KIBU: Did you actually read the study you offered as evidence to support your position? I’m thinking you went out on the interwebs and simply grabbed the first academic looking thing that seemed to support your contention. A careful reading, especially in the middle going, will show the authors’ position is one of “careful reconsideration” regarding the use of HANDGUNS for protection.

You open your post with more hysteria and hyperbole about “proguns” (I’m presuming this hackneyed malapropism refers to those of us in support of the 2nd Amendment) “screaming” in our “self delusional” way. I’m guessing you’re either foreign-born (and English is your second language), or you’re not particularly well educated.

My point, which bears repeating as it is actually supported by real evidence, is that for every isolated Santa Monica-type shooting (and, yes, statistically speaking, they are isolated), there are thousands of instances where firearms (not just HANDGUNS) are used to protect life and property.

You might not like facts, data and evidence, but they are irrefutable. Trotting out a SINGLE STUDY WITH A SMALL DATA SET does not change that. Nor does continuing to use hysterical and hyperbolic language. You, in essence, are engaged in the very behavior you accuse your opponents of.

Again, educate yourself. As the saying goes, One is entitled to one’s own opinion. One is not, however, entitled to one’s own facts.