NRA press conference in response to NewTown massacre [Archive] - Page 2

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 03:58 PM

A revolver will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, just like a semi-auto. The only difference would be the reload point.

Any gun will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and it is loaded. I will ask again. Do you think that you can pull the trigger and fire a revolver at the same rate you can pull the trigger and fire a semiauto?

It's obvious that the reload time is much slower even with a reload cylinder. Not to mention much more cumbersome and problematic than a bunch of springloaded clips.

Oh and how many homes in the US have an assault weapon versus a knife?

Oh and I love how you guys just ignored that study that I linked.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 04:19 PM

The deciding factor on number of casualties is often whether or not there was someone there to to do anything about it moreso than whether or not the gunman used a semi-auto or a revolver, shotgun or whatever.

:lol This isn't even an anecdote. It's just bullshit that you say. It's straight from the school of repeat something enough and get enough people to believe the same shit then it will of course be true.

For all of you talk of deterrence I can show you several countries and the reduction in gun related injuries, crimes and of course deaths subsequent to a ban. For example the British Journal of Medicine study I linked before. So repeat your same ideology and ignore empirical studies.

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 04:27 PM

:lol This isn't even an anecdote. It's just bullshit that you say. It's straight from the school of repeat something enough and get enough people to believe the same shit then it will of course be true.

For all of you talk of deterrence I can show you several countries and the reduction in gun related injuries, crimes and of course deaths subsequent to a ban. For example the British Journal of Medicine study I linked before. So repeat your same ideology and ignore empirical studies.

We aren't banning guns in the US, dumbass.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 04:29 PM

We aren't banning guns in the US, dumbass.

I never said that.

You don't even know about the gun laws of other countries. That is clear to see. If you did then you would understand that when I say 'ban' I don't mean ban every gun. There haven't even been any policy proposals in DC yet anyway.

Critical thinking CC. We talk about it all the time. You still suck at it.

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 04:32 PM

I never said that.

You don't even know about the gun laws of other countries. That is clear to see. If you did then you would understand that when I say 'ban' I don't mean ban every gun. There haven't even been any policy proposals in DC yet anyway.

Critical thinking CC. We talk about it all the time. You still suck at it.

critical thinking my ass. Of course I know there are countries that ban/highly restrict guns. See how well that shit has worked in Mexico?

And yeah, you suck at it.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 04:40 PM

critical thinking my ass. Of course I know there are countries that ban/highly restrict guns. See how well that shit has worked in Mexico?

And yeah, you suck at it.

:lol

You know that other countries have stricter gun laws....

I don't know. For me to make an informed decision I would be interested to know what countries had what laws specifically, the time periods they eneacted the laws and the pre and post environments.

So you think this country is more like Mexico than it is Australia? What institution in Mexico distributes guns? And do you really think that arming the Mexican citizenry is an intelligent solution to their rampant decade long gang wars?

You're one dumb motherfucker. Critical thinking. Putting ideas together and making logical inferences is something beyond your scope.

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 04:44 PM

:lol

You know that other countries have stricter gun laws....

I don't know. For me to make an informed decision I would be interested to know what countries had what laws specifically, the time periods they eneacted the laws and the pre and post environments.

So you think this country is more like Mexico than it is Australia? What institution in Mexico distributes guns? And do you really think that arming the Mexican citizenry is an intelligent solution to their rampant decade long gang wars?

You're one dumb motherfucker. Critical thinking. Putting ideas together and making logical inferences is something beyond your scope.

Mexico has strict as hell gun laws. You can go to jail for having a single round of ammunition.

See how well that has worked to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

YOU are the dumb motherfucker for even thinking a total gun ban has a snowballs chance in hell of passing in the US. Even Boutons was smart enough to figure THAT one out.

DMC

12-26-2012, 04:51 PM

Any gun will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and it is loaded. I will ask again. Do you think that you can pull the trigger and fire a revolver at the same rate you can pull the trigger and fire a semiauto?

Never timed it, but what's a half second between friends?

If you tie the trigger back, you can shoot a revolver much faster than you can a semi-auto.

u97RJQYuiBA

It's obvious that the reload time is much slower even with a reload cylinder. Not to mention much more cumbersome and problematic than a bunch of springloaded clips.

Since the clip is the spring, you must mean magazines.

Speed reloaders are not cumbersome. They are smaller than magazines and you can load them incredibly fast without needing to release the action afterward.

Oh and how many homes in the US have an assault weapon versus a knife?

Not enough obviously, but strange argument given the earlier argument that there are too many guns thus the high gun death rate. Are there too many knives?

Oh and I love how you guys just ignored that study that I linked.
If you mean the Australia gun ban, that's par per for gun debates. Australia always had different laws concerning guns. You cannot simply superimpose their laws onto Americans and pretend you will get the same results. BTW, check out New Zealand's gun laws.

Take a look at Mexico's gun laws, then note that Mexico's death by gun rate is higher than the US. Socioeconomic factors, no doubt, but the US has the same factors in parts of each city.

boutons_deux

12-26-2012, 04:53 PM

"Mexico has strict as hell gun laws"

and WONDERFUL enforcement of those laws. :lol

referencing failed state MX as an example of failed strict gun laws :lol

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 04:56 PM

"Mexico has strict as hell gun laws"

and WONDERFUL enforcement of those laws. :lol

referencing failed state MX as an example of failed strict gun laws :lol

So you agree that draconian strict gun laws don't prevent criminals from getting guns?

duh.

Thanks for playing.

DMC

12-26-2012, 04:56 PM

:lol

You know that other countries have stricter gun laws....

I don't know. For me to make an informed decision I would be interested to know what countries had what laws specifically, the time periods they eneacted the laws and the pre and post environments.

So you think this country is more like Mexico than it is Australia? What institution in Mexico distributes guns? And do you really think that arming the Mexican citizenry is an intelligent solution to their rampant decade long gang wars?

You're one dumb motherfucker. Critical thinking. Putting ideas together and making logical inferences is something beyond your scope.

You're basically Ron Paul, the freeware version. You have these radical notions that pretty much poison your effectiveness in offering working suggestions. You should get rid of your guns, show some integrity.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 04:58 PM

Mexico has strict as hell gun laws. You can go to jail for having a single round of ammunition.

See how well that has worked to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

YOU are the dumb motherfucker for even thinking a total gun ban has a snowballs chance in hell of passing in the US. Even Boutons was smart enough to figure THAT one out.

meh. The electorate is changing and once Boomers die off then who knows what the disposition would be. Times change. Hell, this time last year the talk was that both parties were afraid to bring it up. Now? Not so much.

I am more interested in finding effective policy than posturing about political will about generalities.

It's not lost on me that you ignored a few points that were the crux of what I was saying though. I will requote them:

So you think this country is more like Mexico than it is Australia? What institution in Mexico distributes guns? And do you really think that arming the Mexican citizenry is an intelligent solution to their rampant decade long gang wars?

You apparently need some more intellectual handholding. Where do you think the guns the cartels use are purchased other than from the US and smuggled?

It's the same argument about Chicago.

Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country yet Chicago has the highest murder rates. MEXICO!!!

Then you look at the Indiana gun laws and the relative position of Indiana to Chicago. Critical thinking.

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 04:58 PM

You're basically Ron Paul, the freeware version. You have these radical notions that pretty much poison your effectiveness in offering working suggestions. You should get rid of your guns, show some integrity.

That is a terrible insult to Ron Paul.

Fuzzy is a fucking idiot.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 04:59 PM

You're basically Ron Paul, the freeware version. You have these radical notions that pretty much poison your effectiveness in offering working suggestions. You should get rid of your guns, show some integrity.

And you have yet to make a compelling argument.

:lol radical

Was a semiautomatic ban effective in Australia or not?

DMC

12-26-2012, 05:00 PM

That is a terrible insult to Ron Paul.

Fuzzy is a fucking idiot.
I am aware they have different ideologies, but they are both too radical to effect change. It's just a token stance at this point, for either of them.

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 05:01 PM

meh. The electorate is changing and once Boomers die off then who knows what the disposition would be. Times change. Hell, this time last year the talk was that both parties were afraid to bring it up. Now? Not so much.

I am more interested in finding effective policy than posturing about political will about generalities.

It's not lost on me that you ignored a few points that were the crux of what I was saying though. I will requote them:

You apparently need some more intellectual handholding. Where do you think the guns the cartels use are purchased other than from the US and smuggled?

It's the same argument about Chicago.

Then you look at the Indiana gun laws and the relative position of Indiana to Chicago. Critical thinking.

Central America is loaded with guns, not to mention the Cartels relationships with hamas/hezbolla. They would still have guns if ZERO guns crossed the US / Mexico border.

boutons_deux

12-26-2012, 05:03 PM

So you agree that draconian strict gun laws don't prevent criminals from getting guns?

duh.

Thanks for playing.

no, dumbfuck, I pointed out that strict MX guns laws are useless unless enforced, just like any law or regulation.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 05:04 PM

That is a terrible insult to Ron Paul.

Fuzzy is a fucking idiot.

You are just like WC in this.

I fyou are going to call me stupid then you need to point out how. Otherwise you just seem petulant.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 05:07 PM

Central America is loaded with guns, not to mention the Cartels relationships with hamas/hezbolla. They would still have guns if ZERO guns crossed the US / Mexico border.

You suck at reading comprehension too. I am here to help though.

Look at the word 'other' in the sentence that I used and try and think about how it modifies the following phrase.

Definition of OTHER

1
a : being the one (as of two or more) remaining or not included <held on with one hand and waved with the other one>

DMC

12-26-2012, 05:11 PM

And you have yet to make a compelling argument.

:lol radical

Was a semiautomatic ban effective in Australia or not?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/)

Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html) from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/6/365) by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008 (http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf), from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.
So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect.

Australia is ranked 13th in the world in firearms owned per 100K people. Supposedly they went from a 7% ownership to a 5% ownership.

Then there's this most recent news:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/surge-in-victorias-homicide-rate-20120909-25lw5.html

So you think the laws stopped all the mass shootings?

(http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/)

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 05:16 PM

no, dumbfuck, I pointed out that strict MX guns laws are useless unless enforced, just like any law or regulation.

So if criminals broke the law to have guns it's law enforcements fault for not catching all of them?

Kind of like what happens in the US?

DMC

12-26-2012, 05:18 PM

Central America is loaded with guns, not to mention the Cartels relationships with hamas/hezbolla. They would still have guns if ZERO guns crossed the US / Mexico border.

Which this admin wouldn't allow, since they prefer giving assault weapons to cartels.

boutons_deux

12-26-2012, 05:20 PM

So if criminals broke the law to have guns it's law enforcements fault for not catching all of them?

