Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Schroeder]

The US has a different culture and is in a different situation than Europe. The US is flooded with weapons and no one can remove them again. Therefore every thug has a gun and I can understand that people don't feel safe anymore. What are they supposed to do? Ban weapons? Impossible as everybody has one and can hide them. One would never be able to find all guns and remove them so I guess it's just normal that people are gearing up in order to not be out gunned by thugs.

On the other hand here in comparatively quiet Europe we see these facts:
~30,000 gun related fatalities in the US every year. At roughly 320 million people it averages a 0.009 % likelihood to get killed by a gun per year. In 2013 3,340 people got killed in traffic related accident in Germany. With 80.7 million people the chance to get killed in traffic was 0.0041 % in that year.
That makes it about twice as likely to get killed by a gun in the US than to to be killed in traffic in Germany (calculated that myself with Wikipedia data so it's not dead accurate). That's why we are glad that our continent isn't flooded with weapons.
So guys, please have a look at both sides and the preconditions on both sides before getting into the eternal "Guns make us all safe, we need more guns to end death" vs. "You are all trigger happy idiots!" arguments.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

The US has a different culture and is in a different situation than Europe. The US is flooded with weapons and no one can remove them again. Therefore every thug has a gun and I can understand that people don't feel safe anymore. What are they supposed to do? Ban weapons? Impossible as everybody has one and can hide them. One would never be able to find all guns and remove them so I guess it's just normal that people are gearing up in order to not be out gunned by thugs.

On the other hand here in comparatively quiet Europe we see these facts:
~30,000 gun related fatalities in the US every year. At roughly 320 million people it averages a 0.009 % likelihood to get killed by a gun per year. In 2013 3,340 people got killed in traffic related accident in Germany. With 80.7 million people the chance to get killed in traffic was 0.0041 % in that year.
That makes it about twice as likely to get killed by a gun in the US than to to be killed in traffic in Germany (calculated that myself with Wikipedia data so it's not dead accurate). That's why we are glad that our continent isn't flooded with weapons.
So guys, please have a look at both sides and the preconditions on both sides before getting into the eternal "Guns make us all safe, we need more guns to end death" vs. "You are all trigger happy idiots!" arguments.

Well said. You've mentioned this 30,000 number a few times, perhaps we need to examine it. Of those 30,000 gun related deaths, 2/3 of those deaths are suicides. We both know that suicide is attainable by many methods other than guns; and in general, suicides only kill the person using the gun, so yours and my safety is not greatly affected by this portion of gun related deaths.

In 2012, there were approximately 8,896 homicides by guns, which is a lot more than anyone would like to see. In a population of 320 million, that means we have a 0.00003 chance of being shot and killed. What I would like to know (couldn't find it anywhere) is the breakdown of that 8,896 number by people killed in the commission of a crime vs killed by someone they know, crime of passion, etc. And it bears pointing out, of those 8,896 gun related deaths, don't you think many of them would have been carried out with a knife, club, or other weapons of force? Saying there are 9000 gun deaths does not focus on the fact that there were 9000 instances of violent crime, guns are just part of it.

MH said that firearms are too easy to obtain, and I agree; firearms are way too easy to get, just like driver's licenses and voting. What is the solution? Stricter laws regarding sales? Ok. Registering and cataloging weapons? I would be in for that, although I know many gun owners would fight it. Longer prison sentences for people found in possession of a firearm illegally? Many criticize the US for having the largest prison population, but I say screw 'em, we need more people in prison. When the day comes that gangs and street crime is as rare here as it is in Japan and Europe, then we have too many criminals on the wrong side of the bars. Like that guy in Australia, he had been arrested several times and was on bail for murdering his wife--he should have never been released until after the trial. And Eric Garner in NY, with all his arrests, he was still walking the streets, resisting arrest, and it cost him his life.

Guns are part of the problem, but the bigger issue is the entitlement class that the Democrats have created and the failure of the war on poverty. When I was in high school, it was typical to see several student's pickup trucks with gun racks, with .22 and shotguns, in the parking lot. It's a small, concentrated, disfunctional part of our society that causes the majority of gun crimes, and it's that part of our society that needs fixing.

