COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!

[btcherm]

COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!
Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death.

Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

- Darrell Scott
Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech. Please send this out to everyone you can.

[Noral]

Forward sent



COLUMBINE STUDENT'S FATHER 12 YEARS LATER !!



Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:
"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death.

Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"

- Darrell Scott
Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech. Please send this out to everyone you can.

[stillriding]

This is the most sensible thing I've read or heard about gun violence.

[grumpybob]

:agree:. To bad Congress is not smart enough to figure that out on their own.

[jerpinoy]

:agree: Our heart goes for their loss. Thus one tweeted when the shoe bomber tried on airplane action was taken immediately , now everyone take their shoes off prior boarding an airplane without question. As Americans we can do better especially to our precious innocent children. May God Bless us All.

[Bob Denman]

:agree: Nothing need be added to what he stated... :thumbup:

[ARtraveler]

Not much more that can be added here. :agree:

[pro10is]

In the wake of the senseless and tragic deaths of twenty children can you please not post pro-gun or pro-NRA topics right now. Please.
Forum rules:
There will be Zero Tolerance for political post here.
All such post will be deleted without explanation. If you choose to ignore this rule repeatedly you may lose your membership on this site.

[btcherm]

In the wake of the senseless and tragic deaths of twenty children can you please not post pro-gun or pro-NRA topics right now. Please.
Forum rules:
There will be Zero Tolerance for political post here.
All such post will be deleted without explanation. If you choose to ignore this rule repeatedly you may lose your membership on this site.

IN my opinion this is not a political post, this is what a grieving Father had to say about the death of his child to Congress and what his
feeling are . if your not happy with that , I feel for you.
5889858899

[GloryRyders]

:agree:

[Bob Denman]

:agree: Me too! You're just trying to stretch the definition to suit a particular pet peeve of yours...
Now that's cool... but not everybody will see it that way and it would be tough to expect it.

[Yol Bolsun]

I like the precept of this but it must be kept in context...http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/scott.asp

[Bob Denman]

Has anybody checked to see if Snopes is telling the truth? They've been found to be following their own agenda more than a few times.
Time will tell...

[pro10is]

... You're just trying to stretch the definition to suit a particular pet peeve of yours...

And you and the OP are not?? Please. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend this is not what it is. This is thinly veiled pro-NRA post and thus a highly political post. With with the zero tolerance rule I'm baffled as to why it has not yet been removed. But as long as it is here it should be open to opinions from both sides in all fairness.

First let me state that I have been a gun owner my entire adult life and I fully support the right of all responsible, law abiding adults to own a gun. The right to bear arms is a part of our Constitution. However, as a responsible gun owner I also fully support reasonable rules and regulations pertaining to gun ownership and as such I cannot support a powerful lobby whose stance is to fully and openly oppose any and all such reasonable regulations without discourse.

For the sake of comparison let's step away from guns for a moment and say there was a very powerful group know as the National Vehicle Association whose stance was to oppose any and all reasonable laws and regulations on vehicle operation. They'd systemically oppose legislation for driver's tests, lane assignments, speed limits through neighborhoods filled with children, stopping for lights or at intersections, driving while intoxicated, whatever. Not because the regulations don't clearly make sense, but because of an irrational fear that any regulations may eventually lead to people not being allowed to own motor vehicles. I love cars and motorcycles but I would never consider joining such a group. Motor vehicles can be dangerous, we need the regulations, there's no question about that.

Even before Newtown, Columnbine, and the Virginia Tech massacre, national polls clearly showed again and again that the majority of Americans favor reasonable rules and restrictions pertaining to guns. Not the repeal of the right to own guns, just reasonable rules and regulations like those that exist for motor vehicles. No one expects these regulations to prevent all fatalities, however as with motor vehicles, such regulations save many, many lives.

It's an indisputable fact that the NRA effectively intimidates politicians from both parties to not even think about considering any and all rules and regulations despite the fact that the polls show the majority of Americans favor them. Here is a case where democracy itself is being circumvented. Democracy is what the entire Constitution is about. Do you support your constitutional right to bear arms? Nothing wrong with that. Do you also support an organization that highly successfully uses intimidation to circumvent the very foundation of our Constitution? There's something very wrong with that even if you favor the results.

