Well, maybe we should start over, Alex. Or maybe not! You be the judge. I know both of us have more interesting things to do than get absolutely nowhere on the gun issue. I am unconvinced with your argument about the courts--unless I do not understand what you are saying at all, nothing you bring up is definitively in favor of the second amendment meaning that individuals have the right to bear arms. I might agree that the Supreme Court is avoiding making such a ruling, however, from what I have read. It would be nice to at least have one.
In regard to your public safety argument, let's look again at the wording of this statement from that police department in Missouri that I have quoted before:
"Statistics show, however, that a firearm is not necessarily an effective weapon. Keeping a gun at home was
found to make the owner three more times likely to die violently by gunshot wounds, than the average person
through accident, domestic violence or an assailant using the gun against the owner."
dps.state.mo.us
Would you not agree that the point of this statement is that even if some crimes are prevented by people carrying guns, that the cumulative result is that this group is more, not less, prone to violent death because of their gun possession?
Now we are arguing about sources again, I see. I would totally discount "The American Rifleman" is biased. I thought we agreed that we could only cite sources which were clearly not on either side of the issue. Yes? |
