Come one, come all: Gun Control revisited, revisited

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by ianzin *
Max Torque - I don’t think there is much mileage in quoting from articles found on the internet edition of The Guardian. To state the obvious, for every newspaper article favouring one point of view, one can find a counter-example.
The Guardian enjoys no great reputation for accuracy, and the report cited is qualitatively poor.

The Guardian article cites a government report. I don’t even know where to begin searching for such a report, but it would appear that the claims in the article are certainly verifiable, and thus you should be able to formulate an attack on the statistics themselves rather than the source.

Given that ‘reality’ seemed to be a word you wanted to throw back in my face, let me just add a few points. I know what the article said, but I actually live here and have first-hand knowledge of things which to you are just references in a paper - such as Notting Hill carnival and Essex nightlife. I assure you, nobody visiting these places expects to encounter a gun or has any reason to.

As explained earlier, crime rates in general are higher in the U.S. than they are in Britain, and guns are emphatically not the reason for the difference. From here we’ll have to branch out into sociology, which I don’t really want to do, but if you want to lead the way, that’s fine by me…

The first reason is that guns are extremely scarce in this country. The second is that those bad guys who can use them very rarely do, because this is the surest way to make themselves Police Target Number 1, with all the stops pulled out to find them, lock 'em away and melt the key. The third is that when guns ARE used by criminals, in an overwhelming percentage of cases the victims are other people engaged in criminal activity or known prior associates of the killer. Ordinary members of the public, not involved in crime, are so seldom involved it is equivalent to “never” for all practical purpose.

You might want to sit down for this: most of what you said above is also true in America, with the exception of the “guns are rare” part. Random shootings, while sensational and headline-making, are rare (as I noted earlier, the number of people killed in school shootings is less than half the number killed by lightning strikes, but the shootings sell more papers).

One of the most effective crime-fighting tactics in recent years over here is Project Exile, a program that mandates jail time for anyone convicted of using a firearm in a crime (different states have different sentences, but what I’ve heard ranges from 5-10 years minimum). Project Exile is hard on criminals, it lowers the crime rate, and it does not impact law-abiding gun owners in the least. The program thus has the support of the NRA.

What we DON’T see much over here are daring armed criminals bursting into courtrooms and making off with the defendant. On your side of the pond, criminals can be bolder, because they know there’s precious little chance of anyone shooting back.

I said before that we feel at least as secure in our own homes as you, and maybe more, because we know intruders, should there be any, won’t have guns either. You retorted by quoting from the same article about young criminals owning or having access to guns. I can’t know, but I do feel sure, that you are capable of better logic than this. Even if I accept for the time being the gist of the article, that there are young criminals with access to guns, this is not to say they are the same people whose criminal activity revolves around breaking and entering. They are much more likely to be involved in rival gangs concerned chiefly with drug trafficking.

Source?

Those criminals who opt to break into houses are not armed. The main reason is this. If they are caught or apprehended, they will face whatever relatively minor fine or sentence they get. If, however, they are caught in possession of a firearm, they will serve at least 10 years in jail and probably more. That’s just for possession, never mind using it. Now, if you were intent on breaking into a house to steal some valuables, would you honestly take that extra risk when you don’t have to? The position over here is that 99 percent of intruders do not seek a confrontation. They are there to steal. If they are disturbed or confronted, they will go to another house where life is easier.

Risk of what? What do I, the criminal, care whether the residents of the home I’m burgling are home or not? An unarmed elderly person is no match for me.

I’d love to see some statistics from you, so that I can verify that “99%” figure.

I’m sure your remark about us wearing flak jackets and acting as targets was meant flippantly, and it only makes sense as such. We don’t. More to the point, we don’t have to.

There were two reasons I made that remark: the first was to correct you, because there are far more than just two possible “have-don’t have” gun models. The second was to prod you off your high-horse. Couch your remarks behind all the “oh, our system isn’t perfect either” comments you like, but the entire post read as a rather snotty “you should be more like us” essay. I rather resent that.

I do understand that the USA is never going to outlaw guns, since there is no collective mandate to do so and it would be impractical legislation anyway. And I also understand there is no point pretending we are comparing like with like. The main point of my original post was that both of the social models I described are practical. Ours is no weirder than yours. It works. The benefit we have is that (virtually) no innocent Brits get killed by guns, nor is this a concern. Yes, we have had our tragic exceptions, but rare exceptions do not generally make for sound argument. The point is, the level of incidence is so low that the population at large is presented with no threat whatsoever of encountering a gun.