Kind of like what happens in the US?

The US doesn't enforce its weak gun regs anway. 40% of gun sales have no b/g checks, etc, etc, etc.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 05:21 PM

Never timed it, but what's a half second between friends?

If you tie the trigger back, you can shoot a revolver much faster than you can a semi-auto.

u97RJQYuiBA

Since the clip is the spring, you must mean magazines.

Speed reloaders are not cumbersome. They are smaller than magazines and you can load them incredibly fast without needing to release the action afterward.

Not enough obviously, but strange argument given the earlier argument that there are too many guns thus the high gun death rate. Are there too many knives?

If you mean the Australia gun ban, that's par per for gun debates. Australia always had different laws concerning guns. You cannot simply superimpose their laws onto Americans and pretend you will get the same results. BTW, check out New Zealand's gun laws.

Take a look at Mexico's gun laws, then note that Mexico's death by gun rate is higher than the US. Socioeconomic factors, no doubt, but the US has the same factors in parts of each city.

Generalized anecdotes inserted for facts and a semantic argument. BRAVO!!

I am not getting in the line by line thing with you. I have no desire to debate spread style. It's a lame tactic especially in a public forum.

And of course you not just superimpose laws and have the exact results given two different subjects. OTOH outside of Canada, what country or countries do you think are the closest to the US socially, politically and economically. Do you disagree that the UK and Australia are right at the top of the list?

And we can certainly talk about NZ gun laws. What does it take to get a pistol in NZ?

Wild Cobra

12-26-2012, 05:22 PM

The US doesn't enforce its weak gun regs anway. 40% of gun sales have no b/g checks, etc, etc, etc.
Since when do criminal checks matter to criminals? There is a huge illegal arms network in the world.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 05:22 PM

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/)

Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html) from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/6/365) by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008 (http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/2008/2008-09-04_melbourne-uni-paper-Aust-gun-buyback.pdf), from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.
So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect.

Australia is ranked 13th in the world in firearms owned per 100K people. Supposedly they went from a 7% ownership to a 5% ownership.

Then there's this most recent news:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/surge-in-victorias-homicide-rate-20120909-25lw5.html

So you think the laws stopped all the mass shootings?

(http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/)

You still didn't read the study I posted. That much is obvious.

spursncowboys

12-26-2012, 05:31 PM

Generalized anecdotes inserted for facts and a semantic argument. BRAVO!!

I am not getting in the line by line thing with you. I have no desire to debate spread style. It's a lame tactic especially in a public forum.

And of course you not just superimpose laws and have the exact results given two different subjects. OTOH outside of Canada, what country or countries do you think are the closest to the US socially, politically and economically. Do you disagree that the UK and Australia are right at the top of the list?

And we can certainly talk about NZ gun laws. What does it take to get a pistol in NZ?

:wow How dare you good sir!!

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 05:32 PM

:lol you not liking the Canadians?

DMC

12-26-2012, 05:45 PM

You still didn't read the study I posted. That much is obvious.

I just cited you three different studies all saying different things.

The issue is that gun control/ban folks focus on gun related homicides instead of just homicides in general. They point out how gun related homicides decreased after the ban, but ignore that the homicide rate remained fairly constant.

Even your "study" is titled
faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings
Cherry picking homicides to prove a point. Like a parent is more comforted if their child died by a knife or by being beaten to death.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 06:09 PM

I just cited you three different studies all saying different things.

The issue is that gun control/ban folks focus on gun related homicides instead of just homicides in general. They point out how gun related homicides decreased after the ban, but ignore that the homicide rate remained fairly constant.

Even your "study" is titled
faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings
Cherry picking homicides to prove a point. Like a parent is more comforted if their child died by a knife or by being beaten to death.

No you didn't. You cited factcheck and it said 2 things.

1) that the buyback had no apparent effect. ie unrelated.
2) that the rate of change was increased.

You still haven't read the study and are trying to drawline between unrelated subjects. None of them are mutually exclusive.

And your theage article is at best a one year sample and certainly does not indicate that Aussie homicide rates have remained constant.

How many australian mass shootings have there been since 1996?

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 06:12 PM

No you didn't. You cited factcheck and it said 2 things.

1) that the buyback had no apparent effect. ie unrelated.
2) that the rate of change was increased.

You still haven't read the study and are trying to drawline between unrelated subjects. None of them are mutually exclusive.

And your theage article is at best a one year sample and certainly does not indicate that Aussie homicide rates have remained constant.

How many australian mass shootings have there been since 1996?

Just move to Australia if you love it so much. That shit isn't happening in the US even after the baby boomers die off.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 06:13 PM

FFS from your newage article

But Dr Stuart Ross, a criminologist from the University of Melbourne, warns that a year of data can't be taken out of context.

"After 10 years of a continuing downward trend I think you would want to wait to have more than a year of data to see if things have really changed," he said of Victoria's crime rise.

Police also note that even with the big jump in homicides the rate still fell far below the rest of the world, including most of Canada and the USA.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 06:14 PM

Just move to Australia if you love it so much. That shit isn't happening in the US even after the baby boomers die off.

Uh huh. Posturing is fun. Like I said last year they said we would not even have this political conversation. What I take from this is that you acknowledge the efficacy of Australia's actions and now are being a little bitch about it.

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 06:32 PM

Uh huh. Posturing is fun. Like I said last year they said we would not even have this political conversation. What I take from this is that you acknowledge the efficacy of Australia's actions and now are being a little bitch about it.

:lmao

Nothing is holding you back and keeping you here. Move if you think Australia's system is so much better than ours. 22 hours on a plane and you can be in your gun free heaven.

I'm not saying that is not a great choice for some (you apparently)

I'm saying the USA will never go that route.

Could be the way both continents were founded.

Australia? Prisoners from the UK dumped on an island in the middle of nowhere. They got good with killing with rocks and knives.

DMC

12-26-2012, 06:46 PM

No you didn't. You cited factcheck and it said 2 things.

1) that the buyback had no apparent effect. ie unrelated.
2) that the rate of change was increased.

You still haven't read the study and are trying to drawline between unrelated subjects. None of them are mutually exclusive.

And your theage article is at best a one year sample and certainly does not indicate that Aussie homicide rates have remained constant.

How many australian mass shootings have there been since 1996?

Why are mass shootings worse than serial shootings? Aren't you just playing a political card to draw the distinction? Deaths are deaths. If the time between killings is 2 days or 2 minutes or 2 seconds, it's still the same number of deaths.

DMC

12-26-2012, 06:50 PM

FFS from your newage article

One mass shooting happens within a year. Is that then irrelevant if a year goes by afterward and another doesn't happen? Here you want to ignore a year's worth of data but focus on one single event. And do you think that murders with semi-auto weapons can still occur but somehow magically mass shootings won't? Care to explain how that works?

DMC

12-26-2012, 06:53 PM

DMC

12-26-2012, 06:58 PM

Australia 2012 Crime and Safety Report: Sydney
Stolen items; Theft; Assault; Burglary; Drug Trafficking; Extreme heat/drought; Wildfires; Floods; Hurricanes
East Asia & Pacific > Australia > Canberra; East Asia & Pacific > Australia > Sydney
3/27/2012
Overall Crime and Safety Situation

Crime Threats

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security rated the overall crime situation in Sydney and throughout Australia as MEDIUM. Travelers should exercise the same level of caution and security awareness as they would in any major city in the United States. The most common crimes encountered by Australians and foreign residents alike in Sydney are assaults (non-domestic) and breaking and entering. Armed robberies also occur. In these cases, the most common weapon used is a knife or other cutting implement that account for 35 percent of murders. Australia has extremely restrictive firearms legislation that make the purchase, possession, licensing, and storage of firearms very difficult when compared to U.S. jurisdictions. Local police have attributed a majority of burglaries and robberies to growing problems with substance abuse including methamphetamines (ICE). The crime trend for the past 12 months has remained static although reductions in some crimes have occurred. For example, assaults have dropped 6.4 percent from 2009/10 figures. Also stealing from the person and breaking and entering incidents have dropped by 5.8 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively.

In 2011, the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) reported that Darlinghurst Road in Kings Cross, Oxford Street in Darlinghurst, King Street in Newtown, Glebe Point Road in Glebe, and George Street in the CBD were hotspots for city violence. Typically, alcohol fueled this violence. The BOCSAR report found that 56.8 percent of assaults in the city centre were within 50m of a liquor outlet.

Sydney’s murder rate has halved in the past decade, falling to its lowest level in recent history. Homicide cases have dropped from 88 in 2001 to 43 in 2011, reflecting a statewide trend in which murders fell from 119 to 77. The rate of one homicide per 100,000 people is the lowest in many years, according to BOSCAR. The percentage of murders committed with a firearm has declined across Australia since 1999 to approximately 15 percent currently. This is often attributed to stricter gun laws passed after the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996, yet gun violence has not declined accordingly. Improvements in policing are thought to have contributed to Sydney's falling murder rate, including crackdowns on Middle Eastern crime, gang violence, and domestic violence. Familial homicide, or murder committed by a spouse or relative, accounts for about 40 percent of murders in NSW.

Latarian Milton

12-26-2012, 07:12 PM

banning guns ain't gonna help decrease homocide rate by any means since the criminals would always find other weapons like knives, stones or even bare hands to kill innocent people one way or another. guns ain't a threat to the society imho, the real threat lies in the evil minds of thugs and the only way to protect the innocent people is by having more good-minded people armed with guns imho.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:13 PM

Why are mass shootings worse than serial shootings? Aren't you just playing a political card to draw the distinction? Deaths are deaths. If the time between killings is 2 days or 2 minutes or 2 seconds, it's still the same number of deaths.

I am talking about both and despite your claims of a static homicide rate which the article you cited said otherwise, gun deaths from any source are down across the board for the country. Mass, individual, self inflicted, intentional or not.

DMC

12-26-2012, 07:16 PM

I am talking about both and despite your claims of a static homicide rate which the article you cited said otherwise, gun deaths from any source are down across the board for the country. Mass, individual, self inflicted, intentional or not.

Gun deaths are down but not deaths overall. That says that guns aren't required to kill people. It defeats your entire argument, but thanks.

If they got rid of guns, why haven't they gotten rid of gun related deaths? Where are these mysterious guns coming from?

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:17 PM

One mass shooting happens within a year. Is that then irrelevant if a year goes by afterward and another doesn't happen? Here you want to ignore a year's worth of data but focus on one single event. And do you think that murders with semi-auto weapons can still occur but somehow magically mass shootings won't? Care to explain how that works?

Again I am not limiting my discussion to one thing by speaking on that thing. You suck at arguing.

