Reply #8: This article is about as relevant as my dog's bowel movement [View All]

The very first bit of idiocy is this line:
" the claim of gun prohibition advocates that most murderers are ordinary people is preposterous"

If the author is going to write such drivel, he should include some examples of "gun prohibitionists" that have actually offered such an argument. As it stands, he appears to have created a straw man to tear down with this bit of piffle.

In addition, I hope all readers note the very specific term of "murderers" being used by the author. This apparently means that he ONLY used those people in his study that have been convicted of murder by the judicial system. What degree of murder is only anyone's guess. What about manslaughter? 2nd degree?

Then there is this gem of nonsense:
"The lie on which gun prohibitionists centrally rely asserts that most murders are committed by ordinary citizens because they happened to have a firearm in a moment of anger."

Really? Which gun prohibitionists? What are their names and what did they say?

In addition, would it not still be a correct statement to offer "ALL gun deaths are committed by people that happened to have a firearm in the moment that someone was killed with a firearm?" See how easy that is to write! I didn't even have to conduct a study for that bit of wisdom which is no different than the author's silly and meaningless straw man argument.

I will also add that the author neglects to touch on all the other aspects of gun violence like suicide and serious injury caused by firearms. Those stats dwarf the number of people actually murdered with a gun.

Lastly, I have not looked, but I doubt even the author's central premise. I assume that the incidents of family members killing each other in fits of anger far outnumbers the incidents of gun deaths during the commission of a crime.