Originally Posted by The Rani

This is amusing:

Biden on self-defense: ‘Get yourself a shotgun’

He's not wrong. For the vast majority of home defense scenarios, a shotgun is the best way to go.

They're a bit impractical and counterproductive, though, in a not-at-home scenario. For walking around or generally being around any mode of conveyance, a handgun is about the only thing a person is going to be able to control well enough to meaningfully use.

Battle rifles have their use (and, when you need one, you're pretty flat-out fucked if you don't have one). But even the most strident gun advocate -- in all likelihood, especially that guy -- is going to agree with Biden in terms of the 'if you only had one gun for home defense' question.

Fortunately, there's no reason, if one can afford it, to stop at just one gun. I've got phillips head and flathead screwdrivers, and even a torx set that I only used once*. Tools are like that sometimes.

----
*and I just plain would not have been able to fix my Xbox if I hadn't had those torx drivers. Even the one use paid itself off.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

He's not wrong. For the vast majority of home defense scenarios, a shotgun is the best way to go.

They're a bit impractical and counterproductive, though, in a not-at-home scenario. For walking around or generally being around any mode of conveyance, a handgun is about the only thing a person is going to be able to control well enough to meaningfully use.

Battle rifles have their use (and, when you need one, you're pretty flat-out fucked if you don't have one). But even the most strident gun advocate -- in all likelihood, especially that guy -- is going to agree with Biden in terms of the 'if you only had one gun for home defense' question.

Fortunately, there's no reason, if one can afford it, to stop at just one gun. I've got phillips head and flathead screwdrivers, and even a torx set that I only used once*. Tools are like that sometimes.

----
*and I just plain would not have been able to fix my Xbox if I hadn't had those torx drivers. Even the one use paid itself off.

Torx sets are the worst. Mechanically there is no reason to use them on small scale screws or bolts, yet you constantly see them... Pretty much just because. I got mine to recharge the AC in a '00 Ford Focus, and I'm still annoyed with it.

Also, Biden is right. A shotgun is the best weapon for home defense. On the flipside however, these piddly semi-auto knock offs of selective fire rifles aren't the best weapon for a spreeshoot. They're chosen because they are the cheaper weapon for a spree shoot. Given that a $3,000 credit limit is just not hard to obtain, it's just not unforseeable for them to get fewer guns (probably dropping the 2nd pistol) and getting a real deal rifle (something that fires something in the .30 range of rounds), which given that the biggest problem with spree shoots in terms of mitigating the problem is the wait time on medical attention coupled with the number of victims overwhelming EMS and Hospital resources, a bigger, nastier round is going to create more deaths.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...lugin_activity

Correlation is NOT causation!

According to this FBI data set, the U. S. murder rate fell from 10.2 murders per 100,000 population in 1980 to 4.8 murders per 100,000 population in 2010. Homicides plunged over 50%! Yet, over this time we continued to build up to approximately 270,000,000 privately held firearms in the United States today (~88.8 guns for every 100 people).

I am not saying more guns means less murders. I am saying that the Op Ed pieces you continue to cite FAIL to provide a sound basis for public policy decisions.

Some data in easy-to-view chart format for your consideration.

Homicides by Weapon Type - chart from Wikipedia (derived from Bureau of Justice data).

Homicide Offenders by Age - chart from Wikipedia (also derived from Bureau of Justice data). Do some quick calculations here to see the Gen X tie in with the critical age groups in the 14-24 age brackets.

Note if you are using Google Chrome as your browser, you may see these charts as a bunch of HTML code. If so, Chrome tried to use Google Docs to support the link. You can still see the actual chart by selecting "Download Original" in the File menu at the upper left hand corner of the window.

