I have no clue what to say... other than a ton of faulty logic still does not make a good argument. 3 and a half minutes on google PD just goes to show that you don't even read the articles you posted. On that note...
(These are the sites you posted as evidence)
Third site:
Citizens Defend Themselves With GunsNot only do the sources not exist anymore, but the site is an NRA site. Great nonpartisanship there PD.
First Site:
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Guns Save Lives. Again, partisan, and ... ironic. One of the National Parks that is being petitioned against for resticting weapons (and there are NRA protestors on site) is .... Martin Luther King Jr. Park. Hmmmm... figure it out yourself. ...not to mention the irony that the NRA wants to allow concealed guns, but has not said anything about allowing knives in buildings such as the Sears Tower (or in airplanes/airports for that matter... gee that goes over well). Once you allow one type of weapon, you must allow all otherwise the very act becomes unconstitutional. Turn that over for a bit, won't you?
I'm not sure PD that you have read the arguments in that wonderful site that was posted here in these forums: Second site:
Just For Skeptics...but it is a prime example of faulty logic. On the one hand, we have one person writing that "Shouldn't We Repeal The Gun Laws... If It'll Save A Single Child?" (
Just For Skeptics: Shouldn't We Repeal The Gun Laws... If It'll Save A Single Child?) but yet another states that "The truth is that in 1999, 31 children younger than 10 died from an accidental gunshot and only six of these cases appear to have involved another child under 10 as the culprit. Nor was this year unusual. Any death is tragic, but with 90-some million Americans owning guns and about 40 million children younger than 10, it is hard to think of any other product in the home that represents such a low risk to children. Indeed, more children under five drowned in bathtubs or plastic water buckets. (
Just For Skeptics: Does News Coverage Endanger Lives?)
These are obviously direct contradictions. Pretty much every argument on that site contradicts another (this is just one example). Furthermore, if we carry the above example any further we end up with an argument like this: thermonuclear weapons can't be all that bad, because we've only killed 300,000 people with them, whereas rifles have killed a hundred million. I know PD, you've stated once that you can't compare these two types of weapons, but you then lay your "firm truths" on a comparison between bows and arrows and AK-47's. What is the basis of these comparisons? That one weapons kills slightly less than the other so they can be compared? A tactical nuke can be made to only kill a few dozen people, just like a spray of gunfire. Does that justify a comparison? Similarly, just because one tool kills less than another does not make it any less of a threat... when you brought up cars killing people, you basically suggested that cars are tools for killing, like guns. Please prove that to me. ...and in case people aren't aware: most weapons that are recognized as having as a sole purpose to be a weapon (switchblades, any knive above a certain length and breadth, crossbows etc) ARE REGULATED. In my own home town, bows are illegal to own for example. Again your comparisons must be null and void, not to mention unwaranted and stated without the slightest bit of corroborative evidence.
If you outlaw a comparison such as mine, your argument and everyone else's (so far) must be null in this regard too. Nevertheless, none of you will listen to me now (just as you haven't responded to my arguments in the past) because you don't want to bother to read ... but at least contrive your arguments with some common sense (by the way, where are all the cold hard facts that have been promised repeatedly, but never given?).
Clearly, if any of the very few more reasonable characters on this thread are to be convinced, someone will have to spend the time (oh no!) to actually give credible evidence. (In other words, for those who still believe that I'mForGuns.BecauseI'mAGunManufacturer.AndI'llLoseMyJobOtherwise.org is a great site to showcase statistics, keep spewing insults)
...because I am so utterly cynical as a result of the inaneness of the last 3 pages, I don't believe anyone will do so. Please prove me wrong. Likewise I doubt anyone will see this statement and tell me they saw it because they won't read more than 5 sentences (or maybe they will skim it and think they know what I am saying). Again, please prove me wrong.
I would finally like to ask why people always assume that only "criminals" use illegal weapons and why only "civilians" use legal weapons and not the other way around.
