Sometimes the gun control debate devolves into a swapping-this-death-for-that-death debate:
“If it weren’t for gun use for self-defense, then such-and-such a family would have been murdered by the serial killer that broke into their house.”
“Oh, but if it weren’t for guns, the people who died at Columbine and Virginia Tech would still be alive!”
What? You’re claiming that someone who has presumably been vetted as having no criminal record and no history of mental health problems is less likely to commit a crime than the general population? Say it ain’t so! 
But here’s another statistic that I think we can agree on without having to look it up: someone without a gun is far less likely to shoot someone than someone who has a gun. One could call this the “George Zimmerman axiom”.
You mean like 100,000 dgu/year? Or the fact that US suicide rate is dead average for a wealthy country despite an abundance of guns? Or the fact that states with relaxed gun laws do not seem to have more murders/capita than those with strict gun laws?
And this sort of simplification of the other side’s argument is why you keep getting your butts kicked in the courts and in congress.
Well well well, Bo -
In reality you have no argument other than you like to argue.
I would like to see all of the list you promised, and go back and re-read, carefully this time my friend, each of my replies that all ask for your non-existent list.
I am not even sure what to make of the fatuous twaddle posted above, are all of your arguments going to be such? If so then don’t waste my time and just realize your argument is null.
best
mqqn
I take it you’ve been in a coma or something.
Of course its hyperbole to say that gun free zones are “some of the most dangerous places on earth” but I don’t see any evidence that gun free zones are any safer than anywhere else. How many of our mass murders occur in places that aren’t gun free zones? IIRC an overwhelming majority of our mass murders occurred in places where guns are not allowed.
Mass murders are such a small percentage of gun murders to begin with that I don’t think either side should be laying mass murders as their foundation for their positions but ymmv.
What percentage of gun murders do you think are committed by legal gun owners?
The mental patient was a CCW? You sure? I don’t see it in the link. Do you have another link?
How many of those were committed by people who legally owned their gun?
I can show you a department of justice survey that found that there are 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Of course most of them did not prevent a murder but its really hard to tell which crimes would have resulted in murder if not prevented by a gun.
The difference between the background check associated with getting a CCW and the background check associated with simply buying a gun from a gun store is negligible in many states.
So did these occur in places where guns were allowed or not? Perhaps these wouldn’t have turned into mass murders if someone could shoot back. I don’t advocate everyone carrying a gun but I think its silly not to admit that having a gun gives you enough of an advantage that frequently noone can stop you until someone else with a gun show up.
There is that amazing story of that woman who stopped a potential mass murder with kind understanding words instead of a gun. But its an amazing story exactly because it is the exception that proves the rule. Most mass murderers are stopped by a gun.
Once gain, mass murders account for so few of the gun murders every eyar that I think it is a distraction from the larger issues but, whatever.
I am not going to take sides in the general debate, here, but in the interest of The Straight Dope, I need to point out that this bit of American Mythologizing is simply wrong.
Few battles–and none of the serious ones–won by the colonists during the War for Independence were won using guerrilla tactics. The initial outbreak of fighting included some guerrilla actions of harassment after the outnumbered British soldiers sent to Concord withdrew following a standard stand-up-and-shoot-at-each other skirmish at the Concord bridge. After that, pretty much every battle was fought in the European tradition. There were a few “guerrilla” encounters on the frontiers and the Carolina swamps, (often won by guerrilla Loyalists), but the major victories were not brought about by guerrilla tactics. And the war was won after von Steuben and others trained the colonial troops to stand and fight in the European manner and after Britain was engaged by France, Spain, and the Netherlands, making claims about being “outnumbered” a fairy tale.
Similarly, the Pennsylvania long rifle provided a slight edge on several occasions, (when it was not being wielded by Loyalists), but the overwhelming majority of colonial soldiers were using the same “Brown Bess” musket employed by the Brits.
There weren’t very many guns in Australia to begin with. I think they had something like 4 guns per 100 people before the ban. We have something like 110 guns per 100 people.
Oh, tom~. You and your wacky “facts” again. 
The gun control side of the debate always say that then the ones that actually do seem to want to take away the guns take over the conversation. See, references to The Australian gun ban.
Well, not at the federal level, we haven’t. But it is a constant refrain on the gun control side of the debate.
Out of curiosity, would you be willing to accept, for the sake of an argument, that they do not represent the bulk of that side?
Well, thats the crux of some of the disconnect between two sides of the argument. The gun rights side realizes that our criminals already have guns and gun control will only prevent the regular citizens from having guns. Gun control folks put all gun owners in the same basket and think that a reduction in gun ownership would result in a reduction in gun crime even though none of the criminals would surrender their guns.
Perhaps things would be different if we only had 100 privately owned guns per 100 people but we don’t and frankly, having lived through the LA riots, I would want a gun even if most of the rest of society was unarmed.
Making snide remarks about another poster’s submissions without actually addressing the issue is only marginally less offensive than a direct insult.
Stop worrying about the quality of other posters’ arguments and simply make the effort to refute them or to advance your own.
[ /Moderating ]
My point is that you are saying things that you cannot support with facts. You are making bold, sweeping declarations that have little or no basis in reality and are not reasonable conclusions. Also, you are doing nothing that will convince anyone you are correct and sway them to your side; condescension and imperious disdain are not winning debate tactics, IMO.
I posted several statements that have not been disputed with any facts.
I have posted facts to another poster, as he posted some facts of his own.
For you I posted a list of things that I believe cannot be intelligently disputed, and you have argued now all day and have not produced one pertinent reply.
Once again, I have to say that you will not be swayed from your opinion, and I will not be swayed from mine.
I will keep my guns, enjoy training with them, and will be prepared to use them if someone forces me to do so to protect myself or someone that it is my duty to protect.
You can use your clubs and rocks and whatever you can come up with to protect yourself and your loved ones if the need should arise, and I sincerely hope that never happens to you or anyone for that matter.
best regards -
mqqn