Summations Only

Quote the data here then.

Is that you admitting that their ultimate goal is not saving kids lives in schools?

I'm okay with it existing, but I wouldn't buy it or shoot it. Regardless of what they already have, I am not going to help them by giving them more. Come at me bro.

I'm not sure why you would smile at that...In those two years, apparently, more kids will die in bicycle accidents at school. If your ultimate goal was saving kids lives at schools, then your efforts would be better focused on bicycle safety.If you say that you're ultimate goal is saving kids lives at schools, and then you focus on things that will save less lives, then you're either stupid or lying.

In light of the heinous actions of the NSA, I'm not going to trust the Feds with something that purposefully provides them with more information about my guns, or bullets.They are simply untrustworthy.

Now you're just being disingenuous. You, the unsupported assertion police, are now accepting unsupported assertions as "data".I guess its all good as long as you like what you hear. And you have the gall to berate us for acting like creationists. lulzWelcome back to being ignored, troll.

Theo is citing a news report on a study that hasn't been released yet.I don't care who you are, that don't pass as "data".But yes, of course we would want to look at the raw data.Since when did we start accepting unsupported assertions?

But we're talking about those Moms and Mayors...

Sure, in theory. But in practice? Not a chance.A bare link, called "some data", that links to a news piece? Really?How do you think the responses would have been different if the article said that the data went the other way?ಠ_ಠ

Okay, this one elicited a reply. Only because you couldn't be more exactly wrong. Although, I suspect you designed your reply that way because you're so good at trolling. I no longer believe that you could be this stupid. I'm only pointing this out for those who don't realize that you're not really this stupid, and are, in fact, trolling. I probably won't reply to any replies from you to this. No. I'm asserting that you would act like you. I'm asserting that the way you've acted in these replies is not like you.You saw a result that you liked, and you opted to not post the information that suggested that you tried to defeat it by... well, you know, posting as much shit about the author that you can, and trying to discredit what they said, and reacting generally like you already discounted the information a priori. You know, like you always act when confronted with stuff you're skeptical about.Instead, you're posts suggest that you've swallowed the claim whole.Now, maybe you did look into it and found nothing damaging, but, you could have posted that info as well. "Look, guys, this shit is legit. Here's the links where I looked into it."But no, you didn't. You acted differently instead.Now, here's the kicker. You made fun of your opponents for acting like creationists when you acted the exact same way. Pure hypocrisy.Granted, maybe you did look deep into it and discover all the facts (and thus were not actually creationist-like), but your posts don't indicate that you've done anything like that.Instead, your posts indicate that you've done the very thing that you are berating. That's really only what I wanted to point out. I'm not interested in my reflection. Besides, the reflection is only superficial. I don't act like I'm not doing it. You do.

Do you think that what you quoted supports your conclusion?What happened to your skepticism such that you'd accept correlation as causation?Where were the spikes? Were they significant? Do we need to make a decision?Would the people who committed the murders have been prevented from obtaining the gun that they used through a background check? How many of them could have obtain the weapon despite the background checks?Do you think these things are worth considering?

False. Just like the NSA's spying on us is not worth the reduction in terrorist attacks.We shouldn't give up liberty for security. Especially, when we cannot trust our federal government.Use your brain.

Whoa, wait. If people are obtaining guns illegally, like they borrow it from their cousin, then how can background checks affect that?The only ones that background checks can affect, are those who are obtain their guns legitimately.You have it exactly backwards.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I'm not sure where your question is stemming from.Are you talking about giving up liberty for security?Or are you talking about providing the Feds with personal information for background checking and bullet tracking?

The Feds are untrustworthy and I'm not going to give them any more information. And its not worth giving up liberty for a sense of security.