Boy, that’s funny. I am not John, as many people know.
I’ve sure put up lots of facts and cites, and recieved nothing but name calling so far. I suspect that’s the best your side can do, based on your mishandling of Kellerman. Suicides. How droll.
Can you, in fact, make a cogent argument? Let’s see your “facts,” Ace…I don’t think you can.
Gun advocates can’t honestly debate, or they wouldn’t be gun advocates.
> It’s always one of my favorite topics and I had looked forward to participating.
That’s really embarassing, Uncle Beer.
Why do I think this is all posturing to avoid having to mix it up now that he’s up against someone who knows what he’s talking about?
That’s okay, beer, I didnt think you could hang. I know Joe can’t…
“Oh, yeah? Well, I could rob you with my car!”
“My, my, my. Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains!”—Bogart as Phillip Marlowe, The Big Sleep (1946)
The classes will be made as difficult as the people will bear, since last time I checked “the people” either directly voted on laws, or elected the people who made the laws, which means law makers will pass popular laws so as to avoid real work.
Yes, these are silly and unlikely scenarios. And I’m sure we’ve both heard the many real-life anecdotes supporting both sides of the debate. My point is that criminals expect you to be armed and will use the element of surprise to get the jump on you, or may even shoot you in a pre-emptive strike. If you believe, as Screwtape does, that carrying around a loaded handgun will protect you and your family from criminals I fear you have a false sense of security. This, along with the paranoia of imagined threats, fuels the gun lobby. We must be careful to differentiate between our John Wayne fantasies of shoot 'em ups and real life situations where even police officers rarely encounter gunfire, and who frequently become unnerved when they do despite their extensive training and macho self image.
Couldn’t locate those posts, but I’m vaguely familiar with the tragic incident (kinda before my time). Student protesters at the republican(?) national convention fired on by the national guard right? And I’m familiar with the song by Neil Young ( a Canadian! ) or was it Crosby et al?
In any case, it is indeed an example that shows the American government is capable of turning the military against it’s own unarmed citizens. But I still can’t for the life of me imagine a scenario where the American people would find themselves in an organized armed revolt against it’s own government that has somehow maintained the support of the military. To me this is more gun lover paranoia. Do you really think an oppressive dictatorship like the Third Reich could come into power in the US? Mind you, I am young, and have not witnessed the atrocities of war first hand. And who knows what the future holds? I won’t argue that it’s not possible. And after rereading some posts in this thread I will agree that strength in numbers could conceivably thwart the American military. If this is the ultimate “check and balance” in America then I’m all for it. But I maintain that it’s at best a weak argument against tighter gun control laws, especially those that restrict handguns. Rifles, after all, make the best weapons of war. They sure are hard to conceal though.
If you can give me just one (ano no hunting does NOT count when applied to handguns) benign use for a handgun then I will concede this point willingly. I have tried and tried and I cannot think of any other use for a handgun than killing people.
If you use Websters 2nd definition of benign-Favorable;beneficial
I would think that anyone who has produced a handgun,or any gun and stopped a crime of any kind would argue the point with you.
I don’t know of any statistics that cover that point.
A gun doesn’t have to be fired to make a point.
Guess it’s time to jump in here. This Doofus character is just too wrongfully smug for me to remain uninvolved.
I take it you consider posting a link to the Kellerman study to be a “debunking” of the claims of gun proponents; beyond that, I’ve seen nothing from you but the empty assertion that “Duggan, Kellerman, Lambert, et al, is [sic] superior to Lott and Kleck.” Let’s just see if that’s true, shall we:
Kellerman’s study, according to the brief summary on the New England Journal of Medicine’s website, correlated an incidence of gun ownership with a higher mortality rate, but did not indicate causation. The method Kellerman chose to use in conducting his study, the case-control method, is used to research associations, but not causes. A CCM study may indicate that a study into causation is merited, but the CCM study itself does not demonstrate cause. Kellerman no more demonstrated that owning a gun “causes” an increased risk of homicide than he demonstrated that owning a white lamp “causes” an increased risk of homicide.
Kellerman used Mantel-Haenszel chi-square analysis for matched pairs, meaning that he attempted to match each killing he deemed worthy of study with a “control” household of similar characteristics. Kellerman’s method required that the control matched pair be selected from an area outside a 1-block avoidance zone surrounding the homicide household. As I’m sure we can all agree, risk factors vary enormously among persons of the same age, sex, income, and ethnicity, even within the same apartment building. By selecting control matches so far removed from the homicide samples, Kellerman likely forced the matching of high-risk households (homicides tend to occur in certain neighborhoods, rather than being evenly distributed throughout a city) with low-risk households; the population sub-group matching simply will not be accurate. This errant matching alone can explain the results of the study.
