[springfield1911]

Morons, I'm a republican, I don't use drugs, all your steriod typing of Berkeley hurt your positions.

I was driving through California from the Bay Area to Vasalia on I-five one day when I stopped to get some food at a truck stop.

Priveledge? I grew up in a high school with 50% latinos, got stabbed once by mexicans cuz they wanted some free money, and work two jobs to pay for my tuition...

 

[Silver]

Morons, I'm a republican, I don't use drugs, all your steriod typing of Berkeley hurt your positions.

I was driving through California from the Bay Area to Vasalia on I-five one day when I stopped to get some food at a truck stop.

Priveledge? I grew up in a high school with 50% latinos, got stabbed once by mexicans cuz they wanted some free money, and work two jobs to pay for my tuition...

Just a tip: Run your term papers through ye olde spellchecker before you hand them in.

Jesus Christ, when people who go to Berkeley spell like mack, what hope is there for humanity?

 

[valve bouncer]

Don't be scared...

No guns where I live mate. No reason to be scared. Don't have to worry about random idiots so much. Except on the internet.

 

[blt2ride]

It's easy for people living in privilage and security to say that only cowards need guns. But last time I needed one, I was facing a group of 12 mexican hooligans who wanted to take my car, and those beaners only backed off after I got out my rifle.

If this story is true, which I have my doubts, you are very lucky you didn't get shot. You had one gun; however, I would imagine the guys who were trying to take your car had guns as well.

A little bit of advice, you better be really careful who you pull your gun on. If you pull your gun out to "scare" someone and they are armed, you will get shot.

On the other hand, I have a hard time buying your story, it seems like you're all bark and no bite. No one told me that is was STORY TIME!

 

[blt2ride]

It's easy for people living in privilage and security to say that only cowards need guns. But last time I needed one, I was facing a group of 12 mexican hooligans who wanted to take my car, and those beaners only backed off after I got out my rifle.

Who has privilage and security? I certianly don't, and I don't know anyone who does. I have a hard time believing anything you post. It seems that someone who is going to Berkley would make more sense than you...I've come to the conclusion that you are full of s#it! Go away...

 

[N8 v2.0]

No guns where I live mate. No reason to be scared. Don't have to worry about random idiots so much. Except on the internet.

..and yet gun violence still happens in Oz...

 

[valve bouncer]

..and yet gun violence still happens in Oz...

Hello dickhead, I said where I live, not where I'm from. Christ but you're a moron sometimes. Get help.

 

[rooftest]

Originally Posted by springfield1911
Morons, I'm a republican, I don't use drugs, all your steriod typing of Berkeley hurt your positions.

Why did you choose to go to Berkeley, then? Seems like an odd choice...

 

[N8 v2.0]

Hello dickhead, I said where I live, not where I'm from. Christ but you're a moron sometimes. Get help.

Oop... you Nippon...

Don't guns kill the occational person there as well?

 

[blt2ride]

Why did you choose to go to Berkeley, then? Seems like an odd choice...

Well, he seems like an odd dude. Imagine, actually thinking people would believe that he pulled a gun on a bunch of gangsters at a truck stop. What a joke...stop it!

 

[ohio]

Morons, I'm a republican, I don't use drugs, all your steriod typing of Berkeley hurt your positions.

Whoa, I never said YOU use drugs (akthough maybe you SHOULD use some drugs... you're a bit high-strung). And Inever would have guessed you were a republican...

I was pointing out that Berkeley is pretty damn safe. If you need a gun there you're doing something wrong. Hell, I've got plenty of friends in Oakland that are pretty feeble looking and even they don't need guns to get by safely. Are you even more feeble than they?

Short version: if you think you need a gun to protect yourself, you're doing something wrong. If you think you need a gun to protect your property, go buy some insurance instead.

It doesn't get gray for me, until you need a gun to protect your wife and children.

 

[valve bouncer]

Oop... you Nippon...

Don't guns kill the occational person there as well?

Generally the only gun related deaths occur within the Yakuza. They tend to shoot each other with monotonous regularity. No prizes for guessing where they get most of their guns from. Yep, the US military although to be fair recently a lot of weapons have come in through Russia. In my almost 9 years here I've only ever seen one gun that wasn't carried by a policeman. Out riding one day I saw a hunter with a rifle.

 

[clancy98]

Generally the only gun related deaths occur within the Yakuza. They tend to shoot each other with monotonous regularity.

wait, how is that possible? I thought guns were illegal there? neaky:

I'm confused.

