(09-02-2019 04:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Simple question: Can you name a place where background checks significantly reduced the occurrence of gun violence?

Chicago? Los Angeles?

Umm, not exactly.

Well, I am pretty sure the only reason anybody is alive in Chicago is the lives saved by background checks.

Nobody wants to opine on why the murder rate is so low in my gun-infested county? Lad? FBO? Bueller?

(09-02-2019 08:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 04:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Simple question: Can you name a place where background checks significantly reduced the occurrence of gun violence?

Chicago? Los Angeles?

Umm, not exactly.

Well, I am pretty sure the only reason anybody is alive in Chicago is the lives saved by background checks.

Nobody wants to opine on why the murder rate is so low in my gun-infested county? Lad? FBO? Bueller?

Hard to comment on your county without knowing the specifics I guess.

(09-03-2019 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 08:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 04:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Chicago? Los Angeles?

Umm, not exactly.

Well, I am pretty sure the only reason anybody is alive in Chicago is the lives saved by background checks.

Nobody wants to opine on why the murder rate is so low in my gun-infested county? Lad? FBO? Bueller?

Hard to comment on your county without knowing the specifics I guess.

I don't give specifics to liberals, after a bad experience. Suffice it to say, it is a rural county. Biggest town in the county is 30K +/-, within a one hour drive of a major city.

It was much smaller when I went to HS here. Either way, lots of guns, not many shootings. That's my point - it isn't the guns that cause the shootings.

The only place I have ever been shot at is Harris County.

As many or more people shot in Chicago this weekend, but no mention of that on the cable news. If the gun laws made you safer, wouldn't you be safest in the place with the strictest gun laws?

https://wgntv.com/2019/09/02/34-shot-8-killed-in-labor-day-weekend-gun-violence/

(09-03-2019 08:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 08:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 04:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 11:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Umm, not exactly.

Well, I am pretty sure the only reason anybody is alive in Chicago is the lives saved by background checks.

Nobody wants to opine on why the murder rate is so low in my gun-infested county? Lad? FBO? Bueller?

Hard to comment on your county without knowing the specifics I guess.

I don't give specifics to liberals, after a bad experience. Suffice it to say, it is a rural county. Biggest town in the county is 30K +/-, within a one hour drive of a major city.

It was much smaller when I went to HS here. Either way, lots of guns, not many shootings. That's my point - it isn't the guns that cause the shootings.

The only place I have ever been shot at is Harris County.

As many or more people shot in Chicago this weekend, but no mention of that on the cable news. If the gun laws made you safer, wouldn't you be safest in the place with the strictest gun laws?

https://wgntv.com/2019/09/02/34-shot-8-killed-in-labor-day-weekend-gun-violence/

Well... how would one figure that out? Perhaps study the issue? Apply scientific methods?

The CDC could certainly shed some light on this and other issues when it comes to gun violence.

It is completely baffling that we've let the NRA shut down funding for the study of this issue.

(09-03-2019 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 08:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 08:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 04:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, I am pretty sure the only reason anybody is alive in Chicago is the lives saved by background checks.

Nobody wants to opine on why the murder rate is so low in my gun-infested county? Lad? FBO? Bueller?

Hard to comment on your county without knowing the specifics I guess.

I don't give specifics to liberals, after a bad experience. Suffice it to say, it is a rural county. Biggest town in the county is 30K +/-, within a one hour drive of a major city.

It was much smaller when I went to HS here. Either way, lots of guns, not many shootings. That's my point - it isn't the guns that cause the shootings.

The only place I have ever been shot at is Harris County.

As many or more people shot in Chicago this weekend, but no mention of that on the cable news. If the gun laws made you safer, wouldn't you be safest in the place with the strictest gun laws?

https://wgntv.com/2019/09/02/34-shot-8-killed-in-labor-day-weekend-gun-violence/

Well... how would one figure that out? Perhaps study the issue? Apply scientific methods?

The CDC could certainly shed some light on this and other issues when it comes to gun violence.

It is completely baffling that we've let the NRA shut down funding for the study of this issue.

How could one figure that out? By using common sense?

Quote:So, you tell me where the gun laws have worked. Hint: It ain't places with lots of gangs.

But it still remains, places with the most guns are the places with the most gun violence.

Quote:The device does not cause the action. Pressure cookers do not make people build bombs.

(09-03-2019 08:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  It is completely baffling that we've let the NRA shut down funding for the study of this issue.

