Your stance on the 2nd is incorrect.
Have a nice life.
12k deaths by firearms, vs 1700 by knives, in 2020.
I am ! And do!
Thanks!
How many by hands? Blunt force trauma?
Ah, I see what you did. Youâre adding them together.
Ignorance is bliss they say.
1 Like
All these could be deadly weapons if used in such manner, but some are deadlier than others especially ones that are designed for specific purpose of causing injury or death.
I see. There are degrees of dead and design matters more than execution. Got it.
Do most people who get shot die?
You see where the problem areas are right?
How can I be ignorant, and waked up?
So what is the correct stance?
Feet shoulder width apart, most of your weight on the balls of your feet, knees slightly flexed, bend forward at the waistâŚ
1 Like
Nope, that isnât what I said at all.
There are degrees of deadly, not dead. A very important distinction here 
As in - one can reasonably conclude that an atomic bomb is probably deadlier than a poodle, even though both atomic bomb and a poodle have caused death before
Agree or disagree ?
.
Whatâs the difference?
The dog didnât cause death.
I disagree with everything you feel, say, think, believe.
Do you know who Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm is?
People zip by each other in multi ton vehicles with a crap ton of kinetic energy every day, and then freak out if someone has a gun because of the potential to kill. Makes no sense.
3 Likes
And text while doing it.
2 Likes
Whatâs the difference?
The dog didnât cause death.
Difference is the atomic bomb is deadlier than a poodle. Thatâs kind of why we bothered with the whole Manhattan Project thing, otherwise we wouldâve saved a whole lot of money and effort by simply dropping a poodle in Hiroshima.
And so, that leads to my point that some things are obviously deadlier than other things.
Doubtful, weâve agreed on plenty of occasions.
âWhen used for protection firearms can seriously inhibit aggression and can provide a psychological buffer against the fear of crime. Furthermore, the fact that national patterns show little violent crime where guns are most dense implies that guns do not elicit aggression in any meaningful way. Quite the contrary, these findings suggest that high saturations of guns in places, or something correlated with that condition, inhibit illegal aggression.â
Professor Hans Toch of the School of Criminal Justice at SUNY-Albany - former gun control advocate
I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of The Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clearÂcut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. Maybe Franklin Zimring and Philip Cook can help me find fault with the Kleck and Gertz research, but for now, I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies.
M.E. Wolfgang - Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology
This has been known for decades.
2 Likes
You are dismissed.
