Women Take Biden's Shotgun Advice

[TSA]

Not sure if you all caught Biden's advice to women when needing a weapon for self defense, but it was basically for women to grab a 12 gauge and go outside and blast off two shots to scare off the intruder. Not even taking into account what a stupid fucking idea that is considering that all the shotgun shot has to come down somewhere around your neighbors, what moron goes on national television and gives this as advice? Obama is retarded, but this guy is on a whole other level. You Dems should be proud.

A0IVSGctQIg

[spursncowboys]

Joe Salazar (D) a CO rep :

There are some gender inequities on college campuses, this is true, and universities have been faced with that situation for a long time. It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're going to be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're going to be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/why_blacks_and_women_should_not_have_guns.html#ixz z2MLVodLsT
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)

[TSA]

I raise you one more retard.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/26/living/colorado-university-rape-prevention-tips

(CNN) - The University of Colorado-Colorado Springs was roundly criticized and ridiculed last week by victims' rights groups, gun advocates and others skeptical of tips on the school's website for deterring rapists, which included urinating and vomiting as potential ways of repulsing assailants.

Laughable as they may seem, universities and law enforcement agencies across the country have been sharing guidelines like these for years as part of self-defense training and education programs. While such strategies may be worthy as self-defense, experts say they don't get to the root cause of rape because they're just that -- strategies for self-defense, not for stopping someone from committing sexual assault.

College women told to urinate or vomit to deter a rapist

Much of the criticism stemmed from the view that there are more effective ways of defending oneself than self-induced vomiting or claiming to be menstruating, said feminist writer and educator Jaclyn Friedman, author of "What You Really Really Want: The Smart Girl's Shame-Free Guide to Sex & Safety."

"A lot of that advice is based on the assumption that we can't use our bodies to protect ourselves," she said. "Women can learn how to use the strength of their bodies against the weakness of their assailants' bodies."

Others took issue with the recommendation that "passive resistance may be your best defense" in light of studies showing that fighting back can increase the likelihood of escaping rape, said Occidental College politics professor Caroline Heldman, who specializes in media and gender studies.

"It is absolutely false to argue that there is ever a time where you should lie there and take it," she said. "These strategies support the idea that females are inherently vulnerable and violable. But all humans are vulnerable if you know how to exploit their weaknesses."

Considered in a broader societal context, focusing on self-defense places responsibility on the victim to defuse an attack rather than on society as whole to prevent it, said Tracy Cox, communications director of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

"Society needs to establish a zero tolerance for sexual violence. Instead of saying, 'don't get raped,' which shifts the responsibility onto a potential victim, the message should be 'don't rape' and focus on holding perpetrators accountable," Cox said.

"Sure, risk-reduction strategies -- such as self-defense classes -- can be part of a larger, comprehensive approach to preventing sexually violent crimes. But, in order to cultivate safer communities, we must create social change."

[spursncowboys]

:lmao I think you got me. Give me a day, atleast. I have faith in politicians saying stupid crap

[TSA]

Could two pumps prevent a possible cuckolding?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control.

John Howard was prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=0

[TSA]

The guy who wants guns banned yet hasn't given his own gun up decided to stop by. How cool.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

British gangs use flare guns now because they can’t find real ones

the U.K. endured a series of mass shootings, including one that targeted children, it passed some very tough gun control legislation in 1997. The effect, reported on today by The Washington Post’s Anthony Faiola, has been staggering. Here are eight of the big takeaways, possible learning opportunities as the U.S. considers its own gun law changes:

1) Bad guys have a hard time getting guns: Criminals have resorted to using “archaic flintlock pistols” and “retrofitted flare guns.” There’s been one mass shooting in 15 years. This despite the adage, “When guns are illegal, only criminals will possess them.”

2) Fewer illegal guns: Faiola reports that, according to ballistics studies, “Most gun crime in Britain can be traced back to less than 1,000 illegal weapons still in circulation.”

3) Fewer gun deaths: Someone in England or Wales is about 3 percent as likely to be killed by a gun as an American. There were 59 gun deaths there last year. The U.S. annual gun death rate has hovered around 10,000 for years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/01/british-gangs-use-flare-guns-now-because-they-cant-find-real-ones/

[TSA]

Hypocritical coward.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A similar trend was observed with firearm homicide rates, with 4.28 per 100,000 for federal checks; 4.02 per 100,000 for state checks; and 2.81 per 100,000 for local checks.

"As with suicides, the reduction in firearm homicide rates associated with local-level background checks, if confirmed, would also have an important impact on public health and economic outcomes," says Dr. Layde. "Assaults involving a firearm are more lethal and more costly for patients and hospital systems than non-gun assaults."

"This is the first study to analyze the effects of differences among states doing background checks for firearm purchase," explains Dr. Layde. "We hope that future research will evaluate the impact of changes in the background checking process that may emerge in the next few years."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080603155227.htm

[TSA]

You can continue ignoring me like the pussy you are, I'll continue to point out you are a gun owning hypocrite.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

[Th'Pusher]

Solid empirical evidence fuzzy. Nice job :tu

[TSA]

Solid empirical evidence fuzzy. Nice job :tu
You'd think this evidence would be enough for him to give up his gun wouldn't you? Until he gives up his own firearms he's a two faced fraud.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

[TSA]

:sleep wake me when you want to actually discuss something :sleep

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gun advocates are throwing around a lot of rhetoric and data about guns and violence in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, but the majority of it does not stand up to scrutiny. One major fallacy is that gun laws do not work. Gun advocates are using distorted figures and lies to argue that since our existing gun laws are not working, we should have fewer such laws and more guns on hand.

The lies should end now.

The strongest gun laws in the United States are piecemeal acts put into place by states. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a San Francisco-based group that provides legal expertise for gun violence prevention, California actually has the nation’s strongest gun laws. Critics point to the high number of gun-related deaths in the state and call them proof that these laws don’t work. But this simple-minded reading of the numbers does not delve far enough into the realities of this complex system of laws and regulations to prove that the state’s laws aren’t working.

Yes, there are a lot of deaths in California from gun violence. But the percentage of the deaths attributable to gun violence is equal or below that of many other states, especially those with fewer restrictions. The center points out that many of the guns used to commit crimes in states with strict gun laws were actually purchased outside of the state or stolen. Thus, the real need is for stronger federal weapons laws. Gun control in California is obviously weakened if residents can simply drive over to Nevada, purchase firearms, ammunition or gun parts that are illegal here, and then bring them back across state lines. The coverage gaps between state laws are big enough to drive semi-trucks full of military-grade weapons through.

A perfect example of the effectiveness of gun laws is the state of Hawaii. That state has some of the country’s strictest gun laws and, as an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it is perhaps the hardest state to transport out-of-state weapons to. Hawaii had the country’s lowest rate of gun deaths per 100,000 residents in 2011, FBI data show.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2012/12/data-clear-gun-control-works

Monkey!

[TSA]

Gun owning hypocrite doing his best boutons impersonation. Funny that you think you are actually trolling me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The laws differ from place to place. In some jurisdictions, like Scotland, it is essentially impossible to own a gun; in others, like Canada, it is merely very, very difficult. The precise legislation that makes gun-owning hard in a certain sense doesn’t really matter—and that should give hope to all of those who feel that, with several hundred million guns in private hands, there’s no point in trying to make America a gun-sane country.

As I wrote last January, the central insight of the modern study of criminal violence is that all crime—even the horrific violent crimes of assault and rape—is at some level opportunistic. Building a low annoying wall against them is almost as effective as building a high impenetrable one. This is the key concept of Franklin Zimring’s amazing work on crime in New York; everyone said that, given the social pressures, the slum pathologies, the profits to be made in drug dealing, the ascending levels of despair, that there was no hope of changing the ever-growing cycle of violence. The right wing insisted that this generation of predators would give way to a new generation of super-predators.

What the New York Police Department found out, through empirical experience and better organization, was that making crime even a little bit harder made it much, much rarer. This is undeniably true of property crime, and common sense and evidence tells you that this is also true even of crimes committed by crazy people (to use the plain English the subject deserves). Those who hold themselves together enough to be capable of killing anyone are subject to the same rules of opportunity as sane people. Even madmen need opportunities to display their madness, and behave in different ways depending on the possibilities at hand. Demand an extraordinary degree of determination and organization from someone intent on committing a violent act, and the odds that the violent act will take place are radically reduced, in many cases to zero.

Look at the Harvard social scientist David Hemenway’s work on gun violence to see how simple it is; the phrase “more guns = more homicide” tolls through it like a grim bell. The more guns there are in a country, the more gun murders and massacres of children there will be. Even within this gun-crazy country, states with strong gun laws have fewer gun murders (and suicides and accidental killings) than states without them. (Hemenway is also the scientist who has shown that the inflated figure of guns used in self-defense every year, running even to a million or two million, is a pure fantasy, even though it’s still cited by pro-gun enthusiasts. Those hundreds of thousands intruders shot by gun owners left no records in emergency wards or morgues; indeed, left no evidentiary trace behind. This is because they did not exist.) Hemenway has discovered, as he explained in this interview with Harvard Magazine, that what is usually presented as a case of self-defense with guns is, in the real world, almost invariably a story about an escalating quarrel. “How often might you appropriately use a gun in self-defense?” Hemenway asks rhetorically. “Answer: zero to once in a lifetime. How about inappropriately—because you were tired, afraid, or drunk in a confrontational situation? There are lots and lots of chances.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/the-simple-truth-about-gun-control.html

DANCE!!!

