Obama being a dumbass again

[peplaw06]

No, it wouldnt.

I don't know how a sane person could eve argue such non-sense.

Like you know what sanity is. You and sanity parted ways at puberty I'm guessing.

 

[peplaw06]

And what proof do you have of this?

Proof? How do you prove something like that? It's like saying prove the sky is blue. Making it more difficult to obtain a tool required to commit an act by definition decreases the frequency of the act, assuming the measures taken to make it more difficult to obtain are effective. If it were illegal to own a car, the instances of driving while intoxicated would decrease. If it were illegal to swim in the ocean, the number of shark attacks would go down.

They have been made harder to obtain over the years. In the past 20-30 years there have been many laws put in place regarding semi auto rifles. The problem with your theory is that the mass murders are happening with greater frequency now more than ever as opposed to decreasing like you believe they should.

So your theory is incorrect. We have had semi auto rifles since WWII in the 40's, and the dreaded M16/AR15 since 1956 which didn't become popular till Vietnam in the 60's/70's. So people have had access to AR15's for the last 60 years and other assorted semi autos for longer than that.

Laws regulating the civilian version the AR15 from what I can remember started in the 80's and have continued to this day. So since the 80's they have continuously been making them harder to obtain and regulating the accessories that are allowed such as high capacity magazines

For the last 35 years they have worked towards an outright ban of the AR15. They know an outright ban will be almost impossible to obtain so they keep trying to modify them and neuter them little by little. The only thing that would work is complete ban. They have attempted to pass the outright ban since 1994 with the Federal Assault Weapon Ban and virtually every year since which hasn't worked and will never work.

If they ever do succeed in banning semi auto rifles there is still the problem of semi auto pistols. So an assault weapon ban wouldn't solve the problem. It would just change the weapon of choice

So your position is that making it "harder" to obtain semi suto weapon has INCREASED the frequency of mass murders?

You do understand that there's no control case to make your comparison right? You don't know how many mass murders would have happened if semi-auto weapons were legal. You don't know how many people who would have committed a mass murder were discouraged and changed course because they couldn't gain access to one.

 

[dbair1967]

Pep's been ownt in this thread

 

[Scot]

Proof? How do you prove something like that? It's like saying prove the sky is blue. Making it more difficult to obtain a tool required to commit an act by definition decreases the frequency of the act, assuming the measures taken to make it more difficult to obtain are effective. If it were illegal to own a car, the instances of driving while intoxicated would decrease. If it were illegal to swim in the ocean, the number of shark attacks would go down.

So your position is that making it "harder" to obtain semi suto weapon has INCREASED the frequency of mass murders?

You do understand that there's no control case to make your comparison right? You don't know how many mass murders would have happened if semi-auto weapons were legal. You don't know how many people who would have committed a mass murder were discouraged and changed course because they couldn't gain access to one.

How do you prove something? With facts. Let me demonstrate

First you said that "if it were made harder to gain access to a semi auto weapon it would ABSOLUTELY decrease the frequency" (of mass murders)

I'm just pointing out that your statement is incorrect. The fact is that gaining access to semi autos has been made more difficult in the last 30+ years. Instead of the rate of mass murders "ABSOLUTELY decreasing" as you have assumed. The facts prove otherwise. They have actually increased over the years with the access to semi autos being more restricted now more than ever before since their inception.

Second I asked if you had proof because I was hoping you actually had a statistic or some other fact to base your your statement on since the facts actually prove the opposite of what you claim. I wasn't saying that to be a dick, I was actually hoping you had some proof because all the facts state otherwise.

Third it is not my opinion that making semi autos illegal (which hasn't even happened yet) has INCREASED the frequency of mass murders.

But if you meant that making semi autos more difficult to obtained has increased the frequency of mass murders (since that was your original point) then yes they have in fact increased over recent years. And no it's not my opinion. It's fact!

