Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: So, how often do Americans use firearms for self-defense?

Posted 5 years ago on Jan. 17, 2013, 9:32 p.m. EST by Shayneh (-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

For all you gun control freeks, here is some "mind boggling" info that will surprise you - Apparently nobody wants to talk about this or maybe nobody wants anybody to know just how many people used firearms to protect themselves. Read and weep.

Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead.

Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year.

We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number."

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time.

When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery – from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing – produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."

When asked if additional gun laws would be beneficial or have no effect, most Americans, like Ice-T, get it. They oppose shifting power to the criminal. And they don't need the National Rifle Association to tell them: The only people willing to abide by additional gun laws are the law-abiding

Here's the full link: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun-366250-guns-ice.html



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by ericweiss (575) 5 years ago

A Deadly Myth
Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense
Not very up to date - but accurate

In the late 1980s, the gun industry began targeting women to counter slumping handgun sales among its primary market of white males. The false message delivered by gunmakers was clear: the greatest threat posed to a woman was an attack by a stranger and, the best form of protection a woman could rely upon was a handgun. Much to the disappointment and consternation of the gun industry, these efforts for the most part have failed. A 1995 study by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) conducted by Tom Smith and Robert J. Smith found that handgun ownership among women was, and remains, uncommon. This study found any fluctuations in the percentage of women who owned handguns to be statistically insignificant - generally around 8%+/-2%

The 1996 study Guns in America found that only 6.6 percent of adult American women owned a handgun—less than one out of every 10 women. But of these women, nearly 85 percent owned their handguns for self-defense—a figure that offers gunmakers continual hope in their marketing endeavors. Yet how often are handguns actually used by women to kill in self-defense? The answer, as revealed by unpublished Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) data, is hardly ever. Women were murdered with handguns more than 1,200 times in 1998 alone. As these numbers reveal, handguns don't offer protection for women, but instead guarantee peril.

For all of the promises made on behalf of the self-defense handgun, using a handgun to kill in self-defense is a rare event. Looking at both men and women, over the past 20 years, on average only two percent of the homicides committed with handguns in the United States were deemed justifiable or self-defense homicides by civilians. To put it in perspective, more people are struck by lightning each year than use handguns to kill in self-defense.

In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun.

Despite the promises of gun-industry advertising, a woman is far more likely to be the victim of a handgun homicide than to use a handgun in a justifiable homicide. In 1998, handguns were used to murder 1,209 women. That same year, 12 women used handguns to kill in self-defense.

When a woman did use a handgun to kill in self-defense, it was usually against someone she knew, not against a stranger. Of the 12 handgun self-defense killings by women reported to the FBI in 1998, eight involved attackers known to the woman, while only four involved strangers.

All the attackers that the women justifiably killed were males, as were an overwhelming number of offenders in female handgun homicides. For the majority of both justifiable and criminal homicides, both the shooter and the victim were of the same race.
In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 83 woman were murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun.

It is often intimate acquaintances and family members who endanger a woman's life. Yet women who own a handgun for self-defense usually do so to protect themselves from strangers. Many women who use handguns to kill in self-defense use the weapon against someone they know, or someone with whom they have, or have had, a romantic relationship.

Recognizing that most people are killed by someone they know, it is not surprising that the majority of justifiable homicides involve victims and attackers known to each other. Of the 12 justifiable homicides by women using a handgun that were reported to the FBI in 1998, eight involved an attacker known to the woman. Of these eight offenders, six were intimate acquaintances (three boyfriends, three husbands), one was a friend, and one was an acquaintance.

When there is a deadly encounter between a woman and her intimate acquaintance, and a handgun is involved, the most common scenario involves a woman being shot and killed by her intimate acquaintance. Of the 872 women murdered with a handgun whose relationship could be determined, 57 percent (497 of 872) were intimate acquaintances of the offender.12 Of these, more than half (260 of 497) were wives of the offenders.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Ok lets bring your statistics up to date - we are not looking at the year 1998 - we are looking at current times - Get some stats and lets see how your stats of today compare.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago

Current times? Based on what?

"Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey,..."

"Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year."

