This snippet is taken from a Time Magazine article on domestic violence (’til Death Do Us Part (not Fighting Back as claimed by Kopel) Time, Jan 18, 1993) which reads: “One study found that 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions get the sentence thrown out, compared with an 8.5% reversal rate for homicides as a whole.”

Kopel lies by claiming Kellermann ignored the possibility a homicide conviction was reversed and the fact the above quote does not delineate the manner of death-e.g, was it by gunshot, knife, bat, etc? Further, Kopel lies when he claims the convictions are thrown out. The sentences are; this means a defendent may still be guilty of a lesser charge–e.g, instead of first degree murder, it’s reduced to manslaughter.

Even if we accept Kopel’s lies as facts and assume everything he says is true–the results would still work out to mean owning a gun would present the liklihood that for every self-defense homicide, there would be around 25 instances of deaths that were accidents, murders, and suicides.

One can easily look up the number of justifiable homicides each year via the FBI UCRs–they usually number fewer than 260 annually.

More importantly, Kellermann’s data was reviewed by other studies (See Cummings) and found to yield similar results.

But Mueller made no such qualification. According to the excerpt which you posted, being “a former Marine who served in Vietnam” tells Mueller how weapons “harm the people carrying them.”

Look, the fact you have a gun and have seen Red Dawn a dozen times qualifies you for nothing. Why is it that you believe you know more than the head of the nation’s top law enforcement organization?

The facts are plain: to get into the FBI (or the USMC), you have to meet certain standards. You can’t be a criminal, you have to meet certain physical and academic standards, you can’t have a history of alcohol or drug abuse, etc.

All of a sudden, you seem to believe that the fact you can find your way to WalMart makes you superior?

Jay gets it; you are just ignoring it.

If weapons harms those who carry them, does that apply to the Marines he served with?

If weapons harm those who carry them, does that apply to the thousands of law enforcement, including Mueller’s own FBI agents?

What Mueller is implying is that carrying firearms unless you are a highly trained professional law enforcement is a bad idea? Sorry, but the numbers don’t back him up on that.

Thats what the excerpt you posted says.

So “as a former Marine,” is Mueller saying that carrying weapons harmed the Marines he served with or does carrying weapons harm the FBI agents who now serve under him?

I don’t try that at all — as I stated above: “The facts presented about the NRA regarding the Heller case appear to be correct.” The NRA was indeed too timid, wanting to go to the SC only with a sure thing. The stregnth of gunowners comes from the grass roots rather than the NRA.

I did enjoy the opportunities above to point out some things that you “missed.”

Instead of simply repeating yourself; why not post some evidence? Provide a link that Kopel lied.

How about posting a link to the study you cited in your previous post?

Or perhaps you can’t show the evidence?