Despite your current poo-pooing the fact remains that since 1996 there has not been a mass shooting in Australia. The trend relating to shootings has also improved.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:18 PM

Gun deaths are down but not deaths overall. That says that guns aren't required to kill people. It defeats your entire argument, but thanks.

The homicide rate has also gone down. See my ffs post from above. It's pretty obvious that you are googling and using confirmation bias. Youa re pulling a Darrin though in that in doing so you aren't reading the shit you are posting.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:20 PM

Correlation does not equate to cause.

And it's impossible to prove cause so correlation is the best that we have. It certainly better than just saying 'the only answer is deterrence' with absolutely no correlating evidence.

I will take some empirical evidence over ideological assertions.

DMC

12-26-2012, 07:22 PM

Again I am not limiting my discussion to one thing by speaking on that thing. You suck at arguing.

Bullshit. I point something out to you, you say "but what about mass shootings?"

That's limiting the discussion to mass shootings, because you didn't even address the previous point I made. You are absolutely speaking to mass shootings, since gun related crime did not decrease, gun related deaths still happen, and murder rates are right about where they've been. The threat level there is the same as in the US, according to their own assessment.

Despite your current poo-pooing the fact remains that since 1996 there has not been a mass shooting in Australia. The trend relating to shootings has also improved.
Here you are right back at this goal post and you introduce "trend related shootings" but have you checked into serial crimes or why these events have decreased or did you just automatically associate it with something that supports your cause? Did you stop looking once you found something that confirmed your belief?

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:24 PM

:lmao

Nothing is holding you back and keeping you here. Move if you think Australia's system is so much better than ours. 22 hours on a plane and you can be in your gun free heaven.

I'm not saying that is not a great choice for some (you apparently)

I'm saying the USA will never go that route.

Could be the way both continents were founded.

Australia? Prisoners from the UK dumped on an island in the middle of nowhere. They got good with killing with rocks and knives.

While I do have friends over there and appreciate them, that in no way makes this any less my home.

They tried what I am talking about and it worked. As such I want to try what they are doing in their home at my home. I am not just going to leave the country that I love.

Further, you cannot speak to what this country will or won't do. It's a democracy and times change. I am all for being pragmatic but I also refuse to stop pursuing what I think as best. I find both need to be considered in any endeavor.

DMC

12-26-2012, 07:24 PM

And it's impossible to prove cause so correlation is the best that we have. Then explain the correlation since these weapons still exist are are still being used in murders.

It certainly better than just saying 'the only answer is deterrence' with absolutely no correlating evidence.
So pulling something out of your ass is better than using a proven practice of deterrence? Do you really want to take the position that deterrence is unproven?

I will take some empirical evidence over ideological assertions.
You have no empirical evidence that links a gun ban to a reduction in mass shootings, to a reduction in gun related crime or even to a reduction in crime in general. You do not have all the variables, don't know what's going on in Australia, but you have the gun ban and that's all you need to wave the flag.

DMC

12-26-2012, 07:26 PM

Fuzzy seems to have either missed or ignored this.

Australia 2012 Crime and Safety Report: Sydney
Stolen items; Theft; Assault; Burglary; Drug Trafficking; Extreme heat/drought; Wildfires; Floods; Hurricanes
East Asia & Pacific > Australia > Canberra; East Asia & Pacific > Australia > Sydney
3/27/2012
Overall Crime and Safety Situation

Crime Threats

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security rated the overall crime situation in Sydney and throughout Australia as MEDIUM. Travelers should exercise the same level of caution and security awareness as they would in any major city in the United States. The most common crimes encountered by Australians and foreign residents alike in Sydney are assaults (non-domestic) and breaking and entering. Armed robberies also occur. In these cases, the most common weapon used is a knife or other cutting implement that account for 35 percent of murders. Australia has extremely restrictive firearms legislation that make the purchase, possession, licensing, and storage of firearms very difficult when compared to U.S. jurisdictions. Local police have attributed a majority of burglaries and robberies to growing problems with substance abuse including methamphetamines (ICE). The crime trend for the past 12 months has remained static although reductions in some crimes have occurred. For example, assaults have dropped 6.4 percent from 2009/10 figures. Also stealing from the person and breaking and entering incidents have dropped by 5.8 percent and 3.6 percent, respectively.

In 2011, the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) reported that Darlinghurst Road in Kings Cross, Oxford Street in Darlinghurst, King Street in Newtown, Glebe Point Road in Glebe, and George Street in the CBD were hotspots for city violence. Typically, alcohol fueled this violence. The BOCSAR report found that 56.8 percent of assaults in the city centre were within 50m of a liquor outlet.

Sydney’s murder rate has halved in the past decade, falling to its lowest level in recent history. Homicide cases have dropped from 88 in 2001 to 43 in 2011, reflecting a statewide trend in which murders fell from 119 to 77. The rate of one homicide per 100,000 people is the lowest in many years, according to BOSCAR. The percentage of murders committed with a firearm has declined across Australia since 1999 to approximately 15 percent currently. This is often attributed to stricter gun laws passed after the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996, yet gun violence has not declined accordingly. Improvements in policing are thought to have contributed to Sydney's falling murder rate, including crackdowns on Middle Eastern crime, gang violence, and domestic violence. Familial homicide, or murder committed by a spouse or relative, accounts for about 40 percent of murders in NSW.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:28 PM

Bullshit. I point something out to you, you say "but what about mass shootings?"

That's limiting the discussion to mass shootings, because you didn't even address the previous point I made. You are absolutely speaking to mass shootings, since gun related crime did not decrease, gun related deaths still happen, and murder rates are right about where they've been. The threat level there is the same as in the US, according to their own assessment.

Here you are right back at this goal post and you introduce "trend related shootings" but have you checked into serial crimes or why these events have decreased or did you just automatically associate it with something that supports your cause? Did you stop looking once you found something that confirmed your belief?

I never said 'what about mass shootings.' You are now trying to make this about serial killers.

That's also not moving the goal posts. That is your failure of comprehension. Have we or have we not been talking about trends in gun related homicides, accidents etc before and after the ban?

You also do not get to choose what topics are discussed. You are being quite boring in trying to frame the discussion. It's typical lame debate tactics.

DMC

12-26-2012, 07:29 PM

The homicide rate has also gone down. See my ffs post from above. It's pretty obvious that you are googling and using confirmation bias. Youa re pulling a Darrin though in that in doing so you aren't reading the shit you are posting.

I read it. I even responded. You ignored the point I made and sought to make your own.

You contend that a gun ban stopped mass shootings, but there was a shooting after the 96 ban, it happened in 2002. There were more gun laws passed after that. Maybe one day they will outlaw the thought of guns when these things continue to happen.

DMC

12-26-2012, 07:35 PM

I never said 'what about mass shootings.' You are now trying to make this about serial killers.

Despite your current poo-pooing the fact remains that since 1996 there has not been a mass shooting in Australia. The trend relating to shootings has also improved.

i.e. "what about mass shootings?".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

Seems like you need to research your facts.

That's also not moving the goal posts. That is your failure of comprehension. Have we or have we not been talking about trends in gun related homicides, accidents etc before and after the ban?

No, you have been talking about that because that's where you want the conversation to go. You win if it goes there because of course getting rid of guns will reduce gun related deaths, but it did not reduce deaths in general. That should be the goal, who cares how they are classified? That's just a talking point you're using to get by.

You also do not get to choose what topics are discussed. You are being quite boring in trying to frame the discussion. It's typical lame debate tactics.
Like you trying to frame it in "gun related deaths" and on to "mass shootings" instead of how the number of guns is not directly proportional to the number of murders. This is a thread about the NRA, not about Australia.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:35 PM

Fuzzy seems to have either missed or ignored this.

I didn't miss it.

I just understand that while Sydney is in Australia it is not all of Australia.

And here is another ffs moment. Apparently the same brain that thinks

You have no empirical evidence that links a gun ban to .... even to a reduction in crime in general.

and then follows up with a link that says

Homicide cases have dropped from 88 in 2001 to 43 in 2011, reflecting a statewide trend in which murders fell from 119 to 77. The rate of one homicide per 100,000 people is the lowest in many years, according to BOSCAR.

Your self ownage is hilarious though. Keep on googling WC style. It's entertaining.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:38 PM

I read it. I even responded. You ignored the point I made and sought to make your own.

You contend that a gun ban stopped mass shootings, but there was a shooting after the 96 ban, it happened in 2002. There were more gun laws passed after that. Maybe one day they will outlaw the thought of guns when these things continue to happen.

You are right I was incorrect. There has been one shooting in Australia since the ban.

How many have there been in the US since 96?

And just because I talk about mass shootings does not mean that I don't address the other shit. You can try and frame it as such but we both know that not to be the case.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:40 PM

Then explain the correlation since these weapons still exist are are still being used in murders.
So pulling something out of your ass is better than using a proven practice of deterrence? Do you really want to take the position that deterrence is unproven?

You have no empirical evidence that links a gun ban to a reduction in mass shootings, to a reduction in gun related crime or even to a reduction in crime in general. You do not have all the variables, don't know what's going on in Australia, but you have the gun ban and that's all you need to wave the flag.

Show your 'proof of deterrence.' You certainly cannot point to the lifting of the assault weapons ban being lifted in 2006 to a decrease in gun related homicides, accidents etc.

All you have is an assertion.

DMC

12-26-2012, 07:42 PM

I didn't miss it.

I just understand that while Sydney is in Australia it is not all of Australia.

And here is another ffs moment. Apparently the same brain that thinks

and then follows up with a link that says

Your self ownage is hilarious though. Keep on googling WC style. It's entertaining.

Show a link to the reduction in murder rates to the gun ban. That was my point. You truncated my response to try to make it seem different. Talk about how there have been no mass shootings since 1996.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:44 PM

No, you have been talking about that because that's where you want the conversation to go. You win if it goes there because of course getting rid of guns will reduce gun related deaths, but it did not reduce deaths in general. That should be the goal, who cares how they are classified? That's just a talking point you're using to get by.

I want the conversation to include the point being made. That does not mean that is all that I want the conversation to include. I am not sitting there crying about moving the goalposts when other subjects are being discussed.

What you are doing is known as poisoning the well and its an age old lame ass tactic.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:48 PM

Show a link to the reduction in murder rates to the gun ban. That was my point. You truncated my response to try to make it seem different. Talk about how there have been no mass shootings since 1996.

I linked it in the first study from the get go. It talked about the trends before and after the ban as well as the static amounts.

You know this because now you are trying the correlation does not necessarily mean causation argument. You admit that there is a correlation. You have posted things saying the overall homicide rate has dropped to. It's hilarious watching you half reading google finds and selfowning. You are flailing all over the place.

