 | | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | (...) True, but both articles site that illegally owned firearms were/are responsible for the vast majority of crime. The first article states that tighter gun control will not have any positive impact (but probably have a negative one) on the crime (...) (22 years ago, 1-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) You're stripping away the numbers for the sake of a punchline. According to the first article, the number of firearms-related murders in 1996 England/Wales was 49. Forty-nine! Pittsburgh alone had 47 murders in 1996, and we don't have a gun (...) (22 years ago, 3-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | [snipped the numbers] Ok you are only siting the murder rate and calling it the crime rate. Armed robbery is where increase is. The murder rate is essentially unchanged between countries with or without strict gun control. I cannot seem to find any (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) I'm afraid that I'm not a man of faith, so I can't accept your word without evidence, especially since your entire argument depends on it. If you intend to convince me (or anyone else who doesn't already agree with you), you'll need to find (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Gun Control issues (was Re: Dan Rather is a Useful Idiot Extraordinare) —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | [Snip] (...) I want to know where all these pro-gun whacko sites are getting their numbers from. (URL) find it interesting that I can not find any numbers from the anti-gun whacko sites. (...) I had said that from the get go. (URL) (...) not. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 5-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