"Edit"
I see you have edited or corrected your original post to change illegal to "harder" to obtain. But the point is still the same. They have been made harder to obtain over the past 30 years. And yes the rate of mass murders has increased in recent years which I believe we can all agree upon

 

[Scot]

.

 

[peplaw06]

That’s my point: Europe and other countries have not solved anything; they just haven’t had to deal with it.

That's not true. They deal with it, just not on the scale that we do. You could be lazy and just say that's the way it is... or you could try to figure out what to do about it.

 

[Scot]

To simplify this entire discussion the problem stems from everyone believing that the tool (weapon) is to blame and is the problem. Not the person behind the gun.

A gun is an inanimate object. It is not good nor evil, it doesn't kill people on its own.

People are the problem. Not the tool in which they choose to carry out mass murder. Right now the focus is on semi auto assault rifles. If they ever get banned mass murder will be carried out using a different tool. Such as the semi auto hand gun. Which is just as deadly. These recent instances of mass murder could have all just as easily been committed by the same person using only a semi auto hand gun (which in some of the cases was the weapon of choice)

In each case the perp was walking through the halls executing ppl at short distances (hand gun range)

To be honest a hand gun would have been easier to use to kill more people inside a building at short range than an assault rifle. (Easier to wield and aim than a long gun)

It's not like these killings were carried out by a person who gained a high perch which would give him the tactical advantage and killed ppl at long range which is what the rifle is designed for and where it is most effective. All these killings were done virtually at point blank range. The hand gun would have been the better choice in each of these situations.

The anti gunners are using the mass murders to help further their agenda of an all out ban on assault rifles

They are focusing on a tool instead of the real problem which is the person wielding the tool

 

[dbair1967]

They are focusing on a tool instead of the real problem which is the person wielding the tool

Anybody without an extreme liberal bias understands this.

 

[peplaw06]

How do you prove something? With facts. Let me demonstrate

You can't prove something with facts when it hasn't happened. It's all hypothetical. But logically, actually making a tool harder to obtain makes it more difficult to commit an act with said tool.

First you said that "if it were made harder to gain access to a semi auto weapon it would ABSOLUTELY decrease the frequency" (of mass murders)

I'm just pointing out that your statement is incorrect. The fact is that gaining access to semi autos has been made more difficult in the last 30+ years. Instead of the rate of mass murders "ABSOLUTELY decreasing" as you have assumed. The facts prove otherwise. They have actually increased over the years with the access to semi autos being more restricted now more than ever before since their inception.

You certainly haven't "proven" my assertion is incorrect. You've thrown out a vague and generalized statistic along a certain set of circumstances and hoped that it's enough to prove me wrong. It's not.

In order to prove me wrong, you would have to do much more. You would have to somehow see an alternate timeline in America where full unfettered access to all weapons is allowed and see that mass murders happen on an equal or lesser scale. It's impossible to do. As I stated, you don't know what happens in an America where that is the case.

You see the statistics that mass murders increase, and that we have restrictions to semi-auto weapons, and reach the conclusion that restrictions are ineffective. I see other developed countries in the world where they have the same, or more severe restrictions, and they don't have the mass murders we do, and reach the conclusion that they are effective.

Second I asked if you had proof because I was hoping you actually had a statistic or some other fact to base your your statement on since the facts actually prove the opposite of what you claim. I wasn't saying that to be a dick, I was actually hoping you had some proof because all the facts state otherwise.

Other countries similar to ours have made it more difficult to obtain semi suto weapons and see fewer mass killings than we do. There's your "proof."

Third it is not my opinion that making semi autos illegal (which hasn't even happened yet) has INCREASED the frequency of mass murders.

But if you meant that making semi autos more difficult to obtained has increased the frequency of mass murders (since that was your original point) then yes they have in fact increased over recent years. And no it's not my opinion. It's fact!

"Edit"
I see you have edited or corrected your original post to change illegal to "harder" to obtain. But the point is still the same. They have been made harder to obtain over the past 30 years. And yes the rate of mass murders has increased in recent years which I believe we can all agree upon

So I assume you are in favor of legalization of all drugs then, no?