My observations from these two charts:

1. Homicides by hand gun are clearly the dominate form of homicide in the United States.
2. Homicides by other guns (rifles and shotguns) are less than one half the rate of homicides by handgun.
3. Homicides by other guns, homicides by knives and homicides by other methods (hands and feet but not including blunt objects) are all tied at pretty equal levels.
4. Homicides are most prevalent in the 18-24 range. Usually the next highest group is the 25-34 age range but when Gen X moved through the 14-24 range, Gen X dominated the homicide rate. Now that Gen X has moved into middle age, homicide rate appear to be returning to a 'historical norm'
5. This 'historical norm' appears to be slowly lowering over time.

These charts don't show this but if you fish about in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, you will find that homicide offenders are overwhelmingly male. You will also find that the suburban murder rate is approximately 3 homicides per 100,000. Conversely, the murder rate in urban environments with city sizes of 250,000 to 1,000,000 is approximately 10 homicides per 100,000 population.

Therefore, murder rates correlate strongly to young (normally 18-34 but when Gen X was involved 14-24), male, urban populations. By the way, the murder rates do not appear to correlate at all to firearms availability. A little more research yields some interesting differences between urban areas. For example, compare the homicide rate of Seattle (~3.2 homicides per 100,000 in 2012) to Chicago (~15.9 homicides per 100,000 in 2012).

Hypothesis: Influencing the young urban male populations in places like Chicago similar to how Seattle does it will have an impact on homicide rates. Gun bans and gun control regulations will not impact homicide rates - although improved gun safety regulations are likely to improve accidental gun death rates.

So what does Seattle do with their young urban male population that Chicago does not?

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Some data in easy-to-view chart format for your consideration.

Homicides by Weapon Type - chart from Wikipedia (derived from Bureau of Justice data).

Homicide Offenders by Age - chart from Wikipedia (also derived from Bureau of Justice data). Do some quick calculations here to see the Gen X tie in with the critical age groups in the 14-24 age brackets.

Note if you are using Google Chrome as your browser, you may see these charts as a bunch of HTML code. If so, Chrome tried to use Google Docs to support the link. You can still see the actual chart by selecting "Download Original" in the File menu at the upper left hand corner of the window.

My observations from these two charts:

1. Homicides by hand gun are clearly the dominate form of homicide in the United States.
2. Homicides by other guns (rifles and shotguns) are less than one half the rate of homicides by handgun.
3. Homicides by other guns, homicides by knives and homicides by other methods (hands and feet but not including blunt objects) are all tied at pretty equal levels.
4. Homicides are most prevalent in the 18-24 range. Usually the next highest group is the 25-34 age range but when Gen X moved through the 14-24 range, Gen X dominated the homicide rate. Now that Gen X has moved into middle age, homicide rate appear to be returning to a 'historical norm'
5. This 'historical norm' appears to be slowly lowering over time.

These charts don't show this but if you fish about in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, you will find that homicide offenders are overwhelmingly male. You will also find that the suburban murder rate is approximately 3 homicides per 100,000. Conversely, the murder rate in urban environments with city sizes of 250,000 to 1,000,000 is approximately 10 homicides per 100,000 population.

Therefore, murder rates correlate strongly to young (normally 18-34 but when Gen X was involved 14-24), male, urban populations. By the way, the murder rates do not appear to correlate at all to firearms availability. A little more research yields some interesting differences between urban areas. For example, compare the homicide rate of Seattle (~3.2 homicides per 100,000 in 2012) to Chicago (~15.9 homicides per 100,000 in 2012).

Hypothesis: Influencing the young urban male populations in places like Chicago similar to how Seattle does it will have an impact on homicide rates. Gun bans and gun control regulations will not impact homicide rates - although improved gun safety regulations are likely to improve accidental gun death rates.

So what does Seattle do with their young urban male population that Chicago does not?

Easy access to heroin! Wait, no... That ended horribly.

My guess is that Seattle has a much lower cost of living than in Chicago, making it's residents less likely to commit crimes in the first place as well as a milder summer time climate, contributing to the same, and a successful publicly funded and more robust arts scene which allows for young innovators to have something to do with their time?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Torx sets are the worst. Mechanically there is no reason to use them on small scale screws or bolts, yet you constantly see them... Pretty much just because.

