NationStates Jolt Archive

There has been a shooting in Memphis...

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/03/memphis.killings/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/04memphis.html?hp

Poor people

Shooter - 6 :sniper:
Police - 0 :mp5:

...numbers don't lie

6 people dead, 3 critically wounded, this is not good.

And the person that shot them has disappeared, this is bad

*sigh* and the people shall keep on going giving the blame to violent games, while it's obviously the guns that should be outlawed *sigh*

*sigh* and the people shall keep on going giving the blame to violent games, while it's obviously the guns that should be outlawed *sigh*

To quote: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people... but I think the guns help."

*sigh* and the people shall keep on going giving the blame to violent games, while it's obviously the guns that should be outlawed *sigh*

Yea, because it's not like the criminals, the thugs, and your basic outlaw can't illegaly buy a gun. No, if we outlaw guns, no one would have guns, not even on the black market. No siree! :rolleyes:

My Sympathies goes out to the victims and their family.

Appairantly I didn't make myself clear enough...
To me, the main reason why there are so many shooting incidents in the US is because (almost) everybody can buy guns.
resulting in the fact that also every idiot can buy himself a gun.

I'm not saying that there should be a complete ban on weapons, yet I do say that there should be far more tighter gun-controls, upthat only the sane people, without a criminal record (for at least five years since reaching adulthood) can buy guns.

also, I feel sorry for the friends and family of the victims, and hope that the criminal responsible for this gruesome act will be caught and brought to justice.

A high number of crimes are committed with stolen guns (I couldn't find the percentage in a google search). I think if you have some kind of registration law, it won't be effective unless you require owners to secure their weapons and hold them partially responsible for crimes committed with them if they don't and they get stolen.

Yea, because it's not like the criminals, the thugs, and your basic outlaw can't illegaly buy a gun. No, if we outlaw guns, no one would have guns, not even on the black market. No siree! :rolleyes:

My Sympathies goes out to the victims and their family.

Your right, thats why in the Netherlands we have just as many shootings (proportionally to population) as in the US...oh wait...no we don't.
In fact, the only shootings in the netherlands in the past few years have been criminals offing other criminals...

The last non criminal to get shot was Theo van Gogh, on 2 november 2004.
How many innocent people got shot in the US between then and now ?

How many more dead to turn this into an election issue? Or is even mentioning guns control political suicide?

Appairantly I didn't make myself clear enough...
To me, the main reason why there are so many shooting incidents in the US is because (almost) everybody can buy guns.
resulting in the fact that also every idiot can buy himself a gun.

I'm not saying that there should be a complete ban on weapons, yet I do say that there should be far more tighter gun-controls, upthat only the sane people, without a criminal record (for at least five years since reaching adulthood) can buy guns.

also, I feel sorry for the friends and family of the victims, and hope that the criminal responsible for this gruesome act will be caught and brought to justice.

Because we all know that criminals, who will fail the criminal backround check, will submit to their sordid fate and abide by the law :rolleyes:

Gun Owners in America: Roughly 80,000,000
Gun Deaths in America (2002, best I could find): 28,163 (homicide, suicide, accidental)
Gun Deaths in decimal: 0.0003520375

More people died from highway deaths or the Flu (42,815 & 32,000, also from 2002) than guns. Lets ban cars now too.

Also, comparing gun laws from country to country is moot since there are always different factors at play. Gun control might work there but, figures show over here, that cities and states with more strict gun control have higher crime rates than those who are more lenient or have almost none at all (like Vermont). Though some cities also show improvements, like New York City, most, like Chicago, D.C., L.A., etc have shown vast increases in their violent crime rates. There is more to work at "Gun Crime in America" than the guns themselves. Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage.

How many more dead to turn this into an election issue? Or is even mentioning guns control political suicide?

The corpses weren't even cold before Dubya assured them he wouldn't take their guns away.

Bread,circuses and guns.

Because we all know that criminals, who will fail the criminal backround check, will submit to their sordid fate and abide by the law :rolleyes:

Gun Owners in America: Roughly 80,000,000
Gun Deaths in America (2002, best I could find): 28,163 (homicide, suicide, accidental)
Gun Deaths in decimal: 0.0003520375

More people died from highway deaths or the Flu (42,815 & 32,000, also from 2002) than guns. Lets ban cars now too.

Also, comparing gun laws from country to country is moot since there are always different factors at play. Gun control might work there but, figures show over here, that cities and states with more strict gun control have higher crime rates than those who are more lenient or have almost none at all (like Vermont). Though some cities also show improvements, like New York City, most, like Chicago, D.C., L.A., etc have shown vast increases in their violent crime rates. There is more to work at "Gun Crime in America" than the guns themselves. Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage.

For a country that supposedly values the absolute sacredness of every individual life, your calculating logic on the matter is most disturbing.

How many more dead to turn this into an election issue? Or is even mentioning guns control political suicide?

Ha ha - go to respective websites, aside from John McCain, and try find any mention whatsoever of this issue - good luck.

Senator Clinton recently held a photo shoot with some duck hunters where she told this story of where, like, these guys back in the day were like 'No way, women can't shoot at all cos they're like...women' and she like totally took a gun and fired and it showed them that she totally could shoot a gun.

Having said that, she's certainly not for any whacko owning a gun as they like.

Funtastic.

Senator Obama on the other hand is a little more radical, he wants to put a check on any crazy just going and buying a gun and he wants them out of the inner city but, as a constitutional lawyer, he understands that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right to shoot ducks.

Essentially they're both pretty much the same, pander to hunters, no to AK-47s in the playground - bugger all on their websites though.