Setting aside for now the offensive “our system is better than yours” remarks, I must say I’m curious: is it the gun you fear, or the criminal?

We see this as a benefit, and we generally find it surprising that more Americans do not feel the same way. For one thing, there is NO incidence of a British child using a gun to kill, whether inside school or anywhere else. Whatever else our differences, can’t we agree this is a desirable state of affairs?

Sure. Is such a society worth what we’d have to give up? Most Americans seem to be saying “no”.

Let us recall one of Aesop’s fables:

The wolf, lean and hungry, living by his wits in the forest, meets a farm dog. The wolf notices that the dog is well-fed and has a heavy coat, and asks him about his life. “Oh”, said the dog, “I live on the farm in the valley. I help my master herd sheep, and warn the family of danger, and play with the farmer’s children. And I sleep in the warm barn, and have plenty of food.” The wolf asks the dog if he, too, could live at the farm and have these benefits. The dog agrees, and as they set off the wolf notices a worn ring in the fur around the dog’s neck. “What is that worn ring in your fur?” he asks. “Oh, that!” says the dog, “That’s where I wear my master’s collar.” And the wolf turned, sadly, and returned to the forest.

[Tim_Lambert]

*Originally posted by Max Torque *
**

*Originally posted by Tim Lambert *
For the third time: Schaffer’s “demonstration” entirely ignores Kellermann’s multivariate analysis where he controlled for those factors that Schaffer suggested could cause a spurious association in a bivariate analysis. Why are you having such difficulty in understanding this?

Schaffer’s hypothetical high-risk group is composed, as he says in the article, of “career criminals, gang members and others who have a repeated history of criminal activity.” I’ve been going over Kellermann’s study, and I can’t find any reference to controlling for gang membership. The closest he comes is “any household member arrested”, which isn’t quite on point.
**

Schaffer’s “demonstration” would only be applicable to Kellermann’s multivariate analysis if career criminals and the like were no more likely to have an arrest history than the average person. More to the point, Schaffer mentions as risk factors “drug dealing, violent criminal events, violently abusive family relationships” and correctly observes that these factors were not controlled by matching. What he fails to mention is that Kellermann controlled for those factors in a multivariate analysis. Schaffer’s critique manages to give the reader the misleading impression that Kellermann just did a bivariate analysis and assumed that he could control for any confounds by matching.

I bet that if a pro-control pulled a similar stunt to Schaffer, you would be screaming about it.

**
Considering that “living alone” turned out to be much more risky than “owning a gun”, it strongly suggests to me that the researcher approached the study with a pre-conceived agenda, other risk factors be damned.
**

It does not suggest that to you at all. You had already made up your mind about Kellermann before you read his study.

**
I also find it interesting that, of the 420 cases Kellermann studied fewer than half (209) died of gunshots. Please explain to me how owning a gun, in itself, makes it more likely that I will be stabbed. Answers that “because you own a gun, you’re more likely to be violent” will not be accepted. **

Owning a gun does not make it more likely that someone will be stabbed to death. Read Kellermann’s study and pay careful to attention to table 5. That table shows that the risk factor for non-firearm homicide was 1.2, which was not significantly different from 1.

[ExTank]

Max and Spoofe and others:

You’re one and all doing a great job, one that I abdicated here on this message board a long time ago (despite a couple of relapses).

I say this: you can all find better ways of combatting the gun-control lobby than gassing about it here with those who have their minds already made up and have the prefabricated junk science (and, apparently, scientist) to prove it.

Vote. Join a gun club. Introduce friends and family to the fun of firearms sports and competition. Correspond regularly with your legislators. Print up pamphlets and hit the bricks.

Move to another state (like, maybe Texas?) that favors law-abiding citizens with their Constitutionally protected rights and punishes the criminal instead.

The time, energy and intellect devoted to this single thread by you pro-gun folks is amazing and commendable.

And, IMHO, sorely misdirected.

Wise up. Opt out of this circular and unfulfilling debate and get involved, IRL, with the real deal.

[justwannano]

Crimson said

All things being otherwise equal, people holding guns are more dangerous than people not holding them.
Thats so my 5’3"wife can point it at a 6’3"robber and stop him from continuing his evil ways…Duh

---

If guns don’t kill people, then why do you need them to defend yourself, again?

This makes as much sense as your marzedotes quote.

