likely than what? Many of them are FBI agents; does that change your opinion, and if so, why? Also, if you were in my situation, would you be willing to put a sign on your mailbox that says this is one of the few houses in the neighborhood in which there are no guns? If not, why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

What are you prattling on about?

A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.

Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010

Useless blather?

It's certainly worth considering the dangers that a gun inherently brings, and increased risk of suicide or accidental shooting are certainly among them. However, those statistics are not valid because they don't account for how much crime is prevented from the deterrence factor, nor do they count the next level of how many invasions were stopped when the thug was confronted with a gun. Look, I don't own any guns. However, I know that many people in my neighborhood do. Criminals are aware of this, to a significant degree. Knowing that, even in more rural, remote areas far away from police stations, many homeowners are armed is a significant deterrent to crime against home and property. You simply can't deny this.

Okay...and? Alarm systems are deterrents. You can't deny this. Dogs are deterrents. You can't deny this. Hell even leaving a few friggin lights on is a damn deterrent to many criminals. You can't deny this. You telling me the only reason you feel safe is because your neighbor is packing heat, which by the way is more likely to be used to blow his own damn head off?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

What are you prattling on about?

A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.

Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010

Useless blather?

It's certainly worth considering the dangers that a gun inherently brings, and increased risk of suicide or accidental shooting are certainly among them. However, those statistics are not valid because they don't account for how much crime is prevented from the deterrence factor, nor do they count the next level of how many invasions were stopped when the thug was confronted with a gun. Look, I don't own any guns. However, I know that many people in my neighborhood do. Criminals are aware of this, to a significant degree. Knowing that, even in more rural, remote areas far away from police stations, many homeowners are armed is a significant deterrent to crime against home and property. You simply can't deny this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

What are you prattling on about?

A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.

Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010

Useless blather?