Banning Ammunition
John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."

Fricking armour plated ducks.

My sympathies go to the familes and true friends of the victims, they will always be in my prayers. :(
I have to ask: why is this country so violent? No one really cares about the reasons these crimes occur, no one asks "what goes through the shooter's mind?" We must just kill him! What if it's not just him? What if by studying a single shooter, we can start programs that prevent other shooters?

I used to live in Irvine; how safe is Irvine? Prolly safest city in the World. We have had no shooting, but we had a threat of shooting coming from a student to the parking department. So I asked why? Turned out the student was low on money, had midterms, had a guy dump her, fought with parents over grades, so basically your average college drama. Well the girl parked her car legitimally to pick up a paper from her friend, but was rushing and displayed the wrong parking pass. Well the UC Irvine parking department slapped her with a $300 ticket for "Altered Permit". When she asked them about contesting it, they suggested that she come in on July 4th, how Patriotic of them (very deep sarcasm here). Promptly she sent out the threat.

Now the case I presented was mild, and led to a mild conclusion. Needless to say she didn't actually own a gun or could carry out a threat like that, but a mild case brings up a mild response. Now take a more severe case, hypothetically: same student, but her dad shot her mom and she gets her car towed, while it's towed it's crashed, and her insurance won't cover it, so no car, fails project, drops out of college, total failure, buys a gun. You can see where I'm going here, right?

Case in point these people need treatment. They need help. If we are to prevent this kind of stuff from happening in the future, we need to figure out what made the shooters snap. With a few exceptions, most of the shooters are themselves victims. They need help.

Ha ha - go to respective websites, aside from John McCain, and try find any mention whatsoever of this issue - good luck.

Senator Clinton recently held a photo shoot with some duck hunters where she told this story of where, like, these guys back in the day were like 'No way, women can't shoot at all cos they're like...women' and she like totally took a gun and fired and it showed them that she totally could shoot a gun.

Having said that, she's certainly not for any whacko owning a gun as they like.

Funtastic.

Senator Obama on the other hand is a little more radical, he wants to put a check on any crazy just going and buying a gun and he wants them out of the inner city but, as a constitutional lawyer, he understands that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental right to shoot ducks.

Essentially they're both pretty much the same, pander to hunters, no to AK-47s in the playground - bugger all on their websites though.



Fricking armour plated ducks.


ANd deer:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban1411l.jpg

Yea, because it's not like the criminals, the thugs, and your basic outlaw can't illegaly buy a gun. No, if we outlaw guns, no one would have guns, not even on the black market. No siree! :rolleyes:

Not everyone who shoots people are a criminal that will take the time to get a gun illegally. Yes those people will still have guns, but average joe who snaps one day, happens to have a gun lying around and decides to go out with a bang, probably won't.

I'm glad this kind of thing doesn't happen here...

ANd deer:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban1411l.jpg

Send in the groundhogs!

http://www.students.haverford.edu/jhuttner/HomePagePics/groundhog.jpg

no one but the law enforcement should have weapons, in my opinion, it sure as hell works where i live, if someone goes crazy the only weapons they can get are either knives or their own bodies, and of course criminals might be able to get guns illegally but the main point is to make it impossible for a normal civilian who one day just gets fed up, and goes crazy. at least those people would just have to deal with their frustration some other way.

and if someone absolutely needs to have a gun, they first would need to be sane, have a clean sheet, and i emphasize clean, then they would have to register themselves into a gun course, for i don't know maybe five years or so, so that they can handle the weapon, and so that no one can buy a weapon and get it the very next day, also only handguns should be sold but no spare ammunition, and bullets should be sold at outrageous prices. and any other law that makes weapons almost impossible to obtain.

the gun laws in the us are one of the very reasons for the "crazy southern american" stereotypical view that many countries think america is a hazardous country

just a reminder that these are my true opinions in guns, and that i really cant see a reason for why its necessary to have fatal weapons

Your right, thats why in the Netherlands we have just as many shootings (proportionally to population) as in the US...oh wait...no we don't.
In fact, the only shootings in the netherlands in the past few years have been criminals offing other criminals...

The last non criminal to get shot was Theo van Gogh, on 2 november 2004.
How many innocent people got shot in the US between then and now ?

Similarly I believe the last shooting spree in the UK was Dunblane in 1996, since which all handguns have been banned and there are significant restrictions on rifle and other long-arms. The number of people killed using guns in the UK last year was about 70, in a population of 65 million (approx), and almost all of these was due to gang violence.

I'm not saying it would be a good idea to ban all guns in the US right now, but I think introducing restrictions and scaling them down can only be a good thing (I can see arguments for some hunting rifles/shotguns in rural areas and tbh these are less of a problem cos they can't be concealed, but assault rifles and handguns?). Yes, shooting sprees can still happen with illegally bought weapons but it stops (a) spurr of the moment shootings happening (which with mentally disturbed people, a lot of these may well be) and (b) the person can be arrested before they start shooting because they'll be commiting a crime by owning the gun, not just when they pull the trigger.


Edit: actually found the statistics, in 2006/07 year (sept to sept) was 67 gun homicides total in England, Wales & Scotland (I couldn't get figures for N Ireland), of which 4 were with airsoft guns.

A high number of crimes are committed with stolen guns (I couldn't find the percentage in a google search). I think if you have some kind of registration law, it won't be effective unless you require owners to secure their weapons and hold them partially responsible for crimes committed with them if they don't and they get stolen.

You know, I've always been wondering if one of the main reason that there's far less gun crime in Europe than in the USA is the simple fact that in a society where the normal, law-abiding civilian doesn't have a gun, the criminal will have real difficulties stealing one...