[TSA]

You may want to double check on the one who's actually doing the dancing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

However statistics show that states with higher gun ownership and weak gun laws lead the nation in gun deaths rates per 100,000 people. For example Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi and Nevada have household gun ownership rates from 31.5 percent to 60.6 percent and gun death rates of 16.25 per 100,000 to 19.58 per 100,000.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-01-25/news/bs-ed-gun-control-letter-20110125_1_gun-ownership-gun-control-ban-high-capacity-magazines

DANCE MONKEY!

[Th'Pusher]

Quantitative data has absolutely nothing to do with what guns fuzzy chooses to own. They're completely unrelated regardless of how you'd like to link them.

[TSA]

Right on cue.

Let's do it again.

I point out you own firearms, you post an article saying guns are bad, you celebrate a troll job. Rinse repeat.

[TSA]

Quantitative data has absolutely nothing to do with what guns fuzzy chooses to own. They're completely unrelated regardless of how you'd like to link them.

You can't push for civil disarmament while at the same time own firearms.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can't push for civil disarmament while at the same time own firearms.

I told you before I sold or rendered all of my guns inoperable. Is it poor reading comprehension or just straight dumb? That being said:

I'm a trend setter.

I set trends.

[TSA]

Bullshit.

[Th'Pusher]

You can't push for civil disarmament while at the same time own firearms.
Address the data. Fuzzy has shown himself to be a rational data driven decision maker, while you've proven yourself to be a hyper emotional wreck. Debate the data.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:cry


While the issue of gun control remains divisive, there are clear areas of agreement when it comes to a number of gun policy proposals. Fully 85% of Americans favor making private background checks, with comparable support from Republicans, Democrats and independents. Similarly, 80% support laws to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing guns, with broad support across party lines.

But this bipartisan consensus breaks down when it comes to other proposals. Two-thirds of Americans (67%) favor creating a federal database to track gun sales, but there is a wide partisan divide between Democrats (84%) and Republicans (49%). A smaller majority of the public (55%) favors a ban on assault-style weapons

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/

[TSA]

Address the data. Fuzzy has shown himself to be a rational data driven decision maker, while you've proven yourself to be a hyper emotional wreck. Debate the data.

Fuzzy and I have done this before, I'm not doing it again. We are past arguing data, and we definitely aren't changing each other's minds on this issue. I will continue though to call out his hypocritical ways when he pushes for civil disarmament while still owning firearms.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Me post empirical proof and you continually get upset? You refuse to even look at the studies that I link. I have tried to talk to you about controlling variables to isolate cause and you are either unable or unwilling to discuss that. Yes, we have done this before.

My goal has never been to convince you. It's been obvious from the start. My goal is to demonstrate the type of attitude that is against gun control.

Now DANCE MONKEY!!!


One might, of course, suspect that this decline in gun violence may just be a consequence of a declining inclination of Germans to commit violent crimes altogether during the 1970s and 1980s. That is not the case. The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level. [2] Again, introduction of tough gun control legislation correlates with a considerable reduction in gun violence. I want to give you a few basic pieces of information about the quality of that legislation. First, the basic principle of the Gun Control Act of 1972 [Waffengesetz] says, "The number of gun owners and the number and types of guns in private property must be limited to the lowest level possible in the light of interest of public safety." [3] More specifically, every person who wants to own a gun or carry a gun in public needs a special permit. I'll say a few things about the conditions under which people receive this kind of permit. To begin, the right to own a gun is very restrictive. It requires a government permit which is based on four certifications. First, the certification of need. You can document the need to own a gun if you are a member of a government certified gun club. Getting such a gun club certificate is a rather restrictive process. Or you can document the need to own a gun if you are a hunter. Again, getting a hunting license is much more restrictive in Germany than it is in the United States. Second, you have to document trustworthiness through the local police authorities. Such trustworthiness involves no prior violent criminal record. Third, you need to be certified in the technical knowledge about the consequences of firearms. Technical knowledge is based on a test that people must take with the district government. And fourth, you must document physical fitness. It is certainly at least partly the result of this legislation that only [p.261] 2.1 million of 80 million German citizens own guns. That is about three percent of the entire population. [4]

Let me move on to the third correlation I had announced. This results from a recent, what we call in the social sciences, natural experiment that happened in Germany. During the past five years, Germany experienced a rather rapid increase in the availability of guns. It was partly a result of demoralized Soviet troops in the eastern part of the country selling their weapons to the German population, partly to the underground market. It is interesting to observe that during exactly this period of increased gun availability, violent crime involving guns increased considerably from 4,000 cases in 1990 to 7,700 cases in 1993; homicides involving guns increased by fifty percent, from 224 cases in 1990 to 314 cases in 1993. [5] So, the higher the availability of guns, the more use of guns appears in violent crime. This is really the common denominator of all three correlations that I presented.

Now I come to the analytical part. I talked about correlations. Do correlations imply causal relations? Is it indeed the availability of guns that leads to gun violence? Typically no, correlations never necessarily imply causal relations. Thus, we have to ask for potential control variables, or additional factors that might lead to lower gun violence, in German society, and there are three potential factors that come to mind very easily. The first factor is the toughness of the criminal justice system. When people talked about caning in Singapore recently and learned at the same time that the crime rate in Singapore is very low, the common conclusion in almost all the news media and public talk was, "Well, if they have such a tough criminal justice system and those cruel forms of corporal punishment, of course they have a low crime rate." People saw a correlation and concluded a causal relation, not seeing all the other differences between American and Singapore societies. The second factor is cultural differences, especially with regard to the culture of violence in both societies. The third factor is sociological or socioeconomic differences that we will discuss.[p.262]

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/savelsberg1.html

[CosmicCowboy]

I raise you one more retard.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/26/living/colorado-university-rape-prevention-tips

(CNN) - The University of Colorado-Colorado Springs was roundly criticized and ridiculed last week by victims' rights groups, gun advocates and others skeptical of tips on the school's website for deterring rapists, which included urinating and vomiting as potential ways of repulsing assailants.

Laughable as they may seem, universities and law enforcement agencies across the country have been sharing guidelines like these for years as part of self-defense training and education programs. While such strategies may be worthy as self-defense, experts say they don't get to the root cause of rape because they're just that -- strategies for self-defense, not for stopping someone from committing sexual assault.

College women told to urinate or vomit to deter a rapist

Much of the criticism stemmed from the view that there are more effective ways of defending oneself than self-induced vomiting or claiming to be menstruating, said feminist writer and educator Jaclyn Friedman, author of "What You Really Really Want: The Smart Girl's Shame-Free Guide to Sex & Safety."

"A lot of that advice is based on the assumption that we can't use our bodies to protect ourselves," she said. "Women can learn how to use the strength of their bodies against the weakness of their assailants' bodies."

Others took issue with the recommendation that "passive resistance may be your best defense" in light of studies showing that fighting back can increase the likelihood of escaping rape, said Occidental College politics professor Caroline Heldman, who specializes in media and gender studies.

"It is absolutely false to argue that there is ever a time where you should lie there and take it," she said. "These strategies support the idea that females are inherently vulnerable and violable. But all humans are vulnerable if you know how to exploit their weaknesses."

Considered in a broader societal context, focusing on self-defense places responsibility on the victim to defuse an attack rather than on society as whole to prevent it, said Tracy Cox, communications director of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

"Society needs to establish a zero tolerance for sexual violence. Instead of saying, 'don't get raped,' which shifts the responsibility onto a potential victim, the message should be 'don't rape' and focus on holding perpetrators accountable," Cox said.

"Sure, risk-reduction strategies -- such as self-defense classes -- can be part of a larger, comprehensive approach to preventing sexually violent crimes. But, in order to cultivate safer communities, we must create social change."

Hopefully my daughter won't ever have to resort to any of that stupid shit. Just watched her rack the slide on my P85 yesterday and run 12 rapid fire shots in the A/B zone of an LE target at 10 yards. That would be a seriously dead fucking rapist.

[TSA]

.

[TSA]

Taken from your own article fuzzy, why not discuss this point? Were guns in the hands of law abiding citizens a detterent to those wishing to commit violent crimes? The figure nearly doubles itself with 50,000+ more cases and that question is not even brought up?



http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/savelsberg1.html

One might, of course, suspect that this decline in gun violence may just be a consequence of a declining inclination of Germans to commit violent crimes altogether during the 1970s and 1980s. That is not the case. The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level. [2] Again, introduction of tough gun control legislation correlates with a considerable reduction in gun violence.




After reading the rest of this article the author himself sounds like he's not even sure it was gun control that caused a reduction in gun crime, but societal factors. And all these articles you post from other countries really can't be used to compare to America, gun ownership here is a constitutionally protected right. I'd suggest either dealing with your fear of guns or moving out of the US.

[mavs>spurs]

I wonder how many pill and carbon monoxide suicides there were over the same period. Pointless statistic IMO, need the total sucker rate not the gun one.

