Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Rau]

No.

The founders of our government were educated, intelligent men who, when faced with establishing a government, took into consideration all the evils and failures of other governments to date.

They created an EXCEPTIONAL government. One in which the INDIVIDUAL was supreme.
A government that served its people. Not the other way around.

The Constitution they wrote LIMITED government and clearly delineated the minimal powers assigned to it.

Yes our founding fathers were human, but they were very exceptional men. What they started became the greatest nation the world has ever known…and that only took 200 years.

Yes, a great nation by numerous measures. But I would not be too quick to attribute too much of the credit to an “exceptional government”. Perhaps that success has come despite the government? At the present time, the US is saddled with a dysfunctional political system, and while most will no doubt blame one political party or the other, the imperfections are perhaps a little deeper.

I am sure the founders did take into account all the strengths and shortcomings of other governments known to them at the time. And that work never stops - it is now in the hands of the people to continue to apply the lessons of history, and to adapt and evolve their Comstitution to meet today’s needs.

 

[Gorgias]

Good Morning Zoltan: The floor is open for you to present data that shows that owning a gun does not increase one’s odds of being murdered or one’s odds of committing suicide, or one’s odds of having a firearm accident.

Gary,

I know you’re speaking to Zoltan here, but I wanted to take a minute to respond to the study that you cited to me. By the way – thanks for pointing out a particular study! It’s a whole lot more productive to discuss a particular example of research, rather than just work by assertion!

I’m hoping, though, that you’re not offering your comments here as a conclusion bolstered by the study you quoted to me. After all, your study offers a number of interesting talking points that do not support the points you’re making here.

First off, the study you provided doesn’t speak to the question of firearms accidents; they explicitly avoided that question and only looked at intentional homicides and suicides. So, does owning a firearm increase the odds of dying by homicide? Your study says, “meh…”. In fact, it says that there is a modest increase in numbers; but it admits that it has no idea why! It admits that there might be a correlation beween living in a dangerous area or engaged in dangerous activity and gun ownership; in that case, the increase in homicide doesn’t necessarily owe itself to ‘ownership’, but in one’s life situation and lifestyle.

Your study shows a far greater correlation between gun ownership and suicide. Yet, would we say, as you have, that gun ownership increases one’s odds of committing suicide? That’s an interesting assertion. The question, of course, is which direction causation runs in: is it that folks considering suicide buy guns and then complete their intention? Or, on the other hand, is it that gun owners are more likely to commit suicide? Or, alternately phrased, is it that gun owners who at some point consider suicide, succeed due to the presence of a gun in their house?

Your study offers no answers; yet, it raises interesting considerations. First, it asked about long gun and handgun ownership, but doesn’t report that the firearm in the house was the firearm used in the suicide (after all, killing oneself with a long gun is hard, and killing oneself with a gun other than the one held in the house isn’t relevant to the question at hand). Second, it admitted that their results relied on the statements of a next of kin, who might not have accurate knowledge about the situation of gun ownership in the household, or who might not want to answer embarrassing questions truthfully (e.g., “were the guns in the household properly locked up?”)

Finally, the study asked respondents about how the gun(s) in the house were held – securely or unlocked – but it found no distinction in the results based on this fact. This, alone, is huge! If we’re saying that the only real significant result is that there is a greater rate of suicide in gun-owner-houses, then we need to know this answer! After all, if the rate of suicide is affected by keeping guns in an unlocked manner, then the correct response is “lock your guns so that household members can’t get to them!” and not “let’s control gun ownership across the board.” On the other hand, if the suicide rate is high in households with locked firearms, then the implication is that the owner himself is committing suicide. In this case, the proper answer is “as a society, we need to properly deter firearm ownership by those with mental illness and depression” rather than “let’s control gun ownership across the board”.

So, if you think that your study answers the question in the way you’ve presented your assertions here… then you need to read your studies again, and more carefully this time. They don’t say what you claim they say (and, in fact, the study you quoted also pointed out the shortcomings of the existing studies that make the sorts of claims you make)!

Thanks for providing a citation to the study! It was enlightening to see what the studies themselves really say (and what they don’t say), as opposed to what spin doctors say that they say!

 

[Gorgias]

On a side note, the data collected in that study was gathered from many sources. If you read it, you will see that data law from enforcement and many other sources were used.

