How Gun Control Made England The Most Violent

[Guest]

Statistically, the odds of dying by alcohol in the UK is greater than dying by a gun crime in the US. I can live with those odds. And those traffic statistics! Let us both be caredful on the road, my friend.

Not an argument for making it easier to kill people with guns though is it.

Br Cornelius

[Shayde]

Statistically, the odds of dying by alcohol in the UK is greater than dying by a gun crime in the US. I can live with those odds. And those traffic statistics! Let us both be caredful on the road, my friend.

Very true, my friend. We can't help some of the stats for health related deaths, or for road accidents, or any death caused by non crime issues, so why add guns into the mix and quite possibly makes things worse?

[spartan max2]

Very true, my friend. We can't help some of the stats for health related deaths, or for road accidents, or any death caused by non crime issues, so why add guns into the mix and quite possibly makes things worse?

Because we feel it makes it better not worse.

Summary of the two sides arguments is rooted in if we feel it makes things better or worse lol.

Edited September 28, 2014 by spartan max2

[+Hammerclaw]

Okay....

I'm not going to even try and post past comments, they'd be too many, but I'm going to try and answer some of the points made. Not in any order mind, so readers may have to search back and find just what the hells I'm referring to!

In the UK we've had armed police for years, not just after personal ownership of firearms was banned. Hells, did you know that we armed officers on patrol during the 1920s great strike? Not that far back, aside from properly trained officers most police who were trusted with a gun were former army. In other words, they knew about guns so they could in a pinch handle one. At least, that was the idea...

Saw a comment about unarmed peasants. Really, unarmed? So these peasants - I assume you refer to those who work the land by that remark - wouldn't have access to farm tools. Like sharp objects which in a fight can be just if not as lethal as a gun. A gun helps hold a man at bay, supprese a crowd from raising their heads above a parapet, and can kill at a distance. So can an arrow shot from a bow, a sword can slice a man up more effective than a shot from a sidearm, and don't get me going about slings or blow darts

After the death of Drummer Lee Rigby, there was no call for guns by the population. Instead, there was a thought that perhaps his cowardly crap pieces of **** killers should be given over to Drummer Rigby's regiment for .... a chat. Anything to let those two scum have an interesting few minutes of terror that they richly deserved.

Look, if we go with a possible cultural idea about weapons for the civil members of the British public, then guns really don't feature. The above mentioned swords, bows and arrows, that sort of still lethal but close contact weapons would technically be right. But still, a population that feels they must be armed for the only reason because isn't a great argument as far as I care. This is Britain, we do have problems - crying out loud, we've had two major incidents with guns in the past two weeks not less than ten miles from where I live - but we don't feel as a country we need guns for the civil population. That may surprise some folk, but that's the way it is!

Yes, that's the majority opinion. I understand. Your right to choose. What most people don't understand is how deeply the basic American attitude toward guns is deeply rooted in your history our common history, I'm not necessarily referring to that little disagreement in 1776. The Plantation of Ulster and the use of Borderlanders and Lowland Scots for their fighting prowess as a bulwark and shield between the British coastal settlements and the displaced and irate Irish was the start of it. It was almost a training ground for what transpired almost two hundred years later and an ocean away. I won't go into historical details, but the colonial attitude being in an adversarial relationship between the land and the people we displaced in Ulster and here, is deeply ingrained in the American psyche, and adopted and magnified in Americans, out of proportion to the number of Ulster Scots whose descendants carry on the tradition. The reverence for gun ownership and marksmanship is hard for you folk in the home isles to wrap your heads around. In some ways we are far closer to a chapter of your history you have mostly forgotten--except for our kith and kin in Northern Ireland. This isn't an excuse or rationalization or justification, it's putting the present in historical context.

Not an argument for making it easier to kill people with guns though is it.

Br Cornelius

Well, we all have to live with our statistics. Edited September 28, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[+Hammerclaw]

Very true, my friend. We can't help some of the stats for health related deaths, or for road accidents, or any death caused by non crime issues, so why add guns into the mix and quite possibly makes things worse?

