Previous 11 - 20 Next
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list There is better and there is worse. I am not suggesting at all that we will ever get to perfection. I am suggesting that there is better, and we are much, much worse.
http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Can you please just cut and paste the link so I don't have to go to the trouble. I would like to see what you are referring to.
Your comment is completely irrelevant and illogical. No one is trying to confiscate all guns BTW.
That isn't what I asked and you know it. The question is why make any law (because they don't prevent "law breakers" from bad behavior). The answer of course is that the law is written to define how law abiding citizens can control the behavior of the law breaker. I cannot prevent a law breaker from shooting someone but I can make it harder for him to get a gun and I can prosecute him for owning one.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication Note the spike after the 2011 cut off and the decline before it.
How much gun violence is acceptable?
Conservatives are "faith based" about everything (faith meaning that if I want it to be true badly enough how could it not be true?). The fact is only a few heavily biased Conservative pollsters believed Romney would win. Even the most generous of speculation about "voter fraud" would not be enough to overcome Obama's vote. The fact that you "don't know anyone who voted for Obama" is not evidence that the majority didn't. The fact that objective evidence more strongly implicates conservative voter suppression than liberal voter fraud is lost on you. You conservatives have found your hands caught in the cookie jar far too many times to suggest Libs have stolen, or even attempted to steal, anything.
In response to:

A "Threat"? Really?

bd-gslo Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 11:08 AM
We have the email. We have the email response. I don't have to assert anything. I made no distinction between heat and rigorous debate btw. I agree with Liebau's position. Woodward is being overly sensitive at best. I assume you don't believe that she is a partisan hack. The reason why I object to the right wing crazies is they seem to focus on the noise (like this) that are easily debunked at the expense of real issues where vigorous debate might be helpful.
In response to:

A "Threat"? Really?

bd-gslo Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 11:00 AM
I think Woodward's perceptions on this whole thing are clearly skewed (as the disconnect between his email response and his reporting suggests). His email response is evidence of it.
In response to:

A "Threat"? Really?

bd-gslo Wrote: Feb 28, 2013 10:51 AM
There is no problem with "heat". As the emails suggest two people vigorously (even passionately) differing on a point of view was not the problem. The issue that Sperling was referring to was not a matter of opinion (in the same way the email can hardly be considered a threat). The fact that you all are changing the "threat" to a warning is yet another example of how you all must twist facts, or even disregard them, to fit your narrative. That is what Woodward has been doing.
Previous 11 - 20 Next