let's not forget that an organization with a certified moron in its leadership (Ted Nugent) is kicking your ass on a regular basis.

Speaking of certifiable morons, that is.

perhaps SA should adopt our laws.

From the time Australia's laws took effect, the homicide rate in the US has dropped MORE than it has in Australia.

I didn't know automatic weapons were legal.

Ultimately, both sides have to convince those on the fence. Carrying ARs in Denny's does more harm to one side's cause. When the other side insults their intelligence, it pisses them off.
Not that the politicians give a rat's ass what we think anyway, but I digress.
People are brighter and more curious than pundits give them credit for. That is why pundit shows have low ratings. When you take away dentists waiting rooms, CNN and Fox would have ratings like MSNBC.

one criminologist to support another is akin to asking one cop to back up the the other cop who shot that black guy who was reaching for his waistband? Kleck backs up Lott who backs up Kleck. Neither could research their way out of a paper bag with instructions and a razor blade.

No, ge, if anyone is contemplating their navel from the inside it's the Gungeon.

Actually, Kleck backed up studies dating back to the Hart study in the 1970s. Kleck also won the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for said study. Anti science and anti intellectual much?

BTW, what about the black cop who shot the white guy who was reaching in his waistband? It happened in Salt Lake the same week Wilson shot Brown. Not a fan of race baiting either.

and you come back with another criminology reference?

It's not race baiting, it's circular reasoning baiting. Your constant relying on internal support for a stance not supported by any outside source is, at best, entertaining.

he is an economist. There is also such a thing as the scientific method, something the studies in Vox doesn't follow. The Bloomberg funded studies start with the conclusion they want and create a study to fit the narrative. I am depending on valid studies that are verifiable, not racist Bloomberg funded shill studies.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Why listen to highly-credentialed professionals when you can take your cues (as Rachel Maddow does) from willfully-ignorant talking heads such as Richard Wolffe and E.J. Dionne?

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Gun-Weapons-Violence-America/dp/0202303055/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456992666&sr=1-1&keywords=james+wright+under+the+gun

http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-Firearms-Paperback/dp/0202305422/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456992711&sr=1-1&keywords=james+wright+armed+and+considered+dangerous

http://www.amazon.com/Restricting-Handguns-Liberal-Skeptics-Speak/dp/0884270335/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456992787&sr=1-1&keywords=restricting+handguns+the+liberal+skeptics+speak+out

http://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns-Firearms-Control-Institutions/dp/0202305694/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456992828&sr=1-2&keywords=targeting+guns+gary+kleck

http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Gary-Kleck/dp/1573928836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456992867&sr=1-1&keywords=kates+kleck

That seems... odd.

I guess that would be one way of avoiding supporting otherwise unsupported assertions, but it doesn't seem to be a very compelling tactic.

I only started posting at all at DU pretty recently -- unless you're accusing me of being a former poster here returning under a new name. If such is the case, you are incorrect. It's not like I expect people who make that sort of accusation to care about accuracy, but whatever works for you...

The only study I need is mine.

...hating yourself is counterproductive, kind of like most of gun-control today.