* 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in the same
year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher rate in the US.

* Around 32,000 people have been shot in America so far this year.

* 300 Americans are shot, on average, every day.

* For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of dying of an
accidental gunshot wound.

* In 2008, 17,215 people in the U.S. were wounded in unintentional shootings
but survived.

* For kids ages up to four years old, the mortality rate is 17 times higher
in states with high number of guns, versus states with a low number of
firearms.

* 33% of U.S. households contain a gun, and half reportedly don't lock up
their weapons.

* A gun in the home is four times more likely to be used in an unintentional
shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

argus tuft wrote:

> X-Complaints-To:

So, are you posting about cooking in political newsgroups?

And it's SO nice to learn that Canadians have no problems, and can
therefore devote their time to posting about US problems.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers"
A Streetcar Named Expire
http://dsgood.dreamwidth.com
http://dsgood.livejournal.com
http://dsgood.insanejournal.com

argus tuft wrote:
> * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in the same
> year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher rate in the US.
>
> * Around 32,000 people have been shot in America so far this year.
>
> * 300 Americans are shot, on average, every day.
>
> * For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of dying of an
> accidental gunshot wound.
>
> * In 2008, 17,215 people in the U.S. were wounded in unintentional shootings
> but survived.
>
> * For kids ages up to four years old, the mortality rate is 17 times higher
> in states with high number of guns, versus states with a low number of
> firearms.
>
> * 33% of U.S. households contain a gun, and half reportedly don't lock up
> their weapons.
>
> * A gun in the home is four times more likely to be used in an unintentional
> shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
>
>


For some of us, you're preaching tot he choir. For others, those are
fighting words.

gloria p

In article >,
"gloria.p" > wrote:

> argus tuft wrote:
> > * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in the same
> > year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher rate in the US.
> >
> > * Around 32,000 people have been shot in America so far this year.
> >
> > * 300 Americans are shot, on average, every day.
> >
> > * For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of dying of an
> > accidental gunshot wound.
> >
> > * In 2008, 17,215 people in the U.S. were wounded in unintentional
> > shootings
> > but survived.
> >
> > * For kids ages up to four years old, the mortality rate is 17 times higher
> > in states with high number of guns, versus states with a low number of
> > firearms.
> >
> > * 33% of U.S. households contain a gun, and half reportedly don't lock up
> > their weapons.
> >
> > * A gun in the home is four times more likely to be used in an
> > unintentional
> > shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
> >
> >
>
>
> For some of us, you're preaching tot he choir. For others, those are
> fighting words.
>
> gloria p

<lol> Too true!

According to statistics, guns save 20 times as many lives as they take:

<http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm>

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they
inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding
citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5
million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that
each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect
the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend
themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their
gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of
the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves
against sexual abuse.4

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5
million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton
Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of
self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published
this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was
authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot
and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527
to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of
civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as
a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent,
more than five times as high."7

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use
handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of
these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night
Specials."

I could go on, but Google is your friend...
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "gloria.p" > wrote:
>
>> argus tuft wrote:
>>> * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in the same
>>> year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher rate in the US.
>>>
>>> * Around 32,000 people have been shot in America so far this year.
>>>
>>> * 300 Americans are shot, on average, every day.
>>>
>>> * For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of dying of an
>>> accidental gunshot wound.
>>>
>>> * In 2008, 17,215 people in the U.S. were wounded in unintentional
>>> shootings
>>> but survived.
>>>
>>> * For kids ages up to four years old, the mortality rate is 17 times higher
>>> in states with high number of guns, versus states with a low number of
>>> firearms.
>>>
>>> * 33% of U.S. households contain a gun, and half reportedly don't lock up
>>> their weapons.
>>>
>>> * A gun in the home is four times more likely to be used in an
>>> unintentional
>>> shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For some of us, you're preaching tot he choir. For others, those are
>> fighting words.
>>
>> gloria p
>
> <lol> Too true!
>
> According to statistics, guns save 20 times as many lives as they take:


That takes a huge leap in logic. Given that the US has five times the
per capita rate of firearms homicides, you have to ask how they could
have saved 20 times as many lives. Gun use (against humans is not as
prevalent here as in the US. By your logic, we should have had a lot
more people murdered.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "gloria.p" > wrote:
>>
>>> argus tuft wrote:
>>>> * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in
>>>> the same year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher
>>>> rate in the US. * Around 32,000 people have been shot in America so far
>>>> this year.
>>>>
>>>> * 300 Americans are shot, on average, every day.
>>>>
>>>> * For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of
>>>> dying of an accidental gunshot wound.
>>>>
>>>> * In 2008, 17,215 people in the U.S. were wounded in unintentional
>>>> shootings
>>>> but survived.
>>>>
>>>> * For kids ages up to four years old, the mortality rate is 17
>>>> times higher in states with high number of guns, versus states
>>>> with a low number of firearms.
>>>>
>>>> * 33% of U.S. households contain a gun, and half reportedly don't
>>>> lock up their weapons.
>>>>
>>>> * A gun in the home is four times more likely to be used in an
>>>> unintentional
>>>> shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> For some of us, you're preaching tot he choir. For others, those
>>> are fighting words.
>>>
>>> gloria p
>>
>> <lol> Too true!
>>
>> According to statistics, guns save 20 times as many lives as they
>> take:
>
>
> That takes a huge leap in logic. Given that the US has five times the
> per capita rate of firearms homicides, you have to ask how they could
> have saved 20 times as many lives. Gun use (against humans is not as
> prevalent here as in the US. By your logic, we should have had a lot
> more people murdered.