CosmicCowboy

12-26-2012, 07:53 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 07:56 PM

LOL @ Fuzzynuts jerking off thinking he won anything on the internets. LOL @ Fuzzynuts thinking his empirical evidence and critical thinking is going to miraculously convince the USA to follow Australia's example. :lmao

More bluster from the blowhard. Don't deign to make claims on what I think. That you think that I think that is telling though.

Latarian Milton

12-26-2012, 07:57 PM

reducing the legal access to guns is definitely gonna help reduce the chance of mass-shooting because most of the mass shooters, if i remember correct, got the guns from legal possessors which means they would've never got these guns in the first place if a more strict law on gun possession has been put in power, but your not gonna see a decrease in gun-related crimes overall since gangstas make up a major portion of these crimes n most of them buy firearms from the black market.

DMC

12-26-2012, 08:03 PM

Show your 'proof of deterrence.' You certainly cannot point to the lifting of the assault weapons ban being lifted in 2006 to a decrease in gun related homicides, accidents etc.

All you have is an assertion.
Moving the goal posts again. I merely asked for a reliable link, not proof. You're asking for proof which is net speak for "convince me or you lose".

Proven practice of deterrence = Secret Service (not really secret, they are apparent when walking or standing around the president). How many mass shootings have occurred at police stations vs schools? What is a "show of force" and what is it intended to do? Why hasn't the USA been attacked by a foreign military since the Pearl Harbor attack? Why don't the LA citizens break into stores and loot regularly instead of only doing so when the police abandon the city? Why do people lock doors? It won't keep someone out who really intends on getting in.

It's all a proven practice of deterrence. An armed police officer in a school would cause some would be shooters to reconsider.

This is common sense, unlike your "less guns = less deaths" facade. If Mark Cuban bought 2 million guns and stored them in a series of safes, there would suddenly be more guns, but how would that increase the crime rate? It's the criminals with guns (that still exist in Australia obviously) that cause these things.

Fuzzy, trying to disarm the law abiding citizen because he loves his country so much but hates what it stands for.

Latarian Milton

12-26-2012, 08:05 PM

Then explain the correlation since these weapons still exist are are still being used in murders.
So pulling something out of your ass is better than using a proven practice of deterrence? Do you really want to take the position that deterrence is unproven?

You have no empirical evidence that links a gun ban to a reduction in mass shootings, to a reduction in gun related crime or even to a reduction in crime in general. You do not have all the variables, don't know what's going on in Australia, but you have the gun ban and that's all you need to wave the flag.
australia n US ain't the same country to begin with, and i don't think having a gun gives you any sort of legit deterrent to those potential criminals when you don't have any idea even how to shoot, an old lonely pussy armed with guns are only gonna end up shot in the arse by his own firearms imho

FuzzyLumpkins

12-26-2012, 08:06 PM

You bring up deterrence and when I respond to it then that is me moving the goalposts?

This is boring, bye.

DMC

12-26-2012, 08:09 PM

I linked it in the first study from the get go. It talked about the trends before and after the ban as well as the static amounts.

You know this because now you are trying the correlation does not necessarily mean causation argument. You admit that there is a correlation. You have posted things saying the overall homicide rate has dropped to. It's hilarious watching you half reading google finds and selfowning. You are flailing all over the place.

Despite your current poo-pooing the fact remains that since 1996 there has not been a mass shooting in Australia. The trend relating to shootings has also improved.

The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. It took place at Monash University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University) in Melbourne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne), Victoria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_%28Australia%29), Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) on 21 October 2002. The gunman, Huan Yun Xiang, was acquitted of crimes related to the shootings due to mental impairment, and is currently under psychiatric care. Several of the people present in the room of the shootings have been commended for their bravery in tackling Xiang and ending the shooting.

DMC

12-26-2012, 08:10 PM

You bring up deterrence and when I respond to it then that is me moving the goalposts?

This is boring, bye.

No, you brought up deterrence and asked me to prove it works. I did.

Latarian Milton

12-26-2012, 08:12 PM

I read it. I even responded. You ignored the point I made and sought to make your own.

You contend that a gun ban stopped mass shootings, but there was a shooting after the 96 ban, it happened in 2002. There were more gun laws passed after that. Maybe one day they will outlaw the thought of guns when these things continue to happen.

a more strict gun law does help reduce the occurance of mass shooting because most criminals in such cases are just ill-minded motherfuckers who spent their entire lives in school and who probably don't even know the existence of something like a blackmarket, and the guns they use are mostly legal purchased, either bought by themselves straightly or stolen from their legal owners. gun-related crime as a whole ain't gonna decrease because gang crimes make the majority of it and the gangstas don't buy guns from the legal market

DMC

12-26-2012, 08:14 PM

a more strict gun law does help reduce the occurance of mass shooting because most criminals in such cases are just ill-minded motherfuckers who spent their entire lives in school and who probably don't even know the existence of something like a blackmarket, and the guns they use are mostly legal purchased, either bought by themselves straightly or stolen from their legal owners. gun-related crime as a whole ain't gonna decrease because gang crimes make the majority of it and the gangstas don't buy guns from the legal market

The chink I listed above had 5 guns, all legally acquired, and he was deemed to be mentally ill.

Latarian Milton

12-26-2012, 08:59 PM

that sounds true, otherwise how the hell would he join a frivolous argument on the internet with dudes who're only half or even 1/3 his age?

ElNono

12-27-2012, 12:05 AM

Just move to Australia if you love it so much. That shit isn't happening in the US even after the baby boomers die off.

Ehhh... Never say never... I'm pretty sure some peeps thought just the same thing about ever seeing a black President...

Time changes people and culture... I suspect much like other cultural fads, clinging to bible and guns might eventually come to pass (and perhaps make a resurgence later on)

Wild Cobra

12-27-2012, 05:19 AM

LnGrrrR

12-27-2012, 10:26 AM

I would be curious if anyone saw the gun laws before Austrailia changed them, and even the general atmosphere of training citizens. It seems to me a public training aspect would be far more effective than any laws.

I somewhat agree with this. I think schools might be better off coaching teachers (and students in the case of 5th grade or higher) what to do in active shooter situation. I know it sounds horrible, but kids get earthquake training in some areas, and they used to get bomb scare training too. The teacher wouldn't have to go into specifics, just say "A situation RED means all of us are going to hide in this closet etc etc".

FuzzyLumpkins

12-27-2012, 10:49 AM

I somewhat agree with this. I think schools might be better off coaching teachers (and students in the case of 5th grade or higher) what to do in active shooter situation. I know it sounds horrible, but kids get earthquake training in some areas, and they used to get bomb scare training too. The teacher wouldn't have to go into specifics, just say "A situation RED means all of us are going to hide in this closet etc etc".

The teachers in Newtown were trained.

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 11:05 AM

The teachers in Newtown were trained.

Too bad they weren't trained with guns to shoot back with.

LnGrrrR

12-27-2012, 01:22 PM

The teachers in Newtown were trained.

And it showed, in many cases. Without the teachers who intelligently hid the kids, it might've been much worse. I just don't know if a majority of schools are doing that.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-27-2012, 05:05 PM

Too bad they weren't trained with guns to shoot back with.

Because guns in every 1st grade classroom seems like such a good idea....

DMC

12-27-2012, 05:55 PM

Because guns in every 1st grade classroom seems like such a good idea....
Banning guns from law abiding citizens so they all become like a classroom of helpless children seems like a better one.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-27-2012, 05:58 PM

I imagine CC could use some of that straw you are suing to feed his stock. It's a much better use than piling it on top of the rest of your bullshit.

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 06:01 PM

That isn't straw. That crazy cocksucker could have been stopped before he ever got to that classroom full of kids if:

1) There had been an armed security guard on duty

2) The faculty had been armed

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 06:02 PM

Evil motherfuckers exist and gun free zones make easy targets.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-27-2012, 06:04 PM

cantthinkofanything

12-27-2012, 06:07 PM

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 06:08 PM

I will say that I think Feinstein massively over reached. I hope she does put that bill to a vote in the senate without modification. It will get crushed.

DMC

12-27-2012, 06:11 PM

That wasn't the straw that I was referring to. He thinks I want to ban all guns. He keeps on saying that I do over and over again. He has been trying the same lame tactics with Chump for a couple of days now.

I know we hardly get along, CC, but I will say at the very least that I believe you are an honest man. Him? Not so much.
You have no good reasons for your stance on semi-autos vs revolvers. Had the shooter used a couple of revolvers and speed loaders, he could have killed just as many people given the fact that he took out the adults first. No kid is going to approach him and try to disarm him in a classroom where their teacher and friends have been shot already.

You don't use any common fucking sense, just parroted, ignorant ass hyperbole. Your slippery slope "semi-autos" stance reeks of being either unaware or apathetic to the real causes of these events, and you're just using the event itself to push a liberal agenda of gun control.

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 06:13 PM

I can honestly say I like guns. Guns are fun. I have everything from an original 1876 octagon barrel Winchester (that I still shoot) to classic single action pistolero six guns in western harness, to modern pistols/rifles. I can't even remember how many kids I have taught to shoot. the kids all love chasing cans with the semi-autos with big magazines the best. If you were a bad guy you would not like to fuck with my daughter because she can SHOOT.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-27-2012, 06:14 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

12-27-2012, 06:18 PM

But why do you want to ban guns?

:lol okie dokey.

This is why he does his lame ass tactic. It's dishonest bullshit.

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 06:18 PM

Shastafarian

12-27-2012, 06:28 PM

FWIW I could have done the same thing with my two .38/.357 western style single action revolvers that he did. Just don't understand why anyone would want to. That's why the good guys need guns.

Could have done it with a lot fewer rounds fired too.
A school security guard in Utah disagrees with you. He said he didn't feel safe with only the pistol that he normally carries. Now he has a safe with an assault rifle in it just in case. Meeting power with power.

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 06:36 PM

A school security guard in Utah disagrees with you. He said he didn't feel safe with only the pistol that he normally carries. Now he has a safe with an assault rifle in it just in case. Meeting power with power.

I'm cool with that. I think they should have HK 416's or 91's, Short barrel Mod 12's with #4 buck, and stun grenades in the locker as a minimum.

Shastafarian

12-27-2012, 06:37 PM

I'm cool with that. I think they should have HK 416's, Short barrel Mod 12's with #4 buck, and stun grenades in the locker as a minimum.

Or we could just do away with the other ones...

Borat Sagyidev

12-27-2012, 06:40 PM

FWIW I could have done the same thing with my two .38/.357 western style single action revolvers that he did. Just don't understand why anyone would want to. That's why the good guys need guns.

Could have done it with a lot fewer rounds fired too.

