"Doug" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:42:41 -0500, "Atila Iskander"
wrote:


"Doug" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:46:47 -0700 (PDT), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Aug 17, 7:54 am, "Doug" wrote:

GIANT SNIP

I don't have to be a lawyer to know that the handling of guns needs to
change.

You are not knowledgeable of current gun laws or gun use / misuse
statistics.

None the less, I await your well thought out suggestions.......

cheers
Bob


Even if I know the law, it doesn't change the facts. Perhaps the laws
are good but not being enforced ???

Poor dougie
Reduced to parrot mode- repeating the same admission of ignorance over and
over again.



Whatever but gun control is needed.

Since gun-control has been demonstrate in 2 separate and independent
studies
by the CDC and NAS, what is the point of having gun-control ?

Basically what you are doing is a variant of:
"This is the conclusion to which I'm trying to find facts"
The trouble is that the facts we already have demonstrate that your
indented
conclusion is WRONG, USELESS, and provides NO RESULTS


I don't want anyone without proper checking, to have a gun.

Why ?
People with "proper" checking have had NO problems getting and
misusing
guns
Are you naïve enough to imagine that more of the same will somehow
magically
become a success ?
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing in the hope that someday
it
will work.

I'm amazed how many think I want no one to have a gun.

Since you have CLEARLY stated that in your very first post and have
re-iterated a variant of that after you were called on it, there is NO
REASON to believe that you really, really didn't mean it.
It's called a Freudian slip.


If you posted on the subject as many times as I did here, you might
make a mistake and that's just what you want to see.

What a TOTAL crock
YOU came here spewed your ignorant cant and was stupid enough to CLEARLY
state you agenda in your very first post
Your subsequent spin and bull**** has done NOTHING to demonstrate that you
CLEARLY are trying to sell a gun-control agenda, while CLEARLY being
ignorant of the subject


Even with my
admitance to poor wording, go by that post and ignor all my other
posts that clearly state my view.... sounds ludicrous.


Your other posts are just thinly veiled of the same
And your last paragraph below confirms it. (once again)


If you don't want to believe me, suit yourself. I know what I mean
whether I say it this way or another way.


The problem is that we don't only look at what you state
We also look at HOW you state it, and how you SPIN when we point out your
mistakes
You keep coming back to the same thing and are UNABLE to knock down our
rebuttals
And then you whine because you are working to the rule
"this is the conclusion for which I cherry-pick my facts"
and we don't let you get away with it.



That's just not the case...
my thoughts of gun control means to not eliminate
ownership but have better quality controls of them.

Been tried elsewhere- didn't work
NEXT !


And then there's probably one or two people
who don't believe me...
well how do you prove your opinion if I'm not
in a position of authority to carry out my thoughts?

That's REAL easy
YOU EDUCATE YOURSELF on PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS
LOOK AT what was done and the results that were gotten
Had you done that in the first place, you wouldn't be here blathering
about
wanting more gun-control

There's a reason why you're getting smacked down
You're NOT the first ignorant idiot to show up with IDENTICAL augments
Most of the regulars have been through this process MULTIPLE times
hearing the same pie-in-the sky-wouldn't- it-be-nice nonsense
Been there, DONE that.


I already gave you 3 web sites for you to read and educate yourself
They will CLEARLY show to you that you're way out in left field
without
a clue, in a field FULL of clues




Ok, I can find just as many sites in favor of gun control as against
citing stats to back up their opinion.


Thanks for demonstrating that you CHOOSE to remain ignorant.
You apparently are stupid enough to confuse quantity with quality
So INSTEAD of looking at the facts of EITHER set of sites, and actually
doing the hard work of THINKING about the discrepancies and fallacies that
come up
YOU are just going with the nonsense of "my 3 cites trump your 3 cites"
That just shows that you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer and a waste
of time for a serious discussion

AS I said, you're not worth the effort of a discussion as long as you remain
ignorant



Now what ???



Go ahead and give us those 3 sites that you claim to have
And well point out their bull****

Either that or **** off