PS: Not sure about your calculations but 320,000,000 / 32,000 = 0.00010, right?

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

PS: Not sure about your calculations but 320,000,000 / 32,000 = 0.00010, right?

I calculated 30,000/320,000,000*100. But I could be wrong with this. My math classes have been some years ago...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Well said. You've mentioned this 30,000 number a few times, perhaps we need to examine it. Of those 30,000 gun related deaths, 2/3 of those deaths are suicides. We both know that suicide is attainable by many methods other than guns; and in general, suicides only kill the person using the gun, so yours and my safety is not greatly affected by this portion of gun related deaths.

In 2012, there were approximately 8,896 homicides by guns, which is a lot more than anyone would like to see. In a population of 320 million, that means we have a 0.00003 chance of being shot and killed. What I would like to know (couldn't find it anywhere) is the breakdown of that 8,896 number by people killed in the commission of a crime vs killed by someone they know, crime of passion, etc. And it bears pointing out, of those 8,896 gun related deaths, don't you think many of them would have been carried out with a knife, club, or other weapons of force? Saying there are 9000 gun deaths does not focus on the fact that there were 9000 instances of violent crime, guns are just part of it.

MH said that firearms are too easy to obtain, and I agree; firearms are way too easy to get, just like driver's licenses and voting. What is the solution? Stricter laws regarding sales? Ok. Registering and cataloging weapons? I would be in for that, although I know many gun owners would fight it. Longer prison sentences for people found in possession of a firearm illegally? Many criticize the US for having the largest prison population, but I say screw 'em, we need more people in prison. When the day comes that gangs and street crime is as rare here as it is in Japan and Europe, then we have too many criminals on the wrong side of the bars. Like that guy in Australia, he had been arrested several times and was on bail for murdering his wife--he should have never been released until after the trial. And Eric Garner in NY, with all his arrests, he was still walking the streets, resisting arrest, and it cost him his life.

Guns are part of the problem, but the bigger issue is the entitlement class that the Democrats have created and the failure of the war on poverty. When I was in high school, it was typical to see several student's pickup trucks with gun racks, with .22 and shotguns, in the parking lot. It's a small, concentrated, disfunctional part of our society that causes the majority of gun crimes, and it's that part of our society that needs fixing.

PS: Not sure about your calculations but 320,000,000 / 32,000 = 0.00010, right?

I only just spotted this...well, that's a lie, I noticed it but was more drawn towards the Dowly/August/Tribesman discussion above and below it when August started accusing me of having ulterior motives.

Neal, this is very well put, and equally well put by Schroeder before you. I'm not so sure about the Democrats being solely behind the entitlement class, but equally I'm not quite so well up on that part of US society as to be able to make any form of judgement. However, what you say about stricter gun licensing, making it harder to purchase a gun and tougher sentences for illegal gun ownership, these are good and fair points, but equally you are pretty much spot on in that they would not be likely to fly since they would be shot down by the 'tyrannical government' crowd.
This clip from Jon Stewarts show makes some, pointed thoughts on the situation:

Is prison the answer? Heck, no one can fully answer that, we've been having that argument in the UK for years, and there's evidence for either side of it. But certainly there needs to be perhaps a focus on prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach...and not just in the US, but globally in the modern world to be honest. Eliminate poverty, make employment a more rewarding endeavour (but in a manner which does not punish those who are unable to be employed, such as the disabled) and deal harsher sentences on criminal activity...and perhaps part the Nile while you're at it... But certainly I think, in my opinion at least, that's the direction that modern society and governments should be heading...but that requires both sides of the socio-economic spectrum to work together, those at the bottom to work up, and those at the top to help down. Not for either side to just expect the other side to do all the leg work which is around about where we are now.
I've often been called a socialist...and I guess it's true, in European terms I'm not that left wing, in American terms I'm probably near Karl Marx. I just think that if everyone had a level playing field then things like crime might reduce...obviously you're not going to eliminate crime, that's impossible, but addressing the root cause of some crimes might help reduce it whilst avoiding having to turn entire states into prisons (but I suppose what else are you going to do with Alabama? ), but it's a pretty herculean task that I don't think any government would want to touch with a barge pole.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Oberon