You didn't read the entire post, Dave. I fail to see where the leap in logic
exists. BTW, on a per capita basis, do you know which country has the
highest level of violent crime?

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

In article > ,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "gloria.p" > wrote:
> >
> >> argus tuft wrote:
> >>> * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in the same
> >>> year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher rate in the US.
> >>>
> >> For some of us, you're preaching tot he choir. For others, those are
> >> fighting words.
> >>
> >> gloria p
> >
> > <lol> Too true!
> >
> > According to statistics, guns save 20 times as many lives as they take:
>
>
> That takes a huge leap in logic. Given that the US has five times the
> per capita rate of firearms homicides, you have to ask how they could
> have saved 20 times as many lives. Gun use (against humans is not as
> prevalent here as in the US. By your logic, we should have had a lot
> more people murdered.

For some reason, I fail to see what you are getting at.
Did you read my cite?

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Do you really want to be defenseless in the meantime against an armed
invader or attacker?

Criminals do not obey laws.
Gun ban laws only affect law abiding citizens.
They do NOT affect criminals who will be armed regardless of laws.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:17:28 -0600, "argus tuft"
> wrote:

>bunch of statistics clipped (no pun intended)

And your point is...?

--
Zilbandy

On 4/25/2010 5:32 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> argus tuft wrote:
>>>>> * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in
>>>>> the same year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher
>>>>> rate in the US. * Around 32,000 people have been shot in America so far
>>>>> this year.
>>>>>
>>>>> * 300 Americans are shot, on average, every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> * For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of
>>>>> dying of an accidental gunshot wound.
>>>>>
>>>>> * In 2008, 17,215 people in the U.S. were wounded in unintentional
>>>>> shootings
>>>>> but survived.
>>>>>
>>>>> * For kids ages up to four years old, the mortality rate is 17
>>>>> times higher in states with high number of guns, versus states
>>>>> with a low number of firearms.
>>>>>
>>>>> * 33% of U.S. households contain a gun, and half reportedly don't
>>>>> lock up their weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>> * A gun in the home is four times more likely to be used in an
>>>>> unintentional
>>>>> shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For some of us, you're preaching tot he choir. For others, those
>>>> are fighting words.
>>>>
>>>> gloria p
>>>
>>> <lol> Too true!
>>>
>>> According to statistics, guns save 20 times as many lives as they
>>> take:
>>
>>
>> That takes a huge leap in logic. Given that the US has five times the
>> per capita rate of firearms homicides, you have to ask how they could
>> have saved 20 times as many lives. Gun use (against humans is not as
>> prevalent here as in the US. By your logic, we should have had a lot
>> more people murdered.
>
> You didn't read the entire post, Dave. I fail to see where the leap in logic
> exists. BTW, on a per capita basis, do you know which country has the
> highest level of violent crime?
>

It *might* be South Africa, but I think it's Great Britain. I read about
that in the _London Times_ last year. (that's why the gun banners like
to qualify the statistics as "gun crimes", which could mean as little as
an expired permit, instead of "violent crimes")

It is easy to get statistics about how many people died from gunshots,
then sift the numbers to support whatever point you're trying to make.
It is very difficult to get meaningful statistics (maybe impossible)
about how many crimes *didn't* happen because the victim was armed or
whatever. (How do you prove a negative? So then how can you count it?)

The _American Rifleman_ magazine has a column every month with accounts
of criminals who were stopped by armed victims. They are pretty
compelling stories, of course they probably don't publish the hundreds
of boring stories. ;-)

Bob

Dave Bugg wrote:

>> That takes a huge leap in logic. Given that the US has five times the
>> per capita rate of firearms homicides, you have to ask how they could
>> have saved 20 times as many lives. Gun use (against humans is not as
>> prevalent here as in the US. By your logic, we should have had a lot
>> more people murdered.
>
> You didn't read the entire post, Dave. I fail to see where the leap in logic
> exists. BTW, on a per capita basis, do you know which country has the
> highest level of violent crime?
>

According to Omelet's post, guns save 20 times more lives than they take
(in the US). According to the OP, the US has 5 times the rate of gun
homicides as Canada, where gun play is frowned on. If Omelet's assertion
is correct, Canada should have the higher gun homicide rate because
people aren't using their guns for self defence.

zxcvbob wrote:
> On 4/25/2010 5:32 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>> In >,
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> argus tuft wrote:
>>>>>> * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in
>>>>>> the same year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher
>>>>>> rate in the US. * Around 32,000 people have been shot in America
>>>>>> so far
>>>>>> this year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * 300 Americans are shot, on average, every day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of
>>>>>> dying of an accidental gunshot wound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * In 2008, 17,215 people in the U.S. were wounded in unintentional
>>>>>> shootings
>>>>>> but survived.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * For kids ages up to four years old, the mortality rate is 17
>>>>>> times higher in states with high number of guns, versus states
>>>>>> with a low number of firearms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * 33% of U.S. households contain a gun, and half reportedly don't
>>>>>> lock up their weapons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * A gun in the home is four times more likely to be used in an
>>>>>> unintentional
>>>>>> shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For some of us, you're preaching tot he choir. For others, those
>>>>> are fighting words.
>>>>>
>>>>> gloria p
>>>>
>>>> <lol> Too true!
>>>>
>>>> According to statistics, guns save 20 times as many lives as they
>>>> take:
>>>
>>>
>>> That takes a huge leap in logic. Given that the US has five times the
>>> per capita rate of firearms homicides, you have to ask how they could
>>> have saved 20 times as many lives. Gun use (against humans is not as
>>> prevalent here as in the US. By your logic, we should have had a lot
>>> more people murdered.
>>
>> You didn't read the entire post, Dave. I fail to see where the leap in
>> logic
>> exists. BTW, on a per capita basis, do you know which country has the
>> highest level of violent crime?
>>
>
> It *might* be South Africa, but I think it's Great Britain. I read about
> that in the _London Times_ last year. (that's why the gun banners like
> to qualify the statistics as "gun crimes", which could mean as little as
> an expired permit, instead of "violent crimes")
>
> It is easy to get statistics about how many people died from gunshots,
> then sift the numbers to support whatever point you're trying to make.
> It is very difficult to get meaningful statistics (maybe impossible)
> about how many crimes *didn't* happen because the victim was armed or
> whatever. (How do you prove a negative? So then how can you count it?)
>
> The _American Rifleman_ magazine has a column every month with accounts
> of criminals who were stopped by armed victims. They are pretty
> compelling stories, of course they probably don't publish the hundreds
> of boring stories. ;-)
>

