the obvious solution is dick implants, provided by obamacare of course
Gun Control
We finally started euthanizing the sub-100 IQ insecure yet self entitled virgins? Damn, when did I miss that?
Again...I have never and will never argue for a ban. And when everyone has a gun...there will be more shootings. Heat of passion anyone? Someone will have to pay for the damage and be held responsible for the lead slinging.
Wanna dissuade a would be killer? Public executions.
The NRA continually lobbys against common sense issues such as waiting periods...magazine bans and purchasing rights. They feel that all Americans™ have the Gawd given right to own such things. They demonize those who oppose them, and their extremist fringes make life miserable for those who oppose them via harassment and intimidation. They continually spew bull**** regarding how Obama is coming to take their guns...he has been in office 6 years now...when will it happen?
I am well trained in the care and feeding and use of firearms. I have trained others, and they have trained others. I have shot competitively in both military and civilian matches. I am pretty accomplished with many types of guns...and I dont carry. I dont go into places where I feel that I may need a gun, and I am happy with my penis size.
I am done with this thread, as there are no answers that will result from it. We chase our tails round and round, and never get a good bite on it. I work at local levels, and will continue to do so. I will not be intimidated by the psycho gun crowd, nor will I be persuaded by the anti gun crowd. The middle gorund of responsible gun use is where I will continue to stand.
i don't think the NRA will be happy until gun ownership is mandatory when you are issued a SSN.
i actually called someone out on this... he kept going on and on about how obama is coming to take his gunz. "he's been in office 6 years now. where is he? is he waiting for an invitation?" resulted in a complete mental meltdown.
Heh. Every time I've said this to one of my growing cabal of friends who keep getting more and more into guns (you know, Nevada and no real sports to feel manly about), it's usually 'yeah well thank god for the NRA fighting for our freedoms'. These aren't dumb people exactly, but the self sustaining cycle of fear driven purchasing seems to evade them.
And then you've got guys like aktroz arming the po po while trying to spread the same misinterpreted bullshlt that the NRA throws around.......it's like a grand arms race within the US populace. Something that is wholly non-existent in normal countries. Which is why citing studies of non US data is friggin useless. If a cop pulls a gun in Australia, it makes national news. Here it's like one out of a hundred gun related deaths, and only if it's kids or affluent white people.
I agree with maxyedor to a point. But regulating hardware is a hell of a lot more realistic than regulating dipshlt culture shifts. Stupidity and insecurity don't have a point of sale.
maybe we should be talking about improving our education system then?
also, who's pulling the strings at the NRA these days?
Wild guess.......
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2012/05/smith-wesson-to-be-inducted-into-the-nra-golden-ring-of-freedom.aspx
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2008/beretta-group-pledges-$1-million-to-ben.aspx?s=&st=&ps=
As far as 'improving our education' well duh. You live here. Math is hard and stuff.
Things like this certainly don't help either.
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/
But try and convince most gun rights activists who blather on about mental health being the 'real' issue exclusively that they shouldn't vote for public program slashing republicans.
Last edited:
There are nearly as many gun deaths in this country as car deaths which is freaking astounding if you think about it. To say that gun laws are not worth while because they wouldn't have stopped one particular incident is the worst kind of canard.
the "golden ring of freedom"? seriously?
You have to admit, when the NRA says that guns aren't the problem, they really are correct. They just make it a hell of a lot easier for the problem to get their hands on them.the "golden ring of freedom"? seriously?
it's starting to sound more and more like a pyramid scheme
I think you're starting to catch on.
I don't deny that the NRA does any of that, the NRA fvcking sucks, they're a life insurance and publishing company masquerading as a gun rights group, they've done virtually nothing to help Ca gun owners, and roll over on almost all major legislation (GCA of 1986 was just asinine).
I'll ask again, for anybody who wishes to answer. What laws have anti-gun politicians/lobbyists/people in general proposed that are not already laws on the books in Ca? What does the NRA being anti-Obama have to do with anything? How did the NRA opposing background checks and registration effect matters in Santa Barbara?
Granted, keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill would have stopped 3 shootings over the weekend, but how do you propose we accomplish that? The shooter was not diagnosed with any serious mental illness, even if it were illegal to possess guns in the same home as a mentally ill individual, he'd have still been able to own and possess the three firearms. Goes back to either a total ban or quit barking up the wrong tree, and allowing yourself to be duped by Bloomberg, the Brady Campaign, Former Ca Senator Yee, etc. into thinking mass murder is a result of 30 round magazines.