[TSA]

". The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level. [2] Again, introduction of tough gun control legislation correlates with a considerable reduction in gun violence."

Did the same tough gun control legislation correlate with an even more considerable increase in violent crime?

[TSA]

I read your studies and have questions.

[TSA]

Looks like Lumpkins is going back to his old tactic of ducking and dodging.

[Blake]

Looks like your bait sucks.

[TSA]

Looks like your bait sucks.
What the cuck are you implying?

[Blake]

I'm not implying. I'm directly stating your troll bait sucks, pussy.

But I won't tell you not to keep trying.

[TSA]

Pulled directly from what he posted, I'm not trolling at all. I'm honestly curious as to why the violent crimes nearly doubled after the tougher gun restrictions. Since fuzzy wont answer, what do you think Blake?



". The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level. [2] Again, introduction of tough gun control legislation correlates with a considerable reduction in gun violence."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Taken from your own article fuzzy, why not discuss this point? Were guns in the hands of law abiding citizens a detterent to those wishing to commit violent crimes? The figure nearly doubles itself with 50,000+ more cases and that question is not even brought up?

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/savelsberg1.html

One might, of course, suspect that this decline in gun violence may just be a consequence of a declining inclination of Germans to commit violent crimes altogether during the 1970s and 1980s. That is not the case. The number of violent crimes during this period almost doubled, from approximately 60,000 to around 110,000 cases, an almost doubling of violent crime cases while the number of violent crimes involving guns declined to one-third of its original level. [2] Again, introduction of tough gun control legislation correlates with a considerable reduction in gun violence.




After reading the rest of this article the author himself sounds like he's not even sure it was gun control that caused a reduction in gun crime, but societal factors. And all these articles you post from other countries really can't be used to compare to America, gun ownership here is a constitutionally protected right. I'd suggest either dealing with your fear of guns or moving out of the US.

Gun crimes have higher death rates. (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27) That should be obvious.

For the rest, he was isolating cause and saying that he could dismiss but gun control and one other. The other studies I showed further isolation of cause from correlation.

He doesn't act certain without evidence like the deterrence argument. Supposing deterrence might be the case is fun but unsubstantiated. I have shown studies that refute the notion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Looks like Lumpkins is going back to his old tactic of ducking and dodging.

No I just think it's funny that you respond like a trained dog. I don't waste my every waking hour obsessing over you once you get a bit of attention, monkey.

[TSA]

He doesn't act certain without evidence like the deterrence argument. Supposing deterrence might be the case is fun but unsubstantiated. I have shown studies that refute the notion.You don't find the gun control restrictions and the dramatic spike in violent crime strange? Do you think it was just a coincidence?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You don't find the gun control restrictions and the dramatic spike in violent crime strange? Do you think it was just a coincidence?

We have been this before.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2240&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_ url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.la w.yale.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253 D2240%2526context%253Dfss_papers%26sa%3DX%26scisig %3DAAGBfm37zgFGytJHrdYgXfogB0m8OeAUYg%26oi%3Dschol arr#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.yale .edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2240%26co ntext%3Dfss_papers%22

You are apparently not good at original thought. Did you ever go through those critical thinking workbooks I linked for you?

[TSA]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2240&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_ url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.la w.yale.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253 D2240%2526context%253Dfss_papers%26sa%3DX%26scisig %3DAAGBfm37zgFGytJHrdYgXfogB0m8OeAUYg%26oi%3Dschol arr#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.yale .edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2240%26co ntext%3Dfss_papers%22

You are apparently not good at original thought.:lol says the guy who constantly has to reference someone else's work.

I'm not talking about more guns=less crime. I'm simply asking you why YOU think the violent crimes almost doubled? I don't need another 121 page PDF, just your opinion. Share an original thought with me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol says the guy who constantly has to reference someone else's work.

I'm not talking about more guns=less crime. I'm simply asking you why YOU think the violent crimes almost doubled? I don't need another 121 page PDF, just your opinion. Share an original thought with me.

:lol Dumbass thinks citing studies that have delved into the subject deeply is a bad thing. Being creative is different than inserting supposition for fact. When it comes down to it I don't know.

If you want me to make shit up then I will say its because a shortage of streusel in Bavaria.

[Blake]

I guess the bait worked after all.

[spursncowboys]

Me post empirical proof and you continually get upset? You refuse to even look at the studies that I link. I have tried to talk to you about controlling variables to isolate cause and you are either unable or unwilling to discuss that. Yes, we have done this before.

My goal has never been to convince you. It's been obvious from the start. My goal is to demonstrate the type of attitude that is against gun control.

Now DANCE MONKEY!!!



http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/savelsberg1.html
What attitude are you saying that I have?

[TSA]

:lol Dumbass thinks citing studies that have delved into the subject deeply is a bad thing. Being creative is different than inserting supposition for fact. When it comes down to it I don't know.

If you want me to make shit up then I will say its because a shortage of streusel in Bavaria.
So when asked for your opinion on the subject it's simply "I don't know"?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So when asked for your opinion on the subject it's simply "I don't know"?

With certainty about the rise in violent crime in Germany in the 1960s? Sure. I also don't really understand the importance of the abc conjecture or the orthogonality in quantum mechanics. That's okay; I am more than comfortable saying I don't know rather than make shit up that makes it so it fits my world-view.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess the bait worked after all.

When it comes to discussing things that have an empirical basis I will always discuss it in good faith.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What attitude are you saying that I have?

Do you believe that private ownership of guns deters crime?

[TSA]

With certainty about the rise in violent crime in Germany in the 1960s? Sure. I also don't really understand the importance of the abc conjecture or the orthogonality in quantum mechanics. That's okay; I am more than comfortable saying I don't know rather than make shit up that makes it so it fits my world-view.
Thought you would have read the study you posted, noting the dramatic rise in the 70's and 80's, not the 60's. This is one of many studies I have seen that shows and drop in gun crime after strict gun regulation, but a rise in overall violent crime ex: Germany, Australia, United Kingdom. Seems like a trend to the naked eye.

[TSA]

Do you believe that private ownership of guns deters crime?
Why do you still own a firearm? Don't feel too comfortable yet with your nunchucks?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thought you would have read the study you posted, noting the dramatic rise in the 70's and 80's, not the 60's. This is one of many studies I have seen that shows and drop in gun crime after strict gun regulation, but a rise in overall violent crime ex: Germany, Australia, United Kingdom. Seems like a trend to the naked eye.

Youre moving goalposts and generally being boring. If you can try and demonstrate a linkage to cause then I will care.

[TSA]

:lol moving the goalposts? This thread is about our moronic VP's advice on how to scare off intruders.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:sleep

[Blake]

When it comes to discussing things that have an empirical basis I will always discuss it in good faith.

I believe it. And it was not meant to suggest that throwing bait out is always a win for the troller.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

3 days, and I finally took the time to watch the video in the OP.

Hilarious!

Still, it is showing improper shotgun use vs. proper semiautomatic use.

Now a 12 gauge does have a pretty good kick, but still...

I half agree with Biden. If your purpose home defense, then either a shotgun or pistol is the way to go. Not a semiautomatic rifle. Still, all legal weapons do have a time and place for usage. If you want a non-lethal shotgun, make salt filled founds!

[TSA]

Weird that the anti-gun crowd refused to comment on the Democrat that was chosen to spearhead new gun regulations. Is your silence a vote of confidence in him or do you all see him for the retard he is?


"During his interview with Parents magazine, which took place via a Facebook town hall, a questioner asked how women are supposed to “protect ourselves” if Congress bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Biden responded that the government isn’t going to take away people's guns, and that women shouldn’t need an assault weapon to feel safe. Instead, he said, a shotgun would do the trick -- the same advice he gave his wife.
“If you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun," Biden said. "I promise you, as I told my wife … I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put [up] that double barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.'"
“You don't need an AR-15," he said. "It's harder to aim, it's harder to use. And in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun!"

[sjacquemotte]

Do you believe that private ownership of guns deters crime?Absolutely. In some instances, it will alter a criminals behavior and planning if they put the possibility of a gun in to the mix. I also feel the opposite is true. Taking the possibility of a victim having a gun will advance a criminals desire for committing a crime.

[Wild Cobra]

Absolutely. In some instances, it will alter a criminals behavior and planning if they put the possibility of a gun in to the mix. I also feel the opposite is true. Taking the possibility of a victim having a gun will advance a criminals desire for committing a crime.
That's why you don't tell people you have a gun.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Absolutely. In some instances, it will alter a criminals behavior and planning if they put the possibility of a gun in to the mix. I also feel the opposite is true. Taking the possibility of a victim having a gun will advance a criminals desire for committing a crime.

And other than personal anecdotes and make-believe do you have any basis for this belief?

[spursncowboys]

And other than personal anecdotes and make-believe do you have any basis for this belief?
I'm definitely not going to copy and paste statistics that have no causation with each other in an attempt to push my belief. Like the fact some of the cities with the most gun laws have the highest gun crimes...

[spursncowboys]

Fuzzy (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=17812)Lumpkins: Do you believe that the knowledge of a gun will not deter a criminal?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I believe that a community that has 500 guns in it is more likely to have a gun crime that one that has 300 guns. That's how I look at it. Most gun supporters think of 'how can I be a cowboy.' It's just a fundamental difference in viewpoint.