The NRA needs to evolve into a responsible organization that works within our American democracy rather than around it or eventually it will draw enough attention, disrespect, and public anger to ensure its own demise. That demise draws closer with each new massacre. We desperately need a responsible, forthright organization to properly advocate the interests of sportsmen and gun owners and who will work with law makers without resorting to intimidation, and alongside all citizens, not just gun owners, to ensure gun ownership is as safe as it can be so it can continue to exist in a modern, ever changing world.

[wyliec]

pro10is,

Just one thing to say to you.....:thumbup:

[Bob Denman]

I sure don't want this to de-evolve into a pising match; there's a lot of room in here for some constructive discussion! :thumbup:
The NRA does NOT want everybody to have a gun; they have always preached for responsible ownership, and sane gun laws.
There will be a great cry for banning "assault weapons" now; can you define what constitutes one?
Does your definition also ban sporting firearms like the Remingon 4 (or 742 in a prior lfe...)?

Now that the NRA has issued a statement regarding this tragedy...
I don't like it! :gaah:
Putting an armed officer into schools really just takes them off the streets where they are needed even more!

Let's keep the discourse in a constructive tone and see if any of us can come up with an answer... :thumbup:

[wyliec]

I sure don't want this to de-evolve into a pising match; there's a lot of room in here for some constructive discussion! :thumbup:
The NRA does NOT want everybody to have a gun; they have always preached for responsible ownership, and sane gun laws.
There will be a great cry for banning "assault weapons" now; can you define what constitutes one?
Does your definition also ban sporting firearms like the Remingon 4 (or 742 in a prior lfe...)?

Now that the NRA has issued a statement regarding this tragedy...
I don't like it! :gaah:
Putting an armed officer into schools really just takes them off the streets where they are needed even more!

Let's keep the discourse in a constructive tone and see if any of us can come up with an answer... :thumbup:

Bob,

Is responsible ownership shown when someone comes on here and says that if someone tries to run him off the road he'll shoot him? Keep in mind this person could be doing 65 mph on rough roads and is going to take one hand off the handle bars and draw his weapon and shoot and not put anyone else in danger. Someone said this in an 'urban legend' thread here on s/l's where car racers (in order to become a club member) were running m.c.'s off the road. I'm not saying all members who own guns are like that; but, I don't remember anyone disagreeing with him.

Sorry, I got off track here; but, I just wanted to respond to you.

[Bob Denman]

Did I say that? If I did; I certainly meant it...
Responsible ownership of a firearm (In my opinion) would mean ownership and usage of it that follows the laws of the land...
Protecting your own life would certainly fall into that category. Shooting somebody who is already acting outside the parameters afforded by the law shouldn't be a questionable act unless you endanger others.
BTW; I'm left handed; so the draw wouldn't take my hand off of the throttle! But that's me...

[wyliec]

Thanks Bob,

Good post.

[Gordy]

the expense of putting a police officer in every school would be tremendous, there are enough retired military and police officers that I am sure would be happy to volunteer one day a week to guard the schools without any cost to taxpayers.There are also many resposible gun owners that would also volunteer I am sure.

[btcherm]

Hey guys lets just take two steps back,I don't want this to become a p*ssing match,
I just think we need to get more involved,and be more concerned about what's going on around us
and help one another .( their is just to much violence ),the world need more love and kindness.:doorag::pray:

[Bob Denman]

Gordy,
If you're putting folks with guns into schools; I'm pretty sure that it would have to be a legitimate LEO, and not a volunteer with a sidearm...
I'm pretty sure that if you or I carried steel on any school; we'd be cuffed and stuffed! :shocked:

[Gordy]

Gordy,
If you're putting folks with guns into schools; I'm pretty sure that it would have to be a legitimate LEO, and not a volunteer with a sidearm...
I'm pretty sure that if you or I carried steel on any school; we'd be cuffed and stuffed! :shocked:Im sure that anyone doingn this would have to be deputised.Just anyone could not be turned loose in a school with a weapon

[Bob Denman]

:agree: But none of us know how law enforcement offiicials would feel about deputizing us mere civilians..

