It was actually the other way around, AOL purchased the Huffington Post and moved it under them. :) That question of the day comes from us local editors. I can assure our readers, it has absolutely never been suggested from anyone that we report with any bias - in fact just the opposite. We are expected to adhere to true journalistic standards of completely unbiased reporting. We put the question out there and it is the debate that steers it in any particular direction. That is a much more accurate reflection of the flavor of the community.

"expected to adhere to true journalistic standards of completely unbiased reporting."

At least the humor section is entertaining.

And yet, Sharon, with all due and deserved respect, where are the Patch Staff-written articles that don't lean into the right-side of every political or governmental issue, including the slant of the questions at the end? I'm not talking about "Local Voices" blogs or comments to blogs.

Where are the Patch Staff blogs about Congressional obstructionism, about John Boehner announcing he will not work with the White House on sequester negotiations, why no questions about Republican leaders' silence (endorsement of) during the election season when their chosen candidates and surrogates continued with their birther and "other" talk? Why no article on Congress failing to extend the payroll tax holiday; attaching partisan conditions and pork to bills that should be stand-alone, etc., etc., etc. There is lots of material out there along these lines - past, present and future. Even a non-partisan article would be a welcome change.

Please, show me I'm wrong and give me links to, especially local, Patch Staff blogs that don't lead with a title practically begging for more right-wing anti-administration yack.

Disclaimer: My Patch experience only goes back to the end of Oct. 2012, so maybe there were some before that date, or some I have missed.

It's probable, like the general population in our area that the Patch Staff is heavily Republican. Maybe Patch Staff is too close to the subject to be neutral.

Please gentle readers:
If you are of the belief that Patch sites are right leaning, please take a tour of some other locations, like these for instance and report back…

(A quick short list below, by no means meant to be exhaustive)

Midtown
Buckhead
East Atlanta

There will be a written test upon your return…

Of course, if you happen to have an application to work for the "Anywhere" Patch as Staff that has been rejected - post that for bonus points…

The "Pending Approval" gremlins are out tonight.

R+, allow me to qualify my comment by stating that I meant specifically the Loganville-Grayson Patch - Sharon's territory, which is why I directed my comment to her.
I have occasionally seen blogs pulled from other locations to the L-G Patch, but that's rare.

GGY, please send me any questions that you would like asked for debate in our forum and I will be happy to ask it for you. Just email it to me at sharon.swanepoel@patch.com and suggest that it be put out there for discussion. I will research the background from a couple of the news sources and write up the question. The same goes for anyone, from both sides of this political argument.

Are you really serious with your question, GGY?

How about a list of all the Conservative views that have been deleted for no other reason than the view. Or a list of the Conservative posters that have been permanently banned for posting Conservative views. The Patch, in most people's opinions is seriously left leaning. So much so that it's obviously losing viewership. I certainly spend more time on blogs with more balanced views.

But, as for your buried questions for which blogs should be written, I too would love to see these...as long as the truth is published fairly in the report. Attaching partisan conditions and pork to bills has reached a disgusting level. Just read the Obamacare bill. Written by the Dems, it's so full of crap that doesn't even come close to relating to health care. Sickening.

Thanks, Sharon. That should open it up.

So, does that mean you couldn't find any already published?

B, I'm more serious than you were with your comment.

I'm referring to Patch Staff blogs, as I clearly stated - not blog comments or Local Voices columns.

What do you want to bet (figure of speech, especially since you're in Lenten discipline) that the reason any conservative comments have been deleted and conservative posters have been permanently banned - hard to do since they can sign on with a new name - is b/c of violations of terms of service? Let me illustrate - name calling, vulgar comments, ugly jokes, racial slurs, insults.

Buried questions? I have already put some out there.

Obamacare is full of Republican crap, otherwise it wouldn't have passed. Without the Republican crap it would have been a much better, cleaner, more efficient bill.

If Patch is losing readership, it's likely because of the sniping (personal insults) which results in arguing.

It would be so nice if posters would just state their opinions while observing the TOS and let others do the same.

So many folks are on attack mode, which leads to defensive comments, then a vicious cycle begins.

