One doesn't need much knowledge to acknowledge that you don't have facts. You have opinion. Nothing inherently wrong with that of course. It's your right to soapbox. It is unfortunate, mind you, that you deliberately hide from the available criminology and the objective research capable of testing the validity of that opinion. That shows little intent in crafting valid argument.
Your obsessive, bordering on fetishistic fixation with peer reviewed academic research, has indeed been noted. But it does not change the basic, undeniable fact that the findings of the FBI deal exclusively in facts cold, hard facts. It does not matter what economic factors may be at play when the majority of firearm-related homicides are committed by those who are career criminals, as these are not individuals who would settle for accepting minimum wage, and having to take orders from others.
Then obtain a permit to possess and use a computer, demonstrating that a legitimate and compelling reason for such is possessed by yourself.
I already know that you're not interested in scientific evidence. No need to bore me with a tantrum about it!
the Constitution allowed slavery. that means the Founders supported human slavery, which is disgusting.
not relevant to the second amendment. you anti gun activists try to pretend that the second amendment somehow allows your blatant infringements because the constitution did not ban slavery. That is specious and unsupported nonsense
You have no idea of conceptual differentiating data, you blur lines in order to substantiate fuzzy logic, so, if lets say Institutionalized slavery of Black people was legal at one time, it does not negate the concept of Rights as did the Emancipation proclamation that ratified slavery as illegal. The first gun control laws were based on racism and to prevent gun ownership to minorities by means of strict licensing. This is the goal of today's licensing schemes, such as New York City, licenses restricted to a chosen few. You should not throw out the baby with the bath water as far as the Evils of slavery to excuse abridging other civil Rights.... A Right is not the same as a crime, or violating traffic laws and other public safety regulations. And FYI, your use of anecdotal, is to skunk anything you wish to discredit in lieu of some unproven hypothesis. At one time, handwashing and aseptic methods related to medical practice was considered "anecdotal" as well as "ineffable twaddle", It was not for some considerable time and many dead patients that medical practice finally embraced hand washing and aseptic methods. The fact that firearms save lives is not anecdotal evidence at all as there is ample proof of this, dating back to the 1500's. While any instrument can cause harm in the wrong hands, it can do good in the right hands.
I'm not "playing dumb", but you're proving a master of it. Your so-called "evidence" is laughable. And wrong.
You really need to stop being purposefully obtuse. As I keep telling you, AGAIN AND AGAIN: The Founders intended the people to have the ability to change the Constitution to meet the challenges of changing times. The people ultimately supported Amendments to outlaw slavery and protect civil rights. If you think gun control is so important, then put it to the people to amend the Constitution to allow it. Otherwise you are doing nothing but seeking to corrupt and undermine Constitutional intent.
You are unbelievable. I have said, over and over, that the Founders' intent was to enable the Constitution to be amended to address changing times. Slavery was ultimately overturned and outlawed by Amendment AS THEY INTENDED. You want to ignore the Constitution because you find it inconvenient to your agenda, and you insult and denigrate the Founders to make it easier for you. Well, sorry, we're not going to let you get away with that.
Get over yourself. The Constitution has already been amended to correct that, AS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED. If you want gun control, amend the Constitution to make it legitimate.
What is being presented by yourself is not scientific evidence, and never can be scientific evidence. It is nothing more than baseless, hypothetical speculation and guesswork, being presented by those who have a financial incentive to continue presenting such nonsense.
The obvious question of "so what" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such make in the case? If such is going to be used to argue against the validity of one amendment, the same standard must be used against all amendments equally, such as the ability to speak about controversial topics without fear of government repercussions for saying the wrong thing.
More trantrum. Did the nasty researchers come out with results you don't like? Diddums! I loved this ignorant comment for the awkward reference to hypothetical. Given the multiple determinants of crime rates, of course hypothesis analysis has to be employed. I reckon a gerbil would have more insightful comment!
Nothing. Because the anti-gun left isn't interested in lowering the number of gun-related deaths in the US.
None of which changes the fact that nothing has been presented by yourself except for speculation rather than fact.
which has nothing to do with your desire to strip away the freedom of US citizens guaranteed by the second amendment Lets look at your specious argument Because SOME of the founders supported slavery-that means guarantees of freedom should be rolled back
the anti gun left welcomes gun deaths as statistics they use to try to confiscate or ban gun ownership
