Find the Dangerous Features

[DMC]

http://www.kollewin.com/EX/09-16-19/geared_out_AR15.jpg

Can you find any dangerous features on this AR-15?

[cantthinkofanything]

Can you find any dangerous features on this AR-15?

Too many to name. Multiple red dot sighting systems. Extremely dangerous laser. Not to mention black Butler Creek flip covers.

[DMC]

Actually no, the dangerous feature isn't in the picture, he's probably taking it.

[LnGrrrR]

Actually no, the dangerous feature isn't in the picture, he's probably taking it.

Agreed. With that many scopes, it's obviously some sort of 20 eyed monster behind the lens.

[Drachen]

http://www.kollewin.com/EX/09-16-19/geared_out_AR15.jpg

Can you find any dangerous features on this AR-15?

That longer part with a hole in it right in the middle.


Agreed. With that many scopes, it's obviously some sort of 20 eyed monster behind the lens.


:lol

[cantthinkofanything]

That longer part with a hole in it right in the middle.



That's my most dangerous part also.

[Wild Cobra]

Agreed. With that many scopes, it's obviously some sort of 20 eyed monster behind the lens.
Agreed.

The alien that operates it is probably more dangerous.

[DMC]

The physical weight could be a killer.

[Shastafarian]

I guess DMC still thinks a knife is more dangerous than a gun. :rollin

[Borat Sagyidev]

you guys are all fooled.

HCeCVZqcpnE

[Latarian Milton]

that's spiderman's new gadget i guess

[DMC]

I guess DMC still thinks a knife is more dangerous than a gun. :rollin

Ever accidentally cut yourself with a knife? Ever accidentally shoot yourself?

[leemajors]

Ever accidentally cut yourself with a knife? Ever accidentally shoot yourself?

Plaxico did!

[Shastafarian]

Ever accidentally cut yourself with a knife? Ever accidentally shoot yourself?

:lol ever throw a knife from several hundred meters with near pinpoint accuracy?

[DMC]

:lol ever throw a knife from several hundred meters with near pinpoint accuracy?

How does accuracy equate to danger? There are benchrest competitions all around the world where accuracy is the best of all shooters, but no one gets hurt. Way to dodge the question though.

[Shastafarian]

How does accuracy equate to danger?Are you mentally challenged? What's more dangerous at 100 feet? A knife or a gun.

There are benchrest competitions all around the world where accuracy is the best of all shooters, but no one gets hurt. Way to dodge the question though.Wait it was a serious question... :rollin

[Shastafarian]

I forgot I shouldn't be responding to you until you explain how the genetic code of Africans and Latin Americans (the greatest country on earth tbh) differs from everyone else. I'll start a new thread as promised if you would like. Or we can just use this idiotic one out of convenience.

[DMC]

Are you mentally challenged? What's more dangerous at 100 feet? A knife or a gun.
Wait it was a serious question... :rollin

Guns are chunks of metal and wood and plastic. Bullets must be used for them to fire. Guns are not dangerous. It would still be the knife.

So you're 100 feet from a gun and a knife, sleeping. Someone breaks in and grabs one. Would you prefer they grab an unloaded gun or an unloaded knife?

[DMC]

I forgot I shouldn't be responding to you until you explain how the genetic code of Africans and Latin Americans (the greatest country on earth tbh) differs from everyone else. I'll start a new thread as promised if you would like. Or we can just use this idiotic one out of convenience.

I gave you research material that I would bet you didn't follow up on.

[Shastafarian]

Guns are chunks of metal and wood and plastic. Bullets must be used for them to fire. Guns are not dangerous. It would still be the knife.Truly amazing how you can twist arguments.


So you're 100 feet from a gun and a knife, sleeping. Someone breaks in and grabs one. Would you prefer they grab an unloaded gun or an unloaded knife?Oh so the gun isn't loaded now. How convenient!


I gave you research material that I would bet you didn't follow up on.lol you showed me some bullshit research that hadn't even been completed. I want YOUR take on it. Still waiting.

[Shastafarian]

Guns are chunks of metal and wood and plastic. Bullets must be used for them to fire. Guns are not dangerous. It would still be the knife.
How much does a .357 weigh? What would do more damage to a human skull from 100 feet: The blunt end of a knife or a .357 magnum?

[DMC]

Truly amazing how you can twist arguments.

I answer precisely. You should learn to ask precise questions. There's too much room on forums like these for twisting, so I stick to precise answers.


Oh so the gun isn't loaded now. How convenient!

But still a gun. A gun and a bullet are two different things. A knife is more dangerous than a gun. A person can be arrested for concealing a firearm, it doesn't have to be loaded to be a firearm. Most of the guns in my home are not loaded, only two are. The majority of firearms in the US are unloaded.


lol you showed me some bullshit research that hadn't even been completed. I want YOUR take on it. Still waiting.

