Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
He definitely could have done lots of damage with a couple handguns (see VA shooter) and/or shotguns.
Of course. But I don't think either of us think there's an acceptable level of murder.
Well, some people do. What's been accomplished? I mean besides thoughts and prayers?
Until liberals would tone down their anti-anti-gun zealotry, rhetoric, and preference for governmental overreach there will be no compromise
I would love an answer to as why millions and millions of people have been killed over thousands of years, all due to a belief that there is a creator up in the sky and here we are worried about a tool.
I understand that point but why not be able to use to at least trigger more stringent background checks? We hold suspected criminals in jail every day.
Take away religion and guns and what would we use as reason and method to kill each other though?
False. The number of guns has skyrocketed under Obama. Show me the stats that show a commensurate rise in homicides.
Every religion that has ever existed claimed to be loving, peaceful and caring. And if you don't believe them, they'll murder, rape and pillage until you do.
So if we can't get to an "acceptable level" why bother, right?
Here's a Harvard study on Homicides. I posted another earlier. It's not specific to the Obama administration but maybe I'll point you to the mass shootings that occur in your country every other day?
That's not a study, that's an anecdote. Study it comprehensively, and it's undeniable that guns=homicide.
I vote no on almost every tax increase, but id take a few year increase to pay fair value to those that are having them taking away.
Its not a study or an anecdote. Its a statistic compiled by the FBI, who btw performs background checks on gun purchases.
The article in the OP cites the time and effort the Boston bombers put in.
I see you're not familiar with the overwhelming data/research on gun prevalence and homicide rates.
There's a reason you have to go back 20 years to find the last example of a bomb killing more than a couple of people.
The US according to your article is "a dramatic outlier" in gun ownership and a dramatic outlier in gun homicides. Every study over any significant period of time, across countries, across states shows the link between gun ownership and gun deaths. There is no arguing this.
No, the point is that the gun confiscators would use any gun deaths as justification for taking guns.
You're making a lot of assumptions about people that are interested in keeping things like the AR-15 out of the hands of lunatics.
As someone pointed out earlier, the insurgents in Iraq got pretty good at it. Without access to easier mechanisms, the committed will still find a way. So I disagree that the "they would just build a bomb" argument is ridiculous.
Maybe. Even if we knew for sure that were the case (we don't) I would think someone that has both guns and empathy would rather be arguing about shotguns in the face of 5 deaths than arguing about assault rifles in the face of 50 deaths.
an·ec·dote
Yes it is. You are covering a common but embarrassing misunderstanding of statistics and how they are useful and unuseful. Until you put your statistic under the rigorous conditions of a well-designed study, it is unreliable.
Heres an anecdote for you...
Well you know why we don't have any well-designed studies? Because the NRA pressured Congress to remove gun violence research funding from the CDC back in '96.
The gun owners regardless of their feelings on gun deaths have zero interest in doing anything about it.
You may not like it, but building a wall and banning Muslim immigration are ideas.
That's why studies go before peer review, meaning experts in the field flesh out designs and methods that could expose a bias, intended or unintended.
See my post above yours.
