10 October 2009

A Simple Question about Melanie Hain.

Would she be dead if there were not firearms in her house?

She wasn't killed with a flyswatter, mousetrap, pencil sharpener, piece of paper, cross bow, knife, brass knuckles, axe, machete, chain saw, stapler, toothbrush, or frying pan.


So, why do the gun cretins try to hide that point?

Precisely because their arguments are based upon lies. Actual defensive gun use is a very rare event, as opposed to the anecdotal incidents provided by the gun cretins.

Kleck and Lott are discredited surveys. In fact, John Lott makes Michael Bellesiles look positively honest, yet there are few screams from the lynch mob who went after Bellesiles for Lott's position. Google Mary Rosh next time you feel the urge to use "More Guns, More Crime" as a source when you try to argue with someone knowledgable about the issue.

The problem is that the better statistics that exist are on the side of gun control. Those being that a gun in the home will more likely harm a family member, Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed, defensive gun use is rare, and a woman is more likely to be killed by someone with a gun in a domestic situtation.

Sorry, but the numbers were against her.

But the gun cretin crowd wants to keep it so that it appears there aren't valid reasons for gun control. You can't show that most crime guns are purchased "legally" if gun trace data isn't available courtesy of the Tiahrt Amendment. You can't show gun laws work if you can't show the links between the legal sources of crime guns. You can't argue that people are more likely to be killed with their own guns with inflated numbers like those provided by Kleck's surveys. It's easier to hide under false statistics such as Kleck and Lott when there isn't a source of valid data to contradict those studies.

But, it's pretty obvious that the gun cretin crowd wants to hide from the simple fact that Melanie Hain was killed by a gun she hoped would provide her with protection.

Also another sorry, but the guns could have been taken from the home under the current weak gun laws. There was no reason for those firearms to be in her home other than her perceived "Second Amendment" (Actually it is under Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Declaration of Rights: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned) and her belief that her gun would be used to defend herself from unknown assailants.

Sorry, but you can't hide from reality for too long.

Because you are mentally ill if you do and you have made yourself a disqualified person.

I only rejoice that someone who was a fool has been removed from this earth and I wish that the rest of you idiots would see sense, no matter how foolish that hope might be.