[wyliec]

What about some type of security door for each class room, similar to what they have on planes? And, maybe intermittent police patrols throughout the day.

[Bob Denman]

At some point you'll end up with the students feeling like prisoners, and most of them don't want to be there anyway... :shocked:
This idiot forced his way into that school; it's impossible to stop a truly determined miscreant. :gaah:

[ARtraveler]

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

A genuine hot button issue. No matter where the conversation goes, someone is going to get offended.

The bottom line for me is: guns do not kill people. The idiot pulling the trigger does the killing. No matter what laws or legislation is put upon the public, it is still not going to prevent incidents from happening. The crazies and the outlaws will still have access to guns. If restrictive legislation comes upon us (confiscate all guns), then the only people who will have them are the bad ones. That would surely change the way we live here.

Asbestos suit: ON

[Bob Denman]

I think that all of the asbestos britches can be left in the closets; no need to flame folks when we're actually all on the same side anyway! :thumbup:
"AK", you're 100% correct; the :cus: would still get their firearms, or they'd resort to something else that is equally deadly...:shocked:
It's really not about firearms; it's a societal issue that needs to be addressed from many different angles: parenting, education, the courts, the laws, and several more that I'm just forgetting right now...

[pro10is]

... If restrictive legislation comes upon us (confiscate all guns), then the only people who will have them are the bad ones...

This is an age old, worn out argument. No one but the truly paranoid believes that the 2nd Amendment is ever going to be repealed and that it is even remotely possible to confiscate the millions of guns already in existence in the US. The sole purpose of this and other irrational arguments like it is to evoke emotion rather than sense. Right now we need to think clearly, not emotionally. It's clear that we need to come together to find a way to make gun ownership safer, especially for our children. We've done this with many other dangerous things, why not guns? It's not going to be easy but it can be done if all sides compromise and work together for the benefit of us all.

[ARtraveler]

My suits on :roflblack:.

I do believe we should listen carefully to what the President is saying, and eventually Congress--because it is from there that things may happen that we don't want to happen.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but will not challenge it, because we still have freedom of speech.

[Bob Denman]

Right now we need to think clearly, not emotionally. It's clear that we need to come together to find a way to make gun ownership safer, especially for our children.

:agree::agree::agree: :agree::agree: :2thumbs: :clap: :firstplace:
May I mention actually getting parents to start parenting again??

[pro10is]

...I respectfully disagree with your opinion, but will not challenge it, because we still have freedom of speech.

And I respectfully agree with your right to disagree. See, we can agree on something, so there's hope for all of us yet! :clap:

[grumpybob]

This is an e-mail I received today. have fun thinking it out.



Interesting slant on things
AMERICA 'S HUNTERS ---
Pretty Amazing!
http://www.d21c.com/frecs/holdys/Hunter.gif The world 's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this... http://www.tcastle.com/fun/ani/smoking_gun_lg_wht.gif A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion: http://www.poorwilliam.net/gif-ani/hunter_shooting_shotgun_lg_clr.gif


There were over 600,000 hunters
this season in the state of Wisconsin ..
Allow me to restate that number:
600,000

Over the last several months,
Wisconsin 's hunters became the eighth largest army in
the world.
http://www.bucklakehuntingclub.com/treestand_hunter_hg_blksmall.gif
More men under arms than in Iran .

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to
the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with
firearms, and no one was killed.
http://www.sd84.k12.id.us/SMS/departments/Ross/images/hunting.gif
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and
Michigan 's 700,000 hunters,
all of whom have now returned home safely.
Toss in a quarter million hunters
in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the
hunters of those four states alone
would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.
It 's millions more.

The point?

America will forever be safe
from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.Hunting...
it 's not just a way to fill the freezer. It 's a matter of national
security.

********************http://www.thehowardside.com/images/Photo%20Gp%201/huntingpic.gif*******************
That 's why all enemies,
foreign and domestic,
want to see us
disarmed.

Food for thought,
when next we consider gun control.

Overall it 's true,
so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters
don 't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question
would still remain...
What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???