Nah, that's not it.

Torx can be a pain in the butt for aftermarket work or service, but they are a godsend to manufacturing. Flathead and phillips [briefly] require two hands to set and drive with a screwgun. A torxhead (or allen, though not quite as well) will stick right on the torx tip and pretty well hang on until it starts to drive. So only one hand needs to be occupied at a time. Makes for a lot more ergonomical and efficient assembly process.

Well... At least that makes sense and makes me resent the experience about half less (can you explain why they put the low pressure port inside the inner fender wheel well? I'd feel more positively about the whole experience).

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

To all of you people lamenting the latest shooting in America:

May I suggest that you move to Liechtenstein?

With a population of 34,000, the law of averages says that such incidents will be far less frequent there than in a nation of 316 million like the United States.

Think of it as the price of living in a country with a huge population - to say nothing of the price of freedom.

Statistically invalid. The likelihood of a horrible event happening to one as a random chance says more than the raw frequency. Example: Japan has a large population but a very low murder rate (it also has strict gun laws, a harsh penal system, a criminal justice system that goes aggressively against juvenile offenders, a demanding educational system, and good social conditions. Now contrast some gold-mining camp in California during the Gold Rush, where liquor flows more reliably than water, mercury is in common and reckless use in gold mining, many of the miners are illiterate, law enforcement and courts other than lynch mobs are absent, and an honor culture prevails. There might be fewer murders in some mining camp in one year than there are in Japan in one year, but you get the idea. People might solve a lot of problems quickly with one lucky strike that brings one a fortune in gold, but they might also never return because they are murdered. In a rich country with a well-defined culture of law one might slowly but reliably solve most of one's problems although facing some predictable inconveniences.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Correlation is NOT causation!

According to this FBI data set, the U. S. murder rate fell from 10.2 murders per 100,000 population in 1980 to 4.8 murders per 100,000 population in 2010. Homicides plunged over 50%! Yet, over this time we continued to build up to approximately 270,000,000 privately held firearms in the United States today (~88.8 guns for every 100 people).

I am not saying more guns means less murders. I am saying that the Op Ed pieces you continue to cite FAIL to provide a sound basis for public policy decisions.

And your faulty logic is no better. And you don't read what I post.

Who is using "correlation" now?

The stats are clear; it does not matter where they appear.

The number of guns have increased, but they are held by fewer and fewer people. Stats show that the number of gun owners in the USA is declining. What does that do to your correlation?



THE USA has more murders and more guns than any developed country. Those developed nations with stricter laws have fewer murders. Research that I posted showed that the assault weapons ban worked. Reports show that people who have guns are more likely to suffer from incidents with them than to defend against an attack. I have posted that before too. There are more assault weapons today, and incidents of mass shootings today, than in past times.


Guns kill people. It is amazing that the gun advocates here refuse to face up to their responsibility to support the president's proposals in the wake of all these mass killings. You are just asking for more. And for what? Why not argue for something constructive?

Are there any Xers who post here who support gun control? It is hard to find one, let alone any who have been moved to change by Newtown. If they exist, they are probably female. Xer guys buy into the notions of individualism and survivalism, according to S&H. That is why they are obsessed with guns and can't let go of a failed gun culture value system. It is entirely value-based, not fact-based, nor based on any truth or logic, nor on any concern for people.

You guys will probably have your way for a while, at least to some extent. But the inevitable falsehood of your point of view, and its inevitable results, will eventually lead to the defeat of your point of view.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Statistically invalid. The likelihood of a horrible event happening to one as a random chance says more than the raw frequency. Example: Japan has a large population but a very low murder rate (it also has strict gun laws, a harsh penal system, a criminal justice system that goes aggressively against juvenile offenders, a demanding educational system, and good social conditions. Now contrast some gold-mining camp in California during the Gold Rush, where liquor flows more reliably than water, mercury is in common and reckless use in gold mining, many of the miners are illiterate, law enforcement and courts other than lynch mobs are absent, and an honor culture prevails. There might be fewer murders in some mining camp in one year than there are in Japan in one year, but you get the idea. People might solve a lot of problems quickly with one lucky strike that brings one a fortune in gold, but they might also never return because they are murdered. In a rich country with a well-defined culture of law one might slowly but reliably solve most of one's problems although facing some predictable inconveniences.