Kleck conducted a national survey in 1994 (the National Self-Defense Survey) and, extrapolating from the 5,000 households surveyed, estimated that in 1993 there were approximately 2.5 million incidents in which victims used guns for self-protection, an average of 4.75 times per minute for each minute of the year, compared to about four hundred thousand crimes committed by offenders with guns.

A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, claimed that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns. Kleck claims that Hemenway's own surveys confirmed Kleck's conclusion that defensive gun use numbers at least in the hundreds of thousands each year, and that a far larger number of surveys (at least 20) have shown that defensive uses outnumbered criminal uses; however, the Hemenway study just cited gives no such figure and says in its conclusion, "We might expect that unlawful 'self-defense' gun uses will outnumber the legitimate and socially beneficial ones." Critics, including Hemenway, respond that these estimates are difficult to reconcile with comparable crime statistics, are subject to a high degree of sampling error, and that "because of differences in coverage and potential response errors, what exactly these surveys measure remains uncertain; mere repetition does not eliminate bias". In another article, Hemenway notes that Kleck has armed women preventing 40% of all sexual assaults, a percentage he considers unlikely because few women go armed. In the same article, Hemenway notes that Kleck's survey shows armed citizens wounding or killing attackers 207,000 times in one year, contrasted against the total of around 100,000 Americans wounded or killed, accidentally or intentionally, in a typical year.

Various studies have found that defensive gun uses occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that found by Kleck. In the article "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, the authors quote the National Crime Victim Survey as finding 108,000 DGUs per year. One section of the article compares the U.S. crime rate to the number of DGUs reported by Kleck and Kleck-like studies and concludes that their estimate of the DGUs is improbably high. An article published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics says, "In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes ... On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft."


Shayneh, if you're going to cite information that pre-dates 1998, why are you requiring ericweiss to cite information that post dates 1998?

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33491) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

And CATO really?

"Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey,..."

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Let me give you an update - now if you disagree with what this site has to offer - contact the person in charge and see what he has to say.


[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago

Please point out in what way this is an update. I reviewed the material cited at the site and found NONE of the material cited to post date 1998. The closest it comes to being an update is someone from January 5, 2000 citing material from 1997. Of course, it could very well be the case that I've somehow overlooked cites to information post dating 1998 so perhaps you could point some of them out.

[-] 2 points by ericweiss (575) 5 years ago

States in the highest quartile for gun ownership had homicide rates 114% higher than states in the lowest quartile of gun ownership. Non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

We are not talking about "homicide rates" we are talking about people who have defended themselves using a "firearm".

Lets stick to the subject matter -

And if you believe that "homicide rates were 114% higher in states with higher gun ownership then answer this.

Chicago and NYC have the toughest crime laws on the books but yet have the highest crime rates in the country - also including California.

Why is that - why is it that these states have the most murder rates compared to other places?

Now if you say - they can get firearms from other states I say to you - apparently they don't give one damm about any law if they resort to doing that.

So what that tells me is that they will do whatever it takes to get firearms - going to Mexico if they have to because they need to protect their drugs and turf. So no law on the books is going to deter them will it?

And if it won't how in the hell are stronger firearms laws going to stop the violence - do you have an answer for that?

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

High crime is associated with population density. There are complex socio-economic and psychological reasons for this.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Higher crime associated with "population density" is because of "drugs turf wars and welfare poverty" don't you think?

But according to Obama he is a "job creator" we shouldn't be having a "welfare poverty" problem in this country - just ask him - he loves to boast about the 4 or 5 million jobs he created.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 5 years ago

I am not an "answer" person - I believe numbers
Here is a link is to English police statistics - table D19

with around 300,000,000 guns, we have 11,000 gun deaths per year.
England has less than 100 per year - WHY ?
could the NRA have anything to do with it?
is it because drugs are legal in England? is it because violent movies are banned in England? or maybe because the Brits are not stupid enough
to believe NRA BS

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes. —By Dave Gilson MOTHER JONES

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.
Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. gun ownership
Sources: Congressional Research Service (PDF), Small Arms Survey

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people. Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. ownership vs gun death
Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.
Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun that women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.
Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?
Per capita spending on video games US $44 Japan$55 Civilian firearms per 100 people …….US 88 Japan 0.6 Gun homicides in 2008……………. US11,030 Japan11

Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement & Republican opposition that the Senate approve nominees.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Well let me put everything in a perspective for you. The X, Y and melinimum generation are the main cause for firearms violence. You and your generation along with the rest of those who think more restrictions will solve the problem are wrong.