There are not less guns in Chicago, LA etc because you can drive to AZ or another county with ease. Without comprehensive national gun control it won't matter because you can just go a jurisdiction over to buy your guns. That's well documented. Of course all the workaround for background checks like the guns TSA sells online only serves to compound the problem.

[TSA]

Of course all the workaround for background checks like the guns TSA sells online only serves to compound the problem.care to explain this one a bit more? Specifically concerning me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

care to explain this one a bit more? Specifically concerning me.

When you sold your gun online did you do a background check?

[spursncowboys]

I believe that a community that has 500 guns in it is more likely to have a gun crime that one that has 300 guns. That's how I look at it. Most gun supporters think of 'how can I be a cowboy.' It's just a fundamental difference in viewpoint.

There are not less guns in Chicago, LA etc because you can drive to AZ or another county with ease. Without comprehensive national gun control it won't matter because you can just go a jurisdiction over to buy your guns. That's well documented. Of course all the workaround for background checks like the guns TSA sells online only serves to compound the problem.
500 legally owned guns verse 300? Are you making a distinction of legal gun owners as opposed to illegal gun owners or just generally?
the background checks would just be another swift kick in gun owners balls... It would create more buerocratic waste. Not fix a single problem. Disallow gun owners from selling their guns, and instead make them have to sell to a gun store. The fact that it would be illegal if I sold my gun to a friend of mine is idiotic.

Seeing what the newspaper in new york did with public records of people who own guns, it would be an acceptable idea that gun owners would be very weary of their information going to the govt.

What I think they should do. Just my opinion. I think they should do a gun buying certificate. A person pays for a background check and gets a certificate which is good for a certain amount of time. No records kept from the govt. and background checks are done to buy. Then create a crime to sell a gun without seeing and making a copy of certificate.

[TSA]

When you sold your gun online did you do a background check?

I met the winner of the auction at a local gun store and did the transfer there with their FFL, so yes there was a background check.

[spursncowboys]

Maintains freedom for owning firearms, and keeps criminals from buying guns. Also encourages free enterprise for regular people to buy weapons and be able to sell at a fair price, which they wouldn't get if gun shops knew they were the only business in town.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I met the winner of the auction at a local gun store and did the transfer there with their FFL, so yes there was a background check.

Bullshit

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maintains freedom for owning firearms, and keeps criminals from buying guns. Also encourages free enterprise for regular people to buy weapons and be able to sell at a fair price, which they wouldn't get if gun shops knew they were the only business in town.

Well all know the narrative. What we do not have is proof.

As for legally versus illegal, it is impossible to track illegal guns. It is hard to even track legal guns because of registration resistance. However the data we do have is that the more guns equals more gun crime.

[TSA]

Bullshit

Why is it bullshit? That's how it went down.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why is it bullshit? That's how it went down.

That's not what you said.

[spursncowboys]

Well all know the narrative. What we do not have is proof.

As for legally versus illegal, it is impossible to track illegal guns. It is hard to even track legal guns because of registration resistance. However the data we do have is that the more guns equals more gun crime.
Why would you need to track legal guns? The police can use the barrels signature to track down a gun.

[TSA]

That's not what you said.

Please explain

[TSA]

:corn:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please explain

I think you should explain why you are lying.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why would you need to track legal guns? The police can use the barrels signature to track down a gun.

Thanks CSI. Why not ask why you need to run background checks? It aids in preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands through anonymous circulation. An ancillary is that it helps law enforcement to enforce the law and study how guns effect society.

Don't make registration public record and that solves the newspaper 'issue.'

[spursncowboys]

Thanks CSI Miami. Why not ask why you need to run background checks? It aids in preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands through anonymous circulation. An ancillary is that it helps law enforcement to enforce the law and study how guns effect society.

Don't make registration public record and that solves the newspaper 'issue.'
fixed

[TSA]

I think you should explain why you are lying.

About what?

[Th'Pusher]

About what?
Whether you're lying or not is irrelevant tbh. 40% of gun sales happen without a background check.

[TSA]

Whether you're lying or not is irrelevant tbh. 40% of gun sales happen without a background check.
It is relevant. I want to know where he thinks I lied. And I'm all for background checks.

[Th'Pusher]

It is relevant. I want to know where he thinks I lied. And I'm all for background checks.
It may be relevant to your Internet ego, but it's completely irrelevant to the larger policy debate. All that matters is that 40% of guns purchased without a background check. Btw, I'm Glad you agree with additional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. Seems like rational policy.

[TSA]

All that matters is that 40% of guns purchased without a background check.
Where'd you get 40% from?


http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html

[Th'Pusher]

Where'd you get 40% from?


http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html

I'll revise. 14 to 22 percent of guns are purchased without a background check. I'm glad we're on the same page that is still a problem.

[TSA]

I'll revise. 14 to 22 percent of guns are purchased without a background check. I'm glad we're on the same page that is still a problem.
You'll revise, but Obama won't, that's the problem. I live in CA, I have to jump through plenty of hoops to own what I own, background checks make sense to me, doesn't mean it will work though. Here in CA they can't even round up the 40,000 or so guns that are owned by known felons/crazies.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

About what?

Why must you continue the facade?

[TSA]

You're not too good at this.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

care to explain this one a bit more? Specifically concerning me.


I met the winner of the auction at a local gun store and did the transfer there with their FFL, so yes there was a background check.


Why is it bullshit? That's how it went down.


Please explain


:corn:


About what?

Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

I'm a trend setter.

[TSA]

I half agree with Biden. If your purpose home defense, then either a shotgun or pistol is the way to go. Not a semiautomatic rifle. Still, all legal weapons do have a time and place for usage.I tend to disagree with you here, when speaking of women. As you saw in the video, 12 gauge shotguns can beat the shit out of women who don't know how to handle them, and some higher caliber pistols could also be hard for a woman to handle. My girlfriend has trouble just racking the slide on one of my handguns, not much use if she can't chamber it right? An AR15 equipped with a flashlight and a red dot sight is a perfect tool for self defense, especially if you live in a state where you can shorten the barrel significantly. Highly accurate with little recoil.

[Blake]

But there are some pistols that are easy for women to handle

[TSA]

But there are some pistols that are easy for women to handle
Sure there are, and the small caliber that makes them so easy to handle also makes them less effective.

[Blake]

Sure there are, and the small caliber that makes them so easy to handle also makes them less effective.

if they can kill, how much more effective do you need them to be?

[TSA]

if they can kill, how much more effective do you need them to be?
A pellet gun could kill under the right circumstances, do I really need to explain to you the benefits of larger calibers and the effects of adrenaline on accuracy? I know you dont like guns and are afraid of them, i get it, but drop your butthurt routine for a minute and stop trying to argue everything I post, you sound stupid.

Here's a vid I thought you'd enjoy concerning cops "protecting" you. Make sure to take notes so you know how to defend yourself.
1AQ1WBb81BE

[TSA]

oL2-SGpZsq4
Interview with Amanda Collins, rape victim who CO Dem told gun wouldn't have helped

[Blake]

A pellet gun could kill under the right circumstances, do I really need to explain to you the benefits of larger calibers and the effects of adrenaline on accuracy? I know you dont like guns and are afraid of them, i get it, but drop your butthurt routine for a minute and stop trying to argue everything I post, you sound stupid.

Here's a vid I thought you'd enjoy concerning cops "protecting" you. Make sure to take notes so you know how to defend yourself.
1AQ1WBb81BE

My next question is "how accurate do you need to be in the confines of a house?"

My next questions after that are "why do you turn into a huge defensive pussy when i ask you a question about your OP?" and "do i really need to explain the difference between making an argument and asking a question?"

My thinking is that you don't have to be very accurate at all in short distances, but I'm willing to let you explain why you need to before i call bull shit.

[Blake]

And no thanks on watching an 8 minute YouTube

[TSA]

And no thanks on watching an 8 minute YouTube

Fast forward to the last minute then and listen to what the officer (who you think has to protect you) has to say.

[TSA]

My next question is "how accurate do you need to be in the confines of a house?"

My thinking is that you don't have to be very accurate at all in short distances, but I'm willing to let you explain why you need to before i call bull shit.

There is plenty of data out there on calibers, ballistics, and stopping power, as well as the effects of adrenaline on accuracy. If you are trying to argue that a .22 caliber handgun, which is easily managed by a woman and can be deadly, is therefore a sufficient firearm for home defense, then it shows how little you really know.

[Blake]

Fast forward to the last minute then and listen to what the officer (who you think has to protect you) has to say.

I didn't hear anything shocking in that last minute. 20 minutes response time for cops sounds about right.

How about telling me what you think is important.

[Blake]

There is plenty of data out there on calibers, ballistics, and stopping power, as well as the effects of adrenaline on accuracy. If you are trying to argue that a .22 caliber handgun, which is easily managed by a woman and can be deadly, is therefore a sufficient firearm for home defense, then it shows how little you really know.

I already said, I'm not arguing. I'm asking. I admit I know little to nothing about this.

This is your thread. You're the one whining about gun control and the need for an AR-15 with a laser pointer.