Well all I'm going to say is this:

When the Republicans win the 2016 Presidential election in an enormous landslide (after making massive gains in the 2014 mid-term elections), and the first three things they do in 2017 is repeal ObamaCare, repeal Ted Kennedy's 1985 law prohibiting hospitals etc. from turning away patients who are unable to pay, and replace the income tax with a per-person "head tax" of $6,000, don't come crying to center-leftists like me who said that we should have left well enough alone on the Second Amendment back in 2013.

Some Uncomfortable Numbers About Guns in America

Associated Press
ELSPETH REEVE DEC 17, 2012



What's so bad about Americans having all these guns? The murder rate is at an all-time low, right? Well, sort of. More like emergency medical treatment efficacy is at an all-time high. As the gun debate reaches a fevered pitch, from Washington to Twitter to Newtown and back again, in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shootings, here is some much needed context:

Popularity

5 percent: America's population relative to the world population.

50 percent: Amount of the guns on Earth owned by Americans, CNN reports.

Decreasing: The number of Americans who own guns. John Sides posts the graph at right, based on data from Gallup and the General Social Survey, showing the decline. (see above post)

Increasing: The number of guns those American gun owners have.

18 percentage points: Amount the share of households who own guns decreased from 1973 to 2010. Three decades ago, 50 percent of households owned guns, in 2010, just 32 percent do,, according to University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center.

65 percent: The portion of guns in America owned by just 20 percent of gun owners. When we debate gun control, there is the inevitable claim that gun ownership is a cherished tradition held by a vast portion of the country. But the portion of Americans who own a whole bunch of guns is actually pretty small.

Lethality

47 percent increase: The change in the number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay from 2001 to 2011. In 2001, 20,844 people suffered gunshot wounds that serious. In 2011, it was 30,759, The Wall Street Journal reports. But the murder rate is going down? Why is that? Because hospitals have gotten better at treating traumatic wounds.

13.96 percent: Share of gunshot wound victims who died in 2010.

2 percentage point decrease: The change in the share of gunshot wound victims who died in 2010 compared to just three years earlier. Data from previous years was measured differently, so is impossible to compare, the Journal says.

62: Number of mass murders in America since 1982.

Three-quarters: Portion of guns involved in mass murders that were obtained legally, Mother Jones reports. Semi-automatic handguns were by far the weapon of choice, followed by assault rifles.



Political implications

20 percent: Amount male ownership of guns has decreased since 1980. White males are a shrinking portion of the electorate. They are the clear targets of gun ads. Here's a Christmas ad for a .223-calibre Bushmaster, the carbine used in the Newtown school shooting.



56 percent: Portion of white men who oppose stricter gun control laws, The Washington Post's Greg Sargent points out. And 53 percent of non-college educated whites oppose such laws.

10 percent: Portion of women who own guns.

54 percent: Portion of Americans who favor stricter gun control laws, according to a new ABC News poll.

59 percent: Portion of women who support stricter gun control laws, ABC finds.

60 percent to 39 percent: Americans in living in the West who support more gun control versus those in the West who do not. Support for more gun control has a pretty clear regional divide, with the South, as you might expect, being most hostile to new gun laws. Southerners opposed gun control by 50 percent to 46 percent. Midwesterners are split, with 49 percent wanting more gun control and 48 percent opposed to it. And in the Northeast, 67 percent want more gun control, while 31 percent don't. The South is by far the most violent part of the country, Kieran Healy points out.



1 million: The number of concealed-and-carry permit holders Florida will reach in the next few days.

