@ AA
There's lies, bloody lies and statistics...
I said it pages back, and the truth of it is that there's lies, damned lies, and people who misuse and misunderstand statistics.
I responded... You're making yourself look silly.... You can't refute my premise...
You did respond, and you'd have made yourself look far less prone to hyperbole if you'd simply given some times for changes for
ordinary people.
Your premise appears to be that reducing magazine capacity does nothing to reduce firepower in the hands of the competent. I'm still looking for your reason why you would be against it in that case.
My premise is that the capability should be taken away from the irresponsible (a catchall phrase which I partially defined earlier, so please don't take it literally) who are, by definition, unlikely to be quite as competent.
@ 500N
Their are heaps of studies that support AA's points.
Then for God's sake link them here! I'm not averse to changing my mind on this if some
actual evidence is brought out, but so far all I've read is anecdotal evidence and some flimsy reasoning about "feeling safer".
And FYI, the anti gunners, anti hunters are very very adapt at skewing statistics for their own means and very good at getting the media to publish them without holding them to account as to where they came from or how they were achieved.
PETA is one of the best examples.
I'm no advocate of that behaviour by anyone. The media are as culpable for the lamentable state of comprehension of statistics (and numerous other areas) as anyone.