Like the people who hear a noise in the back yard and go out with a gun
to investigate and it turns out to be a raccoon in the garbage.

In article >,
Zilbandy > wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:17:28 -0600, "argus tuft"
> > wrote:
>
> >bunch of statistics clipped (no pun intended)
>
> And your point is...?

To be a crossposting troll!
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
> >> That takes a huge leap in logic. Given that the US has five times the
> >> per capita rate of firearms homicides, you have to ask how they could
> >> have saved 20 times as many lives. Gun use (against humans is not as
> >> prevalent here as in the US. By your logic, we should have had a lot
> >> more people murdered.
> >
> > You didn't read the entire post, Dave. I fail to see where the leap in
> > logic
> > exists. BTW, on a per capita basis, do you know which country has the
> > highest level of violent crime?
> >
>
> According to Omelet's post, guns save 20 times more lives than they take
> (in the US). According to the OP, the US has 5 times the rate of gun
> homicides as Canada, where gun play is frowned on. If Omelet's assertion
> is correct, Canada should have the higher gun homicide rate because
> people aren't using their guns for self defence.

Statistics can lie if you do not read them properly.
Canada actually has the higher gun "crime" rate as there is no way for
law abiding citizens to defend against it.

How can one defend themselves against an armed intruder/attacker if you
have no access to an equal weapon, or could be arrested if you kept one
on hand regardless?

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On 4/25/2010 8:17 AM, argus tuft wrote:
> * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in the same
> year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher rate in the US.

You're right about 10,177 being over 5 times higher than 190. OTOH,
10,177 is also over 50 times higher than 190, a much more impressive
statement. You truly are a master of the understatement! Perhaps you
meant 1,900? No matter, that's only 1,710 guns. Chump change in my book. :-)

>
> * Around 32,000 people have been shot in America so far this year.
>
> * 300 Americans are shot, on average, every day.
>
> * For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of dying of an
> accidental gunshot wound.
>
> * In 2008, 17,215 people in the U.S. were wounded in unintentional shootings
> but survived.
>
> * For kids ages up to four years old, the mortality rate is 17 times higher
> in states with high number of guns, versus states with a low number of
> firearms.
>
> * 33% of U.S. households contain a gun, and half reportedly don't lock up
> their weapons.
>
> * A gun in the home is four times more likely to be used in an unintentional
> shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
>
>

Dave Smith wrote:

> Like the people who hear a noise in the back yard and go out with a
> gun to investigate and it turns out to be a raccoon in the garbage.

Nope. That doesn't go into the stats. Besides, racoons have fingers and
thumbs and may very well be armed. And they wear masks to boot.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

On 2010-04-25 15:55:58 -0700, Omelet said:

> Statistics can lie if you do not read them properly.

Statistics WILL lie for you if that is the intent. The gun lobby has
printed and disseminated lie sheets for generations.
--
-- Beware the delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>>> That takes a huge leap in logic. Given that the US has five times
>>> the per capita rate of firearms homicides, you have to ask how they
>>> could have saved 20 times as many lives. Gun use (against humans is
>>> not as prevalent here as in the US. By your logic, we should have
>>> had a lot more people murdered.
>>
>> You didn't read the entire post, Dave. I fail to see where the leap
>> in logic exists. BTW, on a per capita basis, do you know which
>> country has the highest level of violent crime?
>>
>
> According to Omelet's post, guns save 20 times more lives than they
> take (in the US).

Yes. At least. I fall into that category, btw. Twice.

> According to the OP, the US has 5 times the rate of
> gun homicides as Canada, where gun play is frowned on.

The OP's numbers seem a bit suspect. I think the OP is lumping multiple
categories together in a helter-skelter fashion.

> If Omelet's
> assertion is correct, Canada should have the higher gun homicide rate
> because people aren't using their guns for self defence.

Not really. Risks to life and limb can come from any number of weapons
(bats, knives, tire irons, panty hose used for strangling rape victims) from
which a gun can provide defense.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

On 2010-04-25 15:39:56 -0700, Omelet said:

> Gun ban laws only affect law abiding citizens.

Great! Where can I got to be protected by "gun ban" laws?

> They do NOT affect criminals who will be armed regardless of laws.

This assumes that if we had "gun bans", then criminals would have
plenty of opportunities to buy guns. But logically they would have as
tough a time buying guns as anyone else. They'd have to violate laws
just to get them.