(IF YOU AGREE, AS I DO, PASS IT ON, I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON 'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS)
http://www.electric-bass.org/GIFS/MaleFemaleHunters.gif

[ARtraveler]

pro10is: :agree::clap::2thumbs:

[pro10is]

Oh, sorry grumpybob, I thought we were talking about reasonable measures to protect our children from being massacred. I didn't realize there was a foreign threat that our armed services, the best in the world, couldn't handle on their own.

And our government can't even agree on how to resolve the fiscal cliff much less pose a domestic threat to our 236 years of freedom.

[grumpybob]

Oh,
And our government can't even agree on how to resolve the fiscal cliff much less pose a domestic threat to our 236 years of freedom.


Maybe that is the point. Anyway I didn't write it, or say it meant anything to me. Just fuel for thought.

[Bob Denman]

Oh, sorry grumpybob, I thought we were talking about reasonable measures to protect our children from being massacred. I didn't realize there was a foreign threat that our armed services, the best in the world, couldn't handle on their own.

Actually he has brought forth a VERY interesting point; Our forefathers actually kind of figured things out pretty darn right! :thumbup: They had a great series of checks and balances built into the government so as to prevent a despotic leader from proclaiming themself to be an emporer/king/grand poobah/whatever...
But the FINAL, last line of defense for any attack; both from outside or from within our borders, was going to be the armed citizenry.
Then the politicians started mucking things about and made a mess of it! :gaah: (But that's an argument for another time and place)

[btcherm]

I think that all of the asbestos britches can be left in the closets; no need to flame folks when we're actually all on the same side anyway! :thumbup:
"AK", you're 100% correct; the :cus: would still get their firearms, or they'd resort to something else that is equally deadly...:shocked:
It's really not about firearms; it's a societal issue that needs to be addressed from many different angles: parenting, education, the courts, the laws, and several more that I'm just forgetting right now...

Bob I agree with you 100 %:doorag:

[wyliec]

It's really not about firearms; it's a societal issue that needs to be addressed from many different angles: parenting, education, the courts, the laws, and several more that I'm just forgetting right now...

Bob,

I agree; but, in this last school shooting (as far as I know) there was some scientific testing that was going to be done on the shooter's genes and I've read/heard nothing more. So, at this point (at least for me) it's kind of hard to say it was a parenting issue or educational issue or whatever. I'm not even sure I'd call it a medical issue even though he did have one.

Bob, if there is more that I've missed about the shooter's messed up/screwed up reason, P.M. me so that I can find it.

Bob,

I just found something. I'm going to P.M. you. I don't want to keep this going here.

[Bob Denman]

...And when you purchase any firearm; form 4473 specdifically asks about your mental condition... :gaah:
The kid was a screwed-up mess from the start... whatever issues he may or may not have had; they certainly weren't helped by living with someone who was actively planning for the end of society and allowed him to play video games in the basement rather than actually try and be a parent to him...

[wyliec]

Well Bob,

If you looked at the link I sent, you were 100% correct. I did have a chance to look at it closely; unbelievable.

[Bob Denman]

I wouldn't fib to you; not over something like this anyway! :D

[Knarfoh]

Would be nice if people actually took the time to research these things. The Internet is a wonderful thing, but very often it is used to mislead people. What makes it worse, is when the statements made seem so plausible. What makes me laugh is that everyone is commenting on something that never happened the way it was described in the original post that started this thread. I guess with the latest tragedy, it was time to brush off an old story and rehash it like it happened just now.

No matter how you feel about this subject, hopefully the original poster will apologize for stating something that simply is not true.

Unfortunately, none of you are able to read my comments today because the world ended yesterday according to the Mayan calendar. That was on the Internet also, so it must be true.

It is never helpful when someone takes a serious subject and wraps it with lies in order to make a point.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/scott.asp

[Cruzr Joe]

This is an age old, worn out argument. No one but the truly paranoid believes that the 2nd Amendment is ever going to be repealed and that it is even remotely possible to confiscate the millions of guns already in existence in the US. The sole purpose of this and other irrational arguments like it is to evoke emotion rather than sense. Right now we need to think clearly, not emotionally. It's clear that we need to come together to find a way to make gun ownership safer, especially for our children. We've done this with many other dangerous things, why not guns? It's not going to be easy but it can be done if all sides compromise and work together for the benefit of us all.

Chicago has probably the most gun control regulations in America, more people are killed with guns in Chicago than any other city in America, just my two cents worth.

