Guns Figure

David Bell DBELL at SYSUBMC.BMC.COM
Thu Sep 21 07:11:36 MDT 1995


I suppose, If you are unsure of where you stand, if you have not looked
into the supporting information regarding the RKBA, then you would
perhaps doubt the viability of what the NRA might say. Most likely,
that is the trap set by those who want you to believe otherwise, for
whatever reason.
 
Of course, I have been discussing this issue, quoting statistics from
various sources, providing quotes in length, constitutional analysis,
for 3 years on this and other lists. I cannot keep resending the same
data over and over again. And my notebooks grew so large as to use
up all available space. I printed the material and took it home and
filed it.
 
I suggest that anyone wishing to find information on Gun control,
can use the archives from 10-1993 to 10-1995 approximately, to
retrieve information. search arguments using HCI, AWB, Brady, 2nd
Amendment and Kleck, etc will retrieve a lot of posts from both
supporters and anti-gunners.
 
Try the REPUB-L CLINTON-L
 
David
On Thu, 21 Sep 1995 00:35:28 -0400 Darin H. Deem said:
>In a message dated 95-09-18 16:11:15 EDT, Robert writes:
>
>>This is my problem exactly, David.  I don't know which group would be
>>considered non-biased.  That's why I asked the question in the first
>>place!  I would consider the NRA to be biased in a way that would
>>interpret any statistics as being favorable to them, while the Clinton
>>Administration would obviously use and interpret stats that confirms
>>their beliefs.  Perhaps a bi-partisan group is the way to go here,
>>ensuring that BOTH sides are represented.
>
>No Offense Robert, but this is why God gave us all a brain.  We should be
>able to receive data and use our brain to determine if it is correct.  I had
>a psychology professor years ago that told us he wanted us all to have a
>built in "crap detector", we all should.
>
>-Darin



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list