I know--- I know--- It's not the gun that kills----

[trumad]

whatever!

[Monkeyman]

1. This is my Gun this is my weapon one for shotting one is for fun

Old Army Saying

[TahitiNut]

37. "Present arms."

Another blast from the past. :evilgrin: (It's an all-male military academy thing.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. boys!!!!!!!!!!!! (will be boys)

I never got to play with guns, not as a medic....

But I got to play with OTHER cool toys

:evilgrin:

So there!

[zanne]

53. Tell that to the parents of the 33 dead people. nt

[FormerDittoHead]

2. That's right. One could have just as easily killed 22 people with sling shot and pocket knife. n/t

[undeterred]

5. or an airplane and a box cutter

[trumad]

6. whatever.

[FormerDittoHead]

33. I was being sarcastic but wanted only to leave the subject line. n/t

[Xenotime]

60. how?

[FormerDittoHead]

78. I was being sarcastic, but unfortunately there are those here who would say that seriously

...so your confusion is understandable.

you may also look at my msg posted as a reply directly above yours.

on edit: typo.

[cssmall]

Hear! Hear!

Gun control. Take away anything that can't be used for sport.

[Virginia Dare]

3. Looking at the video...

shooter could not have done that type of damage with a knife or an axe.

Horrible, HORRIBLE tragedy for my state.

[Redstone]

4. Oh, and the other thing they'll say is: LET'S ARM THE STUDENTS! That'd be great, huh?

Imagine the fucking apocalypse when the cops show up in the middle of a running gun battle.

Redstone

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aikoaiko]

28. As a college professor, I wish I could carry a concealed firearm.

Colleges are really vulnerable to this type of attack.

[jgraz]

47. A teacher carry policy only means the crazies will shoot you first

Wouldn't a t-shirt with a target on it be a lot cheaper?

[Xenotime]

61. Colleges are gun free zones.

[damntexdem]

41. Yeah, I was asked about whether if a wild shooter came into a restaurant I was in, ...

whether I'd prefer that no one else was armed or that ten other diners were armed and ready to shoot.

I said I'd prefer that no one else were armed -- I'd rather be watching out for one nutcase with a gun than for eleven.

[understandinglife]

7. when will we ever learn ......

Peace.

[valerief]

14. Crazy beats out peace every time. nt

[scrinmaster]

8. Someone has to pull the trigger,

you don't see packs of guns roaming around shooting at people.

[valerief]

15. LOL! You are sooooooooo right. nt

[zanne]

54. That means that "guns don't kill people".

It's really "people with guns kill people". What's the difference?

[Redstone]

27. Tell that to the families of thse 20 dead people.

Redstone

[spoony]

30. I imagine their anger

is directed at the person, rather than the object.

[Redstone]

32. I imagine you've never had a family member killed with a firearm.

Redstone

[spoony]

34. I imagine your assumptions have little to do with

the reality of this situation.

[Firepit 462]

36. You could save a lot more people if you outlawd cars.

[damntexdem]

43. That may soon be necessary because of global warming.

But the gun is the clear and present danger at this moment. And there is plenty of gun control that can be done without interfering with sport hunters (except for those who hunt for humans in college classrooms and dorms).

The design and intent is in the mind of the one who pulls the trigger. But that trigger gives a reach that other weapons (including automobiles) do not have.

[Ghost in the Machine]

46. "But that trigger gives a reach that other weapons (including automobiles) do not have. "

Tell that to all the dead people killed by car bombs, just in Iraq so far this year, or in the last month.... if we banned cars, we wouldn't have terrorists using them to deliver and detonate their bombs, right? Right?

[warren pease]

79. Yeah, but...

Virginia is not Iraq, and it's a hell of a lot harder to commit mass murder with a baseball bat.

wp

[maxsolomon]

9. what's that sound?

the sound of the gun wavers staying out of this thread.

22 dead because you are too afraid of abstractions to be sensible.

[NightWatcher]

10. schools are seperate from the rest of the country

No guns in schools, aside from the cops.

I am real close to the fence on the whole gun control issue. I am in favor of expanded research into non-lethals for citizens (ie mace, stun, etc). We are vicious animals and need some control, maybe not by this admin, but we need control.

