Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder

[DarrinS]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/





LOGANVILLE, Ga. —


A woman hiding in her attic with children shot an intruder multiple times before fleeing to safety Friday.

The incident happened at a home on Henderson Ridge Lane in Loganville around 1 p.m. The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke in using a crowbar.

But the man eventually found the family.

"The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he's staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver," Chapman told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

"She's standing over him, and she realizes she's fired all six rounds. And the guy's telling her to quit shooting," Chapman said.

The woman ran to a neighbor's home with her children. The intruder attempted to flee in his car but crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a nearby driveway, Chapman said.

Deputies arrested 32-year-old Atlanta resident Paul Slater in connection with the crime. Chapman said they found him on the ground saying, "Help me. I'm close to dying." Slater was taken to Gwinnett Medical Center for treatment. Chapman said Slater was shot in the face and neck.

In February, Slater was arrested on simple battery charges, according to the Gwinnett County Sheriff's Office. He has been arrested six other times in the county since 2008.

Kavanaugh was the first reporter at the scene as deputies investigated. The victim's husband told Kavanaugh he's proud of his wife. He was on the phone with her as the intruder broke in.

"My wife is a hero. She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner," Donnie Herman said.

He said he's thankful for his family's safety.

"Her life is saved, and her kids' life is saved, and that's all I'd like to say," Herman said.

Channel 2’s Amy Napier Viteri learned from Chapman late Friday night that slater has been placed on a ventilator and suffers from punctured lungs, a punctured liver and a punctured stomach.

He said if Slater survives the night, doctors will try to operate in the morning to repair the damage.

Chapman said Slater has four exit wounds.

Slater is currently being charged with burglary.

[boutons_deux]

Just one of approaching-1000 killed by guns since Sandy Hook. What a great fucking country.

[cantthinkofanything]

Just one of approaching-1000 killed by guns since Sandy Hook. What a great fucking country.

So you think it would have been a better outcome for the intruder to face the woman and kids without them having a gun?

[mavs>spurs]

Just one of approaching-1000 killed by guns since Sandy Hook. What a great fucking country.
WOW fuck u burn in hell satanist you WILL NOT destroy our country!!!

[boutons_deux]

m>s ! :lol gfy

[mavs>spurs]

We will NOT live in a country where women cannot defend themselves against black rapists like you and that guy, you shameless rape advocate what do u have against Americans specifically women? In your mind she should've been victimized you perve!!!

[George Gervin's Afro]

We will NOT live in a country where women cannot defend themselves against black rapists like you and that guy, you shameless rape advocate what do u have against Americans specifically women? In your mind she should've been victimized you perve!!!

first of all dumbass no one of substance is talking about taking people's guns away. second of all there is a need to look at the market flush with military style weapons.

[mavs>spurs]

I own 10 COME AND TAKE EM UNAMERICAN SCUM!!! move back where you came from if you don't like it!! Only the cartels can have them there, you AREN'T destroying this country too bastard.

[TSA]

Pretty good argument here for the need for more than the six rounds a revolver provides. She's lucky there was only one intruder, but I also don't believe in using a .38 special for self defense.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I own 10 COME AND TAKE EM UNAMERICAN SCUM!!! move back where you came from if you don't like it!! Only the cartels can have them there, you AREN'T destroying this country too bastard.

so using your logic, any mass shooting with these type of weapons is a ok because you're an amerrrican.. why not just stop making them dummy?..would the cartels have them then?

[mavs>spurs]

Yes they would you stupid fuck, This is why you do not belong here!! You're dangerous to our freedom.

[mavs>spurs]

Ban drugs then they won't have them! Move to NORTH KOREA!!!!!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yes they would you stupid fuck, This is why you do not belong here!! You're dangerous to our freedom.

look dumbass my family has been here a couple of generations and I can guarantee you that they are more educated than your dumbass family..

[mavs>spurs]

If there wasn't a problem, then I wouldn't be able to determine your race based off of anonymous opinions. Go home!!!!! You can be banned from owning a gun there all you want, just don't bring it here.

[George Gervin's Afro]

If there wasn't a problem, then I wouldn't be able to determine your race based off of anonymous opinions. Go home!!!!! You can be banned from owning a gun there all you want, just don't bring it here.

it's obvious you're a thug with little to no higher education so I will explain it in a way you might understand..

no one is calling on the banning of guns... comprende?

[mavs>spurs]

Graduated top of my class couple weks ago but thanks. Do you know why your home country sucks? Because its full of people like you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Graduated top of my class couple weks ago but thanks. Do you know why your home counter sucks? Because its full of people like you.

so then you should know that no one is advocating taking away people's guns... yet you keep posting about it.. ok smart guy.. err thug.. lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

house burglar is a dangerous profession. there's gotta be an easier way.

[Blake]

Graduated top of my class couple weks ago ....

lol

[Wild Cobra]

Just one of approaching-1000 killed by guns since Sandy Hook. What a great fucking country.

Scum like that needs to be dead. One less to do harm to others.

[DMC]

first of all dumbass no one of substance is talking about taking people's guns away. second of all there is a need to look at the market flush with military style weapons.

How about the streets, flush with military style vehicles (Hummer)? Military style is dangerous. If I wore a military style coat, I could be considered deadly. It's the style that makes it deadly. Forget that a .223 with a wooden stock will kill you just as dead as a .223 with a plastic stock.

[DMC]

so then you should know that no one is advocating taking away people's guns... yet you keep posting about it.. ok smart guy.. err thug.. lol

What are people advocating?

[DMC]

Pretty good argument here for the need for more than the six rounds a revolver provides. She's lucky there was only one intruder, but I also don't believe in using a .38 special for self defense.

Anything larger and she likely doesn't carry it. She put 5 rounds on target under duress, something most LEOs cannot do.

[Blake]

Anything larger and she likely doesn't carry it. She put 5 rounds on target under duress, something most LEOs cannot do.

A knife should have been more than enough!

[George Gervin's Afro]

What are people advocating?

They are not advocating taking people's guns away

[cantthinkofanything]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTfyY4tfriFA4YRTonVcMhd7uN79Hek K19P9ViFEnapI85fI05
and is that Ron Wood back there?

[DMC]

They are not advocating taking people's guns away

I didn't ask what they aren't advocating. I asked what they are. If you don't know what people are advocating, how can you say what they are not advocating?

[DMC]

A knife should have been more than enough!

Or a fingernail file.

[leemajors]

house burglar is a dangerous profession. there's gotta be an easier way.

:lol

[TSA]

Anything larger and she likely doesn't carry it. She put 5 rounds on target under duress, something most LEOs cannot do.

My point was more to those that say 6 shots is all you need so a revolver will suffice. If there was another intruder she could have been in some trouble. I'm looking to purchase a sig p938 or a Springfield emp for my girl. She has trouble racking my sig 229 in .40, and a 9mm has a lot better stopping power than a .38 special, considering the guy took five shots from a .38 special and was able to flee.

[TSA]

Funny how the fuzzys and rascals of the site have yet to drop their wisdom in this thread. I believe just yesterday rascal said you'd never need to use a gun, well......

Off topic but I just heard today on the radio the total amount of guns in California now compared to ten years ago is many millions more, yet gun crimes and gun related deaths are down. Interesting.

[mavs>spurs]

six shots is bogus, even trained law enforcement miss shots from point blank when the target is moving and adrenaline is flowing. 15 and 17 round clips are every bit needed against multiple assailents.

[ElNono]

She was lucky the burglar was unarmed.

[rascal]

Looks like that guy was unarmed and not a serious threat. He was after some jewelry and all she had to do was yell and the guy would have bolted.

[rascal]

Funny how the fuzzys and rascals of the site have yet to drop their wisdom in this thread. I believe just yesterday rascal said you'd never need to use a gun, well......

Off topic but I just heard today on the radio the total amount of guns in California now compared to ten years ago is many millions more, yet gun crimes and gun related deaths are down. Interesting.

Most shootings are unnecessary and it looks like this one falls under that category.

[mavs>spurs]

LMFAO this was unnecessary how??? the some dude breaks into her house, and she's supposed to just cower and say please leave :cry not knowing whether or not he's going to kill her or her kids? newsflash dipshit, people get murdred all the time in home invasions. how do we know whether or not this guy knew they were home? the burden of proof isn't on the innocent it's on the criminal, you want to prove that you're not a threat and don't want to get shot then here's an idea, DON'T FUCKING BREAK INTO SOMEONE'S HOUSE. you're so totally nutless it amazes me, you have absolutely zero survival instinct. serious quesiton, are you a woman?

[TSA]

Looks like that guy was unarmed and not a serious threat. He was after some jewelry and all she had to do was yell and the guy would have bolted.

Not a serious threat? :lmao
He broke into her house and she had children to protect. Since when are burglars not serious threats? And how exactly do you know what he would have done had he not been shot? I can't even believe how stupid you sound right now. Unfuckingreal.

[rascal]

LMFAO this was unnecessary how??? the some dude breaks into her house, and she's supposed to just cower and say please leave :cry not knowing whether or not he's going to kill her or her kids? newsflash dipshit, people get murdred all the time in home invasions. how do we know whether or not this guy knew they were home? the burden of proof isn't on the innocent it's on the criminal, you want to prove that you're not a threat and don't want to get shot then here's an idea, DON'T FUCKING BREAK INTO SOMEONE'S HOUSE. you're so totally nutless it amazes me, you have absolutely zero survival instinct. serious quesiton, are you a woman?

I'm so nutless come to Connecticut and I'll kick your ass. Fist to fist, leave your guns home, lets see who is nutless.

[rascal]

Not a serious threat? :lmao
He broke into her house and she had children to protect. Since when are burglars not serious threats? And how exactly do you know what he would have done had he not been shot? I can't even believe how stupid you sound right now. Unfuckingreal.

Looks like the guy was just after some cash. He was unarmed

[TSA]

I'm so nutless come to Connecticut and I'll kick your ass.
At least he knows you won't be armed.

[TSA]

Looks like the guy was just after some cash. He was unarmed
So should she just have politely asked him to leave?

[mavs>spurs]

I'm so nutless come to Connecticut and I'll kick your ass. Fist to fist, leave your guns home, lets see who is nutless.

:lmao i hope your wife gets raped because you told her not to buy a gun you stupid fuck

[rascal]

So should she just have politely asked him to leave?

Politely no but she likely could have just scared that guy off.
No one is saying the guy was in the right, but thou shalt not kill is the way to go in all cases. If someone wants to kill me they will, I will live on forever anyways. I do not fear death to a point where I have to have a gun for protection.

[TSA]

Politely no but she likely could have just scared that guy off.
No one is saying the guy was in the right, but thou shalt not kill is the way to go in all cases. If someone wants to kill me they will, I will live on forever anyways. I do not fear death to a point where I have to have a gun for protection.
I pray to God you don't have kids relying on you to protect them.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Graduated top of my class couple weks ago but thanks. Do you know why your home country sucks? Because its full of people like you.

You try WAAAY too hard and just sound full of shit.

And what school you graduate tops at? UTSA with a psychology degree?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Funny how the fuzzys and rascals of the site have yet to drop their wisdom in this thread. I believe just yesterday rascal said you'd never need to use a gun, well......

Off topic but I just heard today on the radio the total amount of guns in California now compared to ten years ago is many millions more, yet gun crimes and gun related deaths are down. Interesting.

I support a semiauto ban so my proposal doesnt to relate to this lady.

I am still waiting for a study demonstrating the effectiveness of deterrence. I have been asking it for days yet all I get are the anecdotes you guys repost from your inbox. I mean come on post about "More Guns, Less Crime" so we can actually discuss the issue.

How are gun crime rates in CA as opposed to the rest of the country btw?

[TSA]

I support a semiauto ban so my proposal doesnt to relate to this lady.
your semiauto ban would have taken away her semiauto revolver. Try again.

