There are three basic ways one can respond, when it's pointed out that they believe something that cannot be defended with logic and fact:
1 - modify this belief such it can be defended by logic and fact (rational)
2 - decide that defensibility is less important than holding this belief (irrationally ideological)
3 - insult the person who pointed out your inability, and pretend it didn't happen (fantasy)
That's you there in #3. I assume you're quite young, and will grow out of it.
There isn't any research showing a relationship between IQ and safety with firearms... and there's not likely to be, since there's almost certainly no such relationship. If anything, you're likely to find that people of high IQ commit suicide with firearms at a higher rate.
Likewise, IQ and high quality voting are not likely to be related. If you're going to test anything as a requirement to vote, I would suggest an awareness of political information, which is clearly independent of IQ.
In the end, you basically cannot address my point. You've gone from "guns can kill" to "voter fraud is rare" to "you're a racist" to "IQ tests... poor performance, I'm afraid.
Fascinating. Don't you think you should understand someone's views before calling them a racist? My personal view is that requiring ID is reasonable in many circumstances, including both the purchase of a new firearm and voting, and not racist in any circumstances. That, I believe, is a view that is both reasonable and consistent.
The Democrat Party, apparently most on the left, and I presume from your posts you, hold the inconsistent view that it's OK to ID for firearms and not OK to ID for voting. Let's look at that, and you tell me where my points fall apart and why:
1 - The left is against requiring ID to vote, on the basis that doing so is racist. The claim is that there is a small but statistically significant difference in the rate at which various races have picture IDs, and therefore more people of some races (blacks, in particular) are prevented from exercising their right to vote by such a law. It does not matter if the law provides means -- both free of cost and without a need to drive -- for those without ID to obtain same.
2 - The same people generally support a requirement to present a picture ID to purchase a firearm from a dealer, and further support the expansion of this requirement to nearly all purchases and transfers of firearms (from a loan to a friend to a used purchase from a stranger).
3 - If one accepts the rationale presented in (1), it must also apply to (2)... that is, if it is racist to ID for voting, it is also racist to ID for firearms purchase for exactly the same reasons.
4 - The only possible conclusions are that people with the two views in (1) and (2) either:
a) believe it is OK to be racist when restricting firearms,or
b) do not actually believe it is racist to require ID (to vote OR to purchase firearms)
Whichever way that falls, it's not pretty. a) makes one a racist, and b) makes one a self-serving liar.