Don't depend on out of context statistics... think for yourself.

 

[peplaw06]

To simplify this entire discussion the problem stems from everyone believing that the tool (weapon) is to blame and is the problem. Not the person behind the gun.

A gun is an inanimate object. It is not good nor evil, it doesn't kill people on its own.

People are the problem. Not the tool in which they choose to carry out mass murder. Right now the focus is on semi auto assault rifles. If they ever get banned mass murder will be carried out using a different tool. Such as the semi auto hand gun. Which is just as deadly. These recent instances of mass murder could have all just as easily been committed by the same person using only a semi auto hand gun (which in some of the cases was the weapon of choice)

In each case the perp was walking through the halls executing ppl at short distances (hand gun range)

To be honest a hand gun would have been easier to use to kill more people inside a building at short range than an assault rifle. (Easier to wield and aim than a long gun)

It's not like these killings were carried out by a person who gained a high perch which would give him the tactical advantage and killed ppl at long range which is what the rifle is designed for and where it is most effective. All these killings were done virtually at point blank range. The hand gun would have been the better choice in each of these situations.

The anti gunners are using the mass murders to help further their agenda of an all out ban on assault rifles

They are focusing on a tool instead of the real problem which is the person wielding the tool

No argument that the gun is an inanimate object... that's obvious. And it's obvious that guns aren't to blame. But I don't blame uranium for being a tool used in making nuclear bombs... nor do I blame the bomd for killing people. Same can be said for any number of "inanimate objects" that are illegal to own. Drugs, explosive devices, grenades, RPGs, crack pipes, marijuana cigarette rolling papers... all are illegal to own. But I don't blame them for causing people to "do bad things."

There are all sorts of things that are illegal to own that actually aren't to blame. People are always to blame. Doesn't mean everything should be legal. Sometimes the government bans ownership of a thing for the greater good.

 

[Scot]

You can't prove something with facts when it hasn't happened. It's all hypothetical. But logically, actually making a tool harder to obtain makes it more difficult to commit an act with said tool.

You certainly haven't "proven" my assertion is incorrect. You've thrown out a vague and generalized statistic along a certain set of circumstances and hoped that it's enough to prove me wrong. It's not.

Other countries similar to ours have made it more difficult to obtain semi suto weapons and see fewer mass killings than we do. There's your "proof."


Don't depend on out of context statistics... think for yourself.

First it has happened, your exact scenario in the specific circumstances that you set forth in your post is exactly what has taken place in this country.

Fact - we have made it harder to obtain semi autos. See the assault weapon ban of 1994, I can cite others

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States

but I figured my original citing of the 1994 Federal AW ban earlier in this thread was specific enough. If you choose to consider that "vague and general" so be it

And why was the assault weapon ban initiated in the first place? Because of a mass murder in California.


Fact - mass murders have increased during that same time period. Especially now while we are experiencing the strongest restrictions that we have ever had regarding semi autos. As for the increase in mass shooting in the recent years I just figured that was already generally accepted as truth. That is the entire basis behind this thread and the reason we are having this discussion in the first place. Considering you were the first to reply to this thread I didn't think you needed proof that mass murders have increased recently. As you were the one to start the discussion

Second I have proven your assertion is incorrect. Well actually I haven't. The facts have. You just choose to ignore the facts.

As for it working in other countries, it may have worked or at least helped. Or is it that we just don't see it on the daily news because it's happening in other countries and it doesn't make our local news like a shooting in this country does. Where is your proof that gun bans have worked in other countries? I'm not saying they haven't worked but I haven't seen any proof that they have.

Making it harder to obtain semi autos has happened in the country already and it has not done a single thing to decrease the amounts of mass murders in the US. They have in fact increased in recent years.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the fact that semi autos are harder to obtain now then any other time in history is what has caused the increase in mass murders that we have seen recently. I'm just pointing out that both have happened in the same time period. You would think that they would decrease as we made semi autos more difficult to obtain, but the facts prove otherwise. Defies all logic doesn't it?