 

[valve bouncer]

wait, how is that possible? I thought guns were illegal there? neaky:

I'm confused.

You really want me to dig up the stats on gun-related deaths in Japan versus America? I guessed you missed the part where most of the guns in Japan come from Americans.

 

[clancy98]

i guess you missed my well-natured smilie. and my sarcasm.


and no, I didn't miss the part that they came from america. (which is irrelevant anyways)


I conveniently overlooked it.


edit: and don't say "dig up" like you have it sitting under a large stack of important tax forms on your desk. You want me to "Google up" the statistics etc....

 

[Reactor]

N8 that is one sweet rifle.

 

[N8 v2.0]

N8 that is one sweet rifle.

Totally! It's a 1953 International Harvester.

 

[ridetoofast]

courage sticks?

you condescending, stereotyping, arrogant, blowhard of a prick

has it ever occurred to you in your insulated world that people might actually enjoy shooting guns for benign purposes like simply punching holes in paper, knocking over lead targets, blowing up clay piegons, or contributing to population control of animals by hunting?

i know people that actually HUNT for a LIVING rather than going to the grocery store.

get off your fvcking high horse. talk about a stereotypical, super generalizing statement.

when will the left ever admit that its not the guns its the people. are you going to outlaw cars because of vehicular homicide and stupid drivers? and DONT EVEN try to tell me that guns kill more people than cars.

please just go outside and get hit by a bus and do the gene pool a favor

 

[ohio]

are you going to outlaw cars because of vehicular homicide and stupid drivers? and DONT EVEN try to tell me that guns kill more people than cars.

1. Cars serve a function necessary for our economy
2. Cars may cause more accidental deaths (accidental death, manslaughter), but I guarantee they cause fewer intentional deaths (homicide), not top mention the general population has far more contact frequency with cars than guns.
3. You have to be of age, licensed, tested, to operate a car. They also require a degree of expertise (not to mention physical size) that would make it difficult for a 3 year old to operate one.

I grew up around guns. I too know plenty of people that at the very least supplement their food budget by hunting. I also know they are responsible and guns are safe in their hands. However, the comparison of guns to automobiles is so ridiculous and outrageous it boggles my mind that you're able to convince yourself that you're actually putting forth errefutable proof of the harmless nature of guns.

Now, given your statements I need to ask:
1. Are you a gun owner?
2. Are you a hunter?
3. If so is the money saved by supplementing your food bill with game greater or less than the money spent on guns (plus accessories), amo, hunting apparel and equipment (camos, treestands, 4-wheelers), gun education, and butchering?

If the answer to 3 is not "greater than", then your argument is moot, because your behavior shows that you own guns because you like them. Not because it saves you money, not because it controls the animal population (in totasl expense it would be far more economical, and safer, to have certified professionals stage a "sting" with salt-licks and night-vision, scopes paid for with taxes), but because you simply like guns. To use your own words, I don't know why the right has such a problem admitting that.

 

[reflux]

blah blah blah angry rant blah blah, at least no racial slurs were used blah blah

Uhh...within the context of the article, what part of words courage sticks doesn't apply? The guy started an argument, left, came back, and shot somebody in the back. If he didn't have a gun, I bet he would've left and never have returned.

I guess it's totally possible he went to go hunting and thought the infant was a little baby deer like you said...

 

[rooftest]

....but because you simply like guns. To use your own words, I don't know why the right has such a problem admitting that.

I thought that went without saying. What's wrong with liking guns?

 

[ridetoofast]

1. Cars serve a function necessary for our economy
2. Cars may cause more accidental deaths (accidental death, manslaughter), but I guarantee they cause fewer intentional deaths (homicide), not top mention the general population has far more contact frequency with cars than guns.
3. You have to be of age, licensed, tested, to operate a car. They also require a degree of expertise (not to mention physical size) that would make it difficult for a 3 year old to operate one.

I grew up around guns. I too know plenty of people that at the very least supplement their food budget by hunting. I also know they are responsible and guns are safe in their hands. However, the comparison of guns to automobiles is so ridiculous and outrageous it boggles my mind that you're able to convince yourself that you're actually putting forth errefutable proof of the harmless nature of guns.

Now, given your statements I need to ask:
1. Are you a gun owner?
2. Are you a hunter?
3. If so is the money saved by supplementing your food bill with game greater or less than the money spent on guns (plus accessories), amo, hunting apparel and equipment (camos, treestands, 4-wheelers), gun education, and butchering?