Cruzr Joe

Sent by morse code from a hidden bunker

[pro10is]

Chicago has probably the most gun control regulations in America, more people are killed with guns in Chicago than any other city in America, just my two cents worth.

Cruzr Joe

My four cents worth:

Harvard University Injury Control Research Center Firearms Research (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/) (excerpts)

Homicide

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.


2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.


3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.


4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

Suicide

1-2. Gun availability is a risk factor for suicide (literature reviews).

We performed reviews of the academic literature on the effects of gun availability on suicide rates. The preponderance of current evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in the United States. The evidence that gun availability increases the suicide rates of adults is credible, but is currently less compelling. Most of the disaggregate findings of particular studies (e.g. handguns are more of a risk factor than long guns, guns stored unlocked pose a greater risk than guns stored locked) are suggestive but not yet well established.

Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David. The relationship between firearms and suicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 1999; 4:59-75.

Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David. Gun prevalence and the risk of suicide: A review. Harvard Health Policy Review. 2001; 2:29-37.


3. Across states, more guns = more suicide (cross sectional analyses)

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership rates, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and suicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997). After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and suicide across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. Epidemiology. 2002; 13:517-524.


4. Across states, more guns = more suicide (2) (cross sectional analyses)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment. There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm suicide.

Miller, Matthew; Lippmann, Steven; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across U.S. states. Journal of Trauma. 2007; 62:1029-35.


5. Across states, more guns = more suicides (time series analysis)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide over time, 1981-2001. Changes in the levels of household firearm gun ownership was significantly associated with changes in both firearm suicide and overall suicide, for men, women and children, even after controlling for region, unemployment, alcohol consumption and poverty. There was no relationship between changes in gun ownership and changes in non-firearm suicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David; Lippman, Steven. “The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981-2002.” Injury Prevention. 2006; 12:178-82.


6. Across states, more guns = more suicide (Northeast)

We analyzed data on suicide and suicide attempts for states in the Northeast. Even after controlling for rates of attempted suicide, states with more guns had higher rates of suicide.

Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. Firearms and suicide in the Northeast. Journal of Trauma. 2004; 57:626-632.


7. Across U.S. regions, more guns = more suicide (cross sectional analysis)

We analyzed the relationship of gun availability and suicide among differing age groups across the 9 US regions. After controlling for divorce, education, unemployment, poverty and urbanization, the statistically significant relationship holds for 15 to 24 year olds and 45 to 84 year olds, but not for 25 to 44 year olds.

Birckmayer, Johanna; Hemenway, David. Suicide and gun prevalence: Are youth disproportionately affected? Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 2001; 31:303-310.

Children

1. Across states, more guns = more violent deaths to children

We analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and unintentional gun death, homicide and suicide for 5-14 year olds across the 50 states over a ten year period. Children in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicide and homicide. The state rates of non-firearm suicide and non-firearm homicide among children are not related to firearm availability.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deb; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, suicide, and homicide among 5-14 Year Olds. Journal of Trauma. 2002; 52:267-75.


2. Child firearm suicide appears more impulsive than suicide by other means (Arizona).

We analyzed data from the Arizona Childhood Fatality Review Team comparing youth gun suicide with suicide by other means. Children who use a firearm to commit suicide have fewer identifiable risk factors for suicide, such as expressing suicidal thoughts. Gun suicides appear more impulsive and spontaneous than suicide by other means.

Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Barber, Catherine; Schackner, Robert. Youth suicide: Insights from 5 years of Arizona child review team data. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 2004; 34:36-43.

Women

1. Across states, more guns = more female violent deaths

We analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and unintentional gun death, homicide and suicide for women across the 50 states over a ten year period. Women in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicides and homicide, particularly firearm suicides and firearm homicides.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, suicide, and homicide among women. Journal of Urban Health. 2002; 79:26-38.


2. Across high income countries more guns = more female homicide deaths.

We analyzed the relationship between gun availability and homicides of women with data from 25 high income countries. Across developed nations, where gun are more available, there are more homicides of women. The United States has the most firearms and U.S. women have far more likely to be homicide victims than women in other developed countries.

