Quote from: Wayward Son on June 20, 2016, 06:22:26 PM
AFAIK, my numbers are accurate and relevant.
I've shown that they aren't. And there's little explanation, either.
Not even close, Pete. You've made
assertions that the data from the Justice Department included suicides and accidental shootings, but you've have not provided any proof, or any estimate of how much of the data comes from such incidents. You've simply brushed it away, saying because you
think it's tainted, you don't need to address it. That is very sloppy thinking, and proves nothing.
If you
think the data is not accurate, then show my
why you think so, why you think this was not taken into account with this estimate, and
what a more accurate estimate is.
That's critical thinking. Not just saying, "well, I don't think it's true," and then ignore it. That's how climate change denialists work.
I'm very open to discussing gun restrictions. What I oppose is beginning any discussion of gun restrictions based on lies, hysteria, and grave-dancing. When a politician stands on a fresh grave, lies about who did it, and calls for broad laws that affect our civil rights, I can't help but think Patriot Act.
I'm glad you're open to discussing gun restrictions. But why aren't you open to discussing Hillary's suggestions?
You've made a broad, vague statement about "Hillary's program of punishing all Americans by restricting our civil rights," but you haven't discussed what they are or why you object to them. So far, all I've heard is the same rhetoric as from the NRA, who say that any gun restrictions are taking away our Second Amendment rights.
So if you want to discuss gun restrictions, let's discuss gun restrictions.
If you don't think the data is accurate, then find some accurate data, and we can discuss that.
But if you want to make vague, broad attacks on Hillary, then you will get vague, broad answers, as in: the only people who object to Hillary's proposals are gun nuts and those who hate Hillary on other grounds. We don't have enough restrictions on guns in America. We are killing each other at a ridiculous rate, and not just from mass shootings. More restrictions on guns will reduce the number of homicides in this country, and there is no sane reason not to implement them. You may be offended that Hillary, et al, are using this latest mass shooting to justify calling for more gun control. But that is just using the visible tip of the iceberg--the part that everyone is looking at now--to get people's attention on the rest of the ice chunk. Restricting the easy access to guns will help prevent the next mass slaughter, and the next domestic dispute where the husband takes out a gun and shoots his wife. No, homicides will never be eliminated in this or any country. But guns are the deadliest weapons individuals can easily obtain (deadlier than knives, bats, etc.), so making them less available will save lives.
So don't freak out over those who use the Orlando massacre as an excuse to go after guns. Because it was a problem before Orlando, and is still a problem afterward.