Common Sense
 

In video uploaded to YouTube on Saturday, Arthur Kellermann of the
RAND Corporation said that keeping a gun in your home was a bad way to
protect your family.

“It’s natural to want to do everything you can to keep you family
safe, especially if you live in a dangerous neighborhood,” he told the
Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. “In a thunderstorm, it is also
natural to take cover under the nearest tree, but that doesn’t make it
a good idea.”

Kellermann has published several studies on gun ownership, which found
keeping a firearm in the home increased the odds a family member would
become a homicide victim. Not surprisingly, gun rights advocates have
claimed that his research is flawed.

“The facts are this: While there are occasionally instances where
someone uses a gun for self-defense effectively, the number of times a
gun in the home is involved in the death of a child, the death of a
family member, [or] the death of a visiting relative who is depressed
vastly overwhelms the number of cases where a gun is used for
self-defense,” he explained.

“That work has been out and available for over 15 years, and multiple
studies have shown homes where guns are kept are actually more likely
to be the scene of a homicide or a suicide than homes in exactly the
same neighborhoods without guns.”

He advised those who wished to keep a gun in the home to store it in a
highly secure location that couldn’t be accessed by intruders or
distraught family members.

Common Sense
 

On 5/19/2013 1:31 AM, jps wrote:
“That work has been out and available for over 15 years, and multiple
studies have shown homes where guns are kept are actually more likely
to be the scene of a homicide or a suicide than homes in exactly the
same neighborhoods without guns.”

Is that a fact? Snerk.

Common Sense
 

On 5/19/13 11:08 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:31:31 -0700, jps wrote:


In video uploaded to YouTube on Saturday, Arthur Kellermann of the
RAND Corporation said that keeping a gun in your home was a bad way to
protect your family.


If you don't want one, don't buy one but that does not mean you have
the right to preach to others.
I can make the same case for not owning a car, a swimming pool, a
plethora of household chemicals, certain pets or even a BOAT.


We don't have the right to preach to others? How about all those bat****
crazy right-wing preachers who not only preach to others who really have
no interest in what they are saying, but also try to force others to
abide by their stuporstitions?

Same rules?

Common Sense
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:31:31 -0700, jps wrote:


In video uploaded to YouTube on Saturday, Arthur Kellermann of the
RAND Corporation said that keeping a gun in your home was a bad way to
protect your family.


If you don't want one, don't buy one but that does not mean you have
the right to preach to others.
I can make the same case for not owning a car, a swimming pool, a
plethora of household chemicals, certain pets or even a BOAT.

Preaching?? I take it you haven't been keeping up the rants from the NRA
and gun nuts?? THEY are the ones preaching.

Common Sense
 

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:31:31 -0700, jps wrote:


In video uploaded to YouTube on Saturday, Arthur Kellermann of the
RAND Corporation said that keeping a gun in your home was a bad way
to
protect your family.


If you don't want one, don't buy one but that does not mean you have
the right to preach to others.
I can make the same case for not owning a car, a swimming pool, a
plethora of household chemicals, certain pets or even a BOAT.

Preaching?? I take it you haven't been keeping up the rants from the
NRA
and gun nuts?? THEY are the ones preaching.

---------------------------------------------------

I'll be 64 years old this year. I can't recall any gun manufacturer,
dealer, individual, the NRA .... or *anyone* ever approaching or
encouraging me to buy or own a gun or to contact me directly with any
pro-gun lobbying for any reason.

It was only fairly recently (within the past 3 years) that I became
interested in owning a gun, so I went through the permit process.
Since getting a permit I have become aware of how many normal, well
adjusted people from all walks of life and educational backgrounds
who own guns and are often armed in public via concealed carry.
Nothing new. I just had never had the interest before to be aware of
this.

Seems to me that the "preaching" doesn't come from gun nuts,
manufacturers, dealers or the NRA. It's when others start
"preaching" their anti-gun rhetoric and try to impose restrictions on
something that they probably don't own or want that you start hearing
from the pro gun people and organizations.

Common Sense
 

I forget where I read this ..... maybe here, but I got a kick out of
it.

If someone recklessly drives a car at 90 miles an hour in a 25 mph
speed zone, is lowering the speed limit to 20 mph a logical solution?

Common Sense
 

In article ,
says...

Seems to me that the "preaching" doesn't come from gun nuts,
manufacturers, dealers or the NRA. It's when others start
"preaching" their anti-gun rhetoric and try to impose restrictions on
something that they probably don't own or want that you start hearing
from the pro gun people and organizations.

The gun industry and its lobbyists work 24/7 to ensure that guns can be
freely sold to criminals, psych jobs and terrorists. Polling shows even
the majority of gun owners don't want this status quo.
If you think opposition to guns being sold to criminals, psych jobs and
terrorists is "anti-gun rhetoric" and imposing restrictions on selling
guns to to criminals, psych jobs and terrorists is "preaching," and
unreasonable, spit it out.
Besides that, "preaching" has nothing to do with it, with the "anti-
gun" crowd, nor the "pro-gun crowd."
It's better called "bull****ting" from both sides.
It's real easy to spot those who oppose the 2nd Amendment, and those who
want to abuse it.
What you said above sounds like something a gun nut - gfretwell for
example - would say. Since you are a gun owner in a state that has laws
a gun nut would call "violation of the 2nd Amendment," it should be
easy for you to avoid the real "rhetoric" you wrote, and stand up to say
whether you are opposed to those laws or not.
Not hard to just tell the truth - and take a stand if it matters to you.
I don't care much one way or the other....just saying. Of course you
don't have to "care" either. Nothing illegal with just flowing with the
status quo. That's what most folks do. And that's easy to spot too.
But you're in here talking about "imposing restrictions," and equating
gun laws to speed limits, so you've stepped right into the bull****.

