1) Absurd maybe, but not impossible. As some manufacturers are already pulling out of state markets that are making absurd gun control laws. Barret, Ruger, and S&W are examples. There are also some online retailers now that also refuse to do business with those states. If they go, others can follow. Who cares if it was asked for or not? If the market is already doing it to a degree, it can be expanded further and might just do so.
2) That's what a fucking hypothesis is you idiot. Read up on the scientific method. And there IS evidence for it, but it is weaker correlation evidence as I have mentioned with Mexico. That's why separating the vectors there would strength the evidence. Wow, are you that dense on how science works?
3) Hahaha, no. Being able to visualize the results of a hypothetical scenario using deductive reasoning isn't baseless.
Again, the point of the proposal I made, as it seems part of the industry already agrees with me, is that the idiots that make stupid gun control laws don't understand logic at all. The strongest connection between violent crimes is based around poverty, opportunity, and segregation in a diverse environment. That gun availability, legal or otherwise, makes little impact EXCEPT at possibly the extremes of either zero gun ownership or complete gun ownership of all law abiding citizens. Of which there is certain some evidence for that. Which means all gun control laws are fucking retarded to pass. They do nothing except waste tax payer money and give a feel good fuzzy to people that can't understand logic.
Wow, thank you for confirming everything I wrote. Sorry Venix, Humble says it's not about supply and demand. It's all about gun control and how 'fucking retarded' it is.
Oh, and as a refresher, the scientific process is:
1. Make observations (you haven't)
2. Form a hypothesis based on observations (haven't made any observations, so you don't have a valid hypothesis)
3. Create predictions (Oh boy, have you made LOTS of predictions, despite skipping the first two steps)
4. Conduct an experiment (You proposed one that, in your own words, is absurd)
5. Make a conclusion (Which, from you is "all gun control laws are fucking retarded to pass". You got here despite fucking up the previous four steps.)
Let me give you an example:
1. Observation:
Many areas with differing crime rates that are in proximity to each other and often have different gun control laws
2. Hypothesis:
Crime and violence will increase over time in areas with strict gun control if they are proximal to areas without strict gun control and proximal to areas of crime
3. Null Hypothesis:
Crime and violence in an area with strict gun control will be independent of the crime rates and gun control laws of nearby areas
4. Data:
Buffalo, New York - Increasing crime, limited gun control
Niagara Falls, Ontario - Decreasing crime, strict gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
Laredo, Texas - Static crime, poor gun control
Nuevo Larero, Mexico - Unbelievable crime, strict gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
Germany - Static crime, strict gun control
Czech Republic - Static crime, poor gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
New York City - Decreasing crime, strict gun control
Newark, NJ - Increasing crime, limited gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
San Francisco, CA - Decreasing crime, limited gun control
Oakland, CA - Increasing crime, limited gun control
Data supports null hypothesis
5. Conclusion:
Based on the limited data above, all of it supports the null hypothesis that gun control and changing crime rates are independent even when two areas have different crime rates and are proximal. Therefore, the hypothesis is likely false.
So there's your homework assignment Humble. Present some observations that support your hypothesis. That's the difference between a hypothesis and a 'wild ass guess.'