Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Vegas giants, Jan 3, 2018.
Or some get a lethal injection or some other
Such is factually incorrect. Each and every one of your posts on this forum, that have not been deleted by the staff on the grounds of their numerous and flagrant violations of forum rules, has been read over the course of the last two days. They have all been analyzed carefully, looking for any detail that may resemble some sort of plan being presented. And in all of the posts presented by yourself, not one of them contains anything resembling some sort of plan for dealing with firearms.
The above claim is false, because the work has been done to confirm that it is indeed false.
Far far more details than you have ever provided
the courts also held that slavery was legal and moral, years ago.
those holdings are as bad as the anti gun nonsense that some courts entertain today
Don't use facts on them coz it only makes em mad
Ain't that the truth
We care, we simply do not agree to your method. For numerous reasons.
You equate not doing what you want with us not giving a ****. And you wonder why you can't persuade anyone
You may care. But I was not referring to you.
Persuasion really isn't available, given pro-gunners are ideological driven (and typically completely reliant on false understanding of the constitution). When you do get a unicorn, the mythical beast able to use evidence in support of reducing gun control, its like watching Legend for the first time!
That's hilarious because I provided you evidence and it apparently scared you away from a thread.
Persuasion is never available when you accuse someone who disagrees with you of not caring about dead people just because they won't do what you demand no matter how stompy your foot gets
Is it possible that some people do not care about gun deaths?
What evidence was that? Happy to read it. You know the standard: author(s), date, title, journal, page numbers.
Ideology comes before the foot stamp!
No, you are wrong, experience has nothing to do with ideology, it is the practical side of things, you proceed to explain gun control as a textbook exercise, unless you have been in a gunfight, how would you understand ? Or be able to explain ?
There are many variables in a gunfight and personal defense scenario not covered in the simple math equations you refer to as "Empirical Evidence" and your failure to properly discuss or explain points of view is less than helpful.
You quote unproven snippets such as "firearms in the home prove more danger to the people living in the home, than a criminal."
You fail to take into account important factors that should be enumerated.
I refer to evidence, you refer to tabloidism. You're not even very good at ideology!
Don't lie now, its unattractive. I refer directly to the evidence. Everything I say is backed up by empirical research.
Empirical analysis naturally considers issues such as reverse causation and possible self-defence effects. You're not going to be the unicorn.
Irrelevant and off topic, thus demonstrating an inability to address the original point. Not all lives are redeemable, nor should such a flawed basis be operated upon.
Incorrect. No details whatsoever have been provided by yourself, and the work has been done to confirm such as being fact. No plan has ever been presented by yourself. Nothing of substance has been actually provided in any of the available posts that have been scoured over.
The belief that legal restrictions on firearms will do anything to reduce illegal access and use by those who should not have them, is nothing but ideological nonsense devoid of anything resembling the rational thought concept.
Legal restrictions have always existed. The difference is that, while previously they were used for negative aspects including racism, they now are adopted to reduce coercion on others. This is demonstrated, without question, with the diverse empirical evidence into the impact of gun control. The only question is the notion of what optimal gun control entails. You're not a unicorn!
Separate names with a comma.