Furthermore, Kellerman chose to consider only 444 of 1860 homicides in his sampling area; Kellerman disregards 76% of the homicides in his sampling area because homicides did not occur “in the home”. Of those 444, 24 were excluded for “various reasons,” A further 7% were dropped due to failure to interview the proxy (the person “standing in” for the homicide victim) and another 1% were dropped when no control match was found. Of the remaining 388 homicides, complete data was obtained for only 316 matched pairs. Thus, Kellerman collected complete data for only 71.2% of households eligible to participate in his study.
Statistics and methods were obtained from this page. You may consider yourself “responded to”. I’ll hold off on my other objections to Kellerman’s “study” for the time being.
(buncha stuff snipped}
Incorrect. I refer you to U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F. Supp. 2d 598, in which the judge struck down 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) because the statute offended the Second and Fifth Amendments. The statute in effect made an instant criminal out of any gun owner who had a restraining order entered against him. You might want to read the case’s extensive analysis of the Second Amendment and that amendment’s guarantee of an individual (NOT a militia) right to bear arms.
Having had no sleep for the past 42 hours, I’m calling it quits for the time being. You be sure and do your homework, now…
Okay, you got me. However, that’s one, and its a new reading. Certainly the broad gun bans in places like Chicago and New York city haven’t been overturned.
Well, the decision is under review, too. We will see where it goes in the appeals process, I think it will be reversed, because that’s been how the courts, especially the supreme court, have ruled so far.
You want to go down this road? You want to have a thing about the historical interpretation or application of the second amendment by the federal courts and especially the Supreme Court? I don’t think you do, but maybe…
Anyway, i’ve sure shot down enough of your claims (Kellerman. Suicide. Oh, Margret) that I can afford to half way give you one.
Hey, you know what the annual costs of gun violence are? 100 billion a year. (Cook & Ludwig 2000) Wow, huh…thats like 300 dollars you owe someone for every gun you own, sounds like you’re stepping on someone’s rights right there. I want mine in German bearer bonds.
Hey, what happened to your sig? Are you no longer proud of making political decisions on the basis of what comic books tell you? I wanted to ask you why there aren’t rap songs about, you know…
“Cause the boyz in the hood are always hard
When you go visitin’, always leave your card
Cover your mouth when you chew your food
Be like Gallant 'cause Goofus is rude…”
Thanks for the greeting Joe. A quick reply then off to bed for me.
I assure you that I have no misconceptions and make no assumptions about the differences (and similarities) in social structure between Louisiana and Newfoundland. Did I come across as that naive?
Yes, you (we) most certainly do.
Yep. You in favor of arming these people?
Nothing is the problem. It is definately a problem though. And the problem is this: irresponsible people who are violent and commit crimes have easy access to handguns in America. And responsible gun owners wish to maintain the status quo because… they don’t want to be inconvenienced with paperwork? (Seriously, I want your help here.)
Come one, come all to the “dummies get a slap from the Crimson” freaknik.
Wow, thats not even an honest characterization of what I did post, since I posted an summary and response to some of the criticisms, and of course I alluded to Duggans new work (I’m sorry it costs money. You’ll have to buy it) and Tim Lambert’s criticisms of Lott’s nonsense.
A higher risk from illegal homocide, by a factor of 2.7. This is in direct contradiction to the claim I have seen here, that he includes suicides, when he does not. Kellerman has done a number of studies, it is likely the gun folk, in their haste to assure each other every thing is okay after all are confusing one with another.
Here’s a good reply to that:
"Of all the methods of murder, guns were responsible for 49.8 percent of the victims killed at home. In homes that kept a gun, the overall murder risk was 2.7 times greater, but for gun homicides it was 4.8, while for non-gun homicides it was 1.2. Notice that 1.2 is not significantly different from 1, so there was no increased risk for non-gun homicides. In other words, people who kept a gun in the home were at higher risk for gun homicides only, not any other type of homicide. This is an important point, because it strongly suggests that gun availability tends to turn ordinary family arguments into something fatal, rather than the murder victims knew they were at risk and armed themselves with a gun. "
So, yeah, I think your claims of “no proven link” are as convincing as the last time we heard that, and certainly guns don’t make you safe, whether it’s people who own guns tend to get murdered, or people who get murdered tend to own guns. Otherwise, you’d see a lower rate of murder among households where a gun is present, and you don’t.