Start monitoring your generation - I don't see old people going around robbing people, killing people, raping people, robbing banks, shooting people, breaking in houses, carjacking, and plain out stealing.

Take care of those issues and firearms ownership won't be a problem.

The X, Y and melinimum generation are the main cause for societies ills - you don't see a older person holding up a bank do you.

Who gives a damm about what the NRA or for that matter anyone else says about firearms restrictions. It's a socitial issue - it's a violent generation issue - work on that problem.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago




C'mon, it's no secret that physically demanding crimes are a younger man's game, not a senior citizen's. No generation is without its criminals and simply waiting for everyone to get old is obviously not a solution.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Well it's apparent that this younger generation is making up for all of society. And I don't recall other generations going around killing young innocent childeren to the degree we have today, do you?

So what is your "solution" to the problem?

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago

Depends on what is meant by 'degree'. Children of every generation have gone either missing or found dead both with and without abductors being arrested.

My 'solution' is to restrict the responsibility of gun ownership to those who enlist in a well regulated state militia. Those who don't want that responsibility shouldn't be trusted with having a gun.

[-] 1 points by ericweiss (575) 5 years ago

so here is a 44 year old female mass murderer
you can find many more "oldtimers" here
age is totally irrelevant
as are violent movies
as are any other lies wayne tells you

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years = 0

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

And the violent generations are different near the nra

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

People who belong to the NRA are "law abiding citizens". How many NRA members do you know who robbed a bank, killed someone, carjacked, robbed 7-11, raped, deal in drugs or any other violent act that takes liberties away from law abiding citizens?

Face the facts, it's true and statistics prove it.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

How many non-gun users ever killed anyone with a gun? None. Face the facts, it's true and statistics prove it.

'law abiding citizens' - has nothing to do with it. No 'right' is absolute. Rights are balanced with the security and well being of overall society.

There is no absolute 'right' to deadly explosive weapons.

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Law abiding citizens has everything to do with it because they are the ones who may be giving up their rights because of what the younger generation is doing to society.

No respect, no regard for others, no values - the list goes on and on but yet they like to blame others for their ills. Well I am tired of listening to that BS - it's time to take a stand and they are the ones causing all the grief in this country.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

Who do you think raised that generation?


[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

That's irrevelent - how much hardship do you think the people went through during the "dust bowl"? The didn't go out killing people because of depression - we live in a "sick drugged society" that needs immediate attention.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

And who do you think raised that generation?

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

That's not the issue - the issue is everyone wants to blame everyone else for todays problems instead of taking responsibility.

The people who went through the "dust storm" survived and they had it 10 times worse then todays younger generation.

As I stated the people of the younger generation need to start taking responsibility for their actions and it needs to include all of that generation - not just a few -

Everyone in the X, Y and melinimum generation want to have everything and if they can't or don't have a job they blame the "old white people".

Well the "old white people" bailed a lot of their asses out and they get no respect for it and they don't give a shit about what was given to them.

Now that is not to say that they are all like that but the vast majority are.

They need to get off their asses be more responsible for their actions and stop encouraging others to be assholes like they are because it makes them important.

Look at facebook - everyone wants to be a star - everyone wants their 5 minutes of fame be it doing something stupid, screwing someone or killing someone. that's seems to be what it's all about.

They can't even break up with someone face to face they have to do it on facebook -

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

And who raised them to be like that?

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

I don't give a damm who raised them - maybe they need to go to church more often to learn compassion for the vast majority have none.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

'cause religion and extremist religious wackos ain't behind the current mass murder around the world. Good idea. Let's brainwash people with myths & fairytales.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 5 years ago


Yeah, church is really what kids need for learning compassion...so long as you don't actually read from the Bible.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 5 years ago

We gotta be evolved enough to learn right and wrong without the use of the invisible old white man in the sky with superpowers threatening us.