The logic that if we make guns illegal that somehow criminals will have
them anyway--I've never been able to figure that out. They have to be
manufacturered by someone. If those manufacturers are banned from the
practise, where the heck would a criminal get a gun? All over the world
criminals manage to break countless laws without handguns.
--
-- Beware the delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets.

On 2010-04-25 16:01:00 -0700, dsi1 said:

> On 4/25/2010 8:17 AM, argus tuft wrote:
>> * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in the same
>> year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher rate in the US.
>
> You're right about 10,177 being over 5 times higher than 190.

The number has to be factored by the relative populations of both countries.
--
-- Beware the delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets.

Juan Anonly wrote:
> On 2010-04-25 15:55:58 -0700, Omelet said:
>
>> Statistics can lie if you do not read them properly.
>
> Statistics WILL lie for you if that is the intent. The gun lobby has
> printed and disseminated lie sheets for generations.

Prove it. And then prove that any of the statistics referred to come from
the 'gun lobby', whatever the hell THAT is.

http://www.pjtv.com/v/3431


--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

On 4/25/2010 1:19 PM, Juan Anonly wrote:
> On 2010-04-25 16:01:00 -0700, dsi1 said:
>
>> On 4/25/2010 8:17 AM, argus tuft wrote:
>>> * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in the same
>>> year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher rate in the US.
>>
>> You're right about 10,177 being over 5 times higher than 190.
>
> The number has to be factored by the relative populations of both
> countries.

Thanks for the clarification. :-)

On 4/25/2010 6:04 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> Like the people who hear a noise in the back yard and go out with a
>> gun to investigate and it turns out to be a raccoon in the garbage.
>
> Nope. That doesn't go into the stats. Besides, racoons have fingers and
> thumbs and may very well be armed. And they wear masks to boot.
>
The raccoon I saw at McDonald's yesterday morning about 0815 surely was.
Rarely see a healthy coon out after daylight and this one wasn't near
the dumpster, he was under my truck.

Went back in the diner and had them call animal control while I kept an
eye on the coon. Animal control called me today and verified what I
thought, a rabid raccoon, armed and very dangerous. Now a very dead and
cremated raccoon. Animal control guy said they would be on the lookout
for others nearby as this was possibly a yearling coon as near as they
could tell.

Note: This McDonald's is surrounded on two sides by heavy woods. YMMV

Juan Anonly wrote:
> On 2010-04-25 15:39:56 -0700, Omelet said:
>
>> Gun ban laws only affect law abiding citizens.
>
> Great! Where can I got to be protected by "gun ban" laws?

Great Britain. Japan. A buncha places all around the globe.

>> They do NOT affect criminals who will be armed regardless of laws.

> This assumes that if we had "gun bans", then criminals would have
> plenty of opportunities to buy guns. But logically they would have as
> tough a time buying guns as anyone else. They'd have to violate laws
> just to get them.

Who says that gun-toting mopes 'buy' guns? And yes, the bad-guys do violate
gun laws. They violate 'gun-free' zones. They illegally shoot people.

> The logic that if we make guns illegal that somehow criminals will
> have them anyway--I've never been able to figure that out. They have
> to be manufacturered by someone. If those manufacturers are banned
> from the practise, where the heck would a criminal get a gun? All
> over the world criminals manage to break countless laws without
> handguns.

And all over the world, anyone with a basic metal working shop can turn out
a gun. Guns don't simply disappear from a society because they are made
illegal. What does happen, though, is that the innocent is no longer easily
able to defend themselves from an overpowering bad guy. A woman is left at
the mercy of a rapist with a knife or bat or physical stature.
--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Juan Anonly wrote:
> On 2010-04-25 16:01:00 -0700, dsi1 said:
>
>> On 4/25/2010 8:17 AM, argus tuft wrote:
>>> * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in the
>>> same year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher rate
>>> in the US.
>>
>> You're right about 10,177 being over 5 times higher than 190.
>
> The number has to be factored by the relative populations of both
> countries.

That is why one uses a per capita figure, and that there must be agreement
on what is meant by terms such as 'homicide' or 'violent crime'.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

George Shirley wrote:
> On 4/25/2010 6:04 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Like the people who hear a noise in the back yard and go out with a
>>> gun to investigate and it turns out to be a raccoon in the garbage.
>>
>> Nope. That doesn't go into the stats. Besides, racoons have fingers
>> and thumbs and may very well be armed. And they wear masks to boot.
>>
> The raccoon I saw at McDonald's yesterday morning about 0815 surely
> was. Rarely see a healthy coon out after daylight and this one wasn't
> near the dumpster, he was under my truck.
>
> Went back in the diner and had them call animal control while I kept
> an eye on the coon. Animal control called me today and verified what I
> thought, a rabid raccoon, armed and very dangerous. Now a very dead
> and cremated raccoon. Animal control guy said they would be on the
> lookout for others nearby as this was possibly a yearling coon as
> near as they could tell.
>
> Note: This McDonald's is surrounded on two sides by heavy woods. YMMV

I make two aggressive attempts to get rid of racoons so they leave my
property voluntarily under their own steam. The third time involves a .22
Ruger.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

On 2010-04-25 16:21:20 -0700, Dave Bugg said:

> Juan Anonly wrote:
>> On 2010-04-25 15:55:58 -0700, Omelet said:
>>
>>> Statistics can lie if you do not read them properly.
>>
>> Statistics WILL lie for you if that is the intent. The gun lobby has
>> printed and disseminated lie sheets for generations.
>
> Prove it. And then prove that any of the statistics referred to come
> from the 'gun lobby', whatever the hell THAT is.
>
> http://www.pjtv.com/v/3431

Prove that stats will lie for you?!? Prove stats won't lie for you! :-)

Besides, proving/disproving that crap out of the NRA--why attempt it? I
think guns are a blight on the world, but have not made it the focus of
my life. Some people certainly love guns more than their countrymen,
country or families it seems. In person, even quibbling about the
accuracy of their world is a dangerous thing.
--
-- Beware the delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets.

