That when Jesus said "Blessed are the Peacemakers", he was not talking about a Colt Firearm!
Say you're an atheist, and that you're interested in joining their church, enter the raffle to win the gun, get the gun and never go back to the church, sell the gun on gunbroker.com, pocket a few hundred bucks.
What if initial membership dues are more than what you could get for the gun?
or if you do not win the gun, then you have just donated to a church you do not believe in.
Yes God does have a sense of humor 
You're Welcome
For God and Country
2014 - GOP senate and House
than they are likely to be “saved” by guns from burglars. For every successful home invasion defense you can find involving kids, I can give you 10 accidental shootings based on the official statistics.
And according to the New York Times the official statistics on accidental gun kid gun shootings are greatly undercounted:
"They die in the households of police officers and drug dealers, in broken homes and close-knit families, on rural farms and in city apartments. Some adults whose guns were used had tried to store them safely; others were grossly negligent. Still others pulled the trigger themselves, accidentally fracturing their own families while cleaning a pistol or hunting.
And there are far more of these innocent victims than official records show.
A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. The killings of Lucas, Cassie and Alex, for instance, were not recorded as accidents. Nor were more than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available."
The irony in the Georgia case you cite is that the children statistically face a far greater risk of injury form their mother’s gun than they did from this hapless burglar, who probably would have turned tail and run had he known they were in the house.
Of course if we passed smart gun laws we could greatly reduce if not eliminate this problem but I believe you told us, Willy, that the smart gun law I gave you was “bullshit.
Both you and the NY Times make unsupported and exaggerated claims. Where's your data for your 10 to 1 claim?
The Times asserts accidental child shootings were “roughly” double that stated, but they offer little proof other than “we looked into it”. And the one example they do lay out completely as not reported accurately as an accident was actually reported as a homicide. In your basketball jargon, that does not move it from the Loss to the Win column. It moved it from the Win to the Win bigger column.
As far as inaccurate reporting regarding shooing of “children”, I saw no discussion here, awhile ago, when ABC once again butchered their responsibility to the Fourth Estate.
They chose to focus on a study that classified children as anyone younger than the age of 20. The CDC differentiates between children (1-14) and youth (15-19). The numbers are actually trending down, but maybe that’s because reporting is getting sloppy? According to the CDC in 2010 only 62 children died due to accidental firearm discharge. I realize this is deaths not all shootings but do you really think lawful protection of families was only “roughly” 1/10th of that?
Dana Loesch did not provide a CDC link that I could find (for the second half of the quote) but I tend to believe her when she states that “children account for less than 1 percent of all accidental shootings, according to the CDC.” And “pools, cars and poison are ‘exponentially more dangerous’ and result in the deaths of thousands of children each year, the data shows. In 2010 alone, 602 children died from drowning, 262 died in fires and 923 died in car accidents.”
If you only hated water, fire and automobiles with the same fervor, we might expect real inroads into children’s safety.
-- Modified on 3/9/2014 3:02:51 PM
Reckless parents and reckless drivers are the sole cause of thousands and thousands of completely
avoidable children's deaths .
Most attorneys would fight for the freedom of stupidity to procreate in reckless abandon .
When all is said and done , isn't stupidity where attorneys find their largest client base ?
In 2010 alone, 602 children died from drowning, 262 died in fires and 923 died in car accidents.”
If you only hated water, fire and automobiles with the same fervor, we might expect real inroads into children’s safety.
Look at exactly what I said:
“For every successful home invasion defense you can find involving kids, I can give you 10 accidental shootings based on the official statistics.”
I didn’t say there were peer reviewed numbers that proved this, did I? There are no peer reviewed numbers in either column. I said I can use the official stats (which are reported numbers, not peer reviewed numbers but that is the best info we have) to counter every report you can find of successful home invasions involving kids.
So let’s do that. The NY Times reported that there were 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 based on the records of 8 states it reviewed. We will not use the underreporting claim at all.