[SPOOFE]

Hey, see if you can guess which side Hamilton envisioned the militia taking in the average armed insurrection! Go on, I dare you, cause you know I can, but you better answer or I’ll hammer you over and over on this point.

The militia will always side with the militia. Duh. Unless you’d like to clarify your question? I imagine that you’re trying to say “Would the militia side with the people or the government?” or something to that effect, but I won’t put words in your mouth.

By the way, I wonder how you think you can openly ignore another poster when he/she poses a question you cannot answer, and then demand that someone else answer you. Not exactly mature, my word-twisting friend.

I asked Tim for information, although it could be inferred from my request a certain invitation was offered, and in any case it hardly surprises me Tim decided to participate in a web-based discussion of gun control.

Hey, calm down, Militant Boy. You seem to be blowing steam at the slightest provocation. I see no reason, even though you continuously act completely hostile to everyone in this thread, why I shouldn’t try to act with a bit of light-heartedness.

Hipster asked me to comment, to him, via email. He did not ask me to post here. That you are clutching at such straws suggests that you have no substantive comments to make.

I poked fun at someone. Big effin’ deal. If you’ll go back and read (or re-read) the thread, you’ll find that your friend has a tendency to point to insignificant inconsistencies in another’s post, and use that to claim that the more-significant (and unrelated) aspects of his posts are inaccurate.

The reason I’ve refrained from participating much in this thread is because Mr. Dufuz has shown he doesn’t want to debate. He wants to rant and rave. He points and giggles whenever he thinks he’s right, and he plugs his ears and hides in the corner whenever he’s proven wrong. If he wants to debate, I would suggest he grow up a little. After all, we have a word for people who seek only to stir up reaction.

You, on the other hand, Mr. Lambert, have proven interesting and willing to actually interact with others. To that end…

What [Schaffer] fails to mention is that Kellermann controlled for those factors in a multivariate analysis. Schaffer’s critique manages to give the reader the misleading impression that Kellermann just did a bivariate analysis and assumed that he could control for any confounds by matching.

Keep in mind that the more variables that are added to an analysis, the odds of one or more of the variables not matching up increases. The law of averages would dictate that a more complex system would be more subject to flaws than a simpler system.

Considering that “living alone” turned out to be much more risky than “owning a gun”, it strongly suggests to me that the researcher approached the study with a pre-conceived agenda, other risk factors be damned.

It does not suggest that to you at all. You had already made up your mind about Kellermann before you read his study.

As did you. Factors such as “living alone” and “renting” create a high risk factor for unknown reasons, yet when it comes to guns, the reason is known? How does that happen? Wouldn’t it be more likely that, among the several factors with unknown causes, the causes related to owning a gun are also unknown?

I believe it was Mr. Dufuz who stated several times that this relation merits further study. It definitely does. And until those further studies are made, you cannot make any accurate conclusions about what, exactly, makes owning a gun more dangerous.

Owning a gun does not make it more likely that someone will be stabbed to death. Read Kellermann’s study and pay careful to attention to table 5. That table shows that the risk factor for non-firearm homicide was 1.2, which was not significantly different from 1.

So what accounted for the other 211 non-firearm deaths? Heart attacks? Mauled by wild dogs? Spontaneous combustion?

Why is owning a gun so dangerous if less than half of the deaths “caused” by owning a gun didn’t involve a gun?

(Note: The above was derived from analysis of previous posts or from memory… as my 'Net connection is being a bitch right now and won’t open any of the above links. I’ll see if things even out in a few hours and get back to y’all then. Damn 28.8 connection!)

[Tim_Lambert]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
**

Considering that “living alone” turned out to be much more risky than “owning a gun”, it strongly suggests to me that the researcher approached the study with a pre-conceived agenda, other risk factors be damned.

It does not suggest that to you at all. You had already made up your mind about Kellermann before you read his study.

As did you.
**

Untrue.

**
Factors such as “living alone” and “renting” create a high risk factor for unknown reasons, yet when it comes to guns, the reason is known? How does that happen? Wouldn’t it be more likely that, among the several factors with unknown causes, the causes related to owning a gun are also unknown?
**

Yes, as Kellermann notes in the paper, the guns-homicide link could be caused by reverse causation, (people at greater risk of homicide buy guns for protection, but get murdered anyway) or by a third factor (people psychologically predisposed towards violence are more likely to want guns and to murder).