The explanation was in that research. You clicked on the link and dismissed it as bullshit even though it's anything but.

[Shastafarian]

I answer precisely. You should learn to ask precise questions. There's too much room on forums like these for twisting, so I stick to precise answers. Ok what's more dangerous, a knife or a loaded gun?


The explanation was in that research.No it isn't actually. I didn't see anything about Latin Americans or Africans.

You clicked on the link and dismissed it as bullshit even though it's anything but.
It isn't bullshit in the sense that the ideas behind it are based on scientific theory. It's bullshit in your proposed use of it. Still waiting for your take on African and Latin American genetics.

[Shastafarian]

I can't wait to read how a knife is more dangerous than a loaded gun

[cantthinkofanything]

I can't wait to read how a knife is more dangerous than a loaded gun

Would you rather get hit wit a knife traveling at 3000 feet per second or a bullet?

[spursncowboys]

How much does a .357 weigh? What would do more damage to a human skull from 100 feet: The blunt end of a knife or a .357 magnum?
That'd be pretty impressive if you could throw either that far.

[spursncowboys]

ka8ZDlz1AZg

[DMC]

Ok what's more dangerous, a knife or a loaded gun?

Start a new thread with that question, since you just moved the goal posts.


No it isn't actually. I didn't see anything about Latin Americans or Africans.

You didn't actually read it.


It isn't bullshit in the sense that the ideas behind it are based on scientific theory. It's bullshit in your proposed use of it. Still waiting for your take on African and Latin American genetics.
I did.

But for your ADD;

Since Africans (where they live now is irrelevant) commit crime at a disproportionate rate to their white counterparts, assuming that genetic factors play about the same role in all persons with the genetic trait, blacks by default have the genetic trait more than whites, Asians and other races. Latin Americans fall just behind blacks.

From UT research:

What turns people into criminals? In the longstanding debate over nature (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002371.htm) vs. nurture, new research (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/uota-rsg012512.php) published in the journal Criminology suggests that genes play a key role in determining who leads a life of crime and who stays on the straight and narrow.
The research, conducted by University of Texas at Dallas criminologist J.C. Barnes and colleagues, analyzed the genetic and environmental influences on criminal traits of 4,000 people. The researchers discovered a strong link between genes and criminality.
The scientists based their research on the 1993 theory of Duke professor Dr. Terrie Moffitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrie_Moffitt%27s_developmental_theory_of_crime) that says people will generally fall into three different types: life-course persistent offenders (lifelong criminals), adolescent-limited offenders (who grow out of their bad behavior), and law-abiding abstainers (non-criminals).
According to the paper:


For life-course persistent offenders, genes influenced criminal behavior more than the environment.
For abstainers, it was roughly an equal split: genetic factors played a large role and so too did the environment.
For adolescent-limited offenders, the environment was the most important factor.


"If we're showing that genes have an overwhelming influence on who gets put onto the life-course persistent pathway, then that would suggest we need to know which genes are involved and, at the same time, how they're interacting with the environment, so we can tailor interventions," Dr. Barnes said.
But don't expect police to start locking people up based on their genomes anytime soon. Researchers say there is no single gene to predict criminality; there are likely to be hundreds, if not thousands of genes that will affect your likelihood of being involved in crime. And even then, it may only increase that likelihood by 1 percent.
But that doesn't mean the genetic link should be taken lightly, Barnes points out.
"Honestly, I hope that when people read this, they take issue and start to debate it and raise criticisms, because that means people are considering it and thinking about it," Barnes said.

See also:

From Wiki

The frequency distribution of variants of the MAOA gene differs between ethnic groups.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#cite_note-pmid9799080-17)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#cite_note-pmid17339897-18) 59% of African-American men, 56% of Maori men, 54% of Chinese men, and 34% of Caucasian men carry the 3R allele. 5.5% of African-American men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carry the 2R allele.

An association between the 2R allele of the VNTR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_number_tandem_repeat) region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#cite_note-Guo_Roettger_Shih_2008-6)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#cite_note-pmid18212819-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#cite_note-beaver2012-7) (emphasis mine)

Classification of Hispanics The UCR classifies most Hispanics into the "white" category. The NCVS classifies some Hispanic criminals as "white" and some as "other race". The victim categories for the NCVS are more distinct. (gee I wonder why the discrepancy?)




Let me know when you catch up, and don't ever question me again, boy.

[Shastafarian]

Would you rather get hit wit a knife traveling at 3000 feet per second or a bullet?:rollin


Start a new thread with that question, since you just moved the goal posts.Nope you did by assuming the gun isn't loaded. Nice try though.