If the answer to 3 is not "greater than", then your argument is moot, because your behavior shows that you own guns because you like them. Not because it saves you money, not because it controls the animal population (in totasl expense it would be far more economical, and safer, to have certified professionals stage a "sting" with salt-licks and night-vision, scopes paid for with taxes), but because you simply like guns. To use your own words, I don't know why the right has such a problem admitting that.

yes i own a gun
no i dont hunt
this isnt an economics discussion its a counterpoint for things guns can be used for besides sensless violence.

my remark was made because he made a sweeping, condescending reference to guns in general and the people that use them, hence my list of things that they are beneficial for.

manslaughter/homicide...someone dies in the process. if your wife/mother/brother was killed by an idiot driver or shot intentionally would it make a difference to YOU!??? they are gone. sweet jeebus are you sure you're not a lawyer because that sure as hell sounds like a symantic (sp?) arguement.

the entire jist of my arguement was that they can and ARE used for things that he so snidely referred to as idiotic when in fact they are not. his smug demeanor is so common of the left because they think someone who uses a gun is not far removed from a primate and that the left must think for us to protect us from ourselves.

yes i like guns..so fvcking what. i am responsible with them and derive pleasure from watching clay piegons go poof.

but if you insist on making this an economics discussion rather than a legislative/philisophical one i guess all those people that manufacture the guns, and the people that manufacture the machines that are used to make the guns don't count in the economy do they...that money just magically disappears so i guess they don't serve the economy at all.

is the police man just supposed to use bad words when he's trying to stop a criminal. guns do and can serve a purpose. in and of themselves they do nothing. its the bastard of a criminal that is committing the action.


i like guns

i like guns

i like guns

there i said it

you clearly seem to be from the left. now pony up and admit its the people and not a fvcking inamite object that is the problem. punish them and not the responsible LAW abiding owners. a criminal is a criminal, no pretty words you put on paper are ever going to stop him from using a weapon in a criminal manner so why does the left insist on making it so difficult for decent people to protect themselves?

 

[N8 v2.0]

 

[ohio]

you clearly seem to be from the left.

do my political leanings have anything to do with the logic of my argument? I have made no assertions about which side of the political fence you sit on, nor would i think you're being from the right or a republican would disqualify your line of argument. I focused only on your statements about guns.

Now, I agree that guns do serve a useful purpose in various settings. Yes, police should have them. They are licensed law-enforcement officials. Yes, I believe that people should be allowed to hunt with them, in as much as it supplements their income, and (in many cases) manages animal populations.

Does that have anything to do with people owning a deadly weapon for fun? Not in my opinion. Guns are too dangerous and too often mis-used for me to justify anyone who wants a it as a toy owning one. Having grown up around guns my whole life, I know more people that were killed by accident by guns (3) than those that were killed in an act of self-defense (1, and even that was a grey area)... I just don't see the net benefit. Perhaps you have some stats on how many crimes were prevented due to gun ownership, vs. accidental deaths?

If bicycles were prone the exploding underneath people, or a three year old could easily kill someone with a bicycle that was left unlocked, I would say ban bicycles too, even though I derive a great amount of joy from their use.

 

[Changleen]

I've come to the conclusion that you are full of s#it! Go away...

 

[Changleen]

manslaughter/homicide...someone dies in the process. if your wife/mother/brother was killed by an idiot driver or shot intentionally would it make a difference to YOU!???

Of course. What a ridiculous statement.

is the police man just supposed to use bad words when he's trying to stop a criminal.

80% of the Police in the UK have no problem getting by without guns.

so why does the left insist on making it so difficult for decent people to protect themselves?

Stats for sucessful interventions by people with legally held guns against criminals with illegally held weapons please? Otherwise I'd say it seems in reality that when people try to 'defend' their homes with guns all that happens is the situation is escallated and more people end up dead.

 

[sanjuro]

Gun control is a funny debate. Would handgun violence go down if we ban handguns? Would violence in general diminish if we got rid of guns?

Well, definitely yes on Question No. 1, and probably yes as well on No. 2.

The friends I know who own guns I trust totally with them. Is every gun owner as responsible? Probably not.

I was thinking about the other weapon of mass destruction, automobiles. In the wrong hands, they are as deadly as a gun. However, there is much more regulation involved, and maybe that is what is needed (all NRA members, please do not shoot me).

 

[sanjuro]

80% of the Police in the UK have no problem getting by without guns.
Stats for sucessful interventions by people with legally held guns against criminals with illegally held weapons please? Otherwise I'd say it seems in reality that when people try to 'defend' their homes with guns all that happens is the situation is escallated and more people end up dead.