[TSA]

Gun sales have skyrocketed in the last decade while gun related crimes and deaths have dropped. What is there to explain?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

your semiauto ban would have taken away her semiauto revolver. Try again.

Then she would have had to buy a revolver instead. OH NOES!!!!

[rascal]

You try WAAAY too hard and just sound full of shit.

And what school you graduate tops at? UTSA with a psychology degree?

San Antonio College

[ChumpDumper]

six shots is bogus, even trained law enforcement miss shots from point blank when the target is moving and adrenaline is flowing. 15 and 17 round clips are every bit needed against multiple assailents.But you said you can change magazines so quickly capacity wouldn't matter.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lmao i hope your wife gets raped because you told her not to buy a gun you stupid fuck

I hope your mom does as well

[ChumpDumper]

Gun sales have skyrocketed in the last decade while gun related crimes and deaths have dropped. What is there to explain?The crime and death rates had already been dropping since the 90s. There is a theory that the legalization of abortion has had a big effect on crime overall.

[George Gervin's Afro]

The crime and death rates had already been dropping since the 90s. There is a theory that the legalization of abortion has had a big effect on crime overall.

or more violent offenders are kept in prison longer..

ask the nutless thug m>s.. I'm sure he has kin in the pokey

[mavs>spurs]

I hope your mom does as well

she's pistol packin brah, aint gonna happen you little bitch now why don't you go fuck yourself in the ass with a sawed off and pull the trigger

[George Gervin's Afro]

she's pistol packin brah, aint gonna happen you little bitch now why don't you go fuck yourself in the ass with a sawed off and pull the trigger

how long did she spend in prison?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao i hope your wife gets raped because you told her not to buy a gun you stupid fuck


I hope your mom does as wellThat reminds me of my mother when she outsmarted an armed intruder who actually kidnapped her to get cash from an ATM (I didn't say he was smart). She didn't by a gun or change anything after it happened. Crazy story.

[DMC]

Looks like that guy was unarmed and not a serious threat. He was after some jewelry and all she had to do was yell and the guy would have bolted.
She give him jewelry and a few ventilation holes to go with it.

[rascal]

or more violent offenders are kept in prison longer..

ask the nutless thug m>s.. I'm sure he has kin in the pokey

You mean wanna be thug. He is some fat ass white guy who wants to be a black pimp.

[LnGrrrR]

she's pistol packin brah, aint gonna happen you little bitch now why don't you go fuck yourself in the ass with a sawed off and pull the trigger

man, every time I think mavs>spurs can't sound any more manly, he posts something like this

*slow clap* Bravo sir, bravo!

[DMC]

I support a semiauto ban so my proposal doesnt to relate to this lady.

I am still waiting for a study demonstrating the effectiveness of deterrence. I have been asking it for days yet all I get are the anecdotes you guys repost from your inbox. I mean come on post about "More Guns, Less Crime" so we can actually discuss the issue.

How are gun crime rates in CA as opposed to the rest of the country btw?


Isn't a gun ban a deterrence? It's just a law.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

This country doesn't have a gun control problem it has a savage negro and mestizo problem. I'd imagine if this country was rid of all the shitskins it's violent crime level including those involving firearms would be on par with western Europe tbh..

[mavs>spurs]

This country doesn't have a gun control problem it has a savage negro and mestizo problem. I'd imagine if this country was rid of all the shitskins it's violent crime level including those involving firearms would be on par with western Europe tbh..

THANK YOU!!!! +10000000000

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gun sales have skyrocketed in the last decade while gun related crimes and deaths have dropped. What is there to explain?

So in other words you still cannot present a well thought out, detailed or in any other way meaningful argument. You do not even have the shit the gun lobby has out there to support your arguments. You just assume its true and throw it out there. That's nice.

Show me the stats that correlate what you claim. No, I don't take your word for it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Isn't a gun ban a deterrence? It's just a law.

I'm not arguing asinine semantics. Sorry.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This country doesn't have a gun control problem it has a savage negro and mestizo problem. I'd imagine if this country was rid of all the shitskins it's violent crime level including those involving firearms would be on par with western Europe tbh..


THANK YOU!!!! +10000000000

And here ladies and gentlemen is the crux of the US conservative: racism.

Take a bow, DMC and mavscrew.

[mavs>spurs]

you're a bigger racist than anyone you son of a bitch, that's why you have so much white guilt and hate yourself in order to atone for your sins. liberals wield racism and political correctness as their weapon while being some of the most racist immoral people around and I don't care you can call me what you want, I really really could care less what you think and if you, a liberal, were singing praises about me i'd know i was doing something wrong tbh so hate on!!!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Whoever said I was white?

Saying that the gun problem in this country is because of the increase in minority population because they are predisposed to be criminals is what it is. You, DMC, and the random douche both have come out supporting that position.

You can do that machoman 'I don't care what you say' routine but to any independent individual reading this, they know exactly where you guys are coming from. The milquetoast krew can have their brown fear rally all day long. It shows who and what you are very clearly. Posture more it just digs the hole deeper.

[mavs>spurs]

^don't pull that shit with me, i ain't buyin none of that. you're white in my book no matter what you say or do, at least on the inside. you're liberal, hate whites (just like most white liberals except for the elite who understand the game) and that's final with me

[FuzzyLumpkins]

^don't pull that shit with me, i ain't buyin none of that. you're white in my book no matter what you say or do, at least on the inside. you're liberal, hate whites (just like most white liberals except for the elite who understand the game) and that's final with me

I'm white and liberal and it's final with you, huh?

Okey dokey!

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://www.davidduke.com/images/White_Guilt_Complex.jpg

[mavs>spurs]

:lmao :lmao That's just Fuzzy and his wife, but that's no adoption I saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiddd!!!!!

[CuckingFunt]

I really really could care less what you think

Oh, we know. It's quite obvious.

[TSA]

So in other words you still cannot present a well thought out, detailed or in any other way meaningful argument. You do not even have the shit the gun lobby has out there to support your arguments. You just assume its true and throw it out there. That's nice.

Show me the stats that correlate what you claim. No, I don't take your word for it.you don't have to take my word for it and truthfully I don't give a shit. The numbers are out there. Are gun sales up? Yes. Are gun related crimes down? Yes. Does that mean more guns equals less crime? No. Does that mean more guns does not equal more crime? Seems to be the case.

Not sure why I'm even arguing with a guy who doesn't even know what guns he wants to ban ie: your semiautomatic revolver backpedal. I'm not some gun fanatic, but I do like my guns. I also like to deal with logic, something some of you anti-gun people seem to leave out most of the time. Some of you, not you fuzzy, will go as far as saying it would have been nicer to just shout at the intruder in your home and tell them to leave, because of course you know he is unarmed and is just there to steal jewelry, which is cool apparently.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I will delete the first dub.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you don't have to take my word for it and truthfully I don't give a shit. The numbers are out there. Are gun sales up? Yes. Are gun related crimes down? Yes. Does that mean more guns equals less crime? No. Does that mean more guns does not equal more crime? Seems to be the case.

Not sure why I'm even arguing with a guy who doesn't even know what guns he wants to ban ie: your semiautomatic revolver backpedal. I'm not some gun fanatic, but I do like my guns. I also like to deal with logic, something some of you anti-gun people seem to leave out most of the time. Some of you, not you fuzzy, will go as far as saying it would have been nicer to just shout at the intruder in your home and tell them to leave, because of course you know he is unarmed and is just there to steal jewelry, which is cool apparently.

I've confronted a guy breaking into my house before. I only had a knife and chased him off. I went and bought a shotgun. I have guns and I want to keep most of them as I have said time and again. I have sold my flat pistol although I did not come onto here and give a running update on the sale like a gun fanatic. You don't know me at all; I am not an anti-gun liberal no matter how you guys try and paint me as one.

I just see compelling empirical evidence that I have come on here and presented that indicates the efficacy of semiauto bans. I feel strongly that something needs to be done about the gun violence even if I wrestle with the ends justifying the means. I keep asking for numbers because I get tired of people asserting deterrence, bringing up a constant train of any anecdote available, or talk about what they could do in such and such. People lack vision. They cannot see three moves ahead in a chess game much less think about the results of their own action. You guys are proof of that waving guns at strangers on the road and whatnot.

That wasn't a backpedal either. Under my proposal she could have a non-semiautomatic pistol, shotgun or long rifle they can get their hands on. She had a gun that would be illegal but I still maintain that if you cannot defend yourself with a shotgun, rifle, and/or revolver then you have no business with a gun.

Can you defend yourself if you manually have to chamber every round?

[Wild Cobra]

six shots is bogus, even trained law enforcement miss shots from point blank when the target is moving and adrenaline is flowing. 15 and 17 round clips are every bit needed against multiple assailents.
Agreed.

[boutons_deux]

"Does that mean more guns does not equal more crime? Seems to be the case."

You can't prove it, so STFU

[Wild Cobra]

Looks like that guy was unarmed and not a serious threat. He was after some jewelry and all she had to do was yell and the guy would have bolted.
Fuck the guy. Intruders need to be shot dead. Period.

What's wrong? Are you one of the buglers who want guns taken away from law abiding citizens, to make your profession safer?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao i hope your wife gets raped because you told her not to buy a gun you stupid fuck
I think we need to tie one arm behind your back to make it a fair fight with rascal.

[Wild Cobra]

your semiauto ban would have taken away her semiauto revolver. Try again.
Don't try to explain facts to him. He knows everything...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Agreed.

You agree that cops miss point blank six times in a row commonly? Bloody mouthbreather.

[DMC]

You agree that cops miss point blank six times in a row commonly? Bloody mouthbreather.

Who said cops miss 6 times in row commonly? I think you just made another Fuzzy strawman. M>S said that cops often miss shots from close range on moving targets when the adrenaline is flowing. Missing shots and missing 6 in a row commonly is not the same thing.

It seems to be your only means of retort, the strawman. You get your home invaded so you go and buy a gun, yet you have the gall to post here about how more guns = more crime. You fucking hypocrite bastard, your the reason the crime rate is so high, people like you buying guns because you're afraid.

[boutons_deux]

"more guns = more crime"

more guns = more gun deaths

a gun in a house almost doubles the risk of gun suicide and gun homicide in the house

etc, etc, etc.

[rascal]

you don't have to take my word for it and truthfully I don't give a shit. The numbers are out there. Are gun sales up? Yes. Are gun related crimes down? Yes. Does that mean more guns equals less crime? No. Does that mean more guns does not equal more crime? Seems to be the case.

Not sure why I'm even arguing with a guy who doesn't even know what guns he wants to ban ie: your semiautomatic revolver backpedal. I'm not some gun fanatic, but I do like my guns. I also like to deal with logic, something some of you anti-gun people seem to leave out most of the time. Some of you, not you fuzzy, will go as far as saying it would have been nicer to just shout at the intruder in your home and tell them to leave, because of course you know he is unarmed and is just there to steal jewelry, which is cool apparently.

Random mass shootings are up.

[boutons_deux]

mass shooting aren't the problem. They are media pimped event.

it's the, yawn, nearly 1000 gun deaths, 50x Sandy Hook, nationwide since Sandy Hook

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who said cops miss 6 times in row commonly? I think you just made another Fuzzy strawman. M>S said that cops often miss shots from close range on moving targets when the adrenaline is flowing. Missing shots and missing 6 in a row commonly is not the same thing.

It seems to be your only means of retort, the strawman. You get your home invaded so you go and buy a gun, yet you have the gall to post here about how more guns = more crime. You fucking hypocrite bastard, your the reason the crime rate is so high, people like you buying guns because you're afraid.

It's the logical extension from combining teh assertions of and missing point blank and needing more than 6 shots. If it takes you more than 6 shots to stop someone you are doing it wrong. Now regale me with your fear of 4 person home invasions.

Even then I find it laughable that cops might miss multiple times point blank. This isn't Looney Toon's.