So if you take up the challenge to bust my 10 to 1 ratio (which was a conservative guess on my part rather than reporting from a source), you already owe me 25 reports of successful home invasion defenses involving kids.
But you have a problem, don’t you? Forget about peer reviewed numbers, there are no “statistics of successful home invasions… involving kids” period. So the best you can do is “find” random internet reports such as the one Willy linked, or made up numbers on the NRA website (no, sorry Ed, you can’t use stats from the NRA website anymore than I can use gun control web site stats- I’ve already busted the NRA 10 million a year or whatever it was claim of successful gun defenses-but even if you could, they don’t break it down to home invasions involving kids).
I’m accepting as true the NY Times report of official records for the 8 states. If they got it wrong, I’d have to look elsewhere for the official stats.
So with that clarification, I will repeat the challenge-
“For every successful home invasion defense you can find involving kids, I can give you 10 accidental shootings based on the official statistics.”
I say you can’t “find” even the 25 needed to rebut the official reports in 8 states. Am I wrong?
I really do think that lawful protection of families was only “roughly” 1/10th of the accidental deaths –in fact I think the ratio is greater than that - and would be astonished to learn otherwise.
The Times asserts accidental child shootings were “roughly” double that stated, but they offer little proof other than “we looked into it”. And the one example they do lay out completely as not reported accurately as an accident was actually reported as a homicide. In your basketball jargon, that does not move it from the Loss to the Win column. It moved it from the Win to the Win bigger column.
As far as inaccurate reporting regarding shooing of “children”, I saw no discussion here, awhile ago, when ABC once again butchered their responsibility to the Fourth Estate.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/31/theblaze-fact-checks-abc-did-diane-sawyer-use-misleading-stats-in-2020-report-on-children-and-guns/
They chose to focus on a study that classified children as anyone younger than the age of 20. The CDC differentiates between children (1-14) and youth (15-19). The numbers are actually trending down, but maybe that’s because reporting is getting sloppy? According to the CDC in 2010 only 62 children died due to accidental firearm discharge. I realize this is deaths not all shootings but do you really think lawful protection of families was only “roughly” 1/10th of that?
Dana Loesch did not provide a CDC link that I could find (for the second half of the quote) but I tend to believe her when she states that “children account for less than 1 percent of all accidental shootings, according to the CDC.” And “pools, cars and poison are ‘exponentially more dangerous’ and result in the deaths of thousands of children each year, the data shows. In 2010 alone, 602 children died from drowning, 262 died in fires and 923 died in car accidents.”
If you only hated water, fire and automobiles with the same fervor, we might expect real inroads into children’s safety.
-- Modified on 3/9/2014 3:02:51 PM
If you’re going to start out with a retreat into legalese then fine.
I made no claims other than to call into question your lack of substantiated proof of your claims and those of the NY Times. Calling upon me to not prove you correct is not how this works. I’m ashamed for you.
I clearly pointed out how the NYT lacked credibility here, pointed out your unsubstantiated assertion and then gave additional proof of how other media i.e. Diane Sawyer at ABC distorted the “child” firearm accident picture; all backed up by CDC data. All of which you pointedly ignored.
This one’s on you bud, not me
than are accidentally killed by guns, as I assumed.
You have zero evidence of this. Conversely, I’m resting on the official records of child gun deaths in 8 states. That number is so high I am supremely confident that the number of children saved by guns is far less and I’ll stick to my 10 to 1 educated guess until someone can provide facts showing otherwise. This is offered as “opinion”, not as fact, and is why I said I would give you 10 accidental deaths for each kid saved that you could find, as opposed to saying that studies have established this.
So you are wrong – for this argument, it is on you to disprove my thesis.