Apparently the Britsh Police do not think they need weapons, particularily after a terrorist bombing:

Stats for successful interventions:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
in the 1,000,000's
Country Year Population Total Homicide Firearm Homicide Non-Gun Homicide % Households With Guns

United States 1999 272,691,000 5.70 3.72 1.98 39.0

 

[Changleen]

Apparently the Britsh Police do not think they need weapons, particularily after a terrorist bombing:

Yeah, Those guys are specially trained officers who make up the other 20%... Most Police don't use guns ever. Co-incidentally we have a very low rate of cops getting shot. Hmmm.

Stats for successful interventions:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

No, those are the stats for the amount of times people actually use guns. I want to know how many times people pull a gun on an armed 'person threatening their security' and the situation is resolved without death. I'm betting it's less than when no resistance is offered by the 'defender'.

 

[sanjuro]

No, those are the stats for the amount of times people actually use guns. I want to know how many times people pull a gun on an armed 'person threatening their security' and the situation is resolved without death. I'm betting it's less than when no resistance is offered by the 'defender'.

Did you even read this? It lists between 800,000 and 1.5 mil Defensive Gun Usages? Do you think Americans fired a gun in self-defense that many times?

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

Previous research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies[3] and in burglaries.[4] Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies[5] and to assaults.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

If this story is true, which I have my doubts, you are very lucky you didn't get shot. You had one gun; however, I would imagine the guys who were trying to take your car had guns as well.

A little bit of advice, you better be really careful who you pull your gun on. If you pull your gun out to "scare" someone and they are armed, you will get shot.

On the other hand, I have a hard time buying your story, it seems like you're all bark and no bite. No one told me that is was STORY TIME!

da truf spoken like a person with some street smarts and common sense to realize that guns are not to show off (unless you want to be shot)....

like.. "yeah i wish i had my rifle with supperdupper extras, a laser scope, star wars lightsword bayonette, and a gazillion ft effective range to take out those beaners... because you know, am dazzling fast in pulling out a rifle/pumping a shotgun/overhauling an ak47 that i´ll do it faster than you can blink... fast enough to overcome the advantage of a surprise ambush of 12 people and i´ll kill them rambo style, taking down 2 per bullet"....

 

[Changleen]

Did you even read this? It lists between 800,000 and 1.5 mil Defensive Gun Usages? Do you think Americans fired a gun in self-defense that many times?

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

Previous research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies[3] and in burglaries.[4] Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to those who resist without weapons. This is true whether the research relied on victim surveys or on police records, and whether the data analysis consisted of simple cross-tabulations or more complex multivariate analyses. These findings have been obtained with respect to robberies[5] and to assaults.

OK, Thank you. No, I obviously didn't read that.

 

[Reactor]

800k - 1.5 million defensive gun uses? Per year? That number doesn't sense. at 1.5 million, that is one for every 200 people or about one per every 75 households. If that's true, and it's representive, I should be able to find someone in my small department of 20 people that's had to use one in the last 5 years.

What was their methodology? Did they count every police arrest and traffic stop as a defensive use of a firearm? Or every officer in every arrest? and then add a few homeowners?

 

[sanjuro]

800k - 1.5 million defensive gun uses? Per year? That number doesn't sense. at 1.5 million, that is one for every 200 people or about one per every 75 households. If that's true, and it's representive, I should be able to find someone in my small department of 20 people that's had to use one in the last 5 years.

What was their methodology? Did they count every police arrest and traffic stop as a defensive use of a firearm? Or every officer in every arrest? and then add a few homeowners?

While estimates of DGU frequency are reliable because they are based on a very large sample of 4,977 cases, results pertaining to the details of DGU incidents are based on 213 or fewer sample cases, and readers should treat these results with appropriate caution.

 

[ohio]

From the same link (in short, the NSPOF estimate is pretty much impossibly high):

For example, in only a small fraction of rape and
robbery attempts do victims use guns in
self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that
the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which
a woman defended herself with a gun was more than
the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS
(exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8,
the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF
estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all
NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate
of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated
assaults. If those percentages were close to
accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!

NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals
are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders.
That number also appears completely out of line
with other, more reliable statistics on the number
of gunshot cases.[14]

The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even
stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates
are calculated using only the most recently
reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as
noted, about half of the respondents who reported a
DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year.
Although there are no details on the circumstances
of those additional DGUs, presumably they are
similar to the most recent case and provide
evidence for additional millions of violent crimes
foiled and perpetrators shot.