 

[SixisBetter]

Pretty sure you can get any kind of weapon you want without too much trouble.
There are loopholes in the gun laws you could fire a shotgun through.

 

[Scot]

Obama Praises Australia's Gun Ban. The Actual Results...

Here is an article on the Australian outright firearm ban. It goes on to say that while mass shooting may not have increased both armed homicide has increased by 3.2% and armed robbery has increased by a whopping 44%!

But how can that be you say? When all citizens are banned from gun ownership only the criminals will have guns. That has been and always will be the case! Just because you make it illegal for the everyday citizen to own a gun doesn't mean that the average criminal will abide by that rule.

I'll take the occasional mass shooting (which account for less than 1% of the yearly national homicides)over a 44% increase in armed robbery and a 3.2% increase in armed homicide country wide any day


That's what an outright gun ban gets you!

Free reign for the common criminal. As the old saying goes.....

"When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"

This was my point earlier in this thread. If we implement an outright ban on guns the only purpose it will serve is to make the civilians defenseless and criminals will be the only ones with guns. Criminals don't care about gun laws or gun bans. They don't buy their firearms legally anyway. So no new gun legislation or ban will make one bit of difference to the criminal. They don't go down to the local gun shop and buy a gun. They get them illegally off the street, usually stollen, unregistered, and with the numbers removed to make them untraceable

 

[Scot]

Here is a Harvard study that discusses how banning firearms will not reduce overall gun violence

Harvard Gun Study Claims Banning Weapons Doesn't Decrease Violence

 

[Scot]

You certainly haven't "proven" my assertion is incorrect. You've thrown out a vague and generalized statistic along a certain set of circumstances and hoped that it's enough to prove me wrong. It's not.
Other countries similar to ours have made it more difficult to obtain semi suto weapons and see fewer mass killings than we do. There's your proof.

You certainly haven't proven your assertion is correct. Or even attempted to do so.

So I did some research in an attempt to find statistics proving your claim. To my surprise I actually found information debunking the notion that gun control is effective in England.

Here is an article addressing your claim about gun control working in other countries. Specifically England as you previously used as your example. It also talks about Japan as well which is another county touted by the anti gunners as a measuring stick for the success of gun control working in other countries.

So when you say "here's your proof" you should try doing your own research before making an unfounded claim.

I did not go out looking to debunk your claim that gun control works in England. The following excerpt just happened to be one of the first things that showed it in my search.

The following was taken from a study done by Duke University regarding the top ten myths about gun control.

MYTH #5
"Stiff `gun control' laws work as shown by the low crime rates in England and Japan, while U. S crime rates continue to soar."

All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRAW VALID CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT DIFFERENCES IN EACH NATIONS COLLECTION OF CRIME DATA, and their political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by "gun control" proponents.9
Only one scholar, attorney David Kopel, has attempted to evaluate the impact of "gun control" on crime in several foreign countries. In his book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, named a 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology, Kopel examined numerous nations with varying gun laws, and concluded:

CONTRARY TO THE CLAIMS OF THE AMERICAN GUN CONTROL MOVEMENT, GUN CONTROL DOES NOT DESERVE CREDIT FOR THE LOW CRIME RATES IN BRITAIN, JAPAN, OR OTHER NATIONS" He noted that Israel and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gunownership, have crime rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples. And he stated: "FOREIGN STYLE GUN CONTROL IS DOOMED TO FAILURE IN AMERICA." Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control...postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos."10

America's high crime rates can be attributed to re volving-door justice. In a typical year in the U.S., there are 8.1 million serious crimes like homicide, assault, and burglary. Only 724,000 adults are arrested and fewer still (193,000) are convicted. Less than 150,000 are sentenced to prison, with 36,00 0 serving less than a year (U.S. News and World Report, July 31, 1989). A 1987 National Institute of Justice study found that the average felon released due to prison overcrowding commits upwards of 187 crimes per year, costing society approximately $430, 000.

Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes and punishing criminals than the U.S. In London, about 20% of reported robberies end in conviction; in New York City, less than 5% result in conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is frequently not imposed. Nonetheless,
ENGLAND ANNUALLY HAS TWICE AS MANY HOMICIDES WITH FIREARMS AS IT DID BEFORE ADOPTING ITS TOUGH LAWS.

DESPITE LICENSING PROCEDURES, THE HANDGUN-RELATED ROBBERY RATE IN BRITAIN ROSE 200% DIRING THE PAST DOZEN YEARS, FOVE TIMES AS FAST AS IN THE U.S.

Part of Japan's low crime rate is explained by the efficiency of its criminal justice system, fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects than exist in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens' residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is over 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese police routinely "...engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions." Neither the powers and secrecy of the police nor the docility of defense counsel would be acceptable to most Americans. In addition, the Japanese police understate the amount of crime, particularly covering up the problem of organized crime, in order to appear more efficient an d worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.

Widespread respect for law and order is deeply ingrained in the Japanese citizenry. This cultural trait has been passed along to their descendants in the United States where the murder ratef or Japanese-Americans (who have access to firearms) is similar to that in Japan itself. If gun availability were a factor in crime rates, one would expect European crime rates to be related to firearms availability in those countries, but crime rat es are similar in European countries with high or relatively high gun ownership, such as Switzerland, Israel, and Norway, and in low availability countries like England and Germany. Furthermore, one would expect American violent crime rates to be more sim ilar to European rates in crime where guns are rarely used, such as rape, than in crimes where guns are often used, such as homicide. But the reverse is true: American non-gun violent crime rates exceed those of European countries.

9 Wright, et al ., Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America (N.Y.: Aldine, 1983).
10 Kopel, "The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?' (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992), 431-32.

Just some easy reading for you peplaw

 

[Scot]

Oh, there are firearm regulations that would work, but you're not going to like those solutions.

You're basically ending up with a set of laws that ban the production of guns, and allows law enforcement to pursue guns in people's houses. Is that what you want?

Actually an all out ban on the ownership, sale and manufacture of firearms doesn't work. See my previous post about Australia. They tried that. Both firearm related homicide increased by (3.2%) and armed robbery (44%) instead of decreasing.

 

[dbair1967]

Actually an all out ban on the ownership, sale and manufacture of firearms doesn't work. See my previous post about Australia. They tried that. Both firearm related homicide increased by (3.2%) and armed robbery (44%) instead of decreasing.

Same premise as "gun free zones" here.

They don't work.

 

[peplaw06]

Second I have proven your assertion is incorrect. Well actually I haven't. The facts have. You just choose to ignore the facts.

You haven't proven anything. You have no understanding of causation, and either refuse or outright lack the ability to comprehend the point I'm making. Everything you're posting is conclusory.

 

[peplaw06]

You certainly haven't proven your assertion is correct. Or even attempted to do so.

So I did some research in an attempt to find statistics proving your claim. To my surprise I actually found information debunking the notion that gun control is effective in England.

Here is an article addressing your claim about gun control working in other countries. Specifically England as you previously used as your example. It also talks about Japan as well which is another county touted by the anti gunners as a measuring stick for the success of gun control working in other countries.

So when you say "here's your proof" you should try doing your own research before making an unfounded claim.

I did not go out looking to debunk your claim that gun control works in England. The following excerpt just happened to be one of the first things that showed it in my search.

The following was taken from a study done by Duke University regarding the top ten myths about gun control.

MYTH #5
"Stiff `gun control' laws work as shown by the low crime rates in England and Japan, while U. S crime rates continue to soar."

