Never said there was. Your exact words in your request were: "I asked SF to name one, I ask you the same thing. Outside of a few random kooks, What organization that represents a significant faction in this country is advocating that private ownership of guns be revoked? I think it's a straw man." I obliged. I can see making it a limit on the number of purchases you can make, I've said that. I guess the trick is, naming a number both sides can agree on for the most part, if such a number exists. Honestly, I think focusing more on what goes in and out of our country would be money better spent with regard to that issue, but it sure would hurt the voting base for the left and the ACLU probably wouldn't go for that one either.. Go figure. Yeah I miss the ol' multi-quote.
Sure there have, just like there are people that want all of them legal. It's perfectly normal. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything though. I've been around here for long enough to know better than that. :thumb:
"...those with guns were four times more likely to be shot when confronted by an armed assailant than those without guns. ....states with the highest rates of gun ownership have much greater gun death rates than those where only a small percentage of the population is armed. So, Hawaii, where only 9.7 percent of residents own guns, has the lowest gun death rate in the country, while Louisiana, where 45 percent of the public is armed, has the highest. " Myth of the Hero Gunslinger - NYTimes.com
I'll match your NY times article, and raise you an MSNBC report. Report From Liberal Cable Outlet Shows That More Guns Equals Fewer Firearms Deaths | CNSnews.com
Swerved did you just caption a MSNBC article? You know what is a head scratcher though, why is there more gun violence in this country than any other?
Well, what fun would it have been had I quoted a fox-news report only to be immediately dismissed a crazy right winger that never reads anything other than Fox propaganda? Admittedly, I'm a little right-of-center, but I'm no Republican. All in the name of being fair and balanced, right? :wave: As for your other question, who knows. My point was more along the lines of for every argument "for" controlling guns that seems logical, there's an argument to the contrary. It's like Red said in another thread, and I'm paraphrasing... Statistics will basically say anything depending on how they're presented and interpreted. Which reminds me of a joke... [thread hijack] A lawyer, an engineer, and an accountant all apply for a job at a big corporate office. The boss interviews them and ends each interview with the question "What's 2+2 equal to?" The lawyer cited a bunch of legal terms and stated that in the case of Jones vs. The United States that 2+2 was found to be equal to 4. Boss says, "Thanks, we'll be in touch." The engineer was asked the same question, and promptly drew up a bunch of sketches, diagrams, and models that showed 2+2=4. The boss again says, "Thanks, we'll be in touch". The accountant got through his interview, and was asked the same final question, "What does 2+2 equal?".. After briefly thinking, he gets up, shuts the door, and walks over to the boss' desk and says "What do you want it to equal?"... He was hired on the spot. [/thread hijack] ... anyway.. where were we? Oh yeah I remember... (clears throat) YOU BIG HIPPIE LIBERAL TREE SMOKING COMMUNIST!! :wave:
I watched a show last night about Remington 700's firing on their own and that it's documented by the military. A few people have been killed from the 700 firing without the trigger being pulled. So, can't guns kill people?
Even a misfired gun can only kill someone if it is pointed at someone. The very first thing I learned about guns was only point them at things you intend to kill.