False positives. Regardless of which estimates one
believes, only a small fraction of adults have used
guns defensively in 1994. The only question is
whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would
conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated
by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's
criteria).

Any estimate of the incidence of a rare event based
on screening the general population is likely to
have a positive bias. The reason can best be
explained by use of an epidemiological
framework.[15] Screening tests are always subject
to error, whether the "test" is a medical
examination for cancer or an interview question for
DGUs. The errors are either "false negatives" or
"false positives." If the latter tend to outnumber
the former, the population prevalence will be
exaggerated.

The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the
case of rare events boils down to a matter of
arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in
1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents, only 1
can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any
of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even
2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result
will be a positive bias--regardless of whether the
one true positive tells the truth.

Respondents might falsely provide a positive
response to the DGU question for any of a number of
reasons:

o They may want to impress the interviewer by their
heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.

o They may be genuinely confused due to substance
abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate
memories.

o They may actually have used a gun defensively
within the last couple of years but falsely report
it as occurring in the previous year--a phenomenon
known as "telescoping."

Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why
that rare respondent who actually did use a gun
defensively within the time frame may have decided
not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the
arithmetic dictates that the false positives will
likely predominate.

In line with the theory that many DGU reports are
exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of
these reports, the respondents' answers to the
followup items are not consistent with respondents'
reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF
respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and
Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that
the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or
attack--but then responded "no" to a subsequent
question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or
injure you?"

The key explanation for the difference between the
108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs
and the several million from the surveys discussed
earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive
problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who
first reported that they were crime victims. Most
NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the
DGU question, falsely or otherwise.

Unclear benefits and costs from gun uses. Even if
one were clever enough to design a questionnaire
that would weed out error, a problem in
interpreting the result would remain. Should the
number of DGUs serve as a measure of the public
benefit of private gun possession, even in
principle? When it comes to DGUs, is more better?
That is doubtful, for two kinds of reasons:

o First, people who draw their guns to defend
themselves against perceived threats are not
necessarily innocent victims; they may have started
fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken
about whether the other persons really intended to
harm them. Survey interviewers must take the
respondent's word for what happened and why; a
competent police investigation of the same incident
would interview all parties before reaching a
conclusion.

o Second and more generally, the number of DGUs
tells us little about the most important effects on
crime of widespread gun ownership. When a high
percentage of homes, vehicles, and even purses
contain guns, that presumably has an important
effect on the behavior of predatory criminals. Some
may be deterred or diverted to other types of
crime. Others may change tactics, acquiring a gun
themselves or in some other way seeking to preempt
gun use by the intended victim.[16] Such
consequences presumably have an important effect on
criminal victimization rates but are in no way
reflected in the DGU count.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Post too long....




Had to reload my guv'mint model 3 times to make it thru...

 

[sanjuro]

In any event, we are a violent country, and guns are part of our culture. As soon as we ban every image of guns from TV and movies, we can be assured of zero gun violence.

Until that time, I think we will have to face the reality that guns are part of lives, and it will take very tiny steps before we have a violence-free society.

 

[ohio]

In any event, we are a violent country, and guns are part of our culture. As soon as we ban every image of guns from TV and movies, we can be assured of zero gun violence.

Two things:
1. Do you live in a different country than I do? My country is not particularly violent. Rwanda is violent. The US is pretty damn safe.
2. You're don't seriously believe that media is the cause of the little violence that does occur in this country, do you? Hey Tipper Gore, Hi Lynne Cheney, how's it going?

 

[Archslater]

800k - 1.5 million defensive gun uses? Per year? That number doesn't sense. at 1.5 million, that is one for every 200 people or about one per every 75 households. If that's true, and it's representive, I should be able to find someone in my small department of 20 people that's had to use one in the last 5 years.

What was their methodology? Did they count every police arrest and traffic stop as a defensive use of a firearm? Or every officer in every arrest? and then add a few homeowners?

I agree, I was just doing that math in my head as well. That suggests we should all know many people who have used guns in this fashion. I have never heard of anyone.

 

[rooftest]

As soon as we ban every image of guns from TV and movies, we can be assured of zero gun violence.

Now you're starting the "people shoot people because TV tells them to" argument, which I think is a bunch of crap. I still see people smoking since they banned ads on TV.

.......we have a violence-free society.

violence-free? c'mon....