On 2010-04-25 16:42:08 -0700, Dave Bugg said:

> Juan Anonly wrote:
>> On 2010-04-25 15:39:56 -0700, Omelet said:
>>
>>> Gun ban laws only affect law abiding citizens.
>>
>> Great! Where can I got to be protected by "gun ban" laws?
>
> Great Britain. Japan. A buncha places all around the globe.
>
>>> They do NOT affect criminals who will be armed regardless of laws.
>
>> This assumes that if we had "gun bans", then criminals would have
>> plenty of opportunities to buy guns. But logically they would have as
>> tough a time buying guns as anyone else. They'd have to violate laws
>> just to get them.
>
> Who says that gun-toting mopes 'buy' guns? And yes, the bad-guys do
> violate gun laws. They violate 'gun-free' zones. They illegally shoot
> people.

If gun manufacturers weren't providing guns to every man, woman and
child they could scare the shit out of, they wouldn't have millions of
guns to throw around. Thus bad guys couldn't buy gones that weren't
manufactured.

> And all over the world, anyone with a basic metal working shop can turn
> out a gun.

And have as good a chance of blowing off their hand as not.

> Guns don't simply disappear from a society because they are made illegal.

No manufacturing them has to be made illegal.

> What does happen, though, is that the innocent is no longer easily able
> to defend themselves from an overpowering bad guy. A woman is left at
> the mercy of a rapist with a knife or bat or physical stature.

Amazing to think so thousands of rapists are killed each year in the
use. What is it--500 a day? Also, I don't hink anybody has yet said
"Our childurn--we have to think of our childurn!"
--
-- Beware the delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets.

On 26/04/10 09:18, Juan Anonly wrote:
> Great! Where can I got to be protected by "gun ban" laws?

Australia.

On 26/04/10 10:20, Juan Anonly wrote:
> On 2010-04-25 16:42:08 -0700, Dave Bugg said:
>
>> Juan Anonly wrote:
>>> On 2010-04-25 15:39:56 -0700, Omelet said:
>>>
>>>> Gun ban laws only affect law abiding citizens.
>>>
>>> Great! Where can I got to be protected by "gun ban" laws?
>>
>> Great Britain. Japan. A buncha places all around the globe.
>>
>>>> They do NOT affect criminals who will be armed regardless of laws.
>>
>>> This assumes that if we had "gun bans", then criminals would have
>>> plenty of opportunities to buy guns. But logically they would have as
>>> tough a time buying guns as anyone else. They'd have to violate laws
>>> just to get them.
>>
>> Who says that gun-toting mopes 'buy' guns? And yes, the bad-guys do
>> violate gun laws. They violate 'gun-free' zones. They illegally shoot
>> people.
>
> If gun manufacturers weren't providing guns to every man, woman and
> child they could scare the shit out of, they wouldn't have millions of
> guns to throw around. Thus bad guys couldn't buy gones that weren't
> manufactured.
>
>> And all over the world, anyone with a basic metal working shop can
>> turn out a gun.
>
> And have as good a chance of blowing off their hand as not.
>
>> Guns don't simply disappear from a society because they are made illegal.
>
> No manufacturing them has to be made illegal.
>
>> What does happen, though, is that the innocent is no longer easily
>> able to defend themselves from an overpowering bad guy. A woman is
>> left at the mercy of a rapist with a knife or bat or physical stature.
>
> Amazing to think so thousands of rapists are killed each year in the
> use. What is it--500 a day? Also, I don't hink anybody has yet said "Our
> childurn--we have to think of our childurn!"

Oh the children - we have to think of the children!

Thar. Said.

In my line of work, I have only had to pull out a revolver (legal) in a
handful of occasions. But I am being exposed to only a very minor tip of
the landfill, so to speak. And this landfill is for human refuse, my end
being fraudsters, child support payment avoiders, and so forth.

But that being said, here in Oz, there are no legal guns unless you have
a specific purpose for it - then it must be registered, legal forms ad
infinitum, and heaven forbid it's used on a person. Even then, you're
only allowed particular calibres and nothing semi- or fully-automatic.

It hasn't stopped people from using them, however - only the people in
their homes who are worried about laws. Gun-related crime still does
happen, but so does other violent crime. Because the criminals who can't
get hold of guns use something else instead. Like knives. Or batons. Or
acid.

The end result has been that yes, gun-related deaths and violence has
dropped in Australia. But we still have crime, and people still get into
ER rooms from having been beaten to near-death, or stabbed (I have been,
twice), or set on fire.