However, when you look more closely at the results, they suggest these alternatives are unlikely. For example, if we had the reverse causation thing, gun owners would be more likely to be murdered by means other than firearms than non-gun owners, but that is not what was observed – all the extra risk of homicide faced by gun owners was for firearm homicide only.

**

Owning a gun does not make it more likely that someone will be stabbed to death. Read Kellermann’s study and pay careful to attention to table 5. That table shows that the risk factor for non-firearm homicide was 1.2, which was not significantly different from 1.

So what accounted for the other 211 non-firearm deaths? Heart attacks? Mauled by wild dogs? Spontaneous combustion?
**

You seem severly confused. The 211 non-firearm deaths comprised 111 by knife, 49 blunt instrument, 27 strangulation or suffocation, 10 burns, smoke or scalding and 14 other.

**
Why is owning a gun so dangerous if less than half of the deaths “caused” by owning a gun didn’t involve a gun?
**

Again, gun ownership was not associated with an increased risk of non-gun homicide.

[The_Crimson_Hipster_Dufuz]

quote:

Hey, see if you can guess which side Hamilton envisioned the militia taking in the average armed insurrection! Go on, I dare you, cause you know I can, but you better answer or I’ll hammer you over and over on this point.

The militia will always side with the militia. Duh.

Wow, that’s a pathetic non-answer.

Unless you’d like to clarify your question?

You do know what an insurrection is, don’t you Steve?

I imagine that you’re trying to say “Would the militia side with the people or the government?” or something to that effect, but I won’t put words in your mouth.

What does the word “insurrection” mean? What, then, definitionally, are the two sides in an insurrection? Which side did Alexander Hamilton envision the militia taking in the average insurrection? Think Civil War.

By the way, I wonder how you think you can openly ignore another poster when he/she poses a question you cannot answer, and then demand that someone else answer you.

Oh, I wasn’t demanding you answer me, I was just pointing out in advance what a failure to answer me would mean to your side as you promote your case. Tell us, what the militias were, what relationships were established between state and federal governments, and the militias, and then tell us how Hamilton thought the militias would be used.

As for Justwanno, I explained my policy. I do not participate in extended discussions with people who abuse the ordinary rules of sentence construction. It’s just not worth my time to read punctuationless, run on sentences that I might answer questions I’ve already covered. That doesn’t apply to you and me, we know where the commas go.

---

I asked Tim for information, although it could be inferred from my request a certain invitation was offered, and in any case it hardly surprises me Tim decided to participate in a web-based discussion of gun control.

Hey, calm down, Militant Boy. You seem to be blowing steam at the slightest provocation.

There was some whining about my sources of information, as though some how it wasn’t fair if another person whose done his homework participated.

I see no reason, even though you continuously act completely hostile to everyone in this thread, why I shouldn’t try to act with a bit of light-heartedness.

Ah. the old “I was Joking! Don’t you people know a joke when you hear it?” defense. Advanced perhaps most famously by one Dr. Frederick Frankenstein in a Mel Brooks movie, if I recall correctly.

How funny was this supposed to be?

But it’s alright, Dufuz… you’ve shown your mettle as a trustworthy guy. Selective memory is a problem, ain’t it?

I suppose there are clever ways to insinuate I’m untrustworthy that might fall under the heading of “joke,” sure. Drain certainly has a whole list of insights into what a rotten person I am, okay. How funny is it to just say so-and-so is untrustworthy? Oh, well…

---

Hipster asked me to comment, to him, via email. He did not ask me to post here. That you are clutching at such straws suggests that you have no substantive comments to make.

I poked fun at someone.

Well, I think you made insinuations of dishonesty.

Big effin’ deal. If you’ll go back and read (or re-read) the thread, you’ll find that your friend has a tendency to point to insignificant inconsistencies in another’s post,

Excuse me?

and use that to claim that the more-significant (and unrelated) aspects of his posts are inaccurate.

If JC is going to make arguments from historical examples, it helps when he gets his names and dates and places right. If you say something like “we must do X, because Hitler was elected,” but then it turns out Hitler wasn’t elected, we don’t have to do X, at least not out of a free not doing so will lead to the election of Hitler.

The reason I’ve refrained from participating much in this thread is because Mr. Dufuz has

Made hash of every single idea I’ve brought up. Don’t go whining to the ref.

shown he doesn’t want to debate. He wants to rant and rave. He points and giggles whenever he thinks he’s right, and he plugs his ears and hides in the corner whenever he’s proven wrong.

