ok. despite the fact that we all know that broad statistics can be fraught with error and misinterpretation let's assume for the moment your stats reflect some truth... How do you explain it? More use leads to less rate of death or injury?
It is illegal to own gernads in America and there are no grenade crimes and deaths in America which disproved your point I believe. But I am with you and for grenades for everyone because the constitution tells me so.
No, give me facts but explain those facts especially when they seem at odds with reason. why would MORE use result in LESS injury??
I think the statistic was more ownership in the rural areas vs more criminal use in the cities with more restrictive gun laws. IOW no one said more use results in less injury. To the contrary more use by criminals in cities (with more gun control) results in more injury. I'll assume "why is there less use of firearms by criminals in rural areas" to be your next question. No doubt there is more than one simple reason. But lets say you're a burglar/rapist/mugger. Given a choice do want to assault an armed citizen with no qualms about defending themselves? Or would you prefer a unarmed cosmopolitan type who is so dead set against firearms and the idea of self defense that they would actually prefer to be a victim?
How stupid is this statement? LOL "I don't care what it is I'm against it!" F^ck that's dumb thing to say Your a freaking caveman
furthermore if those citizens lost their gramps, grannies and other loved ones on native soil to "collateral damage", there would be hell to pay...............
No. Simply that any nod/wink causal implication or inference is either naive or nonsensical in isolation, and does not account for other potentially relevant demographic variables. And so, the statistical gymnastics continue. A little bit of information can be a dangerous thing. Or useful, depending on your intentions.