Can you show me where you linked, instead of only referenced, some unnamed article?
Nope. Just referenced.
No, your uninformed "simple common sense" doesn't mean much.
It means more than yours - partly because it was informed, partly because you are refusing to pay attention.
Again, you ever plan to link to these studies you reference?
When it's easy and of material import. I don't need a study like that to show me that a firearm carried around everywhere is more likely to be lost or stolen, and more likely to be involved in accidents - I only referenced the Cook study published in "Science" because it put numerical estimates on this extra risk, and they differed somewhat from your study's numbers - thereby proving that, contrary to your suggestions, such research is available to some extent.
You keep saying "Standard investigation" as if it were a magical incantation. Investigation and prosecution require evidence. You've not explained how that would be obtained or what it may be.
If you don't know how the police investigate crimes, I can't help you here. Start another thread, if you are curious. We could begin by describing how the police establish the origin and chain of possession of unregistered stolen goods, unregistered illegal and legal drugs, etc, when they are involved in a crime.
Again, there's a standard for determining prescription need that applies equally to all patients, but "may-issue" ignores equal rights under the law with arbitrary determination.
To the extent that means anything, it's false (the standards involved in prescribing drugs often vary widely by region, by physician, even by hospital).
Your claim was that health care did not require proof of need. I pointed to the obvious and incontrovertible evidence that your claim was false. It's not the only evidence - proving "need" for otherwise unobtainable care is a major health care issue with many aspects and ramifications - but it's very plain and simple and impossible to overlook once noticed.
The most critical relevant aspect is that proof of need for some provisions of care (opioid pain relief, plastic surgery of some kinds, mental health treatments of some kinds, etc) is an unavoidable feature of health care systems even when health care is an enumerated right. That has direct import for gun control laws.
It often seems that there are those who would use the tendency to rage to further divide us into warring factions.
As long as you are vague and do not point to specific people or events, you can get away with that.
When "those" are named and described, the historical record of their behaviors and explicit justifications or recommendations used to describe their ideology and political nature, what you just wrote there is called a "conspiracy theory" by the entire mainstream media and most of the public.
