I love how because the gun was used you instantly put the onus on the firearm. Do you really think the husband would have not murdered her with something else?

strawman argument.

The difference between guns and other weapons is the ease of which they can be used. Just aim and fire. It's easier to detach oneself when you just have to pull a trigger. The other factor is the ease of which it's possible to kill mass amounts of people without opposition.

whereas with bladed weapons and bludgeons, you tend to have to really get in close and personal and probably use multiple strikes in order to accomplish the deed. The odds of killing multiple people without some form of opposition is much lower as well.

@bareboards2 pretty much said it. you have to right to have a gun, but a gun is also a responsibility. A responsibility that most people seem to ignore. You really have to look at the track record too. How much good have firearms done domestically vs how much harm they've done domestically. Yes, I'm fully aware of many anecdotal stories people have about someone with a gun preventing something bad from happening, but that tends to be the exception, not the rule. Guns tend to cause problems, not solve them.

No one is saying that the right someone with a gun couldn't do good. That's just not how it tends to go down on average.

No rational person is arguing for the banning of firearms (except for maybe assault weapons) but there is a very rational and sensible argument for increased scrutiny and increased safeguards.

I went out of my way to say I have nothing to say about gun laws. I am just stating facts.

The woman had a gun for self protection. The gun was used to kill her in her own home.

Those are facts.

If you think that there is something to conclude from those two facts, go ahead and make your own conclusions.

*Irony

Meanwhile in Georgia: Police said a Georgia mother hiding with her children shot an intruder five times after he chased them in their own home Friday afternoon, CBS affiliate WGCL-TV reports. [r
ead full story]

You do know what anecdotal evidence is right?

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

It's hilarious that you posted that because in the related stories section of the article, I got this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20089421-504083.html

so see, I can cherry pick too. Problem is, when you count ALL the cherries, the reality is that domestic weapons have caused more needless deaths than they have saved. On top of that, one can only speculate how many lives could be saved with proper gun usage, whereas there is no speculation as to how many needless corpses and ruined lives there are because of gun violence. Those are able to be counted quite concretely.

In a perfect world, everyone takes gun ownership seriously, gets rigorous training, practices constantly, locks up their firearms when not in use. In a perfect world, good guys are easily identifiable with their white hats and bad guys are easily identifiable with their black hats and furled mustaches.

The reality is that we don't live in that world. It's time for sensible gun regulation and proper enforcement of said regulation.

Yeah, I don't. But methinks you did.

Are you a Fox News producer? Because you do it with such panache!

I laid out facts. Just facts.

You can draw whatever conclusions you want from those facts.

The more you try to insult me, the more you expose yourself as incapable of allowing in facts.

Just like a Fox News Producer. Hmm.....

But bareboards2 is "just" stating facts. Love that fucking word, "just". It's quite meaningless, similar to "like" and "actually" , these words in the past 25 years having made their way into every sentence spoken by folks under 50-Useless, filler words abused to replace cogent thought with useless babble and designed specifically to drive me insane....

"Either way, gun in the home for self-protection? >>>Not so much<<<"
That right there is where you injected your "opinion" as it wasn't a fact.

hey Vooodoovoo? Uhhhh, "the reality is that domestic weapons have caused more needless deaths than they have saved??" Is that an opinion, because there's subjective arguments to the contrary all over the place out there and that read like complete opinion-confirming bullshit from here...

Yes because when I'm so angry with someone that I want to MURDER them the first thing I think about is how to properly detach myself from the situation so I can go through with it.

I really don't my MURDER to be personal.

Maybe you would be considered right if this was some sort of mass shooting but it wasn't. So get your facts straight.

You think that is opinion and not fact?

A gun bought for self protection from unknown intruders is used to kill you? Isn't that the exact opposite result the gun owner intended?

Okay. If you say that is "opinion." I'd say that that is your "opinion."

People who defend gun ownership use selective logic and aren't very smart. Sadly those who attack gun owners also use selective logic. The only thing that matters here is that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. You don't need guns to kill people, it just makes it much to easy. You want to own a gun then I want to own a nuke...it's only fair.

there's a whole boat load of retard going on in these comments.

Just like @bareboards2, I didn't give an opinion or say anything about gun laws. I am just stating facts.

The woman (in the article I linked) used a gun for self protection. The gun was used to shoot her attacker in her own home.

Those are facts.

If you think that there is something to conclude from those two facts, go ahead and make your own conclusions.

In case you didn't notice, all I did was copy and paste @bareboards2's post and change a few words to reflect the article I linked. I don't see you lecturing @bareboards2 about anecdotal evidence. The difference is that @bareboards2's story fits with your opinion and mine doesn't.

You certainly are an expert in anecdotal evidence as you gave me a prime example when you said: "Problem is, when you count ALL the cherries, the reality is that domestic weapons have caused more needless deaths than they have saved." Actually I wouldn't even call that anecdotal evidence, it's more like anally extracted evidence because it's neither evidence nor factual.

Here are some real facts, no opinions:

70 million Americans own guns (NRA 2010)

45% of American households have a firearm in them (Gallup 2011)

Homicides by firearm in 2010 = 11,078 (CDC)

Average homicide by firearm 1999-2010 = 12,807 (CDC)

The 2008 US Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reported 5.3 million violent crimes (simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders), with 430,000 (8%) committed by an offender armed with a gun. Just looking at murder alone, 67% of the murders were committed with a firearm (this number doesn't separate how many of these homicides are gang related or committed with illegally obtained guns). The NCVS also reported that guns were used for self defense 116,000 times.

There are no records kept for when a gun is used in self defense. The NCVS report only counts reported self defense cases during the survey. Other studies have been done to attempt to get a more accurate estimate on the use of guns for self defense. These studies show estimates ranging from 500,000 (CDC) to 2.5 million (1995 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology) times per year. A couple of other studies both estimate around 1 million times per year (2000 Journal of Quantitative Criminology).

You claim "domestic weapons have caused more needless deaths than they have saved," but look at the numbers. Even the lowest estimated use of guns for self defense per year, 116,000, is still greater than the number of murders committed with a gun per year. That is at least 116,000 assaults, robberies, rapes and murders prevented by civilians with a guns.

Thanks, @jimnms -- you got it! Your substitution of different facts is right on.

They are just facts.

The only difference between the two situations is that the weapon bought for self defense was actually used for self defense. But other than that... a recitation of facts.

(I'm not being snotty -- I really mean it. You got it.)

[redacted] Aw, never mind.

Sure I'll believe this if it was done by a university or a 3rd party...not the US Department of Justice!

Actually no I won't believe it, because I read 1,000 pages a week printed in this country and these stories are simply not around enough to sustain these numbers. Also you obviously can't use instances where a gun wielding civilian defended themselves against a gun wielding criminal. That's just nonsensical.

We simply need to do something about guns just like we did something about drunk driving, and crime in general. Everyone says we can't but we have never tried in a serious way.

Moving this video to bareboards2's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.