In comments to my post about the 20 questions, JadeGold decides to weigh in. Goodness.
To begin with, I'd like to thank JadeGold for making my point concerning question number eight, in which Janet Peterson of the Brady Group asks:
"Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?"
Notice, do, that JadeGold -- who apparently vehemently disagrees with me -- asserts that I "want criminals and other violent types to have access to firearms". I am also "profoundly ignorant" and obviously have "the need to fondle a firearm daily".
There you go, Ms. Peterson, the answer to your question # 8.
So, without further ado, let us take a whack at this one.
Jeebus. There are so many contradictions, misrepresentations and lies in your responses that it's hard to list 'em all.
First, you can't even answer the first question. Why is that? I think it's because you want criminals and other violent types to have access to firearms.
I did answer the question. Just because you lack the critical thinking skills to process my answer -- or, as is more likely, you lack the desire to process my answer -- doesn't negate the fact that it was answered.
As for the rest of your statement: of course I, as a seventeen-year law enforcement type, profoundly wish to make my job harder than it already is.
And since it is I -- not you -- who has made it my life's purpose to deal with criminals and other violent types every time I sign in on shift, I can see why you would think I would wish to endanger my life that much more.
The above was sarcasm, by-the-by. Just in case you do lack the ability to think critically, I thought I should make that point clear.
Second, your comment about statistics is profoundly ignorant. Whenever you see a doctor, ride on an airliner, etc.--your very life depends on those statistics you claim are all hogwash.
Nope. When I ride in an aeroliner, my life depends upon the ability of the wings to provide lift, and the ability of the pilot to keep the number of landings equal to the number of take-offs. Neither the presence, nor lack of, statistics has the slightest effect upon the physics of flight.
Trust me when I say that we could take every statistic concerning flight in the world, burn them, and aeroplanes will not fall out of the sky.
May I take this moment to say that your touching faith in statistics as a means of flight ... concerns me?
Third, gun deaths are not "miniscule" when compared to traffic fatalities. Unless you seriously believe 30,000 gun deaths is miniscule compared to 34,000 traffic deaths. And when one considers the fact that almost all of us ride in a car almost every day as compared to the small number of folks who feel the need to fondle a firearm daily--your 'miniscule' claim kind of implodes.
Actually, you have a point. As I was typing that part of my answer, I was looking at accidental traffic fatalities (~46,000) compared to accidental gun fatalities (~600)-- CDC data from 2007 -- which is miniscule. However, I understand that the comparison is supposed to be motor vehicle accidents versus all firearms deaths (accidental, justified -- law enforcement, justified -- citizen, suicides and homicides).
In which case, all gun deaths still rank below 1)traffic accidents, 2)poisonings, 3)falls, 4)drownings, 5)fires/burns/smoke, 6)medical/surgical complications and 7)forces of nature.
The number of gun deaths are bad, but there's about 7 other things which kill more people than guns every year. If you're basing your "guns are BAD!" argument on body-count -- and you are -- you've got about seven other things far worse than guns out there.
Fourth, guns were never banned in Chicago, DC or NYC. The gun laws may not have been to your liking but guns were never banned.
Snerk. That's cute.
However, the United States Supreme Court disagreed with you in District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago, striking down the handgun bans in both cities.
As far as I know, Evil Black Rifles are still banned in all three cities.