(bookmark this- it's my first gun control page)

[rainy]

20. or are we made vicious by inequality and injustice? Do we reap what we sew?

If we lived in commune like communities where everyone was cared for, wouldn't the community have a better chance of dealing with the few who would commit an act like this? If everyone had a fair share of our natural resources, shelter, water and land, wouldn't the world be a safer and happier place? Think about it, if all shared in the abundance we would be much better off instead of allowing psychopathic corporations to control all our god given natural resources.

[Phredicles]

11. Okay, so guns don't kill people; people kill people: But guns sure do

make it easy to do the dirty deed. Over and over and over...

[King Coal]

35. Actually, its not the guns its the bullets.

[baldguy]

13. Gun owners should be responsible for their weapons AT ALL TIMES.

But the arms merchants' lobby (the NRA) will never allow legislation to mandate that.

When people are killed by drugs and the violence that accompanies them, we blame the drug AND the drug dealer. Why don't we do the same with guns?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

18. because illicit drugs are illegal...

and unto now... guns are not.

sP

[baldguy]

26. Did I say "illegal drugs"?

No, I didn't. Drugs don't have to be illegal to be abused.

When someone gets plastered at a bar then gets into his car & kills someone, the bar owner is often charged with a crime or sued.

Gun owners should take responsibility for their weapons - if not, they have no business owning them.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

29. two things...

Merck and Glaxo and the like are not referred to as 'drug dealers'...you know who you were talking about. And in many cases, they are not criminally responsible for failuers but liable via the civil courts.

Also, a bartender who serves someone when or until drunk and then allows them to drive has committed a crime. The manufacture of and sale of guns is not a crime.

sP

[baldguy]

38. Chicago, New York, Washington DC an other large cities have made it a crime to buy & sell guns.

How did the weapons manufacture res respond?

By advising their customers on what they needed to do to comply with the law? No.

By ensuring their dealers performed due diligence conducting appropriate background & license checks on their customers? No.

They reacted by setting up large dealerships just outside these jurisdictions geared to sell exclusively to communities within them. The weapons manufacture res, dealers and their lobbying arm the NRA don't want responsible gun owners and they will do anything to circumvent the law and make sure their marks get their fix.

A bartender who serves a drunk and then allows them to drive has committed a crime. A gun dealer who sells a gun, which is then used to murder someone should also be considered to have committed a crime.

Shouldn't gun owners be responsible for their weapons?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

50. if that gun is sold illegally

i would agree with you...however, if sold legally, then no.

sP

[treelogger]

85. Sorry, nonsensical comparison.

You write "A bartender who serves a drunk and then allows them to drive has committed a crime. A gun dealer who sells a gun, which is then used to murder someone should also be considered to have committed a crime."

I'll concede you that a bartender who serves a drunk has committed a crime. Whether or not the drunk drives or not. The bartender can not predict the future, can not know whether the drunk will wander out to his car or not.

I'll even concede to you that a gun dealer who sells a gun to someone who has a criminal background (meaning has been convicted in a court of law) has committed a crime. This is federal law already. Similarly, a gun dealer who sells a gun to a person who is visible mentally distressed, or has given an indication that he intends to commit violence, also commits a crime. Again, this is federal law. You should read the form required to buy a gun sometime (it's a federal form, so it is the same all over the US); you will be asked in it whether you are not mentally competent, have been judged a danger to self or others, have been convicted, and so on and so on. I certainly hope that no gun dealer would ever sell a gun to a person who answers incorrectly (dangerously) to any of these questions.

But: Would you say that a store like "Beverages and more" who sell a case of wine to a completely normal suburbanite, then someone drinks one too many bottles, and kills someone with the care, that in that case the liquor store has committed a crime? No. The store has no way to foresee that this case of wine will cause that tragedy. Would you get terrible mad at Ford or Dodge, because their cars are occasionally used to kill people in drunk driving accidents? No.