I don't believe the proper course of action is to just start banning anything and everything that's not essential to survival as a knee-jerk reaction to murder. I think the shooting in SB is a pretty good example of how "common sense" gun control is ineffective, which is why I can understand and respect a person's opinion if it's to ban & confiscate all firearms. However to go on and on about .50cal rifles, conceal carry permits and 30 round mags as a result of murders involving 9mm/.40cal pistols and 10 round mags is just as dumb as the guys carrying Aks into Chipoltle.
1: You claim to be some sort of actuary or statistician (which would be the only two professions that would outrank me professionally with regards to statistical analysis), yet you used ABC news as some sort of evidence. That's not just ignorant, that's plain stupid.
2: You have no idea what the product is (it's a hobby side project I have that I provide discounts for to LEO) yet you jumped to a conclusion twice already. That's called being an idiot. Congratulations, your a jumping to conclusions clown.
3: You still ignore what I posted and claim to be some master at interpreting statistics and when they don't go your way, you say they are useless anyway and use a partisan media source as evidence. That's clown theory bud.
Face it, you're way out of your league here and proven wrong. go pretend you know something somewhere else.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Here's Aus as example:
"The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996). " 1996 eh? So the homicide rate went UP following the Ban... There's that theory debunked.
"There has been a pronounced change in the type of weapons used in homicide since monitoring began. Firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods, and there has been an upward trend in the use of knives and sharp instruments, which in 2006-07 accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims."
-Note that this is 2006. Gun crime has INCREASED since then..
So in other words, people turn to other methods and the rate increased immediately following the Ban.
Armed robbery INCREASES after 1996 ban
According to Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, after the ban:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault increased 29.9 percent.
Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
There's some FACTS to chew on.
Heres more FACTS straight from government.
Assault
Rpe
Not much of a change to warrant the outright BAN which netted higher crime overall:
This proves there is no reduction or de-escalation of the 'lethality'. In fact, it proves the opposite (but I'm not going to stretch it that far, and look at it objectively and realize the truth is, there is NO difference of significance).
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/facts/1-20/2009.html
The 12th annual snapshot of crime and criminal justice in Australia from the AIC showed reductions in a range of crime types recorded by police, with property crime, assault, and sex assault reports all declining between 2007 and 2008.
While this was good news, AIC Director Dr Adam Tomison cautioned that the long-term trends for serious crime types such as robbery, assault and sex assault have been increasing since 1996.
"The report found there had been a 49 percent increase in assaults between 1996 and 2008, however the number of victims reporting assaults to police dropped from 176,427 to 170,277 between 2007 and 2008," Dr Tomison said.
1996 Eh? What happened in Australia in 1996 again? Oh, right.... A ban.
Huh, I could swear that there was something in this very thread about that....
It's like the same herp derp talking points spouted by whoever decides to meander into this thread.
Yeah they rolled over pretty easily with crazy logic that banning guns in bars was a bad idea. They rolled over pretty easily with the legislation they just helped draft in Georgia.
1986? Seriously? You and I aren't talking about the same NRA here.
I'm with you. This country is far too gone for anything outside of entire culture shift which isn't going to happen. Personally I'm totally down for an all out ban, mostly because what exists in the US right now has fvck all to do with a well regulated militia, and sure as shlt wasn't was intended in an amendment set forth to allow for the creation of what's essentially the national guard.
But here's an idea that no one has seriously proposed because it wouldn't go anywhere thanks to the rolling over, good for nothing NRA. You can have your guns but they're kept at firing ranges. I'm talking high capacity stuff, not your average hunting regalia. You get to fire off your 50 cal pistol and get youtube videos of your 98lb girlfriend hitting herself in the face with the recoil all you want, but it's in a controlled environment. You want home defense? Buy one of Biden's shotguns.....something that's really only effective at human death at fairly close ranges but can still give some sting across the backyard.
Why the hell do hollowpoint/eagle claw/splits in 100 different directions slugs need to be available to the public at all? Seriously, WTF are really using those for other than feeling like a tough guy for what you 'could' do to somebody? Yeah it's just to stop an intruder but I also want no hope of removing the pieces from my daughter's face when her brother accidently shoots her.