52 percent: Americans who support a national ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Action

0: Number of concrete things President Obama has done to keep guns off streets that White House press secretary Jay Carney could name in a press conference Monday.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...tistics/60071/

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Well all I'm going to say is this:

When the Republicans win the 2016 Presidential election in an enormous landslide (after making massive gains in the 2014 mid-term elections), and the first three things they do in 2017 is repeal ObamaCare, repeal Ted Kennedy's 1985 law prohibiting hospitals etc. from turning away patients who are unable to pay, and replace the income tax with a per-person "head tax" of $6,000, don't come crying to center-leftists like me who said that we should have left well enough alone on the Second Amendment back in 2013.

Your only precedent for this is the 1994 election, in which (as in 2010) the main issue was health care reform. Clinton was re-elected easily in 1996 despite passing gun control and an assault weapons ban.

Again, "we" are not attacking "the second amendment."

The real results you can look for, is the results of doing nothing: more and more massacres.

Despite their large differences, all of the U.S. regions have higher average rates of death from assault than any of the 24 OECD countries we looked at previously. The placid Northeast comes relatively close to the upper end of the most violent countries in our OECD group.


Assault Death Rates by Race.

The story here is depressing. Blacks die from assault at more than three times the U.S. average, and between ten and twenty times OECD rates. In the 2000s the average rate of death from assault in the U.S. was about 5.7 per 100,000 but for whites it was 3.6 and for blacks it was over 20. Even 3.6 per 100,000 is still well above the OECD-24 average, which–if we exclude the U.S.–was about 1.1 deaths per 100,000 during the 2000s, with a maximum value of 2.9. An average value of 20 is just astronomical. And this is after a long period of decline in the death rate from assault.

Posted by Kieran Healy Jul 21st, 2012 Data, News, Sociology

http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/arch...united-states/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Your only precedent for this is the 1994 election, in which (as in 2010) the main issue was health care reform. Clinton was re-elected easily in 1996 despite passing gun control and an assault weapons ban.

Again, "we" are not attacking "the second amendment."

The real results you can look for, is the results of doing nothing: more and more massacres.

But taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is not the way to go about it; and even it was, what is more important in the grand scheme of things: A public option on health care (which Jan Schakowsky now plans to re-introduce) or that? Lifting the $110,000-a-year earnings cap on the Social Security payroll tax, or that? Indexing the minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index, or that? Getting ENDA passed (which would ban job and housing discrimination against gays) or that? I could go on and on and on.

From : "The myth of redemptive violence"

We spank children to teach them not to hit one another. We sanction the killing of killers as a deterrent against killing. We advocate the arming of citizens to promote personal safety. Is it any wonder that people are being deluded into complying with a system that allies them with violence, not compassion; with death, not life?

Even our language is overwhelmed with a continual drumbeat of violence. From seemingly innocuous phrases like, “Shoot me an email” to the “war on poverty” to “He’s da bomb” and even the “Fight for Peace” are simply “to die for” in our culture.

We are a wholly compromised culture that can’t even imagine the existence of any alternatives. Why? Because violence is entertaining, exhilarating, and as Chris Hedges has argued so poignantly, it gives many of us meaning.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yep. Guns are the symptom, not the problem.

No, that's just your conclusion from what Deb wrote. It is a false conclusion. Just because guns are not the only problem, does not mean they are not a problem. And just because they are not the only cause of violence, does not mean they should not be regulated. But they are part of the root cause, because they have their own entertaining (and fear-based) attraction, especially to guys who want to "man up" (as in the ad); or as I said to Joral's irritation, that they are tools for men who can't get it up any other way.

One of the root causes of today's opposition to gun control, is that Xers are survivalists and individualists.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is not the way to go about it; and even (if) it was, what is more important in the grand scheme of things: A public option on health care (which Jan Schakowsky now plans to re-introduce) or that? Lifting the $110,000-a-year earnings cap on the Social Security payroll tax, or that? Indexing the minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index, or that? Getting ENDA passed (which would ban job and housing discrimination against gays) or that? I could go on and on and on.

