Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. ‘Gun Safety’ Shareholder Proposal Revealed

Please note: the following proposal is not coming from Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. As they are a publicly traded company, any shareholder owning more than $2,000 worth of stock can submit a shareholder proposal. SEC rules require that the company adds the proposal to the agenda for voting at the next annual shareholder meeting. Ruger’s board is openly against this particular proposal, but they have to include it.

“Gun Safety” 2018 – Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.

RESOLVED : Shareholders request the Board of Directors issue a report by February 8, 2019, at reasonable expense and excluding proprietary information, on the company’s activities related to gun safety measures and the mitigation of harm associated with gun products, including the following:

– Evidence of monitoring of violent events associated with products produced by the company.

– Efforts underway to research and produce safer guns and gun products

– Assessment of the corporate reputational and financial risks related to gun violence in the U.S.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT :

Gun violence is a public health crisis with extraordinary human and financial costs. Given our commitment to safety and responsibility, it is imperative that we assess all options for decreasing the societal impact of gun violence and mitigate financial and reputational risks for the company.

The Gun Violence Archive’s recent research found gun homicides up 12% and gun injuries up 50% year-after-year from 2014 – 2017.

A recent Harvard and Northeastern University Study approximated 265 million guns in the U.S. with a population of only 242 million adults – more than one gun per adult. It further found that 55 million Americans own guns and 3% of the population own half the total number of guns in the country, averaging 17 per super owner.

The New England Journal of Medicine published research demonstrating that living in a home with guns increased the risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%.

An estimated 1.69 million children live in a home with firearms according to research published in the Journal of Pediatrics. Research in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found 29% of parents with children 12 years or younger, and 42% of parents with children ages 13 to 17 have unlocked firearms in the home.

Despite being a contentious issue, a recent Quinnipiac Poll shows public support for sensible gun policy at all all-time high. Background checks are now favored by 95% of the population likely to vote. Survey participants also supported: A ban on sales of assault weapons (65%); a ban on sales of guns to people convicted of a violent crime (91%); banning gun modifications that convert weapons to fully automatic capabilities (74%); and stricter regulations on ammunition sales (62%).

While efforts to bring smart guns to the U.S. have been unsuccessful to date, the technology exists and there is reason to believe they could significantly reduce accidental shootings and suicides. Additionally, a recent study in the American Journal of Public Health found that almost 60% of Americans would be willing to buy a smart gun when considering a purchase.

According to the Violence Policy Center, since 1987 Sturm Ruger & Co., Inc. products have been used in 7 mass shootings, responsible for killing 60 people and wounding 70 more. Evidence shows that the American public, in ever greater numbers, is demanding safer guns and responsible firearm manufacturers.

We urge shareholders to vote for this proposal.

[NB: In their filing, Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.’s Board of Directors advise shareholders to vote against the proposal.]

comments

  1. avatar Shire-man says:

    That percentage supporting background checks climbs every time somebody questions it. By mid-Summer it’ll be reported as 104%.

    1. avatar Madcapp says:

      No kidding Shire-Man. There are too many people getting away with promoting unsourced and absurd “statistics” like that in the media.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        The thing is, it’s probably not that far off if you just consider background checks in general, which we’ve already had for decades now. Every time that number gets floated, it’s to support universal background checks and the concomitant universal gun owner registration — which is a not actually what the surveys asked about.

        1. avatar Dion White says:

          And not one of these new laws would have prevented either the shooting in Las Vegas or Florida recently. The sad fact remains even if we got rid of every single gun in America and I mean every gun. People would make bombs and used cars to kill other people and then there’s the fact that there’s knives and fist! Knives kill more people every year than guns do! In the end the truth is it’s not a gun problem it is a people problem. It’s a condition of the heart. Even the Bible recorded in Genesis The First Family the guy created the two sons named Cain and Abel. And we all know Cain killed Abel because of his heart. And while we’re on the subject of guns prior to 1986 when the assault rifle ban occurred and I mean real assault rifles that were machine guns. I don’t remember any school shootings. So there was fully automatic weapons available to the public but yet kids did not shoot up schools! Why would this be then? Is there a decline in our civilization?

        2. avatar Tim says:

          Dion White “Knives kill more people every year than guns do!” Uh, no. Knives kill more people every year than RIFLES do. FIFY

        3. avatar cawpin says:

          Exactly. I’ve been called twice with these surveys. They simply ask, “Do you think there should be background checks for gun sales.” It never mentions personal sales or the implications thereof.