Similarly: A gun dealer can not foresee what a gun will be used for. He can also not see things that are hidden. For exmaple, I'm sure that lots of people in inner cities that are involved in the drug trade have committed crimes, for which they have not been arrested, tried, or convicted. Can a gun dealer refuse to serve a customer, just because the customer looks like he is from the inner city, and therefore be more likely to be a criminal who hasn't been caught yet (based in home address, skin color, or such)? No, that would be open discrimination. Can a gun dealer be held responsible because he sells a gun perfectly legally to a person who is giving no indication that they are likely to use the gun in a crime? No, because the gun dealer can't predict the future. Does it make sense to get terribly mad a Smith&Wesson or Colt? No, just like Ford and Dodge, 99.99% of their products are used perfectly legally (in addition, Colt is bankrupt already, and S&W was doing pretty badly a few years ago, I don't actually know whether they have required).

You also say "The weapons manufacture res, dealers and their lobbying arm the NRA ..."
Sorry, but the NRA supposedly has 4 million members (give or take a few, and I'm not one of them). You can be very sure that the vast majority of those 4 million people are not weapons manufacturers, nor dealers.

[Connonym]

16. I'm with you on this

Will the gun folks manage to come up new lame slogan in response to this tragedy?

[Junkdrawer]

17. The Pro-Gun posters will be advocating an armed campus as their answer for this...

It's already started.

:puke:

[Wcross]

25. Yes, being unarmed in this situation makes sense.

It seems to me an "armed campus" might have come in handy today. It is clear that a "gun free campus" didn't work out too well.

[jgraz]

45. Well, it wasn't an unarmed campus, was it?

I mean, you had a lunatic with two glock 9's running around. Maybe the real solution is to keep crazy people from getting their hands on high-powered weaponry.

[Wcross]

55. News flash- criminals break laws & rules.

Is it possible to get rid of every firearm in this country? I don't think it is.
One thing is certain, the victims all obeyed the law and had no way to defend themselves.
Gun free zones = Fish in a barrel.

[jgraz]

58. News Flash - This was a CRAZY PERSON, not a criminal

Live in your Hollywood Die-Hard fantasy all you want, but the fact is that this kid was not some drug kingpin with access to black market arms dealers. If today's reports are accurate, he bought the gun over the counter.

I'm curious: just how exactly does this Dirty Harry wet dream unfold? A gunman walks into a classroom with a concealed weapon (for which he has a perfectly lawful carry permit) and... then what? Explain it to me.

For example, explain how many college kids have their brains on the floor before Bruce Willis gets his automag out of his backpack? Or does Bruce just shoot anybody who walks into the classroom?

Or maybe Bruce is a trained "marshal". How many of those do you need? One in each building? One in each classroom? Of course, when Bruce enters the war zone and all the teachers and students are brandishing their lawfully owned handguns, who does he shoot first?

You know what's really fish in a barrel? Some gun owner's wife who just had a fight with him. Or his teenage son whose Lexapro isn't working so well. How many of them are you willing to see die so that you can get your wild west rocks off?

[Wcross]

59. Murder is a criminal act.

"For example, explain how many college kids have their brains on the floor before Bruce Willis gets his automag out of his backpack?"

My guess would be quite a few LESS than the 32 that did not have the option to defend themselves.

You seem to be filled with emotional/sexual feelings for firearms. There really isn't any call for you to infer everyone has the same type of feelings.

Are you saying it is better that ONLY the gunman had a firearm? Are you saying that nobody is capable of defending themselves with a firearm?

[jgraz]

64. You're not debating, you're spewing NRA talking points

For example, how many kids would be dead if the SHOOTER did not have access to a firearm? That's the point the gun nuts never address. They're perfectly willing to cite fantasy scenarios about how many fewer would die at each mass shooting, but they ignore the simple, obvious conclusion that we would have far fewer of these mass shootings if it were more difficult to buy firearms.

The reason I bring up the sexual imagery is that it's the only reason I can think of why someone would come onto a liberal board the DAY OF a mass killing and advocate for more guns. Testosterone is usually the only thing that can make guys act this stupidly.

And you still haven't answered my question: how many domestic murders, gun suicides and possibly-somewhat-lower-body-count school shootings are you willing to put up with to achieve your fantasy of a fully-armed society?

[Wcross]

68. I am spewing facts.

The shooter DID have access to a firearm. I am discussing facts and not some fantasy-land where guns are *poof* gone.
This is the DAY AFTER the shooting and you can see by my post count I come here often. Your failure to understand does not completely explain the sexual imagery.

