I posted scientific material from peer reviewed journals. Seems to me the only such material posted in this discussion. I made zero comment other than "interesting reading." In response, people imply I am a mentally deficient, godless liberal. The term for this kind of response is ad hominem. That is the classic Latin phrase that means the response attacks the man rather than the argument.
If scientific studies proved the guns prevented crimes against property or person, I am sure the NRA would publicize it until we were all convinced. They don't so I know such studies do not exist.
I respect the rights all of you have to own and keep firearms. What I question is the wisdom. When I posted material that seems to support that questioning, it seems I threatened the beliefs of some.
As for the argument that guns make for a safer society and reduce or prevent crime, please make a comparison among the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. (I chose those nations so the no one would accuse me of comparing the United States to godless foreigners.) You will discover that in societies comparable to our own where firearms are heavily regulated, the murder and armed robbery statistical evidence proves they are safer.
But then, why would anyone want facts to have anything to do with their opinion.
BTW, I want to make clear that I own guns, I qualified expert when in the military (although I never heard a shot fired in anger), and I support responsible hunting. I know Tanderson and the idea that he carries does not bother me one bit. My points are directed to untrained idiots with handguns. For every Tanderson in the world there 20 or more of the others and they kill or they let their kids kill every day.
Do not bother to respond. I am done with this thread.