        4. avatar Soylent Green says:

          most of the uninformed think we DON’T have background checks now, so to them, it sounds like a logical thing.

          That said, background checks are security theater, subjected upon the law abiding because of an incompetent justice system which both uses the populace as it’s quality control or actively releases the dangerous before via the “revolving door” method.

          For that matter, the concept of “time served”, is BS. Keep them incarcerated until they we are confident they are rehabilitated, or put them in a hole with some quick lime.

          If you find defective product, return it for refurbishment or destruction. If a company was getting defective product back, and just repackaging the defective product without refurbishment, and sending it back out, there’d be lawsuits aplenty. Especially if that product caused injury, the second time.

        5. avatar NateInPA says:

          Having done two of these surveys recently, the questions were so broad and generalized, it’s easy for the pollster to garner whatever conclusion they want from it.

          The one question I remember specifically was, “would you be in favor of expanding backround checks to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons?” That’s a phrasing that I could see 95% of those questioned answering “yes” to.

    2. avatar G Robert Jones says:

      The numbers are highly suspect. But of course the left never lies.

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        “Gun violence is a public health crisis with extraordinary human and financial costs.”
        It’s hard to take someone seriously and believe that he wants to have meaningful discussion when he starts his argument by a bold faced lie.

        This whole proposition is just another way to get gun grabber’s arguments out in public view.

  2. avatar Jack Hawkins says:

    It would be useful if the NRA and other like-minded groups took some of our dues money and purchased $2000 worth of stock in various media(Disney, Viacom), tech (Facebook, Google) and other companies– ahem — Dick’s, ahem– and made some similar proposals.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      Any company large enough to have retirement options or 6+ digits of banked money most likely already does have the needed stock overall. It’s just setup as an index fund.

  3. avatar Crabbyoldguy says:

    Should they also disclose who made this proposal?

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Yes, THAT proxy bloc should be investigated by the SEC for insider trading and inappropriate manipulation of company valuation for personal gain.

      1. avatar stan says:

        That’s a good point.

    2. avatar Bloving says:

      Suppose they do disclose who it was? What will anyone do about it? Demand that twit sell his stock? Get mad at Ruger for allowing him to buy so much?
      Not knowing anything else about that shareholder, I’ll guess that letter was written up by a committee who will now release it to their employees and investors so they can say, “See? We told that company we own stock in to stop being so mean! We made a difference!”
      They can go piss up a rope. The most damaging thing they might be able to do when Ruger ignores them is to short-sell their stock at a loss in order to drive the value down and hurt the other investors… but doing so would be cutting off their own noses to spite Ruger’s face. Not gonna happen.

      1. avatar cawpin says:

        As Joe R. said, investigate them for insider trading and stock manipulation.

  4. avatar Joe R. says:

    F RUGER Shareholders in the eye.

    If I were the Board of Directors I would say, shareholders attempting to force a short sale of Company Stock will be hunted to extinction in front of their children.

  5. avatar SheepDog says:

    We’re going to lose our second Amendment right without a shot from either side ever being fired, this Country is too populated, too large, too civil, and too apathetic. No one will fight, most people have a Family to care for, A job to work, and homes pay for; That is more important than guns. Americans rather maintain the status quo and maintain their comfortable living. All POTG will do is bitch, piss and moan Here, on you Tube and other gun forums and beat their chest like James Yeager Until his master (Government) bitch slaps him back in line, He and us will toe the line. Maybe they’ll be some to fight; Labeled Right wing extremist and arrested or killed. So there you have it,
    Do something tangible about it or shut the hell up!

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      I doubt it. Liberals have a serious habit of jumping the shark. They’ve pretty well done that here already the same way they did with that sanctuary state thing out in Cali that has cities and counties fighting back.

