General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Former law abiding gun owner shoots wife over dinner [View all]AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)that on page 145 of the National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 61, No. 4, May 8, 2013, that there are states with and without background check requirements at gun shows with PRECISELY THE SAME FIREARM INJURY RATE.
So I stand by that statement until you come up with something that SHOWS a correlation between background check requirements and a lower injury rate. You have made a very specific claim with ZERO evidence. I, on the other hand, have pulled up data, not knowing if it would help or hurt my one assertion, and found it certainly didn't hurt it. Your turn.
Your 'common sense'... is.. well, how did Twain put it?
Not common?
You asserted:
"How many of those guns used for suicides were purchased at gun shows where they wouldn't have been purchased otherwise?"
I replied:
"You know full well no such data exists. So we are both speculating."
There is no data on where firearms used in suicides were purchased. Does not exist. You come back at me with this crap:
"When I tell you an utterly common sense reasoning behind it, you claim the data doesn't exist. THEN you ask me to provide you that data you say doesn't exist. Good job, gun nutter. Even Loughner would be proud."
I asked you to provide state by state firearm injury data which does exist, that we may look for a correlation between it and states that prohibit gun show sales without background checks already.
You called me a liar first. You missed the mark. The data I asked for exists. The data we need to answer your earlier question does not. They were different questions.