Someone recently said that "guns were a blight on the world". I guess
that's because swords, bows, arrows, clubs, and worse weren't. I guess
having gunpowder is what makes the difference.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:38:58 GMT, Benji Z-Man >
wrote:

>On 26/04/10 10:20, Juan Anonly wrote:
>> On 2010-04-25 16:42:08 -0700, Dave Bugg said:
>>
>>> Juan Anonly wrote:
>>>> On 2010-04-25 15:39:56 -0700, Omelet said:
>>>>
>>>>> Gun ban laws only affect law abiding citizens.
>>>>
>>>> Great! Where can I got to be protected by "gun ban" laws?
>>>
>>> Great Britain. Japan. A buncha places all around the globe.
>>>
>>>>> They do NOT affect criminals who will be armed regardless of laws.
>>>
>>>> This assumes that if we had "gun bans", then criminals would have
>>>> plenty of opportunities to buy guns. But logically they would have as
>>>> tough a time buying guns as anyone else. They'd have to violate laws
>>>> just to get them.
>>>
>>> Who says that gun-toting mopes 'buy' guns? And yes, the bad-guys do
>>> violate gun laws. They violate 'gun-free' zones. They illegally shoot
>>> people.
>>
>> If gun manufacturers weren't providing guns to every man, woman and
>> child they could scare the shit out of, they wouldn't have millions of
>> guns to throw around. Thus bad guys couldn't buy gones that weren't
>> manufactured.
>>
>>> And all over the world, anyone with a basic metal working shop can
>>> turn out a gun.
>>
>> And have as good a chance of blowing off their hand as not.
>>
>>> Guns don't simply disappear from a society because they are made illegal.
>>
>> No manufacturing them has to be made illegal.
>>
>>> What does happen, though, is that the innocent is no longer easily
>>> able to defend themselves from an overpowering bad guy. A woman is
>>> left at the mercy of a rapist with a knife or bat or physical stature.
>>
>> Amazing to think so thousands of rapists are killed each year in the
>> use. What is it--500 a day? Also, I don't hink anybody has yet said "Our
>> childurn--we have to think of our childurn!"
>
>Oh the children - we have to think of the children!
>
>Thar. Said.
>
>In my line of work, I have only had to pull out a revolver (legal) in a
>handful of occasions. But I am being exposed to only a very minor tip of
>the landfill, so to speak. And this landfill is for human refuse, my end
>being fraudsters, child support payment avoiders, and so forth.
>
>But that being said, here in Oz, there are no legal guns unless you have
>a specific purpose for it - then it must be registered, legal forms ad
>infinitum, and heaven forbid it's used on a person. Even then, you're
>only allowed particular calibres and nothing semi- or fully-automatic.
>
>It hasn't stopped people from using them, however - only the people in
>their homes who are worried about laws. Gun-related crime still does
>happen, but so does other violent crime. Because the criminals who can't
>get hold of guns use something else instead. Like knives. Or batons. Or
>acid.
>
>The end result has been that yes, gun-related deaths and violence has
>dropped in Australia. But we still have crime, and people still get into
>ER rooms from having been beaten to near-death, or stabbed (I have been,
>twice), or set on fire.
>
>Someone recently said that "guns were a blight on the world". I guess
>that's because swords, bows, arrows, clubs, and worse weren't. I guess
>having gunpowder is what makes the difference.

Yeah, yoose dudes don't need any stinkin' guns:
http://www.art-pacific.com/artifacts...s/weaponsc.htm

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Juan Anonly wrote:
>> On 2010-04-25 15:39:56 -0700, Omelet said:
>>
>>> Gun ban laws only affect law abiding citizens.
>>
>> Great! Where can I got to be protected by "gun ban" laws?
>
> Great Britain. Japan. A buncha places all around the globe.
>
>>> They do NOT affect criminals who will be armed regardless of laws.
>
>> This assumes that if we had "gun bans", then criminals would have
>> plenty of opportunities to buy guns. But logically they would have as
>> tough a time buying guns as anyone else. They'd have to violate laws
>> just to get them.
>
> Who says that gun-toting mopes 'buy' guns? And yes, the bad-guys do
> violate gun laws. They violate 'gun-free' zones. They illegally shoot
> people.
>
>> The logic that if we make guns illegal that somehow criminals will
>> have them anyway--I've never been able to figure that out. They have
>> to be manufacturered by someone. If those manufacturers are banned
>> from the practise, where the heck would a criminal get a gun? All
>> over the world criminals manage to break countless laws without
>> handguns.
>
> And all over the world, anyone with a basic metal working shop can turn
> out a gun. Guns don't simply disappear from a society because they are
> made illegal. What does happen, though, is that the innocent is no longer
> easily able to defend themselves from an overpowering bad guy. A woman is
> left at the mercy of a rapist with a knife or bat or physical stature.
> --
> Dave

Just think of all the children that wouldn't die at the hands of brothers
and sisters playing with mom/dad's guns.

Ms P

On 4/25/2010 7:02 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
> George Shirley wrote:
>> On 4/25/2010 6:04 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> Like the people who hear a noise in the back yard and go out with a
>>>> gun to investigate and it turns out to be a raccoon in the garbage.
>>>
>>> Nope. That doesn't go into the stats. Besides, racoons have fingers
>>> and thumbs and may very well be armed. And they wear masks to boot.
>>>
>> The raccoon I saw at McDonald's yesterday morning about 0815 surely
>> was. Rarely see a healthy coon out after daylight and this one wasn't
>> near the dumpster, he was under my truck.
>>
>> Went back in the diner and had them call animal control while I kept
>> an eye on the coon. Animal control called me today and verified what I
>> thought, a rabid raccoon, armed and very dangerous. Now a very dead
>> and cremated raccoon. Animal control guy said they would be on the
>> lookout for others nearby as this was possibly a yearling coon as
>> near as they could tell.
>>
>> Note: This McDonald's is surrounded on two sides by heavy woods. YMMV
>
> I make two aggressive attempts to get rid of racoons so they leave my
> property voluntarily under their own steam. The third time involves a .22
> Ruger.
>
The guy who owns the McDonalds here would have no objection but,
unfortunately, the city fathers (read idiots)have a no shooting of any
kind of animal, we're living in a "Wildlife Preserve." May be why tree
rats and sky rats abound here.

