reply to post by rickm
any 'evidence' shown has been by obviously biased sources.
The CDC is a biased source?
what is odd is the ignorance of people on here who whine that any gun restrictions are an infringement on gun rights, then they turn around and agree
that violent felons and mentally disabled should not have guns.
Actually if you read there's a mini discussion amongst us here as to the constitutionality of depriving those rights after serving the penalties of
committing a felony after due process. From what I gather, too, is that most are in favor of not having permanent restrictions. What are you on?
nobody has shown me that as of yet.
Ahem, two people have.
i have never ever said i want to outlaw guns for people who can legally have them and use them safely
Reading comprehension much? I said and you quoted "But then you've stated you think firearms ought not be illegal for normal citizens..."
i want to keep people with mental problems from getting them. keep criminals from getting them.
there are ways to make sure law abiding citizens can get guns legally and keep those who shouldn't have them from getting them.
Really? Show me where that has been effective. It has been tried in the US ya know. Look it up, you will find your opinion is not supported by
show me something like a study from harvard, you know, smart people who study things like this for a living.
So the FBI, CDC, DOJ, BJS, Census Bureau aren't credible sources? You want me to trust a faculty member from a school that was the third largest
donor to both the 2008 and 2012 Obama presidential campaigns and think it's not biased? Look it up, they spent more than even Citi, and that's quite
a feat. Only outspent by Goldman Sachs and University of California.
You keep repeating your position, which is that it is easy for anyone to get firearms. Like the straw man stats. I and many here AGREE. That stuff
does indeed happen. I don't know how much more you can talk past us on this. The point that most people on this thread are making is we want you to
prove to us that legislation will change anything. Because legislation has been tried at the state and municipal level with almost zero positive
effect and in many cases a huge negative effect. You want to legislate against the bill of rights, the burden of proof is on you. The access to
firearms is just one slider on the societal equalizer. The other sliders, diversity demographics, economic demographics, and IQ demographics are still
set to maximum in areas where firearm related murder is highest. Equalize those and you'll find that much like in other countries, it's not merely
the access to firearms, but the blend. You'll also find that access to firearms is the least effectual "slider". Look at the country as a system, not
as an isolated linear interaction.
Meanwhile, me not proving anything? Really? There's no convincing the indoctrinated. This is what I want to happen to you. I want you to triumph
in a life or death situation in a foreign country where your wits and a little bit of luck pull you through, then come back to this thread. I think
you would really have a different opinion and really appreciate what we're trying to maintain here.
edit on 4-12-2013 by Galvatron because: (no