Yea, because it's not like the criminals, the thugs, and your basic outlaw can't illegaly buy a gun. No, if we outlaw guns, no one would have guns, not even on the black market. No siree! :rolleyes:

My Sympathies goes out to the victims and their family.

And it's not like we ban other things and then try and enforce those bans. Not like we do with drugs, partially with cars, motorbikes, assault weapons (forgive me if I used the wrong terminology, I mean the ones that are restricted/banned in the US) and things like that.

I am so glad most people don't have guns in this country.

I am so glad most people don't have guns in this country.

But they are sooooooo fuuuuun.

Guns don't kill people, it's people with guns that kill people. :p


Seriously, as long as gun is glorified beyond being what it is - a recreational instrument or hunting tool - USA has no chance of introducing better gun laws.

Guns don't kill people, it's people with guns that kill people. :p


Seriously, as long as gun is glorified beyond being what it is - a recreational instrument or hunting tool - USA has no chance of introducing better gun laws.

Don't look at me. I know the only reason I own the rifle I do, is for target shooting (and maybe some varmint hunting, if I so choose). I view my rifle as a tool, much the same way I'd view a chainsaw (dangerous if misused, but useful if used properly and with the proper amount of respect).

The thing is though, more laws won't help. Enforcement of the existing laws would work much better. Combine that with social programs to help reduce gangs and poverty, and I bet you'll see a bigger reduction in firearms crime than another new law.

And it's not like we ban other things and then try and enforce those bans. Not like we do with drugs, partially with cars, motorbikes, assault weapons (forgive me if I used the wrong terminology, I mean the ones that are restricted/banned in the US) and things like that.
Yes, the bans on drugs have been especially successful.

There was another random shooting at Wendy's in Palm Beach, Florida. 2 killed and a few other injured.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/15475157/detail.html?subid=10101101

Yes, the bans on drugs have been especially successful.

You think drug taking would be lower if it was legal?

The thing is though, more laws won't help. Enforcement of the existing laws would work much better. Combine that with social programs to help reduce gangs and poverty, and I bet you'll see a bigger reduction in firearms crime than another new law.

Thats my opinion- gun laws should be enforced, gun crimes vigorously punished.

I have no problem with a potential gun owner to go through a throrough backround check,as well as passing a thorough safety course.

You think drug taking would be lower if it was legal?

personally, I couldnt speculate on that, but I think illegal drug-related violence would diminish greatly.

You think drug taking would be lower if it was legal?
Let's look at the whole picture... In addition to just drug use, here in the US we have additional crime that is just because of the illegal status of drug use. We have the "War on Drugs" that has somehow managed to circumvent the rights against unreasonable search and seizure. We have imprisoned 1 in every 100 citizens -- not all for drug use, of course, but about a quarter of those imprisoned ARE there for non-violent crimes like simple possession. And there's the enormous amount of money spent on enforcing those laws. Beyond that, there are the health issues -- good drugs, bad drugs, overdoses, addiction...

And it isn't doing any good. Drugs are still readily available.

No, legalizing drugs isn't going to reduce use right away. It's a big problem that has grown over time. Spending a small fraction of the enforcement budget on rehabilitation WOULD reduce the use over time.

But let's tie this in to gun control -- prohibition doesn't work. There will be a black market in guns. There will always be a black market in prohibited or rationed items. Always has been, always will be.

But how about this?

Give me a pocket-sized one of these (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/29/60minutes/main3891865.shtml)and I'll put my CCW gun away...

What makes this a weapon like no other is it inflicts enough pain to make you instantly stop whatever it is you’re doing. But the second you get out of the beam the pain vanishes. And as long as it's been used properly, there's no harm to your body.

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2008/02/28/image3888934g.jpg

To quote: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people... but I think the guns help."

well if you hit someone hard enough with a gun they'l die so guns do kill people.
even if that were true, it doesn't help anyone

Thats my opinion- gun laws should be enforced, gun crimes vigorously punished.

I have no problem with a potential gun owner to go through a throrough backround check,as well as passing a thorough safety course.

I took one of the NRA safety courses, and I had to wait 14 days to pick up my rifle, due to the background check (I didn't have a pistol permit or hunting license, which is why I had to wait 14 days).

I took one of the NRA safety courses, and I had to wait 14 days to pick up my rifle, due to the background check (I didn't have a pistol permit or hunting license, which is why I had to wait 14 days).

I think thats reasonable- do you?

Providing the backround check WAS actually done and recorded thoroughly.

I think thats reasonable- do you?

Providing the backround check WAS actually done and recorded thoroughly.

It is not 'reasonable' considering no criminal will go through that.

We have more violent criminals than any other nation to boot, yet we refuse to lock them up. Most of our violent gun crime (~70%) are criminals shooting other criminals. So many civilians die as a results of the street gangs/crooks not really caring about the sanctity of human life.

The answer to this is a) lock up the bad guys for a much LONGER time until rehabilitated (which may be never), and b) making it easier for the goods guys to buy firearms to protect themselves. If we cannot trust a person with a gun, we cannot trust them in general. This is referring to all of the people on probation and parole, or convicted felons. They shouldn't be allowed in public until they are no longer a threat.

In states with concealed carry (average joe-schmoe walking around with a pistol concealed legally), overall crime (including violent) is much lower since the bad guys know there is a much higher chance of their potential victim to be armed. Crooks will always go the path of least resistance. If God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal.

We can throw around statistics all we want too. 99% of all of the firearms in the U.S.A. will not be used in a crime, yet there is approval for even more gun laws when there is already over 20,000 on the books.

geeze, how many sschool shootings have there been since columbine?