Huh? From law enforcement? No… from the study you cited:

Data for this study are from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey… the sample was drawn from death certificates received by the National Center for Health Statistics from state vital registration offices. … Data on each decedent in the National Mortality Followback Survey were obtained from death certificates and proxy-respondent interviews. … The proxy interviews were conducted with next of kin or another person familiar with the decedent’s life history approximately 6 months from the date of death.

(cf p. 930 of the Dahlberg study you cited.)

So… many sources? Sure, although really it’s a chain of sources, not a collection of them. And… law enforcement? Not even close.

Perhaps you’re referencing a different study? From the context of this post, you seem to be referring your interlocutor to your post with the study citation.

 

[Gorgias]

For those who advocate gun control and point to Australia’s example…

And particularly, to those in Australia (LongingSoul, I’m looking at ya )…

I’m curious how you would respond to the assertions made in this article, in which it points out that, despite the 1996 gun ban in Australia (that included forced buy-backs and strict licensing), police in Sydney are combating existing “out-of-control” gun violence with a series of additional gun purges…?

In other words, if gun control is effective, why is there continued gun violence in Sydney? On the other hand, does this action prove the old adage, “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” – that is, that gun control lessens rather than enhances the safety of law-abiding citizens?

 

[Rau]

For those who advocate gun control and point to Australia’s example…

And particularly, to those in Australia (LongingSoul, I’m looking at ya )…

I’m curious how you would respond to the assertions made in this article, in which it points out that, despite the 1996 gun ban in Australia (that included forced buy-backs and strict licensing), police in Sydney are combating existing “out-of-control” gun violence with a series of additional gun purges…?

In other words, if gun control is effective, why is there continued gun violence in Sydney? On the other hand, does this action prove the old adage, “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” – that is, that gun control lessens rather than enhances the safety of law-abiding citizens?

According to reports, that spate of gun violence was exclusively bad guys fighting with other bad guys.

 

[migueltojose]

Good Morning Zoltan: The data will of course keep flowing in this conversation. When you have finished finding sources that suggest gun ownership makes one safer, please start looking for data to refute the evidence that in experiments, men exposed to firearms had much higher testosterone levels and were three times more likely to engage in aggressive behavior than subjects who had not been exposed to guns.

Klinesmith et al, 2006.

Thank you,
Gary

We need more testosterone.

 

[Annie39]

Good Morning Zoltan: The data will of course keep flowing in this conversation. When you have finished finding sources that suggest gun ownership makes one safer, please start looking for data to refute the evidence that in experiments, men exposed to firearms had much higher testosterone levels and were three times more likely to engage in aggressive behavior than subjects who had not been exposed to guns.

Klinesmith et al, 2006.

Thank you,
Gary

I haven’t been reading this thread much for a while but today I read the last post where migueltojose wrote that we need more testosterone. Well that was intriguing so I sought the post that you wrote to see what’s up. Well Gary this post of yours clears up much that I found difficult to understand about you. So - Gary, men are supposed to have lots of testosterone, men are supposed to be much more aggressive than women. The feminization of our boys is one of the biggest reasons for problems in our country and our Church. You have just given me one more reason to be glad I live in a state that allows citizens to have guns. I think that I’ll ask my hubby to take our seven year old grandson to the shooting range when we babysit (boy sit) him next week.

Annie

 

[LongingSoul]

For those who advocate gun control and point to Australia’s example…

And particularly, to those in Australia (LongingSoul, I’m looking at ya )…

I’m curious how you would respond to the assertions made in this article, in which it points out that, despite the 1996 gun ban in Australia (that included forced buy-backs and strict licensing), police in Sydney are combating existing “out-of-control” gun violence with a series of additional gun purges…?

In other words, if gun control is effective, why is there continued gun violence in Sydney? On the other hand, does this action prove the old adage, “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” – that is, that gun control lessens rather than enhances the safety of law-abiding citizens?

The problem Sydney had with that spate of violence in 2012/13 was illegal guns and as Rau mentioned, the fatal shootings were the result of score settling between rival crime syndicates.

The tactics going forward have been heavier focus on the illegal guns imports and stricter bikie laws. These have already been started in Queensland and NSW is looking into those measures at the moment. Nobody, but nobody thinks that mass arming of the population will result in less gun violence. Everybody and his dog knows that putting more guns in the mix will inevitably make guns even more accessible not just to the hardcore gangs, but to the wayward kids and opportunistic crime activity.