You didn't actually read it.I did.


I did.

But for your ADD;

Since Africans (where they live now is irrelevant) commit crime at a disproportionate rate to their white counterpartsOh and we're basing this on what? Prison populations? :rollin


assuming that genetic factors play about the same role in all persons with the genetic trait, blacks by default have the genetic trait more than whites, Asians and other races. Latin Americans fall just behind blacks. So crime is based purely on this THEORETICAL gene/gene sequence. Nice to know. Let the eugenics begin I guess.


From UT research:

What turns people into criminals? In the longstanding debate over nature (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002371.htm) vs. nurture, new research (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/uota-rsg012512.php) published in the journal Criminology suggests that genes play a key role in determining who leads a life of crime and who stays on the straight and narrow.
The research, conducted by University of Texas at Dallas criminologist J.C. Barnes and colleagues, analyzed the genetic and environmental influences on criminal traits of 4,000 people. The researchers discovered a strong link between genes and criminality.Oooooo a strong link. Let me know when you've sequenced everyone's individual genetic code.


The scientists based their research on the 1993 theory of Duke professor Dr. Terrie Moffitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrie_Moffitt%27s_developmental_theory_of_crime) that says people will generally fall into three different types: life-course persistent offenders (lifelong criminals), adolescent-limited offenders (who grow out of their bad behavior), and law-abiding abstainers (non-criminals).
According to the paper:


For life-course persistent offenders, genes influenced criminal behavior more than the environment.
For abstainers, it was roughly an equal split: genetic factors played a large role and so too did the environment.
For adolescent-limited offenders, the environment was the most important factor.


"If we're showing that genes have an overwhelming influence on who gets put onto the life-course persistent pathway, then that would suggest we need to know which genes are involved and, at the same time, how they're interacting with the environment, so we can tailor interventions," Dr. Barnes said.
But don't expect police to start locking people up based on their genomes anytime soon. Researchers say there is no single gene to predict criminality; there are likely to be hundreds, if not thousands of genes that will affect your likelihood of being involved in crime. And even then, it may only increase that likelihood by 1 percent.
But that doesn't mean the genetic link should be taken lightly, Barnes points out.
"Honestly, I hope that when people read this, they take issue and start to debate it and raise criticisms, because that means people are considering it and thinking about it," Barnes said.

See also:

From Wiki

The frequency distribution of variants of the MAOA gene differs between ethnic groups.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#cite_note-pmid9799080-17)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#cite_note-pmid17339897-18) 59% of African-American men, 56% of Maori men, 54% of Chinese men, and 34% of Caucasian men carry the 3R allele. 5.5% of African-American men, 0.1% of Caucasian men, and 0.00067% of Asian men carry the 2R allele.

An association between the 2R allele of the VNTR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_number_tandem_repeat) region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#cite_note-Guo_Roettger_Shih_2008-6)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#cite_note-pmid18212819-5)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A#cite_note-beaver2012-7) (emphasis mine)

Classification of Hispanics The UCR classifies most Hispanics into the "white" category. The NCVS classifies some Hispanic criminals as "white" and some as "other race". The victim categories for the NCVS are more distinct. (gee I wonder why the discrepancy?) wikipedia :rollin

I'm sorry but I haven't laughed this much in a while. I thank you.





Let me know when you catch up, and don't ever question me again, boy.:rollin internet smack is always the funniest.

[Shastafarian]

I'll translate that for people who can't see past your bullshit:

There are some gene sequences that seem to have an association with increased likelihood of committing what we deem "crimes". These genes may or may not be more prevalent in certain populations. The fact that prison populations and documented crimes are higher amongst people in said populations is being used as evidence the genetic code is the determining factor in the lives of said people. DMC is using this scientific information to form a theory that certain ethnic groups are more likely to commit crime based on their genetic code. DMC is stupid. That is all.

[Latarian Milton]

its blatant lying to say asians are less hostile than other races imho, when 9/10 of the most infamous massacres in the world's history happened in asia

[DMC]

I'll translate that for people who can't see past your bullshit:

There are some gene sequences that seem to have an association with increased likelihood of committing what we deem "crimes".

lol "what we deem".

These genes may or may not be more prevalent in certain populations. No, they are more prevalent in blacks.

The fact that prison populations and documented crimes are higher amongst people in said populations is being used as evidence the genetic code is the determining factor in the lives of said people.No it's not. There is scientific research linked to those claims. My preface would be for the layperson to use as a possible correlation, though not necessarily a cause. I then nailed it shut with the cause, and even showed where the "latinos" were hidden.