In your mind I am an "advocate for more guns". I find it hard to understand how you came to that conclusion. I am advocating we do away with "gun free zones". If a person has been deemed qualified by law enforcement officials to carry a handgun why would you restrict them? Why would the ability to have a fighting chance be bad? Before you claim the shooter in this case had a carry permit, you had better wait on the police report.

ANSWER TO YOUR "question". We already have a fully armed society. Have you noticed that 30+ states have shall issue carry permit laws? Anyone who wants a gun already has one. That is the definition of a fully armed society. Did you somehow read into my posts that I advocate forcing EVERYONE to have a gun?

[jgraz]

71. Your definition of "fact" is interesting

For example: I am not, in "fact" discussing a fantasy where guns are *poof* gone. I'm talking about some reasonable restriction on the amount and type of weaponry that can be bought and sold. Just like every other civilized society has.

Your assertion that Gun Free Zones lead to more gun deaths is also not a fact. It's sort of the opposite of a fact. An actual "fact" is that states with more guns have more gun deaths.

And again, you still avoid the question: Are the extra domestic killings, suicides and shootings worth it? Is that the price you want us all to pay so you could have read about some fun fun hollywood shoot-em-up yesterday?

[Wcross]

72. Facts

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

On January 16, 2002, the Dean, Anthony Sutin, Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales were shot and killed by disgruntled student Peter Odighizuwa, 43, of Nigeria. Three other students were shot but survived. The abrupt ending to Odighizuwa's shooting spree is attributed to two students with personal firearms who quickly took action.<1> At the first sound of gunfire, fellow students Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to the other, ran to their vehicles to grab their personal firearms.<2> Bridges and Gross then worked with another student, Ted Besen. The three students approached Odighizuwa from different angles. Bridges raised his revolver and pointed it at Odighizuwa who then dropped his firearm and was first subdued by Besen followed by other students.<[br />

On October 1, 1997, 16-year old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death. He then took a rifle to his school, Pearl High School (PHS). He shot and killed his ex-girlfriend and another student while maiming another seven. Six other boys were later arrested for allegedly conspiring with Luke in the school shooting, although all save one were cleared of all charges. The assistant principal of Pearl High, Joel Myrick, pulled a gun from his car parked off campus, intercepted Woodham and held him until police arrived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl,_Mississippi

[jgraz]

75. Yay, you know what a fact is. Now look up "anecdote".

[Wcross]

76. One parting thought.

• A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
o General Introduction to Psychoanalysis
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

Good day. I have things to do and we are wasting our time debating a subject that neither are willing to concede.

[jgraz]

77. Nice...have fun with your metal penis

Edit: Just can't help pointing out the irony of a pro-gun fanatic quoting Freud to me. Fucking Freud. :rofl:

[Wcross]

83. ah, a sign of your retarded emotional maturity perhaps?

"metal penis"?

[Wcross]

73. April, 2007.

The fact of the matter is that laws do not protect us from criminal acts. Maybe at some point in the future they will. Today I will carry my firearm.
You are assuming that the more people who have carry permits will result in more gun deaths? Again, the facts do not support your feelings. Law abiding citizens do not commit murder. Homicide rates have not increased as a result of concealed carry laws.

Gun free zones do protect people, I have to agree with you there. If the poor killer hadn't had a gun free zone to do his crime he might have been killed!

[jgraz]

65. Oh, and while murder may be criminal, a legal alien buying two handguns isn't

The dude had a receipt in his backpack, for fuck's sake. Do you really, honestly, believe that some Korean English student would have easy access to firearms if he couldn't walk into a gun store and buy them?

[Wcross]

69. A receipt in HIS name?

Please post the news story with this factoid. Better yet, I would rather wait for the police report that explains how he acquired the gun.
You seem to be extremely emotional. Calm down and look at the situation rationally.

[jgraz]

74. Go ahead, grasp at that last straw

ABC news is reporting that he legally bought both guns, a 9mm and a .22, and that he had a receipt for one of them in his backpack. They didn't, however, say if the receipt was IN HIS NAME, because it probably wasn't necessary to mention that to anyone who wasn't trying to defend a bullshit pro-gun argument.

You're probably right about the emotion though. After all, these weren't real people. were they? I didn't know any of them, so why should I care? Hell, you probably killed way more people in your last session of Halo.