Despite the spate of gun crime in that 18 month period in Sydney… nothing makes mass gun ownership a more stark horror story than the unadulterated basic statistics. You can’t argue with that.

i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/Trishyliz/firearms1_zps370bf3fc.jpg i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/Trishyliz/firearms2_zpscdedb70f.jpg

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Gorgias;12082797]Gary,

I’m hoping, though, that you’re not offering your comments here as a conclusion bolstered by the study you quoted to me. After all, your study offers a number of interesting talking points that do not support the points you’re making here.

I am actually waiting for some sort of study to be offered from your side of the conversation. To date, yourself and Zoltan have spent your days attempting to refute studies rather than offering anything in reply.

First off, the study you provided doesn’t speak to the question of firearms accidents; they explicitly avoided that question and only looked at intentional homicides and suicides

.

If they added firearm accidents, the stats would be even higher Zoltan. You can have a gun accident in the home without a gun in the home. Some of this is common sense.

So, does owning a firearm increase the odds of dying by homicide?

Certainly.

Your study says, “meh…”. In fact, it says that there is a modest increase in numbers; but it admits that it has no idea why!

We also have no idea why your brain produces consciousness, but we know that it does.

It admits that there might be a correlation beween living in a dangerous area or engaged in dangerous activity and gun ownership; in that case, the increase in homicide doesn’t necessarily owe itself to ‘ownership’, but in one’s life situation and lifestyle.

It’s true that situation and lifestyle are factors. Very true. Having a gun in your home is a situation, and owning one is a lifestyle.

Your study shows a far greater correlation between gun ownership and suicide.

Yes it does. That is in fact one of the points.

Yet, would we say, as you have, that gun ownership increases one’s odds of committing suicide? That’s an interesting assertion.

The data suggests it. Do you have some data that suggests it doesn’t?

The question, of course, is which direction causation runs in: is it that folks considering suicide buy guns and then complete their intention? Or, on the other hand, is it that gun owners are more likely to commit suicide? Or, alternately phrased, is it that gun owners who at some point consider suicide, succeed due to the presence of a gun in their house?

The conclusion is that guns provide a cheap, quick and effective means of doing so, making the activity require less forethought and making it a much more assessable choice.

Your study offers no answers; yet, it raises interesting considerations. First, it asked about long gun and handgun ownership, but doesn’t report that the firearm in the house was the firearm used in the suicide (after all, killing oneself with a long gun is hard, and killing oneself with a gun other than the one held in the house isn’t relevant to the question at hand).

In the end, it was guns of some sort. It was not the absence of them.

Second, it admitted that their results relied on the statements of a next of kin, who might not have accurate knowledge about the situation of gun ownership in the household, or who might not want to answer embarrassing questions truthfully (e.g., “were the guns in the household properly locked up?”)

Next of kin usually have a pretty good line on who is dead in their immediate family and who is alive, and in the case of the former, they can pretty well tell you how they died.
I think it’s reliable. Do you know if your next of kin is alive or dead. And when someone close to you died, did you know how they died?

Finally, the study asked respondents about how the gun(s) in the house were held – securely or unlocked – but it found no distinction in the results based on this fact. This, alone, is huge! If we’re saying that the only real significant result is that there is a greater rate of suicide in gun-owner-houses, then we need to know this answer! After all, if the rate of suicide is affected by keeping guns in an unlocked manner, then the correct response is “lock your guns so that household members can’t get to them!” and not “let’s control gun ownership across the board.” On the other hand, if the suicide rate is high in households with locked firearms, then the implication is that the owner himself is committing suicide. In this case, the proper answer is “as a society, we need to properly deter firearm ownership by those with mental illness and depression” rather than “let’s control gun ownership across the board”.

No, it did not ask how they were stored, but regardless of how they were stored, the outcome is that homes with guns have higher violent death rates than homes without.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I haven’t been reading this thread much for a while but today I read the last post where migueltojose wrote that we need more testosterone. Well that was intriguing so I sought the post that you wrote to see what’s up. Well Gary this post of yours clears up much that I found difficult to understand about you. So - Gary, men are supposed to have lots of testosterone, men are supposed to be much more aggressive than women. The feminization of our boys is one of the biggest reasons for problems in our country and our Church. You have just given me one more reason to be glad I live in a state that allows citizens to have guns. I think that I’ll ask my hubby to take our seven year old grandson to the shooting range when we babysit (boy sit) him next week.

