So, ah, why did you buy a shotgun for home protection there PackD? The question is just begging to be asked.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Study Finds Right to Carry Increases Violent Crime
- Thread starter Cadillac Man
- Start date
So, ah, why did you buy a shotgun for home protection there PackD? The question is just begging to be asked.
You seem really angry.
You might want to visit this thread - SAFE PLACE - and give yourself the time to calm down.
Funny little toad.
I laugh at you impotent douchenozzles that think your peashooter is the be all and end all. That it will protect you and your family. That it is the last bastion against that tyrannical government.
Dream on Barney Fife.
Last edited:
Twist it how you want. More guns = more gun deaths.
I prefer twisting your lies / myths / fairy tales / wishful thinking into the simple, incontrovertible truth.
The statistics show that more guns = fewer gun deaths.
According to the CDC's WISQARS death database (LINK):
In 1990, 37,155 people out of a population of 249,464,396 died from all intents by firearm (homicide, suicide, unintentional, legal intervention, undetermined).
In 2015, 36,252 people out of a population of 321,418,820 died from all intents by firearm.
So, add 25 years + 72,000,000 people + at least 200,000,000 guns = 903 FEWER ANNUAL GUN DEATHS?
No matter how YOU twist it and wish it to be so, "more guns" does not result in "more gun deaths".
And just for shits and giggles, the number of criminal gun homicides in 1990 was 16,218; the number for 2015 was 12,979.
I prefer twisting your lies / myths / fairy tales / wishful thinking into the simple, incontrovertible truth.
The statistics show that more guns = fewer gun deaths.
According to the CDC's WISQARS death database (LINK):
In 1990, 37,155 people out of a population of 249,464,396 died from all intents by firearm (homicide, suicide, unintentional, legal intervention, undetermined).
In 2015, 36,252 people out of a population of 321,418,820 died from all intents by firearm.
So, add 25 years + 72,000,000 people + at least 200,000,000 guns = 903 FEWER ANNUAL GUN DEATHS?
No matter how YOU twist it and wish it to be so, "more guns" does not result in "more gun deaths".
And just for shits and giggles, the number of criminal gun homicides in 1990 was 16,218; the number for 2015 was 12,979.
lol
Try this one, idiot. Let's see the stats for western countries that have almost no guns. Start with Canada, Australia, Japan.
I'll wait, moron.
canceled.2021.3
Former Vice President
lol
Try this one, idiot. Let's see the stats for western countries that have almost no guns. Start with Canada, Australia, Japan.
I'll wait, moron.
Doesn't matter. We aren't banning guns here. Let it go bitch
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Doesn't matter. We aren't banning guns here. Let it go bitch
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Have to laugh that it's the best you have.
lol
Try this one, idiot. Let's see the stats for western countries that have almost no guns. Start with Canada, Australia, Japan.
I'll wait, moron.
One would expect that such a simple premise as "more guns = more gun deaths" would not require complex explanation to prove it.
You state it and you repeat it because of that simplicity and ease of understanding but now you demand that other comparisons / data be included in our consideration of your statement?
You have presented a premise with only one variable, MORE GUNS . . .
You posit the only unavoidable outcome of adding "MORE GUNS" to a society is "MORE GUN DEATHS".
That for the USA, over 25 years, the actual realized outcome is FEWER GUN DEATHS after 200 million guns are added, defeats your premise.
If you have a different theory, one that depends on more complex data then run with it.
The "more guns = more gun deaths" one is dead.
One would expect that such a simple premise as "more guns = more gun deaths" would not require complex explanation to prove it.
You state it and you repeat it because of that simplicity and ease of understanding but now you demand that other comparisons / data be included in our consideration of your statement?
You have presented a premise with only one variable, MORE GUNS . . .
You posit the only unavoidable outcome of adding "MORE GUNS" to a society is "MORE GUN DEATHS".
That for the USA, over 25 years, the actual realized outcome is FEWER GUN DEATHS after 200 million guns are added, defeats your premise.
If you have a different theory, one that depends on more complex data then run with it.
The "more guns = more gun deaths" one is dead.
Los Angeles has more cars than drivers. Are there more traffic deaths because of this? Domer?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I wonder what are the statistical odds of being a hero during a home invasion robbery and killing or disarming a perp versus family members who accidentally kill or intentionally kill oe maim themselves or others using guns.
I think the former never even happens except on TV, and the latter is on the news every damn day. Stupid hick. Unless you are a cop or a soldier, the real utility of weapons if for sports, that's it. Sell stupid to dumbass Repukes.
Ain't working here. I'm all for duck hunting, that's just ducky, but handguns are just close range human killers. And its usually a criminal killing a criminal or disaffected junior making a life changing mistake or an old fart who has given up on his life.
They're made to work at distances, farther close range, also.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Funny little toad.
I laugh at you impotent douchenozzles that think your peashooter is the be all and end all. That it will protect you and your family. That it is the last bastion against that tyrannical government.
Dream on Barney Fife.
I take it you aren't very good a coloring, HUH!
One would expect that such a simple premise as "more guns = more gun deaths" would not require complex explanation to prove it.
You state it and you repeat it because of that simplicity and ease of understanding but now you demand that other comparisons / data be included in our consideration of your statement?
You have presented a premise with only one variable, MORE GUNS . . .
You posit the only unavoidable outcome of adding "MORE GUNS" to a society is "MORE GUN DEATHS".
That for the USA, over 25 years, the actual realized outcome is FEWER GUN DEATHS after 200 million guns are added, defeats your premise.
If you have a different theory, one that depends on more complex data then run with it.
The "more guns = more gun deaths" one is dead.
I see you evade the obvious, moron. Why do you wish to avoid talking about Canada, Japan, Australia, England? A little uncomfortable?
Los Angeles has more cars than drivers. Are there more traffic deaths because of this? Domer?
Ah.
The always idiotic and predictable car analogy.
It failed the first few million times, cretin.
Ah.
The always idiotic and predictable car analogy.
It failed the first few million times, cretin.
Kind of like you crashing and burning on this subject. How prophetic..
I see you evade the obvious, moron. Why do you wish to avoid talking about Canada, Japan, Australia, England? A little uncomfortable?
The question is not why am I ignoring the moving goal posts and your red herrings . . .
The question is, why do you feel the need to employ fallacies to support / defend your statement?
Kind of like you crashing and burning on this subject. How prophetic..
No cogent response, huh, bitch?
Also predictable.
No cogent response, huh, bitch?
Also predictable.
Pretty damn clear to anyone with any intelligence. I can see why you miss the point.
The question is not why am I ignoring the moving goal posts and your red herrings . . .
The question is, why do you feel the need to employ fallacies to support / defend your statement?
I don't, cretin. Do your own homework.
Pretty damn clear to anyone with any intelligence. I can see why you miss the point.
I have to laugh at your willful ignorance of reality.
I have to laugh at your willful ignorance of reality.
I find nothing about you laughable. Sad, not laughable.
I find nothing about you laughable. Sad, not laughable.
Why don't you just a tiny bit of research on gun possession and personal harm, bitch? Don't want the truth?