Haha

(This replacement fixes an earlier text error, hat tip for the detail, actual people strikes including non-lethals are the total of about 400 a year, which is higher than all rifle deaths including semi automatics. People have a hard time believing it based on the bloodbath media hype that sells ads, frightens the people, and serves the machine, but it is in fact true.)

It is the PEOPLE who use the guns that kill people NOT the gun the gun BY ITSELF is harmless unless used by a PERSON who plans on using it to harm other people. But used in the right hands it can be used safely

stfu, you ammosexual f**k. thanks, bunches

Odd indeed.

Nope. The actual lighting stat is usually north of 400 instead.

You're lying again.

Even if you number was real, to pretend to claim there are under 400 deaths by rifle is beyond idiotic.

No, I misstated deaths for being struck. That remains correct.

YOU however do show who here is "beyond idiotic," and it's you. The rifle stats are typically below that in the 300 range.

That's a one in a million chance each year. Heart disease, suicide, alcohol, car accidents, and lots more beat that hands down.

The media lie. The hit-by-lighting stat stands. You are corrected.

So less than 400 Americans are killed by rifles every year, you blindly jingoistic imbecile?

You really aren't pretending to be stupid, are you?

You lose. 300ish is about the normal figure any year. It's hard trying to find longitudinal, maybe it's too meaningful a metric vs "guns," but found at least these - 2010, 367; 2011, 323; 2012 322, 2013 was similar. So sorry, you're wrong. And that's in a US population is over 300 million. But go ahead and infer from the BS hype that a bloodbath, just like "terrorism," is coming to you. The corporatized media have you exactly where they want you.

I've never said anything jingoistic in probably all my life, because I oppose wars and criticize my country where it needs it. Apparently you just like to lob out intellectual-sounding adjectives with no clue what they even mean. You may consider your @$$ handed back your way.

Like I say, you keep being snide and condescending (treat as you would be treated, you said recently?), - and your "imbecile" and "stupid" just keep coming back on you instead. Here's some salt, start eating it.

[image deleted]This dottering idiot is still word salading to get his lies across? Lovely.

Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.” 3

Fact: In the first 7 years since the ban was lifted, murders declined 43%, violent crime 43%, rapes 27% and robberies 49%. 4

Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%. 5

Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. 6

Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:

For California:
Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
“I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes…assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.” 7

For the rest of the nation:
Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.” 8
Fewer than 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.” 9

Chicago murders alone exceed your bogus lightning stats by 350.

But since you said you are extremely intelligent, and your lies are facts, I'll accept your bullshit for what it is.

250*

No sense of irony of pointing to a place with some of the tightest gun laws and restrictions in the US?

I explained the difference between strikes and deaths, and I explained rifles versus guns. You struggle with the concept.

Basic math. Annuals in the 300s are less than annuals in the 400s.

But since you're not even reading, you may consider your argument lost by default as well as by fact.

Nope. NYC. Tougher gun laws. Safer than rural Idaho and Montana.
270 murders 2017.

Try harder.

All right, will give you I may've mistyped death for strikes with injury instead. But the fact firmly remains that in a population of over 300,000,000 it still puts the manufactured fear into perspective for the hype it is.