Frankly, I personally don't see the need for excessive weaponry and I don't care enough to do homework to see if more really is necessary. I'm waiting on you to tell me why i should give a fuck if lawmakers ban it.

[clambake]

I already said, I'm not arguing. I'm asking. I admit I know little to nothing about this.

This is your thread. You're the one whining about gun control and the need for an AR-15 with a laser pointer.

Frankly, I personally don't see the need for excessive weaponry and I don't care enough to do homework to see if more really is necessary. I'm waiting on you to tell me why i should give a fuck if lawmakers ban it.

hey dude, ar 15's are cool. they make you feel like you're awesomous max. isn't that enough?

[Blake]

hey dude, ar 15's are cool. they make you feel like you're awesomous max. isn't that enough?

Does it have 4G?

[TSA]

I already said, I'm not arguing. I'm asking. I admit I know little to nothing about this.

This is your thread. You're the one whining about gun control and the need for an AR-15 with a laser pointer.

Frankly, I personally don't see the need for excessive weaponry and I don't care enough to do homework to see if more really is necessary. I'm waiting on you to tell me why i should give a fuck if lawmakers ban it.
Again, I'm not going to delve into the all the different calibers and ballistics to teach some guy on the internet who doesn't give a shit enough to teach himself. If you want to do some research on it and then have a discussion on the effectiveness of the .22LR in a home defense situation be my guest, I'd be more than happy to discuss it. You've admitted you don't know shit about the subject so debating it with you is pointless at this point.

This thread specifically is about why our Vice President's advice is beyond foolish and would land a person in jail. This thread is about how the VP says AR15's are not needed because 12 gauge shotguns are perfectly fine for women, even though the video shows the common woman getting abused by the 12 gauge. This thread is about how much easier it is to manage an AR15 than a 12 gauge shotgun, for a woman.

You yourself have admitted to not even being able to define what excessive weaponry is, so why do you keep throwing that around? Go ahead and define excessive weaponry then if you want to discuss it. What makes a weapon excessive? And if you don't care enough to do homework to see if more really is necessary than looks like our discussion is over, I'm not doing your research you lazy fuck.

[clambake]

you gonna let your gf fire off .223's?

[TSA]

It's her favorite gun to shoot.

[TSA]

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/IMG_2412_zps4c1251e5.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

I tend to disagree with you here, when speaking of women. As you saw in the video, 12 gauge shotguns can beat the shit out of women who don't know how to handle them, and some higher caliber pistols could also be hard for a woman to handle. My girlfriend has trouble just racking the slide on one of my handguns, not much use if she can't chamber it right? An AR15 equipped with a flashlight and a red dot sight is a perfect tool for self defense, especially if you live in a state where you can shorten the barrel significantly. Highly accurate with little recoil.

But there are some pistols that are easy for women to handle
Yes, and there are different gauge shotguns and different loads.You don't have to be as accurate with a "scattergun."

[clambake]

do you live on a farm......or do you have close neighbors?

[Blake]

Again, I'm not going to delve into the all the different calibers and ballistics to teach some guy on the internet who doesn't give a shit enough to teach himself. If you want to do some research on it and then have a discussion on the effectiveness of the .22LR in a home defense situation be my guest, I'd be more than happy to discuss it. You've admitted you don't know shit about the subject so debating it with you is pointless at this point.

This thread specifically is about why our Vice President's advice is beyond foolish and would land a person in jail. This thread is about how the VP says AR15's are not needed because 12 gauge shotguns are perfectly fine for women, even though the video shows the common woman getting abused by the 12 gauge. This thread is about how much easier it is to manage an AR15 than a 12 gauge shotgun, for a woman.

You yourself have admitted to not even being able to define what excessive weaponry is, so why do you keep throwing that around? Go ahead and define excessive weaponry then if you want to discuss it. What makes a weapon excessive? And if you don't care enough to do homework to see if more really is necessary than looks like our discussion is over, I'm not doing your research you lazy fuck.

No sweat off my back if you don't want to make your case.

If they ever ban your gun, I'm gonna laugh my ass off.

[Blake]

Yes, and there are different gauge shotguns and different loads.You don't have to be as accurate with a "scattergun."

that makes it even harder for me to see the need for an AR15.

[TSA]

No sweat off my back if you don't want to make your case.

If they ever ban your gun, I'm gonna laugh my ass off.You've admitted to being too lazy to do some research, I'd be a fool to continue the discussion someone who admits such.

[TSA]

do you live on a farm......or do you have close neighbors?No and a few kind of close. Why?

[Wild Cobra]

that makes it even harder for me to see the need for an AR15.
Once again, need and want are too different things. Why do you think you can limited people to their needs Comrade?

[Blake]

You've admitted to being too lazy to do some research, I'd be a fool to continue the discussion someone who admits such.

If you want to keep something dangerous like a gun, but aren't willing to state why you need it, then say goodbye to it.

I'd be a fool not to laugh if that happens.

[Blake]

Once again, need and want are too different things. Why do you think you can limited people to their needs Comrade?

of course you want to be able to keep everything you want, unibomber.

Makes it easy to take out someone after you've triangulated their flaglot position.

[clambake]

No and a few kind of close. Why?

a wall isn't going to protect against a .223.

[TSA]

If you want to keep something dangerous like a gun, but aren't willing to state why you need it, then say goodbye to it.

I'd be a fool not to laugh if that happens.Please, we are so far beyond me needing to state to you why I, or anyone else needs/wants a gun. Stop being such a juvenile fuck and come with a better counter. I wanted to discuss the benefits of an AR over a 12 gauge shotgun for a woman, but it appears you are either to lazy (admitted) or unwilling to do so.

[Wild Cobra]

If you want to keep something dangerous like a gun, but aren't willing to state why you need it, then say goodbye to it.
I had no idea that property rights were based on need Comrade.

[TSA]

a wall isn't going to protect against a .223.Thought you were going to say that. Well, you're wrong.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/

"When using rifle ammunition with projectiles designed specifically for personal defense, such as Winchester’s new .223 PDX1 loadings, fragmentation is assured. Bullets striking an intruder will separate into smaller, lighter pieces and—most likely—not overpenetrate and exit the body as errant shrapnel. All of the energy generated will then be transferred into the target. If the round fired is a miss and hits only wood or drywall, the projectile will break apart into smaller pieces—while these are still dangerous, their potential for injury, or penetration of additional walls, is much less than a pistol bullet or buckshot pellet."

[Th'Pusher]

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/IMG_2412_zps4c1251e5.jpg
Does she quack like a duck when you fuck?

[TSA]

bye clambake.

[TSA]

Does she quack like a duck when you fuck?


http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/IMG_2513_zps16bf3336.jpg
"I make it quack"

[Th'Pusher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9yHFAAhUq0

[clambake]

bye clambake.

sure. "most likely" and "still dangerous."

[Blake]

Please, we are so far beyond me needing to state to you why I, or anyone else needs/wants a gun. Stop being such a juvenile fuck and come with a better counter. I wanted to discuss the benefits of an AR over a 12 gauge shotgun for a woman, but it appears you are either to lazy (admitted) or unwilling to do so.

I'm not countering anything, dumbass. If you feel more secure by getting am AR15, great, get it while it's legal.

Again, i will laugh at you when/if they ever outlaw it. Is what it is.

[TSA]

sure. "most likely" and "still dangerous."

"their potential for injury, or penetration of additional walls, is much less than a pistol bullet or buckshot pellet."

So then was your whole point mentioning walls and .223 that all bullets in a household setting are dangerous? :lol You wanted to prove a point about .223 and were wrong, take it like a man.

[Blake]

I had no idea that property rights were based on need Comrade.

If you can't obtain something legally, you have no right to that thing.

Sorry, bomber.

[clambake]

"their potential for injury, or penetration of additional walls, is much less than a pistol bullet or buckshot pellet."

So then was your whole point mentioning walls and .223 that all bullets in a household setting are dangerous? :lol You wanted to prove a point about .223 and were wrong, take it like a man.
a real man knows when he hears marketing for a product.

[TSA]

I'm not countering anything, dumbass.:yield



If you feel more secure by getting am AR15, great, get it while it's legal.

Again, i will laugh at you when/if they ever outlaw it. Is what it is.So you are basically just here to say "AR15's are stupid, I'm not sure why but they are, and I hope they get taken away from people who own them haha"?

[TSA]

a real man knows when he hears marketing for a product.Just admit you were wrong already.

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/WoundProfilesAfterWallBarrier_zpse39475d8.jpg

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

Here is all you need to know if you want to learn something. Now run along.

[TSA]

Now I could be off in my assumptions clambake but I'm pretty sure you were arguing that a .223 round is more dangerous in a house than a handgun or shotgun round no?

[clambake]

Just admit you were wrong already.

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/WoundProfilesAfterWallBarrier_zpse39475d8.jpg

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

Here is all you need to know if you want to learn something. Now run along.
that doesn't prove anything.....and i don't care if you have an ar 15. get 2.

[TSA]

a wall isn't going to protect against a .223.What did you make this statement for then? What were you trying to prove?

[clambake]

What were you trying to prove?

nothing, really. maybe you're just trying too hard.

get all the guns you want.