Annie

Good afternoon Annie: It is a fact that men have more testosterone than women, if all things are optimally in order. That is not the point if the study. The outcome of the study was that men had highly elevated levels of testosterone after being exposed to guns. Highly elevated levels of testosterone or any hormone for that matter is not healthy. In this case, the issue was that testosterone increased aggressive behavior threefold, and while you might like your menfolk aggressive, there are thresholds for such things. Adding an enhanced level of aggression with a killing tool such as a gun has potentials for volatile outcomes.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The problem Sydney had with that spate of violence in 2012/13 was illegal guns and as Rau mentioned, the fatal shootings were the result of score settling between rival crime syndicates.

The tactics going forward have been heavier focus on the illegal guns imports and stricter bikie laws. These have already been started in Queensland and NSW is looking into those measures at the moment. Nobody, but nobody thinks that mass arming of the population will result in less gun violence. Everybody and his dog knows that putting more guns in the mix will inevitably make guns even more accessible not just to the hardcore gangs, but to the wayward kids and opportunistic crime activity.

Despite the spate of gun crime in that 18 month period in Sydney… nothing makes mass gun ownership a more stark horror story than the unadulterated basic statistics. You can’t argue with that.

i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/Trishyliz/firearms1_zps370bf3fc.jpg i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/Trishyliz/firearms2_zpscdedb70f.jpg

Great charts Longing Soul.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Annie39]

Good afternoon Annie: It is a fact that men have more testosterone than women, if all things are optimally in order. That is not the point if the study. The outcome of the study was that men had highly elevated levels of testosterone after being exposed to guns. Highly elevated levels of testosterone or any hormone for that matter is not healthy. In this case, the issue was that testosterone increased aggressive behavior threefold, and while you might like your menfolk aggressive, there are thresholds for such things. Adding an enhanced level of aggression with a killing tool such as a gun has potentials for volatile outcomes.

Thank you,
Gary

That’s a crock

 

[Gorgias]

If they added firearm accidents, the stats would be even higher Zoltan.

‘Gorgias’. It’s ‘Gorgias’. Know your interlocutor, Gary. Or, at least, recognize that we know you’re being careless and sloppy…

You can have a gun accident in the home without a gun in the home. Some of this is common sense.

That’s kind of why your take on this survey is amusing. If I asked the question, “do people with alcohol in their houses have more alcohol than those who don’t?”, the answer would be obvious, trivial… and not drive people to call for a ban on alcohol ownership…

We also have no idea why your brain produces consciousness, but we know that it does.

Non sequitur. We’re asking about an outcome in order to assess a response. If we don’t know why the outcome exists, we cannot assert justification for a response.

It’s true that situation and lifestyle are factors. Very true. Having a gun in your home is a situation, and owning one is a lifestyle.

Cute. Irrelevant, and counter-productive, but cute.

The data suggests it. Do you have some data that suggests it doesn’t?

You are completely missing the point. If there’s a correlation between gun ownership and suicide rate, that doesn’t mean that ownership of guns causes suicide. It might make it easier; it might (in the presence of poor security) allow people (other than the gun owner) to take the gun and use it – but the data do not show that it causes it. To say that would be to say that all I need to do is place a gun in your house and expect that you’ll commit suicide. That’s just ludicrous!

The conclusion is that guns provide a cheap, quick and effective means of doing so, making the activity require less forethought and making it a much more assessable choice.

No – that’s your conclusion, not the conclusion of the researchers. And, as it turns out, especially given the caveats at the end of the study (you did read it all the way through, before you cited it, didn’t you?), this conclusion is unwarranted. If this is what passes for ‘logic’ in the ‘gun control’ camp, it’s amazingly weak…

In the end, it was guns of some sort. It was not the absence of them.

LOL! You realize, of course, that you’re saying that there’s a correlation between owning a hunting rifle and suicide by that firearm, don’t you? That’s simply absurd!

Next of kin usually have a pretty good line on who is dead in their immediate family and who is alive, and in the case of the former, they can pretty well tell you how they died.
I think it’s reliable. Do you know if your next of kin is alive or dead. And when someone close to you died, did you know how they died?

Gary, keep focus: the question isn’t whether the next of kin knows how their relative died, it’s about the question of gun ownership and the way in which their next of kin secured their firearms. I (and the researchers you cited) aren’t raising the question “how did they die”, but “how did they keep their firearm(s)?”…

No, it did not ask how they were stored, but regardless of how they were stored, the outcome is that homes with guns have higher violent death rates than homes without.