DMC is using this scientific information to form a theory that certain ethnic groups are more likely to commit crime based on their genetic code. DMC is stupid. That is all.
I showed you an existing set of data from many different higher learning institutions, many of them well respected with Nobel prizes in different categories among the accolades of these schools. Scoff all you like, and feel free to debunk the data.

[Latarian Milton]

guys like DMC cannot think with their brains, but most times they use their asses to think and speaks for where their ass is at. there's no biological evidence to indicate a certain association between people's gene and the likelihood of commiting crimes, but the history book tells us the exact opposite to what DMC attempts to propagate imho. asians are more hostile than any other race but the lonely old immigrant turns a blind eye to that shining fact

[Shastafarian]

lol "what we deem". Yes what we deem. Can you go through and pick out all the crimes in our country and compare them to crimes in every other country on earth? Thanks I'll be waiting.

No, they are more prevalent in blacks. Define "black" please.


No it's not. There is scientific research linked to those claims. My preface would be for the layperson to use as a possible correlation, though not necessarily a cause. I then nailed it shut with the cause, and even showed where the "latinos" were hidden.

I showed you an existing set of data from many different higher learning institutions, many of them well respected with Nobel prizes in different categories among the accolades of these schools. Scoff all you like, and feel free to debunk the data.
I'm debunking your assertion that "africans" and "latin americans" are more violent than other races. Because you have yet to define those terms (other than to claim latin america is a country :lol) and give proof. Not association. PROOF. Still waiting.

[DMC]

:rollin

Nope you did by assuming the gun isn't loaded. Nice try though.

I did.

Oh and we're basing this on what? Prison populations? :rollin

So crime is based purely on this THEORETICAL gene/gene sequence. Nice to know. Let the eugenics begin I guess.

Oooooo a strong link. Let me know when you've sequenced everyone's individual genetic code.

wikipedia :rollin

I'm sorry but I haven't laughed this much in a while. I thank you.




:rollin internet smack is always the funniest.

1. I've never purchased a loaded gun.
2. Crime statistics are there for your viewing pleasure, tallied by conviction rates.
3. Genetics are a factor, and the correlation with crime rate is staggering.
4. Gravity is also theoretical
5. Poisoning the well won't save you
6. There's no need to check everyone to see the ratios. Like everything else in medicine and research, sample sizes are used. We know smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer, but we haven't checked all smokers.
7. What part of the Wiki article is false or do you just feel you're saving some face by challenging the credibility of an article you aren't educated enough to refute?
8. I think so

[DMC]

Yes what we deem. Can you go through and pick out all the crimes in our country and compare them to crimes in every other country on earth? Thanks I'll be waiting.
Crime is well defined based on the laws of the respective country.


Define "black" please.

African


I'm debunking your assertion that "africans" and "latin americans" are more violent than other races. Because you have yet to define those terms (other than to claim latin america is a country :lol) and give proof. Not association. PROOF. Still waiting.
I've shown proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all I really need to show.

Hey, whether you're black or latino, you still have a choice to not commit what we deem as a crime.

I must suck for you, you were home free. I let you off the hook because, as I said, I don't feel like educating you. Now you're shocked by science, pure fact, and you try to move your sensitive terms to other spaces on the board to protect them but it's too late. Regardless what I say from now on, you're convinced. I see it in your responses.

[Shastafarian]

1. I've never purchased a loaded gun.Have you ever fired a unloaded gun?


2. Crime statistics are there for your viewing pleasure, tallied by conviction rates.Because everyone knows our judicial system works flawlessly

3. Genetics are a factor, and the correlation with crime rate is staggering. Never taken statistics eh?

4. Gravity is also theoreticalNo it isn't.


6. There's no need to check everyone to see the ratios. Like everything else in medicine and research, sample sizes are used. We know smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer, but we haven't checked all smokers.Exactly. Sample sizes. Statistics never prove anything.


7. What part of the Wiki article is false or do you just feel you're saving some face by challenging the credibility of an article you aren't educated enough to refute?Oh I was just laughing at you resorting to wikipedia when you attempted to make fun of me for doing the same (when I was actually just not at my computer).


8. I think soMy bad. It's funny for other people. We laugh at you.

[Shastafarian]

Crime is well defined based on the laws of the respective country.Indeed it is. So tell me if your theory on africans and latin americans holds up in every country on earth. I'll wait.


African:rollin :rollin :rollin


I've shown proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's all I really need to show.I'm sorry but you haven't. I know you think you're a lawyer but that is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not even beyond an unreasonable doubt.