[TSA]

nothing, really. maybe you're just trying too hard.

That is such a crock of shit and you know it. What a pussy cop out.

[clambake]

That is such a crock of shit and you know it. What a pussy cop out.

fine. at least i know marketing when i hear it.

[TSA]

fine. at least i know marketing when i hear it.
Your knowledge of marketing doesn't mean shit when speaking of ballistics, as shown here. Stick to what you know.

[clambake]

Your knowledge of marketing doesn't mean shit when speaking of ballistics, as shown here. Stick to what you know.

here's an idea: get a camera, set it up, and film your gf shooting that .223 through a wall with you on the other side.

a real man would put up or shut up.

[TSA]

Here's an idea: take your butthurt, read up on ballistics, and get back to me when you won't be made a fool again.

[clambake]

and when you've finished that.......step in front of the window and have her put one through it. film those 2 scenarios and roll the tape for us.

thanks in advance.

[TSA]

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/StarWars-41A043E043C0438043A0441044B0-43F04350441043E0447043D0438044604300-198365_zpsd8442013.jpg

[clambake]

see, together we got to the end.

just say: "after careful consideration, i, tsa, do not trust all that ballistics shit i posted."

[TSA]

You got your ass handed to you on a subject you shouldn't have been talking about, no way in spinning it otherwise, deal with it.

[TSA]

You've gone from saying a wall isn't going to protect against .223 to asking me to stand in front of a window and get shot at, uh yeah, you're done.

[clambake]

You've gone from saying a wall isn't going to protect against .223 to asking me to stand in front of a window and get shot at, uh yeah, you're done.

you don't trust the data. only a fool would test it.

[clambake]

but.....you could prove your claim.

[clambake]

here you go. pick one.

here's an idea: get a camera, set it up, and film your gf shooting that .223 through a wall with you on the other side.

a real man would put up or shut up.


and when you've finished that.......step in front of the window and have her put one through it. film those 2 scenarios and roll the tape for us.

thanks in advance.


see, together we got to the end.

just say: "after careful consideration, i, tsa, do not trust all that ballistics shit i posted."

[Blake]

:yield


So you are basically just here to say "AR15's are stupid, I'm not sure why but they are, and I hope they get taken away from people who own them haha"?

you misread things a lot. Haha.

[TSA]

you misread things a lot. Haha.Hardly. You said AR15's are excessive, yet can't even define excessive for yourself. You admitted to not knowing much about them and at the same time said you were too lazy to learn. Not sure what you think I've misread.

I'm guessing these traits here were a huge part of becoming the cuck that you are today.

[clambake]

Hardly. You said AR15's are excessive, yet can't even define excessive for yourself.

i defined it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's semiautomatic that should the definition for the ban. There is a difference between someone that practices with a speedloader and your common criminal. Semiautomatics are the clear favorites of criminals.

Anyway while arguing that smaller caliber guns cannot hurt you is fun, I would like to posit the following:


After the U.K. endured a series of mass shootings, including one that targeted children, it passed some very tough gun control legislation in 1997. The effect, reported on today by The Washington Post’s Anthony Faiola, has been staggering. Here are eight of the big takeaways, possible learning opportunities as the U.S. considers its own gun law changes:

1) Bad guys have a hard time getting guns: Criminals have resorted to using “archaic flintlock pistols” and “retrofitted flare guns.” There’s been one mass shooting in 15 years. This despite the adage, “When guns are illegal, only criminals will possess them.”

2) Fewer illegal guns: Faiola reports that, according to ballistics studies, “Most gun crime in Britain can be traced back to less than 1,000 illegal weapons still in circulation.”

3) Fewer gun deaths: Someone in England or Wales is about 3 percent as likely to be killed by a gun as an American. There were 59 gun deaths there last year. The U.S. annual gun death rate has hovered around 10,000 for years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/01/british-gangs-use-flare-guns-now-because-they-cant-find-real-ones/

[TSA]

It's semiautomatic that should the definition for the ban. There is a difference between someone that practices with a speedloader and your common criminal. Semiautomatics are the clear favorites of criminals.

Anyway while arguing that smaller caliber guns cannot hurt you is fun, I would like to posit the following:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/01/british-gangs-use-flare-guns-now-because-they-cant-find-real-ones/You keep on posting the same articles over, and over. For the last time, the United States can not be compared to these other countries as firearms are a RIGHT given to us by the founders of our country. You always want to focus solely on homicide rates and completely skip over the violent crime rate the U.K. has, how convenient.

US Violent Crime Rate: 386 per 100,000

UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens


And semiautomatics are the clear favorite of every gun 95% of every gun enthusiast, so you want everything banned? Either deal with the guns or move your ass out of the country that fought to escape the U.K. and it's oppression.

[TSA]

i defined it.You defined yourself as a dipshit as seen in this thread.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You keep on posting the same articles over, and over. For the last time, the United States can not be compared to these other countries as firearms are a RIGHT given to us by the founders of our country. You always want to focus solely on homicide rates and completely skip over the violent crime rate the U.K. has, how convenient.

US Violent Crime Rate: 386 per 100,000

UK Violent Crime Rate: 4,100 per 100,000 citizens


And semiautomatics are the clear favorite of every gun 95% of every gun enthusiast, so you want everything banned? Either deal with the guns or move your ass out of the country that fought to escape the U.K. and it's oppression.

The intentional homicide rate in per 100,000:

US: 4.8
UK: 1.2

So there is a lot more violent crime in England yet only 1/4 are killed. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

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

Each article I have posted has been different. The "if you don't like it then leave" is the sign of a coward who has to posture rather than articulate. Now dance monkey dance

[TSA]

Apples and Oranges fuzzy. We are not like other countries. If you don't like it, move. No way you'll ever live to see a day where all semi-autos are banned in the USA.

[ChumpDumper]

Weird that the anti-gun crowd refused to comment on the Democrat that was chosen to spearhead new gun regulations. Is your silence a vote of confidence in him or do you all see him for the retard he is?


"During his interview with Parents magazine, which took place via a Facebook town hall, a questioner asked how women are supposed to “protect ourselves” if Congress bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Biden responded that the government isn’t going to take away people's guns, and that women shouldn’t need an assault weapon to feel safe. Instead, he said, a shotgun would do the trick -- the same advice he gave his wife.
“If you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun," Biden said. "I promise you, as I told my wife … I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put [up] that double barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.'"
“You don't need an AR-15," he said. "It's harder to aim, it's harder to use. And in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun!"What's wrong with that opinion? I guess the harder to use part seems pretty weak.

[TSA]

What's wrong with that opinion? I guess the harder to use part seems pretty weak.Think about going outside your house, and firing two warning shots into the air, just think about that. Not only is your gun now empty, but you've just fired shotgun buckshot up in the air to come and land on whomever it pleases. Stupidest idea I've ever fucking heard, and from our Vice President of all people.

[TSA]

The intentional homicide rate in per 100,000:

US: 4.8
UK: 1.2

So there is a lot more violent crime in England yet only 1/4 are killed. Thanks for demonstrating my point.
And Russia has a homicide rate almost 4x the US, and their gun laws are much more restrictive than ours, so what is your point?


Each article I have posted has been different. The "if you don't like it then leave" is the sign of a coward who has to posture rather than articulate. Now dance monkey dance

Your dance monkey dance routine is fucking retarded, I find it amusing though that you think you are trolling people. Message boards are meant for responses, you aren't making anyone dance and you come off as a huge douche saying it.



Here's that More Guns equals More Death, Less Guns equals Less Death debunk you've been waiting for. All gift wrapped in a nice little package from Harvard Law.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[clambake]

You defined yourself as a dipshit as seen in this thread.

your thread. you're afraid to prove your shit.

wimpy/

[Blake]

Hardly. You said AR15's are excessive, yet can't even define excessive for yourself. .... Not sure what you think I've misread.

would you mind pointing out where i said they were excessive? I might have, but I'm too lazy to back up your claim. Thanks.



I'm guessing these traits here were a huge part of becoming the cuck that you are today.

You misread again. Part of what makes you a huge pussy that runs away from questions, i guess.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your dance monkey dance routine is fucking retarded, I find it amusing though that you think you are trolling people. Message boards are meant for responses, you aren't making anyone dance and you come off as a huge douche saying it.

x1A7HnaeqNE

Monkey angry!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And monkey, you can do better than reading a title and posting a link. Normally there is a quote at least to substantiate your claim. I quoted the comprehensive Harvard study summary showing what the preponderance of evidence was.

The student's argument was that the evidence was not conclusive and assumed the burden of proof. However since she was the one making the argument that is not quite how it works. She certainly made no attempt to control any of the data for cause. I have pointed out many times you fail at understanding what that means. But hey at least you could read the title of the thesis.

[TSA]

would you mind pointing out where i said they were excessive? I might have, but I'm too lazy to back up your claim. Thanks.I'm not playing some childish game of find where I said that or it doesn't count. You've called them excessive many times, and I've asked many times for you to define excessive, to which you've said you can't. It's funny watching someone argue a topic they admit they know little about, while also admitting they are too lazy to learn more about the topic. You're a broken record. 25,000+ posts of broken lazy drivel, with 1 infamous post lending to some good laughs at your expense.

