First, there's no question that gun ownership has increased dramatically in the US over the past 20 years while violent crime has decreased during that same time period. I'm not going to make the claim that more guns = less crime, but please don't expect anyone to believe that increased gun ownership has caused crime to increase because it doesn't fit the data. Secondly, you accept everything in that document as being absolutely true without question. Much of it has been refuted. Let me give you a couple of examples. 1. The Kellerman study used to reach the conclusion regarding guns in the homes and the related homicides and suicides has been refuted many times. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html Kellerman admitted several years after the study was published that he was strongly in favor of a total gun ban before he started his research. Big surprise that it came out exactly the way he wanted it to. 2. It's also no surprise that the anti-gun document you reference simply dismisses Kleck's study by trying to associate it with UFO sightings. There's no attempt to analze and statistically refute the data. Not only that, your article conveniently leaves out 13 other studies that have, at least to some degree, confirmed Kleck's study. http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html There are numerous other elements of your document that can be refuted, but right now my youngest daughter is tugging at my sleeve reminding me that I have to take her to a sleepover birthday party. I'm afraid that takes a higher priority. I wish you a very pleasant evening.
"There are numerous other elements of your document that can be refuted." It was not my document. I don't see in your comments below that you have successfully and unequivocally refuted any of the ideas from the website posted. You have counter opinions to be sure, but nothing approaching logical refuting the ideas addressed. Few around here are looking for genuine debate, trying to reason to conclusion...rather than finding some spin to support a pre-existing conclusion. I suppose I find those who are dogamtatic fundamentalists are generally unable to have a reasoned debate...as I have found when you go deep enough into the argument process you will find eventually arrive at the bedrock position: "Because the Bible told me so." Or: "Second ammendment, second ammendment" as if they had sole privy to the true interpretation of the Second Amendment, which has been argued about by great minds for centuries. Generally here at ET there is little to no thought involved, just mouthing and promoting subjective belief systems of ancient text. A salient point today would be, if America went to bed tonight, and woke up tomorrow with complete amnesia as to our history (of which the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are an most important part of) could America find the leadership and intelligence to establish a more perfect union, and would the people follow? If ET is any measure, I doubt it...
Because you are biased and NOT open minded. Especially those drunks running around calling everyone "goat fucker". Like the web site you linked? Just like ET's liberals. "The only Supreme Court ruling in U.S. history that has focused primarily on the issue of what the Second Amendment really means is U.S. v. Miller (1939), which is also the last time the Court examined the amendment in any serious way. In Miller, the Court affirmed a median interpretation holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms" ...the words "goat fucker". (I think you misspelled "amendment" Mr. Intellectual)
<object width = "512" height = "328" > <param name = "movie" value = "http://www-tc.pbs.org/video/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf" > </param><param name="flashvars" value="video=1744080506&player=viral&end=0" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param > <param name = "allowscriptaccess" value = "always" > </param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param ><embed src="http://www-tc.pbs.org/video/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf" flashvars="video=1744080506&player=viral&end=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" width="512" height="328" bgcolor="#000000"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #808080; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 512px;">Watch the <a style="text-decoration:none !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#4eb2fe !important;" href="http://video.pbs.org/video/1744080506" target="_blank">full episode</a>. See more <a style="text-decoration:none !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#4eb2fe !important;" href="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/" target="_blank">Need To Know.</a></p> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-kno...er-on-restoring-the-assault-weapons-ban/6413/
You think a gun makes you a tough guy? I seen more guys with guns wet the bed than anything. It's when the other guy pulls out his gun. Then we see who the tough guy is. - a bronx tale
A bit dated but has lots of good info. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wgWwMBoEqU0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wgWwMBoEqU0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>