(09-03-2019 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 08:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  It is completely baffling that we've let the NRA shut down funding for the study of this issue.

A) Not baffling at all. Democrats have controlled the purse strings for plenty of time to do this if they wanted.

They don't want.

There is far more money (and votes) to be had in arguing about the problem than in addressing the issue.... assuming of course that there IS a solution. It demonstrably isn't more stringent background checks or tighter scrutiny of gun shows.

Why do you blame an organization whose sole purpose is to protect gun rights of citizens for doing precisely that, and not blame the people whose sole purpose it is to protect citizens from routinely and repeatedly failing to do that? You're implying that the NRA doesn't want to stop mass murders, which is ludicrous.

Quote: They are not a mass murder support group. They are a gun rights advocacy group... protecting something like 100mm people who own something like 300mm guns who have never ever once remotely committed a crime with them. If they had a bunch of criminals making donations to them, we'd all know about it.

B) How much would such a study cost? WHy must such a study demand Federal funds? Universities and numerous wealthy individuals, advocacy groups and think tanks could easily fund such a study 100,000 times over.

(09-03-2019 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 08:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  It is completely baffling that we've let the NRA shut down funding for the study of this issue.

A) Not baffling at all. Democrats have controlled the purse strings for plenty of time to do this if they wanted.

They don't want.

There is far more money (and votes) to be had in arguing about the problem than in addressing the issue.... assuming of course that there IS a solution. It demonstrably isn't more stringent background checks or tighter scrutiny of gun shows.

(09-03-2019 09:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 08:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2019 08:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Hard to comment on your county without knowing the specifics I guess.

I don't give specifics to liberals, after a bad experience. Suffice it to say, it is a rural county. Biggest town in the county is 30K +/-, within a one hour drive of a major city.

It was much smaller when I went to HS here. Either way, lots of guns, not many shootings. That's my point - it isn't the guns that cause the shootings.

The only place I have ever been shot at is Harris County.

As many or more people shot in Chicago this weekend, but no mention of that on the cable news. If the gun laws made you safer, wouldn't you be safest in the place with the strictest gun laws?

https://wgntv.com/2019/09/02/34-shot-8-killed-in-labor-day-weekend-gun-violence/

Well... how would one figure that out? Perhaps study the issue? Apply scientific methods?

The CDC could certainly shed some light on this and other issues when it comes to gun violence.

It is completely baffling that we've let the NRA shut down funding for the study of this issue.

How could one figure that out? By using common sense?

Common sense from whom? Trump? Beto? Wayne Lapierre? No thanks... give me scientific methodology.

Yours. Mine. That's why it is called common

Quote:So, you tell me where the gun laws have worked. Hint: It ain't places with lots of gangs.

But it still remains, places with the most guns are the places with the most gun violence.

You said your rural county has "the most guns" but zero gun violence. Not sure I'm following you here.

Left out a "not".

Quote:The device does not cause the action. Pressure cookers do not make people build bombs.

Reminds me of a tweet I read this weekend: "Anthrax is neither good nor bad. There is no need to impute character to it. The character belongs to the one who mails it. Make anthrax available at Walmart!"

(09-03-2019 09:44 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:37 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 08:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  It is completely baffling that we've let the NRA shut down funding for the study of this issue.

A) Not baffling at all. Democrats have controlled the purse strings for plenty of time to do this if they wanted.

They don't want.

There is far more money (and votes) to be had in arguing about the problem than in addressing the issue.... assuming of course that there IS a solution. It demonstrably isn't more stringent background checks or tighter scrutiny of gun shows.

https://www.wired.com/story/cdc-gun-violence-research-money/

Some exerpts:

"For all the obsession that Americans have with guns, the country has awful little scientific data to show for it. In 1996, Congress passed a law with a provision known as the Dickey Amendment that effectively prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using its life-saving budget to study gun violence. As a result, for decades the US has not thrown its full resources at the problem the way it has with, say, tobacco or car crashes.

After the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, last year, and the wave of activism that followed, Congress clarified that the CDC could, in fact, use funds to study gun violence. It just didn’t earmark any additional money for that purpose. Months later, Democrats regained the majority in the House. They’ve been using that status to fight to get $50 million explicitly earmarked for studying the underpinnings of America’s gun violence problem.

“Gun violence prevention research is critical to dealing with the public health emergency we are facing,” representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) said in a statement to WIRED this week.

As chair of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, DeLauro helped usher through $25 million each for the CDC and the National Institutes of Health earlier this year."