It would have been much harder to get off even have that many rounds quickly with a revolver. When you´re reloading, you get tackled. game over.

I can shoot over 30 rounds a minute with a 6 round revolver with years of practice, so spare me on how anybody can do it. It´s not that easy, otherwise semiautomatics wouldn´t be as popular for these mass murders.

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 06:41 PM

Or we could just do away with the other ones...

My point was I could have done as much or more damage with "primitive" single action revolvers in a gun free zone as that crazy fucker did with the bushmaster.

Shastafarian

12-27-2012, 06:42 PM

My point was I could have done as much or more damage with "primitive" single action revolvers in a gun free zone as that crazy fucker did with the bushmaster.

Well you're wrong. Just because people don't have guns doesn't mean they're unable to stop someone from shooting one.

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 06:43 PM

It would have been much harder to get off even have that many rounds quickly with a revolver. When you´re reloading, you get tackled. game over.

I can shoot over 30 rounds a minute with a 6 round revolver with years of practice, so spare me on how anybody can do it. It´s not that easy, otherwise semiautomatics wouldn´t be as popular for these mass murders.

I'm pretty sure I'm faster than you are but not as fast as Bob Munden. He explains the theory pretty well for you guys in the slow group.

xRXXxQ1OuDc

FuzzyLumpkins

12-27-2012, 06:46 PM

My point was I could have done as much or more damage with "primitive" single action revolvers in a gun free zone as that crazy fucker did with the bushmaster.

And what could you have done with an AR-15 then?

Borat Sagyidev

12-27-2012, 06:52 PM

You have no good reasons for your stance on semi-autos vs revolvers. Had the shooter used a couple of revolvers and speed loaders, he could have killed just as many people given the fact that he took out the adults first. No kid is going to approach him and try to disarm him in a classroom where their teacher and friends have been shot already.

You don't use any common fucking sense, just parroted, ignorant ass hyperbole. Your slippery slope "semi-autos" stance reeks of being either unaware or apathetic to the real causes of these events, and you're just using the event itself to push a liberal agenda of gun control.

Speed loaders still require a significant pause, just enough to tackle and disarm someone. I´ve trained Kuwaiti police to do it based on round count and identifying weapon type.

Any delay can be a significant advantage in stopping someone.

How to reconcile that the last recent mass murders (Kind of pathetic that we are treating it like a usual occurrence) relied on 30 round mags and most notably in the aurora shooting a 100 round drum? If non automatic weapons are so readily abel to do the same why aren´t they using them?

Borat Sagyidev

12-27-2012, 06:57 PM

I'm pretty sure I'm faster than you are but not as fast as Bob Munden. He explains the theory pretty well for you guys in the slow group.

xRXXxQ1OuDc

I´m faster than this guy. Did I mention I use a single revolver and reload 5 times in a minute?

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 06:58 PM

And what could you have done with an AR-15 then?

Doesn't matter. I'm not a bad guy. You would want me on your side if bad guys were around, though.

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 06:59 PM

I´m faster than this guy. Did I mention I use a single revolver and reload 5 times in a minute?

You should shoot cowboy action then. You could be a world champion with sponsors.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-27-2012, 07:03 PM

Doesn't matter. I'm not a bad guy. You would want me on your side if bad guys were around, though.

Fair enough. You don't want to make my point for me but you get what I am saying.

Borat Sagyidev

12-27-2012, 07:12 PM

You should shoot cowboy action then. You could be a world champion with sponsors.

Funny you mention that, my grandfather who trained me did that. But in all seriousness that is a sport with emphasis on showmanship and it goes out the window when you´re being shot at.

That´s the problem with so many of you fanatics, you treat it like a video game. Some loud mouth marksman in my unit in Iraq during the search for Sadaams WMDs dropped our cover under fire because he had received a flesh wound from a metal fragment...not even a direct hit. All that fancy skill didn´t mean squat when it was serious.

I´d be willing to bet the farm if any one of you gun fanatics (not owners, owners tend to be level headed) has a close relative shot by some crazy fool carrying loads of multi round mags and you change your tune pretty quick.

Shastafarian

12-27-2012, 07:14 PM

I´d be willing to bet the farm if any one of you gun fanatics (not owners, owners tend to be level headed) has a close relative shot by some crazy fool carrying loads of multi round mags and you change your tune pretty quick.
I think you give some of these people way too much credit.

DMC

12-27-2012, 07:17 PM

If he got a metal fragment from a round, your cover was already dropped.

cantthinkofanything

12-27-2012, 07:18 PM

I the kids all love chasing cans with the semi-autos with big magazines the best.

AfriCANS, MexiCANS, Pietro RiCANS

CosmicCowboy

12-27-2012, 08:26 PM

If he got a metal fragment from a round, your cover was already dropped.

LOL

Don't besmirch his big bad warrior creds.

I did note that he was jealous of the guy that qualified for his marksman badge which presumes Boris didn't make the cut.

Borat Sagyidev

12-27-2012, 09:16 PM

LOL

Don't besmirch his big bad warrior creds.

I did note that he was jealous of the guy that qualified for his marksman badge which presumes Boris didn't make the cut.

Big warrior credentials is pretty much anything not in a video game to fanatics like yourself. I do have a marksmanship badge with an M-9 under CBRN criteria, whatever.

DMC

12-27-2012, 09:29 PM

Big warrior credentials is pretty much anything not in a video game to fanatics like yourself. I do have a marksmanship badge with an M-9 under CBRN criteria, whatever.

lol

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 03:27 AM

Because guns in every 1st grade classroom seems like such a good idea....
Schools are a good place for "don't ask don't tell" policies with firearms and teachers. The children don't need to know, and elementary school children should be allowed to maintain their innocence by not seeing armed security and asking "why."

ChumpDumper

12-28-2012, 04:44 AM

WC has an antenna badge.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-28-2012, 05:19 AM

Schools are a good place for "don't ask don't tell" policies with firearms and teachers. The children don't need to know, and elementary school children should be allowed to maintain their innocence by not seeing armed security and asking "why."

Of course nothing can go wrong when a whole country of classrooms full of kids has a gun that the children have no idea is there or what it is if they somehow manage to find one.

If you give it to a cop then that is one thing. You explain to the kid what a cop is and how they are to be respected and how they are there to protect them. You don't make it an Easter Egg hunt.

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 05:21 AM

Of course nothing can go wrong when a whole country of classrooms full of kids has a gun that the children have no idea is there or what it is if they somehow manage to find one.

If you give it to a cop then that is one thing. You explain to the kid what a cop is and how they are to be respected and how they are there to protect them. You don't make it an Easter Egg hunt.
My God...

You are a total idiot.

You obviously do not have a conceal carry permit, else you wouldn't make such asinine statements.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-28-2012, 05:52 AM

Oh so now you think it's a good idea for primary school teachers to carry a pistol on their person.

It's more like you have no sense of scale either. There are ~100,000 schools in this country and millions of teachers K-12. You want hundreds of thousands of teachers to wear a pistol on their person that the kids they teach are unaware that they have.

Do you think anything through?

And nevermind the Orwellian stormtrooper vibe of it all.

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 05:56 AM

What is wrong with allowing teachers to carry by choice? Not telling them they must, or that they can't?

FuzzyLumpkins

12-28-2012, 06:15 AM

SO now random teachers will be carrying guns that their students don't know that they have.

It's a school and they are teachers not guards. That's what is wrong with it.

boutons_deux

12-28-2012, 06:21 AM

bubbas' country (as promoted by the gun industry): all teachers should open-carry and have full body armor in classrooms.

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 06:35 AM

SO now random teachers will be carrying guns that their students don't know that they have.

It's a school and they are teachers not guards. That's what is wrong with it.
And they have a choice as to act or not as well.

I see you completely lack common sense.

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 06:36 AM

bubbas' country (as promoted by the gun industry): all teachers should open-carry and have full body armor in classrooms.
Hell no.

I am really curious how you can be so stupid, as to extrapolate that from my words?

FuzzyLumpkins

12-28-2012, 07:11 AM

And they have a choice as to act or not as well.

I see you completely lack common sense.

:lol common sense

So whats your employers policy towards you bringing a gun into work?

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 07:36 AM

:lol common sense

So whats your employers policy towards you bringing a gun into work?
They don't allow it, and that is their right.

Latarian Milton

12-28-2012, 09:17 AM

i don't see no problem with teachers carrying guns to school as long as they keep their guns out of students' reach, assuming that teachers are all mentally healthy and are responsible for their behaviors. one or two cops at school ain't gonna be enough deterrents when the criminal is poised to expend his own life

boutons_deux

12-28-2012, 09:30 AM

Hell no.

I am really curious how you can be so stupid, as to extrapolate that from my words?

you're not curious about anything outside of your close-minded, benighted blind ideology.

Any teacher having a gun in a classroom safely (locked up) and not wearing body armor is a sitting ducktard for a surprise attack by body-armored, semi-automatic, high capacity attacker.

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 09:31 AM

you're not curious about anything outside of your close-minded, benighted blind ideology.

Any teacher having a gun in a classroom safely (locked up) and not wearing body armor is a sitting ducktard for a surprise attack by body-armored, semi-automatic, high capacity attacker.
And they aren't a sitting duck unarmed?

boutons_deux

12-28-2012, 10:15 AM

And they aren't a sitting duck unarmed?

Of course they are. So arming every teacher is nothing about child safety and all about, as always with you gun fetishists, enriching the arms industry.

TeyshaBlue

12-28-2012, 10:18 AM

you're not curious about anything outside of your close-minded, benighted blind ideology.

lol

TeyshaBlue

12-28-2012, 10:29 AM

And they have a choice as to act or not as well.

I see you completely lack common sense.

Common sense would dictate that you examine what the teachers think about this idea.

I believe you will be disappointed.

boutons_deux

12-28-2012, 10:29 AM

some quote from a mother of "collateral damage" of dickless gun fetishists and the corporate guns-and-ammo industry. the dickless gun fetishists suckered into "believing" that unregulated guns for everyone everywhere is a pure and principled 2nd Amendment argument when the FF's had nothing like in their "originalism".

http://forward.com/workspace/assets/images/articles/w-2noah-122612.jpg

He already knew how to read; he had a vocabulary well beyond his years, using words like “DNA” and “dynamic.”

“He excelled academically,” says Danielle. “His teachers said he was really, really, smart.”

He was on a constant path of discovery. “It was always, ‘How does this work? Why does this happen?’ He wanted to understand cause and effect,” says Veronique.

Noah also wondered about God, asking his mother, “If God exists then who created God?” He wanted to know what happens after death. “I would always tell him, ‘You are not going to die until you are a very old man, Noah.’ He was afraid of death, I know he was. He feared the unknown,” Veronique says. “Sometimes I wonder whether he had some foretelling, some prescience about it. Of course I will never know for sure, maybe it was just the random fears of a child.”