Right: so, questions about poor gun security are unimportant, eh? Just ban them all? The ‘outcome’ that you speak of says more about suicide than homicide; and, unless we ask the question of whether the firearms at home were used in the homicide/suicide, and the question of how the guns were secured (or not), these data are useless.

Thank you,

Thank you, Gary. This insight into sloppy thought, and your desire to misuse statistics and ignore important researchers’ warnings speaks volumes about the way you approach your claims…

 

[migueltojose]

Great charts Longing Soul.

Thank you,
Gary

The sources for the charts look suspect. Although, I didn’t research it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Good Morning Zoltan: The data will of course keep flowing in this conversation. When you have finished finding sources that suggest gun ownership makes one safer, please start looking for data to refute the evidence that in experiments, men exposed to firearms had much higher testosterone levels and were three times more likely to engage in aggressive behavior than subjects who had not been exposed to guns.

Klinesmith et al, 2006.

Thank you,
Gary

Gary, old sport…

While researching your first challenge and trying to stay within your impossible limits…I looked into this one.

First of all the “rolling-on-the-floor-laughing” “smilie” just does not do it justice. I had tears in my eyes and had to go the bathroom.

I am not going to abstract "Klinesmith et al, 2006. ". I am going to do a “teaser” so forum folks will read the whole thing themselves and get a laugh as big as I did.

This was a “scientific” experiment folks! Conducted by guys who wear white lab coats and receive big government grants. I won’t go into details but it involved hot sauce, glasses of water, a pellet gun (getting funny already) and the ability to really screw up your fellow participants. Sounds like the professors were getting paid to do an “Animal House” prank.

But…hey, read it for yourself and see why I, as Gary claims, “…have a high level of disdain for people with academic and professional credentials”.

Actually I don’t disdain them…they amuse me…I just question their motives.

Google faculty.knox.edu/fmcandre/guns-testo-aggress.pdf…but you better have some Kleenex handy if you start to visualize…

Now if you want something really dry and long you can go the the study that shows Klinesmith only proved that when exposed to a pellet gun, some men will show an increase of testosterone in their saliva.

carrelab.com/Carre___McCormick_HB.pdf

So this proves what??

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Gary, old sport…

While researching your first challenge and trying to stay within your impossible limits…I looked into this one.

First of all the “rolling-on-the-floor-laughing” “smilie” just does not do it justice. I had tears in my eyes and had to go the bathroom.

I am not going to abstract "Klinesmith et al, 2006. ". I am going to do a “teaser” so forum folks will read the whole thing themselves and get a laugh as big as I did.

Zoltan,

I was all set for a good laugh. But after reading the article you cited, I must say I was disappointed on that score. Instead what I saw was a well-constructed psychological experiment that seemed to address the question it set out to answer in as efficient and accurate way as possible. How else would you measure aggressive behavior tendencies in a safe and ethical manner? Asking them to guess how much hot sauce they could tolerate seems like a pretty good way of doing that. The only way you could find the experiment laughable is if you found the question of the experiment laughable in itself. And that seems, on the surface of it, to be a reasonable and relevant question. It would be nice to know, for instance, if exposure to guns can cause aggressive behavior after the fact. I found it scientifically fascinating that testosterone levels could be affected merely by handling a gun for 15 minutes.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

The sources for the charts look suspect. Although, I didn’t research it.

Good Evening Migueltojose: In order to save gun advocates the arduous task of a heavy research lift such as a Google search, the source of the Chart is The Small Arms Survey, which is an independent research project of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. It provides impartial and public information on all aspects of small arms and light weapons, as a resource for governments, policy-makers, researchers, and activists, as well as research on small arms issues. You may research that.

As for the charts, what exactly would you expect them to show? Just about any chart I have seen on the matter echoes the same outcome, which is really something common sense should tell people. In particular, it is impossible for people without weapons to use weapons more frequently than people with weapons.

PS to Annie: Sorry to bring up Switzerland again.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Zoltan: Gary, old sport…

First of all the “rolling-on-the-floor-laughing” “smilie” just does not do it justice. I had tears in my eyes and had to go the bathroom.

Good Evening Zoltan: I hope you are feeling better soon.

This was a “scientific” experiment folks!

Sorry - I was unable to find a folk story, so a scientific experiment was all I had to offer on the matter.

Conducted by guys who wear white lab coats and receive big government grants.

Yes, scientists often do wear lab coats, although I was unaware that this was a measure of deficiency.

