quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

That 22% more likely to be killed by a gun kept at home statistic has been debunked a number of times for reasons stated already.  My match skills suck but I wonder if someone could take the "22% more likely" stat and calculate what percentage of shootings would have to take place in homes with guns for that to actually be true.

Of course, it also ignores the fact that where else are people usually killed, home, busineses, atm machines, bars, so if you live in a home you are probably 10% more likely to be murdered there right?

As for guns, I dont' know how many I own. way less than 50 but over 20.  Then there are stuff like Stens and AKs where you can just build them at home.

Sten submachineguns were built by polish jews in basements in Warsaw under Nazi "supervision".  Building guns is pretty easy, ammo isn't hard but you just need so damn much of it, but it is actually harder than building guns.  Magazines are probably the most tricky thing to build.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

What 3" mortor?  US uses 60mm, 82mm, and 4.2 inch, Russians don't use inch and the brits had a 4 inch but I can't recall a 3 inch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

I still think the solution to gun crime is to ban drugs because if drugs were illegal we would have a lot less drug related violence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Not for nothing,China could pull of an actual invasion.They have the numbers,and  the guns/bombs/rockets/tanks.boats/planes/material, to do it.

In ten short years,they`ll have grown even stronger.They have nukes,enough to destroy every square inch of north America,a few times over.

And soon,they`ll own us financially.They have already used their leverage over us,and got the USA(bush) to back down from our demand, that the US and China tie the value of our currencies together.

What a "braveheart" bush is.......pfffft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I`ve heard the claim that the 22% thing,was debunked.Other than the "claim" of debunking,I haven`t seen a thing,or paper,article(non-NRA),or study, that does this.


Would you post what material you know about,and links to articles/studies, that support the claim of debunking?


Not trying to change anyone`s mind.But this claim get`s bantied about often,with no real facts to back it up.I would like to see what info you have about this subject.

Every one knows that bringing something into the home carries a risk,and a benefit.

I`ve seen NRA talking heads say that having a pool in the back yard is riskier,that having a gun in the house.While not true,having a pool,definitely increases the risk of drowning.It`s almost to simple.

And conversely,having a gun in the house increases your chance of getting shot,or someone else(non-criminal)getting shot.
Without the gun,it`s  less to no chance you`ll  shoot a friend/family member/yourself.

This knowledge shouldn`t keep you from having a gun.But,a home owner should know all the ins and outs,benefits and risks,when deciding to bring a gun into the home.

To mis-inform a home owner about the risk vs. benefit ratio,is worse the reckless .

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Not for nothing,China could pull of an actual invasion.They have the numbers,and  the guns/bombs/rockets/tanks.boats/planes/material, to do it.

In ten short years,they`ll have grown even stronger.They have nukes,enough to destroy every square inch of north America,a few times over.

And soon,they`ll own us financially.They have already used their leverage over us,and got the USA(bush) to back down from our demand, that the US and China tie the value of our currencies together.

What a "braveheart" bush is.......pfffft

One problem there dude... how are they going to get that invasion force over here?