< By comparison, even though the numbers are declining over the last few years of reports, in 1995 there were almost twenty times that many child fatalities from accidental gun use. >
From the second link you posted:
"Gun control groups and pro-control medical researchers often include "children" up to the age of nineteen and in some cases twenty-four, to inflate the number of "child" gun accidents. (This is the only way it can be claimed a child is killed everyday in a gun accident. Compare fatal gun accidents to the number of kids killed while crossing the street.)
"...some fatal gun accidents may actually be the culmination of a history of child abuse, in other words intentional homicides. Dr. Kleck cites a national survey conducted in 1976 (Strauss, M., et. al., Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, Garden City, NY: Anchor Press, 1981), which found "3% of children had, in the previous year, had guns or knives (the two are combined in the source) actually used on them by their parents, according to the parents' own admissions. Since this translates into about 46,000 such incidents per year, it would not be surprising if a few dozen resulted in a gun death falsely reported as accidental." http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
Its more dangerous for a child if you have a bathtub or pool than it is to have a gun in the house.
Statistics show that entire communities that have a large percentage of gun ownership are avoided by criminals. Even those who do not own guns benefit from the fact that their neighbors do. The same can't be said for dogs.
For someone who's always bleating about the other guy not providing any real statistics, you're pretty blithe in your denial. Where are yours?
I've already cited John Lott's study multiple times.
While there are a million dog attacks requiring medical treatment, and about as many that don't receive attention, less than a dozen children die each year of dog attacks. By comparison, even though the numbers are declining over the last few years of reports, in 1995 there were almost twenty times that many child fatalities from accidental gun use.
Ok, dogs injure a million more children each year than guns do, but more children die from guns than dogs. Either way, I don't think Meme has established that dogs are much safer than guns as a means of self-defense.
Putting a sign like "Protected by Smith & Wesson" in your house or car window is tantamount to putting a sign that says, "Diamond ring in bedside table/glove box" in the same place. I can tell you from my acquaintance with petty criminals as a correction officer, and from every conversation on the subject I've ever had with a cop, nothing delights a housebreaker as much as a good prospect of finding a firearm. It's a virtually guaranteed $100-$200, easily concealed and carried away, and can be used if the criminal decides to "move up" in his chosen profession, or for their own self-defense against a homeowner. Putting a sign like that in your car window is surer to get your glove box jimmied than a Blaupunkt stereo in the dash.
Meme seems to be concerned with warning the assailent before he attacks. If this is her goal, then she should put whatever sign on her yard that she wants to. Protected by a gun, dog, security system etc.
Personally, I would feel safer with a sign on my lawn saying that I had a gun much more than a sign that said that I didn't have a gun.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
