How can they state the last sentence with certainty?
How can they state the last sentence with certainty?
Is that such a difficult concept!!!!!
The anti-gun people are not going to surrender their moral high ground just because of a few facts. No matter how much their position is undermined by these pernicious findings, they are right and they know they are.
But the real agenda was never the control or reduction of crime. The disarming of the civilian population is the singular goal they are pursuing, and with the civilians disarmed, the resistance factor is decidedly much lower.
Bang
Oh. Wonderful. Now
we have the global warming
people on our side . . .
But the real agenda was never the control or reduction of crime. The disarming of the civilian population is the singular goal they are pursuing, and with the civilians disarmed, the resistance factor is decidedly much lower.
Anyone who doesn't understand this shouldn't be trusted to operate heavy machinery, raise children, vote, etc. The use of the crime issue and the emphasis on "sporting use" (echoes of Nazi Germany's 1938 weapons law) are just convenient and persuasive (for the useful idiots) means for the string-pullers to accomplish their goal.
ping
Conversely, if you want off my ping-list, let me know.
And my apologies for any redundant pings.
Damn. I thought this was a Peter Sellers thread.
That's the problem. Gun control is a religion, not logic. It's one of the several subsects of liberalism. Logic plays no part in their beliefs. The rest of us aren't people who have facts on our side. We're heretics who question their worship of the total state contol.
There are even a number of @$$holes even on this forum who believe in gun control. I won't name any, but most people know who they are.
Interesting chart, but co-relation is not causality. Many factors influence criminal behavior, and the prospect of getting killed by a home-owner certainly will make criminals more unwilling to break into homes. Personally I expect that incarcerating more career criminals (e.g. 3 strikes legislation) has more to do with the drop in crime, given that a relatively small number of offenders commit the majority of crimes. Take them out of circulation for long periods of time and the crime rate will certainly fall. That said, it is my opinion that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right, and since the 14th Amendment, the states are limited as well. The legal question (imho) is what standard - rational, intermediate, or strict scrutiny should be applied to measure the governmental interests opposing the individual interests. I think the framers spell it out clearly. By definition the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment has the missions defined in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution ("To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;") then arms which are useful in carrying out these missions are clearly protected as an individual right. A useful shorthand for this (as per the Miller decision) is "whatever arm is used by the army."
It won't be long for "Skeptic" magazine to do a hatchet job on this story and this study.
Well, well the obvious is finally come to gun control advocates. The problem I see is that there is a huge amount of people making a lot of money scaring and coercing local and state governments into passing gun laws and I don't see them giving up that gig any time soon. Yep Sarah Brady has a sweet gig. Sorry to her and her husband's injury due to that nut case but gun control would not have helped him a bit.
BTTT