OK, I'm calm now. Oooh....suddenly all the logic of my arguments has dissolved! Like magic.

[treelogger]

86. Indeed, not only citizens exist.

Permanent residents of the US can buy and own guns. They have to jump through a few extra hoops (they have to prove that they are resident of a particular state for three months, whereas for US citizens this is assumed).

Even non-permanent residents of the US can buy guns, but the hoops get a little tighter (it depends on which visa class you are on, in some cases having a legal hunting license is required).

If you don't believe me, go to the ATF and department of state websites.

Let's not turn this into a citizen-versus-not debate, nor in one about skin color, racial origin, or such. There is enough discrimination and violence against monitorities in the world already (and in there I include recent immigrants). Let's not use this opportunity to beat up koreans, students, males, or some combination of these characteristics.

[warren pease]

80. I'm a veteran of the gun control wars and I know all the talking points on both sides, however...

Here's the thing I just don't get. I'll try to keep it brief, but I've never gotten a satisfactory answer as to why this progression is illogical or nonsensical. You might want to have a try:


o According to NRA doctrine on the Second Amendment, an armed citizenry, with unrestricted access to any and all firearms, is essential so that each individual can protect his/her self from the rest of the armed citizenry. A little circle-jerky for me, but OK.

o An armed citizenry is also essential to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties and to prevent the ascendancy of a totalitarian state. And we can all see how well that worked.

o In response to endemic gun violence and the occasional high-profile mass slaughter -- which common sense says is a predictable result of largely unrestricted firearm access -- the NRA says guns get a bad rap and that people, not the instruments, are to blame. So we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics. Which sounds a lot like gun control to me, but OK.

o So how do we do this? In the utter absence of useful ideas from the NRA, I can only assume that we drastically increase the regulatory and snooping powers of federal and local law enforcement (along with a commensurate increase in their taxpayer-funded budgets). I suppose we would also need to launch a brand new nationwide mental health screening agency to qualify prospective gun owners, whose sole job is determining who's currently nuts, who might go nuts in the future and who will never go nuts (unless, of course, they do).

o For those we're not lucky enough to catch before they do go nuts, we need to build prisons faster than Eichler built tract houses. Of course, we get to pay for them, too. And since they're among the most expensive structures to build, and THE most expensive to maintain over the long haul (except for skyscrapers), the payments just keep on comin'.

o So, logically extrapolating the results of NRA dogma, we need substantial increases in law enforcement, we need to give them license to increase their already unconstitutional snooping powers, we need to develop and fund a new mental health screening system, and we need to build more and better prisons. And we even get to pay for it with serious tax increases.

And what's the result? We've taken another giant step toward creating the very totalitarian police state that the NRA says we need guns to prevent. All so that "legitimate" gun owners can plink cans in the north 40 whenever the hell they feel like it.

Meanwhile, the bodies keep piling up like cordwood, nuts keep going off, kids keep killing kids, and the fun just never ends.


Somebody tell me what's wrong with that argument.


wp

[dave123williams]

19. Guns don't kill people. People with moustaches kill people.

[elocs]

21. Weapons of mass destruction don't kill people. People kill people.

Why shouldn't all responsible people and countries be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction? There are, perhaps, those who would simply like to collect weapons of mass destruction, or to use them for hunting.

[LSK]

22. thats what I am thinking too n/t

[DemGa]

23. Guns prime aggression

Just a little fact for ya.

[Forkboy]

24. Monkeys with guns...

[nannah]

31. no guns allowed on campus.

the one thing you can know with certainty, when you smuggle a hand gun or rifle into an area where the carrying of weapons is prohibited, is that no one will be able to stop you, that no one will be able to defend themselves against you, that it will be like shooting ducks in a bathtub.

i'm not advocating increased violence, but think about how helpless is an unarmed citizen when gun ownership is limited to law breakers and those appointed by government agencies (in todays world of winner take all, ruthless self gratification cloaked in the culturally acceptable garb of "competition).