That’s your assertion, I don’t think it’s valid. Rather, I would say age, sex, income and ethnicity are good predictors of risk factor, at least as averaged over a sufficiently large group, so I am going to need a cite on that.
False, the study controlled for neighborhood in the matching.
Well, look into it, let’s see. Frankly, I bet Kellerman knows how to do a CCM study, what with being a medical researcher and all, so I think you’re whistling in the dark. His results have been replicated, too.
I am astounded a study on homicides “in the home” ignored homicides that did not take place “in the home.”
“some of the sample was discarded for valid statistical reasons.”
Your best charge is unwarranted speculation. “well, maybe he screwed up the neighborhood controls!” Oh, yes, I have been responded to.
Don’t hold off on my account, the rest of the class would like to see what cognitive dissonance is required to be a gun advocate.
Okay. I’ll change my statement to “No gun control law has ever been struck down on a second amendment basis, including out and out bans, except one time last year. This was notable because of how unusual the decision was, and many legal scholars expect the decision to be reversed by a superior court.” You could also cite Lopez, although thats a commerce clause violation.
Yes, who would be concerned with gun owning men who have restraining orders against them?
If you own a gun, you’re in the milita. What does the constitution say about the milita?
Okay. Let’s see what the Supreme Court has said:
“Citizens of the United States have no right to associate together to drill or parade with arms, independent of any act of Congress or state law.” Presser v. Illinois, 1886
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. " United States v. Miller, 1939
"These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have “some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment). " Lewis v. United States, 1980
I’m afraid the only reference your case makes to supreme court decisions is :
“That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach only to “the people.” Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the Framers used this phrase “simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy,” Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, “the people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the People of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 (“Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble”) (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 (“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States”) (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. See United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279, 292 (1904) (Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because “[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law”). The language of these Amendments contrasts with the words (p.266)“person” and “accused” used in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating procedure in criminal cases.”
pretty unconvincing in light of actual supreme court decisions which tie the second amendment to your militia duty. Also, it seems even your case doesn’t hold an absolute right to keep and bear arms, note such language as:
Which rather strongly suggests a law could be drafted which forbids people subject to restraining orders to posess firearms.
So, that’s…one case upholding an individual right, subject to certain restrictions, and three or four Supreme Court decisions, plus several circuit court decisions Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983); Application of Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396, 398 n.1 (Minn. 1980); State v. Amos, 343 So. 2d 166, 168 (La. 1977); Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847, 850 (Mass. 1976); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921-22 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), which suggest the collective right and individual right are not separate, or that the collective right is pre-eminent, or the individual right doesn’t exist at all.
Let’s see if Emerson stands, I don’t think it will.
{Coding fixed. --Gaudere}
I would respond to Mr. Dufuz, but apparently my brain is getting in the way of me comprehending him.
I would suggest you take a quick peek at the other gun control threads that have been made on this Board (use the search function, and type in “Gun Control”… make sure you set the Search By Date option to “Any Date”). You’ll find that A: many of your contentions have been addressed, B: many of your contentions have been debunked, and C: you need an English Composition class. Oops, you won’t find that last in a GC thread.
I’d do it for you, but frankly, I know you’d ignore it. Do your own damn homework on this, which involves checking up on what has come before. I’ve provided enough quotes and cites to people over the past few months, and I’d prefer to not have to type it all up again.
I applaud Max’s patience with dealing with you. And I applaud your ability to live in a fantasy world with such success. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors, and hope for you life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And “May you live in interesting times”.
(And I really do feel sorry for you if you truly believe that all you’ve gotten in response to your posts have been insults. Perhaps you suffer from a reading disorder? That’d be truly a tragedy.)
Once again, persistently ignoring the fact that murder predated the advent of the gun by at least 4500 years.
A ban is a ban. Yours would be easier to get people to give in, but it’s still a ban. In fact, it is more heinous than an outright ban because it is deceptive. Regardless of how you feel about the Bill of Rights, it is still the supreme law of the land. And making it illegal for my children to own guns is still infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period.
Whose theory is this? Or by theory do you mean “unfounded speculation and opinion”? If you have the means to smuggle in 20,000 pounds of cocaine, why would 20,000 pounds of guns be any more difficult? It’s not like that much cocaine will fit in a body cavity. In fact, 20,000 lbs of guns take up far less space than the equivalent mass of cocaine. So they would actually be easier to transport.