An example of me being proven wrong here is what?
You, on the other hand, Mr. Lambert, have proven interesting and willing to actually interact with others. To that end…

---

What [Schaffer] fails to mention is that Kellermann controlled for those factors in a multivariate analysis. Schaffer’s critique manages to give the reader the misleading impression that Kellermann just did a bivariate analysis and assumed that he could control for any confounds by matching.

Keep in mind that the more variables that are added to an analysis, the odds of one or more of the variables not matching up increases. The law of averages would dictate that a more complex system would be more subject to flaws than a simpler system.

You realize you just said something like “a system that compares many variables is less accurate than a sytem that compares one.”

Do you think we could get a good idea of how dominant a given basketball player is to the other players his age? or, would you want to throw in FT%, PPG, FG%, Assists, assists to turn overs, rebounds, blocks, steals, assigning some appropriate statistical weight to each factor?

---

quote:

Considering that “living alone” turned out to be much more risky than “owning a gun”, it strongly suggests to me that the researcher approached the study with a pre-conceived agenda, other risk factors be damned.

It does not suggest that to you at all. You had already made up your mind about Kellermann before you read his study.

As did you.

If a study shows that other things are stronger risk factors in cancer than smoking, does that mean smoking doesn’t really cause cancer?

Factors such as “living alone” and “renting” create a high risk factor for unknown reasons, yet when it comes to guns, the reason is known? How does that happen?

In any case, no protective benefit from owning a gun is seen.

Wouldn’t it be more likely that, among the several factors with unknown causes, the causes related to owning a gun are also unknown?

I believe it was Mr. Dufuz who stated several times that this relation merits further study. It definitely does. And until those further studies are made, you cannot make any accurate conclusions about what, exactly, makes owning a gun more dangerous.

however, if owning a gun is more dangerous, for unknown reasons, then owning a gun is less safe than not owning one, for unknown reasons, and owning a gun is not more safe, for unknown reasons.

[Deep_Thought]

It’s a shame the gun ownership debate gets so convoluted, hung up on statistics, interpretations of statistics, “home defense”, “acceptable losses” of only 8000 people a year or whatever the number is.
All this complication stems from a desire to avoid the simple facts:

• Guns are deadly weapons, designed to kill.
• The world would be better off without them. They do not make mankind’s lot better in any way.
• There are no “acceptable losses” - ask the families.
• Regular citizens who want guns want them because they like them.
• Gun makers make money.
• Lobbyists help protect gun makers’ business interests.

So it comes down to the same thing everything in America does, cash.

[Wrath]

Okay, let’s use the analogy of cars…

Earlier in this thread was the quote that cars kill 42,000 each year. So, an automobile is roughly 5 times more deadly if we are given to presume 8000 gun deaths.

So cars have other uses. But, what about a Lamborghini, where first gear takes you to 50-60mph. Just to get the car into 2nd gear requires you to be speeding on almost every urban road in the U.S. (Freeways and Montana notwithstanding). So, what then is the purpose of such a car?

If speeding in an urban area is one of the contributing factors in auto deaths and accidents, and such a car is made for going in excess of 100mph, shouldn’t such a car be banned? Or does the idea that such a machine of death being outlawed make you nervous?

Well, okay, Lamborghini deaths are at an all-time low. I understand that. But so are the deaths from my particular Colt 45: zero.

And nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the right to own transportation.

The very idea that you think you can tell another person that they may or may not own something because such ownership makes you _____(fill in an appropriate emotion), makes me nervous.

[Deep_Thought]

Sorry Wrath, you didn’t get it. This is how it gets convoluted and distracted. We are talking about guns. Not cars or any other analogy. Not car control or fish control or banana control.

Back to the real topic. Guns.
I didn’t say I wanted to prevent ownership, although that would be great in an ideal world. I do wish that there was more honesty on the pro-gun side. You buy 'em because you like 'em, and a piece of paper someplace says you can. Simple.
Gun makers make lots of cash out of selling them to both the good guys and the bad guys, and have no responsibility for their use. Guns proliferate, deaths happen, it’s bad all round, except for the manufacturers, who profit no matter what.

[Deep_Thought]

*Originally posted by Wrath *
**The very idea that you think you can tell another person that they may or may not own something because such ownership makes you _____(fill in an appropriate emotion), makes me nervous. **

Sorry to post twice in a row!

So if people telling people what to own is bad, I wish to lift all restrictions and make plutonium available on the open market. Any objection to that?