Juan Anonly wrote:
> On 2010-04-25 16:21:20 -0700, Dave Bugg said:
>
>> Juan Anonly wrote:
>>> On 2010-04-25 15:55:58 -0700, Omelet said:
>>>
>>>> Statistics can lie if you do not read them properly.
>>>
>>> Statistics WILL lie for you if that is the intent. The gun lobby has
>>> printed and disseminated lie sheets for generations.
>>
>> Prove it. And then prove that any of the statistics referred to come
>> from the 'gun lobby', whatever the hell THAT is.
>>
>> http://www.pjtv.com/v/3431
>
> Prove that stats will lie for you?!?

No, prove the gun lobby bit.

> Besides, proving/disproving that crap out of the NRA--why attempt it?

The majority of the stats have nothing to do with the NRA, but once again I
ask that you prove to us that the stats are predominately from the NRA.

> I think guns are a blight on the world,

I think the goblins who misuse guns are a blight. Guns are simply a tool.
Tools, as with other inanimate objects, do not create or prevent blights in
and of themselves.

> but have not made it the
> focus of my life.

Most gun owners don't either.

>Some people certainly love guns more than their
> countrymen, country or families it seems.

The same can be said of any material possession.

> In person, even quibbling about the accuracy of their world is a dangerous
> thing.

Can you give us a real-life example?

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Juan Anonly wrote:
> On 2010-04-25 16:42:08 -0700, Dave Bugg said:
>
>> Juan Anonly wrote:
>>> On 2010-04-25 15:39:56 -0700, Omelet said:
>>>
>>>> Gun ban laws only affect law abiding citizens.
>>>
>>> Great! Where can I got to be protected by "gun ban" laws?
>>
>> Great Britain. Japan. A buncha places all around the globe.
>>
>>>> They do NOT affect criminals who will be armed regardless of laws.
>>
>>> This assumes that if we had "gun bans", then criminals would have
>>> plenty of opportunities to buy guns. But logically they would have
>>> as tough a time buying guns as anyone else. They'd have to violate
>>> laws just to get them.
>>
>> Who says that gun-toting mopes 'buy' guns? And yes, the bad-guys do
>> violate gun laws. They violate 'gun-free' zones. They illegally shoot
>> people.
>
> If gun manufacturers weren't providing guns to every man, woman and
> child they could scare the shit out of,

Manufacturers do not provide guns. Not every man or woman is even eligible
to possess a gun. Children certainly aren't. and just how do the 'gun
manufacturers 'scare the shit out of anyone? They don't advertise on radio.
The only ads on TV that I see are on outdoor sports channels when a sports
shooting program is on, and those are mostly for hunting rifles. Most people
who purchase defensive firearms tend to do so by virtue of what is happening
in the world around them, and the realization that they must rely on
themselves to provide protection because the authorities are incapable of
doing so.

> they wouldn't have millions of
> guns to throw around.

Millions of guns aren't being 'thrown around'. I know you are speaking in
hyperbole, but it seems to be the only rhetorical tool at your disposale to
try and define your argument.

>Thus bad guys couldn't buy gones that weren't
> manufactured.

Bad guys aren't allowed to purchase guns. It is against the law. So most
do-bads steal them.

>> And all over the world, anyone with a basic metal working shop can
>> turn out a gun.

> And have as good a chance of blowing off their hand as not.

No, not at all. A competently manufactured gun is not hard to produce. In
fact, there is a good percentage of 'home manufactured' guns that are sold
and used illegally.

>> Guns don't simply disappear from a society because they are made
>> illegal.

> No manufacturing them has to be made illegal.

Which will never happen. But if it did, hundreds of thousands of home-grown
guns would make it into the black market bringing huge bucks to those who
wish to take the risk selling them.

>> What does happen, though, is that the innocent is no longer easily
>> able to defend themselves from an overpowering bad guy. A woman is
>> left at the mercy of a rapist with a knife or bat or physical
>> stature.

> Amazing to think so thousands of rapists are killed each year in the
> use.

See, this is an example of just how blighted your sense of gun use is. The
vast majority of bad guys who attempt to prey on those who carry a gun are
not foiled from their attack because they are shot; they are dissuaded
because the gun is produced and they SEE the gun. They then turn tail and
run, peeing themselves in the process. Over the last twenty-two years, this
has been MY personal experience: I never had to shoot the goblins trying to
mug me, all I had to do was produce my carry gun. No shots, no blood. The
same holds true for would-be rapists going up against women who carry a gun.

> Also, I don't hink anybody has yet said
> "Our childurn--we have to think of our childurn!"

We typically hear that from hoplophobes.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Ms P wrote:

> Just think of all the children that wouldn't die at the hands of
> brothers and sisters playing with mom/dad's guns.

The stat's clearly demonstrate that such is not as big of an issue as has
been blown up by the anti-gun lobby. Once the term 'children' is defined, as
the anti-gun element chooses to, one learns that most morbidity and
mortality within that classification includes teen gang-bangers, teen
criminals, and teenage criminal use of guns. If the term 'Children' excludes
that cohort, guns play a very minor role in childhood death or injury. Far
more at issue is drowning, burns, and other recreational outdoor incidents.
Poisonings, especially with iron-laced vitamins are an issue. And, of
course, one may also look at cars.

Guns can pose a risk to a child, just as any number of objects and
conditions can. The fact that so many hundreds of millions of children grow
up successfully in homes where guns are a part of the household adequately
demonstrates that guns and children can exist within the same household if
care is reasonably taken.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

Shut the **** up. All of you.

-sw

"argus tuft" > wrote in message
...
>* 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in the same
>year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher rate in the US.
>
> * Around 32,000 people have been shot in America so far this year.
>
> * 300 Americans are shot, on average, every day.
>
> * For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of dying of an
> accidental gunshot wound.
>
> * In 2008, 17,215 people in the U.S. were wounded in unintentional
> shootings but survived.
>
> * For kids ages up to four years old, the mortality rate is 17 times
> higher in states with high number of guns, versus states with a low number
> of firearms.
>
> * 33% of U.S. households contain a gun, and half reportedly don't lock up
> their weapons.
>
> * A gun in the home is four times more likely to be used in an
> unintentional shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

Canada does not have the second amendment. End of discussion. You may
leave now.

Steve

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:02:11 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>George Shirley wrote:
>> On 4/25/2010 6:04 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> Like the people who hear a noise in the back yard and go out with a
>>>> gun to investigate and it turns out to be a raccoon in the garbage.
>>>
>>> Nope. That doesn't go into the stats. Besides, racoons have fingers
>>> and thumbs and may very well be armed. And they wear masks to boot.
>>>
>> The raccoon I saw at McDonald's yesterday morning about 0815 surely
>> was. Rarely see a healthy coon out after daylight and this one wasn't
>> near the dumpster, he was under my truck.
>>
>> Went back in the diner and had them call animal control while I kept
>> an eye on the coon. Animal control called me today and verified what I
>> thought, a rabid raccoon, armed and very dangerous. Now a very dead
>> and cremated raccoon. Animal control guy said they would be on the
>> lookout for others nearby as this was possibly a yearling coon as
>> near as they could tell.
>>
>> Note: This McDonald's is surrounded on two sides by heavy woods. YMMV
>
>I make two aggressive attempts to get rid of racoons so they leave my
>property voluntarily under their own steam. The third time involves a .22
>Ruger.

Model 96 lever action?
--
Jeßus

"Some days we don't let the line move at all. We call those weekdays"
Patty and Selma Bouvier, 1996

Jeßus wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:02:11 -0700, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> George Shirley wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2010 6:04 PM, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Like the people who hear a noise in the back yard and go out with
>>>>> a gun to investigate and it turns out to be a raccoon in the
>>>>> garbage.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. That doesn't go into the stats. Besides, racoons have fingers
>>>> and thumbs and may very well be armed. And they wear masks to boot.
>>>>
>>> The raccoon I saw at McDonald's yesterday morning about 0815 surely
>>> was. Rarely see a healthy coon out after daylight and this one
>>> wasn't near the dumpster, he was under my truck.
>>>
>>> Went back in the diner and had them call animal control while I kept
>>> an eye on the coon. Animal control called me today and verified
>>> what I thought, a rabid raccoon, armed and very dangerous. Now a
>>> very dead and cremated raccoon. Animal control guy said they would
>>> be on the lookout for others nearby as this was possibly a yearling
>>> coon as near as they could tell.
>>>
>>> Note: This McDonald's is surrounded on two sides by heavy woods.
>>> YMMV
>>
>> I make two aggressive attempts to get rid of racoons so they leave my
>> property voluntarily under their own steam. The third time involves
>> a .22 Ruger.
>
> Model 96 lever action?

That is a sweet rifle, but no, it is a 10/22 with a holographic sight
containing a lighted reticle.

--
Dave
What is best in life? "To crush your enemies, see them driven before
you, and to hear the lamentation of the women." -- Conan

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "gloria.p" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> argus tuft wrote:
>>>>> * 10,177 guns were used in murders in the U.S. in 2006 while in
>>>>> the same year, Canada reported 190. That's over 5 times a higher
>>>>> rate in the US. * Around 32,000 people have been shot in America so
>>>>> far this year.
>>>>>
>>>>> * 300 Americans are shot, on average, every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> * For adults, keeping a gun in the home quadruples the risk of
>>>>> dying of an accidental gunshot wound.
>>>>>
>>>>> * In 2008, 17,215 people in the U.S. were wounded in unintentional
>>>>> shootings
>>>>> but survived.
>>>>>
>>>>> * For kids ages up to four years old, the mortality rate is 17
>>>>> times higher in states with high number of guns, versus states
>>>>> with a low number of firearms.
>>>>>
>>>>> * 33% of U.S. households contain a gun, and half reportedly don't
>>>>> lock up their weapons.
>>>>>
>>>>> * A gun in the home is four times more likely to be used in an
>>>>> unintentional
>>>>> shooting than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For some of us, you're preaching tot he choir. For others, those
>>>> are fighting words.
>>>>
>>>> gloria p
>>>
>>> <lol> Too true!
>>>
>>> According to statistics, guns save 20 times as many lives as they
>>> take:
>>
>>
>> That takes a huge leap in logic. Given that the US has five times the
>> per capita rate of firearms homicides, you have to ask how they could
>> have saved 20 times as many lives. Gun use (against humans is not as
>> prevalent here as in the US. By your logic, we should have had a lot
>> more people murdered.
>
> You didn't read the entire post, Dave. I fail to see where the leap in
> logic exists. BTW, on a per capita basis, do you know which country has
> the highest level of violent crime?
>

Since you two are having a dialogue, why not take it to email?