      Their proposals just go way, way to far to the point of absurdity which is why they generally won’t go anywhere and those that do will mostly get shot down in court.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        I suspect you are correct. Every time they get this sort of splash they squander it one way or another – usually over reaching because they believe their own lies about their popularity and power. I think this one has reached it’s high water mark and is beginning to recede but in the not too distant future when the Dem have all of the reins of government again, one of these post mass shooting manias will overwhelm what is left the constitution, our opposition, and judicial restraint and that’ll be all she wrote.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          In a story on MSN News today, asking whether the 2A could be repealed, is found the following comment re retired Justice Stevens’ remarks: “Aaron Blake, senior political reporter writing for The Fix at The Washington Post, told CBS News that in his view, Stevens’ op-ed was “about the most unhelpful thing” for the gun control movement.
          “This is playing into the Republican talking point that this is the ultimate goal of gun control advocates, which is to take away guns, to not have gun ownership be a right, to repeal the Second Amendment,” Blake said.”

          Keep up the good work, Mr. Stevens! The article concluded that repealing the 2A is technically possible but extremely unlikely.

          [P.S.: Interesting cover photo. It shows a .45 cal 1911 and a bunch of 9 mm FMJ rounds.]

  6. avatar surlycmd says:

    It seems the shareholder who submitted this is too stupid understand the lack of actual valid data in the proposal. I doubt they possess the intelligence required to comprehend the technical aspects of smart guns much less the apparently abstract nature of Freedom.

  7. avatar JohnS says:

    In this case, I would not attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by actual malice.

  8. avatar I'm Smith, He's Wesson says:

    SUPPORTING STATEMENT : Provided by Moms Demand Action

  9. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Yeah about that …

    1. avatar Hang_hogg hitler says:

      Hogg Hitler really stepped in the sauerkraut this time

    2. avatar Gregg says:

      Brilliant!

    3. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      This is not an exaggeration. Well done!!

  10. avatar FTM says:

    U.S. vehicle deaths topped 40,000 in 2017, National Safety Council estimates…………Down with the cars! They are more evil than our black rifles and high capacity magazines!…….(sarcasm)

    1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      That’s not sarcasm at all it’s the truth. These facts should be flung right back in the face of every gun grabber. Tell them all cars should be taken away because 40K innocent people!!!! Let them see the foolishness of their call to take away guns.

  11. avatar anarchyst says:

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

    1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

      Not my viewpoint. The 2A means “shall not be infringed.” Own and use whatever you want. But do it responsibly.

    2. avatar Richard Revoir says:

      I second your statement !!! We all know that the person intent on harming others will find a way to do so. It is easy to use a glass bottle to make a Molotov cocktail and hurt people. Ban glass bottles. Or automobiles , as many a drunk driver , or a nut job has plowed in to a crowd and killed people.leave law abiding citizens alone. Focus on mentally unstable’s problem solved.

    3. Absolutely. Our differences are minor.

  12. avatar john says:

    Off topic but I found this of interest, received an email from Democrats.com. This statement at bottom of the email is what I found interesting. I will register with them under a different email address and watch what they send.

    “Democrats.com is the oldest online community of progressive activists, with over 3 million supporters. We fight for jobs, justice, healthcare, education, the environment, and peace. We’re supported by great progressive partners so we never ask for donations.”

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      “Democrats.com is the oldest online community of progressive activists, with over 3 million supporters. We fight for jobs, justice, healthcare, education, the environment, and peace. We’re supported by great progressive partners so we never ask for donations.”

      So, they go downrange to extend property rights, free markets, and rule of law to places where those don’t exist yet … these being, statistically, historically, the consistent drivers of economic progress, rights, and the ancillary benefits of better health care, better education (incidentally better health and longer life expectancy), and reduced crime & violence. If “nation building” abroad worked, building nations with those properties might be worth doing. (As it is, nations don’t seem to be buildable, especially by occupiers.)

      Apparantly Bloomie funds them.

    2. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      So … journolist were latecomers & these guys are pissed that they got all the press?

    3. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      So, there really is a secret cabal with meetings to coordinate implementing their agenda.

      My tinfoil hat is getting worn out. I’ll be in my bunk(er).

  13. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    “…Sturm Ruger & Co., Inc. products have been used in 7 mass shootings, >>responsible<< for killing 60 people and wounding 70 more…"

    And _that's_ why I don't like Ruger products. They're irresponsible.

    I hope that the authors of this, um, resolution, have supervision when they leave their homes. They could hurt themselves in our scary world.

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      Those numbers aren’t right. More propaganda. What firearms were used, what 7 mass shootings, what numbers equate a mass shooting. Propaganda

  14. avatar mykque says:

    Is it a typo by TTAG, the original writer, or a secret desire to get rid of a 100 million people and guns?

