Get tired of the argument(s):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY
A study by the National Academy of Sciences (2004) reviewed over 200 journal articles, 99 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 "gun control" measures. Researchers were unable to find empirical evidence that restrictive gun laws and regulations reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents.
Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241
"Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth." - Aristotle
sure, you can come to that conclusion if it fits your idea of responsibility
i think the accidental firearm injury rate would be a much better indicator of average overall responsibility
i think the accidental discharge and insurance claims would be a much better indicator of average overall responsibility
i think the number of guns not properly stored and/or stolen would be a better indicator of average overall responsibility
but i don´t have the time nor the slightest clue where to find these
to say only accidental (whoever can tell it was one) deaths is the best number to determine overall responsibility is a bit meh
No. For the hundredth time. I'm not arguing that his statement is invalid. I'm arguing that he hasn't met the burden of proof. I've stated several times that I'm unsure whether the statement is true or false.
You can't just say "the vast majority of gun owners are responsible" without providing actual evidence.
If someone says "X is equal to Y," and I ask "Do you have proof for that?" I'm not saying X doesn't equal Y, I'm just asking for proof that it does.
Eat yo vegetables
You're asking someone to prove something when they just deny proof whenever it's presented. Just letting you know.
No because people can kill each other with teeth and rocks if they want to so I doubt it would have much effect on crime.
Well the evidence is there for most folks to see. But accepting it is not something you want to. Even if you will not accept it, you also can not prove the great majority are not responsible. So the millions of gun owners will continue to use them with a very low rate of any of them being used in a crime or accidents, or by any other irresponsible ways.
And the government by the people for the people will continue on with the right to keep and bear arms. And it is worthy to repeat, any registration needs to be done in a way which will be acceptable by the mass majority of gun owners or you will end up nationally like what happened in Conn. Only instead of talking about tens of thousands not registering their guns, we will be talking about tens of millions. Then you would say for sure, most gun owners are not responsible.
You can't draw scientific conclusions from raw data.
Yeah tell me what US federal "restrictive laws" they analyzed. I can think of one.
Because this is what they said:
Because they can't tell the future.Little is known about the potential effectiveness of a market-based approach to reducing criminal access to firearms.
Oh my, such a groundbreaking link.
Last edited by Rukentuts; 2014-06-27 at 02:10 PM.
Hehe. Not a good comparison. Trying to relate something which may not even exist to data which does exists to show the number of gun owners , compared to the number of irresponsible actions speaks for itself. The law assumes a car owner is responsible until they prove they are not with a accident or a speeding, operational violation. Same is true for gun owners. If these were not true, then no citizen would get a license. :P
Actually, you can.You can't draw scientific conclusions from raw data.
But I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.
My Gaming Rig: Intel Core 2 quad q9650|ASUS P5G41-T M|2x4GB Supertalent DDR3 1333Mhz|Samsung 840 Evo 250GB|Fractal Design Integra R2 500w Bronze|ASUS Strix GTX 960 4GB|2x AOC e2770s 27" (one portrait, one landscape)|Bitfeenix Phenom Micro ATX
Don't hate my rig, there's nothing quite like the classics.