There is an actual guide for gun control advocates to follow when debating.

[TSA]

Safegards can be enacted to prevent govt abuse of the data. The potential benefits far outweigh the potential abuses IMO.

I, in no way think it would lead to govt confiscation...not without an outright appeal of the second amendment which is obviously not going to happen.

Guess that is where we disagree. I feel it would be abused, regardless of what safeguards were put in place.

[Th'Pusher]

Guess that is where we disagree. I feel it would be abused, regardless of what safeguards were put in place.

THats because you make decisions based on emotion, not logic and reason.

[TSA]

THats because you make decisions based on emotion, not logic and reason.

Logic and reason say the Government will abuse it's power, as it always does.

[boutons_deux]

logic and reason say strict registration of les to guns in a computerized national database does not automatically, or even probably, lead to forced confiscation of guns. That's nothing but gun industry fomented paranoia among the gullible gun fellatin rabble.

[Th'Pusher]

Logic and reason say the Government will abuse it's power, as it always does.

Government always abuses its power? A little hyperbolic there, no? This is the type of emotional response to which I am referring. You just can't help yourself.

You place limits on government. Is there still potential for abuse? Absolutely. That's when you perform a cost benefit analysis and see if the potential benefits outweigh the costs.

The fact that your mind shuts down when you hear the word government is telling.

[Th'Pusher]

logic and reason say strict registration of les to guns in a computerized national database does not automatically, or even probably, lead to forced confiscation of guns. That's nothing but gun industry fomented paranoia among the gullible gun fellatin rabble.

Perfect description of TSA, scroteface, etc

[TSA]

Government always abuses its power? A little hyperbolic there, no? This is the type of emotional response to which I am referring. You just can't help yourself.

You place limits on government. Is there still potential for abuse? Absolutely. That's when you perform a cost benefit analysis and see if the potential benefits outweigh the costs.

The fact that your mind shuts down when you hear the word government is telling.

There is nothing emotional about saying the Government abuses it's power.

[Th'Pusher]

There is nothing emotional about saying the Government abuses it's power.

It's inacurate and shows decision making based on emotion to say the government always abuses its power.

[scroteface]

It's inacurate and shows decision making based on emotion to say the government always abuses its power.

Throughout history all governments have always assumed as much power as the people allowed them to have, it's human nature to give an inch take a mile etc. this is true for every group not just government, it's why we had checks and balances which are unfortunately crumbling away due to corruption.

[TSA]

The Government abuses it's power every single day in some way or another. Always has, always will.

And at you thinking that putting "emotional" in every reply is some sort of insult.

[Th'Pusher]

Throughout history all governments have always assumed as much power as the people allowed them to have, it's human nature to give an inch take a mile etc.

which is why I suggested limits/safeguards. It's all about a laws implementation.

[Th'Pusher]

The Government abuses it's power every single day in some way or another. Always has, always will.

And at you thinking that putting "emotional" in every reply is some sort of insult.

It's not an insult. It's simply how TSA and scroteface have been programmed to think and make decisions. You can work on that and try and be more analytical in your approach, but it doesn't sound as if you're terribly interested in that. Emotion based decision making seems to suit you just fine. To each his own.

[TSA]

which is why I suggested limits/safeguards. It's all about a laws implementation.

If you truly believe the limits and safeguards would be followed, props to you. I wish I had as much faith in the Government as you.

[DMC]

To Boutons You said, "that's all done on paper for a reason you wouldn't get..." What specifically is the reason that boutons would not get since he is only concerned about the freedom to run his mouth? Are you suggesting Boutons is incabable of understanding that a law simply exists?

It seems he's not the only one. You don't even know if you have a dog in the hunt, or the difference between "reason" and "necessary".

Ive seen your schtick. You'll say anything to engage in an Internet debate that amounts to nothing.

It only amounts to nothing with people like you who don't know whether to or go blind.

You'd prefer to dissect my language as opposed to offering your view on the matter.

Your language? My words are right there for you to see and quote. You choose to change the wording then challenge me to explain your version as if I said it. I chose my words more carefully than you. It has nothing to do with your language, more to do with your laziness.

I wouldn't have climbed into that clown-car with those two bags either.

You're still out looking for your dog, last I heard.

[DMC]

It's inacurate and shows decision making based on emotion to say the government always abuses its power.

What fuels the push for more gun control if not emotion over random acts of violence? (I don't expect a sensible answer from you)

[Th'Pusher]

It seems he's not the only one. You don't even know if you have a dog in the hunt, or the difference between "reason" and "necessary".

It only amounts to nothing with people like you who don't know whether to or go blind.

Your language? My words are right there for you to see and quote. You choose to change the wording then challenge me to explain your version as if I said it. I chose my words more carefully than you. It has nothing to do with your language, more to do with your laziness.

You're still out looking for your dog, last I heard.

Answer the question or stfu old man.

[Th'Pusher]

What fuels the push for more gun control if not emotion over random acts of violence? (I don't expect a sensible answer from you)

Emotion, which is why I am not pushing for more gun control, but for unbiased research into the effects of guns and gun violence so that we can make better informed policy decisions.

[boutons_deux]

"What fuels the push for more gun control if not emotion"

100os of kids killed or injured in gun accidents per year

1000s of gun suicides

10,000s of gun murders and injuries

facts, not emotions

[scroteface]

Suicides dude, suicides!! Lol this should be intuitive to anyone.

[scroteface]

Gun murders are a meaningless stat whenever guns also save lives, prevent rapes, and prevent assaults and maintain property rights which are crucial to an economy. You have to look at the net result and not be intellectually dishonest.

[Th'Pusher]

Gun murders are a meaningless stat whenever guns also save lives, prevent rapes, and prevent assaults and maintain property rights which are crucial to an economy. You have to look at the net result and not be intellectually dishonest.

Which is why we need the data, so that we can look at the information from a holistic point of view identifying all of the net benefits and negatives. Unfortunately, our friends in the NRA have actively lobbied to not only prevent research, but to prevent the collection of data.

[boutons_deux]

Gun murders are a meaningless stat whenever guns also save lives, prevent rapes, and prevent assaults and maintain property rights which are crucial to an economy. You have to look at the net result and not be intellectually dishonest.

any evidence? data?

[TSA]

Which is why we need the data, so that we can look at the information from a holistic point of view identifying all of the net benefits and negatives. Unfortunately, our friends in the NRA have actively lobbied to not only prevent research, but to prevent the collection of data.

What data do you think is being hidden by the NRA and how would it affect the results?

Here is the most recent one Obama directed the CDC to report on.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco...18319&page=R10

The data isn't favorable for pro-gun control.

[TSA]

any evidence? data?

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco...18319&page=R10


"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

[scroteface]

there were famous studies back in the 50s and 60s by prominent sociologists last time you guys tried this and the results were so convincing it totally took the issue off the table for 50+ years