Hemenway, David; Shinoda-Tagawa, Tomoko; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and female homicide victimization rates across 25 populous high-income countries. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association. 2002; 57:100-04.

Gun Ownership

1. Almost half of gun owners own four or more guns.

We analyzed a national representative household telephone survey of over 2750 adults conducted in 2004. We found that 38% of households (45% of men and 11% of women) reported owning at least one firearm. Almost half (48%) of gun owners report owning four or more guns with a few possessing large numbers of guns; 64% of gun owners own at least one handgun. Gun ownership remains widespread, but a smaller percentage of gun owners possess an increasing percentage of the gun stock.

Hepburn, Lisa; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. The US gun stock: Results from the 2004 national firearms survey. Injury Prevention. 2007 13:15-19.


2. Owners of semi-automatic guns are more likely to binge drink than other gun owners.

We analyzed data from a national random digit dial telephone survey. Owners of semi-automatic weapons are more likely than other gun owners to be male, own a gun for protection, and report binge drinking.

Hemenway, David; Richardson, Elizabeth. Characteristics of automatic or semi-automatic firearm ownership. American Journal of Public Health. 1997; 87:286-88.

3-4. Gun ownership creates external psychic costs.
We analyzed whether perceptions of safety might be affected if more people in a community acquired firearms, using data from a national random-digit-dial survey of adults conducted under the auspices of HICRC. By a margin of more than 3 to 1, Americans would feel less safe, not safer, as others in their community acquire guns. Among women, but not among men, those who have been threatened with a gun are particularly likely to feel less safe.

Hemenway, David; Solnick, Sara J; Azrael, Deborah R. Firearms and community feelings of safety. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1995; 86:121-132.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Community firearms and community fear. Epidemiology. 2000; 11:709-714.

Road Rage

1. Motorists with guns are more likely to act aggressively (Arizona)

Using data from a telephone survey in Arizona, we examined the relationship between road rage and gun carrying in motor vehicles. We found that self-reported hostile actions (e.g. obscene gestures, cursing or shouting, aggressively tailgating) were more common among men, young adults, and individuals who carried a firearm in their car.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David; Solop, Frederic I. Road rage in Arizona: Armed and dangerous? Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2002; 34:807-814.


2. Motorists with guns are more likely to engage in types of road rage (USA)

Over 2,400 licensed drivers responded to questions about their own aggressive driving in a 2004 national random digit dial survey. We found that 17% of respondents admitted to making obscene or rude gestures in the past year, and another 9% admitted to aggressively following too closely. Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun, were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage.

Hemenway, David; Vriniotis, Mary; Miller, Matthew. Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2006; 38:687-95.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the "false positive" problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate's new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.


8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com (http://www.medscape.com)


9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238.

Batterers

1. Batterers’ use guns in a variety of ways to intimidate their victims

We analyzed survey data collected from over 8,000 males enrolled in a certified batterer intervention program in Massachusetts, 1999-2003. Recent gun owners were 8 times more likely to have threatened their partners with a gun than non-gun owners. Four main types of gun threat against partners were (a) threatening to shoot then, (b) threatening to shoot a pet or person the victim cares about, (c) cleaning, holding or loading a gun during an argument, and (d) shooting a gun during an argument.

Rothman, Emily; Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Batterers’ use of guns to threaten intimate partners. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 2005; 60:62-68.


2. Batterers with guns are more dangerous than batterers without guns.

We analyzed survey data of over 4,500 men in Massachusetts batterers’ intervention programs. Risk factors for having a gun included having gambling problems, having attempted murder, and having threatened a partner with a firearm.

Rothman, Emily F.; Johnson. Renee M.; Hemenway, David. Gun possession among a sample of Massachusetts batterer program enrollees. Evaluation Review. 2006; 30:283-95.

Gun Carrying

1-2. Adolescents carry guns for protection--against other adolescents carrying guns

We surveyed 7th and 10th graders in inner city schools in Boston and Milwaukee. We found that almost a quarter of 7th grade boys had already carried a gun, illegally. The overwhelming reason for carrying was self-protection. While guns were easily acquired, the large majority of respondents, and even the majority of those who had already carried a gun, wanted to live in a society where it was impossible for teens to get guns.