Oh, and did I buy a semiautomatic? How one Earth is it hypocritical to support a semiauto ban when my constant refrain is that you can do it with a rifle, shotgun or revolver. So go ahead and stay butthurt but I am living the policy I am proposing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Random mass shootings are up.

His assertion that there is a reduction in crime with more guns present is not substantiated. It's not. The closest is a 1997 report that got close to showing it in neighborhoods where people had their CHL but beyond the poor correlation factors there was also the issue of A CHL's nature to work when you take your gun away from home.

I have been trying to get them to discuss on the basis of comparable and measured events. They don't want to play ball. We don't need to wonder why.He may not care if I don't believe him but no one should believe some that cannot proove what they calim. He doesn't even try.

[TSA]

Well keep on living it then, but why the need to try and force your choice of lifestyle on the rest of us law abiding citizens?

[ChumpDumper]

Fuck the guy. Intruders need to be shot dead. Period.

What's wrong? Are you one of the buglers who want guns taken away from law abiding citizens, to make your profession safer?http://www.pablodelano.com/files/gimgs/29_buglers.jpg

Never trust the black ones.

[mouse]

"more guns = more crime"


xh4oHK8Dgck

qyoLuTjguJA

dhXOuuHcjbs

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well keep on living it then, but why the need to try and force your choice of lifestyle on the rest of us law abiding citizens?

I have told you why I support a semiauto ban and its because I believe it will reduce the number of gun related injury, crime and death in this country just like it has in our NATO allies, Australia and Japan.

You should get some of your fellow gun supporters to post racist cartoons and litanies. They seem like the real law abiding types to just leave alone.

[TSA]

Are there millions more guns owned now compared to ten years ago?
Is gun crime down from ten years ago?
The answer is yes to both. Knowing that how can you say more guns cause more gun crimes? It just simply isn't true.

[TSA]

I have told you why I support a semiauto ban and its because I believe it will reduce the number of gun related injury, crime and death in this country just like it has in our NATO allies, Australia and Japan.
According to you I can defend myself just as well with the use of a non-semiauto weapon, so does that mean I can also commit crimes as well with the use of a non-semiauto weapon?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

xh4oHK8Dgck

Mouse showing an obvious gun lobby advertisement is great and all but snopes points out why your advertisement is bullshit.


The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here. And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Factcheck is much more succinct:


Q: Did gun control in Australia lead to more murders there last year?

A: This ‘Gun History Lesson’ is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows.

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

Further here is a comprehensive statistical analysis opposed to the 4 line blurb in an advertisement. Note the study cites other studies to further the point.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

[George Gervin's Afro]

the resident conservatives a looooosing it... wishing rapes, blaming black people,.... etc.. par for the course..

[FuzzyLumpkins]

According to you I can defend myself just as well with the use of a non-semiauto weapon, so does that mean I can also commit crimes as well with the use of a non-semiauto weapon?

I am not a criminal of that ilk so I could not say. Anecdotally, I would say that crime requires the ability to get off more shots considering that cops roam in packs and there will be multiple people most times.

You going to regale us with a fear of a 4 person home invasion?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are there millions more guns owned now compared to ten years ago?
Is gun crime down from ten years ago?
The answer is yes to both. Knowing that how can you say more guns cause more gun crimes? It just simply isn't true.

The United States is not a simple box. You have a nice hypothesis and that's about it, chachi.

Off the cuff if you buy 6 SKS's in Bakersfield but crime goes down in Athens, GA does that meant aht you buying all those guns reduced crime? I am going to go with no.

[mavs>spurs]

does that meant aht you buying all those guns reduced crime? I am going to go with no.

yeah im more worried about the facts and statistics than your worthless opinion

[TSA]

The United States is not a simple box. You have a nice hypothesis and that's about it, chachi.

Off the cuff if you buy 6 SKS's in Bakersfield but crime goes down in Athens, GA does that meant aht you buying all those guns reduced crime? I am going to go with no.I've never once said more guns equals less crime, I'm simply stating the facts. More guns have not equaled more crime, and over the time period I'm looking at gun crimes were actually reduced. I never once said more guns caused the reduction in gun crimes. You can not spin the facts to make it more guns equals more gun crime, you are flat out wrong.

[TSA]

"And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia."

So your own findings say these stats aren't even applicable to the USA. Brilliant! Move to Australia already.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've never once said more guns equals less crime, I'm simply stating the facts. More guns have not equaled more crime, and over the time period I'm looking at gun crimes were actually reduced. I never once said more guns caused the reduction in gun crimes. You can not spin the facts to make it more guns equals more gun crime, you are flat out wrong.

Making you qualify the facts is not spin. You don't even have facts. You just have an assertion and seem unable to link a stat to save your life.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia."

So your own findings say these stats aren't even applicable to the USA. Brilliant! Move to Australia already.

It says the stats don't apply because the laws are different. I am advocating making the laws the same. You guys are completely shitty at critical thinking. Hell, your reading comprehension is weak. Texas and California schools are fucking terrible.

And I am not leaving and am going to continue to speak my mind. I am a US citizen and might as well deal with it.

[DMC]

It's the logical extension from combining teh assertions of and missing point blank and needing more than 6 shots. If it takes you more than 6 shots to stop someone you are doing it wrong. Now regale me with your fear of 4 person home invasions.

"It's the logical extension from blah blah blah" bullshit, he said what he said and you altered his words just so you'd have something to joust, just admit it. I didn't go out and buy a gun because someone who ran from a knife caused my pecker to recess into my fat belly. I've had guns my entire life, don't need to jump to the other side when the heat is on, hypocrite. You fuckers love to proselytize but you certainly don't possess the courage of your convictions.


Even then I find it laughable that cops might miss multiple times point blank. This isn't Looney Toon's.

They do. Laughable because you've never been in that situation. If someone tried to rob your cubicle, you'd likely shit yourself.


Oh, and did I buy a semiautomatic? How one Earth is it hypocritical to support a semiauto ban when my constant refrain is that you can do it with a rifle, shotgun or revolver. So go ahead and stay butthurt but I am living the policy I am proposing.
They make semi-auto shotguns, Egbert.

People like you are hilarious, you own a couple of guns so you think that means you can open your mouth around people who know guns. You're like half a fag, cannot decide to if you're offended by having a dick in your mouth.

[DMC]

Mouse showing an obvious gun lobby advertisement is great and all but snopes points out why your advertisement is bullshit.



http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Factcheck is much more succinct:



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

Further here is a comprehensive statistical analysis opposed to the 4 line blurb in an advertisement. Note the study cites other studies to further the point.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf
You don't know whether to shit or go blind. lol

[DMC]

The United States is not a simple box. You have a nice hypothesis and that's about it, chachi.

Off the cuff if you buy 6 SKS's in Bakersfield but crime goes down in Athens, GA does that meant aht you buying all those guns reduced crime? I am going to go with no.

Why can't you understand the other side of that coin, that if I buy 6 SKS rifles in Austin, gun related crime doesn't increase in Austin because I am not a criminal. You think more semi-autos means more deaths, more crime, whatever, yet you disagree that guns have affect on crime. Do you think that the number of guns a person owns affects the odds they will commit a crime with them?

[TSA]

Making you qualify the facts is not spin. You don't even have facts. You just have an assertion and seem unable to link a stat to save your life.

Answer these two questions:

1. Are there more guns owned now than 10 years ago?
2. Is gun crime down from 10 years ago?

Common knowledge bro, no link necessary. And I've repeatedly said I'm not linking the first for the cause of the second.

[TSA]

It says the stats don't apply because the laws are different. I am advocating making the laws the same. You guys are completely shitty at critical thinking. Hell, your reading comprehension is weak. Texas and California schools are fucking terrible.

And I am not leaving and am going to continue to speak my mind. I am a US citizen and might as well deal with it.
The laws have and will always continue to be different, it's written in OUR fucking constitution. Continue speaking your mind on a Spurs message board, see how far that gets you with your semi-auto ban.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Answer these two questions:

1. Are there more guns owned now than 10 years ago?
2. Is gun crime down from 10 years ago?

Common knowledge bro, no link necessary. And I've repeatedly said I'm not linking the first for the cause of the second.

Still no fact linked? I am not going to make your case for you. That you cannot articulate what you claim is telling.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The laws have and will always continue to be different, it's written in OUR fucking constitution. Continue speaking your mind on a Spurs message board, see how far that gets you with your semi-auto ban.

Nice bait and switch. You still suck at reading comprehension and critical thinking on the old topic.

As for the new topic:

Too bad your conservative jurists led by Scalia do not find gun control restrictions to be unconstitutional. This argument was put to bed back during the 90s by SCOTUS.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why can't you understand the other side of that coin, that if I buy 6 SKS rifles in Austin, gun related crime doesn't increase in Austin because I am not a criminal. You think more semi-autos means more deaths, more crime, whatever, yet you disagree that guns have affect on crime. Do you think that the number of guns a person owns affects the odds they will commit a crime with them?

It's not about YOU. It's about all of us and more guns in circulation means it's easier for criminals to get guns.

I would like to get the discussion on the level of something like https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf but I have come to the point where you guys are intellectually incapable of doing so. You cannot get past semantics and other lame debate tactics but worse the TSA's of the world cannot even get on the level of thought.

[rascal]

Are there millions more guns owned now compared to ten years ago?
Is gun crime down from ten years ago?
The answer is yes to both. Knowing that how can you say more guns cause more gun crimes? It just simply isn't true.

That gun crime is down argument is bullshit. Gun crime in the United States is too high to begin with.

[rascal]

Answer these two questions:

1. Are there more guns owned now than 10 years ago?
2. Is gun crime down from 10 years ago?

Common knowledge bro, no link necessary. And I've repeatedly said I'm not linking the first for the cause of the second.

Random mass shootings are up, where nuts gun down people that they don't know.

[DMX7]

This country doesn't have a gun control problem it has a savage negro and mestizo problem. I'd imagine if this country was rid of all the shitskins it's violent crime level including those involving firearms would be on par with western Europe tbh..

Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold & Charles Whitman say, "HI!".

[TSA]

Still no fact linked? I am not going to make your case for you. That you cannot articulate what you claim is telling.still no answer? C'mon, answer the 2 questions.

[TSA]

That gun crime is down argument is bullshit. Gun crime in the United States is too high to begin with.

So because it was too high to begin with negates the fact it's been on the decline?

[TSA]

It's not about YOU. It's about all of us and more guns in circulation means it's easier for criminals to get guns.

First is was ban all semi-autos, now you want all guns banned? Because that would be the only way to truly limit the amount criminals could get there hands on. Make up your mind. And drop your guns in the ocean tomorrow, three less guns criminals can get their hands on. Help keep us safe by following your own rules.

[rascal]

So because it was too high to begin with negates the fact it's been on the decline?

Exactly. Gun crimes are a problem in the United States.

[DMC]

It's not about YOU. It's about all of us and more guns in circulation means it's easier for criminals to get guns.

You use all these little catchy phrases like "guns in circulation" without ever having the foggiest idea what you're even talking about. What circulation? Is there a gun circulation pool that I am not aware of?

Law abiding folks acquire guns the legal way.

Criminals may as well, or they may steal them. Even if they acquire them legally, they may remove serial numbers.

What circulation are you talking about? It's a mystery.


I would like to get the discussion on the level of something like https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf but I have come to the point where you guys are intellectually incapable of doing so. You cannot get past semantics and other lame debate tactics but worse the TSA's of the world cannot even get on the level of thought.
Wow, you've come to the point to where others are incapable of being at your level intellectually. Are you related to WC?