Because as drinkers and drivers do, we find the risk acceptable and the lack of self defense unacceptable and statistics be damned.

[spartan max2]

http://pollingreport.com/guns.htm I was a little surprised that the majority in favor of tighter gun laws in not greater; I guess the propaganda has an effect. The problem is that all the rest -- mandatory background checks, etc. -- are ineffective if guns can be in private hands -- in such a case the criminals eventually get hold of them.

Still the numbers point out what I said is correct.

This has alot of news polls from left wing sources too. I prefer Gallup, I think most people can agree that they are fairly unbiased.

http://www.gallup.co.../1645/guns.aspx

Point I will bring you to is this.

The other polls in the link do show that their is a bit more people who want stricter restrictions. Which like i said its what regulations that people argue about.

Edit: just to add that i find it interesting that 1959 seemed to be the peak of the get rid of handguns yes support

Edited September 28, 2014 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

Because as drinkers and drivers do, we find the risk acceptable and the lack of self defense unacceptable and statistics be damned.

Statics also show that the crime rate is going down as concealed carry goes up in the U.S.

Personally i think most crime trends going down or up after gun control or less control laws is mostly coincidental. But its worth pointing out

[Guest]

Because as drinkers and drivers do, we find the risk acceptable and the lack of self defense unacceptable and statistics be damned.

Lunacy.

You are willing to accept a 30x increase in your chances of suffering homicide for the illusion of safety. Statistics be damned indeed.

Br Cornelius

[spartan max2]

Lunacy.

You are willing to accept a 30x increase in your chances of suffering homicide for the illusion of safety. Statistics be damned indeed.

Br Cornelius

Again you seem to want to ignore any other explanation for the rate. Yet you will find many for England's violence. Russian has a higher homicide rate then us and they have extremely strict gun control.

But you will easily find other explanations for that.

You have double standards.

Edited September 28, 2014 by spartan max2

[aquatus1]

A very adroit tap dance on the head of a pin. I've stated the obvious, which you shy away from.

As I said, this deserves an answer, not an assumption. Simply because you consider your opinion on the matter to be abvious does not mean others should accept it as a given. You are, after all, hardly inerrant.

If you want to disprove it, be my guest and you go find some statistics to refute my argument.

Disprove what? You haven't proven anything. You have simply declared it to be so.

People raised to be passive about self defense and submissive in the face of aggression always find the concept of proactive self defense disturbing, even frightening.

And people raised to be aggressive in the face of authority and dominant when it comes to passivity always find the concept of peace to be frightening. An alpha dog without something to fight against is little more than a bully.

Sometimes governments--with the noblest intentions--teach their citizens to be cowards.

And sometimes people, with a need to feel dominant, need to call others cowards in order to call themselves heroes.

If you wish to claim a citizen with a gun is a significant factor in stopping gun massacres, then by all means, present your case for consideration. As I said, it would certainly be a tipping point in the argument. Don't, however, assume that simply because you claim it to be so, we should accept your word on it.

[itsnotoutthere]

Just remember guys.......guns don't kill people, people kill people. (er....people with guns....usually....er....100% of the time actually).

[Guest]

Again you seem to want to ignore any other explanation for the rate. Yet you will find many for England's violence. Russian has a higher homicide rate then us and they have extremely strict gun control.

But you will easily find other explanations for that.

You have double standards.

Forgive me for assuming that the USA is a Civilized nation and that it is reasonable for civilized people to not kill each other. My good heart getting the better of me again.

I think we all realise that Russia has some very serious social issues - especially so after the fall of the Iron curtain.

