No One Was Ever Killed By A Gun

[sweetwater5s9]

Full Study available at the National Academy of Sciences

You lose again, hooty.

[scott_free]

You are a lying bitch, boy.  why do you think this entity has anything to do with the CDC report which only said there was a lot of conflicting reports and more research was NEEDED TO EVEN HAVE A REASONABLE CONCLUSION, THAT THE NRA HAS TOLD THEIR GOP STOOGES TO NOT FUND, STUPID ASS.  What slow witted fools like you have so much trouble with, along with remembering how to tie your shoes, is that it is freaking hard to come up with a pure study on the effect of gun laws if you only look at gun laws in this country and the results in this country.  Every city has slightly different laws, every state does, and most people have easy access to other cities and other states.  The best way to compare gun laws is by country, by similar countries, because then the gun laws are more consistent on a nationwide level and make the comparisons more accurate.  Duh.  And using this only reliable way of comparing gun laws, THIS COUNTRY, WITH THE HIGHEST RATE OF GUN OWNERSHIP, WITH THE MOST DUMBASS, LENIENT GUN LAWS, HAVE TO FACE THIS FACT- PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY ARE 20 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE OF GUN VIOLENCE THAN THOSE OF OTHER MODERN COUNTRIES.  WE HAVE 20 MINORS A DAY, EVERY DAY, TREATED FOR GUNSHOT WOUNDS, AND WE HAVE MORE POLICE SHOT EACH YEAR AND THE POLICE SHOOT WAY MORE EACH YEAR IN THIS GUN SATURATED COUNTRY.  PERIOD.  DUMBASS. 

[WWV10MHZ]

Taking guns away from Negroes would remove 90 percent of gun violence.

[scott_free]

then start taking them away, bitch.  you got the talking part over with. 

[D2D]

Democrats did that in the old racist South!

[1965hawks]

wmdn_bs: According to the article we should ban hammers, because they are the proximate causation of deaths by hammer blows, and cars because they are the proximate causation of deaths caused by vehicles colliding with other vehicles or pedestrians. That argument can be used for nay mode of deaths other than by natural causes.

wmdn_bs,

Before I point out the defect in your fallacious argument I ask that you to clarify the following nonsensical sentence:

"That argument can be used for nay[?]mode of deaths other than by natural causes."

What do you mean by a "nay" mode of death? More to the point, why did you use "mode" in the first place?

You wrote," The argument can be used for nay[sic] mode of deaths other than by natural causes." Your sentence should've been written as follows and it would had made more sense:

"That argument can be used for nay[sic] cause of death other than by natural cause of death."

And now, wmdn_bs, all that's needed is for you to define a "nay" and then I'll present my rebuttal--along with my refutation, of course.



 

[D2D]

1965hawks is making less sense than usual!

[wmdn_bs]

Hawks, if all you have is word parsing and typo criticism, you've already conceded.

[1965hawks]

1965hawks is making less sense than usual[.]


D2D, don't try to blame me for your stupidity and ignorance. Apparently, rational thought has always been incomprehensible to your dumb ass.

[D2D]

1965hawks does fancy himself the board's official spelling policeman!

He bought his own plastic whistle, badge, red pen and dictionary!

He feels he is the supreme apparatchik!

[D2D]

 

1965hawks is making less sense than usual[.]


D2D, don't try to blame me for your stupidity and ignorance. Apparently, rational thought has always been incomprehensible to your dumb ass.

Childish name calling is all you have, 1965hawks!

[1965hawks]

wmdn_bs: Hawks, if all you have is word parsing and typo criticism,....


wmdn_bs,
So are you saying now that nay was a typographical error? OK. So what word did you intend to type?