Hemenway, David; Prothrow-Stith, Deborah, Bergstein, Jack M; Ander, Roseanna; Kennedy, Bruce. Gun carrying among adolescents. Law and Contemporary Problems. 1996; 59:39-53.

Bergstein, Jack M; Hemenway, David; Kennedy, Bruce; Quaday, Sher; Ander, Roseanna. Guns in young hands: A survey of urban teenagers' attitudes and behaviors related to handgun violence. Journal of Trauma. 1996; 41:794-798.

3. Adolescents overestimate peer gun carrying and thus are more likely to carry themselves.

We analyzed data from a random survey conducted in 2008 of over 1700 high school students in Boston. Over 5% of students reported carrying a gun, 9% of boys and 2% of girls. Students substantially overestimated the percentage of their peers who carried guns and the likelihood that a respondent carried a gun was strongly associated with his perception of the level of peer gun carrying.

Hemenway, David; Vriniotis, Mary; Johnson, Rene M; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun carrying by high school students in Boston, MA: does overestimation of peer gun carrying matter? Journal of Adolescence. 2011; 34:997-1003


4. Students who old in their class are more likely to carry guns illegally
Using data from the Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior survey, we analyzed risk factors for adolescent gun carrying. We found that a simple objective measure--whether a student is old for their grade--is an important predictor of gun carrying. This fact may help clinicians identify high-risk students and target prevention strategies.

Hayes, D Neil; Hemenway, David. Age-within-school-class and adolescent gun carrying. Pediatrics electronic pages. 1999; 103:e64.

5. Social disorder increases the likelihood of adolescent gun carrying

We analyzed data from over 1800 youth in Chicago examining risk factors for adolescent gun carrying. We found that aspects of the neighborhood (social disorder, safety, collective efficacy) were important predictors of illegal gun carrying by youth.

Molnar, Beth; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Buka Steven. Neighborhood predictors of concealed firearm carrying among children and adolescents. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:657-64.

6. Selling crack is associated with carrying guns.

We analyzed data from interviews of over 200 young men and women at the Rhode Island Correctional Institution. We found that selling crack was highly associated with gun carrying; using hard drugs was not. Findings provide further evidence of a crack-gun connection.

Kacanek, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Gun carrying and drug selling among youth incarcerated men and women. Journal of Urban Health. 2006; 83:266-74.

7. Increased gun carrying reduces community feeling of safety.
This paper uses data from two national random-digit-dial surveys to examine public attitudes about gun carrying. By a margin of 5 to 1, Americans feel less safe rather than more safe as more people in their community begin to carry guns. By margins of at least 9 to 1, Americans do not believe that regular citizens should be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants, college campuses, sports stadium, bars, hospitals or government buildings.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah; Miller, Matthew. U.S. national attitudes concerning gun carrying. Injury Prevention. 2001; 7:282-285.

Miscellaneous

1. An armed society is not a trusting society

Working with experts on income inequality, social capital, and mortality, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and measures of social trust and civic engagement across US states. We found that states with more guns have lower levels of both mutual trust and civic engagement, after accounting for urbanization, poverty and median household income.

Hemenway, David; Kennedy, Bruce; Kawachi, Ichiro; Putnam, Robert D. Firearm prevalence and social capital. Annals of Epidemiology. 2001; 11:484-490.


2. Less lethal and less dangerous weapons need to be developed for civilians and for the police
We made the case that more research needs to be done to make firearms safer, more effective, and less lethal.

Hemenway, David; Weil, Douglas S. Phasers on stun: the case for less lethal weapons. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1990; 9:94-98.

Hemenway, David; Weil, Douglas S. Less lethal weapons. Op-Ed, Washington Post, May 14, 1990.

Overall

1. The United States has a very high rate of firearm death

Using recent data from the World Health Organization (WHO), this paper provides striking evidence on the size of the U.S. problems of gun homicide, overall homicide, gun suicide, and unintentional gun death compared to other advanced countries—for both genders and every age group.

Richardson, Erin G; Hemenway, David. Homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries, 2003. Journal of Trauma, 2011; 70:238-43.


2. The risks of a gun in the home typically far outweigh the benefits

This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family and concludes that for most contemporary Americans, the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit

Hemenway, David. Risks and benefits of a gun in the home. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine 2011; 5:502-511.

