ANTI-GUN RESEARCHERS ADMIT TO INCLUDING INJURIES FROM NON-GUN OBJECTS IN “FIREARM INJURY” DATA

no political movement in the United States is more dishonest and deceptive than the moment that tries to outlaw gun ownership. Its based on a fraudulent claim that public safety is what motivates the movement and uses cooked data while ignoring the obvious logic that the people least likely to obey the proposed gun laws are those who are already disobeying laws against murder, robbery etc


Remember that anytime you see an advocate for restricting what Honest people can own, that is not a means to an end, that is THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL

 

Gun Control studies from such Leftists should be placed in the fiction section.

 

Along with the pro gun Kleck

 

Even you admitted to 100,000 defensive gun uses each year. Thats a lot of saved lives compared to gun homicides.

 

I never admitted anything of the kind. The entire study is flawed. Start over

 

Just repeating left press on Kleck without knowing any particulars of the study.

The CDC study, you know the one supposedly prevented by the NRA, released in 2012, indicated

while reported from a web site this is in the text of their report as is

This was the study funded by Obama's admin. It didn't provide the answers Obama was looking for. It didn't support the left's narrative so it was largely dismissed and ignored by the left.

 

true..we could ...but not as long as we refuse to address the real issues and chase moonbeams (gun control dogma)

 

What is your solution?

 

more armed citizens
courts that interpret the second amendment so as to wipe out federal gun control laws and wipe away -under McDonald-crap like magazine limits or arbitrary denials of carry permits in BM run states.

seeing those who want to get rid of the second amendment as traitors and enemies of our constitution

 

Even at the low end of 100,000, that's over three times the amount of all gun deaths.

 

Tell that to the newton families

 

Which was a gun free zone. Seriously, why are you using an anecdote (and very poor one at that) to try to debunk a stat?

 

Where is the data that a gun was required for defense in those circumstances?

 

Who said that was the standard? Why do I need to prove that the firearm was the only viable option in that self defense case?

 

Because it a lesser option would have worked that means that a gun was not needed in that circumstance

 

Point being?

 

If I defended my house with threats of chemical weapons and they worked then everyone should be able to have chemical weapons

 

that's a silly analogy. Indiscriminate weapons are not generally legitimate for self defense

 

That is like saying candy tastes good, so it must be the perfect replacement for food !

 

There's the reflex appeal to emotion again... never fails

 

When facts fail, appeal to emotion, call for more gun restrictions, gun bans, licensure etc......
All measures to further restrict Law Abiding folks and not the Criminals.

 

It's how they talk to each other and demonize those that don't fall into the emotion storm and shed fake tears.

 

nothing new here. including suicides and self defense in 'gun violence' statistics, putting violent felons into stats on ccw holders, making up terms like 'assault rifle' that have no common definition... the gun control agenda falls flat on its face without the misinformation, propaganda and lies pushed by the establishment.
The bottom line is- if we can take care of ourselves, then we don't need 'them' to take care of us. So we must be disallowed to take care of ourselves by whatever means necessary.

 

When you see how far gun restrictions in U.K. go as far as to guarantee that the general public cannot use firearms for personal defense, or any other so called "offensive weapons"....
Do we aspire to the same here in the U.S. ???
I think not....

 

Some do... as long as it doesn't apply to them