California, an anti-gun state in general, catalogs
gangland killers and victims from drive buys.......
if under 21 are children...

e.g. they might have a rocket launcher and machine gun
in their hands and on their back but are babies if shot.

Simple as that to screw up stuff.

The CDC is just as anti-gun as the libs.

Martin

Upscale wrote:
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:50:25 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:02:21 -0700, the infamous Mark & Juanita
And please do more research on your position. Explore the many books
out there which will give you both sides. It will amaze you. (It sure
did me.)

It's easy to quote some of the cases where someone has used a gun to
protect themselves from from some drug crazed person.

And it's just as easy for me to quote the opposite, where guns have
led to accidental deaths.

Or how about I quote the statistics for innocent people being shot in
the US every year.

And I quote:
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder
and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

Care see the statistics for gun deaths of children?
Look at the statistics for guns in the US.

According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under
age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other
industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more
likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit
suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm
accident than children in these other countries
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

Does that say *anything* to you? How many gun owners out there
properly lock up their guns? How many children could have been saved
by the simple use of a gun lock? Gun ownership is not as black and
white as most avocates paint. Buy a gun and you have self protection
at hand whenever it's needed. A purely ridiculous assumption. How many
gun owners out there have gone and bought their $200+ costing guns but
fail to buy the $1000+ plus proper safe to store it? Too many. Or
perhaps they don't buy the safe because they want the gun they easily
obtained should they be attacked? I'm willing to bet the amount is
much less than those unprotected guns that are stolen every year and
then wind up on the open market.

Berate me all you want, but the fact is that it works both ways. More
guns out there for protection, means more guns in the hands of people
who shouldn't have them.

I've never once said that guns haven't been useful in those cases
where one needs to project themselves. But, consider your example of
the woman defending herself? In reality, it's much more likely that
the druggy is the one who is going to have (and use) a gun, an easily
obtained gun. ~ A gun that was stolen from someone else who just
wanted to protect themselves.

As I said, it works both ways and no matter how much you or anyone
else wants to argue for gun ownership, there's always examples of
cases where a simiarly reversed argument can and does apply.