Yea, because it's not like the criminals, the thugs, and your basic outlaw can't illegaly buy a gun. No, if we outlaw guns, no one would have guns, not even on the black market. No siree! :rolleyes:


This logic is flawed, because that means that Western Europe should have gunmen around everywhere. They dont.


You fail.

It's America's pastime!

I think thats reasonable- do you?

Providing the backround check WAS actually done and recorded thoroughly.

According the the Department of Public Safety for the state of CT, the background check was indeed done. Of course, it only confirmed what the NICS check told them (since the retailer called the state of CT for the NICS check). Once I get my pistol permit though, I should be able to buy a firearm the same day as I fill out the paperwork (although I'll still have to submit to the NICS check).

you cannot outlaw guns because something like this happened. if you were in something like this and the only person that could possibly save your life was a law abiding legal citizen that was carrying a concealed weapon you would not be complaining about gun laws. you also have to consider the fact that the shooters can always get guns through the black market so its not going to help to outlaw guns. now since pretty much every teacher is a liberal i say that we arm them with none lethal weapons such as tasers to at least give them a chance to fight back. i have a question, why does our nation have to be filled with ignorant peace loving hippie liberals:headbang:

you cannot outlaw guns because something like this happened. if you were in something like this and the only person that could possibly save your life was a law abiding legal citizen that was carrying a concealed weapon you would not be complaining about gun laws. you also have to consider the fact that the shooters can always get guns through the black market so its not going to help to outlaw guns. now since pretty much every teacher is a liberal i say that we arm them with none lethal weapons such as tasers to at least give them a chance to fight back. i have a question, why does our nation have to be filled with ignorant peace loving hippie liberals:headbang:

Already addressed.

This logic is flawed, because that means that Western Europe should have gunmen around everywhere. They dont.


You fail.

i have a question, why does our nation have to be filled with ignorant peace loving hippie liberals:headbang:

Indeed, desiring peace and an end to violence really is just an awful idea.


I wonder, why is my country filled with people with ideas like yours?

It is not 'reasonable' considering no criminal will go through that.

We have more violent criminals than any other nation to boot, yet we refuse to lock them up. Most of our violent gun crime (~70%) are criminals shooting other criminals. So many civilians die as a results of the street gangs/crooks not really caring about the sanctity of human life.

The answer to this is a) lock up the bad guys for a much LONGER time until rehabilitated (which may be never), and b) making it easier for the goods guys to buy firearms to protect themselves. If we cannot trust a person with a gun, we cannot trust them in general. This is referring to all of the people on probation and parole, or convicted felons. They shouldn't be allowed in public until they are no longer a threat.

In states with concealed carry (average joe-schmoe walking around with a pistol concealed legally), overall crime (including violent) is much lower since the bad guys know there is a much higher chance of their potential victim to be armed. Crooks will always go the path of least resistance. If God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal.

We can throw around statistics all we want too. 99% of all of the firearms in the U.S.A. will not be used in a crime, yet there is approval for even more gun laws when there is already over 20,000 on the books.

I agree- I was referring to legally obtained guns.

geeze, how many sschool shootings have there been since columbine?

24 or 25, according to wiki

Hardly surprising, people get shot all the time.

Is it just me or are there more shootings than there used to be? Maybe the media is paying more attention. >_<

*sigh* and the people shall keep on going giving the blame to violent games, while it's obviously the guns that should be outlawed *sigh*

Guns don't kill people...people do! BAN PEOPLE! :mad:

if you were in something like this and the only person that could possibly save your life was a law abiding legal citizen that was carrying a concealed weapon you would not be complaining about gun laws.
Except of course that (1) this never happens (2) the suggestion that a gunfight between an unbalanced heavily armed attacker and an untrained public spirited vigilante will make everyone else safer is self evidently ludicrous and (3) all the self appointed defenders of society would in fact be hiding in a corner crying like girls in a pool of their own piss as soon as someone starts shooting back at them. It's very easy to be a hard man in front of a target, it's quite a different thing when you are looking at someone with an AK47 and a different view on the best solution to a political or personal difference of opinion from the rest of the world.
you also have to consider the fact that the shooters can always get guns through the black market so its not going to help to outlaw guns. And of course, none of these illegally held weapons started out as legally owned weapons, did they?
i have a question, why does our nation have to be filled with ignorant peace loving hippie liberals
I assume by "Ignorant" you mean "people who disagree with me"

What's so wrong with loving peace?

It's America's pastime!

And non-Americans should stay out of it.

And non-Americans should stay out of it.

Oh, we non-American's would, but you American's do love taking your past times a bit too far, organizing them in a large scale and visiting them on non-Americans in far away countries every now and again, so us non-American's should have a say in how you pass the time to be fair.

Except of course that (1) this never happens (2) the suggestion that a gunfight between an unbalanced heavily armed attacker and an untrained public spirited vigilante will make everyone else safer is self evidently ludicrous and (3) all the self appointed defenders of society would in fact be hiding in a corner crying like girls in a pool of their own piss as soon as someone starts shooting back at them. It's very easy to be a hard man in front of a target, it's quite a different thing when you are looking at someone with an AK47 and a different view on the best solution to a political or personal difference of opinion from the rest of the world.
[/i] And of course, none of these illegally held weapons started out as legally owned weapons, did they?
[/i]
I assume by "Ignorant" you mean "people who disagree with me"

What's so wrong with loving peace?

1) This DOES happen:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251603,00.html

That stopped a larger killing spree from a CCWing cop who was off-duty.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a12360ec7d

Stopped a robbery.