I, too, read a couple of other blogs. There's one regular on a national blog who is well-respected - he's a Republican - and gets into reasonable discussions with the opposition. He's respected by Democrats because he's respectful. He makes his point, allows others to make theirs, and there's no problem. He'll even admit when he's wrong. The only negative comments directed at him are - yep, from his own side.

GGC, I seriously didn't look, but if anyone has a suggestion on how to make it better in their mind, I'm happy to oblige. Since we've been accused of both leaning too far left and too far right, I figure we're at least achieving some sort of balance. Please send me your suggestions - and the same goes for anyone who has a point they feels deserves debate - and I will be happy to see if I can pose the question.

Sharon, you often posts very conservative viewpoints. However, you're in a minority. Other Patch moderators are much less forgiving. I personally have received derogatory emails from two of them because I questioned their liberal leanings. And I personally (some of us actually know each other outside of the blogs) know of multiple commenters that have been banned, not for violating the TOS but for questioning the slant of the moderators comments. One even claims to have had every post he ever made deleted. I assume this to be true since I can't find them anywhere. That's certainly one way to shut them up.

Sharon, in all fairness, you, Kristi and Steve run this right up the middle.

Unless there has really been some non hires behind the scenes we as readers can’t know about, some of the grumbling seems almost out of bounds.

Sincerely,

One of the “Pending Approval” Gremlins

(I AM insubordinate)

Another Patch assessment from the far right.

Why thank YOU!

(In the best "The Closer" tone you can imagine)

If that was meant as dig, it didn't work but it did put a hardy smile on my face.

(Since you've oft wondered if I really smile)

Actually, R+, I've never wondered whether you smile. Sorry.

And, I didn't mean that as a dig, rather as a statement of fact. The far right is so far to the right that anything a bit closer to center looks like the middle.

His comment just highlighted that he has been in Washington far too long to be aware of the laws his rank and file (Really LOOSELY applied here I Know) face each day...

Alrighty then ...

Jimmy, that was an error, and has been fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. Now if the second Amendment does indeed die, I will definitely put something in the obits for you!

Does that mean I can have an F16 and a tank? How about hand grenades?

Hmmmm.....I don't think I can afford a tank or an F16, but maybe I can get Obama to give some for free, like he did for Egypt. If you can afford a tank, you should be able to have one.

Amen, dushbaguel@dbag.com. I agree with you.

Dush and David,

We DO have a common sense gun policy. It's called the 2nd Amendment. You should read it, and it's history, sometime.

That's right, common sense, 2nd Amendment - which doesn't state private citizens should have extreme weapons.

The Supreme Court has ruled " . . . self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment."

Again, just because you find it common sense and the Court decided that it was OK to ignore the spirit of the 2nd and why it was put in place, does not make them right. Nobody back in the day was thinking about hunting rifles or personal protection - they would have been astounded that those would even be under scrutiny in the first place. It was to allow us to protect ourselves against aggressors, foreign or domestic. We're also not supposed to have a standing army of the size we have now - supposed to be pretty much non-existent. But of course we just ignore that part of the whole thing, as well....

I'll bet the FFs didn't consider man landing on the moon.

I'll bet the FFs didn't think anyone would massacre first graders, either.

I've seen this argument before, and don't really understand the premise, although I've addressed it. What the hell does landing on the moon have to do with anything?

And given the mindset - the fact they just won a hard-fought freedom from an overbearing government, do you really think that the fact the government has these weapons would change their mind about civilians owning them? I'm inclined to think just the opposite. I also think they would have put wording in to severely curtail the government's authority to have these weapons and an army as well.

Simple, Karsten. The FFs couldn't foresee that man could build a transport to the moon. They only had horses and wagons in them days. They likely didn't and couldn't foresee the types of weaponry that has become too easily available to the citizenry. They also couldn't foresee the US becoming a nation of 300+ million, you think? They probably thought they had devised a near-perfect government, covering all societal possibilities.

GGY- If the bad guys have certain weapons, the good guys should have them too. Making them illegal will only take Semi-automatic rifles out of the hands of the good guys. You can take that to the bank.