As to ABC, I didn’t see that show and have no comment on what she did. As to the NY Times, you did not criticize their report of the official statistics which is the only part of the article that I used, other than to note that the official statistics are underreported. I have no knowledge whether this is true or not
You can’t make an unsubstantiated statement, then run away and hide screaming, “you can’t prove me wrong”. It’s not my job. You are the one making claims. Prove yourself right.
Besides I already debunked half your claim, but you didn't bother to even read my link. CDC reports only 62 child deaths in 2010 from accidental firearm discharge. It’s all right there in the link you ignored
he NY Times report covered 2013 to 1999 in four states, in California from 2013 to 2007, and for an unspecified time period in several counties in Florida, Illinois, and Texas. So the CDC data for 2010 would hardly "debunk" the Times’ data. Add up those other years and tell me what you get.
Opps I did make one mistake. The 259 accidental death figure DID include the alleged 50% under counting:
"A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. The killings of Lucas, Cassie and Alex, for instance, were not recorded as accidents. Nor were more than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available."
So, if we used just the official records, you would only owe me 12 or 13 reports of “mom shoots burglar and saves kid." Hey, you are making some progress Ed. LOL
Of these how many of the firearms were legally owned? If you are talking about laws to prevent this we should only look at firearms that were legally owned right? Also if there were currently laws in place to prevent accidental shootings how many of these were being broken? You can't cherry pick accidental shooting stats and ignore the fact that in roughly half of these cases laws were already being broken. I ll admit that I am guessing at the half but I d be willing to bet on it.
The problem is adding laws that will be ignored won't help.
Like most people , I have no way of proving my unsubstantiated statements , though I would wager most NY Times editors , live in either a home with bars on the windows , security systems and double deadbolts on solid doors , a security guard in the lobby of a high tech secure building or a gated community with a guard not allowing anyone not dressed appropriately without a legitimate reason to access their block , and continual police drive by monitoring their street .
If any type of crime goes down , or the wind sets off an alarm , LE is already so close they show up in a New York second .
Get the picture ?
The majority of most citizens do not have such luxuries of security and LE drive by numerous times per hour , and unfortunately , many of them will not call police under almost any circumstance . .
When they hear someone attempting to break in their front door at 2 am , they grab their shotgun , tell their children to hide in the closet , run downstairs , quickly open the door and aims the double barrel at the burglars face , with the safety now off and their finger on the trigger .
Most burglars will quickly turn and run to a different neighborhood . The homeowner puts the safety back on , tells his children all is clear , go back to bed , puts his shotgun away , and everyone is safely back asleep by 2:15 am .
There would be no point in calling LE at 2:15 am asking for help when Dad already did and LE wouldn't show up until the children are on the school bus and Mom and Dad are at work .
Get the picture ?
The only time some citizens would call LE when defending themselves against a burglar , when the burglar doesn't have enough sense to quickly turn and run from a double barrel shotgun , and the homeowner blows his heard off .
Get the picture ?
I seriously doubt NY Times reporters realize what goes on night after night in average Jim's neighborhood , when sleeping soundly in their own secure world reading incomplete reports
with missing data never written .
Get the picture ? I know you do .
Besides I already debunked half your claim, but you didn't bother to even read my link. CDC reports only 62 child deaths in 2010 from accidental firearm discharge. It’s all right there in the link you ignored.
Besides I already debunked half your claim, but you didn't bother to even read my link. CDC reports only 62 child deaths in 2010 from accidental firearm discharge. It’s all right there in the link you ignored.
We could speculate that MAYBE more children are saved than are harmed by guns
because the likelihood of an armed homeowner deters the burglar in the first instance. But we cannot measure it. etas are simply not possible on this.
If you are setting policy – if you are a legislator proposing a smart gun bill, or a lock up your gun bill – wouldn’t you give greater weight to the actual facts – an actual reported body count of children accidentally killed by guns – than speculation of this nature?
This is the point that Ed can’t seem to grasp – that actual evidence of gun deaths plus the absence of any meaningful actual evidence of guns saving children – makes the case for regulation. The burden is on the opponent of the regulation to show –“hey, here is hard evidence that guns in the home do save enough children to outweigh the cold hard facts of accidental gun deaths.”