Comparison of the crime rates of the Soviet Union with those of other nations is considered difficult, because the Soviet Union did not publish comprehensive crime statistics.^[6] According to Western experts, robberies, homicide and other violent crimes were less prevalent in the Soviet Union than in the United States because the Soviet Union had a larger police force, strict gun controls, and had a low occurrence of drug abuse.^[6] However, white-collar crime was prevalent in the Soviet system. Corruption in the form of bribery was common, primarily due to the paucity of goods and services on the open market.^[6]

Theft of state property (embezzlement) by state employees was also common.^[6] When Mikhail Gorbachev was the General Secretary of the CPSU, an effort was made to stop white-collar crime.^[6] Revelations of corruption scandals involving high-level employees of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union were published regularly in the news media of the Soviet Union, and many arrests and prosecutions resulted from such discoveries.^[6] An article published in the Izvestia in 1994 described the difference between the situation of crime in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia:^[7]

Crime was never able to gain enough strength to compete with the state's law enforcement system. The criminal world had ties with the police, but it was all kept deeply hidden. Money had influence, but it was not all-powerful. Laundering the profits from crime was difficult, and spending the profits equally so. There were millionaires, but they were underground. There were gangs - but to get weapons they had to run numerous risks. We had it all. But it was all under the surface.

^[7]

The crime rate in Russia sharply increased during the late 1980s.^[8] The fall of Marxist-Leninist governments in Eastern Europe had tremendous influence on the political economy of organized crime.^[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Russia

I don't think your point regarding Russia bares close scrutiny.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 28, 2014 by Guest

[+Hammerclaw]

As I said, this deserves an answer, not an assumption. Simply because you consider your opinion on the matter to be abvious does not mean others should accept it as a given. You are, after all, hardly inerrant.

Disprove what? You haven't proven anything. You have simply declared it to be so.

And people raised to be aggressive in the face of authority and dominant when it comes to passivity always find the concept of peace to be frightening. An alpha dog without something to fight against is little more than a bully.

And sometimes people, with a need to feel dominant, need to call others cowards in order to call themselves heroes.

If you wish to claim a citizen with a gun is a significant factor in stopping gun massacres, then by all means, present your case for consideration. As I said, it would certainly be a tipping point in the argument. Don't, however, assume that simply because you claim it to be so, we should accept your word on it.

If you wish to indulge in your usual sophistry you'll have to pick a more obliging target. What you accept or don't accept means nothing to me. We had a massacre on one our military bases by someone who was armed while his victims were not. He was brought finally down by personnel who were armed. Proof that being unarmed and assaulted by an armed perpetrator is bad, and being armed in the face of such aggression is good. The good guys with guns aren't always going to be there in time to save you from your complacency.

[Guest]

If you wish to indulge in your usual sophistry you'll have to pick a more obliging target. What you accept or don't accept means nothing to me. We had a massacre on one our military bases by someone who was armed while his victims were not. He was brought finally down by personnel who were armed. Proof that being unarmed and assaulted by an armed perpetrator is bad, and being armed in the face of such aggression is good. The good guys with guns aren't always going to be there in time to save you from your complacency.

Its proof that crimes of this nature are more common in America because there are more guns in circulation.

The only solution that suggests itself by your logic is to oblige all people to carry guns at all times, which wouldn't necessarily have the outcome intended - ie the overall reduction of gun crime.

Br Cornelius

[+Hammerclaw]

Its proof that crimes of this nature are more common in America because there are more guns in circulation.

The only solution that suggests itself by your logic is to oblige all people to carry guns at all times, which wouldn't necessarily have the outcome intended - ie the overall reduction of gun crime.

Br Cornelius

It would certainly make one think twice before pulling a gun in a crowd. Kind of like robbing a cop bar.

[aquatus1]

If you wish to indulge in your usual sophistry you'll have to pick a more obliging target.

Ah, so now you are accusing me of deception?

You mentioned that gun massacre prevention would be a valid reason to keep weapons for the general public. I agreed with you, and asked if any studies had been done on the matter. You claimed no studies were needed and that I should disprove something that has not actually been proven yet (your opinion does not constitute proof).

So, disagreeing with you means that I am engaging in clever, but deceptive arguments?