Like I keep saying over and over and over again, I know damn well it's not a forged piece of metal that's 'the problem'. But with some of the seriously fvcked up misinformation campaigns sponsored by the weak little NRA, PLUS the availability of almost everything under the sun that Winchester can come up with, every insecure nutbag can LEGALLY buy this crap. All he has to have is a clean record up until that point. So no, what's in place now isn't a cure all........obviously. Things need to go further. But you know damn well who fights that at every step. And that feckless little lobby group you think has no power seems to be doing a pretty damn good job right now of making sure no improvement ever gets taken seriously.
*chuckle*
Some background on the guys who wrote the Harvard "study":
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-problem-with-harvard-study-which.html
By the way, if it's "peer reviewed", can you tell me which peers reviewed it? I'll wait...
Some background on the guys who wrote the Harvard "study":
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-problem-with-harvard-study-which.html
So, a fellow at a Libertarian fellowship puts out a study that just happens to mimic what he believed to have been true all along. Oh, and the "Harvard peer-reviewed" thing? Turns out that's bull**** as well. It was printed in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy which is:
Wow, that's the best you have to go on? Seriously?
By the way, if it's "peer reviewed", can you tell me which peers reviewed it? I'll wait...
Oh, and if you're looking for the *ACTUAL* Harvard Law journal, it's here:
http://harvardlawreview.org/
Harvard Law Review. Slightly different than the student newspaper pretending to be important.
http://harvardlawreview.org/
Harvard Law Review. Slightly different than the student newspaper pretending to be important.
Last edited:
Very good point. Thanks. However the data is sound. Look it up yourself.
Of note, the statistical information from Aus cannot be ignored or misconstrued.
at the end of the day we know you simply cant ban things from criminals. America doesnt have a gun problem, it has a violence problem. If the focus was on that we would we further along.
Last edited:
Did the recent shooter of the young girls (forget his name, perma-virgin) legally obtain the firearm he used? I just wonder what difference CA laws will make when it shares its border with Arizona, a state with one of the most lax approaches to firearms in the US. If you're 21 or over, you can pass an instant background check and concealed carry a firearm in Arizona. It's not hard to bring one across to CA, and in general, it's just not hard to get your hands on a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Arizona
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132801364/arizona-gun-laws-among-most-lenient-in-u-s
Last edited:
Sure it can. It can be manipulated just like anything else. Like "violent crime in the US went down after the Assault Weapons Ban" passed in 1994. All violent crime, not just that committed with assault weapons.
Of course, it was already going down *and* there was an economic boom during that time, which meant that all crime statistics went down. It's why we have peer-reviewed journals in the first place. Cherry-picked evidence by someone who was clearly trying to prove one side of a story is *NOT* an actual "study". The fact that people like you lap it up like it's god's gift to mankind is hysterical.
(and sad)
"speaking your language" if you will. Pretty much every single study or paper you quoted (minus the mexico study I think) has already been brought up in this thread. And the only people citing them as making the claims you think they do, are the ones who don't understand the entire reports. Yes that still includes you.
Harvard 'study'
You know that paper wasn't even peer reviewed right? What you're looking at is a host, not a source of origin. That paper is not 'from harvard', the school is just hosting the publication. That study doesn't even state which 'western industrialized countries' they use as references. It also begins on the idea that homicide rates aren't any higher in the US which is categorically incorrect when looking at the most comparable countries. But then again the authors seem to have a thing for Russia. Is that what you think of when comparing the US to 'western industrialized countries?' Oh yeah......one of the authors. He's a lobbyist. I'll let you look up what he lobbies for. But the peer review thing..... Yeah. Not exactly 'published' in the way that a real data guy like yourself would understand the word. That's not the Harvard document you think it is.
edit: looks like dante got that one a little more succinctly.
But do you get to use the word 'tactical' a lot? That's the important part.
On to austrailia:
Here's a start with some other fun little charts taken from the AIC.
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf
Check out pages 16 and ESPECIALLY 19.
Would you like to discuss those now?
You have a handful of always repeated examples (stuck in 2009 on the AIC reports), that not only have been extensively picked apart at this point, but stand alone in a vast galaxy of research proving the contrary, ESPECIALLY that conducted in the US. I mean seriously, look at those quaint little numbers of gun deaths per 1000 peeps in Austrailia. It's laughable in comparison.
I'm definitely not in your league. You couldn't be more correct about that.
Last edited:
You do realize you completely ignored the global aspect of the study, picked on the people not the data, and ignored the data from australia and statcan which makes your synopsis and misinterpritation of my post not only laughable, but hysterical as well.Sure it can. It can be manipulated just like anything else. Like "violent crime in the US went down after the Assault Weapons Ban" passed in 1994. All violent crime, not just that committed with assault weapons.
