I’m sorry the facts are different then you would like, but you shouldn’t let it get you so emotional. Rather you should just change your mind.
Cite where I claimed causation? I just said that’s what happened. I understand you are flailing in this discussion and have to strawman my position. You really are free to change your mind, aren’t you?
You are the king of the non-sequitor.
I predict the next question from Kable: “Do kings have actual reign over non-sequitors?”
You obviously wanted to implicate AR15s in suicide for some rhetorical purpose. It’s not an unfair question to ask how often they are used for such. It’s probably one of the last guns I would pick.
Dipshit – I was being rhetorical. AR15, AR16, whatever it takes. You’re the moron who decided to conflate gun-rights with assisted-suicide, and ladders, and pools, and Everclear, and I’m half-expecting goddamned Barbie Dolls or waffles or something next.
Next time be rhetorical with something less retarded. It’s not my fault that your side knows so little about guns. Though I suppose if you educated yourself you would be on my side. 
Ah! “Just sayin, is all”. Got it.
It might help if you include some sort of signal, so we can tell when you are saying something because you thinks its relevant, and when you are saying something because you really, really like to type.
I provided the cite to the NEJM article and the letters and the other articles that cite that article. There was plenty of criticism at the time, enough that the authors had to come back and defend themselves (I found the defense telling about what they were trying to say).
I don’t broach the subject except in purely theoretical arguments about constitutionality. I think that if a state agrees with the federal government to ban machine guns then machine guns can be banned in that state (the right to keep an AK-47 is not reasonably necessary to self defense) but I don’t think the federal government can do it on its own.
And what do women do until we can convince all the rapists that its wrong to rape women?
Its up mostly among Democrats, thats not an Obama effect. The spike in gun sales after Newton… THATS an Obama effect.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If your point is that Democrats will try to ban guns when it is politically feasible, then sure but it was not politically feasible until Newton (and frankly they wasted an opportunity for real regulations to reduce gun violence in an effort to pass largely symbolic measures.
Like I said, once you pass constitutional muster. I am willing to deal with a bit of bureaucratic hassle to severely constrict criminal access to guns (and I’m not at all concerned about federal confiscation, but I would support protective measures in the restriction requirement to prevent confiscation). I don’t know why the gun control crowd spends so much of their scarce political capital on pushing an AWB while vociferously denying any desire to have a national gun registry. In my mind, the AWB is much more offensive than a national registry.
(BTW, how does the first amendment protect criminals?).
Is that quote supposed to mean I implied causation?
It is obvious that the gun control advocates are losing the debate. They continue to resort to insults to make their arguments. It must sting to watch their opportunity for real and meaningful gun regulation slip away because they chased an AWB. It now looks like they are not even going to get a fully universal background check, it might only be at gun shows (its still progress for them but it could have been so much more meaningful).
As an aside, which do you find more offensive:
An AWB that will prevent the sale of all “assault weapons” and magazines (I think it also includes a requirement that all assault weapon be registered and all transfers occur through an FFL).
A national licensing and registration scheme that would give you carry rights in all 50 states but require you to register all firearms with an FFL (at a fee of $10/gun). Confiscation of firearms or firearm accessories at the federal or state level would be prohibited and access to the registration could only be permitted to trace guns used in crimes. (I would add relaxation of NFA to allow the sale of select fire M-16s (under the stricter NFA standards) but I think Elucidator would have an aneurysm).
Those were letters to the editor. It’s also typical for the authors to have the opportunity to respond to such. You’re not familiar with reading scientific articles, so you are imbuing them with more meaning than is merited. For instance, I just went to the NEMJ and grabbed one current example:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1300614
If they had to publish a correction, that would be notable. Responding to letters to the editor is not remarkable and not interpretable as “enough that they had to come back and defend themselves.”
This is also not, by the way, peer review in any shape. IIRC, most of the letters to the Kellermann article didn’t even have any institutional affiliation associated with them, so they were in all likelihood just readers. Don’t kid yourself that there are no gun nuts to be found among the readers of the NEJM.
You keep saying this when any simple perusal of both the daily news and any polling clearly shows that you are just wrong.
For instance, Colorado is right now passing a “raft” of gun bills: Colorado Senate passes raft of gun bills; House Democrat now wavers – The Denver Post
Rachel Maddow had a great segment on the other day drawing the parallel between the National Smoker’s Alliance and the NRA. Both are astroturf groups established by manufacturers of controversial products. The difference was that the Smoker’s Alliance just did a really bad job of hiding their connections/intended role.
The NRA is funded by gun manufacturers. It exists to keep gun manufacturers from taking the heat for the problem of gun violence. You better start worrying that the NRA doesn’t go the way of the National Smoker’s Alliance as the tide starts turning against the NRA and gun manufacturers.
The first sounds worse but I don’t like the 2nd either as I expect it would be perverted in the future. I don’t like the licensing fee per gun, which I imagine some anti-gunner would make annual, and then start increasing the fees until they are prohibitive.
Survey: More Gun Owners Want Firearms for Protection
“The survey determined that the public’s attitude about new gun legislation was mixed. 58 percent of people worry that stricter gun legislation would make it more difficult for people to protect their families and homes while 54 percent believe new gun legislation would decrease the amount of deaths due to mass shootings.”
What do you think is the point of the material you quoted and linked to?
No, on a technicality. Other countries may have higher suicide rates, but countries rarely have higher absolute numbers of suicides, due to the US hosting a significant portion of the world’s population (China has a higher rate and higher overall population, though).
Flag desecrators, pacifists and the libellous have at various times been jailed. Generous readings of the first amendment would have quashed sentences.
Man, that’d sting if it didn’t work out that way, wouldn’t it?
58% is greater than 54%.
Generally it does work that way. I like to take liberals shooting, in fact I’m reasonably liberal myself so I get along with them, and they pretty much always they like it and get over their fear of guns pretty quick. Seems they find the “assault” style guns the most fun to shoot, go figure.
I love shooting targets, and I’m pretty good at it too. I’d probably love shooting something like an AR-15. Guns are cool.
That has nothing to do with a liberal’s position on guns.
Your “liberals are afraid of guns” is simply another fantasy you’ve concocted. In fact, I’m sure you’re lying about taking fearful liberals shooting.