Well, at least that is one quality above simply stating an argument and pretending it is, by right of personal authority, true.

What you accept or don't accept means nothing to me.

It sure seems to. The mere mention that it is anything other than true seems to get you all defensive. Or is it that your authority is being questioned? What is making you so aggressive, the idea that you might be wrong, or the idea that you are not being believed without question?

Not that it matters much, either way. The simple answer to either question is to present something in support of the idea of gun massacre prevention. However, considering the amount of effort that is being expended to avoid doing just that, I would say it is clearly something that you have long held as a point of fact, only to realize you don't have any actual reason to do so other than your own personal opinion on the matter.

Too bad. As I said, it would certainly have been a really, really, good point. Were it to be true, that is.

[Frank Merton]

The defenders of public possession of guns just simply lack common sense. Reading their defenses astonishes me that they aren't embarrassed by the irrationality of the positions they take. I've decided its a waste of time and America will continue its downward slope -- this being only one reason. I'm off this thread.

[+Hammerclaw]

Ah, so now you are accusing me of deception?

You mentioned that gun massacre prevention would be a valid reason to keep weapons for the general public. I agreed with you, and asked if any studies had been done on the matter. You claimed no studies were needed and that I should disprove something that has not actually been proven yet (your opinion does not constitute proof).

So, disagreeing with you means that I am engaging in clever, but deceptive arguments?

Well, at least that is one quality above simply stating an argument and pretending it is, by right of personal authority, true.

It sure seems to. The mere mention that it is anything other than true seems to get you all defensive. Or is it that your authority is being questioned? What is making you so aggressive, the idea that you might be wrong, or the idea that you are not being believed without question?

Not that it matters much, either way. The simple answer to either question is to present something in support of the idea of gun massacre prevention. However, considering the amount of effort that is being expended to avoid doing just that, I would say it is clearly something that you have long held as a point of fact, only to realize you don't have any actual reason to do so other than your own personal opinion on the matter.

Too bad. As I said, it would certainly have been a really, really, good point. Were it to be true, that is.

What is truth? Whenever someone presents anything true to you, you slide past it and pick up your attack from another angle. Guns are bad and mealy mouth pacifism is good is the constant mantra I hear. A man that defends his own life or the lives of others in civilian life is just an ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances. A man who gives his life defending others is a hero. I'm neither. I'm just an average American of Ulster Scot descent.What needs to be studied? If you can't understand that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun, your pacifist indoctrination must have been extensive, if the concept of self defense is an anathema. Have you really been brainwashed to think ordinary people aren't capable of defending themselves? Is that what you've been taught? Edited September 29, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[aquatus1]

What is truth?

Philosophy. What is "true", however, as in a synonym for "correct", are things that have sufficient probability to be considered to reliably occur the majority of the time in a given situation.

Whenever someone presets anything true to you, you slide past and pick up your attack from another angle.

Hmm...no. I'm pretty predictable in making sure something is true prior to accepting it as a given. Verification of something isn't considered sliding past it. If anything, it is generally considered a prerequisite.

Guns are bad and mealy mouth pacifism is good is your constant mantra.

Mine?

Way to go with pre-existing bias.

A man that defends his own life or the lives of others in civilian life is just an ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances. A man who gives his life defending others is a hero.

*shrugs*

Not really relevant, but sure.

I'm neither. I'm just an average American of Ulster Scot descent.

Okay. Again, not really relevant.

If you can't understand that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is good guy with a gun, your pacifist indoctrination must have been extensive, if the concept of self defense is an anathema.

But that isn't the argument, is it? The argument is how many gun massacres have been stopped by enforcement personnel versus how many by regular civilians.

Have you really been brainwashed to think ordinarypeople aren't capable defending themselves? Is that what you've been taught?

I have been taught to never assume anything, particularly very significant points, to be correct without reasonable support. Certainly not simply because a stranger on the internet claimed it to be so. I have been taught to question, research, and verify prior to coming to a conclusion, and to be ready to question my conclusion as well should new evidence arise.