For hours, she sat in the firehouse, waiting. Her stomach clenched; she vomited in the bathroom. When she came out there was pizza and donuts, but she couldn’t eat.

Soon, nuns, priests, ministers and a rabbi arrived. “When I saw all those clergy people I knew in my gut of guts and my heart of hearts that they were dead,” she recalls. “I knew there was absolutely no way they would dispatch this multi-denominational fan of clergy people were it not the case that the news would be absolutely catastrophic.”

Finally, an official announcement was made: 20 child fatalities. “That is when, for me, my whole world shifted on its axis,” she says. “It was like you are sitting in a room, and everything, including you, is turned upside down and you are sitting on the ceiling instead of the floor. You have this surreal sense of void, like all the air has been sucked out of the room.” Veronique wanted to place a blanket on Noah. “They told us, ‘No, it is a crime scene.’ They would not let us go.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/168277/noah-pozners-family-remembers-and-mourns/?p=all#ixzz2GMR2Bt1Q

Watering the tree of corporate profits with the blood of children.

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 10:39 AM

Of course they are. So arming every teacher is nothing about child safety and all about, as always with you gun fetishists, enriching the arms industry.
You should conceal your blinders better.

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 10:41 AM

Common sense would dictate that you examine what the teachers think about this idea.

I believe you will be disappointed.
Are you saying that no teacher wants to carry, or that no teacher has a conceal carry permit?

I don't see your point since facts make statistics but statistics do not make facts.

Please tell me that isn't your angle...

TeyshaBlue

12-28-2012, 10:49 AM

I would suggest you read my post again. I'm being quite clear.

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 10:51 AM

I would suggest you read my post again. I'm being quite clear.
OK, I'll admit. I made an unfounded assumption.

If you mean that a consensus should be taken, I disagree.

Again, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

TeyshaBlue

12-28-2012, 10:53 AM

I mean: Ask the teachers what they think about this issue. Get their thoughts before we craft an initiative and ram it through via knee jerk mechanics.

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 10:56 AM

I mean: Ask the teachers what they think about this issue. Get their thoughts before we craft an initiative and ram it through via knee jerk mechanics.
We definitely see this differently. I do not see it as "ramming" anything by simply lifting the restriction that prevents teachers from exercising the rights and privileges of have the conceal carry permit.

DMC

12-28-2012, 10:58 AM

:lol hyperbole. You don't even deny your attempted framingof my views.

More assertions inserted for facts too.

And now he could have done the same thing with a .38 as he did with an AR-15.....

You are being really, really boring. I just picture you stamping your feet as you type, bitchwrist.
I am sure that's how you picture things, where you are destroying the field in forums and the other guy is saying "curses... foiled again!" but the reality is that you're dodging issues I've called you out on, won't even touch them even though originally they were your main talking points.

For example: talk about how there have been no mass shootings in Australia since 1996.

DMC

12-28-2012, 11:00 AM

I mean: Ask the teachers what they think about this issue. Get their thoughts before we craft an initiative and ram it through via knee jerk mechanics.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/us/utah-teachers-weapons/index.html?iref=allsearch

Blake

12-28-2012, 11:02 AM

And they have a choice as to act or not as well.

I see you completely lack common sense.

Take it a step further and let the honor roll students also carry concealed weapons.

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 11:05 AM

Take it a step further and let the honor roll students also carry concealed weapons.
Do you think they would qualify for a state issued conceal carry permit?

Wow...

Just wow...

CosmicCowboy

12-28-2012, 11:08 AM

Take it a step further and let the honor roll students also carry concealed weapons.

That's brilliant! All the potential dropout/gangbangers would have an incentive to make good grades!

leemajors

12-28-2012, 11:08 AM

Do you think they would qualify for a state issued conceal carry permit?

Wow...

Just wow...

zoom

Wild Cobra

12-28-2012, 11:10 AM

That's brilliant! All the potential dropout/gangbangers would have an incentive to make good grades!
LOL...

Come to think of it, I like the idea...

Blake

12-28-2012, 11:59 AM

That's brilliant! All the potential dropout/gangbangers would have an incentive to make good grades!

just think of all the kids that will be saved from a life of food stamps and slushees!

CosmicCowboy

12-28-2012, 12:05 PM

whatever it takes.

TeyshaBlue

12-28-2012, 12:34 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/us/utah-teachers-weapons/index.html?iref=allsearch

That's 200. Now for the remaining 10's of thousands. Better get cracking.

Shastafarian

12-28-2012, 12:39 PM

That's 200. Now for the remaining 10's of thousands. Better get cracking.
Maybe 200 is a large enough sample size for him to think it proves his point :rollin

DMC

12-28-2012, 12:54 PM

That's 200. Now for the remaining 10's of thousands. Better get cracking.

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I don't think CHL is the answer to the school shootings. I've said as much. Interesting though how you assumed I was for CHL in classrooms.

ChumpDumper

12-28-2012, 12:56 PM

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I don't think CHL is the answer to the school shootings. I've said as much. Interesting though how you assumed I was for CHL in classrooms.lol @ your accusing someone of making false assumptions.

DMC

12-28-2012, 01:01 PM

lol @ your accusing someone of making false assumptions.

LOL I have two stalkers.

ChumpDumper

12-28-2012, 01:06 PM

LOL I have two stalkers.lol now you're reading my posts

TeyshaBlue

12-28-2012, 01:56 PM

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I don't think CHL is the answer to the school shootings. I've said as much. Interesting though how you assumed I was for CHL in classrooms.

I didn't assume anything. Merely stated that you posted 200. What? Were you just trying to be disingenuous or was it an accident?

DMC

12-28-2012, 03:17 PM

I didn't assume anything. Merely stated that you posted 200. What? Were you just trying to be disingenuous or was it an accident?

I was showing WC that it's starting. That's why I didn't quote anyone. Odd that you said "better get cracking" as if it was my intention to build the "teachers with CHL" database.

TeyshaBlue

12-28-2012, 03:28 PM

I was showing WC that it's starting. That's why I didn't quote anyone. Odd that you said "better get cracking" as if it was my intention to build the "teachers with CHL" database.

I wasnt looking for teachers with a CHL. Lrn2read.

DMC

12-28-2012, 03:57 PM

What exactly were you looking for then with the "better get cracking" comment posted after I posted a link to an article about 200 educators taking a handgun class?

TeyshaBlue

12-28-2012, 04:04 PM

What exactly were you looking for then with the "better get cracking" comment posted after I posted a link to an article about 200 educators taking a handgun class?

This is a bbs. You have the ability to look at different posts other than the one right in front of you. You responded to this:
I mean: Ask the teachers what they think about this issue. Get their thoughts before we craft an initiative and ram it through via knee jerk mechanics.

You responded with the non sequiturous (just made that word up) link to 200 teachers taking a shooting class. It had about zero to do with my post.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-28-2012, 04:21 PM

I am sure that's how you picture things, where you are destroying the field in forums and the other guy is saying "curses... foiled again!" but the reality is that you're dodging issues I've called you out on, won't even touch them even though originally they were your main talking points.

For example: talk about how there have been no mass shootings in Australia since 1996.

Using a factual error on my part to draw attention to the outstanding reduction in mass shootings in Australia following the semi auto ban is not very good technique.

In the 14 years before the ban, Australia had 8 mass shootings. In the 14 years since, they have had one.

Off the cuff I was wrong. There was one and not none shootings, but as I said the last time it in no way mitigates the efficacy of the ban.

You obviously have no interest in arguing the point though because we talked about all this. That's why you are boring.

DMC

12-28-2012, 11:20 PM

Using a factual error on my part to draw attention to the outstanding reduction in mass shootings in Australia following the semi auto ban is not very good technique.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. There was a mass shooting in 2002, 6 years after the ban. The ban did not stop a student with a mental illness from legally acquiring enough fire power to do what he did. I don't see how me pointing that out to you is anything but correcting your misconception based on ignorance of the facts. Still, I had to point it out to you what, like half a dozen times before you even acknowledged it, which tells me you're more interested in scoring e-points than in having a real conversation.

In the 14 years before the ban, Australia had 8 mass shootings. In the 14 years since, they have had one.

There was a second ban in 2002. Those who disregard the 2nd Amendment use Australia ad nauseum, but most don't even know about the 2002 shooting or the subsequent ban, you included. Like I said, you folks just like to talk, learning is a side dish. You post a study on Australia's gun ban and you don't even know what you're talking about. What's really amusing is how you folks think this is the first time I have ever encountered the Australia defense. It's not my first rodeo.

Off the cuff I was wrong. There was one and not none shootings, but as I said the last time it in no way mitigates the efficacy of the ban.

Right, you being wrong in no way changes the point you're trying to make, be it hogs/javelinas or mass shootings. You're right by default.

You obviously have no interest in arguing the point though because we talked about all this. That's why you are boring.
You keep saying that but you keep returning.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-29-2012, 01:46 AM

What is this? Post shitty cliches and hope that someone buys it?

I've been posting here for years and this is the forum that I post on most. I don't think it is hyperbole that this is one of the best sports forums on the interwebs. That's why I come back.

My cake is that gun bans across most NATO states have resulted in much lower gun crime and deaths. France Germany Britain Canada Australia. You know all the countries of the world that are most like us. There being one shooting in the 8 years instead of the none that I had initial thought does not change that 1 is a much lower gun crime number than 14. You would get more mileage by saying that I am clueless because I make factual errors over this meandering bullshit you are laying out.

You do know how arguments are formed right? 'Australia had no mass shootings since the ban' is an argument I made but it is not my central argument. You understand the significance of that in terms of what you are trying to say

TSA

12-29-2012, 01:57 AM

What is your argument? What will banning AR-15's do to stop these insane mass shootings? Answer that, and that alone.

Wild Cobra

12-29-2012, 02:04 AM

Fuzzy forgets that we have criminal elements that they don't, and that the whole culture is different.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-29-2012, 04:42 PM

Fuzzy forgets that we have criminal elements that they don't, and that the whole culture is different.

WC forgets that he is a stupid motherfucker that makes shit up and inserts it for the truth.

You really think that there is no organized crime in Europe and/or Asia, nor poverty and the crime breeding ghettos it engenders. That's nice.

TSA

12-29-2012, 05:24 PM

What is your argument? What will banning AR-15's do to stop these insane mass shootings? Answer that, and that alone.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-29-2012, 05:49 PM

service request

That a type of ban used by our NATO allies who have seen success at mitigating gun related, accidents, crimes and deaths as well as mass shootings should be a strong US policy consideration. Specifically that the Canadian, Australian, UK and French bans have shown success and we should look to see what is most effective. I think the most obvious success story is the semiautomatic ban that all of them have to one degree or another.

