Re: Bank hold up

There was no referendum on the new gun laws.

There you go again One Nation doesn't.

Steve were you ever involved in law enforcement, military security services etc.? Just wondering.

You got that right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a gang war going on in Victoria (australia) Many people are getting killed and to the best of my knowledge not one of the murders involve a licensed or legal gun. And I have heard from some friends that live in London that they are plagued with the same problem.

The smoke blowing is best left to the gun control advocate side of the entire debate since it's all they have. Lott does a far better job of discrediting Ayers & Donohue's work than I could with 50 readings of it. See the link posted earlier in this thread.

The initial premise of this thread that the gun owner i.e. the crime VICTIM is somehow responsible for the crime and its potential consequences with hardly a mention of the real culprits i.e. the burglars who go about breaking into peoples homes is also an excellent example of half ass backwards thinking. Sorry Steve you sound like a good guy all around but in this case you have it all wrong. Lock up the crooks and solve the problem. Dont blame the victims.

Oh yeah thats what I'm going to do for this guy. LOL. An in depth rehash into yet another biased BS antigun study which Lott has already picked apart.

PS If the liberals (read socialists) had there way there would be no failing grade. So what if little suzie can't read? It's her self esteem that's important.

OK. You have trouble comprehending what you have read and a tendencey to babble.

LOL

Translation: I disagree and have no logical reason why so I will use the word dishonest to discredit and hope it works.

Typical of the entire gun control movement.

Simply referring to something as fraud or dis-honesty doesn't make it so.

A. Your problem is simply with Lott and you are anti-gun control or strictly neutral on the issue.

B. You are pro Gun control and somehow fail to see that by admitting the credibility of Klecks studies in an attempt to undermine Lott you can only manage to win the battle at the cost of losing the war.

So, which is it? I'm genuinely curious.

That's likely the root of your difficulty: That you take peoples opinions at all instead of using logic and reasoning..........enough said here I know I am wasting my time talking to you about logic.

So far you have not produced anything at all. When you post a link it has to actually link to something of substance to have any value.

Here, you will like this one. It is more credible than anything you have posted thus far:

It's fortunate you don't gamble for a living. Besides if you really thought that you would simply have thrown the methodology in question back in my face along with your assertions. What you really mean is that you HOPE that I didn't look into anything you posted since it is without substance, or even much illusion of it.

The fact that you fail to comprehend, which is not especially surprising, is not evidence of a deficiency of that which you fail to understand.