It's not so much that gun control is lacking, it's that control is in the wrong spots, which is what the intent of the original graph was attempting to imply.
How does it demonstrate that? The best I can come up with is this idea that selling tacos are so very regulated, so it would "make sense" if the purchase of guns were too... but I'm still missing the logical connection. Manufacturing and sales seem to always carry more liability than purchases from customers. Also, just because one thing is shitty doesn't mean that something else has to be shitty. Based on this, it could be argued that amendments are actually effective in keeping the government out of it, not that I believe that is the reality. For example, it is a lot more difficult to buy a taco than it is to buy a gun, but there is no amendment guaranteeing us tacos. Shouldn't it be more difficult to buy a taco than a gun, if we are to have difficulty with either?
logically, we can pull from the graph that regulation on both parts is ineffective at best
Ok. Entertain the point. How?
Again, it's not about comparing the sale and purchase of said "apples and oranges", it's how regulation means different things to different corporations. The reason why regulations on guns are far more pertinent than tacos is because A) people equate regulation with infringement and b) there has yet to be an incident where someone used an assault taco to spree kill dozens of kids.
Selling guns is comparatively as inhibiting as selling tacos ("infringement"). Because selling tacos includes "manufacturing" aspects to which selling guns is isolated from, there is a slight, even proportional, degree of difference. On the manufacturing end of guns, there is liability placed on the nature of defects, vs selling bad meat on the vendor end.
If we could punish all of humanity for the people who would harbor malicious intent, should we? I'm undecided myself. So, I could agree with you, but I'm not jumping the gun.
I don't need to display competence for anything other than my interpretation of the law at hand because I'm not in charge of creating or applying laws.
Fair.
Up until that point though, I will vehemently argue morality against 200+ year old ideals because, statistics or not, times have changed and the parameters are different.
Okay. So if you are suggesting that "times have changed" and "we have evolved" how do you propose an approach to "refurnishing" the law?
"Most of us" doesn't reek of desperation when only two people have consistently argued against the implications behind the graph.
It reeks of desperation because of a couple of things. It's a bandwagon appeal plus, statistically, it's 2 vs 3, and you are losing on that account. I don't respect the appeal, flat out. I know I generally don't agree with anybody. But when you try that and misrepresent, It's embarrassing to me. Maybe you can solicit more likes from other members of this forum. I know there are more people who don't like how I present myself.
I believe it's a general understanding that if you oppose data of any form you should at least provide your own on a similar premise
I didn't oppose the data, I opposed the presentation of an ambiguous inference. I did take the extra step in suggesting a contrary juxtaposition which would have yielded predictably contrary results. I assumed you would be more reasonable than some others, here.
As it was only used to convey an idea that at least you failed to understand, I wouldn't call that propaganda so much as a swing and a miss.
Lol. I saw the intention, but I've been pointing out the absurdity for a minute.
Ah yes, the Supreme Court, the privileged few that have gotten through their years on the backs of good family money and pre-existing status of influence never once having to actually know the troubles of having to be in a situation where they would have to accept the risks of their job being dangerous, because they never had to be involved in such.
You mean the magistrate responsible for sanctifying the holy text of America?