How do you think it relates? Perhaps you could quote the part of the article you think is relevant. No one really knows if you got the answer to the question because your question was unclear. What was your question and what was the answer?
I suspect if you lay out your actual question, and we compare it to your question in post #214 - they wont be the same. Of course, this could be another situation where you’ve added or subtracted words to get to the meaning you really intended.
The article talks about the statistics involving gun laws, gun purchases and crime rates, and the difficulty in tying any of the three together.
It then goes on to talk about the Brady Center’s state gun law scorecard, published in 2013, which gave higher grades to states with stiffer gun laws, but it goes on to say
All in all, it’s a pretty balanced article. Care to take a look at it?
I’ve read it. What question that you posed do you think it’s answering?
Told you it would take a while 
For those of you who don’t seem to understand, deliberately or otherwise, here was the original statement:
And here was Czarcasm’s question:
Which I took to mean “Hey HurricaneDitka, I’ve seen your statement and would like some clarification. When you said ‘crime has fallen’ did you mean all crime, or crimes committed with guns?”
of course, I have the ability to actually read what people post, and determine what they might mean by the words they use, and also the ability to use context and other written clues as to the nature of the questions and/or answers. I am not simply always looking for a “gotcha” within each question.
Then again, I could be wrong, and that is NOT what **Czarcasm **meant, and stand willing to be corrected.
I had already looked at it.
Yes, it somewhat disputes the Brady centers bogus correlation being “gun deaths” and gun ownership, since what’s really going on is that states with high gun ownership seem to have lower homicide rates- but higher suicides by gun. No surprise that if there are a lot of gun around, and you wanna off yourself, a gun might be your first choice. But since, IMHO, suicide is a basic human right, I am not terribly concerned with those numbers. (They are saddening, of course.)
A quote from the article:
There’s no discernible pattern among those cities, nor clear or convincing evidence in these statistics that shows more gun laws lead to more or less gun crime.
Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. Putting suicide aside, the number of guns do not seem to have a overall effect on the crime rate here in the USA.
I did not say that it answered any question that I posed, as you well know. I said that I thought the article tied in with the subject of this thread.
If you think it does, we can talk about it. If you think it doesn’t, I would be surprised, but you are entitled to your opinion.
If you ever decide to stop screwing around and give it, that is.
The irony, it burns!
Yep-this is turning into another “Let’s screw with the supposed opposition” giggle fest. When/if you ever decide to have a decent conversation with those outside your circle of supporters, I may be back. I know when to cut my losses.
If it didn’t answer the question, what did you mean by this (my bold)?
It’s so strange to refuse to pose a clear question. Usually folks try to avoid answering. In this case you take it one step further and try to avoid asking! But not before you demand that people answer the question.
It seems like we mostly agree on these issues. 
The basic problem is that there are very few questions you can ask that makes legal private ownership of guns seem like the Armageddon that the gun control crowd tries to make it out to be.