I will have a gun debate with you anytime you like. I will not allow you to have presupposed "facts" that aren't actually facts. I won't allow you to get off on a tangent using those things like you do here. I will require you either defend or attack a premise. You cannot just free wheel your way through a debate, flip flopping on your stance like "I was invaded so I bought a gun" then say "more guns in circulation means more crimes". Actually you can make that 2nd statement because your personal belief is beside the point, you have to provide evidence to support your position and not just demand negative proof. I don't think you could do that, because your entire position here has been to make a baseless claim then challenge others to prove it wrong.

Example: Australia bettered itself in the gun related deaths department by banning certain types of firearms. You later cited websites that debunk that or at least say it's inconclusive. You cannot have it both ways. You just want to win an argument, you don't seem too intent on being factual or right, you just want a gambit that seems impenetrable, never mind that you don't have a game plan past that.

So no, you probably won't get any discussion that's serious because of the things I stated above and because you have lap dogs like CD riding your leg around the forum. No one can take that serious.

[DMC]

Exactly. Crimes are a problem in the United States.

Fixed

[DMC]

Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold & Charles Whitman say, "HI!".

Most of those you listed are dead because they killed themselves. That means they had the freedom to do so and the means. That means no one else had the freedom or the means to stop them.

You cannot control 300 million people, you can barely control yourself. When you have a flat tire, is the problem that there are too many nails in the roads or that you didn't have a spare tire? The problem with trying to address sporadic killers is that you don't know who they are, or when they will strike or where. What can you really do? You can be prepared, you an have the ability to mitigate the problem. The alternative is that you can hope that the federal government is effective enough to protect you by passing a slew of laws aimed at stopping suicidal maniacs from acquiring the means to kill a lot of people.

Some of us refuse to be prey, hoping the farmer locked the gates to keep the predators out.

[TSA]

Exactly. Gun crimes are a problem in the United States.
Agreed. So why should law abiding gun owners be punished? Drunk driving is a problem in the United States, should all cars have the device installed so no one can drive if they've had a drink?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You use all these little catchy phrases like "guns in circulation" without ever having the foggiest idea what you're even talking about. What circulation? Is there a gun circulation pool that I am not aware of?

Law abiding folks acquire guns the legal way.

Criminals may as well, or they may steal them. Even if they acquire them legally, they may remove serial numbers.

What circulation are you talking about? It's a mystery.

Wow, you've come to the point to where others are incapable of being at your level intellectually. Are you related to WC?

I will have a gun debate with you anytime you like. I will not allow you to have presupposed "facts" that aren't actually facts. I won't allow you to get off on a tangent using those things like you do here. I will require you either defend or attack a premise. You cannot just free wheel your way through a debate, flip flopping on your stance like "I was invaded so I bought a gun" then say "more guns in circulation means more crimes". Actually you can make that 2nd statement because your personal belief is beside the point, you have to provide evidence to support your position and not just demand negative proof. I don't think you could do that, because your entire position here has been to make a baseless claim then challenge others to prove it wrong.

Example: Australia bettered itself in the gun related deaths department by banning certain types of firearms. You later cited websites that debunk that or at least say it's inconclusive. You cannot have it both ways. You just want to win an argument, you don't seem too intent on being factual or right, you just want a gambit that seems impenetrable, never mind that you don't have a game plan past that.

So no, you probably won't get any discussion that's serious because of the things I stated above and because you have lap dogs like CD riding your leg around the forum. No one can take that serious.

A semantic argument about the meaning of the word 'circulation.' I'm not doing it.

Your example is shit. I posted a study indicating that gun related incidents dropeed at a faster rate post ban in Australia. You posted what you thought was an indication that Melbourne gun crimes were up but obviously did not read your google effort because it also had the Melbourne chief of police stating that gun homicides were down across the country.

This is what I am talking about lame tactics. Now youre just full of shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Agreed. So why should law abiding gun owners be punished? Drunk driving is a problem in the United States, should all cars have the device installed so no one can drive if they've had a drink?

I have shown studies that indicate that we have similar overall crime rates but a much much higher rate of gun crimes as opposed to the rest of the developed world.

You guys throw out ideological nonsense that is not supported by facts. You still do not even try and substantiate your deterrence claims with anything other than ideas.

[mouse]

I have shown studies that indicate that we have similar overall crime rates .

link

[mouse]

Mouse showing an obvious gun lobby advertisement is great and all but snopes points out why your advertisement is bullshit.



and what about the two other videos I posted.

[TSA]

I have shown studies that indicate that we have similar overall crime rates but a much much higher rate of gun crimes as opposed to the rest of the developed world.

You guys throw out ideological nonsense that is not supported by facts. You still do not even try and substantiate your deterrence claims with anything other than ideas.
You've still not answered the two questions I posed. According to you, more guns equal more gun crime, correct?

Please explain how there are a million+ more guns in circulation, yet gun crimes have gone down in the last ten years?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

First is was ban all semi-autos, now you want all guns banned? Because that would be the only way to truly limit the amount criminals could get there hands on. Make up your mind. And drop your guns in the ocean tomorrow, three less guns criminals can get their hands on. Help keep us safe by following your own rules.

Non sequitor and more proof you suck at critical thinking.

Your dumbass basically makes the case for me though. If you admit that someone else having guns means easier access for criminals getting guns then you open the whole can of worms dumbfuck. Try arguing a point instead of being contrary to everything me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You've still not answered the two questions I posed. According to you, more guns equal more gun crime, correct?

Please explain how there are a million+ more guns in circulation, yet gun crimes have gone down in the last ten years?

You are the one making the argument that gun sales have gone up and crime has gone down. I am not making that assertion so why do I get to be research bitch? Look up your own premise, lazy ass.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and what about the two other videos I posted.

they weren't posted at first you know that mang. How you doing anyway? Shit was kinda rough for you a couple of months ago I gathered. Hope all is well with you and the family.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

link

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

[DMC]

A semantic argument about the meaning of the word 'circulation.' I'm not doing it.

So you can use misleading jargon and refuse to define it because, as I said before, you want to bring these "facts" into the argument that aren't actually facts. What do you mean by "circulation?" How are guns in circulation, are they just out there for the taking?


Your example is shit. I posted a study indicating that gun related incidents dropeed at a faster rate post ban in Australia. You posted what you thought was an indication that Melbourne gun crimes were up but obviously did not read your google effort because it also had the Melbourne chief of police stating that gun homicides were down across the country.
Then you used the same link to say that the gun crime stats don't necessarily indicate anything related to the ban. Way to kick your own ass.


This is what I am talking about lame tactics. Now youre just full of shit.
I laid it out there, you just don't like seeing yourself in the mirror.

[DMC]

Non sequitor and more proof you suck at critical thinking.

Your dumbass basically makes the case for me though. If you admit that someone else having guns means easier access for criminals getting guns then you open the whole can of worms dumbfuck. Try arguing a point instead of being contrary to everything me.
Yet fewer guns in Australia = less gun related crime.

Are you and Cosmored the same person?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you can use misleading jargon and refuse to define it because, as I said before, you want to bring these "facts" into the argument that aren't actually facts. What do you mean by "circulation?" How are guns in circulation, are they just out there for the taking?

Then you used the same link to say that the gun crime stats don't necessarily indicate anything related to the ban. Way to kick your own ass.

I laid it out there, you just don't like seeing yourself in the mirror.

You're boring.

The link I gave was from the British Public Health department which was all about the efficacy of the ban. Your desire to characterize is full of shit.

Your article specifically had the Melbourne police chief saying that homicide rates were down just like they were across the country. What specifically did my link say? Trying to obfuscate by changing labels and what things seem to be is your game not mine.

So anyway what heinous use of the word 'circulation' did I use, semantics boy?

[redzero]

Politely no but she likely could have just scared that guy off.
No one is saying the guy was in the right, but thou shalt not kill is the way to go in all cases. If someone wants to kill me they will, I will live on forever anyways. I do not fear death to a point where I have to have a gun for protection.

You're an idiot.

[TSA]

You are the one making the argument that gun sales have gone up and crime has gone down. I am not making that assertion so why do I get to be research bitch? Look up your own premise, lazy ass.I am not making making an argument, I am just stating two facts. I don't need to link facts, imagine this message board if everyone was asked to link well known facts. Where are your links disputing my facts?

[DMC]

You're boring.

The link I gave was from the British Public Health department which was all about the efficacy of the ban. Your desire to characterize is full of shit.

Your article specifically had the Melbourne police chief saying that homicide rates were down just like they were across the country. What specifically did my link say? Trying to obfuscate by changing labels and what things seem to be is your game not mine.

So anyway what heinous use of the word 'circulation' did I use, semantics boy?

Privately owned guns are not in circulation. Unlike your lose meaning, they do not change hands promiscuously on a daily basis. Your jargon reeks of too much anti-gun exposure. You pretend terms aren't important but you pick these terms to suit your point, and when you're called on them you scoff at the person pointing it out as making a semantics argument. You're the one misusing semantics, and for a reason.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Privately owned guns are not in circulation. Unlike your lose meaning, they do not change hands promiscuously on a daily basis. Your jargon reeks of too much anti-gun exposure. You pretend terms aren't important but you pick these terms to suit your point, and when you're called on them you scoff at the person pointing it out as making a semantics argument. You're the one misusing semantics, and for a reason.

Nice characterization, semantics boy.

And it is a semantics argument. Is the gun once sold by the manufacturer in the public circulation? Does circulation imply moving at all times? No. Now you are trying to paint the word circulation as some liberal plot. As I said it's an obfusscation.

It's a word; youre a douchebag. C'est la vie

[DMC]

Nice characterization, semantics boy.
And it is a semantics argument. Is the gun once sold by the manufacturer in the public circulation? No. It's owned by a private citizen.
Does circulation imply moving at all times? No
Tell that to your local paramedic
Now you are trying to paint the word circulation as some liberal plot. As I said it's an obfusscation. It's a liberal talking point for the anti-gun crowd. It conjures up images of 300 million guns that are just out there for the taking, that a simple change to a law would suddenly do away with.

Yes, you're naive as fuck, these are things we know, but you could at least avoid the dishonesty.


It's a word; youre a douchebag. C'est la vie

The forum is comprised of words. lol trying to down play the importance of terminology in political debates. It depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No. It's owned by a private citizen.
Tell that to your local paramedic It's a liberal talking point for the anti-gun crowd. It conjures up images of 300 million guns that are just out there for the taking, that a simple change to a law would suddenly do away with.

Yes, you're naive as fuck, these are things we know, but you could at least avoid the dishonesty.


The forum is comprised of words. lol trying to down play the importance of terminology in political debates. It depends on what your definition of the word "is" is.

Are you going to try and argue the point or are you just going to spend all day trying to discredit who you think I am and a single word choice? Words have multiple meanings. Playing thought police is fun I guess but poisoning the well will not dissuade me from my point.

Fact is that when a gun is sold to the public, it does move around. During the last ban the amount of sales of banned guns was marked. We were just regaled for weeks about TSA filliping his guns, there are gun shows, and even simple acts like a mother who likes going out to the range giving access to her kids. Thats what I mean by circulation. The only one with conjured images is you. For the rest of us talking about private goods in public circulation like iPhones or Stratocasters its not conjuring images of free fenders for all. And ffs bringing up the medical definition as if its germane.

Your afraid to talk the point. You don't want to talk about the effects of our NATO allies gun policy or the studies that I link. The one time you did try and engage on that level you werre made a fool off your google search. No you want to paint me as a young naive office worker using big scary words like 'circulation' to try and confuse the local dumbfucks. It's typical fearmongering obfuscating bullshit that we see here all the time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And just to make a point. When I said the word 'circulation' did anyone other than semantics boy get the image of '300m guns just out there for the taking?'

[DMC]

Are you going to try and argue the point or are you just going to spend all day trying to discredit who you think I am and a single word choice? Words have multiple meanings. Playing thought police is fun I guess but poisoning the well will not dissuade me from my point.

Your point is built on false premises. No need to argue against that which hasn't been established.