Law-abiding citizens often become criminals when they have guns. Or they become suicidal or subject to gun accidents. Epidemic violence and the domestic citizens arms race is one of the most important factors in the "grand scheme of things." Gun control and ban of military weapons is one of the most important things that could be done in America today. Safety from violence is as important as social security. And more incidents like Newtown may not have made any impression on you or other pessimistic T4Ters, but they have on some Americans. As more and more massacres occur, support for gun control will grow and the gun culture will decline, as it already is doing. And it would help turn away Americans from the culture of violence generally.

And it's one more basis for separating the South from the rest of the country, which IMO would be a good thing. Please please Texas, secede!!!

Another persecuted responsible gun owner:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/r...lN6PtXOSTGseFL

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Law-abiding citizens often become criminals when they have guns. Or they become suicidal or subject to gun accidents. Epidemic violence and the domestic citizens arms race is one of the most important factors in the "grand scheme of things." Gun control and ban of military weapons is one of the most important things that could be done in America today. Safety from violence is as important as social security. And more incidents like Newtown may not have made any impression on you or other pessimistic T4Ters, but they have on some Americans. As more and more massacres occur, support for gun control will grow and the gun culture will decline, as it already is doing. And it would help turn away Americans from the culture of violence generally.

And it's one more basis for separating the South from the rest of the country, which IMO would be a good thing. Please please Texas, secede!!!

Stricter gun laws havent made the states that implemented them any safer
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...e-to-gun-laws/

In fact, peruse the FBI murder statisitics from 1991 (peak murder rates) to 2011 you'll see a substantial decrease, this as gun and concealed carry permits have risen. In fact the amount of states that allow concealed carry permits have increased to 49 and crime rates continue to fall and the "wild west" scenarios of citizens with permits shooting it out with each other hasnt materialized.

What you have posted a great example of a criminal disregarding the law. Responsible gun owners follow the law and they are the only ones who get disarmed. A comment by a law enforcement officer recently went to the crux of the idiotic new New York "assault weapon" ban law. It did not exempt officers and he complained that the police should be exempt because "criminal dont obey the law" and if the police did they would be at a disadvantage....of course a law abiding citizen being at a disadvantage was of no concern to this officer or the idiots who passed this law.

Originally Posted by Weave

peruse the FBI murder statisitics from 1991 (peak murder rates) to 2011 you'll see a substantial decrease, this as gun and concealed carry permits have risen. In fact the amount of states that allow concealed carry permits have increased to 49 and crime rates continue to fall and the "wild west" scenarios of citizens with permits shooting it out with each other hasnt materialized.

Yes it has, in Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Tucson..... and in more assaults, even though fewer of them lead to death because of better treatments in hospitals.

Originally Posted by Weave

What you have posted a great example of a criminal disregarding the law. Responsible gun owners follow the law and they are the only ones who get disarmed. A comment by a law enforcement officer recently went to the crux of the idiotic new New York "assault weapon" ban law. It did not exempt officers and he complained that the police should be exempt because "criminals don't obey the law" and if the police did they would be at a disadvantage....of course a law abiding citizen being at a disadvantage was of no concern to this officer or the idiots who passed this law.

Put a gun in a "law-abiding citizen," and the chances of him becoming a criminal are increased.

There are not two species of humans, "law-abiding citizens" and "criminals."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes it has, in Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Tucson..... and in more assaults, even though fewer of them lead to death because of better treatments in hospitals.

Gun massacres have decreased from their peak in the 1990's as well....

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Another persecuted responsible gun owner:

There are no "responsible gun owners." Anyone with any sense of responsibility today would give up their guns, and exile themselves from the gun culture. Guns serve no purpose at all, for anyone.

Originally Posted by Weave

Gun massacres have decreased from their peak in the 1990's as well....

If you call more and more of them a "decrease," then we speak a different language.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ngs-map?page=2

1980s = 8

1990s = 23

2000s = 21 (assault weapons ban, 1994-2004)

2010-2012 = 11

most in one year = 2012: 7