Usually I'm anti gun but in this case?

[Roger427]

Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname

More people are murdered by hammers than handguns every year.

Got to waive the BS flag on this.

[Ghostly1]

Originally Posted by fairlaker

I'm sorry you seem so unable to glean more from my sometime posts here.

Over 50 posts of the same drivel in one thread show desperation coupled with fixation and invokes yawns.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by fairlaker

If I weren't, I would not so easily have spotted your having stumbled over the matter.

No, it just means you are desperately holding on to the idea that suicides need to be considered in a thread about self defense.

Misleading to the desperate. Those living in a home with a gun are four times more likley to die from a gunshot wound than those who do not. This point was first raised in Post-26 and its implications have been as much a part of the thread since as any others. Proximity to a gun makes one less safe rather than more safe. You want to exclude all gunshot deaths other than criminal homicides only in an attempt to save face and dilute the actual point. It's not working.

No, it just means you are desperately holding on to the idea that suicides and other non-homicide gunshot deaths need to be considered in a thread about self defense.

Your plan for keeping guns away from "suicidal people" while keeping them handy enough for everyone else to use in warding off personal attacks would be what again?

That is the crux of the matter, is it not? How do we keep guns away from people who would do harm to themselves or others without infringing on the right of everyone else to have them for defense - or as a hobby for hunting or target shooting?

That would be the definition of a trend. You and data don't seem to mix all that well.

What I see is a projection of a trend with no data to show how it was calculated. if you have the data, I would be happy to read it.

There are. You simply aren't aware of them.

Then what are they? Show me.

The "information" is contained in the data, which in this case came from CDC. And what you have found of course is a published report that agrees with me. You had earlier posted a source stating that "Highway deaths have been declining significantly in recent years." Now see if you can find some source somewhere that disagrees with me.

No, you show me the data used to create the projection. Your statement, you get to support it.

Oh dear. Single new observations do not "blow" anyone's projections, and the source you chose plainly states that it projected from 2010 at ten-year average rates of change. How did you manage to miss that? This is actually not so bad for media-types, but both 2011 and 2012 would need to be added if their methodology were to be replicated. 2011 of course was the lowest year in many years, and once again, you have wandered in well over your head.

It appears the chart was compiled by someone at Bloomberg:

Report: Gun Deaths Will Exceed Traffic Deaths By 2015 - Business Insider

I read other articles about the chart. None credits the CDC with the chart or the projection. One commentator did note that even if the convergence is true, it would be because traffic deaths are going down, not because gun deaths were going up. If you have the CDC report that actually makes such a projection, I would like a link, please. The "projection" was made without two years of data. The logical thing would be to revise the "projection" using the missing data. Do you have such a revision?

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by fairlaker

The two statements are complementary.

I saw your previous post and was appropriately humored by it.

No, as that would be just another in the ever-increasing number of your desperate attempts at diversion. What would be interesting however was any difference in context between the way in which the phrases "to bear arms" and "to carry weapons" were used in writings and publications of the time. That difference has already been described, of course.

I take it you have nothing to refute what I have said.

Examples of the "writings and publications" that make a distinction between "bearing arms" and "carrying weapons" please.

"Bear" in mind that the Founders themselves likely "carried" weapons upon their persons. I doubt they intended the Second Amendment to mean they could not do so.

[Themanwithnoname]

I'll just leave this right here...

Fact: Even Gandhi Opposed Gun Bans

[Red3311]

I dont care if people are anti gun or not, I will do what I have to do to ensure my survival. Even if guns were banned I would still own one. Like the old saying: "Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6".

[JONOV]

Originally Posted by in_newengland

The store fired him because they have a no gun policy. He was registered to carry a gun though. He did know about the no gun policy. I think IF I had to work in a convenience store AT NIGHT, when there had recently been other INCIDENTS, and I was AlONE, I would want something to protect myself. Is there anything else he could have done? Is there some sort of better protection that the management could put in place rather than just putting guys like this out there to get stabbed and robbed?

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/...bery-with.html

Better to be walking around and looking for a new job than be killed. I'm sure he will have no trouble finding work.

[in_newengland]

My original question was whether there is a better way of handling the issue of someone working alone at night in a potentially dangerous situation. I was thinking in vague terms of either having some sort of a trained guard, having more than one employee working, or some other less lethal means of defense.

I am dropping the subject because this is just another gun debate now.