But certainly there needs to be perhaps a focus on prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach...and not just in the US, but globally in the modern world to be honest. Eliminate poverty, make employment a more rewarding endeavour (but in a manner which does not punish those who are unable to be employed, such as the disabled) and deal harsher sentences on criminal activity...and perhaps part the Nile while you're at it... But certainly I think, in my opinion at least, that's the direction that modern society and governments should be heading...but that requires both sides of the socio-economic spectrum to work together, those at the bottom to work up, and those at the top to help down. Not for either side to just expect the other side to do all the leg work which is around about where we are now.
I've often been called a socialist...and I guess it's true, in European terms I'm not that left wing, in American terms I'm probably near Karl Marx. I just think that if everyone had a level playing field then things like crime might reduce...obviously you're not going to eliminate crime, that's impossible, but addressing the root cause of some crimes might help reduce it whilst avoiding having to turn entire states into prisons (but I suppose what else are you going to do with Alabama? ), but it's a pretty herculean task that I don't think any government would want to touch with a barge pole.

It's pretty clear you know little about Alabama, either that, or you need a new joke wrangler.

Ok, I quoted the full text to try and understand what you mean by there needs to be perhaps a focus on prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach and if everyone had a level playing field then things like crime might reduce. Just exactly what needs to be done "prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach". And the part about level playing field, I really am lost on that, could you clarify?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

It's pretty clear you know little about Alabama, either that, or you need a new joke wrangler.

I need a new joke wrangler, if it was in the UK I'd have said something like Peckham. Perhaps I should have used California as a better example, I've noticed Americans here tend to pick that when they're using a derogative example for a state.

Ok, I quoted the full text to try and understand what you mean by there needs to be perhaps a focus on prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach and if everyone had a level playing field then things like crime might reduce. Just exactly what needs to be done "prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach". And the part about level playing field, I really am lost on that, could you clarify?

It was a bit waffley wasn't it? I really should be a politician. When I mean a multi-pronged approach, I mean that rather than just looking to enact tougher reponses for crime, one should also look at hitting the causes of crime. For example in guns, tougher sentences for those violating gun safety protocols should also be accompanyed by a campaign to inform and educate people on gun safety as well as an effort by gun manufacturers to ensure that new firearms have as many safety features as possible (although tbh I'm pretty sure that they already do) and perhaps research into whether a non-intrusive device can be made for making older firearms safer. We're living in a world of micro-electronics, I'm sure that such a thing could be possible and be built into the grip of an old pistol by a professional.
That's just an example, and to be honest it probably wouldn't go exactly that way so there's no need to start picking specific holes in it in regards to my lack of knowledge on firearms safety. It's about giving a little bit of a carrot as well as a stick.

The level playing field comes back to trying to create a more equal society, where the money isn't quite so lopsided. Now obviously this isn't going to stop crime and create a utopia, but it might help a little. Again though, it's got to be from both ends of the scale, there's no point extending a ladder down from the top if people aren't going to use it. However, equally you've got to be very careful not to punish those who legitimately are unable to work because of the actions of the fraudsters.

What you've got to try and avoid though, is the criminalisation and demonisation of the poor, which is becoming a sadly too common occurrence and it's something that appeals to that inner part of a person that likes to feel superior to someone else.
I don't know the situation in the US, but in the UK there's been a determined focus by the ConDems to fight benefit fraud, by making it tougher to gain certain benefits. Now in theory this might sound like a good solution, but in practice it's had the unfortunate side effect that many people who are legitimately in need of these benefits have been unable to get them, in particular people who are disabled. This has had a knock on effect.

That's one of the more tougher problems facing a government who wants to encourage people back to work but doesn't want to punish those who cannot. Hopefully as communications get better and medical diagnosis gets better then this might improve, but the current situation of using private medical 'practitioners' to test people for disability benefits instead of actually believing the Doctor who diagnosed them as disabled in the first place...well it doesn't work very well at all. Perhaps better emphasis should be put on the initial diagnosis of disability, and that GPs (General Practitioners...aka your local Doctor) should actually be trusted by the government rather than having to bring in a second opinion.