[Blake]

I'm not playing some childish game of find where I said that or it doesn't count. You've called them excessive many times, and I've asked many times for you to define excessive, to which you've said you can't. It's funny watching someone argue a topic they admit they know little about, while also admitting they are too lazy to learn more about the topic. You're a broken record. 25,000+ posts of broken lazy drivel, with 1 infamous post lending to some good laughs at your expense.

I don't think I said it was excessive ever. You've had some great threads yourself leading to good laughs at your stupidity.

[ChumpDumper]

Think about going outside your house, and firing two warning shots into the air, just think about that. Not only is your gun now empty, but you've just fired shotgun buckshot up in the air to come and land on whomever it pleases. Stupidest idea I've ever fucking heard, and from our Vice President of all people.OK, honestly didn't read about the firing in the air' just considered the shotgun vs. assault rifle part.

[TSA]

And monkey, you can do better than reading a title and posting a link. Normally there is a quote at least to substantiate your claim. I quoted the comprehensive Harvard study summary showing what the preponderance of evidence was.

The student's argument was that the evidence was not conclusive and assumed the burden of proof. However since she was the one making the argument that is not quite how it works. She certainly made no attempt to control any of the data for cause. I have pointed out many times you fail at understanding what that means. But hey at least you could read the title of the thesis.I don't think we are even talking about the same study. Did you open the link or just assume you've read that from reading the url? Not written by some female student you keep referring to.
Written by Don*B.*Kates*(LL.B.,*Yale,*1966)*is*an*American*cr iminologist*and*constitutional*
lawyer*associated*with*the*Pacific*Research*Instit ute,*San*Francisco and Gary*Mauser*(Ph.D.,*University*of*California,*Irvi ne,*1970)*is*a*Canadian*crimi‐
nologist*and*university*professor*at*Simon*Fraser* University,*Burnaby,*BC*Canada.

[TSA]

OK, honestly didn't read about the firing in the air' just considered the shotgun vs. assault rifle part.Take it you didn't watch the video either.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think we are even talking about the same study. Did you open the link or just assume you've read that from reading the url? Not written by some female student you keep referring to.
Written by Don*B.*Kates*(LL.B.,*Yale,*1966)*is*an*American*cr iminologist*and*constitutional*
lawyer*associated*with*the*Pacific*Research*Instit ute,*San*Francisco and Gary*Mauser*(Ph.D.,*University*of*California,*Irvi ne,*1970)*is*a*Canadian*crimi‐
nologist*and*university*professor*at*Simon*Fraser* University,*Burnaby,*BC*Canada.

Alright, I don't really see how that prevents you from finding a relevant quote. You made it to the line after the title at least. Good job, monkey.

[TSA]

I don't think we are even talking about the same study. Did you open the link or just assume you've read that from reading the url? Not written by some female student you keep referring to.
Written by Don*B.*Kates*(LL.B.,*Yale,*1966)*is*an*American*cr iminologist*and*constitutional*
lawyer*associated*with*the*Pacific*Research*Instit ute,*San*Francisco and Gary*Mauser*(Ph.D.,*University*of*California,*Irvi ne,*1970)*is*a*Canadian*crimi‐
nologist*and*university*professor*at*Simon*Fraser* University,*Burnaby,*BC*Canada.
And I didn't quote anything because the first time i tried I got a bunch of *****'s like above.

Look, you can post all the studies you want, but its a waste of your time, I'm done reading them. They don't prove anything as our countries are too different concerning gun culture. You keep up your internet gun control fight while I write my senators and reps on a weekly basis letting them know how I feel about infringements upon the 2nd amendment, we'll see who accomplishes more.

By the way, why haven't you given up your own firearm or moved out of the gun infested USA yet? Feel free to dodge this question like you always do, coward.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You never read any of them, monkey. You didn't find a quote because you didn't read the one you linked. It's nothing new.

I concede that I mistook the author. You want to address the substantive portion of my argument?

[ChumpDumper]

Take it you didn't watch the video either.Not with sound. Did I miss something pertinent?

[TSA]

You never read any of them, monkey. You didn't find a quote because you didn't read the one you linked. It's nothing new.

I concede that I mistook the author. You want to address the substantive portion of my argument?I do read them and find some of them interesting, the 121 pager I skimmed over. So what not read this one yourself and see what you think.