I must suck for you, you were home free. I let you off the hook because, as I said, I don't feel like educating you. Now you're shocked by science, pure fact, and you try to move your sensitive terms to other spaces on the board to protect them but it's too late. Regardless what I say from now on, you're convinced. I see it in your responses.I'm convinced you're a racist? Yes you're right. You should look up "fact", "africa", "black", and have a general knowledge of statistics before I continue to talk to you.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess DMC still thinks a knife is more dangerous than a gun. :rollin
They are, for being injured by accident. It's very difficult for a person with an above room temperature IQ to accidentally shoot himself. A knife is always loaded.

[Shastafarian]

http://ericwalczak0.tripod.com/id10.html

[Shastafarian]

A new game to play! It's called "African or Not"? I post a picture and DMC has to tell me whether he thinks the person is African or not.


http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/660/371/Libyan_president.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/287109/thumbs/r-VIJAY-SINGH-NO-SHOW-large570.jpg

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2011/3/28/2011328131143852112_20.jpg

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_B6M755DSH-U/SjdGppVU_8I/AAAAAAAAAxU/0aF5srZWJSY/Indira%20Carvalho%20(40Graus)_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?img max=800

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBMNgmsVFS61eMoBb30LuywP-hJifGw1zRcBKPXH7T1wGygyE6jQ

[Wild Cobra]

http://ericwalczak0.tripod.com/id10.html
You call that site legitimate?

Right away, I had two ads I had to click to remove.

Fuck that.

Tripod... LOL... Seriously???

I suggest you do a little research on the validity of such internet sites. I saw no "source links" on that page, and I'm not going to explore that blog.

[Wild Cobra]

A new game to play! It's called "African or Not"? I post a picture and DMC has to tell me whether he thinks the person is African or not.

Really?

As if you think you can tell someone is from Africa or not from their looks.

[Shastafarian]

You call that site legitimate?

Right away, I had two ads I had to click to remove.

Fuck that.

Tripod... LOL... Seriously???

I suggest you do a little research on the validity of such internet sites. I saw no "source links" on that page, and I'm not going to explore that blog.It's true I probably shouldn't have used that site but it's late and I'm lazy. I'll find the sources for the numbers or correct them if incorrect.

[Shastafarian]

Really?

As if you think you can tell someone is from Africa or not from their looks.

Don't tell me that. Tell DMC who proclaimed black = african.

[Shastafarian]

From DMC's favorite site wikipedia:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claimed that, on average, one child died every three days in accidental incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2005.

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000

And this is from an article published by the University of Pennsylvania:

• Unintentional firearm death disproportionately affects children, with 16% of the
unintentional deaths occurring among youth under age 20.3
• Unintentional gun injuries account for 14% of all firearm deaths under age 15.3
• A gun in the home is a risk factor for household members to be shot fatally in their home.
• The risk of being killed appears particularly high among women, which reflects the increased
likelihood for a woman to be killed by her spouse, partner or family member rather than a
stranger.124
• People with a family member who has purchased a handgun are at increased risk of being
shot and killed.125
• Owning a gun may moderately increase the likelihood of fatally shooting another person.126
• On the whole, carrying a firearm does not guarantee protection and may increase injury
risk.127**While individual circumstances vary, persons should take this into account this when
making decisions about firearm possession. Considering safety plans that provide alternatives
to firearms may be in order for individuals with minimal firearms experience.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't tell me that. Tell DMC who proclaimed black = african.
It's a self inflicted ID thing I think, seeings how the US blacks want to be called "African-American" rather than Negro, or Black.

That's what Political Correctness run-amok does.

[ChumpDumper]

The gun isn't loaded?

:lol

DMC getting desperate.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, it's nice that we can group DMC and WC together as eugenicists that literally would have made Galton proud.

He linked an unrelated UTD study and some random psychologist making up categories with some vague references he found on wiki about criminal behavior and the so called warrior gene in order to claim broadly that black people are criminals. It's amazing what you can tell by their google fueled confirmation bias. He sure found what he wanted.

Dickless and dishonorable. Intellectual cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.

WC, you and DMC are kindred spirits.

[Wild Cobra]

Always the Fuzzy Troll...

You are so adorable (not).

[DMC]

Indeed it is. So tell me if your theory on africans and latin americans holds up in every country on earth. I'll wait.

It does since it's genetic. That doesn't mean the crime stats will be the same, as genetic predisposition does not mean you don't have a choice (I said so in my original statement some time ago)


I'm sorry but you haven't. I know you think you're a lawyer but that is not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not even beyond an unreasonable doubt.

No, I no next to nothing about law except for laws pertaining to things I am involved in.


I'm convinced you're a racist? Yes you're right. You should look up "fact", "africa", "black", and have a general knowledge of statistics before I continue to talk to you.
You should attempt to read information without the light of bias, for or against any particular race, even your own.

[DMC]

Well, it's nice that we can group DMC and WC together as eugenicists that literally would have made Galton proud.