D-Bag- With a handle like that, i would not be looking to you for "common sense".

There is no shortage of guns in private hands. I hear LE is out-gunned.

Karsten, again, yet again - "well-regulated militia".

The FF fought the British, the knew the dark heart of man personally

Is EVERYTHING extreme unless you have it?

Yes, the FFs knew the dark heart of man up close and personal. It's why the 2nd states, "well regulated militia".

Nope. That's not my definition of extreme.

Funny, but training kids to use these weapons would pretty much insure that children would never shoot themselves accidentally with them. But, again, the liberal desire to control guns has NOTHING to do with actually saving lives.

There's zero good reasons as to why kids shouldn't know how to handle these weapons.

I think DB is under the impression that we are training our children to shoot his children.

You would think that, Tim. The majority of Americans don't.

GGY- That's because the majority of Americans are dependent on that tyrannical government.

Majority? No, not true. Hyperbole doesn't help the Rs make their case on any subject.

I published above that I believe a shotgun is the best choice. My only problem with Mr. Biden is his instructions. Shooting randomly into the sky? Emptying both barrels and now having an empty gun? Seriously?

Would you rather the aim be directly at unknown targets, blasting away in the household or into the yard? You don't give him credit for having additional ammo or another gun? Presumptions. No one knows what they would really do under those circumstances. Even professional soldiers have been known to freeze.

Of course I wouldn't have him (actually her since the instructions were for his wife) aim at unknown targets. Neither would I have her shoot aimlessly into the air. Identify your target, shoot to protect yourself. Stop shooting when the target is dead. Reloading and/or locating another shotgun (the only gun he suggests owning) takes just enough time to end up dead.

I don't freeze.

Ah, yes, always enough time to do everything you plan to and think you will do when under threat of life and limb. Under your scenario, Dr. Biden would have to come pretty much eyeball to eyeball in good light to avoid shooting an innocent. That may be too late. If you're a baby boomer, you could freeze or be too slow.

If you're in my house uninvited in the middle of the night, you are NOT an innocent.

But, it could happen. Do you have children or neighbors who might be concerned about you? Do they have a key in case of emergency? You've slept through a power outage. Maybe there's a fluke of a techno failure and they haven't been able to reach you. You're in a sound sleep, took a sleep aid and don't wake up quick enough to abate their alarm at no response from you. You awaken just in time to blast away without being fully alert. Shoot first, ask questions later. Never say never, that it couldn't happen in your home.

"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine."

Please pardon the repetition . . . this is so important it can't be said enough.

Please pardon my repetition...this is so important it can't be said enough:
If you're in my house uninvited in the middle of the night, you are NOT an innocent.

B, I see you've taken to childish copy catting.

I understand. You're out of original ideas.

43 x

Deuteronomy 7:9

43 x more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder . . .

Mr. B, have you been diagnosed? Don't you remember writing this: "No more comments from me toward you, no more responses to your comments no matter how delusional they are."

Get thyself to an M.D. post-haste!

GGY, it’s hard to miss, but Joltin’ Joe's comments ignore the fact that his own recommendation of “shooting a few in the air” is against the law in the area he lives, or at least claims as a domicile...

All the others around here are recommending the shotgun in the house, racking one into the chamber and are just a little bit different. Care to try telling the nice officer writing you up that VP Joltin’ Joe said it was OK to fire off “a couple in the air for effect” and see what transpires next? The judge will most likely just love to hear all about it…

(Unless you are travelin’ through Sparta)

Now if you want consume the lead chamber spot with a blank, maybe they’d treat it like a starter pistol…

Where if family members had been trained about gun use, without the public fearing they would all become survivalists…

Of course, medical studies have also proven that caffeine is both dangerous and beneficial - simultaneously - far, far more than 43X times.

R+ VP Biden's point was to illustrate that a shotgun is a good choice for home protection - no need for assault firearms.

And, he wasn't talking about July 4th-style celebrating. Don't gun owners all agree it's better to risk a fine and scare away an intruder than take one's chances with the intruder in the house? I thought they were all about ignoring the laws they consider bad.

