In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:23:38 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:41:39 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:52:50 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:53:02 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:41:51 -0700, jps wrote:


A study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in
the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the
risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk
of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of
homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the
hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm

Tell all your liberal buddies to get rid of their guns, and not to buy any more. That'll solve a lot
of the problem.

My liberal buddies comprise a much smaller percentage of gun ownership
than your conservative buddies. It just furthers the argument (being
made very well by so many in the conservative quarter) that
conservatives hold women in low regard, including their wives.

The numbers don't lie. More women die from both self-inflicted
gunshots and are murdered at a higher rate in households that have
guns.

This still brings me back to Australia. They virtually banned guns and
their homicide rate, that was already declining, continued to decline
at the same rate. It is virtually a straight line when averaged out.

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/...iciderate2.png

There like here, most are acquaintance murders. Will found a way after
the guns were gone.

With the exception that they haven't had a mass murder since they
banned assault style weapons.

There's just as many guns, and there's still plenty of murder, just
not so many mass murders.

What would you call the incident at the Washington Navy Yard if not a mass murder?

So it's a mass murder, what does that have to do with JPS's assertion
that there's not so many?