He linked an unrelated UTD study and some random psychologist making up categories with some vague references he found on wiki about criminal behavior and the so called warrior gene in order to claim broadly that black people are criminals. It's amazing what you can tell by their google fueled confirmation bias. He sure found what he wanted.

Dickless and dishonorable. Intellectual cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.

WC, you and DMC are kindred spirits.
Odd that you use a drop in gun related fatalities in Australia to show the effectiveness of a gun ban but scoff at crime statistics and scientific research to show genetic predisposition. It's a case of "believe what you like". Don't worry Fuzzy, the blacks will still like you just as much if you discuss genetic traits associated with race. Pandering isn't required.

[DMC]

The gun isn't loaded?

:lol

DMC getting desperate.
There's no gun. The hypothetical question puts a gun against a knife in terms of inherent danger. A knife doesn't need to be loaded, it's ready to go. Just being a knife makes it more dangerous than a gun. The term "gun" doesn't include, by default, a loaded gun however.

However, even a loaded gun isn't inherently dangerous. Cops carry all the time, as do millions of CHL holders and we've not experienced any ill effects. Knives are also not inherently dangerous. What's dangerous are people who use these things to hurt other people.

Again, ask specific questions.

All you know of guns and gun laws you learned from forum debates on gun control.

[DMC]

Have you ever fired a unloaded gun?

I treat all guns as if they are loaded, but that doesn't mean they are.


Because everyone knows our judicial system works flawlessly

Arbitrarily dismissing data because the system isn't flawless is just a lazy copout.


Never taken statistics eh?

Sure.


No it isn't.

Yes, it is. The theory of gravity is a theory on how gravity works. Dismissing something as "only a theory" shows you must be taking a liberal arts course instead of an engineering or science course. Theories are not guesses and they do not graduate to become laws. Check out "Principia" by Newton.


Exactly. Sample sizes. Statistics never prove anything.

So then the handgun related crime data doesn't prove anything.


Oh I was just laughing at you resorting to wikipedia when you attempted to make fun of me for doing the same (when I was actually just not at my computer).

You're struggling.


My bad. It's funny for other people. We laugh at you.
Now you're trying to use argument by popularity.

You seem genuinely offended by the data.

[ChumpDumper]

There's no gun.:lol How convenient for you.

Specific question: What the hell are you talking about?

[Shastafarian]

I treat all guns as if they are loaded, but that doesn't mean they are.:rollin


Arbitrarily dismissing data because the system isn't flawless is just a lazy copout. I guess you also need to look up the word "arbitrary" because questioning demographics based on faulty systems is anything but arbitrary


Sure. You should take a refresher


Yes, it is. The theory of gravity is a theory on how gravity works. Well that's not what you said now is it?

Dismissing something as "only a theory" shows you must be taking a liberal arts course instead of an engineering or science course. Theories are not guesses and they do not graduate to become laws.:lol I'd wager I've taken more science courses in the last year than you've taken in your entire life. You said gravity was theoretical which it is not. If you want to amend your previous statement into "theory on HOW GRAVITY WORKS" then you need to be more clear. I heard that from someone recently.


So then the handgun related crime data doesn't prove anything.Statistics don't prove anything.


You're struggling.I'm not. You and your boyfriend started talking shit about me looking things up on wikipedia and then you do it to further your weak points. It was funny. Especially since I wasn't using wikipedia at the time.


Now you're trying to use argument by popularity.No I'm just stating that people are laughing at you.


You seem genuinely offended by the data.You must be reading into something that's not there then. If anyone seems offended by data it seems to be you and your gun nut friends.

[ChumpDumper]

All you know of guns and gun laws you learned from forum debates on gun control.False, you pompous coward.

[Shastafarian]

A new game to play! It's called "African or Not"? I post a picture and DMC has to tell me whether he thinks the person is African or not.


http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/660/371/Libyan_president.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/287109/thumbs/r-VIJAY-SINGH-NO-SHOW-large570.jpg

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2011/3/28/2011328131143852112_20.jpg

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_B6M755DSH-U/SjdGppVU_8I/AAAAAAAAAxU/0aF5srZWJSY/Indira%20Carvalho%20(40Graus)_thumb%5B1%5D.jpg?img max=800

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBMNgmsVFS61eMoBb30LuywP-hJifGw1zRcBKPXH7T1wGygyE6jQ

[DMC]

Red herring. Their genetics would tell. I never claimed to be able to tell what race or nationality a person is. The term "black" is not one I created, nor is the term "African American". I never mentioned color of skin.

[DMC]

False, you pompous coward.

That's it, just post a generic denial of obvious facts.

[leemajors]

DMC still has not addressed LM's butt thinking/talking allegations

[Shastafarian]

Red herring. Their genetics would tell. I never claimed to be able to tell what race or nationality a person is. The term "black" is not one I created, nor is the term "African American". I never mentioned color of skin.