Fact is that when a gun is sold to the public, it does move around. During the last ban the amount of sales of banned guns was marked. We were just regaled for weeks about TSA filliping his guns, there are gun shows, and even simple acts like a mother who likes going out to the range giving access to her kids. Thats what I mean by circulation. The only one with conjured images is you. For the rest of us talking about private goods in public circulation like iPhones or Stratocasters its not conjuring images of free fenders for all. And ffs bringing up the medical definition as if its germane.

My guns haven't been moving around.

Your afraid to talk the point. You've yet to make one.

You don't want to talk about the effects of our NATO allies gun policy or the studies that I link.You've not established causation. Anyone can post two different things that changed around the same time. The US has more guns than ever and lower crime. You've stated that there's no established causation. The same is true in other NATO countries. If gun numbers do not effect crime, they don't effect crime. What's to argue?

The one time you did try and engage on that level you werre made a fool off your google search. No you want to paint me as a young naive office worker using big scary words like 'circulation' to try and confuse the local dumbfucks. It's typical fearmongering obfuscating bullshit that we see here all the time.
You are a naive cubicle dweller, I never called you young. You should just hold on to your heirloom and those of us who didn't buy our guns out of fear (like you did) will keep on keeping on.

You thought "bad man, knife no good, I need a gun" then after nothing happened you think "need to get rid of guns, guns bad" so you think that should be imposed on everyone. Bungee cord gun owners like you who dabble but will give it all up on a whim have no place in the discussion, you're naive to the facts but are just courageous enough to pretend you aren't. That's why you've been dealt a fresh one every time you try to step up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What makes you say I am a cubicle dweller? You keep saying this in an effort to characterize such to ridicule, al fallacy, but your labels are unsubstantiated. You dont know hsit about me or my past and are being honorless again.

This is not about you. What you do with your gun is not germane to a nationwide policy discussion beyond being a random anecdote.

I never said get rid of all guns. More characterization. More of you being honorless. Do not speak for me. I didn't say guns were bad. I said semiautomatics are not necessary for defense and them being out in circulation endangers public security and health. I have over and again stated that I get the need for selfdefense.

As for causation. When the gun bans were passed for example in Britain in 1920, they were passed with the intention of reducing gun violence crime etc. When you look at the efficacy of a policy you look to see if the intended results happened. They have. You just want to blanket dismiss by the lame ass causation skepticism a la David Hume conveniently choosing the disposition that suits your ideology. This is not analogous to correlating background radiation and quasar activity. It's a policy discussion.

On a final note. Everyone deserves a place in this discussion. Your attempts to characterize me to take away my right to speak on policy discussion that effects all Americans is once again you displaying your lack of honor.

[DMC]

It says the stats don't apply because the laws are different. I am advocating making the laws the same. You guys are completely shitty at critical thinking. Hell, your reading comprehension is weak. Texas and California schools are fucking terrible.

And I am not leaving and am going to continue to speak my mind. I am a US citizen and might as well deal with it.

BTW, it's the "always have been" that's the point. You cannot take a country who's founding fathers explicitly protected the existing right to bear arms, who's been exercising that right for 300+ years, change a few laws and expect Australia. There are other factors that are much different as well that you refuse to consider, but this one is very big. You think you can just change the diet of a 60 year old obese man and make him have the same results as a man who was never obese in the 1st place? Good luck.

[mavs>spurs]

"I am a US citizen and might as well deal with it."

All enemies will be dealt with once it pops off, you can bet on that. I can imagine if a civil war ever got underway there would be a lot of executions of traitors.

[DMC]

What makes you say I am a cubicle dweller? You keep saying this in an effort to characterize such to ridicule, al fallacy, but your labels are unsubstantiated. You dont know hsit about me or my past and are being honorless again.
Because you brag about your job when WC pipes up. People like you sit in front of monitors all day and attend meetings that get little to nothing accomplished. You're either not working at all or you sit in a cubicle (which allows you to respond here).


This is not about you. What you do with your gun is not germane to a nationwide policy discussion beyond being a random anecdote.

It most certainly is germane. My gun is not in circulation. How many gun owners are there? How many of them move guns regularly? Dealers do, and some people trade them like trading other items, but like liberal media, you ignore facts and just go for the eye catching phrases.. WOW 300 million guns in circulation? Holy shit, that's a gun for everyone in the US. That means I can walk outside and will likely see one.


I never said get rid of all guns. More characterization. More of you being honorless. Do not speak for me. I didn't say guns were bad. I said semiautomatics are not necessary for defense and them being out in circulation endangers public security and health. I have over and again stated that I get the need for selfdefense.

Why did your grandfather use one?


As for causation. When the gun bans were passed for example in Britain in 1920, they were passed with the intention of reducing gun violence crime etc. When you look at the efficacy of a policy you look to see if the intended results happened. They have. You just want to blanket dismiss by the lame ass causation skepticism a la David Hume conveniently choosing the disposition that suits your ideology. This is not analogous to correlating background radiation and quasar activity. It's a policy discussion.

I don't have to dismiss what you've not established. See, you keep pawning off the onus of proof to others. It belongs to you.


On a final note. Everyone deserves a place in this discussion. Your attempts to characterize me to take away my right to speak on policy discussion that effects all Americans is once again you displaying your lack of honor.
Do you really need to speak here? I can understand you wanting to speak up when a group of people get together to talk about things you feel you know something about because you were in a low level debate on a forum where you have to do some Wikisearch, but you really should get some information together including personal experience if you want to contribute. Any 15 year old can argue using tactics of shifting the burden of proof, or are you going to use the "I don't need to know in order to have an opinion" approach? If so, there's a long line ahead of you.

[DMC]

"I am a US citizen and might as well deal with it."

All enemies will be dealt with once it pops off, you can bet on that. I can imagine if a civil war ever got underway there would be a lot of executions of traitors.

I am not banking on any internal wars, but if the market crashes mass hysteria will ensue and there will be liberals knocking on doors seeking protection from the assembled gangs who develop to take advantage of it (think LA riots).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because you brag about your job when WC pipes up. People like you sit in front of monitors all day and attend meetings that get little to nothing accomplished. You're either not working at all or you sit in a cubicle (which allows you to respond here).

It most certainly is germane. My gun is not in circulation. How many gun owners are there? How many of them move guns regularly? Dealers do, and some people trade them like trading other items, but like liberal media, you ignore facts and just go for the eye catching phrases.. WOW 300 million guns in circulation? Holy shit, that's a gun for everyone in the US. That means I can walk outside and will likely see one.

Why did your grandfather use one?
As for causation. When the gun bans were passed for example in Britain in 1920, they were passed with the intention of reducing gun violence crime etc. When you look at the efficacy of a policy you look to see if the intended results happened. They have. You just want to blanket dismiss by the lame ass causation skepticism a la David Hume conveniently choosing the disposition that suits your ideology. This is not analogous to correlating background radiation and quasar activity. It's a policy discussion.

On a final note. Everyone deserves a place in this discussion. Your attempts to characterize me to take away my right to speak on policy discussion that effects all Americans is once again you displaying your lack of honor.[/QUOTE]

You are an individual anecdote. We know you think you are so important.

I have said that I have studied systems and modeling and work with microcontrollers. That's it. You are ignorant and assumptive ie go the WC route.

MY grandfather was an officer under Bradley and then Patton. He used one because he was fighting the Wehrmacht. He had two guns, a French made Luger and a BAR that he brought home. Those were the only guns that he had them locked up. He was not afraid like you are. He had honor.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"I am a US citizen and might as well deal with it."

All enemies will be dealt with once it pops off, you can bet on that. I can imagine if a civil war ever got underway there would be a lot of executions of traitors.

:lol bring it on tough guy.

[DMC]

You are an individual anecdote. We know you think you are so important.

I have said that I have studied systems and modeling and work with microcontrollers. That's it. You are ignorant and assumptive ie go the WC route.

MY grandfather was an officer under Bradley and then Patton. He used one because he was fighting the Wehrmacht. He had two guns, a French made Luger and a BAR that he brought home. Those were the only guns that he had them locked up. He was not afraid like you are. He had honor.

So your GF used one for defense. Got it.

Why did he lock them up? He realize you're too stupid to be shown how to properly treat a gun? That's too bad. My GF bought me my first shotgun when I was 8 years old and I was hunting alone at age 10. I killed my first solo hunt prey at age 10. My grandfather didn't treat me like a girl.

So when did you serve, which branch and what was your MOS?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And just to make a point. When I said the word 'circulation' did anyone other than semantics boy get the image of '300m guns just out there for the taking?'

Just asking again in case people missed it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So your GF used one for defense. Got it.

Why did he lock them up? He realize you're too stupid to be shown how to properly treat a gun?

So when did you serve, which branch and what was your MOS?

:lol more characterizations. Equating the heart of WW2 to your bullshit.

Patton was not one for taking up defensive positions. When they left Britain we were advancing east and dday was done and over with.

He locked them up because he had no intention on using them. Again he was not a scared man.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am not banking on any internal wars, but if the market crashes mass hysteria will ensue and there will be liberals knocking on doors seeking protection from the assembled gangs who develop to take advantage of it (think LA riots).

:lol Sure happened the last time the market crashed. You heard the story of the Bonus Army?

[TSA]

Homocide rates in Los Angeles reached a low not seen since 1970. I'm glad Los Angeles implemented that semi-auto ban, it's really working!

And fuzzy, answer my two questions pussy.

Are there millions+ more gun than ten years ago?
Is gun crime down from ten years ago?

[DMC]

:lol more characterizations. Equating the heart of WW2 to your bullshit.

Patton was not one for taking up defensive positions. When they left Britain we were advancing east and dday was done and over with.

He locked them up because he had no intention on using them. Again he was not a scared man.

Funny, because the Army is under the department of defense.

Not scared, he was honorable as you said, but also smart enough to not trust you with them. Maybe he didn't think too highly of you. Did anyone teach him to shoot as a child?

Even if you attack, you're defending your position.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Homocide rates in Los Angeles reached a low not seen since 1970. I'm glad Los Angeles implemented that semi-auto ban, it's really working!

And fuzzy, answer my two questions pussy.

Are there millions+ more gun than ten years ago?
Is gun crime down from ten years ago?

Same response as last time. I am not making your argument for you. If you want to try and make it then make it yourself. I am not your research bitch.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Funny, because the Army is under the department of defense.

Not scared, he was honorable as you said, but also smart enough to not trust you with them. Maybe he didn't think too highly of you. Did anyone teach him to shoot as a child?

Even if you attack, you're defending your position.

and more semantics and you trying to characterize my relationship with my grandfather.

youre boring again im going to do something else. bye.

[TSA]

Same response as last time. I am not making your argument for you. If you want to try and make it then make it yourself. I am not your research bitch.
You coward.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You coward.

:lol I am so scared.

I blame RG for this shit. You do not get to ask questions that make it seem like I support your premise. Its a lame tactic that is designed to give the appearance of the answerer agreeing with your assertion.

I know the point that you are trying to make. It's pretty obvious but I am not playing your game. If you want to make the contentions of an argument then do it. I am not making the gun sales up crime down argument for you.

I cannot blame you for trying to make the argument for you though. I think its pretty obvious I am better at presenting them than you are.

[TSA]

I am not making the gun sales up crime down argument for you.
I am not arguing that gun sales going up made crime go down, never have. The two facts I pointed out do however shit all over your theory that more guns=more crime.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am not arguing that gun sales going up made crime go down, never have. The two facts I pointed out do however shit all over your theory that more guns=more crime.

If you're a simpleton that thinks that a detailed analysis is not needed to make such a claim.

[DMC]

and more semantics and you trying to characterize my relationship with my grandfather.

youre boring again im going to do something else. bye.

So which branch did you serve, and what was your MOS?

I was characterizing your GF's viewpoint, not your relationship. Grandfathers were rough around the edges back then. Take one from the war and he's not going to care much for kids, and perhaps your father was opposed to guns as well.

