In Support of Gun Rights

[Necronomicon]

post recognition

 

erik said:

you forgot one cbs:

 

he was spoon fed the article by Rush "i do perscription drugs and am a hypocrite about it" Limbaugh

 

 

You shouldn't pick on Rush, because he is a victim of the left leaning pharmaceutical companies that have received subsidies from BILL CLINTON.

Edited December 2, 2003 by Necronomicon

[Fairweather]

catbirdseat said:

Fairweather said:

Here is a copy of the recent CDC report regarding firearms. It pretty much states that no cause/effect exists between tougher gun laws and reducing violent crime....But I'm sure some folks here will be able to drag one or two peices of text out of bed and use them to fit their current beliefs system...

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm#tab

Okay, Fairweather. I went and read the report. In all eleven cases for intervention to prevent violence, the outcome was the same, "insufficient evidence to determine outcome". This means they couldn't tell one way or the other for a variety of reasons ranging from lack of studies, lack of necessary records, inconsistent results, etc. This is not the same thing as "no cause and effect" as you put it. Did anyone go read that report? Personally, I think that panel was afraid to reach a conclusion for fear of the backlash that would inevitably ensue.

 

Your juvenile attempts at becoming a pollster notwithstanding, doesn't "insufficient evedince to determine outcome" mean essentially the same thing when the original challenge to The Frasier Report came from you? Would you tighten current gun laws when the evidence you need to do so cannot be produced? The onus here remains on you and your challenge to the original post. Where is the study to demonstrate your position in the affirmative? I don't think you've demonstrated anything here other than your own childish nature vis a vis your "poll".