"The $50 million earmarked by the House still needs to be approved in the Senate—and that’s a big obstacle. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has tried as hard as he can to prevent bills that even mention firearms from seeing the light of day on the Senate floor he so mightily controls."

(09-03-2019 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 08:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't give specifics to liberals, after a bad experience. Suffice it to say, it is a rural county. Biggest town in the county is 30K +/-, within a one hour drive of a major city.

It was much smaller when I went to HS here. Either way, lots of guns, not many shootings. That's my point - it isn't the guns that cause the shootings.

The only place I have ever been shot at is Harris County.

As many or more people shot in Chicago this weekend, but no mention of that on the cable news. If the gun laws made you safer, wouldn't you be safest in the place with the strictest gun laws?

https://wgntv.com/2019/09/02/34-shot-8-killed-in-labor-day-weekend-gun-violence/

Well... how would one figure that out? Perhaps study the issue? Apply scientific methods?

The CDC could certainly shed some light on this and other issues when it comes to gun violence.

It is completely baffling that we've let the NRA shut down funding for the study of this issue.

How could one figure that out? By using common sense?

Common sense from whom? Trump? Beto? Wayne Lapierre? No thanks... give me scientific methodology.

Yours. Mine. That's why it is called common

Quote:So, you tell me where the gun laws have worked. Hint: It ain't places with lots of gangs.

But it still remains, places with the most guns are the places with the most gun violence.

You said your rural county has "the most guns" but zero gun violence. Not sure I'm following you here.

Left out a "not".

Quote:The device does not cause the action. Pressure cookers do not make people build bombs.

Reminds me of a tweet I read this weekend: "Anthrax is neither good nor bad. There is no need to impute character to it. The character belongs to the one who mails it. Make anthrax available at Walmart!"

So let's restrict it to research PH.Ds who have never been arrested, and that will eliminate the mailing of it. Good thing the right to keep and bear anthrax is not in the Constitution.

The saying is true. We need to restrict everything. Nobody can have anything that could be misused without permission from Big Brother.

Read this and tell me what is wrong with it.

Blank county has more guns per capita than Other County. Other County has more shootings, more deaths, more woundings per capita. This means:

Choices:
A. we need a study. I cannot make heads or tails of this without some other dude telling me what to think.
B. People in in Blank county are not as violent as people in Other County. We need to outlaw guns in Other County, like they do in Chicago.

(09-03-2019 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 09:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 08:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 12:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't give specifics to liberals, after a bad experience. Suffice it to say, it is a rural county. Biggest town in the county is 30K +/-, within a one hour drive of a major city.

It was much smaller when I went to HS here. Either way, lots of guns, not many shootings. That's my point - it isn't the guns that cause the shootings.

The only place I have ever been shot at is Harris County.

As many or more people shot in Chicago this weekend, but no mention of that on the cable news. If the gun laws made you safer, wouldn't you be safest in the place with the strictest gun laws?

https://wgntv.com/2019/09/02/34-shot-8-killed-in-labor-day-weekend-gun-violence/

Well... how would one figure that out? Perhaps study the issue? Apply scientific methods?

The CDC could certainly shed some light on this and other issues when it comes to gun violence.

It is completely baffling that we've let the NRA shut down funding for the study of this issue.

How could one figure that out? By using common sense?

Common sense from whom? Trump? Beto? Wayne Lapierre? No thanks... give me scientific methodology.

Yours. Mine. That's why it is called common

Quote:So, you tell me where the gun laws have worked. Hint: It ain't places with lots of gangs.

But it still remains, places with the most guns are the places with the most gun violence.

You said your rural county has "the most guns" but zero gun violence. Not sure I'm following you here.

Left out a "not".

Quote:The device does not cause the action. Pressure cookers do not make people build bombs.

Reminds me of a tweet I read this weekend: "Anthrax is neither good nor bad. There is no need to impute character to it. The character belongs to the one who mails it. Make anthrax available at Walmart!"

So let's restrict it to research PH.Ds who have never been arrested, and that will eliminate the mailing of it. Good thing the right to keep and bear anthrax is not in the Constitution.

The saying is true. We need to restrict everything. Nobody can have anything that could be misused without permission from Big Brother.

Read this and tell me what is wrong with it.

Blank county has more guns per capita than Other County. Other County has more shootings, more deaths, more woundings per capita. This means:

Choices:
A. we need a study. I cannot make heads or tails of this without some other dude telling me what to think.
B. People in in Blank county are not as violent as people in Other County. We need to outlaw guns in Other County, like they do in Chicago.

