I didn't belittle you, kat. You attacked my arguments by citing a tragic example as though that were the norm. This is another example of trying to take the high ground by using a story to appeal to emotion. We all have emotion, and we all ache over these tragedies. But these tragedies are not the fodder for solid law that will resolve a problem. When you attempt to sway by appealling to emotion as opposed to supporting your position with solid fact and demonstrable proof, it is you doing the attacking and attempting to belittle.

Bill, I don't believe you to be a demagogue. But I believe in this argument you are using the tactic. As to the cite I provided, I am unsure exactly which site I grabbed it from, but I did provide a fairly exact reference for which you should have no problem tracking the veracity. In fact, the sources cited were folks that were anti gun. As to the implication that I just grabbed these numbers, remember that I have been at this argument a long time.

For the rest of you, I probably agree with Kat and Bill D on many more issues than I disagree. But on this issue I find myself at loggerheads with them and others. The facts as I have been able to uncover them just don't support the contentions many of these good folks are making. I understand the horror and desire to fix the problem. But the answer doesn't lie in band aid treatment of a severed carotid.

Mick