IKEA apologises for child shooting a gun

What do you mean by "interventions", and where are the links to the research?

 

Unless the so-called "research" was presented by yourself the very day it was released to the public, you are not posting anything that has not already been read and scoured over, and subsequently found to be lacking in terms of basic facts. Try again.

 

And pray tell, what are these interventions that are being referred to? Everything that has been found pertains to the false belief that firearm-related restrictions in certain areas, which focus on legal firearms ownership, have a direct impact on the criminal misuse of firearms by those that cannot legally possess them under any circumstances.

 

"Read long before" gave the game away somewhat. Your twaddle has given you away

 

Prove it.

 

Was it illegal to carry a gun in the store?

 

What is the applicable statute you are citing?
Is it negligent discharge of a firearm? Quote the elements and I'll break it down why it doesn't apply here.

 

Cite the statute you wish to charge him under.

Unless you're suggesting we craft an ex post facto law just to **** with him?

 

The only thing that has been "given away" is the degree of arrogance on the part of yourself in believing that so-called "research" has not been analyzed unless it is presented on the part of yourself, suggestion the false notion that those who disagree with the position of yourself do not go looking for the so-called "research" themselves. Such is not the case in this matter.

 

Never said it applied here. In fact, it’s quite clear I was talking about negligence laws in general. Context is everything.

 

.

and which laws, in general, would you think applied here?

 

What part of ‘never said it applied here’ did you not understand?

 

If none of them apply, even on a general level, then why did you mention them?

 

IKEA has a policy of no guns

 

Do you have ANY research supporting you stances?

 

Which only includes asking someone to leave and if they don’t then trespassing laws apply. Otherwise it is still legal.

 

Again...context is everything.

 

Pray tell what would such actually entail that could be demonstrated? Research demonstrating that those who live outside of the united states can and do disagree with the message and methodology of those that support firearm-related restrictions? Research that would show those who are regarded as being "researchers" are driven by political motivation and that their findings are bought and paid for by those who provide them with funding so their so-called "research" can actually be carried out? What exactly is being requested in this matter?

 

So, no, it was not illegal to carry a gun.
Thus, your question, answered.

 

Yep, that new research you "read long before". Did they send you their working paper? Perhaps you went to the conference involved? Alternatively, perhaps they happened to write it 10 years ago and asked for your opinion before they considered publication?

 

Long before it was presented by yourself. Pray tell, what is so difficult to understand and comprehend about that?

 

That you continue with this sham shows your true nature!

 

And pray tell, exactly what is this supposed "true nature" of myself that has apparently been shown by dismissing what has been presented by yourself due to it being devoid of a factual, scientific basis?

 

Look we both know that you haven't read the evidence. You can't even pretend 'well'.

 

Present actual evidence, not merely politically motivated ideology and hypothesis that has been paid for by the Joyce Foundation, and it will most assuredly be read.