Comments (29) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   Clark Kent said, 5 months ago

   Sick. Desperately sick.
2. 

   ronald rini said, 5 months ago

   I wonder how many people would have been killed if they did not have guns. Not sure but the sucide bomber did not have guns.
3. 

   narrowminded said, 5 months ago

   The leftists in power here are arming Syrian rebels and disarming US citizens.
   Progressive educational policies, parenting practices and overall cultural influence has resulted in kids growing up to be young adults that are dependent and unable to cope with reality.
   Everyone gets a trophy, self esteem means everything, have sex whenever and with anyone, just move them along no matter how they perform in school, easy divorce, welfare, in short…..no personal responsibility.
   This is American progressivism.
4. 

   JSmithCSA said, 5 months ago

   He’s more likley to die from the cigarette than the rifle.
5. 

   Ms. Ima said, 5 months ago

   Happiness is a smoking gun?
6. 

   Chillbilly said, 5 months ago

   @JSmithCSA

   Good point, but at least it’s HIS lungs.
7. 

   cjr53 said, 5 months ago

   @Chillbilly

   Yes. And since he appears to be single, no spouse will suffer a second-hand smoke disease.
8. 

   ARodney said, 5 months ago

   I was looking for statistics on gun deaths, because of the unproved and unlikely allegations like those posted above. And guess what? You can’t find many actual studies. It turns out that the NRA pushed Republicans to amend the federal budget so that it is ILLEGAL for the CDC to study gun deaths, and it is ILLEGAL for the ATF to release gun death data to the public. You can’t make this stuff up. But it DOES mean that conservative idiots can make things up like “guns in school would prevent violence” or “the most dangerous places are gun-free zones” and it’s tough to prove one way or the other. What IS actually, measurably, and statistically true (from the Harvard School of Public Health study) is that the more guns there are in a state, the more gun deaths there are; the more guns there are in a city, the more gun deaths there are; and if you have a gun in your home you are more likely to die from gun violence than if you don’t.
9. 

   flake-67121 said, 5 months ago

   you simply have to ask yourself this one question- who’s right? The founders who had just released themselves with guns from a clingy totalitarian government, or the Marxists and ignorant nannies today? Who do you think had a better grip on reality?
   If you agree with the nannies, then change the Constitution.
   If you understand that they’re completely wrong, and more guns is the answer, then stop helping them make the problem worse, don’t let them have one more stupid gun law.
10. 

    lonecat said, 5 months ago

    @ARodney

    I also tried to find stats, and I was having a lot of trouble, but I just thought it was my own inability. I’m very interested to hear that the stats you’re looking for aren’t there. Could you give us a link to the Harvard study? I’m particularly interested in your statement that “if you have a gun in your home you are more likely to die from gun violence than if you don’t.” Does this number include both suicides and accidents? I see people here claim from time to time that lots of people save themselves with guns, but I’ve never seen the source for that argument.
11. 

    mickey1339 said, 5 months ago

    @ARodney and lonecat – I cannot believe you are so inept that you actually can’t find data and your comment to “repressing data” is laughable. I would like to see a credible reference to the NRA being able to suppress gun data. Below see links from the government and intentionally non-partisan or liberal websites on gun violence. I typed in google, “data on gun violence.” In the interests of space I quit copying after 6 links, but there are HUNDREDS more on the page. I had students that used to make excuses to me similar to yours. I failed them for lack of effort…

    http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/

    http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/working-group/2011-summary.htm

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/12/16/searching-for-hard-data-on-guns-and-violence/
12. 

    lonecat said, 5 months ago

    @mickey1339

    Lighten up — I never said I didn’t find anything, nor did ARodney say that — I said I couldn’t find what I was looking for. I found lots and lots of rather crude stats that didn’t break out the numbers in sufficient detail. I’m not in your class, this is not an assignment, so your insulting tone is out off place.
13. 

    mickey1339 said, 5 months ago

    @lonecat

    “I’m not in your class, this is not an assignment, so your insulting tone is out off place.”

    You’re right. I ordinarily try not to get personal. Sorry.
14. 

    Radish said, 5 months ago

    Deaths from firearms are set to outstrip car fatalities for the first time, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and reported by Bloomberg News.
    .
    The CDC estimates that auto-related deaths—long on the decline as more motorists wear seat-belts and face harsher penalties for drunk driving—will fall to 32,000 in 2015. Deaths from firearms, which include suicides and accidents, are estimated to rise to 33,000 over the same period.
    .
    Every day, 85 Americans are shot dead, about 53 of them in suicides. This figure is still lower than 1993’s peak in gun deaths (37,666), but has risen significantly since firearm deaths reached a low in 2000 (28,393). The data goes back to 1979.
    .
    Meanwhile, USA Today, which looked at FBI figures, reports that 774 people were killed between 2006 and 2010 by a mass killer, defined as a person who kills four or more people in one incident. The figures show that mass killers strike on average once every two weeks. A third of the 156 mass killings did not involve firearms, but rather fire, knife or other weapon. Almost all of the mass killers in those years were men, and their average age was 32. The dozens of deaths caused by mass killers represented about 1 percent of all homicides between 2006 and 2010.

    ….
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html
15. 

    Dredpiraterobt$ said, 5 months ago

    @ronald rini

    “I wonder how many people would have been killed if they did not have guns. Not sure but the sucide bomber did not have guns.”
    .
    Man that sent a jolt of electricity right through me! I bet they call you ‘lectric chair Ronald!
    .
    Because, What a shocker! You make no sense whatsoever!
    .
    If who didn’t have guns? Everybody? If the Chinese had never invented Gun Powder? Is that what you’re asking? Let’s put it this way. Battles and wars got over much quicker when they stopped using bows and arrows and broad swords in favor of guns. It took much more to kill a man with a sword than it takes with bullet.
    .
    But still, a lot of those people would still be dead.
    .
    Suicide bombers? WHAT?
    .
    I’m shocked!
16. Load the rest of the comments (14).