I'm jumping in late so maybe this has already been pointed out about the Kellerman study. Fully 86% of gun owners who died by gunshot were suicides (nationwide it's 60% and people in Japan accomplish the same with pills, etc.) But, another salient point, this from John Lott, is that of the 444 NON-suicide gun owner gun deaths, only 8 were killed by guns owned by the gun owner. The other 436 were killed by guns owned by the assailants. And, some of those gun owners killed didn't have access to their gun because they were out and about and their gun was home. But, the dead gun owner DID own a gun and Kellerman counted those even though the gun was home in the closet.

Absolutely not true. And there's a whole lot of statistical research that dramatically rebuts that opinion.

Sen. Hudak's 83 to1 statistic seems to be a misstatement of the Kellerman gun study which includes a 43 to 1 ratio which is often used to attack the use of a gun for protection. In the Kellerman study, 86 % of the gun owners who died from gunshots were suicides. Of the 444 non-suicidal gun owners who were killed, only 8 were killed with their own guns. Of the other 436 homicides, all were killed with the attackers guns. In addition, the "1" in the ratio represents the attacker being killed by the gun defense. According to John Lott, fewer than 1 in 1000 gun defenses results in the attacker being killed. In most of the others, the appearance of a gun by the victim breaks off the attack resulting in no injury to the attacker.

I remember a study of prehistoric graveyards which concluded that life was brutal based on the number of split and badly damaged skulls, obviously caused by blunt trauma. The study estimated that the homicide rate per thousand was several hundred times the current US rate. The study covered homicides through time and noted a decline in homicide rates as guns became more common. I think this, in addition to legal arguments, needs to be made. On another level, I can’t understand why gun control people take pride in being helpless and unable to defend themselves and their families. Can anybody explain that?

The underlying belief of most gun grabbers is that a gun free world would be a safer place. This is false. Large, multicultural gun free societies are usually rampant with violent crime because young males, tough thugs, have pretty much free reign with nothing to fear from those they feed on: the old, the weak, the disabled, women, and the out numbered. Murder is sometimes lowered, but other violent crimes increase and the potential victims of the thugs live in fear. In gun free cities it's not unusual to find large pockets of good people who fear going out after dark and who won't enter a staircase or elevator with anyone unknown to them.

I know a lot of gun control people and they're not stupid. They believe that if all guns were eliminated, that the world would be a peaceful place. They don't realize that violent crime would actually rise, as it has in Australia and Great Britain, because the weak, the old, the disabled, the females and the outnumbered would be defenseless against the young thugs, as such people are in our "gun free" inner cities. I've seen a study of primitive civilizations that were judged to be extremely brutal based on the number of smashed skulls in their burial plots. As Samuel Colt said, a gun is an equalizer.

My cousin is a teacher in a private school and for a while was looking for a date. A few people advised her to look for dates at work, like many other people do. She said that there are males at school, but no men. It's ironic that boys are increasing raised by women who then complain about the males that other women raised. There's a boatload of 30 plus boys who will never grow up.

Guns aren't toys but they are often life savers. Most of us will be lucky enough to never be the victim of a violent crime, but tens of thousands of us will be victims. Thousands of dead, crippled or traumatized people never thought it could happen to them, but it did. If it does, you're on your own. 911 isn't going to help you. Guns give the smaller, the weaker, the older and the outnumbered a very good chance of fighting back, usually without firing. Predators are out there. Millions of people have guns, handle them safely and are a deterrent to criminals. You can take your chances. BTW, don't believe the gun control people who claim that a gun in the house increases your chances of dying a gun death. Almost all such deaths are suicides.

Dr. Sowell's "Tax Cuts" paper on his web site is an excellent explanation of the benefits of tax cuts complete with supporting evidence.

Too many voters don't know the difference between the budget deficit and the national debt, they don't know how it affects them, they don't realize that "taxing the rich" at Obama's suggested rate will have no serious impact on the deficit or debt and is simply class warfare, and when serious guests on news shows try to explain these things, they are cut-off with the admonition, "let's not get in the weeds." Well, somebody ought to start "getting in the weeds" or there will be four more years of this.