[-] 2 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 5 years ago

"I dont give a damn who raised em" Spoken just like the ones who raised em.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

What is the point of this post? Will the current proposed legislation prevent a sane law abiding person from getting a handgun? If not, there is no point to this post whatsoever.

I don't find your post 'mind boggling'. In fact, it's not even very interesting. Let alone 'weep' worthy.

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 5 years ago

The proposed legislation does not prevent another sandy hook. All the leftist pundits say this and in the next breath say they want it anyway. It's all about dissarming America. If Obama cared about the children he might have his drones aim a bit more carefully. Have you read/seen the estimates on how many inncoent children he has killed in countries we are not even at war with?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33491) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Good comment

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Will the current proposed legislation prevent "criminals" who have the desire to protect their drugs and turf from getting a handgun to kill someone should they infringe on his turf?

Will the current proposed legislation prevent a "bullied" person who has the desire to kill because he is being picked on and hasn't been taught how to cope from getting a handgun to kill someone?

If you can guarentee that that won't happen, then the issue about "sane law abiding persons getting or owning a handgun" would be a "mute issue" wouldn't it?

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

Criminals and drugs are a separate issue. Stop conflating.

The crazy people getting guns is happening now. That's what the new proposals are trying to prevent.

There are no guarantees of anything in this world. You are placing a higher standard on gun control, an impossible standard of perfection, that exists with nothing else in this world. In order to bolster your own point of view.

If you had a stronger argument to support your point of view, you would not need to conflate or manufacture impossible high standards that exists with nothing else in life as we know it.

Guns as a response to being robbed is an entirely different thing than guns as a response to guns. Which is what the gun control debate is about.

The only proper response to a gun is armor. A gun does not stop a bullet. To think otherwise defies logic.

[-] 2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

So you say "criminals and drugs" are a seperate issue. Have you ever been to a low income housing project in a "big city"at 8:00 PM on a winter evening.

Or better yet, stop by Chicago low income housing projects and tell me what you experience.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 5 years ago

No I'm saying criminals and drugs are a separate issue from gun control legislation.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33491) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago


[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Ok, I can agree with that.

[-] 0 points by freakyfriday (179) 5 years ago

BC, you do know the details on Clackamas Mall shooting, right? After 2 people were a shot, an armed shopper drew on him and made eye contact. He then ran off and killed himself. Amazing that part of the story doesn't get any play from the leftist obama acolyte old media. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/16/virtually-unreported-ccw-holder-likely-prevented-larger-clackamas-mall-d

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Why is it that the people who claim to be "law abiding" are the ones threatening to "break the laws" that they don't like?

It is pretty easy to abide by laws you like. The test of your character and patriotism is the willingness to obey the laws you don't like, isn't it?

They are those pesky things that we have to do because it is better for society if we do them. You wouldn't have to obey laws if you lived on a desert island. But who would put up your satellite dish?

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 5 years ago

But is that not the whole point of gun control; to allow responsible law abiding citizens to have guns while denying guns to criminals and nut-cases? Sensible gun control laws shift the power over to the good guys and away from the bad guys...

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house? I said I did. She said, "Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!" To which I said, "Of course it is loaded; it can't work without bullets!" She then asked, "Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?" My reply was, "No, not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too."

[-] -2 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

There are very few people on this site that have any real knowledge of "firearm ownership" and the responsibilities associated with owning firearms.

That is why you hear stupid comments like "30 round clips", or "Assault Weapons" - the list goes on and on.

I would think they would take the time to educate themselves before they decide to make comments on "firearm ownership restrictions".

But alas, the vast majority live in "big cities" and are exposed to "violent crime" day in and day out - They apparently think the rest of the country is like that. Sort of like living in a vaccume.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

This is a government for and by the criminal; they would prefer the criminal gain the upper hand here, continue to victimize the innocent, and ultimately, rue the day.

[-] -3 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

I guess they think the average American is stupid but they give high marks to criminals because their only focus is to figure out how to restrict ownership by "law abiding Americans".

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

Exactly.... they are empowering criminals over the law abiding; they themselves are criminals.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

For those of you who want info on the ATF report regarding their statistics with guns here's the link:


[-] -1 points by shahidsaif (-1) 5 years ago

iam not talking about.