Roger that!

Well, I’ll look at it in my own fashion.

1. How many more dead kids/victims before you do anything? (policy/law wise}

2. Cite some authority for your notion that more people would be saved from home invasions with guns then killed as victims from GSW’s?

Ted: I’m working on this over the next couple of days. But I can tell you now that “kids” will not be under 18, because there are a lot of gang bangers 15-17 years old. They are not kids.

The federal data I’m looking at includes 14 and under; plus 15-19. So I’m going to use 14 and under. It’s from p. 12 of this study by the Children’s Defense Fund, an anti-gun group; so I am not using a conservative source: http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf

to lift a quote– “the death of any man diminishes me for I am involved in mankind…” Who would you write off? How do YOU know who is a in a gang and who is not? Take the facist police word for it? LMAO

John you spend alot of nervous energy parsing your words– you can’t answer the questions– too uncomfortable?

I defined kids– use that definition.

Ted: I’m going to work for this. But the definition will be kids 14 and under. Give me a day.

I’m going to try to work with something here. Give me a day.

Precisely. Anything is “exclusive and specific.” But I need specificity from you to provide a specific response. For example, are you including 17-year-old gang bangers in your definition of “kids”?