I won’t go into details but it involved hot sauce, glasses of water, a pellet gun (getting funny already) and the ability to really screw up your fellow participants. Sounds like the professors were getting paid to do an “Animal House” prank.

Ship designs are tested using toy ships in large bathtubs that make fake waves, and airplane designs are tested with model planes in wind tunnels.

But…hey, read it for yourself and see why I, as Gary claims, “…have a high level of disdain for people with academic and professional credentials”.

It is evident why you have disdain for such people. They do things that seem to confound you.

Actually I don’t disdain them…they amuse me…I just question their motives.

People wearing white lab coats with motives and agendas against heart disease came up with such things as bypass surgery and stints, which in turn have saved many lives. People wearing white lab coats with motives and agendas against Polio came up with a vaccination for Polio. People wearing white lab coats with motives and agendas against guns might be giving discerning humans the facts they need to make decisions on things like gun ownership. Whether or not one is able to come to some intelligent conclusions based on their findings is a matter of choice, or perhaps accident of birth.

Now if you want something really dry and long you can go the the study that shows Klinesmith only proved that when exposed to a pellet gun, some men will show an increase of testosterone in their saliva.

Hormones and other markers are often tested via saliva.

So this proves what??

It proves that the subjects had increased levels of testosterone when exposed to a facsimile of a firearm. It proves that subjects did not have decreased levels of testosterone, and it proves that as expected, elevated testosterone leads to exhibiting more aggressive behavior. In this case, a threefold increase. Doing such tests with live guns would be akin to doing crash tests with live people. That said, would you expect an AK47 to have a lesser result?

Perhaps you would have more confidence in live tests with real guns, live ammo, and some unshaven people in the Ozarks wearing overalls.

In case Annie is reading, the Ozarks aren’t in Scandinavia either. They are considerably west of the Netherlands as well.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[migueltojose]

Here’s some data from the FBI via the WSJ.

projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all&w=f

It substantiates graph two. But graph one is still suspect to me. I own no guns. My neighbor owns 58 (his dad and grandpa were sheriffs). On average we own 29. I think the 80/20 rule applies. 20% of the people own 80% of the guns… So I still think chart one is suspect.

The problem is, as I’ve suggested before, just because some people can’t handle “freedom” (i.e. gun rights)… doesn’t mean we all have to give them up.

1. The risk of homicide by firearm is actually much much less for most of us when you take out the “statistically probable” groups that you don’t fall into. (Each of us will be different)… but the data is there to slice and dice by race, gender, age, geography, relationship, etc.
2. The bad guys are killing each other for the most part. The FBI data doesn’t necessarily illustrate this but it can be inferred from the entire set of data.
3. “They” (the bad guys) are more likely to fall out of the gene pool because they are irresponsible and can’t handle their… stuff… they won’t make it…

Should we deny the vast majority their rights because a small minority can’t handle them?

What we all need is education, enlightenment and evangelization coupled with conversion, repentance and prayer. And vigilance. And charity.

We don’t need our rights further infringed upon by a central government.

We need to be the stewards of the spirit, integrity and flexibility of the Constitution.

We need men, loaded with ample amounts of testosterone, to have outlets for their aggression… sports, rough play, hunting, competing, etc.

We need boys to learn to become young men who learn to become adult men. Responsible, capable, confident, God fearing, loving, gentlemen. Who know how and when to use a gun and know how and when to stand down.

Kids sit on the couch and play violent video games but don’t have an outlet for all the aggression that builds up. They need safe, socially acceptable, effective outlets.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

As for the charts, what exactly would you expect them to show? Just about any chart I have seen on the matter echoes the same outcome, which is really something common sense should tell people. In particular, it is impossible for people without weapons to use weapons more frequently than people with weapons.

Thank you,
Gary

Don’t worry, I’m still working on the other thing. I just had to take a break and make a comment.

You are absolutely right. **"…it is impossible for people without weapons to use weapons more frequently than people with weapons." **

It goes right along with the the FACT that if there were no guns there would be no gun related killings or suicides or accidental shootings or whatever. I admit it…it is a FACT.

Liberals LOVE this train of thought because it is true and it makes them feel good to be right about something for a change. I hear this every time my lovely wife, Trophia, entertains her sorority sisters from UC Berkeley. ---- “…oh Zoltan, you just have to admit that the world would be a better place without guns…”

The only problem is that implementation of this state of “Nirvana” is impossible. It just ain’t gonna happen.

So, where were we? Oh yes, I am researching the impossible for the absurd…I’ll get back to you.