Common Sense
 

On 5/19/2013 9:15 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

Seems to me that the "preaching" doesn't come from gun nuts,
manufacturers, dealers or the NRA. It's when others start
"preaching" their anti-gun rhetoric and try to impose restrictions on
something that they probably don't own or want that you start hearing
from the pro gun people and organizations.

The gun industry and its lobbyists work 24/7 to ensure that guns can be
freely sold to criminals, psych jobs and terrorists. Polling shows even
the majority of gun owners don't want this status quo.
If you think opposition to guns being sold to criminals, psych jobs and
terrorists is "anti-gun rhetoric" and imposing restrictions on selling
guns to to criminals, psych jobs and terrorists is "preaching," and
unreasonable, spit it out.
Besides that, "preaching" has nothing to do with it, with the "anti-
gun" crowd, nor the "pro-gun crowd."
It's better called "bull****ting" from both sides.
It's real easy to spot those who oppose the 2nd Amendment, and those who
want to abuse it.
What you said above sounds like something a gun nut - gfretwell for
example - would say. Since you are a gun owner in a state that has laws
a gun nut would call "violation of the 2nd Amendment," it should be
easy for you to avoid the real "rhetoric" you wrote, and stand up to say
whether you are opposed to those laws or not.
Not hard to just tell the truth - and take a stand if it matters to you.
I don't care much one way or the other....just saying. Of course you
don't have to "care" either. Nothing illegal with just flowing with the
status quo. That's what most folks do. And that's easy to spot too.
But you're in here talking about "imposing restrictions," and equating
gun laws to speed limits, so you've stepped right into the bull****.


Are you finished? I hope.

Common Sense
 

"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

Seems to me that the "preaching" doesn't come from gun nuts,
manufacturers, dealers or the NRA. It's when others start
"preaching" their anti-gun rhetoric and try to impose restrictions
on
something that they probably don't own or want that you start
hearing
from the pro gun people and organizations.

The gun industry and its lobbyists work 24/7 to ensure that guns can
be
freely sold to criminals, psych jobs and terrorists. Polling shows
even
the majority of gun owners don't want this status quo.
If you think opposition to guns being sold to criminals, psych jobs
and
terrorists is "anti-gun rhetoric" and imposing restrictions on selling
guns to to criminals, psych jobs and terrorists is "preaching," and
unreasonable, spit it out.

--------------------------------------

Oh, bull****.

Love it when some people try to twist words and insert their own
meanings to what other people say or think.

I never said I supported or agreed with anything like what you replied
with, so don't take such liberties. All I said is that in almost 64
years no organization or person has ever lobbied or encouraged me to
buy a gun. According to your logic, that must be because I am not a
criminal, a psych job or a terrorist.

Common Sense
 

In article , says...

In video uploaded to YouTube on Saturday, Arthur Kellermann of the
RAND Corporation said that keeping a gun in your home was a bad way to
protect your family.

?It?s natural to want to do everything you can to keep you family
safe, especially if you live in a dangerous neighborhood,? he told the
Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. ?In a thunderstorm, it is also
natural to take cover under the nearest tree, but that doesn?t make it
a good idea.?

Kellermann has published several studies on gun ownership, which found
keeping a firearm in the home increased the odds a family member would
become a homicide victim. Not surprisingly, gun rights advocates have
claimed that his research is flawed.

?The facts are this: While there are occasionally instances where
someone uses a gun for self-defense effectively, the number of times a
gun in the home is involved in the death of a child, the death of a
family member, [or] the death of a visiting relative who is depressed
vastly overwhelms the number of cases where a gun is used for
self-defense,? he explained.

?That work has been out and available for over 15 years, and multiple
studies have shown homes where guns are kept are actually more likely
to be the scene of a homicide or a suicide than homes in exactly the
same neighborhoods without guns.?

He advised those who wished to keep a gun in the home to store it in a
highly secure location that couldn?t be accessed by intruders or
distraught family members.

80,000,000 million gun owners with 300,000,000 million guns and you would think that there
would be millions and millions of people killing themselves or being killed each year.

Why aren't we looking at knife control?

Common Sense
 

On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:31:31 -0700, jps wrote:


In video uploaded to YouTube on Saturday, Arthur Kellermann of the
RAND Corporation said that keeping a gun in your home was a bad way to
protect your family.
Here, jps, just for you:

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/2013/clerk-halts-robbery,-khou,-houston,-texas-051113,-ktrk,-houston,-texas-051213.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

Common Sense
 

On Sun, 19 May 2013 13:45:56 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:




I forget where I read this ..... maybe here, but I got a kick out of
it.

If someone recklessly drives a car at 90 miles an hour in a 25 mph
speed zone, is lowering the speed limit to 20 mph a logical solution?


LOL!

Maryland has a marked 'DUI Enforcement Zone' on the beltway around DC. I suppose the DUI laws aren't
enforced elsewhere. On Hwy 50, also in Maryland, is a 'Motorcycle Safety Zone'. I suppose they're
fair game elsewhere.

I could definitely see Maryland lowering the speed limit to reduce high speed driving, given the gun
control law they just passed.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!