I believe that “mom shoots burglar and saves kids” is extremely rare. In fact, it is front page news a la Willy’s link. But you can’t find very many of these reports. I know- I’ve looked. And I can easily give you ten actual accidental deaths for each one you find
Look up Joyce Lee Malcolm and read her book on gun violence in GB. Would it surprise you to know that gun violence has increased since their ban? That violent crime has increased in many cases two fold? Rape, assaults, home invasions have all increased. Firearms homicides have increase as well. How can that happen and is it something we want to follow? I ve included some paragraphs below.
The result of the ban has been costly. Thousands of weapons were confiscated at great financial cost to the public. Hundreds of thousands of police hours were devoted to the task. But in the six years since the 1997 handgun ban, crimes with the very weapons banned have more than doubled, and firearm crime has increased markedly. In 2002, for the fourth consecutive year, gun crime in England and Wales rose—by 35 percent for all firearms, and by a whopping 46 percent for the banned handguns. Nearly 10,000 firearms offences were committed.
As wild gangs of youths burned homes, shops and cars and severely beat anyone who tried to stop them last week, English people tried to defend themselves. Their desperation triggered a 5,000% increase in purchases of baseball bats from Amazon.
This is a sad symbol of the failure of the British approach to crime—with its sympathy for offenders, intolerance of self-defense, and unwillingness to pay for adequate crime control. A people once proud of their peaceful country and unarmed policemen had to resort to clubs to protect life and limb.
Great Britain’s leniency began in the 1950s, with a policy that only under extraordinary circumstances would anyone under 17 be sent to prison. This was meant to rehabilitate young offenders. But the alternative to incarceration has been simply to warn them to behave, maybe require community service, and return them to the streets. There has been justifiable concern about causes of crime such as poverty and unemployment, but little admission that some individuals prefer theft to work and that deterrence must be taken seriously.
Victims of aggression who defend themselves or attempt to protect their property have been shown no such leniency. Burglars who injured themselves breaking into houses have successfully sued homeowners for damages. In February, police in Surrey told gardeners not to put wire mesh on the windows of their garden sheds as burglars might hurt themselves when they break in.
If a homeowner protecting himself and his family injures an intruder beyond what the law considers “reasonable,” he will be prosecuted for assault. Tony Martin, an English farmer, was sentenced to life in prison for killing one burglar and wounding another with a shotgun during the seventh break-in at his rural home in 1999. While his sentence was later reduced to five years, he was refused parole in 2003 because he was judged a danger to burglars.
In 2008, a robber armed with a knife attacked shopkeeper Tony Singh in West Lancashire. During the struggle the intruder was fatally stabbed with his own knife. Although the robber had a long record of violent assault, prosecutors were preparing to charge Mr. Singh with murder until public outrage stopped them.
because the likelihood of an armed homeowner deters the burglar in the first instance. But we cannot measure it. etas are simply not possible on this.
If you are setting policy – if you are a legislator proposing a smart gun bill, or a lock up your gun bill – wouldn’t you give greater weight to the actual facts – an actual reported body count of children accidentally killed by guns – than speculation of this nature?
This is the point that Ed can’t seem to grasp – that actual evidence of gun deaths plus the absence of any meaningful actual evidence of guns saving children – makes the case for regulation. The burden is on the opponent of the regulation to show –“hey, here is hard evidence that guns in the home do save enough children to outweigh the cold hard facts of accidental gun deaths.”
I believe that “mom shoots burglar and saves kids” is extremely rare. In fact, it is front page news a la Willy’s link. But you can’t find very many of these reports. I know- I’ve looked. And I can easily give you ten actual accidental deaths for each one you find.
...gun, it only takes one. Just FYI, I am a card carrying member of the NRA.
Hugs and Kisses,
Kelly