Questions the left won't discuss about gun control, but should - and soon.

[Straw Man]

84. Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy ...

Straw man argues 'believe' cannot equate to 'think':

I argue no such thing, and you know it. I argue that there is a difference between thinking something may be true (uncertainty) and believing something to be true (certainty).

thesaurus gets poor straw man on both ends:
think verb to believe something based on facts or ideas
believe in - to think that someone or something exists

Your reliance on a supposed equivalence between individual words is childishly reductive. Words make up phrases and sentences, in which there are other words that refine the meaning. For example, you have chosen to ignore the "based on facts or ideas" portion of the cited definition of "think," as well as overlooking the fact that your citation for "believe" is actually the phrasal verb "believe in," which is not the same thing at all. The statements "I believe you" and "I believe in you" are quite different, one suggesting a trust in your veracity and the other suggesting a faith in your capabilities -- neither of which I possess, by the way.

If you think that all of this is "trivial" or "picayune," then you don't understand language. In your formulation, the statements "I think that is true" and "I think that may be true" would be equivalent. They are not.

IE: I believe the correlation would be true. I believe the correlation between declining gun ownership rates and declining violent crime rates demonstrates a contributing causative affect to the former.

Based on what? Based on nothing more than your own pre-existing belief that such a causative relationship exists: in other words, an article of faith, unproven. Demonstration of correlation does not constitute proof of causation. Could I make it any clearer?

Had enough?

I have more than enough of this nonsense, but feel free to carry on. You're only making yourself look foolish.