As I said elsewhere, I believe Joe Biden got what he was after in making that comment - attention to the fact that assault weaponry isn't necessary for home protection, that a shotgun will do the job quite well.

R+, so now we should mandate all US citizens be trained in firearms? Wouldn't that be really big government?

No one's forcing anyone to drink caffeine, or using it to assault someone.

No, of course not. Just go ahead and fire at whatever sound inside your house. That makes much more sense. Random shots inside a home or in the air outside. Neither is good, but one could be worse.

More to the point, VP Biden was illustrating that you don't need an assault weapon in the home for self defense or any other reason. You may want one, but you don't need one. That extreme is overkill, pardon the pun.

No one, REPEAT, No One suggested shooting at a sound except for Mr. Biden. He told his wife, if she ever heard anyone breaking in their house, step out on the balcony and empty both barrels. I would ask that you quit changing things around but history tells me I would be wasting my time.

"No, of course not. Just go ahead and fire at whatever sound inside your house. That makes much more sense. Random shots inside a home or in the air outside. Neither is good, but one could be worse."

Yeah, something tells me that firing randomly outside your house would be worse.

Or, how about the police officer that shot his own son that was sneaking into the house. I guess we should go ahead and take guns away from police officers too, since things happen. Not going to avoid it, but I would rather something happen while I'm able to defend myself than with me being a statistic because I was unable to respond.

And because Biden is OK with firing like a crazy person means we don't need an assault weapon. I'm not really following this logic (term used loosely) but OK.

History would tell you I haven't changed things around, B. History might also tell you that people aren't so clear headed in the dark of night, awakened from deep sleep, and may hear things they think are one thing but are actually something else.

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/01/some-factual-gun-statistics-part-2-of-a-cultural-comparison-gun-violence-in-the-us-and-europe/

"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Guns on the street or in the house make us less safe. According to the FBI, for every justifiable handgun homicide, there are more than 50 handgun murders."

I don't remenber reading where Joltin' Joe stated you should fire away in your home...

R+ that's not what I said or what I claimed VP Biden said. My comment was an illustration, a comparison of what's worse - outside in the air or inside the home:

"Random shots inside a home or in the air outside. Neither is good, but one could be worse."

Ah, but you knew that.

This article is hilarious. MotherJones is such a reputable source of news, I'm surprised I didn't think about using it. Please note that if I were speaking, there would be sarcasm dripping fro my words.

That's right Good Grief Y'all. Don't you realize you should be reading reputable sources of news like The Heritage Foundation, The Cato Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, Media Research Center, and Townhall? What's wrong with you? Now it's my turn to be sarcastic.

David, you shouldn't have been sarcastic. Those were actually much better ideas.

Karsten, it all depends on your political perspective. The sites I mentioned are not better ideas to folks like me and Good Grief Y'all, et al.

But the site she referenced is full of lies.

Haha! I knew the motherjones.com link would bring on a barrage of right-wing protests.

You see, David, post a link or don't post a link - there's no pleasing these folks. :)

Now wait a minute, MotherEarth has some pretty good articles on chicken farming now ...

Also how to grow Hemp and such.

R+ I don't know about MotherEarth. I was quoting a Mother Jones article.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

This one kind of says it all about the government being better armed than the people.

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

Gotta admit, taken in its entirety, this 'blood of patriots' quote kind of says it all

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

Yeah, I know this one hurts....

Here's a man that was wise long before his time....

"Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

-I know, this one hurts, too....

One last -

" `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

How we went from thoughts like this - and there's others - to being OK with limiting the 2nd based on perceived safety issues because we all of a sudden don't trust civilians with guns is beyond me.

Karsten, relax, honey. Ain't nobody coming to get your legally-obtained guns, least of all me. :D

They've already been taken, and they're talking about taking others. New York has, among other places. Sorry, but you're confused aren't really comforting.

Wow, so sorry. Have you been engaged in criminal activity? If so, I rescind my sympathy.