Public Opinion

1-2. The public favors most sensible gun policies, policies the U.S. does not have

We analyzed surveys of the American public over time. Household gun ownership levels have been decreasing in the United States since the 1980s. Most adults, and even most gun owners, favor most gun control laws short of bans on gun ownership.

Blendon, Robert J; Young, John T; Hemenway, David. The American public and the gun control debate. JAMA. 1996; 275:1719-22.

Young, John T; Hemenway, David; Blendon, Robert J; Benson, John M. Poll trends on guns. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1996; 60:634-649.


3. NRA members support many regulatory proposals
We analyzed data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey. National Rifle Association (NRA) members are similar to other gun owners in many respects, but they are more likely to own six or more guns. Unlike the NRA leadership, both NRA members and non-member gun owners support waiting periods and mandatory registration of handguns.

Weil, Douglas S; Hemenway David . I am the NRA: an analysis of a national random sample of gun owners. Violence and Victims. 1993; 8:353-65. See also Weil DS, Hemenway D. A response to Kleck (NRA). Violence and Victims. 1993; 8:377-85.

[btcherm]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/547532_10151345215699879_32209849_n.jpg (http://www.spyderlovers.com/forums/showthread.php?47128-COLUMBINE-STUDENT-S-FATHER-12-YEARS-LATER-%21%21) what can I say ?

[wyliec]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/547532_10151345215699879_32209849_n.jpg (http://www.spyderlovers.com/forums/showthread.php?47128-COLUMBINE-STUDENT-S-FATHER-12-YEARS-LATER-%21%21) what can I say ?

I have to be careful here b/c Bob D. said that I can't see. I'm guessing b/c the president's bodyguards have guns you are saying he (the president) speaks out of 'both sides of his mouth'? Really. He's probably had his life threatened on more than one occasion; I'd say he was being prudent.

If I have misconstrued what you were trying to portray, I apologize. Like I said, Bob has said that I can't see.:dontknow:

[Bob Denman]

Wylie,
When did I say that? :shocked:
I do find it amusing when I see pics with the President and his Secret Service bodyguards...
Nobody should argue that he isn't important enough to have protection; but aren't ALL of us important?

[Trickie Dick]

Pro10is posts some very interesting research and all you can talk about is the President's bodyguards:dontknow:

[Bob Denman]

And the source of the study???
Harvard; Happens to sit in a very liberal and very anti-firearm State.

If the source of the "Study" isn't truly unbiased; then the study is completely flawed... The results will only be a contrived manner in which to try and justify whatever result they wanted to report in the first place.
(Sorry!)

[pro10is]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/547532_10151345215699879_32209849_n.jpg (http://www.spyderlovers.com/forums/showthread.php?47128-COLUMBINE-STUDENT-S-FATHER-12-YEARS-LATER-%21%21) what can I say ?
Considering all the people who own guns who would like to see him gone, and what happened to Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, JFK, and RFK, not to mention Reagan, and Gabrielle Giffords, what you see here is an incredibly brave man. He is surrounded by armed guards but he is far from safe.

[pro10is]

And the source of the study???
Harvard; Happens to sit in a very liberal and very anti-firearm State.

If the source of the "Study" isn't truly unbiased; then the study is completely flawed... The results will only be a contrived manner in which to try and justify whatever result they wanted to report in the first place.
(Sorry!)

So you're saying Harvard University, America's best university, one of the top five institutes of learning in the world, is not a considered a good source for a respectable, unbiased study? Ok, thanks for that valuable information. I was under the impression Harvard University was a decent college, I guess I was wrong. I'm glad my son goes to Cambridge University instead.

But you strongly advocate we should definitely listen to the NRA because of course they're much less biased???

But then, by your own words you just said: "If the source of the "Study" isn't truly unbiased; then the study is completely flawed..." So it would follow that what you are actually saying is that any information the NRA provides is completely flawed???

Now I'm confused. What are you saying Bob???

[Bob Denman]

Let's just say that my typing is a bit off today...:opps:
Harvard is a pretty decent school; but I'd stand by my statement that they MAY be biased toward a particular end result...