Obamas Report on Gun Violence Just Released

Alrighty. Until you have something worth reading to say, I'm done with you. To much mindless repetition of false claims and insults. Bye bye.

 

You even lie in your quotes? Golly, predictability really shouldn't be so grunting

 

Yes, I'm ignoring you now because you have nothing worth responding too. I'm not mad. You are boring me and everyone on this thread with your mindless broken record responses.

 

You are correct and wise.

 

Everyone once in awhile, you run into someone who just can't communicate maturely without being a jerk. Eventually you realize that ignoring them is the best possible choice you can make. Let them be an insulting bore to someone else

 

You never participated. You don't know anything and go for the standard spurious tosh. Bit of a chore, but I had to give you the opportunity.

 

CAN I GET AN AMEN

 

If you ignore all the dead that's because of gun related violence, taking certain statements out of context, and then yeah the study would go against Obama and the background check crowd

 

And if you ignore all the increases in gun violence after passing gun control, then certainly the argument goes more in favor of Obama and the background check crowd.

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."- American Philosopher George Santayana

The irony that so many on the gun control side have this as a sig, and still don't grasp it.

 

Deliberate misinformation! The empirical evidence shows that gun control has reduced crime. Of course we'd expect that given the more general analysis supporting the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis. However, its jolly good to have the analysis confirmed

 

silence is acceptance..................we are glad to know you are willing to use coercion to enforce your nocturnal dreams.

 

You're the one that wants to continue harvesting coercion. Internalising negative externalities such that we face the true costs from our preferences is just basic sense

 

and you want to rule the world with force..........admit it, a disarmed nation is easier to rule

 

Nope. I'm merely a fan of rationality, with the individual facing the true costs from their behavioural choices

 

You break the law, you do the punishment. No question about that.
Now show how my ownership is coercive. Remember, I have used it on two occasions where I was found to be on the right side of the law.
One instance I put two DCM against an armed mugger. Who is guilty of coercion?

 

Debating ill-mentored collectivists on the merits of unalienable inherent rights bestowed upon Americans by their Creator (read: not government), and the concept of individual freedoms and liberties, is like trying to teach shrimps to whistle. It’s a total wash; and a waste of time.

The bottom line is that the collectivists (foreign and domestic) have never been able to clear one tall hurdle: The Bill of Rights. And should the day ever come when they finally do clear that hurdle it will be historically remembered as “The Second Shot Heard ‘Round the World”.

Using the massacre of innocent elementary school children and faculty by an insane murdering coward to advance a collectivist agenda of an unarmed America was the lowest Obama and his minions could go; even lower than Obama’s and Holder’s illegal Operation Fast & Furious (you know, the same Fast & Furious that Obama used “Executive Privilege” to shield himself and Holder from being charged with crimes against America).

What this free American would really be interested in reading is a non-biased comprehensive report on “Constitutional Usurpations & Crimes: 2009 to Date”.

 

Already done! We know that the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis is supported. We therefore have a standard problem of market failure, with gun ownership leading to greater coercion through crime social costs

 

no, you missed again, You were to show how I effected improper coercion by defending my life?

 

zero coercion through coercion...................only wannabe tyrants and dictators spout this drivel.............Pelosi fan?

 

You continue to make no sense. You simply demand that we ignore the coercion created through our personal preferences.

 

neither do you, You fail to connect me to coercion.
But let's this theory a whirl...........
since people with cars, cell phones and engaging in sex while driving is actually a coercive force, then we must ban those as well all cars, since it forces other's activities on the public, costing billions of collars in social costs

 

My stance is purely evidence based. The market failure mentioned is standard coercion, given its costs imposed on others

 

weak and fail...............then apply it to cars................the cost is about a thousand times greater...........but I don't see you whining about that. Could it be you own a car?

 

Let's see some proof of this please, I'm rather intreseted in this statistic.

 

Its always applied to cars. See, for example, Pigovian tax on fuel