You...well, you are not only steadfastly holding on to your belief, you have made it clear you don't have any actual reasoning for it beyond your personal opinion. Not only that, you are being outright derisive and mocking at the notion that it should be verified prior to being considered correct.

Which of those sounds more like brainwashing? I'll let the audience decide.

Edited September 29, 2014 by aquatus1

[+Hammerclaw]

Philosophy. What is "true", however, as in a synonym for "correct", are things that have sufficient probability to be considered to reliably occur the majority of the time in a given situation.

Hmm...no. I'm pretty predictable in making sure something is true prior to accepting it as a given. Verification of something isn't considered sliding past it. If anything, it is generally considered a prerequisite.

Mine?

Way to go with pre-existing bias.

*shrugs*

Not really relevant, but sure.

Okay. Again, not really relevant.

But that isn't the argument, is it? The argument is how many gun massacres have been stopped by enforcement personnel versus how many by regular civilians.

I have been taught to never assume anything, particularly very significant points, to be correct without reasonable support. Certainly not simply because a stranger on the internet claimed it to be so. I have been taught to question, research, and verify prior to coming to a conclusion, and to be ready to question my conclusion as well should new evidence arise.

You...well, you are not only steadfastly holding on to your belief, you have made it clear you don't have any actual reasoning for it beyond your personal opinion. Not only that, you are being outright derisive and mocking at the notion that it should be verified prior to being considered correct.

Which of those sounds more like brainwashing? I'll let the audience decide.

You are aware that much of what you attribute to me applies to yourself as well? Of course you are. You're pretty easy with your personal opinion, yourself. No, that vs argument is entirely of your fabrication, a clumsy straw man at best. Not unlike wanting a study on why rain makes the ground wet. Don't laugh; my government would probably fund it, if hasn't already. I know of no such studies as you request and suspect, neither do you which makes your argument specious and without merit. My argument is that armed individuals have a fighting chance against armed assailants. How many Youtube videos would like me to post proving it? Nevermind. You'll just pirouette around this and opinionate another way. Edited September 29, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[aquatus1]

You are aware that much of what you attribute to me applies to yourself as well? Of course you are.

Absolutely. It is, in fact, precisely why I call it out when I see it.

If one isn't aware of the faults in oneself, it makes calling out faults in others a somewhat one-sided exercise.

You're pretty easy with your personal opinion, yourself.

My opinion? Yes. After all, opinions, particularly ones from strangers, aren't worth all that much. Generally though, I avoid giving my opinion on a matter that I am not confident in. In that situation, I look for further information.

No, that vs argument is entirely of your fabrication, a clumsy straw man at best.

No, you are the one that advanced it, and I even quoted specifically where you did.

Not unlike wanting a study on why rain makes the ground wet.

BWA HA HA!

Don't laugh;

Oh, sorry.

my government would probably fund it, if hasn't already. I know of no such studies as you request and suspect,

Yes, I kind of figured, considering the last two pages of evasion and attempts at misdirection.

neither do you which makes your argument specious and without merit.

My argument that we should verify whether there are studies on gun massacres being stopped by enforcement as opposed to civilians prior to accepting it as fact is specious and without merit because you don't know of any studies supporting it?

Aren't you basically saying that attempting to verify your argument is pointless because you yourself haven't verified it?

My argument is that armed individuals have a fighting chance against armed assailants.

I don't know of anyone on this board that has argued against that.

How many Youtube videos would like me to post proving it?

Zero. Seriously, when has a YouTube video ever proven anything? Unless it is literally a video talking about studies on the subject and citing the studies (basically, the same that is being requested of you), an opinion on YouTube is no different than an opinion on this board. Being a video doesn't make something more valid.

Nevermind. You'll just pirouette around this and opinionate another way.

Yeah, one of us has stayed on point, and the other has jumped from his own quote, to claiming it is obvious, to shifting the burden of proof, to proof of a negative, to moving the goal-posts, to attacking the person not the argument, and finally here, to the strawman of "Hey, you want a video, even though you said a study? Forget it, you would just pirouette, like a wee little ballerina, and dodge away from the video you never requested!"

