| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) I just recalled that some gun hobbyists make their own ammo. Doesn't detract from the point--criminals are probably doing criminal activities and are not making their own (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Care to show cause and effect? I expect not! (...) Given that 500,000 are stolen from lawful owners each year in the USA. Do you think that if more restrictions were put on ownership perhaps less would be stolen? (...) Even in the UK, some (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Do criminals make their guns? Do they have gunsmithing shops in the back of their barns where they can make their .22's and ammo? Well, no. So where do the criminals get their guns? Well, I can think off the top of my head a variety of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
| | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) Can you give an independent citation for that statistic? And some kind of causitive confirmation that the crime rate increased *because* gun control was initiated? Otherwise, the argument must be abandoned as a post hoc interpretation. That (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
| | Re: We love our guns!!-- was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare
|
|
(...) But I think the point that was made to you in response to that assertion is that it is a canard-- it will never happen, and so you really could never prove it anyway. But people have thought along those lines and tried to ban guns anyway. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|