You abandon every discussion only to return a short time later in another thread.

lol forum honor, I served my country in a time of war, I don't need shit stains like you to tell me what is and isn't honorable.

[DMC]

If you're a simpleton that thinks that a detailed analysis is not needed to make such a claim.

No detailed analysis is needed. The facts are there, more guns, less crime, your "causation" is shot down. Move on.

[TSA]

If you're a simpleton that thinks that a detailed analysis is not needed to make such a claim.I've been looking all day for a detailed analysis that proves that more guns=more gun crimes and have about given up. Can you point me in the right direction? Or do you have this analysis on hand I can take a look at? Thanks.

[TSA]

Damn it...found that link you were talking about Fuzzy. You win.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/04/CA-gun-sales-up-crime-down

With Democrats in Congress and in the California state legislature pushing as much gun control as humanly possible, California gun sales are skyrocketing. Meanwhile, gun crime in the state is dropping dramatically.

In 2002, 350,000 guns were sold in the state of California. By 2011, that number was 600,000. Last year, it jumped to 817,000, a single year increase of 36 percent.

Did crime go up? Precisely the opposite. Since 2002, hospital visits due to injuries from gun wounds plummeted 28 percent. Gun deaths decreased 15 percent.

But that doesn’t stop California’s sanctimonious liberals from pushing more gun control. “When I see that the sales go up, I don’t like that,” complained LAPD Chief Charlie Beck. “My officers have to face these guns on the street.”

There is no evidence of that. The LAPD is facing less guns even as more guns are stolen. And the guns the LAPD does face are disproportionately acquired illegally. Even Beck admits that “guns that are excess and become unwanted in a home” are sold illegally, and that “those are the kind of guns that my officers run into on the street.” So gun laws didn’t stop those sales. What will more gun laws do?

Nothing. More gun sales have correlated with less crime for a decade now in California. And the left’s single-minded pursuit of gun control shows that they don’t care about declining crime nearly as much as they care about disarming the public.

[TSA]

Shit, another one. Fucking google.

http://novatownhall.com/2012/12/29/gun-ownership-up-crime-down-in-ca/



It appears that yet another inconvenient truth has raised its head for the anti gun fanatics of the world. I am sure that they will dismiss this datum as well. It does not fit their narrative of a populace that needs to disarmed for its own good. Statistics from California demonstrate a correlation between a drop in gun crime and violence as the law abiding members of the population arm themselves. From the Sacramento Bee:

Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data.

The tone of the article shows that the “journalist” is perplexed. This information does not fit his world view either. Poor dear. Guns sales nearly doubled and the murder rate went down over 10%. Firearms sales soared with 650,000 purchases and the number of deaths and shootings fell over 10%. This is a story that has repeated itself in over 20 states. That is over 20, well documented case studies. This information means nothing to the control fanatic. For our own good, we must be disarmed.

Places like Switzerland are among the safest in the world. Guns ownership is mandatory. Switzerland is diverse, there are four national languages, German, French, Italian and an obscure Latin based mountain language called Romansh. A society does not need to either disarmed nor monolithic for it to be safe. What it does require is respect for the individual’s capacity to reason and make the right choice when under duress.

Violence in a culture can be attributed to many things. Weaponry choices are not one of them. The masacre of 1.5M Tutsi was accomplished largely with knives, clubs and fire — not bullets. Had the Tutsi been armed with guns the massacre would have ended abruptly, or, even better — it never would have started in the first place. Deterrence is the best protection.

The next best defense, after deterrence, is to be armed and trained as well or better then the initiator of the violence. The massacre in Norway would not have reached its monstrous proportions had someone on the island had been armed other then the evil creature who stalked the island that day. It is far harder to kill those who are able to protect themselves.

[TSA]

And another. This is getting boring.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/

Gun-control advocates are noticeably silent when crime rates decline. Their multimillion-dollar lobbying efforts are designed to manufacture mass anxiety that every gun owner is a potential killer. The statistics show otherwise.

Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that violent crime decreased 4 percent in 2011. The number of murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults all went down, continuing a pattern.

“This is not a one-year anomaly, but a steady decline in the FBI’s violent-crime rates,” said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association. “It would be disingenuous for anyone to not credit increased self-defense laws to account for this decline.”

Mr. Arulanandam pointed out that only a handful of states had concealed-carry programs 25 years ago, when the violent-crime rate peaked. Today, 41 states either allow carrying without a permit or have “shall issue” laws that make it easy for just about any noncriminal to get a permit. Illinois and Washington, D.C., are the only places that refuse to recognize the right to bear arms. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence did not respond to requests for comment.

If the gun grabbers were right, we’d be in the middle of a crime wave, considering how many guns are on the streets. “Firearms sales have increased substantially since right after the 2008 election,” said Bill Brassard, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents the $4 billion firearms and ammunition industry. “There was a leveling off in 2010, but now we’re seeing a surge again.”

The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) serves as one of the best indicators of gun sales because it counts each time someone buys a gun. Checks hit an all-time high of 16.5 million last year. In the first five months of this year, the numbers have gone up 10 percent over the same period last year as Americans rush to the gun store in case President Obama decides to exercise “more flexibility” in restricting guns in a second term.

Gun manufacturing is the one private-sector industry “doing fine” on Mr. Obama’s watch. Sturm, Ruger & Co. sold 1 million firearms in the first quarter of 2012 - an amazing 50 percent increase from the first quarter of 2011. The jump was so steep that the company stopped accepting orders from March to May to catch up with demand for its products.

Last month, Smith & Wesson announced a firearm-order backlog of approximately $439 million by the end of April, up 135 percent from the same quarter in 2011. Sales in that period were up 28 percent from 2011 and 14 percent over its own predictions to investors. NSSF estimates the industry is responsible for approximately 180,000 jobs and has an annual impact on the U.S. economy of $28 billion.

Mr. Obama could honestly take credit for this jobs program, economic boost and the reduction in violent crime that has followed the spike in gun ownership on his watch. Instead, he’s silent about his greatest positive accomplishment.

[TSA]

I did a little looking in to your claims of Great Britain and Australia. Not sure why you think it would work here, when it didn't really work there. This linky thing you suggested is fun.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.

We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.

In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.

Enlarge Image
image
image
David Klein

Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.

After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.

Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.

The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.

In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.
***

Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.

At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.

With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).

[DMC]

The fact is that very rare shootings cause people to re-examine what they think they can control, which is law abiding citizens. They broaden the view to include all gun related crime and pretend that's the issue, but it's really just the nature of the mass shooting that shocked them into action. They aren't concerned with gun related crime, they just want to feel like they did something.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I did a little looking in to your claims of Great Britain and Australia. Not sure why you think it would work here, when it didn't really work there. This linky thing you suggested is fun.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.

We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.

In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.

Enlarge Image
image
image
David Klein

Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.

After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.

Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.

The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.

In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.
***

Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.

At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.

With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).

And a WSJ op ed. A cursory glance does not show an exhaustive study of stats but rather cherry picking.

[TSA]

And a WSJ op ed. A cursory glance does not show an exhaustive study of stats but rather cherry picking.Looks like you cherry picked which links to respond to as well you coward. I provided the links you asked, now it's your turn to prove that more guns=more gun crimes. I'll be patiently waiting as I clean my extremely dangerous semi-automatic weapons, got a fun weekend of shooting lined up.

[TSA]

"Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is." :lmao

[DMC]

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif


DOJ


Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)Chart (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/rate_of_homicide_any_method)In the United States, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2010: 4.67
2009: 4.965
2008: 5.35
2007: 5.61
2006: 5.70
2005: 5.66
2004: 5.51
2003: 5.69
2002: 5.64
2001: 5.63
2000: 5.52
1999: 4.556 7
1998: 5.19
1997: 6.77
1996: 7.3
1995: 8.1
1993: 9.939

Compare (http://www.gunpolicy.org//firearms/compare/194/number_of_gun_homicides)
Number of Gun HomicidesChart (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/number_of_gun_homicides)In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2009: 9,1467
2008: 9,48410 7
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,6597
2002: 9,36911
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,2596
1998: 9,257

Compare (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/rate_of_gun_homicide)
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 PeopleChart (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/rate_of_gun_homicide)In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2009: 2.985 7
2008: 3.12
2007: 3.36
2006: 3.42
2005: 3.43
2004: 3.20
2003: 3.37
2002: 3.2511
2001: 3.12
1999: 2.976
1998: 3.37
1993: 7.0712


gunpolicy.org







http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sgcossbzcei5hhmpeq0ryq.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

[DMC]

That tells me the problem is elsewhere, unrelated to the number of guns. Whatever the problem is/was, it seems to be getting better. I hate to admit it, but CD had a point in his abortion comments. Also, baby boomers are getting to old to be involved in that shit now.

[TSA]

That tells me the problem is elsewhere, unrelated to the number of guns. Whatever the problem is/was, it seems to be getting better. I hate to admit it, but CD had a point in his abortion comments. i remember reading that in Levitt's Freakonomics.

[BradLohaus]

Those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common:


"There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

http://www.reflector.com/greenville-news-board/those-who-study-mass-shootings-say-they-are-not-becoming-more-common-1565067


.

[TSA]

And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929
I blame the video games and AR-15's.

[TSA]

Cmon Fuzzy, come and take your Lumps. Show us your internet honor.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif


DOJ


Rate of Homicide per 100,000 People (any method)Chart (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/rate_of_homicide_any_method)In the United States, the annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2010: 4.67
2009: 4.965
2008: 5.35
2007: 5.61
2006: 5.70
2005: 5.66
2004: 5.51
2003: 5.69
2002: 5.64
2001: 5.63
2000: 5.52
1999: 4.556 7
1998: 5.19
1997: 6.77
1996: 7.3
1995: 8.1
1993: 9.939

Compare (http://www.gunpolicy.org//firearms/compare/194/number_of_gun_homicides)
Number of Gun HomicidesChart (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/number_of_gun_homicides)In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2009: 9,1467
2008: 9,48410 7
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,6597
2002: 9,36911
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,2596
1998: 9,257

Compare (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/194/rate_of_gun_homicide)
Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 PeopleChart (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/rate_of_gun_homicide)In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2009: 2.985 7
2008: 3.12
2007: 3.36
2006: 3.42
2005: 3.43
2004: 3.20
2003: 3.37
2002: 3.2511
2001: 3.12
1999: 2.976
1998: 3.37
1993: 7.0712


gunpolicy.org







http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/sgcossbzcei5hhmpeq0ryq.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

It's nice to see that the gun homicides per capita went down significantly following the passage of the Brady Bill in 1993 and the assault ban in 1994. Curious why you didn't go back to 1993 on all the figures.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Cmon Fuzzy, come and take your Lumps. Show us your internet honor.

I was watching the game. I am not here at your beck and call, putz.

Lets talk Britain and Australia. First of all bringing up the increase in violence in the UK following the 1920 ban is entertaining. I mean only over half of the male population was abroad fighting. That was the main concern: that all of the servicemen returning would bring their guns home and it would cause problems. It sure did. What I don't see you mention is the significant drop in firearms crimes and deaths over the next 50 years. I mean they only had their cops cease carry guns casue they weren't needed. I would also posit that using raw stats when a third of the population returned is dishonest. More on this regarding the Aussie stats which is deplorable.

And certainly current UK gun violence is concerning. Yet despite the recent spike they still have one third of the gun violence that we have here. IOW, they go to shit yet are still doing 3 times better than us. Now I am sure that DMC wants to blame brown people but racism aside the difference between us and them from a law and gun enforcement policy is they have a much stricter gun control.

They are proactive as all of our other NATO allies. UK is the worst after us and compared to places like Germany and Norway we are 20 times worse. Germany has the strictest gun control laws around. They do it better than we do.