All criminologists studying the firearms issue reject simple comparisons of violent crime among foreign countries.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRAW VALID CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT DIFFERENCES IN EACH NATIONS COLLECTION OF CRIME DATA, and their political, cultural, racial, religious, and economic disparities. Such factors are not only hard to compare, they are rarely, if ever, taken into account by "gun control" proponents.9
Only one scholar, attorney David Kopel, has attempted to evaluate the impact of "gun control" on crime in several foreign countries. In his book The Samurai, The Mountie and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, named a 1992 Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology, Kopel examined numerous nations with varying gun laws, and concluded:

CONTRARY TO THE CLAIMS OF THE AMERICAN GUN CONTROL MOVEMENT, GUN CONTROL DOES NOT DESERVE CREDIT FOR THE LOW CRIME RATES IN BRITAIN, JAPAN, OR OTHER NATIONS" He noted that Israel and Switzerland, with more widespread rates of gunownership, have crime rates comparable to or lower than the usual foreign examples. And he stated: "FOREIGN STYLE GUN CONTROL IS DOOMED TO FAILURE IN AMERICA." Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America. Foreign gun control...postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos."10

America's high crime rates can be attributed to re volving-door justice. In a typical year in the U.S., there are 8.1 million serious crimes like homicide, assault, and burglary. Only 724,000 adults are arrested and fewer still (193,000) are convicted. Less than 150,000 are sentenced to prison, with 36,00 0 serving less than a year (U.S. News and World Report, July 31, 1989). A 1987 National Institute of Justice study found that the average felon released due to prison overcrowding commits upwards of 187 crimes per year, costing society approximately $430, 000.

Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes and punishing criminals than the U.S. In London, about 20% of reported robberies end in conviction; in New York City, less than 5% result in conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is frequently not imposed. Nonetheless,
ENGLAND ANNUALLY HAS TWICE AS MANY HOMICIDES WITH FIREARMS AS IT DID BEFORE ADOPTING ITS TOUGH LAWS.

DESPITE LICENSING PROCEDURES, THE HANDGUN-RELATED ROBBERY RATE IN BRITAIN ROSE 200% DIRING THE PAST DOZEN YEARS, FOVE TIMES AS FAST AS IN THE U.S.

Part of Japan's low crime rate is explained by the efficiency of its criminal justice system, fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects than exist in the United States. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens' residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is over 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Association has said that the Japanese police routinely "...engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions." Neither the powers and secrecy of the police nor the docility of defense counsel would be acceptable to most Americans. In addition, the Japanese police understate the amount of crime, particularly covering up the problem of organized crime, in order to appear more efficient an d worthy of the respect the citizens have for the police.

Widespread respect for law and order is deeply ingrained in the Japanese citizenry. This cultural trait has been passed along to their descendants in the United States where the murder ratef or Japanese-Americans (who have access to firearms) is similar to that in Japan itself. If gun availability were a factor in crime rates, one would expect European crime rates to be related to firearms availability in those countries, but crime rat es are similar in European countries with high or relatively high gun ownership, such as Switzerland, Israel, and Norway, and in low availability countries like England and Germany. Furthermore, one would expect American violent crime rates to be more sim ilar to European rates in crime where guns are rarely used, such as rape, than in crimes where guns are often used, such as homicide. But the reverse is true: American non-gun violent crime rates exceed those of European countries.

9 Wright, et al ., Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in America (N.Y.: Aldine, 1983).
10 Kopel, "The Samurai, The Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?' (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992), 431-32.

Just some easy reading for you peplaw

Going to provide a link?

Sounds like a bunch of NRA-sponsored research.

And it's comparing apples to oranges. I've not once argued about general and vague "crime" statistics.

 

[Scot]

Going to provide a link?

Sounds like a bunch of NRA-sponsored research.

And it's comparing apples to oranges. I've not once argued about general and vague "crime" statistics.

If you bothered to actually read the post I stated where it came from.Duke University


TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

I have yet to see a single fact from you supporting anything. If you have information supporting your point I'd love to see it.