stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Factcheck.org

Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change.

Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

Nobody disputed any of this.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No ones changing their minds, and the arguments are really circular, lol.

You're the one circling back to things that have already been proven false because you refuse to change your mind despite evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Getting pretty tired of all this tbh.

Of course you're getting tired of it. All of your arguments in support of gun control have been shot down. I'd be tired of it too if I were you. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course you're getting tired of it. All of your arguments in support of gun control have been shot down. I'd be tired of it too if I were you. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch.

Vellatri is pretty hot when she uses puns like that.

[Vellatri]

<glares at Lexical with hand ever-so-slightly tilted toward holster>

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're the one circling back to things that have already been proven false because you refuse to change your mind despite evidence to the contrary.

Anyone that's been following this knows that no evidence to the contrary has been presented. None. Zero. Plenty of opinion and slanted journalism though.

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Of course you're getting tired of it. All of your arguments in support of gun control have been shot down. I'd be tired of it too if I were you. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch.

Well...you have to properly counter with legitimate sources in order to shoot an argument down.

Cognitive dissonance. Not very pertinent, but it sure sounds smart. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyone that's been following this knows that no evidence to the contrary has been presented. None. Zero. Plenty of opinion and slanted journalism though.

I guess showing that your Australian study, your holy grail of 'proof,' is not relevant, tagging your reasoning as illogical, highlighting how the statistics you are posting are skewed, and showing you why the right to own guns is protected
by the constitution isn't enough evidence to show you that your side is full of shit. What would it take for you to at least acknowledge that the type of guns are not the problem?

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

<glares at Lexical with hand ever-so-slightly tilted toward holster>

heh, didn't mean to startle you miss. Just admiring your word play is all. <tips hat>

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyone that's been following this knows that no evidence to the contrary has been presented. None. Zero. Plenty of opinion and slanted journalism though.

Well...you have to properly counter with legitimate sources in order to shoot an argument down.

Oops, looks like you ignored this post, yet again. You can keep calling it illegitimate non-evidence, but simply saying so does not make it so.

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

heh, didn't mean to startle you miss. Just admiring your word play is all. <tips hat>

I actually typed out an "emote" but using greater-than and lesser-than signs mucks with the formatting.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I actually typed out an "emote" but using greater-than and lesser-than signs mucks with the formatting.

I know. It was in response to you reaching for your gun :P

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I guess showing that your Australian study, your holy grail of 'proof,' is not relevant, tagging your reasoning as illogical, highlighting how the statistics you are posting are skewed, and showing you why the right to own guns is protected by the constitution isn't enough evidence to show you that your side is full of shit. What would it take for you to at least acknowledge that the type of guns are not the problem?

Let's go for a third study. You missed the second one dincha?

RESULTS OF THE '96/'97 AUSTRALIAN GUN LAWS

Where'd I say people can't own guns or that I said the Constitution disallowed it? Now that's a straw-man.

You keep saying the statistics are skewed. I can't seem to find out where that's been shown. Link the researched evidence showing the statistics in any of those studies are flawed.