I know we don't agree about pay rates, and that's fair enough, that's only one part of trying to create an equal society, and to be honest, it's a pretty latter stage thing anyway and not really something likely to ever happen because of human nature. Likewise a fully equal society, sadly, is something I don't think is actually possible because there will always be people who think that they are superior to other people because of factor x or y, but we all come into this world the same way, and we all wind up back in the dirt the same way at the end of it, quite why people need to divide themselves up into groups and judge other people based on what group they're in in the middle of it all is beyond me, and it's rather sad really. Imagine what we as a race could have achieved by now if there was just a bit more co-operation in the world?

Still, a guy can dream, and where we can I believe that we should aim for a more equal world, full equality is never going to happen, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to make what parts we can more equal for everyone. As I'm sure that many people do.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Oberon

For example in guns, tougher sentences for those violating gun safety protocols should also be accompanyed by a campaign to inform and educate people on gun safety as well as an effort by gun manufacturers to ensure that new firearms have as many safety features as possible (although tbh I'm pretty sure that they already do) and perhaps research into whether a non-intrusive device can be made for making older firearms safer.

The problem is that people often can be informed about what safe protocols are - and ignore them. This is what occurred in the Idaho shooting. The woman was educated, trained and chose to ignore well established rules - and it cost her and her family her life. People choose all the time to violate good sense - and no amount of "laws" are going to change that. The problem isn't people with guns - its people with guns who make bad choices, but going after the ones who make "safety errors" instead of those that commit actual crimes is putting the cart before the horse. If you want to focus on guns - lets focus on those that use guns in a manner that violates the rights of others before anything else. That is what frustrates so many legal gun owners - gun control advocates want to stop gun crime/violence (so they say) - yet they somehow expect some new gun law to help. If a criminal with a gun is going to violate the law by robbing / assaulting someone - is some "gun law" magically going to make them reconsider? No - they are already going to violate the law - so one more violation won't matter to them....

The level playing field comes back to trying to create a more equal society, where the money isn't quite so lopsided.

What you've got to try and avoid though, is the criminalisation and demonisation of the poor, which is becoming a sadly too common occurrence and it's something that appeals to that inner part of a person that likes to feel superior to someone else.

Yes, we all start out and end up the same in a physical sense. But what differentiates people is the choices they make in between birth and death. There are a LOT of people who grew up poor and have worked their way out of poverty. This is found across racial boundaries - but it is found less in some social demographics. When you take a closer look, you find that the social structure of those demographics has been eroded significantly, and the majority who are stuck in poverty are also being victimized by the "benevolent" government - never given any reason or encouragement to work to get out of poverty.

Example - why should a person choose to work when they can choose not to - and get their housing, food and essential bills paid for? What encourages them to get out and make a better life for themselves? Why practice responsibility when a woman on government aid can get pregnant, have yet another child and then collect more money from the aid program instead of being encouraged (or even "pushed") to make something out of her life?

The problem with the poor isn't that they are poor. It is that they are being victimized - primarily by a government (in the US at least) that gains power from them being poor. After all - if they keep you in power because you give them freebies - the more they need and the more you give the more power you have....

I don't know the situation in the US, but in the UK there's been a determined focus by the ConDems to fight benefit fraud, by making it tougher to gain certain benefits. Now in theory this might sound like a good solution, but in practice it's had the unfortunate side effect that many people who are legitimately in need of these benefits have been unable to get them, in particular people who are disabled. This has had a knock on effect.

If a person can prove via documentation that they have a true need, like a disabled person who has been determined to be disabled, I have no problem with certain benefits being offered. But when you have people like my ex-wife, who is trying to get disability right now - yet texted me that she was "working holiday hours" at a call center to make money for Christmas - yea that needs to be denied. That kind of fraud happens a LOT and it actually costs those who need services.