Of course, it was already going down *and* there was an economic boom during that time, which meant that all crime statistics went down. It's why we have peer-reviewed journals in the first place. Cherry-picked evidence by someone who was clearly trying to prove one side of a story is *NOT* an actual "study". The fact that people like you lap it up like it's god's gift to mankind is hysterical.
(and sad)
So instead of pretending youre some genius because a study I posted had a questionable bias, why dont you try debunking the rest. Nitpicking one thing still leaves the others and is cleary a pathetic attempt at a screen to the rest. Keep it coming because youre still behind and STILL unable to prove otherwise. I added something you added nothing except the typical 'oh but statistics can be mistrued' **** people without a peg to stand on usualy quip when they have nothing to add. Adding the insults just makes you look more stupid.
I posted enough from aus to prove bans increase crime, and can add some from Russia and Mexico as well. Enough to shove it so far up your yahoo you just look stupid trying to argue it. Keep it coming.
Last edited:
Hint. It's not a "study" when you start with the finding you want and then cherry-pick your data to back it up.
It's why it wasn't posted in a real journal nor was it peer-reviewed. If they had confidence in it they would have submitted it for peer review, and actually gotten it published in a real journal. Saying "but the facts in it are true" is no more realistic than me pointing to the graph I posted above and stating "but the facts are real, an assault weapons ban reduces violent crime".
There's nothing to debate, seriously.
It's why it wasn't posted in a real journal nor was it peer-reviewed. If they had confidence in it they would have submitted it for peer review, and actually gotten it published in a real journal. Saying "but the facts in it are true" is no more realistic than me pointing to the graph I posted above and stating "but the facts are real, an assault weapons ban reduces violent crime".
There's nothing to debate, seriously.
Please provide those american studies. Still waiting........
"speaking your language" if you will. Pretty much every single study or paper you quoted (minus the mexico study I think) has already been brought up in this thread. And the only people citing them as making the claims you think they do, are the ones who don't understand the entire reports. Yes that still includes you.
Harvard 'study'
You know that paper wasn't even peer reviewed right? What you're looking at is a host, not a source of origin. That paper is not 'from harvard', the school is just hosting the publication. That study doesn't even state which 'western industrialized countries' they use as references. It also begins on the idea that homicide rates aren't any higher in the US which is categorically incorrect when looking at the most comparable countries. But then again the authors seem to have a thing for Russia. Is that what you think of when comparing the US to 'western industrialized countries?' Oh yeah......one of the authors. He's a lobbyist. I'll let you look up what he lobbies for. But the peer review thing..... Yeah. Not exactly 'published' in the way that a real data guy like yourself would understand the word. That's not the Harvard document you think it is.
edit: looks like dante got that one a little more succinctly.
But do you get to use the word 'tactical' a lot? That's the important part.
On to austrailia:
Here's a start with some other fun little charts taken from the AIC.
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf
Check out pages 16 and ESPECIALLY 19.
Would you like to discuss those now?
You have a handful of always repeated examples (stuck in 2009 on the AIC reports), that not only have been extensively picked apart at this point, but stand alone in a vast galaxy of research proving the contrary, ESPECIALLY that conducted in the US. I mean seriously, look at those quaint little numbers of gun deaths per 1000 peeps in Austrailia. It's laughable in comparison.
I'm definitely not in your league. You couldn't be more correct about that.
what about those gun deaths in mexico where theres a ban. Or russia where theres a ban?
Come on now. You try to sound big and bad but at the end of the day you just quesioned a questionable source and cpuldnt say nothing about the rest.
And youre right, as a troll youre in a league of your own. As someone who can present evidence to the contrary (thats not ABC news....what a joke) Im smashing you a new one. That 2010 article you posted? STILL SHOWS CRIME INCREASED AFTER THE BAN. How daft can you possibly be to argue that after 1996 and for almost a decade crime either incresed or remained the same. Sorry bud but once again some genius actuary you are if you are using one year out of 10 to try to prove a point. What a joke. I cant believe Im arguing with RMs biggest troll.... hahahahaha
And as such a genius math wizard you should know two decades is fine for developing a trend.
You really are grasping here bud. No evidence. No actual facts. No other countries to represent your point. Laughable
Last edited:
This is absolute BS. Is it a violence problem when a child shoots a sibling? Is it a violence problem when someone has a super quick and easy way to off themselves. Are the numerous gun cleaning accidents due to violence? The fvcking guns are a huge part of the problem.