According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

So violence went up overall but gun crime still went down. So the country becomes more violent but gun crimes decreased anyway. I am failing to see how they speak against the effectiveness of a ban. This shit is misleading. The stats compiled here are not per capita and cherry picking 2008 was a nice touch. This is the type of strategy that the AGW deniers use constantly. Little surprise a similar 'conservative' group uses the same tactic.

In contrast we know that the homicides in Australia have been falling for the past several years thanks to DMC's earlier self ownage. And I would also posit the following:


Abroad, the data is even more convincing. In Australia, a 1996 mass shooting that left 36 dead led the conservative government to act swiftly to ban semi-automatic assault weapons with a much stronger law. They did not grandfather in old guns and paid to buy back old ones. Gun-related homicide plummeted by 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. Meanwhile, gun suicides — which are responsible for most firearm deaths in most developed countries — dropped by a whopping 65 percent. Robberies at gunpoint also dropped significantly. In the decade prior to the ban, there were 18 mass shootings. In the decade following it, there were zero.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/banning_assault_weapons_works/

Now in fairness there has been a mass hooting since so the reduction of them in Australia was only about 95%. Small sample size I know.

[BradLohaus]

Now I am sure that DMC wants to blame brown people but racism aside the difference between us and them from a law and gun enforcement policy is they have a much stricter gun control.

The stat that must not be mentioned. The brown people in Latin America are killing each other like crazy with strict gun bans, drug wars or not. I've been looking for the non Hispanic white murder rate in America but I can't find anything from the government. Best guess from what I have found is that it's about 1.5 per 100K

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No detailed analysis is needed. The facts are there, more guns, less crime, your "causation" is shot down. Move on.

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf


Over time, a body of empirical research can disentangle
thorny issues of causation and lead toward consensus. We view this Article as
playing a role in this process (not in ending the conversation). On net, we
believe that Lott and Mustard’s efforts made an important contribution to the
literature. They asked the initial question, amassed an important new panel
dataset, and then energetically and creatively analyzed it. (Indeed, their
dataset, which we know from experience was quite costly to construct, has been
used by many researchers to explore this and other questions about crime.)
Nevertheless, their results have not withstood the test of time. When we added
five years of county data and seven years of state data, allowing us to test an
additional fourteen jurisdictions that adopted shall-issue laws, the previous Lott
and Mustard findings proved not to be robust. Importantly, we showed that the
Lott and Mustard results collapse when the more complete county data is
subjected to less-constrained jurisdiction-specific specifications or when the
more-complete state data is tweaked in plausible ways. No longer can any
plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to
reduce crime for all or even most states. How much further one can go in
arguing that shall-issue laws likely increase crime across the board or have
heterogeneous effects across states (albeit most commonly pernicious) will be
matters about which various analysts will differ. We conclude with Learned
Hand’s advice that, unlike a policy advocate, an academic must “keep an open
mind to every disconcerting fact, [and] an open ear to the cold voice of doubt.”
Hand admonished: “You may not carry a sword beneath a scholar’s gown.”135

This is an exhaustive study. Those pesky academics.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The stat that must not be mentioned. The brown people in Latin America are killing each other like crazy with strict gun bans, drug wars or not. I've been looking for the non Hispanic white murder rate in America but I can't find anything from the government. Best guess from what I have found is that it's about 1.5 per 100K

Brown people live in Europe too.

Honduras and Nicaragua have been in or on the border of civil war for 50 years. Columbia and Mexico has a perpetual drug war going on. In all places the government doesn't have the widespread power to enforce such a ban. Quite the contrary, for example, the Mexican army is notorious for its corruption in selling arms and are contributing to the problem.

I want to see a link on the racial breakdowns. What have you found from what source?

Comparing us to third world governments is fun though. Why not bring up South Africa while you are at it. Their government is just like ours. :rolleyes

[TSA]

I want to see a link that shows more guns= more crimes. You must have one Fuzzy, pull the Ace out of your sleeve already.

[TSA]

Also, kudos on not responding to any of the other links you asked for you Internet coward with no Internet honor.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Also, kudos on not responding to any of the other links you asked for you Internet coward with no Internet honor.

What other links? And you really need to get your own takes.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I want to see a link that shows more guns= more crimes. You must have one Fuzzy, pull the Ace out of your sleeve already.

I just gave you a link stating that more guns less crime is not factually correct as to the premise. You asked me to look it up and found a very detailed and exhaustive analysis.

[TSA]

What other links? And you really need to get your own takes.
Sorry for stealing your "Internet coward" and "Internet honor" shtick.

The links you asked for about more guns equal more crime. You said you could prove that, remember?

[BradLohaus]

Brown people live in Europe too.

At a much smaller percentage.


I want to see a link on the racial breakdowns. What have you found from what source?

Comparing us to third world governments is fun though. Why not bring up South Africa while you are at it. Their government is just like ours. :rolleyes

If I can only compare us to other highly developed countries then basically all I can do is compare us to vast majority white countries and Japan.

But here's one article on the white rate. There's a bunch of links in the original.
http://www.amren.com/news/2013/01/european-murder-rates-compared-to-the-united-states-demographics-vs-guns/

European Murder Rates Compared to the United States: Demographics vs Guns


When the subject is gun control, those who demand more for the United States always point to Europe. Europe, they say, has more gun control than the United States, and lower murder rates. Europe, of course, is a diverse place. Some places have lots of guns and low murder rates. Some places have few guns and higher murder rates. The reason that many developed European countries have murder rates much lower than the United States is not guns or gun control. It is demographics.

In 2006 the Department of Justice issued a report on violent felons in large urban counties. It covered the period from 1990 to 2002, and included the 75 most populous counties in the United States. The study accounted for over half of all the murders in the United States in the covered period.

Revealed in the study was a simple breakdown of the demographics of the murderers that is not commonly available. Murderers were divided into three groups. Blacks were the most numerous at 46%. Hispanics were next at 27 percent. Non-Hispanic whites were last at 23 percent.

While the study does not account for all murders in the period studied, it accounts for more than half and almost certainly slightly understates the percentages of Black murderers, because the latest FBI statistics (for 2010) show that when all the murders in the U.S are taken into account, the percentage of Black murderers is over 53 percent.

No one would dispute that there are several distinct cultures among the American black population. No one would dispute that none of these cultures exist in Europe in any statistically significant numbers. Some of the Black American subcultures probably have very low murder rates. We cannot tell because we do not have the data to distinguish between them.

Similarly, there are a number of distinct Hispanic cultures in the United States. These are all derived from cultures in Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. They are not Spanish or Portuguese. No one would argue that any statistical number of these populations exist in Europe. No doubt, some of these cultures also have very low murder rates, but without data, we cannot separate them out.

Where does that lead us? If we take the 23 percent figure for non-Hispanic whites to be representative for the entire population (remember, it is likely a good bit lower), then the number of murders committed by non-Hispanic and non-black people in the United States for 2010 would be 2989.

The population of non-Hispanic whites for 2010 was 196.8 million. Applying the 2989 murders to this population gives a murder rate of 1.52 per 100,000 population. We cannot get a more precise figure unless we have more demographic data than that given. Asian-Americans, for example, have historically had very low murder rates, but we do not have the data. The 1.52 per 100,000 murder rate is right in the middle of the murder rate of developed European countries. Add the Black and Hispanic numbers back into the mix and apply to the entire United States population, and the murder rate goes up to 4.2 per 100,000. Guns or gun control simply do not correlate to higher murder rates, particularly when you consider that non-Hispanic Whites own guns at much higher rates than do Blacks or Hispanics in the United States.

There are huge numbers of German-Americans, English-Americans, Greek-Americans, Italian-Americans, Scandinavian and Swiss-Americans in the United States. There are no statistically significant numbers of African-American or Hispanic-Americans in Europe.

As a check, you might consider a non-European example. Japan has extreme gun control and extremely low murder rates. The FBI used to track murders by Japanese-Americans before 1980, when access to firearms was relatively easy.

The murder rate of Japanese Americans was less than half that of Japanese in Japan.

Murder rates are driven by cultural background, not by the instrument used.

European murder and gun ownership rates: Link

Department of Justice Study with demographic data: Link

FBI homicide statistics, 2010: Link

Japanese and Japanese American murder rates: Link

Original Article

[TSA]

I just gave you a link stating that more guns less crime is not factually correct as to the premise.exactly what do you think my premise is regarding more guns?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol American Renaissance


The Philosophy of Race Realism

What we call race realism is what was considered common sense until perhaps the 1950s. It is a body of views that was so taken for granted it had no name, but it can be summarized as follows: That race is an important aspect of individual and group identity, that different races build different societies that reflect their natures, and that it is entirely normal for whites (or for people of any other race) to want to be the majority race in their own homeland. If whites permit themselves to become a minority population, they will lose their civilization, their heritage, and even their existence as a distinct people.

All other groups take it for granted that they have a right to speak out in their own interests. Only whites have lost this conviction.

So we another another contestant that blames brown people for crime.

You paid your klan dues?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

exactly what do you think my premise is regarding more guns?

That guns have increased and crime has gone down but when the statistics are controlled for counties where the guns went crime didn't go down. So I answered your question so I will say again guns have increased overall and but where the guns actually went, crime did not drop.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Right next to the blame racial minorities for crime article is a link for an article on how criticizing the confederate flag is an attack on the white race. Nice find.

Brad, you need to get with WC and DMC to start the Spurstalk Eugenics Society or maybe you can call it the Spurstalk White Supremacist Society. You guys sure like bringing their talking point in here.

[TSA]

That guns have increased and crime has gone down but when the statistics are controlled for counties where the guns went crime didn't go down. So I answered your question so I will say again guns have increased overall and but where the guns actually went, crime did not drop.I'll need a link for this claim please since this is your NEW argument. Are you really willing and able to break this down county by county? How do you know where all the guns went? You claim the government doesn't even know where the guns go, how'd you get the inside info?
This is fun watching you throw shit and see what sticks. Try again.

[TSA]

Fuzzy, this is your argument now, show me proof more guns=more gun crime in the USA.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf



This is an exhaustive study. Those pesky academics.


I'll need a link for this claim please since this is your NEW argument. Are you really willing and able to break this down county by county? How do you know where all the guns went? You claim the government doesn't even know where the guns go, how'd you get the inside info?
This is fun watching you throw shit and see what sticks. Try again.

It is a problem that the gun lobby has tried at every turn to prevent the governmnet from collecting data but that has not prevented solid work.

The above is from Yale Law. Thats not a klan site nor a wsj op ed, a south korean evangelical paper, or fucking Breitbart. It's from one of the premiere research institutions in the country.

Read up, Chachi. Further, you asked me to look up whether or not crime has gone down and gun sales have gone down. I did, post my findings and now you complain. You're high maintenance.

[TSA]

It is a problem that the gun lobby has tried at every turn to prevent the governmnet from collecting data but that has not prevented solid work.

The above is from Yale Law. Thats not a klan site nor a wsj op ed, a south korean evangelical paper, or fucking Breitbart. It's from one of the premiere research institutions in the country.

Read up, Chachi. Further, you asked me to look up whether or not crime has gone down and gun sales have gone down. I did, post my findings and now you complain. You're high maintenance.
The problem is I never said more guns equals less gun crime, not sure why you're posting a 120 page link to something that has nothing to do with my premise. I said more guns does not equal more gun crime. Prove the latter wrong.

[The Reckoning]

^don't pull that shit with me, i ain't buyin none of that. you're white in my book no matter what you say or do, at least on the inside. you're liberal, hate whites (just like most white liberals except for the elite who understand the game) and that's final with me


quick update bro. i gave a euro girl her first internal orgasm, and im circumsized. there's hope.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The problem is I never said more guns equals less gun crime, not sure why you're posting a 120 page link to something that has nothing to do with my premise. I said more guns does not equal more gun crime. Prove the latter wrong.

