Let's try to keep the discussion on BundyFest and ACTUAL threats of violence--not the ones you have in your twisted minds.
That said, I should probably give an explanation to the morons who cannot grasp the difference between seeing the irony of Meleanie Hain being killed by something that this (mistakenly) believed would protect her. Or is that despite the presence of something which she believed would protect her despite the evidence to the contrary?
The research is out there that shows carrying a gun is more likely to increase the risk of harm to the carrier (which comes from Pennsylvania) and that the presence of a firearm is more likely to lead to harm to the member of the household or close friend than a criminal.
or as the Economist put it Data suggest that guns do in fact kill people.
On the other hand, If she wanted (and the rest of you want) to be fact adverse and you heads start hurting the more evidence is piled against your position--it ain't my problem. It also ain't my problem that she ended up proving "them anti-gun" types correct.
But, you lot tend to be notoriously fact adverse and believe that ignorance is bliss.
On the other hand, Meleanie showed that it can be deadly.
see also:
- Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths
- Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home
- Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
- Firearm availability and suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm deaths among women
- Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
- Increased risk of intimate partner homicide among California women who purchase handguns
- Without Guns, Do People Kill People?
- Carry a gun=you get shot more often
- People Are More Likely To Kill When They Have A Gun - The National Memo
- Firearm Availability and Homicide: A Review of the Literature
- Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States