These kinds of CCW (concealed weapon) stuff happens every day; the media does not report it much.

2) Again uneducated opinion. I probably practice more with my own civilian guns than most of the cops do in the entire country with their assigned weapons. I go roughly once a week when I can.

What are you suggesting here? Better to not fight at all?

3) More garbage. :rolleyes:

1) This DOES happen:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251603,00.html

That stopped a larger killing spree from a CCWing cop who was off-duty.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a12360ec7d

Stopped a robbery.

These kinds of CCW (concealed weapon) stuff happens every day; the media does not report it much.

2) Again uneducated opinion. I probably practice more with my own civilian guns than most of the cops do in the entire country with their assigned weapons. I go roughly once a week when I can.

What are you suggesting here? Better to not fight at all?

3) More garbage. :rolleyes:


(1) The headline writers seem to disagree Gunman Kills 5 in Shooting Spree at Salt Lake City Mall Before Being Killed by Police The idiot in the video with the rock 'n' roll soundtrack was an armed and uniformed member of staff, not the same as a passing public spirited citizen, and he then started a gunfight with a mother and child in the line of fire, and you really think that's going to put your argument in a good light?

I'll say it again. It NEVER happens in the way all of the defenders of the second amendment claim.

(2) There is a massive difference between shooting at paper targets and being shot at by a nutter with an AK47.

I am suggesting it is better not to allow people the means with which to start shooting other people in the first place.

(3) Ever been shot at? No. I didn't think so. It is not a pleasant experience. Most people's views are based on their experience of Bruce Willis films and their belief that in a given situation what they would do is the Hollywood version, a single well aimed shot would take out the badguy and they then stand back to tea and medals. It's not like that in real life.

I'll say it again. It NEVER happens in the way all of the defenders of the second amendment claim.


Well, the studies say you're wrong:

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995


And the anti-gun reviewer of the study says you're wrong

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

Just because you don't see a lot of these stories in the news doesn't mean they don't happen. News outlets tend to show the bad events, never the good ones. Especially national and international new outlets.

The National Institute of Justice disagrees with you...

Gun control activists were unhappy with the National Self Defense Survey's results, which show that "Every 13 seconds an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal."

In a 1994 TV news taping, Handgun Control, Inc.’s, spokesman, Sandy Cooney, called the National Self Defense Survey “obscene” and threw ad hominem slurs at its lead researcher, professor of criminology, Dr. Gary Kleck. Since Kleck is an impartial social scientist with no links to gun advocates or manufacturers — in fact he’s a liberal Democrat — it appears that Kleck’s only sin was doing research which produced results that challenged the gun-control agenda of Handgun Control, Inc., the "Million" Moms, and similar organizations.

So, to refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.

Unfortunately for advocates of gun control, the Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled:

"Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs[emphasis added]."

Source: The National Institute of Justice, in its survey Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig.

Well, the studies say you're wrong:


It's fun how stats can be used to say what you want. I had a flip through that study, first thing to note is an over-sampling of males and people from the south, which may have affected statistics.



Or it could be put as only 1.1% of guns are used for self-defence annually. But yes that is quite a lot. I would be interested however to see comparison cases of non-gun owners and their experiences of crime, I feel it would offer a valid comparison. Ah, just noticed they did do that table, but these were extrapolated percentages... strangly it seems that those use their guns defensively are most at risk of crime compared to both other gun users and non-gun owners

[quote]Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection

This is perception only, more details about the incidents would be needed if you wanted to draw a more firm conclusion. You could also say in only 20.8% of cases was the defender attacked, and in only 38.6% of cases was the defender defending against a crime against the person.

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

Yes, but in only 20.8% of cases was the person actually attacked, in only 17.9% of cases was the offender carrying a gun, and I couldn't see any details (but there may be) about how often these two incidents co-occurred. In only 4.5% of incidents was the defender shot, even when offender was carrying a gun, only in 26.2% of incidents was he shot at.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

Yes, although in 15.6% of cases the defender was trying to shot the attacker, so about half the time they missed. Of course as mentioned before, only about half the offenders were armed and of that only 17.8% of cases were they carrying a gun.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

False comparison. They were asking about gun use for defence, most incidents against family are crimes (assault, attempted murder or murder) and/or accidents.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases.

Incorrect, they were facing Offenders, not attackers, note that well over half of incidents were property crimes, and burglaries are often conducted with multiple people.

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Concealable... doesn't mean it was concealed. Also I'd be interested to see the intersection of location v offences.


Now if I had time I'd read it properly I could give you a more in-depth analysis, and it's possble a number of my statements are answered. Yes, this would suggest that defensive gun use may be significant, but I don't think it's quite the strong pro-gun report you seem to project.

(1) The headline writers seem to disagree Gunman Kills 5 in Shooting Spree at Salt Lake City Mall Before Being Killed by Police The idiot in the video with the rock 'n' roll soundtrack was an armed and uniformed member of staff, not the same as a passing public spirited citizen, and he then started a gunfight with a mother and child in the line of fire, and you really think that's going to put your argument in a good light?

Obviously you have not read more on the story about the shooting at the Utah Mall which was not specifically linked in the article. This tells me you really don't give a rats ass about researching and learning about the topic but choosing to remain ignorant and uneducated on the subject. He was an off-duty cop who was carrying a concealed weapon. This is NO different than anyone else carrying a handgun concealed either.