Incidentally, those who have known me for a while know that I do have a few years of ballet under my belt, and so don't really consider it too much of an insult when big bad alphas use such examples in negative fashions.

Edited September 29, 2014 by aquatus1

[+Hammerclaw]

Absolutely. It is, in fact, precisely why I call it out when I see it.

If one isn't aware of the faults in oneself, it makes calling out faults in others a somewhat one-sided exercise.

My opinion? Yes. After all, opinions, particularly ones from strangers, aren't worth all that much. Generally though, I avoid giving my opinion on a matter that I am not confident in. In that situation, I look for further information.

No, you are the one that advanced it, and I even quoted specifically where you did.

BWA HA HA!

Oh, sorry.

Yes, I kind of figured, considering the last two pages of evasion and attempts at misdirection.

My argument that we should verify whether there are studies on gun massacres being stopped by enforcement as opposed to civilians prior to accepting it as fact is specious and without merit because you don't know of any studies supporting it?

Aren't you basically saying that attempting to verify your argument is pointless because you yourself haven't verified it?

I don't know of anyone on this board that has argued against that.

Zero. Seriously, when has a YouTube video ever proven anything? Unless it is literally a video talking about studies on the subject and citing the studies (basically, the same that is being requested of you), an opinion on YouTube is no different than an opinion on this board. Being a video doesn't make something more valid.

Yeah, one of us has stayed on point, and the other has jumped from his own quote, to claiming it is obvious, to shifting the burden of proof, to proof of a negative, to moving the goal-posts, to attacking the person not the argument, and finally here, to the strawman of "Hey, you want a video, even though you said a study? Forget it, you would just pirouette, like a wee little ballerina, and dodge away from the video you never requested!"

Incidentally, those who have known me for a while know that I do have a few years of ballet under my belt, and so don't really consider it too much of an insult when big bad alphas use such examples in negative fashions.

Mr. Celebrity you keep attributing your words to me, so please, cite my post where I'm suppose have said this, and if you can't, I'm sure your fandom will understand your silence. Please now word for word, not you're opinion or interpretation of what I said:

Aren't there any comparisons out there between situations in which a gunman armed with excessive weapons and ammo, indicating he intended a massacre, has opened fire in a public area at random targets? How many victims of gun massacres have there been where the gunman either shot himself or was shot by a law enforcement officer, compared to victims shot by non-enforcement officers? Post 37

Edited September 29, 2014 by John Wesley Boyd

[Arbenol]

Here's a few published articles from the Harvard School of Public Health around the issues of guns in society and their use in self-defence.

Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.

We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Whilst the idea of having the potential to protect yourself and your family is an appealing one, it appears that the reality doesn't usually reflect this. This isn't particularly surprising. I wonder how many people have the presence of mind to act calmly, rationally and reasonably in a high adrenaline and perilous situation. Some would, but I bet they're not the majority.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Arbenol

[+Hammerclaw]

Here's a few published articles from the Harvard School of Public Health around the issues of guns in society and their use in self-defence.

http://www.hsph.harv...ense-gun-use-2/

Whilst the idea of having the potential to protect yourself and your family is an appealing one, it appears that the reality doesn't usually reflect this. This isn't particularly surprising. I wonder how many people have the presence of mind to act calmly, rationally and reasonably in a high adrenaline and perilous situation. Some would, but I bet they're not the majority.

Here's you some grains of salt to go with all that unleavened bread. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/bruce-w-krafft/debunking-the-debunker-part-01/

[Arbenol]

Here's you some grains of salt to go with all that unleavened bread. http://www.thetrutha...bunker-part-01/

Fascinating.

Was there a point? That link didn't seem to have anything to do with what I posted. It appears to about the relationship bewteen gun ownership and crime rate. I'm probably being a little slow. What am I missing?