No, they are more prevalent in blacks.



Define "black" please.



African

Whoops

Aren't you giving someone shit for arguing semantics? You seem to be the king of it.

[ChumpDumper]

That's it, just post a generic denial of obvious facts.When you're wrong, you're wrong.

You can't shoot it to make it right.

[Shastafarian]

Red herring. Their genetics would tell. I never claimed to be able to tell what race or nationality a person is. The term "black" is not one I created, nor is the term "African American". I never mentioned color of skin.

Oh so each ethnic group has a unique genetic code then? Can you tell me the % difference between groups please?

[DMC]

:rollin

I guess you also need to look up the word "arbitrary" because questioning demographics based on faulty systems is anything but arbitrary

You should take a refresher

Well that's not what you said now is it?
:lol I'd wager I've taken more science courses in the last year than you've taken in your entire life. You said gravity was theoretical which it is not. If you want to amend your previous statement into "theory on HOW GRAVITY WORKS" then you need to be more clear. I heard that from someone recently.

Statistics don't prove anything.

I'm not. You and your boyfriend started talking shit about me looking things up on wikipedia and then you do it to further your weak points. It was funny. Especially since I wasn't using wikipedia at the time.

No I'm just stating that people are laughing at you.

You must be reading into something that's not there then. If anyone seems offended by data it seems to be you and your gun nut friends.

"statistics don't prove anything"

Only proof needed in debates is beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors rely on statistics to make life and death decisions.

Gravity: is a fact, how it works is a theory. I made a mistake on that (I reworded it twice but didn't get around it it seems). Regardless, you scoff at theories as if they are just suggestions. If you want to hide in the tiniest portion of doubt, go for it.

You are offended. You stalked me around the forum trying to corner me. Now you're on tilt.

[DMC]

Oh so each ethnic group has a unique genetic code then? Can you tell me the % difference between groups please?

Read the data and argue with that. The % was listed already.

[DMC]

Whoops

Aren't you giving someone shit for arguing semantics? You seem to be the king of it.

No. I've stated that semantics are important and that I will argue them. You need to pay closer attention.

[DMC]

DMC still has not addressed LM's butt thinking/talking allegations

I have him on ignore, sometimes I open to see what he's yammering about. If I don't respond it's likely because I didn't see it. He's been on ignore, along with Mouse, for a long time.

[DMC]

When you're wrong, you're wrong.

You can't shoot it to make it right.

I agree with this. I am not wrong though.

[Shastafarian]

"statistics don't prove anything"

Only proof needed in debates is beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors rely on statistics to make life and death decisions. Again, you think you're a lawyer or this is a courtroom. The problem is most people can see past your bullshit. You haven't proved anything beyond even the most remote shred of doubt.


Gravity: is a fact, how it works is a theory. I made a mistake on that (I reworded it twice but didn't get around it it seems). Regardless, you scoff at theories as if they are just suggestions. If you want to hide in the tiniest portion of doubt, go for it.Actually I don't. I just played your game against you.


You are offended. You stalked me around the forum trying to corner me. Now you're on tilt.I do what? I've been replying in associated threads, trying to have a legitimate conversation. I'm met with you being a pompous coward.

[Shastafarian]

Read the data and argue with that. The % was listed already.Wild Cobra-esque


No. I've stated that semantics are important and that I will argue them. You need to pay closer attention.Oh my mistake. So please explain how african = black. I'm still waiting for that one. It's a curious definition.

[Shastafarian]

You can prove you're not a pompous coward as CD so succinctly put it by answering questions posed to you and not resorting to calling people "boy" or saying you're not here to teach us. We'll be waiting.

[DMC]

Again, you think you're a lawyer or this is a courtroom. The problem is most people can see past your bullshit. You haven't proved anything beyond even the most remote shred of doubt.

What am I trying to prove? I stated blacks have a genetic predisposition to commit crimes. I've shown you the research and the stats to support it. You've dismissed both without good reason.


Actually I don't. I just played your game against you.

No, you didn't. You are offended at the data and are trying to discredit the messenger.


I do what? I've been replying in associated threads, trying to have a legitimate conversation. I'm met with you being a pompous coward.
This is a thread I started. How were you "met" here?

[ChumpDumper]

I agree with this. I am not wrong though.Of course you are. Your idiotic assumptions make you look even more ridiculous during your multithread holiday meltdown.

Trying to reassure yourself you are right is just as effective as shooting it.

[DMC]

You can prove you're not a pompous coward as CD so succinctly put it by answering questions posed to you and not resorting to calling people "boy" or saying you're not here to teach us. We'll be waiting.