Secondly, your 'uniformed member of the staff' is just an average-joe schmoe who happens to be carrying concealed. He took matters into his own hands, and guess what, it paid off. Here's an example (around the corner where my father grew up and where my grandmother still lives) where it was left up for the crooks to decide:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8324727

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/13/national/main2466711.shtml
I'll say it again. It NEVER happens in the way all of the defenders of the second amendment claim.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/15476171/detail.html

Every situation is unique. The only one chanting the victim mantra here is you.
(2) There is a massive difference between shooting at paper targets and being shot at by a nutter with an AK47.
I agree, yet my point still stands.

I am suggesting it is better not to allow people the means with which to start shooting other people in the first place.

No. What you are suggesting is allowing for the criminals to fill the power void and not allow people to defend themselves as best as they can from crooks. Earth to Goch-most of the people committing gun crimes are not allowed to own them. Instead of effectively punishing those people for their actions, people such as yourself seek to blame and inhibit people like ME for what someone else did.

(3) Ever been shot at? No. I didn't think so. It is not a pleasant experience. Most people's views are based on their experience of Bruce Willis films and their belief that in a given situation what they would do is the Hollywood version, a single well aimed shot would take out the badguy and they then stand back to tea and medals. It's not like that in real life.

Your ignorant rant has nothing to do with your argument of "people carrying concealed will run off like little babies and cry in the corner". I've already showed you a few instances where this was not the case, yet you choose to place blame on people attacking the CRIMINALS and by wishing to take their guns. :rolleyes:

Response in bold.

What makes for better news?
"Man Kills Ten People Then Self"
or
"Armed Citizen Disarms Gun-Wielding Maniac With No Shots Fired"
The news media is a business. Their goal is no longer to inform the public, but to SELL A PRODUCT. There are enormous amounts of information indicating that CCW holders save lives (some of these studies have been quoted previously by other posters), but they don't make good (read: sensational) news. Most CCW incidents don't involve a shot being fired, are reported to the police by the permit holder, and never make it to the media.
I believe it is my duty to responsibly provide for my own self-defense. I don't do this with 9-1-1 set on my speed dial; I do it by legally carrying a loaded handgun.
And yes, I have been shot at, and returned fire, and hit those whom I was aiming at. It was in a desert far away, not a shopping mall, but I am trained and psychologically proven to be capable of doing it and not turn into a blubbering idiot.

(1) The headline writers seem to disagree Gunman Kills 5 in Shooting Spree at Salt Lake City Mall Before Being Killed by Police The idiot in the video with the rock 'n' roll soundtrack was an armed and uniformed member of staff, not the same as a passing public spirited citizen, and he then started a gunfight with a mother and child in the line of fire, and you really think that's going to put your argument in a good light?

I'll say it again. It NEVER happens in the way all of the defenders of the second amendment claim.

(2) There is a massive difference between shooting at paper targets and being shot at by a nutter with an AK47.

I am suggesting it is better not to allow people the means with which to start shooting other people in the first place.

(3) Ever been shot at? No. I didn't think so. It is not a pleasant experience. Most people's views are based on their experience of Bruce Willis films and their belief that in a given situation what they would do is the Hollywood version, a single well aimed shot would take out the badguy and they then stand back to tea and medals. It's not like that in real life.


1: yes, it does happen that way. I'm a police officer, and have responded to three or four incidents when a man stuck up a store, the clerk had a gun, and the robber was chased off or killed, after shots were exchanged. After this type of situation, we always catch the shooter, if he lives. I've also responded to a situation where a man robbed a gas station, took the money and just shot the clerk as he was leaving. We never caught him.

What makes for better news?
"Man Kills Ten People Then Self"
or
"Armed Citizen Disarms Gun-Wielding Maniac With No Shots Fired"
The news media is a business. Thier goal is no longer to inform the public, but to SELL A PRODUCT. There are enormous amounts of information indicating that CCW holders save lives (some of these studies have been quoted previously by other posters), but they don't make good (read: sensational) news. Most CCW incidents don't involve a shot being fired, are reported to the police by the permit holder, and never make it to the media.
I believe it is my duty to responsible provide for my own self-defense. I don't do this with 9-1-1 set on my speed dial, I do it by legally carrying a loaded handgun.
And yes, I have been shot at, and returned fire, and hit those whom I was aiming at. It was in a desert far away, not a shopping mall, but I am trained and psychologically proven to be capable of doing it and not turn into a blubbering idiot.

And I've been shot at on the streets of South Armagh, by weapons paid for by Second amendment quoting ignorant terrorist supporters in the USA and because of those experiences I would fully support any measures to reduce the nimber of guns in society. I choose to live in a society where the rule of law is still by and large upheld by unarmed police and where the major part of the population does not have a desire to own any form of weaponry. The proliferation of weapons in the USA and the disproportionate number of gun related deaths seem to my ignorant views to be inextricably linked, of course I could be wrong and what you need is more guns not less. That seems far more sensible.

Rolling squid;13506408']1: yes, it does happen that way. I'm a police officer, and have responded to three or four incidents when a man stuck up a store, the clerk had a gun, and the robber was chased off or killed, after shots were exchanged. After this type of situation, we always catch the shooter, if he lives. I've also responded to a situation where a man robbed a gas station, took the money and just shot the clerk as he was leaving. We never caught him.

I don't doubt that individual crimes are thwarted by gun carrying members of society, however the assertion that is being made by several members of the board is that CCW can thwart potential killing sprees like the examples quoted earlier. This I contend has never happened. I'd also suggest that the number of accidental deaths and injuries probably outweigh the number of crimes prevented, although that is a guess.

And I've been shot at on the streets of South Armagh,

No shit?

Bandit country eh?