Yeah that "out of stater" visiting the World Trade Center Memorial and had the misfortune of asking an officer for assistance in securing his firearm on site sure got his comeuppance…

Of course, had he been “responsible” the claim went and refreshed his reciprocity agreement knowledge beforehand, he wouldn’t have taken his gun into NY or asked anything at all once there. YEP a real hardened criminal that one was…

R+ Sounds like he broke the law. Responsible - key word.

One just has to ask ...

How many of those who believe we actually require additional firearm restrictions on number of rounds / magazine size or semiautomatic weapons have been caught in a riot in real time? (Not TimeLife Photos)

Some may find it hard to believe, but when the "fun breaks out" 911 or the number you use to reach the police agency - be it City, Township, County, or State will tell you "you are on your own..."

I've never been to a riot. You go to one or where one is expected and probable, you go at your own risk. You get caught up in one against your will, I guess you could pull out your gun and get off a few rounds before someone gets you. If you have a business in the slums, you already know what your problems are.

Good reference, one whose main premise is based upon an inaccuracy. The 2nd is not based upon the supposition that we could protect ourselves against foreign invaders. Sure, that's part of it, but only half.

And of course the murders outnumber the justifiable ones. The criminal element is strong in those parts of the country where the people's 2nd amendment rights are infringed. 80% of the murders using firearms are in those states that outlaw weapons, Or that severely curtail those rights. Go figure....

Or we could just put up a sign that says "No Home Invasion Zone". Yeah, that's the ticket.

And you get a civil suit bonus round!

You must be a sad angry person GGY. Seems like practically every comment is against you and your way of life. I am tempted to leave you, however, I'm following a higher power. No more comments from me toward you, no more responses to your comments no matter how delusional they are. My concentration will be following God's direction for your deliverance from anger. Have a blessed day. You are loved.

You are so wrong, B. No anger here, no sadness. Very much the opposite.

The anger comes from your group and you know it, but as usual, you try to transfer that to others.

You can't leave someone you don't have. What a silly thing to say.

What you're really struggling with is that you have no good answers. If I were trying to invite anyone's comments, they wouldn't be yours or your Patch lol sister :D

Galations 2:20
Zephaniah 3:17
1 Peter 5:6-7

Mr. B, a man of his word . . ."No more comments from me toward you"

Never say never again :p

Wonder how long it will take him to deny he said that or to say that he didn't mean what I said he means ;)

GGY- Mr B is likely a man of his word. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Racer, B has already broken his word a couple of times on this latest proclamation of his, which he made today . . . today.

I'm almost worried about him ;)

Actually I was hoping she held her breath for a very long time...but she's such a narcissist that would never happen...a whiny narcissist that is.....

John B, here in support of the mean girls group. :D

"Racer X", the next two verses are exceptional. "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."

and defend the rights of the lazy and entitled.........

John B., I'm thankful God is more compassionate and full of grace than you are. Your statement is definitely not something Jesus would say. I say that because there are over 74 verses in the Bible concerning God's heart for the poor and needy.

David- What does the Bible have to say about the lazy and entitled?

David:
I have plenty of compassion for the needy and poor and my actions speak louder than words when it comes to my charitable contributions. You see I actually do something rather than preach BS. Now, back to the lazy and entitled....I live this reality each day. I'm in a position where I can offer jobs to many but many times those jobs are turned away because the LAZY and ENTITLED would rather ride out their ENTITLEMENT benefits and they don't hide that fact. You see they have to check the box saying that they looked...I'm really starting to wonder what planet people like you and GGY live on......Snap out of it David..I have more hope for you than GGY the oxygen thief.

Nowhere does it say "Have Caesar take from the rich by threat of violence and give to the poor." No, the thought is to give freely to take care of the poor and infirm. On your own. You get no points from forcing others to do so.

John B, I'm confident that's only because David is a he.

The hope you have for him, that is . . .

Why don't you and Mr. B try to make your comments without mentioning me. You're making me famous, you know :D

You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you.

I love that song!

Mr. B, still breaking his Lenten discipline. You have a long month ahead of you.

Mr. B, you should proof what you write before you submit. Ask yourself, WWJD, since you're a Christian and "theologian". His words aren't meant to harm. Yours always are.

You're hiding in plain sight.