You should have been able to figure that out. I have not exactly been demure.

DMC

12-30-2012, 05:22 PM

That a type of ban used by our NATO allies who have seen success at mitigating gun related, accidents, crimes and deaths as well as mass shootings should be a strong US policy consideration. Specifically that the Canadian, Australian, UK and French bans have shown success and we should look to see what is most effective. I think the most obvious success story is the semiautomatic ban that all of them have to one degree or another.

You should have been able to figure that out. I have not exactly been demure.
You didn't answer the question. You just said that other people banned them and they have a lower gun related death rate. You didn't address how banning the AR-15 would accomplish that task. Frankly it's because you don't know. I find it strange that an engineering mind conclude that, because a different country has a result we would like, that it's because of one thing such as gun bans and not because of a core cultural and political difference historically. I never could understand how a critical thinking mind could accept theism, and I cannot accept how you can come to such shallow conclusions except that you have no interest in the deaths themselves, just in trying to win some liberal forum points. That's why I don't take you seriously, you ignore logic and reasoning when it suits you, and you turn a blind eye to critical thinking if you think you're in danger of losing a bit of forum cred.

boutons_deux

12-30-2012, 06:33 PM

How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

Deaths since Newtown: 307

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_new town_sandy_hook_shooting.html

DMC

12-30-2012, 06:41 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

12-30-2012, 06:42 PM

You didn't answer the question. You just said that other people banned them and they have a lower gun related death rate. You didn't address how banning the AR-15 would accomplish that task. Frankly it's because you don't know. I find it strange that an engineering mind conclude that, because a different country has a result we would like, that it's because of one thing such as gun bans and not because of a core cultural and political difference historically. I never could understand how a critical thinking mind could accept theism, and I cannot accept how you can come to such shallow conclusions except that you have no interest in the deaths themselves, just in trying to win some liberal forum points. That's why I don't take you seriously, you ignore logic and reasoning when it suits you, and you turn a blind eye to critical thinking if you think you're in danger of losing a bit of forum cred.

AR-15 ban? Go fight your men of straw on someone else's time. I am not advocating an AR-15 ban. I am advocating a ban akin to ones that have owrked in our allies. I am very consistent in saying this and you are guing a different policy.

This is what I mean when I say you dance around the point and try to frame things in a certain light. You really suck at arguing and just meander around throwing shit against the wall. It's really boring. I have about 6 hours worth of games to watch here so it will give you time to think of something both germane and not inane.

Try harder.

DMC

12-30-2012, 06:57 PM

AR-15 ban? Go fight your men of straw on someone else's time. I am not advocating an AR-15 ban. I am advocating a ban akin to ones that have owrked in our allies. I am very consistent in saying this and you are guing a different policy.

This is what I mean when I say you dance around the point and try to frame things in a certain light. You really suck at arguing and just meander around throwing shit against the wall. It's really boring. I have about 6 hours worth of games to watch here so it will give you time to think of something both germane and not inane.

Try harder.

Ok...

white 92%, Asian 7%, aboriginal and other 1% Australia

White 74% Latino 16.4% Blacks 12.6% USA

When Australia gets a 30% black and Latino population instead of 99% white and Asian. let's start comparing numbers. Sure we focus on the mass shootings, but then the goalposts get moved to murder rate overall. Let's see you find a way to remove unregistered guns from unregistered Latinos.

And you don't really have a point, at least not one you've stated clearly. You just suggest that we copy exact when we don't have the same material, and you think that's going to be feasible and effective. No way you really believe that, so you are either lazy or dishonest or both.

DMC

12-30-2012, 07:11 PM

CosmicCowboy

12-30-2012, 07:47 PM

LOL @ Dems thinking they own the latino and black vote. Just wait till they try to take their guns.

Th'Pusher

12-30-2012, 08:07 PM

I see the DMC gun control fueled emotional nosedive continues.

http://www.betternation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/b24nosedive.jpeg

Latarian Milton

12-30-2012, 08:11 PM

Ok...

white 92%, Asian 7%, aboriginal and other 1% Australia

White 74% Latino 16.4% Blacks 12.6% USA

When Australia gets a 30% black and Latino population instead of 99% white and Asian. let's start comparing numbers. Sure we focus on the mass shootings, but then the goalposts get moved to murder rate overall. Let's see you find a way to remove unregistered guns from unregistered Latinos.

And you don't really have a point, at least not one you've stated clearly. You just suggest that we copy exact when we don't have the same material, and you think that's going to be feasible and effective. No way you really believe that, so you are either lazy or dishonest or both.
it's not just the racial composition that makes the whole difference imho. even if the US has a complete 100% of white population it'd still be nearly impossible to take their guns away from them. guns make a big portion of american culture and they've become a symbol of liberty, like a knight's sword which's a mark of power even though it'll never be used again in a real fight. you can't be a real american w/o having a gun imho

boutons_deux

12-30-2012, 08:43 PM

Wow, people died?

Macho Man, gfy

boutons_deux

12-30-2012, 08:44 PM

LOL @ Dems thinking they own the latino and black vote. Just wait till they try to take their guns.

you're stupid fuck, nobody's gonna even try to take anybody's guns.

The Repugs only chance in the face of their demographic fuckjob is gerrymandering, which they did wonderfully with 2010 census.

DMC

12-30-2012, 09:49 PM

you're stupid fuck, nobody's gonna even try to take anybody's guns.

Certainly none of you.

The Repugs only chance in the face of their demographic fuckjob is gerrymandering, which they did wonderfully with 2010 census.
How many packs a day do you smoke?

DMC

12-30-2012, 09:50 PM

I see the DMC gun control fueled emotional nosedive continues.

At least you got some free learning and a lesson in humility, eh turd pusher?

FuzzyLumpkins

12-30-2012, 11:41 PM

Ok...

white 92%, Asian 7%, aboriginal and other 1% Australia

White 74% Latino 16.4% Blacks 12.6% USA

When Australia gets a 30% black and Latino population instead of 99% white and Asian. let's start comparing numbers. Sure we focus on the mass shootings, but then the goalposts get moved to murder rate overall. Let's see you find a way to remove unregistered guns from unregistered Latinos.

And you don't really have a point, at least not one you've stated clearly. You just suggest that we copy exact when we don't have the same material, and you think that's going to be feasible and effective. No way you really believe that, so you are either lazy or dishonest or both.

Bravo, you have not only demonstrated that Australia has a different demographic makeup than the US and that you are a racist fuck. All in one post. So we have established that you think that the reason why a ban will not work here as it has in Australia is becuase they have more white people.

I said most like. I did not say exactly like, dickless. Majority white, post UK colony, similar consititution and popular culture. Similar structure of govenrment. etc. There are a lot of parrallels to be drawn. Then of course you look at the UK and the rest of continental Europe.

But this is fine you don't think a ban would work because there are too many people with pigmentation. That's nice. How about you now preted studies are related so you can pour more bigotry out.

You're scum, dickless. No honor at all.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-30-2012, 11:43 PM

LOL @ Dems thinking they own the latino and black vote. Just wait till they try to take their guns.

:lol at thinking they will ever trust the GOP after gerrymandering every district they looked to control for the last 100 years.

Seriously why on Earth do you think you are in a position to speak for anyone else much less minorities.

FuzzyLumpkins

12-30-2012, 11:46 PM

Also, you suggested banning semi-auto weapons. An AR-15 is a semi-auto weapon. Just as you can be blase about the difference between a javelina and a feral hog, you should be able to accept that a ban on semi-autos affects all of them, including AR-15s. What a poignant display of dishonesty though, to side constantly with the anti-gun crowd then deny it. Like CD, you want to ride the fence only when it suits you. The rest of the time you are a staunch liberal.

Wishy washy pussy, afraid to commit to a stance and hold your ground. No wonder your ideas never come to fruition.

I said ban of all semiautos as I don't think an assault weapon ban would do shit. You're the one that is always so hung up on the meaning of words that I would think you of all people would understand how what defines the ban is important. I have been consistent about a semiauto ban from the beginning.

And do not speak for me on my other political standpoints. We can talk other policies if you would like and see where I stand but your need to pigeonhole me just speaks at how you need to simplify to understand. Simpleminded is simple.

DMC

12-31-2012, 02:57 AM

Bravo, you have not only demonstrated that Australia has a different demographic makeup than the US and that you are a racist fuck. All in one post. So we have established that you think that the reason why a ban will not work here as it has in Australia is becuase they have more white people.

So because I point out we are culturally different I must be racist, or is every mention of the word "black" a racist connotation? Once again, that's you ignoring the facts to focus on the messenger.

No, they have less white people. They have a higher percentage of whites though. You cannot prove the ban worked there, so I have no reason to prove it won't work here. I am pointing out major differences in our countries.

I said most like. I did not say exactly like, dickless. Majority white, post UK colony, similar consititution and popular culture. Similar structure of govenrment. etc. There are a lot of parrallels to be drawn. Then of course you look at the UK and the rest of continental Europe.

Majority only matters in a vote. What in Australia is comparable to the undocumented aliens we have in the US, and the porous borders we have? What in Australia is comparable to entire sections of large cites being "Little Havana" or "Ghetto"? What's the whitest state in the US? Maine, wouldn't you think? Guess which state has the lowest crime rate? Guess which has the highest? Louisiana, do I need to go on? If you agree that crime and poverty often run together, and you agree that the poorest population in the US is most often minority, then you have to conclude pretty much what I said. Notice I never said any of the other ethnic groups were better or worse than whites.

But this is fine you don't think a ban would work because there are too many people with pigmentation. That's nice. How about you now preted studies are related so you can pour more bigotry out.

Beat that strawman to death, burn it as an effigy. Find me a country with a similar racial mix as we have and compare the stats. Let's see how well your halo holds.

You're scum, dickless. No honor at all.
I suppose honor to you means feigning a concern for minorities and ignoring statistics, then pretending to be offended for minorities by facts.

Dispute the facts, you picked the all white country, I didn't.