I put in the parenthetical qualifier, because i am an advocate of educating people to the true nature of evolutionary survival, which (IMHO) is cooperation, communication, and mutual support, not the "competition" meme that, for most of us, has been shoved down our throats since infancy (can we remember wheaties, the breakfast of champions or the endless list of slogans promoting the virtues of competition and winning above all else. It is this culture of ruthless competition that breeds the violence behind today's shootings.

[mmonk]

39. But it would be alot harder to kill that many with a knife.

[damntexdem]

40. No, it's the availability of the gun to the shooter that kills.

And the bullets -- if only they couldn't get bullets.

[blondeatlast]

42. You might like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x667843

[Bluerthanblue]

44. People kill people but guns make it alot quicker and easier-

It will take more than "gun-control" to stop shit like this-
There will always be ways to wreak havoc on others.

America, for all our 'wealth' 'technology' 'advances' and 'privilege' is a very sick society.

We need to see all people as "our people"-
And when and if we learn to truly do that, all the world will be a better place.

[Dr Fate]

49. Guns dont gun people down- Gunmen with guns gun the people down.

I wish all you Liberals would realize that.

[raccoon]

51. But the victims would have more of a fighting chance if the gunman

had a knife or baseball bat.

Plus with the knife or baseball bat you have to get up close and personal with the victim(s). With a gun, you don't.

[Dr Fate]

66. Wrong again silly Liberals- the batman-er- I mean gunman could THROW the bat into the crowd.

As I said, guns dont kill people, gunmen do.

Face it, there is nothing we can do about these gunmen and their weapons, exepct to arm ourselves in kind.

I keep a throwing-bat, knife AND a gun with me at all times.

[trumad]

57. Whatever.....

[Dr Fate]

67. Do I really have to put a "sarcasm" thingy on everything?

;)

[trumad]

70. Sorry-- I responded with out checking it was you..

:-)

[zanne]

52. Gun people always have an excuse...

They're not going to agree to more gun regulation (or enforcement thereof) because they simply don't want to. And with the NRA backing them, they'll fight to keep their toys.

[Kablooie]

56. It's true that if guns are left to themselves they only shoot tin cans and squirrels.

[EstimatedProphet]

62. It's not the gun, IT'S THE MENTAL DISTURBANCE!

[tomreedtoon]

81. Yes, but you can't fix mental disturbance!

This shooter, like the Columbine guys, was damaged goods. The damage undoubtedly occurred at an early age, where he didn't get the social skills he needed to get along. And if you don't get those skills by age 8, you don't get them, period. No shrink can help you get them, and no drugs can substitute for them.

[EstimatedProphet]

82. I agree, however...

If we argue that banning guns is the way to fix the problem, we are avoiding dealing with the real issues that cause violence in this country. Why does Canada, which has the same kind of gun ownership rates as the US, not have our problems? why does Switzerland, which has had a semi-automatic in every household, not have the gun violence we do?

If we take the approach that guns are the problem, we will never deal with the real problem.

[tomreedtoon]

84. "Bowling for Columbine" nailed it; sociology.

Not psychiatry - the attempt to heal a mind that is out of whack - but sociology - the attempt to understand vast social changes to a lot of people.

Moore's piece on Canada made the major point that media - controlled in the US by the right wing and shorn of any responsibility for fairness - has helped create and intensify a climate of fear here in America.

I feel it too. But I feel it differently, as a person who was robbed at knifepoint and now has incurable PTSD. I know when news or horror stories or fiction are going to affect me adversely, and I avoid them. How horrible must it be for ordinary people like you, who don't realize the barrage of fearmongering you face every day? Who don't see how it affects your important decisions and robs you of joy?

[EstimatedProphet]

87. I agree

The fearmongering has a cumulative effect on everyone's psyche. IMO gun crime in the US has less to do with the "wild West" past, and more to do with the military-industrial complex telling everyone they could die at any minute for the last 50 years.

[izzybeans]

63. YGuns + XPeople = greater likelihood of death. Simple equation.

People can try to kill people without guns, but those people can defend themselves. People with guns can defend themselves against others with guns, but refer back to equation Yguns + Xpeople = greater likelihood of death. No study of any merit has found otherwise.

It's sad that it takes millions of dollars of grant money and millions more to cut through the NRA propaganda to confirm what common sense should allow. Instead, common sense is fucked on this issue. Yippeee!!! Guns!!!! Meanwhile people lay dead.