Defensive Carry banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,277 Posts
Not often that the media admits that old, questionable data is being pushed on the people by politicians. However, they still were able to get their true feelings known:

"A 1996 law pushed by the gun-rights lobby closed the spigot on federal gun research, leaving scholars, private groups and states to pick up some pieces. Only now, under a recent order by Obama, can federally financed research resume.
So it's no wonder policymakers are grasping at shreds of moldy data. But they're not owning up to the true vintage of their information or the shortcomings that made it questionable at the time."

Once again, the supreme leader is stepping in to save the citizens from those gun nuts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,020 Posts
Here is the meaty part about the "40% of all gun sales are conducted without a background check" myth if you don't want to do the heavy lifting:

The research reported on the nature of gun acquisitions made in 1993 and 1994, asking people who had obtained guns then where the guns had come from and whether they thought the source was a federally licensed dealer. Transactions through licensed dealers were considered covered by the background check system, which was just then coming into effect.

Although the survey interviewed more than 2,500 Americans, just 251 had acquired guns during that time frame, a small sampling from which to make a general conclusion.

In all, 64 percent of those respondents reported acquiring a gun from a source they thought to be a licensed dealer, suggesting that 36 percent of gun acquisitions were in the secondary and unregulated market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Once again, the supreme leader is stepping in to save the citizens from those gun nuts.
I'm not an anti or a dem, but research isn't necessarily a bad thing... maybe if some of the anti's would just do a little research, they'd realize that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are not necessarily a bad thing. ;)

Will anti's ever come to that conclusion? No... probably not. Their arguments are not really backed by much other than some kind of suppressed fear and unfounded excuses that guns, somehow acting on their own, kill innocents.

I recently had an anti, in response to the photo below, tell me that it was perfectly alright to point the gun at the crowd with her trigger on the finger because the gun was "unloaded"...

I then asked if she would let me point my gun at her if I told her it was unloaded... she changed her tune real quick, but continued to defend Feinstein's actions.

These are the point that particular anti argued until I called her out, then she quit responding...

A) Not all gun-control advocates would point a gun, unloaded or not... at a huge crowd of people. So, it's not safe to assume they are not all like the picture --- BUT... all guns and gun-owners are dangerous and will open fire at any given moment on innocent bystanders therefore they should be eliminated.

B) There are current laws in place, criminals don't follow them... but if we make NEW & IMPROVED laws... criminals will start obeying them.
Photo in question:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,171 Posts
Yeah an exact science right? Asking people who took a guess at what someone's credentials were. Solid data no doubt.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,277 Posts
I'm not an anti or a dem, but research isn't necessarily a bad thing... maybe if some of the anti's would just do a little research, they'd realize that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are not necessarily a bad thing. ;)
I'm all for research. What rankles me is that comment. (the one in the article, not yours)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
The real (accurate) news is finally getting out. Keep in mind, they won't pay any attention to it unless we shout it from the rooftops.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top