Finally - you can not have a "fully equal society". Not everyone is equal. Some people have talents in one area - others have talents in others. I am not equal to any NBA player on the court, but I doubt many of them can perform a double-tap. Its like gender "equality". Men and women can do different things better than the other. I know a few women who are mechanically inclined, but the vast majority don't have the skill to tear down a small block and rebuild it. I don't know a single guy capable of having a baby, or picking out the latest "stylish" clothes. Heck, as a guy I am proud I can make my socks match! I know people of many races and both genders who are better chemists, physicists, researchers, etc. that I am. Equality can not exist because not everyone is equal. When a person is born, they are a blank slate of limitless potential - and it is the choices they make that let them reach - or limits - that potential.

Sorry, but your just not going to get me to agree that the 20yr old kid who chooses to rob a liquor store for cash, gets drunk, beats up and kills his pregnant girlfriend is somehow my "equal". His choices made him NOT my equal. Personal responsibility matters - and until we as a society get back to that - there is little hope for those that are trapped and told that its everyone else's fault that they are poor and downtrodden.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I need a new joke wrangler, if it was in the UK I'd have said something like Peckham. Perhaps I should have used California as a better example, I've noticed Americans here tend to pick that when they're using a derogative example for a state.



It was a bit waffley wasn't it? I really should be a politician. When I mean a multi-pronged approach, I mean that rather than just looking to enact tougher reponses for crime, one should also look at hitting the causes of crime. For example in guns, tougher sentences for those violating gun safety protocols should also be accompanyed by a campaign to inform and educate people on gun safety as well as an effort by gun manufacturers to ensure that new firearms have as many safety features as possible (although tbh I'm pretty sure that they already do) and perhaps research into whether a non-intrusive device can be made for making older firearms safer. We're living in a world of micro-electronics, I'm sure that such a thing could be possible and be built into the grip of an old pistol by a professional.
That's just an example, and to be honest it probably wouldn't go exactly that way so there's no need to start picking specific holes in it in regards to my lack of knowledge on firearms safety. It's about giving a little bit of a carrot as well as a stick.

The level playing field comes back to trying to create a more equal society, where the money isn't quite so lopsided. Now obviously this isn't going to stop crime and create a utopia, but it might help a little. Again though, it's got to be from both ends of the scale, there's no point extending a ladder down from the top if people aren't going to use it. However, equally you've got to be very careful not to punish those who legitimately are unable to work because of the actions of the fraudsters.

What you've got to try and avoid though, is the criminalisation and demonisation of the poor, which is becoming a sadly too common occurrence and it's something that appeals to that inner part of a person that likes to feel superior to someone else.
I don't know the situation in the US, but in the UK there's been a determined focus by the ConDems to fight benefit fraud, by making it tougher to gain certain benefits. Now in theory this might sound like a good solution, but in practice it's had the unfortunate side effect that many people who are legitimately in need of these benefits have been unable to get them, in particular people who are disabled. This has had a knock on effect.

That's one of the more tougher problems facing a government who wants to encourage people back to work but doesn't want to punish those who cannot. Hopefully as communications get better and medical diagnosis gets better then this might improve, but the current situation of using private medical 'practitioners' to test people for disability benefits instead of actually believing the Doctor who diagnosed them as disabled in the first place...well it doesn't work very well at all. Perhaps better emphasis should be put on the initial diagnosis of disability, and that GPs (General Practitioners...aka your local Doctor) should actually be trusted by the government rather than having to bring in a second opinion.

I know we don't agree about pay rates, and that's fair enough, that's only one part of trying to create an equal society, and to be honest, it's a pretty latter stage thing anyway and not really something likely to ever happen because of human nature. Likewise a fully equal society, sadly, is something I don't think is actually possible because there will always be people who think that they are superior to other people because of factor x or y, but we all come into this world the same way, and we all wind up back in the dirt the same way at the end of it, quite why people need to divide themselves up into groups and judge other people based on what group they're in in the middle of it all is beyond me, and it's rather sad really. Imagine what we as a race could have achieved by now if there was just a bit more co-operation in the world?

Still, a guy can dream, and where we can I believe that we should aim for a more equal world, full equality is never going to happen, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to make what parts we can more equal for everyone. As I'm sure that many people do.

