[mav1178]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

Merely addressing the semantics/pedantry of something that is being phrased incorrectly. In no way was that aimed at you, btw, just aimed at the study and those reporting the study in media.

See below on the data, and my response was just to point out how anyone can manipulate data to suit their goals, even posts on a car forum.

Originally Posted by collegekid

I do like Mav1178's tiered leveling program for unlocking weapons as you grow older, but it all falls back into how people will get around it to get what they want anyway.

It's not about stopping people entirely. it's about trying to make sure those that have proven to own these weapons can actually own them.

its like a car, right? or hell, it's like buying a house... you gotta prove you can be a homeowner. same with higher caliber weapons, prove you can own it and not just because the 2nd amendment says you can.

just get the necessary training, a 1 time license fee (like a passport), and you can own WHATEVER YOU WANT.

Originally Posted by BryanSayWhat

mav, looks like you left out the fact that the "CDC" and it's parent agency the "U.S. Public Health Service" was known for having an "anti-gun political bias". It's not even that difficult to look up.

The NRA, Republicans, or pro-gun community couldn't give two shits about actual non-bias scientific firearm research. The problem is making sure there's absolutely no bias either way to being pro, or anti gun.

your response is pretty much why I brought up the funding issue, and how the CDC is becoming a politicized agency instead of something for everyone.

same with the SCOTUS.

so instead of funding the CDC, which unbiased institution should we fund to study gun violence?

I'll wait.