One attack in France and the whole world goes mental!

I've already shown you that your post was a BS by citing 2006 statistics on accidental deaths by guns versus total deaths. Man up and admit you were wrong; there's nothing worse than a person who won't acknowledge he is wrong when proven to be.

If you imagine that most American gun owners are completely untrained and don't have a clue which end is the dangerous end you'd be wrong. In particular, people that are serious enough to have conceiled carry licences quite often come from a military and police backgrounds but even those that don't (like myself - I hold a permit myself) often train regularly at ranges and on practical pistol courses.

You can't ignore the fact that the people who were being executed while cowering in a corner in Paris would have had a better chance of survival had some of them been armed. It's common sense.

Just appalling isn't it? Essentially "we're not neighbours, we don't have any connections whatsoever, we don't have trades, historically we had no historical war together (which is nonsense for an arguement) and whatnot, so why should we care if your family got slaughtered at 2AM in the morning? You have problems? Deal with it! Even if you die alone, miserable, alone in the dark."

And yet we have the same human structure, same basic needs as in food, shelter, etc., same basic emotions and probably share the same hopes and dreams.

Humanity at its best.

There's quite a colossal lie in the post actually, "FYI, there are more accidental deaths by gun owners than actual usage in the US." This is statistically false, by several orders of magnitude. Legal gun owners in the US stop shootings and crime day in day out, you just don't hear about it on huffpost or whatever other news source you are spoonfed your information from.

The only nonsense here is your "citation" which has no actual citation; and from "2006", which is almost 10 years ago. One would wonder why one needs to cite something outdated

Let's just take some random news in the US, in 2014, to just ease you from calling some random poster, such as me, "BS-ing' on the internet: now this post, that I "cited" says that 100 children died by accidental gun death. Now, should we be concerned? If children themselves got killed by guns, one would wonder how the guardian can "protect themselves from danger", let alone something horrible such as the Paris attack.

You seem to be saying you care equally about everybody in the world without exception. Well, fair play to you. My question is what exactly you do to turn thoughts into action. Without that "I care" are really empty words anyway. Easy to say and completely pointless.

Unless you are going to get out there and do your bit to right some of the world's injustices rather than sit behind a computer moaning about everybody else's lack of humanity you should keep shtum.

No-one cares about those countries,

next question.

To each his own.

How would you like it if I said I don't care about those people that were killed?

a skeptical person may say buddhists are in conflict with muslims there ( they dont have this issue with anyone else)

a more constructive statement to make would be islam was founded on war (mohammed) and is full of edicts and verses about killing and conflict. so its hardly a surprise when muslims influenced by their doctrine get into conflicts. noone could ever pretend islam has been a peaceful influence on the world

OK, Here's 2010

Total deaths 31,672
Accidental 606
% accidental 1.91%

Here's 2009

Total deaths 31,347
Accidental 554
% accidental 1.76%

How would you like it if I said I don't care about those people that were killed?

Please stop trying to deflect from your original claim, which was that accidental gun deaths account for more incidences than any other usage (which would include defensive gun uses).

As you have just been informed, annual accidental gun deaths number in the hundreds. Defensive gun uses alone, going by the most conservative NCVS figures, occur around 100,000 times a year, and up to a million times a year going by mid-range estimates.

You've been shown not only to be incorrect, but out by several orders of magnitude. Time to stop posting.

FYI, there are more accidental deaths by gun owners than actual usage in the US. I'd somehow imagine some of these Americans would end up killing, accidentally, themselves first rahter than shooting someone successfully.

But:

Cited work:


Sounds reasonable to me.

I think I'll just end it here.

stop making assumptions about me. im not like some of you, who care about the France attack only because you travel there once a year. my heart goes out to the victims of the attack on France and to the victims of any terrorist attack around the world.

Your study, if it is credible, indicates that where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. That's all. This is not the claim you made, which was that there are more accidental deaths than other kinds of gun usage. Accidental deaths occur a few hundred times a year, guns are used for other purposes several hundred to thousands of times more frequently. I agree, I think you should end it here.

FYI, there are more accidental deaths by gun owners than actual usage in the US. I'd somehow imagine some of these Americans would end up killing, accidentally, themselves first rahter than shooting someone successfully.

Again for the second time, never have, and never will. I think you need to mind what you're paraphrasing. Honestly, I'm more frustrated that you seemed to missed paraphrased my posts twice now, rather than getting the post correct

So I assume you would never attend a family members funeral either?

I mean, you wouldn't want to appear to value your family member's above everyone else right?

Incidentally, in the UK we're currently running at about 600 murders (any method) per year. Multiply by 4 to compensate for population differences, making 2,400 murders per year and we see there are about 13 gun-caused deaths in the USA for each murder (any method) in the UK.