BTW, how did all those bad guys with guns get guns in the first place?
We have guns here and reduced suicide and accidental death via safe storage laws. Also not to be morbid but those accidental deaths are a drop in a bucket.
Pot is stirred. My job is done. Keep the hoplophobia and #merica chatter going. This is probably the most entertaining thread on here.
I thought Id be done at calling out kiddoodoo for being predisposed to violence and projecting his small dick syndrome onto others but as a middle of the road person on the topic (which was pretty ****ing clear if any of you actually read) the hoplophobes are substantially more easy to ignite and the only two people who brought actual logic into the discussion was an LEO and a gun owner. Go figure.
I thought Id be done at calling out kiddoodoo for being predisposed to violence and projecting his small dick syndrome onto others but as a middle of the road person on the topic (which was pretty ****ing clear if any of you actually read) the hoplophobes are substantially more easy to ignite and the only two people who brought actual logic into the discussion was an LEO and a gun owner. Go figure.
Last edited:
I will never reach woo levels but I sure now how to get a rise out of you while still providing info you cpuldnt disprove. Im learning
Well for starters here are the kinds of abstracts that come out of the real slim shady (that means Harvard)
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-carrying/
Are we done with Australia yet? You don't seem to like their current statistics
I'll get to the rest tonight. I gotta go grab a bike.
Last edited:
All of that could be prevented with safe storage laws without the need for bans.
Next.
Next.
Last edited:
Also the current statistics in aus says nothing to the ban increasing crime. Which it did. Fact.
sorry, i can't hear your bellyaching over the sound of all this Freedom™
I wish we had #freedom here in the republic of canada. #Merica
OROSI, Calif. (AP) — A man defended his three younger siblings in a shootout inside their Central California home early Tuesday, killing one intruder and sending a second to the hospital with serious injuries, officials said.
Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux said the 22-year-old man defending his family was also shot in the early morning gun battle but expected to survive after undergoing surgery. Investigators continue to search for one or two more suspects. Boudreaux said the multiple bullet holes the family's home showed signs of a violent exchange.
"I can tell you, this was a gun battle," he said, expressing praise for the man who defended his family. "He was in a fight for his life inside his own home."
Boudreaux said the man was asleep at the home in rural Tulare County near the community of Orosi. At about 5:30 a.m., Boudreaux said he heard somebody kicking down the door, so he took his siblings — ages 8 to 18 — into another room. He grabbed a gun and the shooting started.
Arriving to the home, deputies found one of the intruders dead on the front driveway. Boudreaux said a video surveillance camera captured the injured suspect being dropped off at a hospital by an Astro minivan. The suspect underwent surgery and remains in serious condition, said Boudreaux, adding that none of the younger siblings was hurt.
Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux said the 22-year-old man defending his family was also shot in the early morning gun battle but expected to survive after undergoing surgery. Investigators continue to search for one or two more suspects. Boudreaux said the multiple bullet holes the family's home showed signs of a violent exchange.
"I can tell you, this was a gun battle," he said, expressing praise for the man who defended his family. "He was in a fight for his life inside his own home."
Boudreaux said the man was asleep at the home in rural Tulare County near the community of Orosi. At about 5:30 a.m., Boudreaux said he heard somebody kicking down the door, so he took his siblings — ages 8 to 18 — into another room. He grabbed a gun and the shooting started.
Arriving to the home, deputies found one of the intruders dead on the front driveway. Boudreaux said a video surveillance camera captured the injured suspect being dropped off at a hospital by an Astro minivan. The suspect underwent surgery and remains in serious condition, said Boudreaux, adding that none of the younger siblings was hurt.
I'd like to see you prove that the ban was the main driver behind any crime increase, as there are a vast number of different societal causes of crime.
BTW have any of the supposed facts you like to cherry pick been adjusted for population growth of those time periods? Australia has experienced significant population growth in the last 30 years from both internal and external sources, and that on it's own will skew the hell out of the data you presented let alone any other changes to society.
http://m.ballinaadvocate.com.au/news/new-plan-unveil-tackle-out-of-control-gun-violence/1992835/
found that interesting.
also take a long look at that knife and gun murder graph. Doesnt take a genius to figure out they are corelated.
found that interesting.
also take a long look at that knife and gun murder graph. Doesnt take a genius to figure out they are corelated.
Last edited: