upon the time parameters of the analysis.

if you take the narrow view, the spike can be interpreted as mighty troubling.
if you take a broader view, the uptick is more an outlying data point from the overall trend (after all trend slopes are never perfectly straight lines).

which view and interpretation one takes can be a clear indicator of one's bias and ideology.

They pushed da Big Scare. Now they try to offer a limited warranty.

Salon and its War-on-Drugs-type research advocating gun control can further explain this to those who needed a trigger warning.

Gun violence sweeping the nation/ a sharp uptick in murder rates in a small number of cities

Overall murder and crime rates are still way down from the early 1990s/ epidemic of gun violence

Of course it has been repeatedly pointed out that deception is integral to gun control. Emotion matters more than facts, the illusion of safety over actual safety, Rights are "rights", the end justifies the means.

"War is Peace,
Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength"

"Work will set you free"

that firearms for protection are no longer needed.

Or just want to keep the downward trend going!

( totally joking, certainly more at work then an increase in guns for protection)

For hunting and other sport shooting. None for protection against crime. I don't need any for crimes. I go with the odds. My home is very secure and for the most part I'm home when the street lights are on. Works for me better than fear.

I only said, stats show little or no need for protecting one from violent crime.

You are free to use the poster's stats for any reason you wish, as I am also.

Too bad you are against others having the choice to own a legal item for their needs.

I am in favor of background checks and registration of hand guns. Neither would be a problem for me or other legal gun buyers.

UBCs are a very good idea - my state has them.

I take your word that nobody needs weapons for defense. Sounds to me like you are taking their choice away as you decided they are no longer needed per your own post.

I say no one needs a beer or glass of wine. Does not mean I want to it illegal.

No one needs religion. Does not mean I want to make it illegal.

No needs to buy a blue car does not mean one wants to take your choice away.

No one needs to get married does mean it should be illegal to do so.

I've said I own a few firearms. MY point is that self defense against crime is less and less an argument for owning a firearm for self defense. This is what I got from the post and the stats it uses.
Now if I or anyone questions the NEED for a gun for defense, you seem to lump them all together. So, from what you post, I may want to say you are a big supporter of Ted Nugent. But, that would be just as bad as you lumping me with those that wish to ban firearms.

Failed logic at it best when you think someone is really not saying what they mean. I'm questioning the logic in loading up on firearms thinking it is worth the expense to be safe from a small risk. I'd rather spend my $ on fishing rods.

Shooting, air guns are more than sufficient. Looks like you don't need those guns all. I will look forward to your announcement that you have disposed of them. But, for the short time they remain in your possession, you would not, under any circumstances whatsoever, use them in self-defense?

have for 45 years and I shoot an air gun more for practice than firearms. A bolt action 30.06 for deer and 22s for small game and target shooting along with my 20 qauge for birds are not for self defense but could be used for such. Then more firearms are used for crime than actually end up preventing crime. If you want an AK or AR for protection, go ahead, I have no problem with it, I just think it's a bad choice.

Do you?

Do you still beat your wife?

Which would mean that personal taste is being palmed off as some sort of ethical choice.

That stance strikes me as somewhat disingenuous in that a person shot with a gun of 19th
century design would be no less dead or wounded than a person shot with one of more modern design.

IOW, Fuddism masquerading as moral superiority...

"You guys can't be trusted with the guns you use, but mine are perfectly safe, because, ... well, they're mine"

That is until the Grabnutz decide that scope on your .308 make them look too much like a "military style" sniper rifle, so we better get those out of civilian hands. And ... while they're at it, that 870 shotgun looks too much like a "military style" police riot gun, so we better take that as well, for the greater good. Those C&R WWII service rifles, Nagant, Mauser, Garand, Springfield '03, et. al. are all REAL military weapons, so they obviously have no place in civilian hands.

Well regulated and all that.

Funny how some folks are very careful to write one way to sound "reasonable" in one group but piss, moan, rant and puke all over gun owners in other groups?

... in the opening credits of The Rifleman, then tell the media it was "obviously a gun that can easily be converted to full auto".

...isn't working for you is denying that and believing it is.

You clearly don't need them in any case.

but of pacifism vs. having the option of self-defense. I do not buckle my seat belt or have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen because I am scared of car accidents or terrified of fire, but rather because I see those steps as reasonable and prudent countermeasures against the unlikely but possible occurrence of same.

I assume you have taken other methods of securing your home (e.g. locks, lighting, sensors, etc. since you do describe it as secure), and I would certainly assume that you did not take those measures because you are scared, but because you view them as reasonable and prudent measures.

The methods I use to secure my home cost me much less than most popular weapons. I like my measures because they are cheap and work, even when I'm not home. Seems many firearms used in crime are stolen. A firearm is worthless against a break-in when you are not home. I just try to be cost effective.