Additionally, some modern guns are, in fact, complicated pieces of machinery. but I can tell you, as I sit here looking at my disassembled Glock 21, that it is not a complicated piece at all. In fact, it is quite simple, and it is just that simplicity that makes it such a fine weapon. My (uneducated) guess is that anybody with minimal metalworking skills could fashion a reasonably working copy in probably an hour or two. I personally could make a functioning single-shot Shotgun in a matter of minutes using: A block of wood, a piece of electrical conduit pipe, A nail, and some tape. Pretty complicated, yes? Do I advocate it? No. But I can promise you if guns were outlawed, or even seized, there would quickly be a plentiful underground supply.
Though you don’t seem to be terribly offended by knife violence. Interesting. As has already been pointed out, more people are killed by cars, by drownings, by beatings, by stabbings, even by lightning strikes than by guns. If the public safety is your highest concern, then go after the primary causes of accidental and intentional deaths before you go after a Constitutionally protected right.
On the contrary, you found the sarcasm with not too much trouble, so I’d say I accomplished precisely what I meant with a minimum of effort. Making me somewhat skilled at sarcasm, IMO.
What you ignore is prevention. The very presence of those millions of guns prevents tyranny from even appearing, and forces the government to be answerable to the people.
Ironic that you should say this in the midst of a disputed election, with the losing candidate acting less mature than my girlfriend’s three-year-old daughter, just two years after the first impeachment of an elected president in America’s 224 year history.
First, it’s easy to have a trillion dollar surplus when the government takes more than a quarter of the income of every working person within its borders.
Second, Germany at one time was an one of the most stable and well-respected countries in history.
Third, there won’t be a military coup. There will be a stripping away of all civil rights and a reduction of our “flower of democracy” to a police state. Don’t believe it? Look around you. It’s already begun. And you’re helping it along.
sigh Another case of the gun control establishment redefining words to make them “scarier” for propaganda purposes. I already gave you the true definition of a dum-dum bullet. The .303 British. What you have there is a vague summary of a huge array of different rounds for different purposes, lumped together deceptively under a fallacious name, something akin to the “Assault-weapon” ban. The true definition of an assault-weapon is (ready?): Any weapon used in an assault. But it was expedient to redefine it, in order to make standard (but scary-looking) rifles sound scarier in an attempt to sound more like “Assault Rifle”, which means a lightweight rifle with select-fire capability (select means you can choose between either semiautomatic or fully automatic)
James Brady was Press Secretary under President Ronald Reagan and is the husband of Sarah Brady, whose name is on the Brady Law, and whose only qualification for the position she holds is that her husband was shot on national TV. He was, of course, shot in the head during the 1981 attempt on President Reagan’s life.
Again, I need to ask you for an example of your scenario. Joe Blow, a sensible and responsible man who, finding his wife in bed with the milkman would NOT kill with a knife or a club, but, having changed the scenario solely by the addition of a readily accessible gun, would go against his nature and societal training and kill the milkman. I repeat, this has to be a man who would NOT have killed had there been no gun, but ready access to a knife, golf club, baseball bat, brick, bare hands, or other item common in the household.
Please don’t take offense, but I neither need, nor want, your approval and permission to be a gun owner. But to address your question, if “5 men armed with knives [broke] in and rape[d] [my] wife and daughter while they play[ed] piñata with [my] son and gut[ted] [my] dog,” I assure you that when I have a family of my own, they will be well trained in both armed and unarmed fighting, and will have access to my guns and be more than able to defend themselves even without my help, Just as my brother, my mother, and I were when I was a child.
However, I can also tell you that if I were there when it happened, I would make every effort to kill those five men. With no hesitation, with no second thoughts, and with no remorse. REGARDLESS of whether I had a gun.
I’m sorry you find this to be such a horrid and uncivilized view, but if somebody endangers my family, that person will die. It’s that simple.
Actually, you can cause injury and death by yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a panic. Especially if there is no fire. That is the archtypical example of speech that is not protected by law, which is why it was used as an example in that quotation. The point being illustrated is that taking away my gun because I might shoot somebody is prior restraint of a Constitutional right without probable cause that a crime has been committed. It is unlawful and unconstitutional. And you can’t do it.
Once again, “Not in America” doesn’t cut it. Germany early in the 20th century was much more stable than the US is now. And all it took was one unfavorable treaty following a war, and the democratic people were more than happy to elect, democratically, a chancellor who was an insane, rabid racist bent on world conquest.
If you think we live in such enlightened times, and America is so stable that nothing bad will ever happen in this “jewel in the crown of democratic process” (again, see impeachment '98 and democratic process 2000), then it is obviously stable enough that you need not fear an armed population.
