... w/o violating the constitution, under any standard of scrutiny. Handguns are used to commit about 50% of all murders, more than 70% of all firearm related murders, and more than 56% of all murders in mass shootings -- and yet still cannot be constitutionally banned. Given that, what argument is there that the constitution will allow a ban on 'assault weapons'?
There are numerous arguments to be found, all of them nonsense and irrelevant. The proper question is what is the logical argument for such a course of action?
"Logical" arguments are, by necessity, reasoned and rational - logically valid, supported, and free from fallacy I do believe this excludes all of the arguments I have heard to date. But, I thought I'd ask - contrary to popular myth, I don't know everything.
The importance of handguns to personal security cannot be understated, concealed and at the ready for those instances when a sudden surprise attack by a strong younger assailant occurs, often when a preferred rifle, shotgun or carbine is out of reach, locked in a rifle rack or safe.
It can be certainly overstated. Please present an empirical source in support of your position. Give the full reference if you'd be so kind.
what exactly is your point? I used a Smith and Wesson model 469 (second generation 9mm DA) to stop a mugging upon my person in 1985. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have used handguns to stop; criminal attacks every year. are you upset that people in this country can own and (in most states) legally carry handguns?
so what. are you denying that thousands of people use handguns in the USA each year to prevent crimes?
If you want to make claims on how handguns are used then please give it. It shouldn't be a difficult task, should it?
I've been long enough on here to know you folk can't reference. But I'm happy to be proved wrong. Refer to an evidence source that supports your position. Go ahead!
The 2017 thread, there is one for 2016 if you look. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/2017-what-armed-self-defense-looks-like.490357/ Here’s 542 pages of successful defensive gun uses. Each one with a link to the original local news story. https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/
Don't hide. Provide one empirical source that supports the position of the other fellow. Its a very straightforward request
one of the usual tactics of anti gun posters is to demand proof of facts that have been provided time and time again here are some sources: I expect you to honestly tell me exactly what your point is: my experience is that anti gun advocates have a hard time honestly stating their motivations https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth-3-25-million-defensive-gun-uses-each-year-cant-be-accurate http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ms-at-least-760000-defensive-gun-uses-a-year/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082
I'm not anti or pro gun. I am pro-evidence. Provide reference to an empirical study. I'm not interested in tosspotted secondary sources of no value at all
I have yet to see you demand any evidence from anti gun posters. Did you even bother to read what Kleck wrote? and I call bs on your claim that you aren't anti gun. its obvious you are
duty is on you to rebut what has been provided. your posting is essentially a form of trolling. you demand evidence and more evidence but never provide any of your own. its dishonest
He made the claim. He can support it. I appreciate you can't the claim (as illustrated by the woeful effort to source biased secondary source), so perhaps you should be quiet and wait for his effort?
Asking for someone to support their claims with evidence is 'playing games'? You're clearly spamming. That's a shame
Please don't lie. It isn't a good thing to do. You referred to secondary sources of no value. I've asked for primary evidence. When someone makes a claim, they should be able to support it with empirical analysis. Your spamming isn't interesting.
the secondary sources reference the proof. this is not a dissertation. come up with something to counter it. you can find the references in the articles. this sort of OCD is pretty obvious