(09-03-2019 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [

If the "study" says 75 people used guns to kill 200 people, and if they had no guns they would have killed many less, how is that not steering me toward abolition of guns?

I think the problem is in identifying the 75 people before they pull a trigger. background checks do little or nothing to do that. Stricter background checks will do little more. I am in favor of red flag laws and procedures. I don't need a study to tell me whether the problem is in the trigger or the finger.

I think a good place for the studies to start would be in identifying why this problem has escalated in the last 25 years, even as the background checks and waiting periods have escalated. Why were there so few attacks in the history of our country from 1776 to 1963 or 1998, when guns were freely available without background checks and other so so-called safeguards.

I think the people clamoring for more of the same (i.e., liberals like you guys) are barking up the wrong tree.

So I would support real studies in the causes of the current problem. Why are people doing this now when they did not before? It is not, IMO, just because they have a gun. People have always had guns. I would not support studies whose purpose is to just show guns as the cause. I would not support studies whose sole purpose is to create propaganda for the the ban the guns crowd.

(09-03-2019 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [

If the "study" says 75 people used guns to kill 200 people, and if they had no guns they would have killed many less, how is that not steering me toward abolition of guns?

I think the problem is in identifying the 75 people before they pull a trigger. background checks do little or nothing to do that. Stricter background checks will do little more. I am in favor of red flag laws and procedures. I don't need a study to tell me whether the problem is in the trigger or the finger.

I think a good place for the studies to start would be in identifying why this problem has escalated in the last 25 years, even as the background checks and waiting periods have escalated. Why were there so few attacks in the history of our country from 1776 to 1963 or 1998, when guns were freely available without background checks and other so so-called safeguards.

I think the people clamoring for more of the same (i.e., liberals like you guys) are barking up the wrong tree.

So I would support real studies in the causes of the current problem. Why are people doing this now when they did not before? It is not, IMO, just because they have a gun. People have always had guns. I would not support studies whose purpose is to just show guns as the cause. I would not support studies whose sole purpose is to create propaganda for the the ban the guns crowd.

LOL... you would only support studies that would not possibly go against your beliefs???

You should TOTALLY support studies whose purpose is to show guns as the cause. Your side is very confident that guns are NOT the cause and therefore the science should support you.

(09-03-2019 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [

If the "study" says 75 people used guns to kill 200 people, and if they had no guns they would have killed many less, how is that not steering me toward abolition of guns?

I think the problem is in identifying the 75 people before they pull a trigger. background checks do little or nothing to do that. Stricter background checks will do little more. I am in favor of red flag laws and procedures. I don't need a study to tell me whether the problem is in the trigger or the finger.

I think a good place for the studies to start would be in identifying why this problem has escalated in the last 25 years, even as the background checks and waiting periods have escalated. Why were there so few attacks in the history of our country from 1776 to 1963 or 1998, when guns were freely available without background checks and other so so-called safeguards.

I think the people clamoring for more of the same (i.e., liberals like you guys) are barking up the wrong tree.

So I would support real studies in the causes of the current problem. Why are people doing this now when they did not before? It is not, IMO, just because they have a gun. People have always had guns. I would not support studies whose purpose is to just show guns as the cause. I would not support studies whose sole purpose is to create propaganda for the the ban the guns crowd.

(09-03-2019 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [

If the "study" says 75 people used guns to kill 200 people, and if they had no guns they would have killed many less, how is that not steering me toward abolition of guns?

I think the problem is in identifying the 75 people before they pull a trigger. background checks do little or nothing to do that. Stricter background checks will do little more. I am in favor of red flag laws and procedures. I don't need a study to tell me whether the problem is in the trigger or the finger.

I think a good place for the studies to start would be in identifying why this problem has escalated in the last 25 years, even as the background checks and waiting periods have escalated. Why were there so few attacks in the history of our country from 1776 to 1963 or 1998, when guns were freely available without background checks and other so so-called safeguards.

I think the people clamoring for more of the same (i.e., liberals like you guys) are barking up the wrong tree.

So I would support real studies in the causes of the current problem. Why are people doing this now when they did not before? It is not, IMO, just because they have a gun. People have always had guns. I would not support studies whose purpose is to just show guns as the cause. I would not support studies whose sole purpose is to create propaganda for the the ban the guns crowd.

LOL... you would only support studies that would not possibly go against your beliefs???