  15. avatar Extra cheese, Extra pickles, No onions. Sweet and sour sauce all over my chicken nuggets says:

  16. avatar BLAMMO says:

    That supporting statement is a lot of made up bullshit (e.g., smart guns).

  17. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    First they get inside you. Then you are slowly poisoned until you die. The best long term solution to save our civil rights is to educate the next generation about their rights and responsibilities.
    Unfortunately the Liberals and the Left have a head start.

  18. avatar Tolkus53 says:

    Ppl
    Have a hardwired, if you will, right to protect themselves from harm.

  19. avatar ORCON says:

    Wait just a damn minute. This is not a new thing. Besides, if a company has an issue with an unruly shareholder said company can issue a forced buy back. So most people vote with their wallets, antigun Joe Shmuck isn’t going to dump 2k or more into Sturm Ruger, SWCH or VSTO just to pitch a fit.

    A shareholder proposal isn’t just some angry rant scribbled on a deli napkin. It takes lawyers, paralegals and resources to pass the requirements to even make its way to the board.

    1. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

      This is nothing new. Back in the days of aparthait (sp?) in South Africa, every publicly traded company with business activity in SA saw shareholder initiatives to divest all SA subsidiaries. It was a regular feature of every annual meeting. I’m not aware of any company that succumbed to it. Just more nattering from the left.

  20. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, that supporting statement is crap but the overlords of Sturm Unt Drang missed a trick. I think they could flip all three of the research demands, but this one is the most interesting:

    I really don’t think Bloomie’s astro-stockholders thought this one through.

    “– Evidence of monitoring of violent events associated with products produced by the company.”

    You know, every DGU, plus bulk statistics from the CDE and FBI would feed nicely into “guns are good” PR efforts. I think S R ought to do this. Would also feed into point 3.

    “– Efforts underway to research and produce safer guns and gun products”

    Modern firearms are incredibly safe, more so given the intensity of their operation. It’s incredibly rare for any potential “harm” to emanate other than down-range in a very narrow cone. And to make it project all that energy down-range takes something like 5, deliberate, precise steps, in the right order. There’s a “manual at arms” for any fire arm, because you have to get it right to make it go.

    I think a study of the steady historical and ongoing refinement of safety, operation, and control features would be a fine thing for S R to produce. Doing this might address point #3, there a bit — yeah, these things are incredibly safe.

    People abusing a gun, like abusing, say a panel truck, can do a lot of harm. BUT, a fire arm is particularly suited to stopping abuse in progress, compared to, say, a panel truck.

    In the end, the anti-s don’t want people who aren’t them, able to wield force on their own behalf. That’s a debate we want to have. (Screech there, demonstrating for the last couple months that victim-selection is not merit based is kind of the last guy you’d want armed. Given the way he’s out of control with his right to speak in pubic — sputtering, swearing, the incoherence — probably shouldn’t be trusted with a bulky man-purse, let alone anything more capable.)

    “– Assessment of the corporate reputational and financial risks related to gun violence in the U.S.”

    It turns out the facts in hand only builds the company’s reputation and operations.

  21. avatar Guy Bryan says:

    This is against all that I personally believe in!
    I would have to vote against the proposal if I were a share holder. I own Ruger products and I love them,enjoy them and I support my right to choose what I have and how much ! DO NOT PUSH,PREACH NOR TELL ME WHAT IS BEST OR WHAT I HAVE TO DO OR HAVE !
    THAT RIGHT IS MINE AND MINE ALONE!

    1. avatar Richard Revoir says:

      Guy Bryan , you are absolutely correct. I am a law abiding citizen. I own and love my Sturm Ruger rifle. And my winchester mod 94 and my Ar-15 just to name a few. I plan on purchasing their new pc carbine takedown. I pay my taxes , am American , and love to shoot. It is my right and no one is going to take it from me. ” my cold dead hands ” maybe.

  22. avatar Geoff says:

    A ban on sales of assault weapons (65%) Uh, NO.
    a ban on sales of guns to people convicted of a violent crime (91%) Already the Law. Prohibited Person
    banning gun modifications that convert weapons to fully automatic capabilities (74%) A bump stock doesn’t.