I know the Yale Law Review piece is a long read but it's right there. I did find it amusing that you went to WSJ opeds, the Washington Times and their goldenboy for your position. How much Fox News do you watch?

[BradLohaus]

So we another another contestant that blames brown people for crime.

You paid your klan dues?

:lol I think that might qualify as an ad hominem. Sorry you didn't like the article; feel free to look up the stats yourself and let us know what you find, as you've told others to do. Boutons just posted a thread on America's white male problem and nobody said jack, really. Racism!!! Imagine a thread on America's black male problem; it would have as many posts as the Martin/Zimmerman thread, full of more KKK name calling. The race card game is like go fish to gin rummy.

Since you quoted a different article in response: are the Japanese racist for their policy of strictly limiting immigration to keep Japan Japanese? Because it seems to be working pretty well. I would also say that yes, it is true that the only people on earth who largely don't feel a connection to their race are left wing whites.

[TSA]

I know the Yale Law Review piece is a long read but it's right there. I did find it amusing that you went to WSJ opeds, the Washington Times and their goldenboy for your position. How much Fox News do you watch?
I admit, the sources are not the most reputable, shows how little i care. You asked for links proving more guns do not equal more crime, I provided the first three that popped up on google. I'm really not going to waste my time researching well known facts. Find me something in that 120 page pdf that proves your argument that more guns equals more gun crime.


You can't, you won't, and you will not admit you're wrong. You're boring me now. I've presented simple facts, you expect me to read 120 pages. Sorry, not going to do it when I know for certain gun sales are up and gun crimes are down. You coward you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol I think that might qualify as an ad hominem. Sorry you didn't like the article; feel free to look up the stats yourself and let us know what you find, as you've told others to do. Boutons just posted a thread on America's white male problem and nobody said jack, really. Racism!!! Imagine a thread on America's black male problem; it would have as many posts as the Martin/Zimmerman thread, full of more KKK name calling. The race card game is like go fish to gin rummy.

Since you quoted a different article in response: are the Japanese racist for their policy of strictly limiting immigration to keep Japan Japanese? Because it seems to be working pretty well. I would also say that yes, it is true that the only people on earth who largely don't feel a connection to their race are left wing whites.

You apparently do not understand why I would be dismissive of a white supremacist site. Okey dokey. I really do not want to discuss race with you.

[BradLohaus]

Do you dispute the stats though, at least generally? I don't. Then why has the MSM gone out of their way to put the gun owning white males up front as the ones to be feared, what with their AR-15s and all? (The Alex Jones and Nugent types; surely nobody would dispute this). If white males murder at close to the same rate as the Europeans that we must be compared to, then what gives? Why take that angle? You take that angle to write a narrative. Why disarm the non inner city citizens to stop the inner city gun violence? To stop these mass shootings? You're kid is more likely to drown. You're as likely to get struck by lightening. It's an agenda.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I admit, the sources are not the most reputable, shows how little i care. You asked for links proving more guns do not equal more crime, I provided the first three that popped up on google. I'm really not going to waste my time researching well known facts. Find me something in that 120 page pdf that proves your argument that more guns equals more gun crime.


You can't, you won't, and you will not admit you're wrong. You're boring me now. I've presented simple facts, you expect me to read 120 pages. Sorry, not going to do it when I know for certain gun sales are up and gun crimes are down. You coward you.

I won't admit that I am wrong? For the last two days you have been telling me to look up if gun sales are going up and if crime has gone down. Today you call me a coward becuase I won't do it. I link a Yale Law Review article that talks about both and now I bore you? Fuck man.

You should read it. It's good stuff. They look at 3 different studies looking at the question and how they controlled for different variables. How it looked at the state and county level and differences in outcome. It at the very least tries to present studies with different conclusions and tries to leave out the editorials.

You guys do not want to talk about though. I think I am done arguing about gun control. The divide is clear and other people are bringing in eugenics and white supremacy shit. You've been cool but if I have to read more shit from DMC linking genetic markers and the concept of race which has no genotype or phenotype I think I will puke. I don't want to see what else crawls out of the woodwork.

[TSA]

It at the very least tries to present studies with different conclusions and tries to leave out the editorials. Tries isn't good enough. Either it does or it doesn't. It doesn't, accept it.


You guys do not want to talk about though. I think I am done arguing about gun control. The divide is clear and other people are bringing in eugenics and white supremacy shit. You've been cool but if I have to read more shit from DMC linking genetic markers and the concept of race which has no genotype or phenotype I think I will puke. I don't want to see what else crawls out of the woodwork.I don't like nor feel the need to bring race in to the discussion when talking about gun control. Gun control facilitates what, which, how many, and to what capacity a law abiding citizen can own. Law abiding citizens are law abiding citizens, race has no part in that. I am concerned with gun control relating to law abiding citizens. You argue that there is no need to protect yourself with a semi-auto, fine, arm yourself as you wish. I prefer to arm myself with a semi-auto, if necessary, it's much more effective. And when it's not being used for self defense, my semi-auto is much more fun to shoot when I went to dump some clips and let some brass fly. Admit it, guns are bad ass, and really fun to shoot. The 2nd amendment guarantees my right to fun. Fuck yeah.

[Wild Cobra]

I have said that I have studied systems and modeling and work with microcontrollers.
So you program PLC's.

OK...

You know don't you that the desk version seldom works in the field. The installation team often has to tweak the code.

[Wild Cobra]

Looks like you cherry picked which links to respond to as well you coward. I provided the links you asked, now it's your turn to prove that more guns=more gun crimes. I'll be patiently waiting as I clean my extremely dangerous semi-automatic weapons, got a fun weekend of shooting lined up.
It's that Fuzzy Logic...

[Wild Cobra]

Lets talk Britain and Australia.
When you have a culture to compare equal to ours, with so many violent gangs, and problems associated with our southern border, I'll entertain other nation's statistics.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you program PLC's.

OK...

You know don't you that the desk version seldom works in the field. The installation team often has to tweak the code.

:lol PLC. You def are an 80s child.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When you have a culture to compare equal to ours, with so many violent gangs, and problems associated with our southern border, I'll entertain other nation's statistics.

The Cartel wars have now spread here? They don't fuck with us really. You afraid to go to El Paso? San Diego?

[Wild Cobra]

:lol PLC. You def are an 80s child.
PLC's are still around. They either don't use ladder logic like the past, and some use microcontroller simulated ladder logic.

What ever you do, microcontroller simulations is ... BORING...

[Wild Cobra]

The Cartel wars have now spread here? They don't fuck with us really. You afraid to go to El Paso? San Diego?
Really...

Wow. You really are ill informed.

[DMC]

http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf



This is an exhaustive study. Those pesky academics.
You're arguing alone. The task was to show that more guns equals more crime. You've moved the goalposts to "shall issue" which wasn't designed to reduce crime.

[DMC]

It's nice to see that the gun homicides per capita went down significantly following the passage of the Brady Bill in 1993 and the assault ban in 1994. Curious why you didn't go back to 1993 on all the figures.

I see you're moving the goalposts again.

So you see now that the number of guns owned by private citizens is not necessarily the lever that influences the amount of gun related homicides.

If you wish to discuss the effects of the Brady Bill, start a new thread.

[DMC]

I just gave you a link stating that more guns less crime is not factually correct as to the premise. You asked me to look it up and found a very detailed and exhaustive analysis.

This is factually incorrect. "Shall issue" does not increase the number of guns. It only allows private citizens to carry concealed. The entire concept of a concealed weapon is that others are not aware. It's design is to mitigate, not to deter. Were it to deter then it would be open carry.

[DMC]

Right next to the blame racial minorities for crime article is a link for an article on how criticizing the confederate flag is an attack on the white race. Nice find.

Brad, you need to get with WC and DMC to start the Spurstalk Eugenics Society or maybe you can call it the Spurstalk White Supremacist Society. You guys sure like bringing their talking point in here.

You've been relegated to moving goalposts and playing the troll card. I've shown you data and correlation that's undeniable. I've stated that socioeconomic factors, not race, are likely the leading cause. You stuck your fingers in your ears and screamed out "racist!" hoping to draw some backing from the other posters (those that you somehow feel are your audience when you say "we") but the facts remain and are there for anyone who doesn't wear the sword beneath their gown.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You've been relegated to moving goalposts and playing the troll card. I've shown you data and correlation that's undeniable. I've stated that socioeconomic factors, not race, are likely the leading cause. You stuck your fingers in your ears and screamed out "racist!" hoping to draw some backing from the other posters (those that you somehow feel are your audience when you say "we") but the facts remain and are there for anyone who doesn't wear the sword beneath their gown.

You are a lying piece of shit. I present:


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

You didn't actually read it.

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.


The argument is clear.

1) Black people commit more crime and if there is a link to criminal behavior and genetics they by default.
2) You present evidence that there is a genetic link to criminal behavior and genetics as well as black folks having a particular gene at a higher rate.
3) Conclude that being black predisposes you to criminal behavior.

It's straight out of the klan playbook you lying piece of shit. That you don't stand by it makes you a coward to boot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

PLC's are still around. They either don't use ladder logic like the past, and some use microcontroller simulated ladder logic.

What ever you do, microcontroller simulations is ... BORING...

:lol simulated ladder logic. Thanks google!

So what sims are you running with what chip?

[TSA]

Still waiting for the more guns=more gun crimes facts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Still waiting for the more guns=more gun crimes facts.

Nothing I give is going to be credible to you guys. I told you I am done arguing gun control with people that have no interest in reading academic articles and are blatant racists. I am glad that you fit the former and not the latter. You can call me a coward if you like but I just see it as a waste of time.

I really just wanted to show people what kind of racist prick DMC is.

[TSA]

Could it be there is zero proof that more guns=more gun crime?

[DMC]

You are a lying piece of shit. I present:




The argument is clear.

1) Black people commit more crime and if there is a link to criminal behavior and genetics they by default.
2) You present evidence that there is a genetic link to criminal behavior and genetics as well as black folks having a particular gene at a higher rate.
3) Conclude that being black predisposes you to criminal behavior.

It's straight out of the klan playbook you lying piece of shit. That you don't stand by it makes you a coward to boot.




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.

Do your homework while you're in that cubicle.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do your homework while you're in that cubicle.

Saying that there other factors does not mean that you also said that you believe that black people are genetically predisposed to commit crimes. The two notions are not mutually exclusive.

Heres an idea: say that you do not believe that minorities have a genetic predisposition towards crime and I will leave this alone.

Your reminding me of WC with this dissembling cowardice.

[DMC]

Saying that there other factors does not mean that you also said that you believe that black people are genetically predisposed to commit crimes. The two notions are not mutually exclusive.

Heres an idea: say that you do not believe that minorities have a genetic predisposition towards crime and I will leave this alone.

Your reminding me of WC with this dissembling cowardice.
You called me a liar. I proved I was not lying. You're once again shown to be mistaken. You will move the goalposts again.

I showed you data taken from reliable sources that wasn't originally compiled to make any such correlations, however the correlations are evident and impossible to deny unless you're more interested in appearing neutral to anonymous viewers than in seeking the truth as the academic in your long ass copy/paste eluded to.

The data supports my statements. I didn't mention my beliefs.

And I don't care if you leave it alone. You've aborted the issue several times already. Not all minorities are more predisposed to commit crimes than the whites so your request is an easy one to meet. I did not compile the data. Make your own conclusions. Belief has nothing to do with it.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol simulated ladder logic. Thanks google!

So what sims are you running with what chip?
There you go again with stupid assumptions.

[mavs>spurs]

Quick question, why do liberals think that "gun homicides" are the end all, be all of the gun control argument? I'd take a coupl of extra shootings per year if the trade off is thousands of less assaults, robberies, burglaries, and rapes.

[ChumpDumper]

Quick question: Is Britain the only country with restrictive laws? Everyone is always pimping the violent crime statistics in Britain. What about the other European countries with similar laws?