As I've said literally every time I said it, and I never called it evidence.
Cal it justification if you want to.
You made the first claim on this topic
I don't think I made a claim but rather than an assumption that most police officers would support gun control but that doesn't seem to be the case. Presumably because they're gun owners too.
Arkansas authorities: Slain cop shot 10 times in head | Daily Mail Online
I bet the family of this cop, randomly killed are in favor of gun control
It's a shame it's taken you seventeen pages of posts to admit this. Progress is progress, I guess, however glacial its pace.
Admit what ?
Murder is not "the nature of guns." Hundreds of millions of guns firing billions of rounds in the US every year without causing unlawful death or injury to anyone is proof enough of that....
No it's not
10,000 homicides and 70,000+ injuries + 20,000 suicides are "proof" that guns are a danger to society.
If Charles Manson spent the greater part of his life doing good deeds for old ladies, would that make him less of a monster
Why is it important how many guns are not used to kill ?
Except you seem to be still trying to argue a portion of that point...
What point ?
...remember, this was still when you were trying to argue that owning a gun was the same thing as shooting someone....
No, I didn't argue that at all
Post# ?
So why you're still pushing this nonsense...
Because banning guns would save life and maiming
This is the only thing you've learned from that scheme of prohibition?
Not to ban alcohol? Yes
You haven't thought about how that lesson might be used to gauge the efficacy and downstream effects of other attempts to prohibit easily-made and widely-held products?
Moonshine and bootleg beer is easily made. Guns are not.
By that arguing, we should legalize cocaine and heroin.
You've only addressed alcohol prohibition, not tobacco, which kills an order of magnitude more people than guns. Where are your posts demanding tobacco be banned?
It should be but it won't.
Though vaping might be and some states like California severely restrict where you can smoke
Are you seriously asking how the family of a person killed by a drunk driver might take issue with your assertion that the detrimental effects of alcohol consumption only affect the person doing the drinking?
And so can marijuana - which the MLB recently said they will no longer test for
Why have driver hours been controlled - didn't that mean that truck drivers who never killed anyone had their hours restricted ?
But this massacre has to stop, doesn't it? Ban it!
I think your post is disingenuous but OK, sure. Certainly from public places and increase taxes on tobacco to cover the inevitable medical costs to the non-smoking tax payer
Sadly the banning of guns from public places doesn't seem to work
I figured I'd come back with something just as relevant and responsive as your idiotic numbered "excuses."
You didn't - just pulling numbers out of thin air. A common gun owning tactic
The little details like what counts as a transfer of ownership. Even you had to go back and change what you wanted to count as a transfer, and you only wrote one sentence.
How many sentences and on what little details do you need ?
You mean it goes against freedoms you like. You're all about curbing freedoms you don't like.
Yes, though I suspect the freedoms curtailed by the "Patriot Act" are liked by most if not all people in the USA.
I did, and it isn't. However, the existence of even a single data point that contradicts a hypothesis can be enough to discredit that hypothesis....
No it's not
The plural of anecdote is not data.
If one person used a gun to save their life, it doesn't outweigh the hundreds of thousands who are victims
You say your guns have never hurt anyone and never will and it's unfair to confiscate them
The answer is OK and yes it is...followed by a big SO WHAT ?
That depends on who has the gun.
Someone in the house - typically a child.