    There are 3 items that can convert a semi auto AR to full auto.
    1. Full Auto Fire control Group with Auto Sear. (<$100) Requires modification to the AR lower to install. Can be bought over the Internet to repair your pre-1986 Registered M16.
    2. A Registered DIAS, Drop In Auto Sear. Some lowers require modification.
    3. A Registered Lightning Link
    All are legal.. 2 and 3 require $$$$ and Form 4 if you find one for sale.

    There may be other methods, but not legally.

  23. avatar G. Mikels says:

    I am tired of all of the rhetoric and statistics. Every time something happens we are urged to pass laws. We can’t even enforce what is on the books now. What we need to do is try to solve the cause of the problem. Mentally disturbed and felons obtaining firearms is the root of the problem, start there. Quit trying to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

    1. avatar GunOwnerAndDamnProud says:

      Amen!!

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Mentally disturbed and felons obtaining firearms is the root of the problem, start there.”

      No, that’s the excuse they use. NO to gun control.

  24. avatar anonymoose says:

    Quinnipiac is one of the ones who said Hillary would smash Donald Trump. Totally unbiased there.

  25. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I don’t see much point in this other than to add cost. Compiling this information might make some shareholders feel they are doing something with regard to corporate community responsibility but in the end the data will be rejected as worthless because it was produced by a gun company.

    It will not buy Ruger any goodwill with the haters so just spend your money making good guns better.

    1. avatar Charlie says:

      Having data collected privately can be used against them in court later. (You KNEW your guns were being used in crimes and yet you said nothing and did nothing… For very creative definitions of “nothing”.) Or if made public, it can be spun up behind what the numbers actually say and be used for further shareholder shenanigans later.

  26. avatar Ryan says:

    Wonder if these same shareholders also hold stock in Alcohol manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, or hammer manufacturers. Are they sending similar letters to those companies? (I assume the answer is, uh..no)

  27. avatar Ed says:

    I see no evidence how this proposal promotes shareholder value in any way..

  28. avatar K. Dowding says:

    There was a New York policeman convicted of “conspiracy to commit cannibalism” maybe we should use their background checks to make sure people should not only be allowed to own guns, but be required to carry them

  29. avatar GunOwnerAndDamnProud says:

    Absolutely ridiculous.
    It’s NOT the manufacturers fault that idiots get their hands on guns. People are sheep and they need to wake the hell up.
    Figure out WHY guns and assault weapons are getting into schools and churches and at concert venues. Slamming the gun manufacturers, doing useless walkouts or trying to get stronger gun laws is NOT SOLVING THE REAL ISSUE!

  30. avatar Michael Brasher says:

    In the shareholder proposal, all of the statistical sources are strongly anti-gun.
    Why did they not reference the BEST source for gun statistics: the FBI.
    “Smart gun” technology is not viable yet. All efforts so far have made a gun inoperable in stressful situations.
    The BEST safety item that can be attached to a handgun or rifle is the ttained individual. One who practices & trains regularly is safer than someone who just goes out to plink at targets.
    The brain is the best safety device going, not some add-on gizmo or knee-jerk legislation.

  31. avatar G Me says:

    The question should have been: Do you think Ruger should have developed the “P365” before Sig Sauer???

  32. avatar Joe_thousandaire says:

    Why would you invest in a gun company if you hated guns? I smell a troll. Somebody bought shares in Ruger just to put out this ridiculous proposal. Probably Bloomberg money.

  33. OK folks a couple of reality checks:

    1) Every one of Bloomberg’s horrible background check initiatives. save one have passed. They make a simple NICS check look good – and they apply even to short term loans and family transfers. A strong majority favor so called universal background checks – and it is nearly impossible to change their minds. Bloomberg uses these measures to “piggyback” tons of other stuff.

    Tell me I am crazy, but I think a simple and clean NICS expansion that we write, and that preempts all state laws and allows out of state purchases would be a huge improvement – and would checkmate Bloomberg.

    2) We are in the fight of our lives. The only way we win is if we convince the general public – not just gun owners – that our vision will save more lives. Here we have the facts on our side – and they don’t. We need to cast a total vision of how we are going yo make them safer. We will never convince the deeply committed antis, but we can turn the hangers on, the marginally committed.

    In many ways we are close. For instance a strong majority favor armed guards in schools. Most people don’t want the draconian gun control laws the other side is pushing. We need to debunk much of what the public thinks they know. We need to push the benefits of concealed carry, etc. This is the final battle, and we had better not blow it.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Tell me I am crazy,”

      Delusional.