So which is it? Are we the stable jewel of democracy? Or are we a savage, violent, uncivilized antithesis of all that is right and humane? You can’t have it both ways, arguing both ends against the middle. You have to make up your mind which myth of America you’re going to propagate.
And this means what to me? You claim there was no projectile weapon analagous to the gun in biblical times. I showed that you were incorrect. Why is this so difficult?
And thank goodness it is not your place to decide what should and shouldn’t be my rights. Thomas Jefferson said “I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away.” And by exercising my right to be armed, I ensure that another will need to be willing to give his life to take my rights to speech, religion, etc. You may be in a rush to give away your rights in a futile quest for perceived security, but I will provide my own security. What makes this country great is that the government is not the sole possessor of force, and is therefore answerable to the population.
I can’t actually believe this has been said. The agenda of gun control proponents is clear to me now: they don’t want anyone to defend themselves. Voice, if you ever come up against a meth-ed-out 250lb mugger looking for quick cash for his next hit, good luck. We’re not all capable of weaponless self-defense, particularly the elderly and handicapped.
Fortunately the 2nd amendment mandates that I be permitted to use my Colt 45 to stop that guy. Believe me, it’s not too powerful.
One of the measures of the stability of a nation is it’s annual rate of inflation. Want to compare ours to Germany early in the 20th century?
Well, and the Weimar republic
Try to get your facts straight.
“In spite of a decline in the party’s votes in November 1932, he held to the chancellorship as the only office he would accept, and this by constitutional, not revolutionary, methods. Throughout, he showed a unique ability to exploit conditions favourable to success. He created the Hitler myth; he propagated it by every device of mass agitation and with an actor’s ability to be absorbed in the role that he created for himself. Yet all the time he remained a shrewd and calculating politician, aware of the weaknesses of his own position, perceiving more quickly than anyone else how a situation could best be turned to his own advantage. In January 1933 he reaped his reward when Hindenburg invited him to be chancellor of Germany, and he took office with the support of Papen and Hugenberg and with Field Marshal Werner von Blomberg as minister of defense.”
Yes, America would be in trouble, too, if an unpopular leader were allowed to intrigue his way into office. You know, like Bush is trying to pull. Oh, that was mean. Still, you had it coming.
Wow. Wow. Wow, I am embarassed for Joe here.
How many people are killed by cars, each year?
"According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, total auto fatalities in the U.S. peaked at 54,589 in 1972 - an annual figure roughly equal to the total American body count in the Vietnam War - but has since declined to under 42,000 per year. "
How many people die from beatings and stabbings? Well, this is PDF, so I can’t cut and paste directly. but according to the FBI in 1998, the total of people murdered with blunt objects such as clubs and hammers (741) and hands, fists, feet, etc. (949) is 1690, and the total stabbing murders is 1877. total deaths would be higher, so you can triple those numbers if you like.
And how about lightning? How many people are killed by lightning each year?
“In the United States from 1980 through 1995, a total of 1318 deaths were attributed to lightning, (average: 82 deaths per year {range: 53-100 deaths}).”
Now, how many people are killed each year by guns?
"In 1997, 32,436 deaths resulted from firearm-related injuries, making such injuries the second leading cause of injury mortality in the United States after motor-vehicle-related incidents (1). " http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm
Wow, Joe is really batting 1.000, huh? Man, I am good. Let’s see what else the little punk doesn’t know.
hee hee hee! I already posted this one…
"The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. "
"Of all the methods of murder, guns were responsible for 49.8 percent of the victims killed at home. In homes that kept a gun, the overall murder risk was 2.7 times greater, but for gun homicides it was 4.8, while for non-gun homicides it was 1.2. Notice that 1.2 is not significantly different from 1, so there was no increased risk for non-gun homicides. In other words, people who kept a gun in the home were at higher risk for gun homicides only, not any other type of homicide. This is an important point, because it strongly suggests that gun availability tends to turn ordinary family arguments into something fatal, rather than the murder victims knew they were at risk and armed themselves with a gun. "
Voice said…" It’s all very well saying that someone with a gun can come into my house and kill me so therefore I need a gun but if neither party has one then the chances are nothing will happen at all.
The BIG guy will win
Thats why they have weight classes in boxing,Wrestling etc.
Thats why the school bully is a big kid.
Yeah sometimes they get the shit kicked out of them but most often they win.
How many little bouncers have you seen in bars???
) or was it Crosby et al?