You should TOTALLY support studies whose purpose is to show guns as the cause. Your side is very confident that guns are NOT the cause and therefore the science should support you.

No. I would only support studies that do not have a predetermined outcome or a goal to find a certain outcome. I take you support studies with a predetermined outcome?

LOL

(09-03-2019 10:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [

If the "study" says 75 people used guns to kill 200 people, and if they had no guns they would have killed many less, how is that not steering me toward abolition of guns?

I think the problem is in identifying the 75 people before they pull a trigger. background checks do little or nothing to do that. Stricter background checks will do little more. I am in favor of red flag laws and procedures. I don't need a study to tell me whether the problem is in the trigger or the finger.

I think a good place for the studies to start would be in identifying why this problem has escalated in the last 25 years, even as the background checks and waiting periods have escalated. Why were there so few attacks in the history of our country from 1776 to 1963 or 1998, when guns were freely available without background checks and other so so-called safeguards.

I think the people clamoring for more of the same (i.e., liberals like you guys) are barking up the wrong tree.

So I would support real studies in the causes of the current problem. Why are people doing this now when they did not before? It is not, IMO, just because they have a gun. People have always had guns. I would not support studies whose purpose is to just show guns as the cause. I would not support studies whose sole purpose is to create propaganda for the the ban the guns crowd.

LOL... you would only support studies that would not possibly go against your beliefs???

You should TOTALLY support studies whose purpose is to show guns as the cause. Your side is very confident that guns are NOT the cause and therefore the science should support you.

No. I would only support studies that do not have a predetermined outcome or a goal to find a certain outcome. I take you support studies with a predetermined outcome?

LOL

Do you know how the research process works?

(09-03-2019 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [

If the "study" says 75 people used guns to kill 200 people, and if they had no guns they would have killed many less, how is that not steering me toward abolition of guns?

I think the problem is in identifying the 75 people before they pull a trigger. background checks do little or nothing to do that. Stricter background checks will do little more. I am in favor of red flag laws and procedures. I don't need a study to tell me whether the problem is in the trigger or the finger.

I think a good place for the studies to start would be in identifying why this problem has escalated in the last 25 years, even as the background checks and waiting periods have escalated. Why were there so few attacks in the history of our country from 1776 to 1963 or 1998, when guns were freely available without background checks and other so so-called safeguards.

I think the people clamoring for more of the same (i.e., liberals like you guys) are barking up the wrong tree.

So I would support real studies in the causes of the current problem. Why are people doing this now when they did not before? It is not, IMO, just because they have a gun. People have always had guns. I would not support studies whose purpose is to just show guns as the cause. I would not support studies whose sole purpose is to create propaganda for the the ban the guns crowd.

LOL... you would only support studies that would not possibly go against your beliefs???

You should TOTALLY support studies whose purpose is to show guns as the cause. Your side is very confident that guns are NOT the cause and therefore the science should support you.

No. I would only support studies that do not have a predetermined outcome or a goal to find a certain outcome. I take you support studies with a predetermined outcome?

LOL

Why do you guys insist the gun is the problem, not the shooter?

(09-03-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(09-03-2019 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [

If the "study" says 75 people used guns to kill 200 people, and if they had no guns they would have killed many less, how is that not steering me toward abolition of guns?

I think the problem is in identifying the 75 people before they pull a trigger. background checks do little or nothing to do that. Stricter background checks will do little more. I am in favor of red flag laws and procedures. I don't need a study to tell me whether the problem is in the trigger or the finger.

I think a good place for the studies to start would be in identifying why this problem has escalated in the last 25 years, even as the background checks and waiting periods have escalated. Why were there so few attacks in the history of our country from 1776 to 1963 or 1998, when guns were freely available without background checks and other so so-called safeguards.

I think the people clamoring for more of the same (i.e., liberals like you guys) are barking up the wrong tree.

So I would support real studies in the causes of the current problem. Why are people doing this now when they did not before? It is not, IMO, just because they have a gun. People have always had guns. I would not support studies whose purpose is to just show guns as the cause. I would not support studies whose sole purpose is to create propaganda for the the ban the guns crowd.

LOL... you would only support studies that would not possibly go against your beliefs???

You should TOTALLY support studies whose purpose is to show guns as the cause. Your side is very confident that guns are NOT the cause and therefore the science should support you.

No. I would only support studies that do not have a predetermined outcome or a goal to find a certain outcome. I take you support studies with a predetermined outcome?

LOL

Do you know how the research process works?

Yes. Do you?