Good Grief, ever get together with Allstate's Mr. Mayhem?

I mean he is everywhere...

Mr. Brown- Again, what does the bible say about the lazy and entitled?

As are you, R+. I have seen your letters on quite a few blogs around here. I am far from the Queen of Patch ;)

43 x more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder

I notice you keep saying this, but I'm having trouble finding the exact statistics this comes from. Is it based on the idea that there have been 43 times as many 'friendlies' killed by guns in homes than there have been intruders killed by guns in homes? Or is the idea that there's 43 times as many homes with guns than those without? Or maybe just some random number pulled out of the air because it sounds extreme?

And I'll bet this doesn't take into account the deterrent effect. The lives that are saved purely because there's guns in people's homes. There's no statistic for that, because if no firearm is discharged or the person never actually enters the home, there's no police report. Kennesaw is a prime example - they've had a huge savings in burglaries and assaults since they've implemented the law stating all homes had to have a firearm. But there's no statistics regarding 'lives saved.'

England has no firearms. Their violent crime rate is far higher than ours. Murders, not so much. I guess no reason to kill people when they're good little sheep that you can assault with impunity. 100% of criminals prefer an unarmed victim. Remember that. Me? I'd rather be able to defend myself.

It was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Hope that helps.

I repeat this for Mr. B's benefit. He's obstinate in his criticisms and pot shots directed at me. I'm just giving him something back that others might benefit from as well.

Mr. B, leader of the herd mentality mean girls group on Patch. Reminds me of that other old song, "Leader of the Pack".

Karsten- I think the 43 number is something some liberal just pulled out of his pooter.

"43 x more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder"

Racer, that came from a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to repeat it. :)

Couple of rounds won't hold off a mob for very long at all and the rest won't let you stop and reload...

Karsten- Very true. Last Sunday my wife shot my 12 gauge and it nearly knocked her over. Of course, she is only 120lbs (wouldn't marry a fat girl). I handed her my SKS and she can empty the 20 round mag while staying on target.

I just tried.....

Thank you, Sharon. That would be a welcome change!

Awesome link Karsten, fitting picture of Biden as well. He looks like Beaker from the Muppets.

GGY- What's wrong with Karsten's story? It fits the conversation and I don't see how the guy in the story did anything wrong.

I didn't say anything is wrong with Karsten's story. It may be true or may be concocted (not by Karsten) to show up VP Biden. Honestly, I didn't look at it.

My point was that it was bound to happen - somebody (idiot) was going to do just that and blame it as "advice" from the VP. When that did happen, someone on this thread was going to get a thrill and and invoke schoolyard taunts while accusing (by visual) the other side of schoolyard taunts. Silly stuff.

I didn't say VP Biden was right. I haven't said that, ever. He was making a point and he got what he intended - people talking about home protection weapons.

Yes, if that guy did a stupid thing against whatever his local laws state faces consequences. Talking about something and actually doing something are two different things. Isn't it you who is always writing "talk is cheap"?

It's only a schoolyard taunt when you're in the wrong and don't have the fuzz on your beanbag to admit it.

It proves their position as invalid. You really didn't think they would let it slide without taking a potshot at you, did you? Liberals have to change the subject in an attempt to make themselves look good. Facts defeat their purpose. I'm surprised with all the murderous abortions, protests against gun owners, crying to the Supreme Court to allow gay marriage, etc. they even have time for such trivial stuff as replying to you Racer.

Most people would agree that: "I swear, those who defend him give me the visual of someone going NANANANANANA while holding their hands over their ears." is a school yard taunt. Saying that while you're using your own "evidence" against someone else's point while saying non-words is worse. I would call it hypocrisy. But, that's just my opinion. :)

Yet, I make a point with no schoolyard silliness and Sister lol and the gang come after me. Isn't it you who often writes, "go figure"?

We're all entitled to our opinions. I shouldn't be the judge of you, and you shouldn't be the judge of me.

Speak of the devil . . . as if on cue :D

I still love that Carly Simon song!

Mr. B, I sense a power struggle. Are you still "Leader of the Pack"?

Hold on tight as you patiently wait for April 1 :D