So answer questions that you're too lazy to even research when I point it out to you, but don't presume you're uneducated. Ok. Probably not going to happen.

[DMC]

Of course you are. Your idiotic assumptions make you look even more ridiculous during your multithread holiday meltdown.

Trying to reassure yourself you are right is just as effective as shooting it.

lol forum bickering faggot always says someone else is on a meltdown.

lol taking the lib side to every argument then proclaiming to not actually believe it.

[Shastafarian]

What am I trying to prove? I stated blacks have a genetic predisposition to commit crimes. I've shown you the research and the stats to support it. You've dismissed both without good reason.You're trying to prove black people are more likely to commit crimes based on their genetics. You fail at proving such.


No, you didn't. I did.

You are offended at the data and are trying to discredit the messenger.I'm not offended by data :lol I know how to interpret the data and know it really doesn't mean much.


This is a thread I started. How were you "met" here?King of Semantics! It must be awesome to be such royalty on an internet forum. You greet legitimate questions with bullshit and arrogance. The problem is your arrogance really has nothing to support it.

[ChumpDumper]

lol forum bickering faggot always says someone else is on a meltdown.Aw, looks like I struck a nerve. Excellent.


lol taking the lib side to every argument then proclaiming to not actually believe it.:lol You still haven't read anything I have posted on the actual topic with those who didn't lose their shit like you did. Also excellent.

[Shastafarian]

So answer questions that you're too lazy to even research when I point it out to you, but don't presume you're uneducated. Ok. Probably not going to happen.

Are you dense? I asked what YOUR thoughts on the matter were. I guess I'll just take that to mean you don't have thoughts of your own (other than black = african). Can't say I'm surprised.

[DMC]

Aw, looks like I struck a nerve. Excellent.

:lol You still haven't read anything I have posted on the actual topic with those who didn't lose their shit like you did. Also excellent.

I rarely read anything you post tbh. It's normally just petty bickering between you and asshole checker up in the Club that goes on for 20 pages.

[DMC]

Are you dense? I asked what YOUR thoughts on the matter were. I guess I'll just take that to mean you don't have thoughts of your own (other than black = african). Can't say I'm surprised.

On what matter?

[ChumpDumper]

I rarely read anything you post tbh.Especially when it proves you completely wrong. I can see why you would want to skip that or at least pretend to do so.

[DMC]

Especially when it proves you completely wrong. I can see why you would want to skip that or at least pretend to do so.

Nah, you don't have enough time between posts to actually do any research and like I said, you post too much to even be a decent troll.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, you don't have enough time between posts to actually do any research and like I said, you post too much to even be a decent troll.We weren't even talking about anything that had to be researched. You made a colossally stupid assumption and it got destroyed. Now all you can do is act like it never happened.

[DMC]

What assumption?

[ChumpDumper]

What assumption?:lmao

[leemajors]

I have him on ignore, sometimes I open to see what he's yammering about. If I don't respond it's likely because I didn't see it. He's been on ignore, along with Mouse, for a long time.

It was phrased in a very amusing manner

[DMC]

It was phrased in a very amusing manner

Oh I'm sure but it's not hard to discern that it's going to lead to a bash on Asians.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Odd that you use a drop in gun related fatalities in Australia to show the effectiveness of a gun ban but scoff at crime statistics and scientific research to show genetic predisposition. It's a case of "believe what you like". Don't worry Fuzzy, the blacks will still like you just as much if you discuss genetic traits associated with race. Pandering isn't required.

I've seen you do much better than this week poorly thought out half assed aversion.

You don't even address anything actually said anymore. You just talk around points. I never poo pooed statistics being used. I just said that the UCD study was unrelated to the 'warrior gene' studies you are talking about. You are taking statistics from clearly two separate sources and trying to merge them. That is a no no.

That is not me "scoff(ing) at crime statistics and scientific research." You know that too you deceptive twat.

The mixing in the shrink putting every person in three categories was also unrelated but you needed the label to categorize black people and call them criminals.

[DMC]

I've seen you do much better than this week poorly thought out half assed aversion.

You don't even address anything actually said anymore. You just talk around points. I never poo pooed statistics being used. I just said that the UCD study was unrelated to the 'warrior gene' studies you are talking about. You are taking statistics from clearly two separate sources and trying to merge them. That is a no no.

That is not me "scoff(ing) at crime statistics and scientific research." You know that too you deceptive twat.

The mixing in the shrink putting every person in three categories was also unrelated but you needed the label to categorize black people and call them criminals.

I think I nailed it pretty well. It's gotten a few of you in a tizzy.

[ChumpDumper]

I think I nailed it pretty well. It's gotten a few of you in a tizzy.lol you lost your mind