      NO gun control.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Yes that is exactly what you are as nutty as a fruit bat only too ignorant to know it. Guys like you are the best friends the anti-gun crowd ever had because with guys like you the anti-gun crowd cannot loose in their bid to outlaw all guns. Of course I will not bother to explain why because this is all way over your head.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Try reading in English, you Norwegian nobody. What you wrote had nothing to do with the context of my reply. ROFLMAO

          Don’t care. You’re irrelevant.

  34. avatar Harold says:

    Guns are not problem it is the people who have not been taught they have to take responsibility for their actions the gun is just the tool of choice because in their mind it separates them from their actions

    1. avatar cisco kid says:

      Your right almost. Its not the guns fault its the shiftless Neanderthal Hill jacks that do not lock up guns so kids end up get killed with them and they do not care that criminals and nut cases can buy all the guns they want at gun shows or private unvetted sales. Vetting all purchases might inconvenience Jethro Bodine when he wants to make a purchase. And Jethro will tell you the dead body count can never be to high so lets continue to do nothing until of course an outraged public demands some day soon he no longer has a right to own a gun.

  35. avatar Charlie says:

    The alleged link between homicide and having a gun in the home is probably backwards. Maybe the “homicide” was legit self defense but the police technically had to call it homicide due to the presence of a rapidly cooling body. Maybe people living there got a gun in the first place because of a specific threat or a rough neighborhood. Or it could be a crack house, and the gun is merely a symptom of the real problem. Here’s an idea: filter out homicides that weren’t prosecuted or were judged justified, and map the rest of the data by zip code. Have a second map layer for only those where the homicide happened in context of some other criminal activity that the residents were actively participating in. Have a third map layer that’s just the self defense or decline to prosecute data. I suspect that would be much more interesting.

    1. avatar john says:

      In a legal sense anytime you kill someone it is “Homicide” but there is a difference between murder and homicide. You have justifiable, negligent and unlawful homicide. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse.
      That said, what you are suggesting would not be all that difficult, the FBI keeps all those stats.

      1. avatar cisco kid says:

        Look your grasping at straws and just plain lying to yourself. The Stats have shown for decades and decades a gun in the home makes it astronomically higher that you or a family member will be killed or crippled with it as compared to a home break in by strangers that might do you harm. The fly in the ointment is that yes it could happen with a break in and yes you should have a right to own a gun for self defense but most civilized nations have laws that make people act responsibly at home with guns but that does not change the odds or the truth that you are way less safe with one than without one. But when did paranoia ever result in logical thinking. Not often.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Did not read. You’re irrelevant.

  36. avatar Timothy V Noecker says:

    The fact is that the 2nd Amendment has never been about owning a gun. Such language is not present there at all:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    The context–given that it was written during the Revolution–is quite clear, that this is related to the function of an well regulated militia which, by the way, is run by the state government (and which played a key role in the American revolution); today we call them the National Guard.

    1. avatar cisco kid says:

      No the National Guard only exists in Right Wing Fantasies as for years ago the nefarious Federal Government took over control of them so in reality they only exist in name only for they are now sub-standard Federal Troops. It was done to make sure that the States had no standing army to resist the Jack Booted Nazi Federal Brainwashed Military who care nothing about your Constitutional Rights as none are high enough on the evolutionary scale to ever question any orders to wipe you out if they are given. Sleep tight tonight on that thought as its reality like it or not.

  37. avatar cisco kid says:

    The report did not mention the mass killing in Norway with a Mini-14 rifle that killed 77 people. Result Norway is taking away all semi-auto rifles with no compensation to the owners.

    In the Hillbilly U.S. if Hey any nut case can walk into a gun show and buy all the heavy weapons and ammo he wants.

    Any criminal can walk into a home in the U.S. and simply scoop up a virtual arsenal of weapons that are not locked up along with their ammo as we do not have a Federal mandatory safe storage law.

    And any child can get accidentally killed with loaded weapons lying around the house not locked up and it usually results in 1,300 child deaths a year. But for the Neanderthal Cave people of the Far Right the dead body count can never be to high to lock guns up. It might inconvenience them or make them leave their six pack of beer and pizza for a few moments to lock them up

    1. avatar littlemike says:

      You are just one more of the psychotic left-wing loons, and they are the type who perpetrate mass violence. Go move to Venezuela or North Korea, where you will fit right in.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email