And I've been shot at on the streets of South Armagh, by weapons paid for by Second amendment quoting ignorant terrorist supporters in the USA and because of those experiences I would fully support any measures to reduce the nimber of guns in society. I choose to live in a society where the rule of law is still by and large upheld by unarmed police and where the major part of the population does not have a desire to own any form of weaponry. The proliferation of weapons in the USA and the disproportionate number of gun related deaths seem to my ignorant views to be inextricably linked, of course I could be wrong and what you need is more guns not less. That seems far more sensible.

No reason to get angry. We are all civilized people here engaged in nothing more than a debate on a topic! (amazing! I'm polite and armed! ;-))

Fair enough. You choose to live there; I choose to live here.
But...obviously 'rule of law' upheld by 'largely unarmed police' didn't keep you from getting shot at, did it? If laws come from the people, then the strength that upholds those laws need to come from the people as well.
People who ignore the law are known as outlaws, meaning they have refused to live by the social contract that governs a society. Meaning that they don't care if they break those laws by getting weapons illegally and then using them for other than thier intended purpose (killing or harming innocent people is not the intended purpose of small arms.)
In the US, we have a social contract called 'the Bill of Rights,' and number 2 is the right of the people to keep and bear arms for protection against threats to thier life and liberty (criminals, wild animals, and oppressive foreign or domestic governments.) Personally, I don't ever care to give up my right to protect myself and others against threats and depend on someone else to do it for me. If it works for you, great, but I'm not willing to do it.

I don't doubt that individual crimes are thwarted by gun carrying members of society, however the assertion that is being made by several members of the board is that CCW can thwart potential killing sprees like the examples quoted earlier. This I contend has never happened. I'd also suggest that the number of accidental deaths and injuries probably outweigh the number of crimes prevented, although that is a guess.

true, most DGU's are on a personal level, but seeing as far more personal crimes are committed than mass shootings, the reason is fairly obvious. Plus those on shooting sprees tend to out gun those who are CCW.

*sigh* and the people shall keep on going giving the blame to violent games, while it's obviously the guns that should be outlawed *sigh*

Why should law-abiding gun owners be punished?

This logic is flawed, because that means that Western Europe should have gunmen around everywhere. They dont.


You fail.

Western Europe doesn't have as many underlying social issues which lead to violence as the U.S. does, either.

*sigh* and the people shall keep on going giving the blame to violent games, while it's obviously the guns that should be outlawed *sigh*

Thus only criminals should have guns, like thieves and tyrants.

I think everyone should buy a gun. Hear me out now, everyone should have the chance for their children to accidentally shoot themselves, or their friends. Everyone should have their guns stolen during a home invasion and used against themselves. Everyone should have the freedom to shoot that dark silhouette in the middle of the night. Everyone should be privileged to shoot at a target in their backyard, or at a range. Everyone should have the .00000000001% chance to use a gun in self defense.

We should take it a step further. Everyone should be able to conceal a gun in public. Everyone should be able to create a hail of crossfire over the slightest provocation. Everyone should become Gantz.

Let's reduce this to mathematics:

n (number of lives taken by legal firearms), N (number of lives saved by all firearms).

> If n>N then ban firearms.

Now, please understand where I'm coming from. I enjoy going to my granpa's house and letting off a couple rounds into the backstop. I would feel secure with a gun in my house at night. I would feel safe being able to carry a concealed weapon in public, and very responsible with it as well.

However, I recognize that there is rarely an occasion, in which a gun will ever be useful. In fact, odds show time and again that owning gun will much more likely result in an accident, irresponsible usage, or stolen and used illicitly. I presented this case to my grandfather, who replied: "If some son' bitch come in my house he's gonna pay."

His nearest neighbor lives over two miles away. I can understand wanting to own a gun if one lived in a neighborhood (trust me, I can relate) where there was substantial risk of being harmed, but most people own guns because it makes their balls feel big. That hardly justifies the inherent dangers of owning a firearm at all.

I think everyone should buy a gun. Hear me out now, everyone should have the chance for their children to accidentally shoot themselves, or their friends. Everyone should have their guns stolen during a home invasion and used against themselves. Everyone should have the freedom to shoot that dark silhouette in the middle of the night. Everyone should be privileged to shoot at a target in their backyard, or at a range. Everyone should have the .00000000001% chance to use a gun in self defense.

We should take it a step further. Everyone should be able to conceal a gun in public. Everyone should be able to create a hail of crossfire over the slightest provocation. Everyone should become Gantz.

Let's reduce this to mathematics:

n (number of lives taken by legal firearms), N (number of lives saved by all firearms).

> If n>N then ban firearms.

Now, please understand where I'm coming from. I enjoy going to my granpa's house and letting off a couple rounds into the backstop. I would feel secure with a gun in my house at night. I would feel safe being able to carry a concealed weapon in public, and very responsible with it as well.

However, I recognize that there is rarely an occasion, in which a gun will ever be useful. In fact, odds show time and again that owning gun will much more likely result in an accident, irresponsible usage, or stolen and used illicitly. I presented this case to my grandfather, who replied: "If some son' bitch come in my house he's gonna pay."

His nearest neighbor lives over two miles away. I can understand wanting to own a gun if one lived in a neighborhood (trust me, I can relate) where there was substantial risk of being harmed, but most people own guns because it makes their balls feel big. That hardly justifies the inherent dangers of owning a firearm at all.