I'm sorry I never replied, I asked and you outlined some ideas. My job sometimes keeps me offline for a day or more. Plus, most of my online time is dealing with people going crazy because they don't like what someone else said in GT....

Ok, I am not going to pick this apart, I like many of your ideas. We probably agree more than we disagree. I guess it's a glass half full, or half empty perception thing.


I guess it's normal human nature for people to behave as you described, dividing themselves into groups and judging, competing. I don't see a problem, as long as none of them force me to contribute my time or energy for their ends.

I know there are needy people, and just like you, I really want to help them. But, where we differ is, I and many like me, feel the onus is on the needy to demonstrate their qualifications for assistance. And no, beggars cannot be choosers, as the old children's saying goes. I know that means a loss of a little dignity, but that comes with the territory. If a guy needs our money, he better be agreeable to our rules.

Anyway, we are talking about keeping crime down, I guess that means we have to pay off a percentage of the population not to rob and kill us. Why does being poor = criminal? I'm pretty close to poor, and I don't mind working 12 hours a day. Why should my tax money go to some drug dealing gangbanger in an inner city? I prefer to take violent criminals and give them free housing for life....apart from society that knows how to behave.

[Mr Quatro]

Consider this for gun control ... even folds down to fit in a back pack



http://rethinksurvival.com/the-ultim...verunder-link/

[August]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Longer prison sentences for people found in possession of a firearm illegally? Many criticize the US for having the largest prison population, but I say screw 'em, we need more people in prison.

Define illegally Neal. New York and Connecticut in legislation passed in literally the dark of the night created 100k new potential criminals by some estimates just because they refuse to register the firearms they already possessed. They should all be tossed in the clink? That poor woman from PA in the news recently who made the mistake of telling a New Jersey cop she was packing a firearm that was legally permitted and registered just up the road in her home state should have gone to jail too?

I know you're talking about gangs and real criminals but I think it's just to easy to criminalize large swaths of Americans who have not nor intend to hurt anyone to make such a sweeping generalization.

[CaptainHaplo]

You want to put a damper on violent crime? Own a firearm and encourage pro-gun governmental stances. Don't think a high firearm ownership rate deters violent crime? Take Kennesaw Georgia (where gun ownership is mandated) - right outside Atlanta (a really high crime area) and compare it to even just the national average....

Violent crime rate in 2012 Kennesaw: 52.7
U.S. Average: 214.0

Violent crime rate in 2011 Kennesaw: 36.1
U.S. Average: 214.1

Violent crime rate in 2005 Kennesaw: 62.6
U.S. Average: 258.9

Violent crime rate in 2004 Kennesaw: 57.3
U.S. Average: 256.0

Violent crime rate in 2003 Kennesaw: 53.6
U.S. Average: 262.6

Violent crime rate in 2002 Kennesaw: 61.8
U.S. Average: 272.2

Violent crime rate in 2001 Kennesaw: 51.4
U.S. Average: 276.6

Violent crime rate in 2000 Kennesaw: 56.6
U.S. Average: 277.6

Source: http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Kennesaw-Georgia.html

Fact: More guns in the hands of responsible, law abiding citizens equates to less violent crime. Criminals don't want to end up dead. Deal with it.

[CCIP]

Confusing correlation and causation again?

http://www.tylervigen.com

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Confusing correlation and causation again?

Not unless you want to claim that Harvard decided to publish research by 2 professors (one a PH. D. from U.C.) that did the same thing......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean everyone will ignore them because of your strawman attack.

If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Underlining emphasis added....

Go ahead - would you like to continue your attacks simply because you don't want to accept the reality?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Not unless you want to claim that Harvard decided to publish research by 2 professors (one a PH. D. from U.C.) that did the same thing......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

The murder rate for Luxembourg is.. well.. quite strange. Checking NationMaster.com for the murder rates, LUX has been at about .7 to 1.5 at that period.

And that paper has not been peer reviewed, right? Just because they have titles doesnt make something true.

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Confusing correlation and causation again?

http://www.tylervigen.com

Not unless you can prove that firearms and self defense have absolutely nothing to do with each other.