TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/mich ... -us-safer/

Interesting tidbit:

#3 The nine European nations with the lowest rate of gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times greater than the nine European nation with the highest rate of gun ownership.

#8 Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.

#10 Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK?

#15 Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted.

Very revealing statistics, yet the left continues to beat the gun control drum.

I don't get it.

Interesting to see someone use the anti-gun nuts' own tactics against them. Now if only this would be picked up by the mainstream.

jimlongley wrote:Interesting to see someone use the anti-gun nuts' own tactics against them. Now if only this would be picked up by the mainstream.

Excuse me, got a little carried away.

You know the ministry of truth will not allow this information to go mainstream.

Abraham wrote:Very revealing statistics, yet the left continues to beat the gun control drum.

I don't get it.

It's because leftists are not really concerned about guns or criminal violence. Those are proxies.

ELB,

Please elaborate.

Thanks!

Abraham wrote:ELB,

Please elaborate.

Thanks!

It's about control and ideology.

Abraham, I think I might know what he talking about in his statements, they really don't care about the issue presented as much as they care about "CONTROL" so they make it palletable to the masses and those that think alike they use proxies such as gun control its for the children, everyone should have affordable healthcare, no one needs a clip that holds 1000 bullits(SIC OP) no one needs an assault rifle/ pistol/ shotgun/ grenade launcher/ thermonuclear device. No one needs to have a motorcycle that will go over 100 MPH, we have a right to know, the check is in the mail and I will respect you in the morning. All of the above things are nothing more than ways to salve someone's conscience to hide from even themselves that they have this need to control people, and yes I'm gonna get flamed here but its just like organized religion in that its all about controlling someone else, not the instigator but all of you out there that are too stooped to be trusted to make intelligent decisions. Human nature however needs for many to hide that desire to control events and people around you in something that is at least a semi rational cause or we couldn't justify our own actions of arbitrarily abrogating someone else's liberty's an beliefs

JP171,

No flames here, thanks for the input.

Molon labe!

In travels across the U.S. we commonly see various bumper/window stickers.... NRA, AARP, AAA, Masonic, breast cancer ribbons, Marine Corp, & schools. - but there is one sticker that, to my knowledge, may be non existent or very rare - and it is, Anyone? Anyone? .... An ANTI-GUN sticker!

Why would a person who is an avid supporter of a popular issue not wish to share commonality with others? Shouldnt such a person be comfortable in expressing his opinion to the world?...Anyone? Anyone?....

Could it be that they recognize that an anti gun sticker would communicate the fact that they are not carrying a gun?? Anyone? Anyone? ...

And that anyone who is not carrying a gun is...Anyone? Anyone? DEFENSELESS! ....

And anyone who is defenseless is ...Anyone? Anyone? SUBJECT TO BEING A VICTIM....

If these woefully misguided & logically challenged gits believe that a 30.06 is A SUPER SHIELD to violence should we suggest they stick a big ole 30.06 notice on their windows for protection? Bueller? Bueller?

This list isn't from the 2007 Kates/Mauser study (the "Harvard Study" in question, which wasn't actually conducted at Harvard but, rather, was an independent study published in a Harvard law journal). The accompanying list is a popular (aka frequently emailed) list of pro-gun "facts," some of which are either outdated or were questionable to begin with, that has circulated for years.

Fact-based arguments are one of our strongest weapons in the fight for gun rights, but we have to be careful about misstating or misattributing those fact-based arguments. Using a compelling, properly sourced fact greatly benefits our cause. Using a misleading, inaccurate, or unverifiable fact makes us seem delusional at best and dishonest at worst.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_g ... roductive/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The actual Harvard Law Review article can be found here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf

Ironically, one of the authors' last name is "Mauser".