DMC

12-31-2012, 03:13 AM

States listed by African American population density

1 Mississippi 1,074,200 37.30%
2 Louisiana 1,452,396 31.98%
3 Georgia 2,950,435 30.02%
4 Maryland 1,700,298 29.44%
5 South Carolina 1,290,684 28.48%
6 Alabama 1,251,311 26.38%
7 North Carolina 2,048,628 21.60%
8 Delaware 191,814 20.95%

States listed by crime rate

1. District of Columbia 30.8
2. Louisiana 14.2
3. Maryland 9.8
4. Alabama 8.9
5. New Mexico 8.2
6. South Carolina 8.0
7. Georgia 7.5
7. Nevada 7.5
9. Arizona 7.4
10. Mississippi 7.1

States ranked by income equality (notice lower end of scale)

37 Illinois 0.465
38 Kentucky 0.466
39 Rhode Island 0.467
40 Georgia 0.468
40 Mississippi 0.468
40 Tennessee 0.468
43 Texas 0.469
44 California 0.471
45 Alabama 0.472
46 Florida 0.474
47 Louisiana 0.475
47 Massachusetts 0.475
49 Connecticut 0.486
50 New York 0.499
51 District of Columbia 0.53

Wild Cobra

12-31-2012, 03:37 AM

LOL @ Dems thinking they own the latino and black vote. Just wait till they try to take their guns.
Do you think the riots would match those of the LA riots in '92 (or was it '91?)

ChumpDumper

12-31-2012, 04:47 AM

lol Delaware

Latarian Milton

12-31-2012, 04:57 AM

although it's true that crime rate might be higher in states with bigger black population but it doesn't necessarily indicate a racial issue imho. there're more gangs in those states where crime rates are high and most gangstas are niggas and latinos, but there's no certain relation between race and crime rates imho. all these stats he demonstrated here only show one simple fact, which is the lonely old immigrant can only think with his ass

DMC

12-31-2012, 01:33 PM

DMC

12-31-2012, 01:52 PM

lol Delaware

This is the crime rate ranking from 2010 (end of list). Population on the right. Crime index on the left.

44.
1,977
Nevada (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-nv) / 2,700,551

45.
2,008
Arkansas (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-ar) / 2,915,918

46.
2,062
Delaware (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-de) / 897,934

47.
2,088
New Mexico (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-nm) / 2,059,179

48.
2,090
Louisiana (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-la) / 4,533,372

49.
2,119
Tennessee (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-tn) / 6,346,105

50.
2,159
South Carolina (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-sc) / 4,625,364

51.
3,701
District of Columbia (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-dc) / 601,723

Note: According to the 2010 Census, the population of Washington, D.C., was 50.7% Black or African American, 38.5% White (34.8% non-Hispanic White), 3.5% Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American), and 0.3% Native American.

3701 is a 71% increase over 2159, the next highest crime index. The population density increase is about 35% for blacks.

The data is right there, not pulled from any agenda based websites. How you interpret it is up to your personal feelings on the matter, however don't wear yourselves out walking around the elephant in the room.

ChumpDumper

12-31-2012, 02:31 PM

This is the crime rate ranking from 2010 (end of list). Population on the right. Crime index on the left.

44.
1,977
Nevada (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-nv) / 2,700,551

45.
2,008
Arkansas (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-ar) / 2,915,918

46.
2,062
Delaware (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-de) / 897,934

47.
2,088
New Mexico (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-nm) / 2,059,179

48.
2,090
Louisiana (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-la) / 4,533,372

49.
2,119
Tennessee (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-tn) / 6,346,105

50.
2,159
South Carolina (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-sc) / 4,625,364

51.
3,701
District of Columbia (http://www.usa.com/rank/r.php?i=10-dc) / 601,723

Note: According to the 2010 Census, the population of Washington, D.C., was 50.7% Black or African American, 38.5% White (34.8% non-Hispanic White), 3.5% Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_American), and 0.3% Native American.

3701 is a 71% increase over 2159, the next highest crime index. The population density increase is about 35% for blacks.

The data is right there, not pulled from any agenda based websites. How you interpret it is up to your personal feelings on the matter, however don't wear yourselves out walking around the elephant in the room.You need to come right out and say it.

What are you afraid of?

ChumpDumper

12-31-2012, 02:32 PM

DMC

12-31-2012, 02:40 PM

You need to come right out and say it.

What are you afraid of?

Do you have a problem with the stats?

ChumpDumper

12-31-2012, 02:47 PM

Do you have a problem with the stats?You're afraid.

OK.

ChumpDumper

12-31-2012, 02:54 PM

I do have a question about Delaware though. What was its ranking in the report prior to the one you listed?

DMC

12-31-2012, 02:57 PM

You're afraid.

OK.
lol

DMC

12-31-2012, 02:59 PM

I do have a question about Delaware though. What was its ranking in the report prior to the one you listed?

Don't you know how to use the search function? Do your own homework.

DMC

12-31-2012, 03:11 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Lifetime_prevalence_of_incarceration.png

Chances of going to prison at some point in their lives.

Odd how this overwhelmingly disproportional occurrence gets ignored here. Then when I show crime rates based on population density, people like CD scoff at it and I must be a racist. I guess all these stats are from racist sources.

It's not because these people are black, as I said earlier, it's socioeconomic. You aren't going to fix that with gun legislation. You're just accepting that a larger percentage of blacks live in extreme poverty and are happy to ignore it.

ChumpDumper

12-31-2012, 03:16 PM

Don't you know how to use the search function? Do your own homework.I have found a similar report. It has Delaware falling from #34 to #44 between reports.

I just wanted to know your theory on the change. Do you think they had a massive influx of the people you won't name because you are afraid?

DMC

12-31-2012, 03:33 PM

I have found a similar report. It has Delaware falling from #34 to #44 between reports.

I just wanted to know your theory on the change. Do you think they had a massive influx of the people you won't name because you are afraid?

That information is out there too. It doesn't matter what I think, the facts are there if you care enough to look for them.

ChumpDumper

12-31-2012, 04:57 PM

It doesn't matter what I thinkThanks.

I appreciate your reluctance to engage in anything but monologue here. Just another bot.

TSA

12-31-2012, 05:08 PM

Happy New Years chumpdumper! Enjoy your evening arguing on the Internet! 73,000 before midnight bro you can do it!!!

DMC

01-01-2013, 01:56 AM

Thanks.

I appreciate your reluctance to engage in anything but monologue here. Just another bot.

Says the turd with nothing but peripheral, weak ass one liners.

CosmicCowboy

01-01-2013, 12:01 PM

Happy New Years chumpdumper! Enjoy your evening arguing on the Internet! 73,000 before midnight bro you can do it!!!

:lmao:lmao:lmao

ChumpDumper

01-01-2013, 03:14 PM

Says the turd with nothing but peripheral, weak ass one liners.Hey, I asked what you thought of a statistic that was worth exploring.

You ran from it rather quickly. You aren't interested in anything but your own dogma.

boutons_deux

01-01-2013, 06:55 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

crime rate correlates to poverty, not to race. blacks and brown are more poor, unemployed, uneducated, and more targeted/framed by the police and judicial.

Repugs/1% want to increase poverty by cutting moving Ms of govt assistance, so they actually want to increase crime. :)

FuzzyLumpkins

01-01-2013, 07:15 PM

Hey, I asked what you thought of a statistic that was worth exploring.

You ran from it rather quickly. You aren't interested in anything but your own dogma.

That's just how he rolls. He will use the same brain to agree that the sample size is too small to be indicative one way or another and then with the same brain claim that he has no hesitation believing that the stats show that there is no link. He's a sophist piece of shit. I go tired of his antics couple of days ago.

Once he started laying on the racist shit extra heavy, I figured any independently minded audience member could tell exactly what he is about.

DMC

01-01-2013, 07:19 PM

DMC

01-01-2013, 07:22 PM

Hey, I asked what you thought of a statistic that was worth exploring.

You ran from it rather quickly. You aren't interested in anything but your own dogma.
You aren't smart enough to bait me successfully, yet you pretend to have asked a legit question.

I've given you two (three if you count the blithering idiot with the French name) something to chew on, and regardless how much you flop around about it, you will investigate it. I've convinced you that the stats have merit, that the connections are worthy of a second glance. You both realize this, one of you is too self centered to admit it and the other is just his lapdog. You two decide who is whom.

Either way, my work here is done. I've left you two rambling aimlessly about things unrelated to disproving my points.

I hope this year is better for you than the last one. You three should create a resolution to shut your meat socks until you know something worth saying. Just ask yourself "is what I am about to post even adding anything to the conversation?" For CD that would be a resounding NO but for Fuzzy, it might have to be edited to remove the obviously lashing out when he doesn't have anything meaningful to post. French faggot guy can suck a dick.

ChumpDumper

01-01-2013, 08:18 PM

You aren't smart enough to bait me successfully, yet you pretend to have asked a legit question.Eh, it was legit. I just wanted to know why the ranking changed so significantly.

I've given you two (three if you count the blithering idiot with the French name) something to chew on, and regardless how much you flop around about it, you will investigate it. I've convinced you that the stats have merit, that the connections are worthy of a second glance. You both realize this, one of you is too self centered to admit it and the other is just his lapdog. You two decide who is whom.Right, so if this stat has merit, why did one change so much?

Either way, my work here is done. I've left you two rambling aimlessly about things unrelated to disproving my points.I wasn't trying to disprove anything. You use a lot of words but don't read any. Anger blinds you.

I hope this year is better for you than the last one. You three should create a resolution to shut your meat socks until you know something worth saying. Just ask yourself "is what I am about to post even adding anything to the conversation?" For CD that would be a resounding NO but for Fuzzy, it might have to be edited to remove the obviously lashing out when he doesn't have anything meaningful to post. French faggot guy can suck a dick.I don't give a shit how this year is turns out for you. I do hope you keep trying to be a forum cop though. It's hilarious. Just ask yourself "Why do I care so desperately about what these guys think when I just told them it doesn't matter what I think?"

lol ad hominem

Latarian Milton

01-01-2013, 09:08 PM

You aren't smart enough to bait me successfully, yet you pretend to have asked a legit question.

I've given you two (three if you count the blithering idiot with the French name) something to chew on, and regardless how much you flop around about it, you will investigate it. I've convinced you that the stats have merit, that the connections are worthy of a second glance. You both realize this, one of you is too self centered to admit it and the other is just his lapdog. You two decide who is whom.

Either way, my work here is done. I've left you two rambling aimlessly about things unrelated to disproving my points.

I hope this year is better for you than the last one. You three should create a resolution to shut your meat socks until you know something worth saying. Just ask yourself "is what I am about to post even adding anything to the conversation?" For CD that would be a resounding NO but for Fuzzy, it might have to be edited to remove the obviously lashing out when he doesn't have anything meaningful to post. French faggot guy can suck a dick.
at least other people are smart enough to think with their brains rather than their asses. thread has gone from a decent discussion to a frivolous argument thanks to the incessant trolling effort by a lonely old immigrant. while no one hasn't mentioned anything meaningful to discuss since the 10th page of this thread, it's not like you have contributed more than they have. the thread has gone 16 pages and counting but it is no way in hell a great thread by any means.