[Wrath]

Since when do you, or anyone, think that you can get involved in the thought process as to why a law-abiding citizen would wish to purchase or own anything?

The reasons for owning anything belong with the owner; it is proprietary information that s/he may wish to share, but such information provides nothing to this debate.

I dare say that it is none of your business even if the reason for buying something is to commit a crime; unless and until an individual commits a crime, s/he is not a criminal. When s/he commits a crime, punish to the fullest extent, please.

Insist on your restrictions, be they what they may, but they will not deter a criminal from being a criminal if their mind is made up, nor will they prevent nor encourage a law-abider to become a criminal.

[PeeQueue]

Deep Thought:

But you are saying in reverse the exact thing that many pro-gun people say. How does this sound to you?

You support gun control simply because you don’t like guns. There is no evidence that the existence of guns implies more deaths; guns can be beneficial and sometimes save lives (obviously this is some of what is being argued on this thread). You simply would like no one to have a gun because you don’t have one.

Many people find the second sentence of that paragraph very debatable. You trying to simplify the argument by just stating your opinion as fact doesn’t change that.

And so what if people enjoy their guns? It can be a very fun hobby, and encompasses many activities, including hunting, sport shooting, collecting, crafting, etc. It sure is one reason people don’t want to lose their guns, but that is not good enough for you, so we argue the other benefits as well.

PeeQueue

[Deep_Thought]

PeeQueue, please go back and read my previous postings.

[Deep_Thought]

*Originally posted by Wrath *
**Since when do you, or anyone, think that you can get involved in the thought process as to why a law-abiding citizen would wish to purchase or own anything?
**

Wrath, I want my plutonium. I’m law-abiding. How dare you try and stop me with petty legislation. You are infringing my personal freedom to own anything I want. I enjoy plutonium and wnat to collect a lot of it for my own pleasure. Do you wish to prevent that?

[justwannano]

Awww Come on Crimsom

Any one following this thread knows that I am just trying to get you to clarify your position with a simple yes or no answer.
You wouldn’t want people to think you are just a bag of wind would you?
What could be so hard about answering a yes or no answer.
Pleese Pleese Oh pretty pleese
PS
Answer with a yes answer or a no answer.

[Wrath]

Deep thought,

I’m sure you can legally get your hands on some plutonium. But you’d have to prove you could handle safely because it’s mere passive existence in the environment is a health risk to a large radius of exposed people, and this is where and why the government needs to step in. You might as well say you wish to have some of that good ol’ ebola virus so you can tinker with it in your chemistry set.

Common sense is always the litmus test, don’t you think? Try not to be a troll with silliness.

[Deep_Thought]

Wrath, I’m bringing in “silliness” because I can’t get a straight answer from you pro-gun folks about why you like them so much. The car/gun analogy is “silly” to me.

You don’t understand the nature of plutonium. Sure, certification is a wonderful thing - prove to me you’re trained to handle a gun safely! I guess I just have to trust you to be able to handle such a dangerous piece of equipment, and not decimate your neighborhood with it…

Common sense tells me that having Joe Average keep lethal weapons around his house is an avoidable risk to all the people around him, and is therefore dumb. Your version of common sense is different. So, common sense is not “common” at all, it’s just an opinion.

Back to my previous point - the gun makers have done a beautiful job of providing both “the problem” and “the solution”, and getting rich from it.

[Deep_Thought]

*Originally posted by PeeQueue *
There is no evidence that the existence of guns implies more deaths; guns can be beneficial and sometimes save lives

Right on. I see guns saving people every day, especially in hospitals. Maybe if we had more guns, more people would be saved.
In the case of Sanity v PeQueue, the prosecution rests. He consider be working for the gun control side of the debate, not the other side.

[Wrath]

But you do have a straight answer, DT. I have my Colt for protection, and that’s it. I own it for no other reason. And the gun collector - he likes them for what they are. And the hobbyist, likewaise. Does this knowledge help you in any way? There’s no one single reason for a group of people desiring ownership of a thing, is there?

But my reasons for ownership are my business. And it’s guaranteed in the 2nd amendment.

And yes, you will have to trust that I will not strife the neighborhood with it, just like you have to trust the other driver not to blow the red light and slam into your car.

And gun makers profit like anyone else, by filling a need in the marketplace and providing goods to a customer with money. If you wish to believe that the need shouldn’t be there, that it’s imagined or people have no business wanting or owning such a thing, then there’s no amount of evidence to the contrary that will pursuade you.