Summations Only

Or a armed octogenarian will kill someone for texting in a movie theater. oops that already happened!

Liar.
He was only 71.Therefore, your whole argument is unsupported and worthless.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Neither is it an unsupported assertion, and you've left the ambiguity of the term "data" unresolved. Theodoric is using the term "data" to refer to the results and conclusions of studies, while you're using it to refer to the actual reports themselves (when they become available), or perhaps you mean the raw data.But I think most people would think you well within your rights to insist on seeing the report before deciding whether or not it's a point in favor of Theodoric's position."There's a study that shows you're wrong." Now that's an unsupported assertion.--Percy

Yes, but a pretty sure thing in two.

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

After background checks were scrapped in Missouri

quote:

---

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health took a closer look at the impact on public safety in the state after the policy change, and the Washington Post’s Niraj Chokshi helped summarize the results.

​

The law’s repeal was correlated with a 23 percent spike in firearm homicide rates, or an additional 55 to 63 murders annually from 2008 to 2012, according to the study conducted by researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and to be published in the Journal of Urban Health.

​

This study provides compelling confirmation that weaknesses in firearm laws lead to deaths from gun violence, Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and the study’s lead author, said in a news release. There is strong evidence to support the idea that the repeal of Missouri’s handgun purchaser licensing law contributed to dozens of additional murders in Missouri each year since the law was changed.

​

For context, note that there was no comparable increase at the national level — in other words, it’s not like Missouri saw a spike because everyone nationwide was seeing a spike — and more to the point, the eight states that border Missouri also did not experience a similar increase.

---

Background checks work.

Show us an article with the opposite results and lets discuss Are you asserting we would act like you?Your argument here does not reflect well on you. It is like a fundie trying to attack atheism by claiming it is a religion.

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?

background checks cannot affect legitimate use, but it can affect illegitimate use.And if the end result is fewer gun deaths, then it is a positive result.No brainer.

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.

Can you list the similarities between NSA spying and gun control (if you've already done this earlier in the thread, please point it out because there is no way I am digging through this long ass thread)? I fail to see how the two are similar enough to warrant using one as a gauge for the other. The only similarity I see is that the gov't is involved and doing a poor job. It seems like you are using the NSA shit to appeal to emotions.it's an honest question that seems to be dripping with antagonization, but I assure you I don't mean it that way.

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?

If you give a cousin a gun because they cannot pass a background check then you are at fault, you are aiding and abetting.