My sister and brother in law have 4 children. My brother in law also has a decent collection of firearms, including handguns. There is no way for their children to get a firearm, as ALL the firearms are locked in a rather large gun safe, to which my sister and brother in law are the only ones with the combination. It is also on the other side of the house, down one floor, from the bedrooms, so there's no chance of my sister or brother in law shooting at a dark silhouette in the middle of the night. Not only is it next to impossible for the children to get one of the firearms, it'd be next to impossible for a home invader to get them (the safe is extremely heavy when empty and currently anchored from the inside into the studs and floor, so it's not like someone can just carry it up from the basement). My brother in law and sister both have CT pistol permits, but neither of them carry (in CT, it's required to have a pistol permit to purchase or transport a handgun). My brother in law finds his firearms useful all the time (he's a hunter, as well as a collector).

I only have 1 firearm. I don't hunt, and I don't own my rifle for self defense (it'd be extremely difficult to conceal, due to it's length). My rifle is locked with a trigger lock, in a locked case, inside a locked safe. I find my rifle useful too, however (I use mine for target shooting).

I only have 1 firearm. I don't hunt, and I don't own my rifle for self defense (it'd be extremely difficult to conceal, due to it's length). My rifle is locked with a trigger lock, in a locked case, inside a locked safe. I find my rifle useful too, however (I use mine for target shooting).

People who go to such measures to secure their firearms, while commendable, are a rarity. And to allocate state resources necessary to assure gun owners take such steps would be utterly impossible.

I would rather not ban guns, but every other day someone takes a legally purchased weapon and kills someone else: accident or otherwise.

Western Europe doesn't have as many underlying social issues which lead to violence as the U.S. does, either.
Oh my word no. Western Europe has never gone through any major social and/or violent upheavals in the past few decades. nosiree.
And of course it doesn't have any problem with illegal immigration, drugs, organised crime, blackmarkets, slave trade, social unrest, racism, growing muslim/ethnic populations leading to hate crimes, fear and societal integration problems.
Yep. Western Europe don't have anything like that. It be just a mighty fine paradise where everyone skips to work wears daisychains and disagreements are solved with hugs.

So so different to the States.


On a slightly different tack, I notice how this excuse (that somehow the States societal issues are different to every other country out there) is always trotted out, yet I don't think I've ever seen an explanation of how and why they are so different that said differences totally explain and excuse a gun death rate hundreds of times higher than any other comparable country. funny that.

People who go to such measures to secure their firearms, while commendable, are a rarity. And to allocate state resources necessary to assure gun owners take such steps would be utterly impossible.

I would rather not ban guns, but every other day someone takes a legally purchased weapon and kills someone else: accident or otherwise.

I take it as my responsibilty. My guns are not only triggered locked and in a gun safe, the safe is totally concealed and only my father-who helped me install it-and I-know of it's existance.

I dont want a thief to steal them and commit a crime with them down the road and I dont want my kids to ever be in the position where they'd have an accident.

I also wouldnt want to have a house fire and have ammo cook off and hurt/kill a neighbor or fireman.

I can sleep at night or go away with peace of mind that they are truly secure.
And I believe it is every gun owner's responsiblity to do the same.

A high number of crimes are committed with stolen guns (I couldn't find the percentage in a google search). I think if you have some kind of registration law, it won't be effective unless you require owners to secure their weapons and hold them partially responsible for crimes committed with them if they don't and they get stolen.

Blame the victim. Great idea. I dunno if that'll help gun crime at all (I rather suspect it will do the opposite) but it will most certainly make an entertaining spectacle out of justice.

People who go to such measures to secure their firearms, while commendable, are a rarity. And to allocate state resources necessary to assure gun owners take such steps would be utterly impossible.

I would rather not ban guns, but every other day someone takes a legally purchased weapon and kills someone else: accident or otherwise.

It's against the law in CT to have an unsecured and loaded weapon with minors around (the appropriate CT General Statutes are quoted below). Now, that doesn't apply to me, but I still take the precautions I do because I don't want trouble with someone who doesn't know the law.

"Sec. 29-37i. (Formerly Sec. 29-37c). Responsibilities re storage of loaded firearms with respect to minors. No person shall store or keep any loaded firearm on any premises under his control if he knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the parent or guardian of the minor unless such person (1) keeps the firearm in a securely locked box or other container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or (2) carries the firearm on his person or within such close proximity thereto that he can readily retrieve and use it as if he carried it on his person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years."

"Sec. 53a-217a. Criminally negligent storage of a firearm: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of criminally negligent storage of a firearm when he violates the provisions of section 29-37i and a minor obtains the firearm and causes the injury or death of himself or any other person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry to any premises by any person.

(c) Criminally negligent storage of a firearm is a class D felony."

"Sec. 52-571g. Strict liability of person who fails to securely store a loaded firearm. Any person whose act or omission constitutes a violation of section 29-37i shall be strictly liable for damages when a minor obtains a firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, and causes the injury or death of such minor or any other person. For the purposes of this section, "minor" means any person under the age of sixteen years.

(P.A. 99-212, S. 9.)

See Sec. 53a-217a re criminally negligent storage of firearm."

However, I recognize that there is rarely an occasion, in which a gun will ever be useful. In fact, odds show time and again that owning gun will much more likely result in an accident, irresponsible usage, or stolen and used illicitly.


Using your own argument you [insert Willy Wonka] lose. Guns are used ~3,000,000 times a year to stop or prevent crime. Over 99% of all of the firearms in the U.S. will not be used in a crime.

You have fallen victim to the logic of "if you own a car, you are more likely to die in a traffic accident" or "if you own a pool you are more likely to drown". Both of these statements are true yet they kill more citizens (traffic accidents) and children (drowning) than guns do yet here you are trying to blame guns once again.

Just goes to show you that you're never truly safe from savage vicious criminal murderers who do not care whether or not guns are against the law.