....I did? :hmm:

Please tell me what a mugger says to his victims which allows them to give up their property. The threat of life or limb is always implied if not said. At that point, as far as the victim and police will acknowledge the life of the victim is about to be taken.

If you don't agree please PM me your address because you are a victim in waiting. I'll call the police now.

Sorry, that was an initial observation. The point is that you've made an impossible comparison. Tchocky is always on the alert for these, this time he let it slip.

You've compared the NRA numbers to the UN numbers. What the NRA was to Mike the UN was to you (something difficult to ask other people to take inside their hearts). The two do not compare.

There's also the lack of reciprocity but I can't tell if that was sarcastic. You say Mike forgot to mention that the NRA is the largest gun lobby group in the USA. But you didn't say that the UN is the largest anti-gun lobbying group in the world.

Sounds like you got my point, exactly.

Nope, missed that one. Which numbers are these?

EDIT: missed this post too, must be getting old.
OK, my own personal safety aside :p, the problem witht your statistical allusions is right there. "Life OR limb" threatened. I would say that very few muggers are desperate enough to kill, as opposed to moving on and nabbing someone without a weapon. Definintely your health is indanger, but saying that the gun saved your life is misleading and innaccurate.

There's a difference between a stabbing and a shooting. I cant stab 5 people from the other side of a room. Saying that crimes will always happen regardless of what weapons are available just isnt true.
Does owning weapons increase the desire to use said weapons? Just going on the football stadium talk ^above^

But how does one know if thier life isn't at risk and by using the fire arm in self -defense is not saving thier life? Like I stated before the police consider all muggings life threatening. How many muggers do you know that wouldn't take a life?

You don't, that's part of my point. You don't know if your life is in danger or if the guy is a coward, so basing statistics on every act of self-defense being a life saved is irresponsible and misleading.

so you'd rather take the assumption that he is not there to hurt or kill you?

Not if I'm armed with a fire arm and you are more than 20 feet away.

Even if you are less than 20 feet away and you don't know I am armed with a fire arm the report of the weapon will through you off your mark.

A fire arm in an enclosed area is more than loud. It is not hollywood.

Like i've said before, I'm talking about statistics, not crimes.

gimmie some of that popcorn! *reaches for bag*:cool:

Give us a statistic which you think is good. The BBC poll concerning the US didn't take any fire from you. Are the BBC statistics better than any other? If so tell us how so.

While you are at it on what do you base your opinions?

This thread is about guns, yes?

I take issue with the improper use of statistics, or leading questions. I'm sick of repeating myself so here we go.
False statement. Self-defense does not equate to life saved. If you have an issue with this please read over my previous posts, I won't be repeating them.
A minor point about a minor statistic, I'm amazed at the moss this has gathered.

This gives the impression that the two options are mutually exclusive and work against each other, which is patently not the case.

What BBC poll are you talking about? I don't read every thread that pops up on these boards.