>>>>>>>>>>That said, I must reiterate, my primary concern with this is not my own safety. I've engaged in the "safety" discussion because you are bringing it up. My primary concern lies in liberty and the deterioration of my constitutional rights.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ok your "primary concern" is not your own safety - or anyone else's for that matter. Screw everyone else, the hell with 32,000+ victims per year - I want my AK-47 and the hell with ya'll cause it's me me me my liberty...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You have proven that you do not care about safety only guns. If you cared about safety you would not continue to throw up numbers which are easily outmatched by autos, poisoning and the other greater causes of death that I've previously mentioned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>...and we're back to the circle again. round-and-round-we-go. Benefits vs risk Jake. Auto's have a more practical purpose for society and all of man-kind that a device designed with the sole intent of killing. How many times you gonna jump on this merry-go-round?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We have gone around because you are attempting to define what's (now: "practical", formerly : "needed") in this discussion as if the argument holds any merit. It does not. Humans only "need" oxygen, food and water. Everything else is a "want".
>>>>>
>>>>>No - we've gone around in circles because you're attempting to equate a gun with a car.
>>>>
>>>>I would never impune guns by suggesting they're anywhere near as dangerous as automobiles.
>>>
>>>An entire federal agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has as its mission the understanding and prevention of death and injury on our roads and highways. It reports fiscal year 2012 funding of $62.4 million overall for research and analysis: $35.5 million for vehicle safety and $26.9 million for highway safety. These funds are well spent. For nearly 50 years, this agency has worked to reduce death and injury. And it has succeeded.
>>
>>Let's see...
>>
>>If I accept the following:
>>The NRA has done everything within it's power to prevent any such studies or research on gun violence.
>>
>>and I read the following:
>>Since 1993, the United States has seen a drop in the rate of homicides and other violence involving guns, according to two new studies released Tuesday. Using government data, analysts saw a steep drop for violence in the 1990s, they saw more modest drops in crime rates since 2000.
>>http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says
>>
>>and I understand the fact that there are a similar number of cars (~250million) as guns (~300 million) in the US...
>>
>>and I understand the fact that many more people are killed by cars than by guns...
>>
>>Then, I must come to the logical conclusion that the NHTSA is inefficiently spending a bunch of money. Afterall, look what the NRA has accomplished by preventing studies. ;)
>
>Then your logic is flawed.
>That is a rather shortsighted an absurd response. Surely you understand he massive amount of progress that has been made in road and car-safety. Without such studies we'd all still be driving corvairs with no seat belts on unsafe roads.

Did you not see my ;)?