*


138.*The* data* derive* from* a* much* more* extensive* survey* of* legal* firearms* owner‐
ship* in* numerous* nations* which* was* carried* out* by* researchers* provided* by* the*
Government* of* Canada* under* the* auspices* of* the* United* Nations* Economic* and*
Social* Council,* Commission* on* Crime* Prevention* and* Criminal* Justice* in* 1997.* The*
entire* survey* is* published* as* a* report* to* the* Secretary* General* on* April* 25,* 1997* as*
E/CN.15/1997/4.* That*report*is*analysed*in* some* detail* in*an*unpublished* paper* (“A*
Cross* Sectional* Study* of* the* Relationship* Between* Levels* of* Gun* Ownership* and*
Violent* Deaths”)* written* by* the* leading* English* student* of* firearms* regulation,* re‐
tired* Chief* Superintendent* of* English* police* Colin* Greenwood* of* the* Firearms* Re‐
search* and* Advisory* Service.* We* are* indebted* to* Chief* Superintendent* Greenwood*
for* the* opportunity* to* review* his* paper.* Note* that* in* the* table* which* follows* we*
have*focused*only*on*European*nations.**
139.*The* gun* ownership* data* in* Table* 4* derive* from* a* random* telephone* survey*
on* gun* ownership* in* various* nations.* Chief* Superintendent* Greenwood’s* paper* is*
contemptuous* of* such* data,* in* part* because* people* may* be* unwilling* to* acknowl‐
edge* owning* guns* to* telephoning* pollsters.* For* similar* doubts* see* Don* B.* Kates* &*
Daniel* D.* Polsby,* Long* Term* Non‐Relationship* of* Firearm* Availability* to* Homicide,* 4*
HOMICIDE* STUD.* 185–201* (2000).* But* that* was* in* the* context* of* comparing* survey*
data* on* the* number* of* guns* owned* to* production* and* important* data* that* are* un‐
questionably*more*comprehensive*and*superior*in*ev ery*way.*Chief*Superintendent*
Greenwood* himself* admits* that* the* special* U.N.* report* data* are* not* necessarily*
*
690* Harvard*Journal*of*Law*&*Public*Policy* [Vol.*30*
nations* also* come* from* their* governments* as* do* the* similar* data* in* Tables* 4*
and* 5,* but* for* later* years,* and* also* include* data* on* the* number* of* firearm*
homicides* and* firearm* suicides* which* are* not* available* from* the* U.N.* source*
used*in*Tables*4*and*5.*
**This*may*well*be*an*undercount*because*an*Austri an*license*is*not*limited*
to*a*single*firearm*but*rather*allows*the*licensee *to*possess*multiple*guns.*
***The* source* from* which* Table* 5* derives* also* gives* figures* for* Finland,*
which* we* have* omitted* there* because* they* are* earlier* and* closely* similar* ex‐
cept* in* one* respect:* instead* of* official* ownership* figures* for* guns,* they* give* a*
survey‐based*figure*for*households*having*a*gun:*2 3.2%.*
*
These* comparisons* are* reinforced* by* Table* 6,* which* gives* differ‐
ently* derived* (and* non‐comparable)* gun* ownership* rates,* overall*
murder* rates,* and* rates* of* gun* murder,* for* a* larger* set* of* European*
nations.140* Table* 6* reveals* that* even* though* Sweden* has* more* than*
double* the* rate* of* gun* ownership* as* neighboring* Germany,* as* well*
as* more* gun* murders,* it* has* 25%* less* murder* overall.* In* turn,* Ger‐
many,*with*three*times*the*gun*ownership*rate*of*n eighboring*Aus‐
tria,* has* a* substantially* lower* murder* rate* overall* and* a* lower* gun*
murder* rate.* Likewise,* though* Greece* has* over* twice* the* per* capita*
gun*ownership* rate*of*the* Czech*Republic,*Greece*has*substantially*
less* gun* murder* and* less* than* half* as* much* murder* overall.* Al‐
though* Spain* has* over* 12* times* more* gun* ownership* than* Poland,*
the* latter* has* almost* a* third* more* gun* murder* and* more* overall*
murder* than* the* former.* Finally,* Finland* has* 14* times* more* gun*
ownership*than*neighboring*Estonia,*yet*Estonia’s* gun*murder*and*
overall*murder*rates*are*about*seven*times*higher* than*Finland’s.*
F. Geographic*Comparisons:*Gun*Ownership*and*Suicide* Rates*
The*mantra*more*guns*equal*more*death*and*fewer*gu ns*equal*
less* death* is* also* used* to* argue* that* “limiting* access* to* firearms*
could* prevent* many* suicides.”141* Once* again,* this* assertion* is* di‐
**************************************** **************************************** **********************************
comprehensive* and* are* problematic* in* various* other* respects.* Even* assuming* they*
are* clearly* superior* to* the* survey* data,* the* latter* cover* multiple* nations* that* the*
special* U.N.* report* does* not.* Given* that* neither* source* is* indubitable,* it* seems* pref‐
erable* to* have* such* information* on* those* nations* as* the* survey* data* reveal,* rather*
than*no*data*at*all.*
140.*Table* 6* covers* different* years* from* Table* 5,* its* comparative* gun* ownership*
figures* derive* from* government* records* rather* than* survey* data,* and* it* gives* rates*
for* gun* murders,* data* that* are* not* available* in* the* sources* from* which* Table* 5* is*
taken.*See*the*explanatory*note*that*precedes*Tabl e*6.*
141.*Arthur* L.* Kellermann* et* al.,* Suicide* in* the* Home* in* Relation* to* Gun* Ownership,*
327* NEW* ENG.* J.* MED.* 467,* 467,* 471–72* (1992);* see* also* Antoon* Leenaars,* et* al.,* Con‐
trolling* the* Environment* to* Prevent* Suicide:* International* Perspectives,* 45* CAN.* J.*
PSYCHIATRY*639*(2000).*
No.*2]***Would*Banning*Firearms*Reduce*Murder*and*Suicid e?* 691*
rectly* contradicted* by* the* studies* of* 36* and* 21* nations* (respec‐
tively)* which* find* no* statistical* relationship.* Overall* suicide* rates*
were*no*worse*in*nations*with*many*firearms*than*i n*those*where*
firearms*were*far*less*widespread.142**
Consider* the* data* about* European* nations* in* Tables* 5* and* 6.*
Sweden,* with* over* twice* as* much* gun* ownership* as* neighboring*
Germany*and*a*third*more*gun*suicide,*nevertheless *has*the*lower*
overall* suicide* rate.* Greece* has* nearly* three* times* more* gun* own‐
ership* than* the* Czech* Republic* and* somewhat* more* gun* suicide,*
yet* the* overall* Czech* suicide* rate* is* over* 175%* higher* than* the*
Greek* rate.* Spain* has* over* 12* times* more* gun* ownership* than* Po‐
land,* yet* the* latter’s* overall* suicide* rate* is* more* than* double* the*
former’s.* Tragically,* Finland* has* over* 14* times* more* gun* owner‐
ship* than* neighboring* Estonia,* and* a* great* deal* more* gun‐related*
suicide.* Estonia,* however,* turns* out* to* have* a* much* higher* suicide*
rate*than*Finland*overall.*
There* is* simply* no* relationship* evident* between* the* extent* of*
suicide* and* the* extent* of* gun* ownership.* People* do* not* commit*
suicide* because* they* have* guns* available.* In* the* absence* of* fire‐
arms,* people* who* are* inclined* to* commit* suicide* kill* themselves*
some* other* way.143* Two* examples* seem* as* pertinent* as* they* are*
poignant.* The* first* concerns* the* 1980s* increase* in* suicide* among*
young* American* males,* an* increase* that,* although* relatively* mod‐
est,* inspired* perfervid* denunciations* of* gun* ownership.144* What*
these*denunciations*failed*to*mention*was*that*sui cide*of*teenagers*
and* young* adults* was* increasing* throughout* the* entire* industrial‐
ized* world,* regardless* of* gun* availability,* and* often* much* more*
rapidly* than* in* the* United* States.* The* only* unusual* aspect* of* sui‐
cide*in*the*United*States*was*that*it*involved*gun s.*The*irrelevancy*
of* guns* to* the* increase* in* American* suicide* is* evident* because* sui‐
cide* among* English* youth* actually* increased* 10* times* more*
**************************************** **************************************** **********************************
142.*See*Killias*et*al.,*supra*note*42,*at*430*(st udy*of*21*nations);*see*generally*KLECK,*
supra*note*8.*
143.*See* KLECK,* supra* note* 8,* at* ch.* 8;* see* also* World* Health* Organization,* supra*
note* 43,* at* 3* (showing* that* around* the* world* “firearms* accounted* for* only* one‐fifth*
of* all* suicides,* just* ahead* of* poisoning*.*.*.*.*[s]trangulation,* i.e.* (hanging)* was* the*
most*frequently*used*method*of*suicide”).*
144.*See,*e.g.,*Jeffrey*H.*Boyd*&*Eve*K.*Moscicki,*Firearms*and*Youth*Suicide,*76*A M.*
J.* PUB.* HEALTH* 1240* (1986);* James* A.* Mercy* et* al.,* Public* Health* Policy* for* Preventing*
Violence,* 12* HEALTH* AFF.* 7* (1993);* Daniel* W.* Webster* &* Modena* E.* H.* Wilson,* Gun*
Violence* Among* Youth* and* the* Pediatricianʹs* Role* in* Primary* Prevention,* 94* PEDIATRICS*
617* (1994);* Lois* A.* Fingerhut* &* Joel* C.* Kleinman,* Firearm* Mortality* Among* Children*
and*Youth,*NAT’L*CTR*HEALTH*STAT.*ADVANCE*DATA,*No v.*3,*1989,*at*1.**
692* Harvard*Journal*of*Law*&*Public*Policy* [Vol.*30*
sharply,*with*“car*exhaust*poisoning*[being]*the*method*of*suicide*
used* most* often.”145* By* omitting* such* facts,* the* articles* blaming*
guns* for* increasing* American* suicide* evaded* the* inconvenience* of*
having*to*explain*exactly*what*social*benefit*nati ons*with*few*guns*
received*from*having*their*youth*suicides*occur*in *other*ways.*
Even* more* poignant* are* the* suicides* of* many* young* Indian*
women*born*and*raised*on*the*island*of*Fiji.*In*ge neral,*women*
are*much*less*likely*to*commit*suicide*than*are*me n.146*This*sta‐
tistic* is* true* of* Fijian* women* overall* as* well,* but* not* of* women*
in* the* large* part* of* Fiji’s* population* that* is* of* Indian* ancestry.*
As*children,*these*Indian*women*are*raised*in*more ‐or‐less*lov‐
ing* and* supportive* homes.* But* upon* marriage* they* are* dis‐
persed* across* the* island* to* remote* areas* where* they* live* with*
their* husbands’* families,* an* often* overtly* hostile* situation* the*
husbands*do*little*to*mitigate.*Indian*women*on*Fi ji*have*a*sui‐
cide* rate* nearly* as* high* as* that* of* Indian* men,* a* rate* many*
times* greater* than* that* of* non‐Indian* Fijian* women.147* It* also*
bears* emphasis* that* the* overall* Fijian* suicide* rate* far* exceeds*
that*of*the*United*States.*
The* method* of* suicide* is* particularly* significant.* Fij ian*
women* of* Indian* ancestry* commit* suicide* without* using*
guns,* perhaps* because* guns* are* unavailable.* About* three‐
quarters* of* these* women* hang* themselves, * while* virtually* all*
the* rest* die* from* consuming* the* agricultural* pesticide*
paraquat. * The* recommendation* of* the* author* whose* article*
chronicles* all* these* suicides* is* so* myopic* as* to* almost* carica‐
ture* the* more* guns* equal* more* death* mindset:* to* reduce* sui‐
cide* by* Indian* women, * she* recommends* that* the* Fijian* state*
stringently* control* paraquat. 148* Apparently* she* believes* de‐
**************************************** **************************************** **********************************
145.*Keith* Hawton,* By* Their* Own* Young* Hand,* 304* BRIT.* MED.* J.* 1000* (1992);* see*
also* Teenage* Deaths* Increasing* Across* Europe,* CRIM.* &* JUST.* INT’L,* Nov.–Dec.* 1991,*
at*4.*
146.*World* Health* Organization,* Suicide* Rates* by* Country,*
ht t p: / / www. who. i nt / ment al _heal t h/ preventi on/ sui ci de/ count ry_report s/ en/ *
index.html* (follow* hyperlinks* to* specific* countries)* (last* visited* Jan.* 18,* 2007).* For*
example,* in* the* United* States,* suicide* rates* for* males* exceed* those* for* females* by* a*
17.9‐4.2* margin* (2002* data).* In* Denmark,* the* margin* is* 19.2‐8.1* (2001* data);* in* Aus‐
tria,* the* margin* is* 27.0‐8.2* (2004* data);* and* in* Belgium,* the* margin* is* 31.2‐11.4* (1997*
data).*
147.*See* Ruth* H.* Haynes,* Suicide* in* Fiji:* A* Preliminary* Study,* 145* BRIT.* J.*
PSYCHIATRY*433*(1984).*
148.*Id.*at*437.*More*or*less*the*same*situation*s eems*to*prevail*in*the*substantially*
Indian‐populated* nation* of* Sri* Lanka* (formerly* Ceylon).* It* “has* one* of* the* highest*
suicide* rates* in* the* world*.*.*.*.*Suicides* are* especially* frequent* among* young* adults,*
*
No.*2]***Would*Banning*Firearms*Reduce*Murder*and*Suicid e?* 693*
creased* access* to* a* means* of* death* will* reconcile* these*
women* to* a* life* situation* they* regard* as* unendurable.* At* the*
risk* of* belaboring* what* should* be* all* too* obvious, * restricting*
paraquat* will* not* improve* the* lives* of* these* poor* women.* It*
will* only* reorient* them* towards* hanging,* drowning,* or* some*
other*means*of*suicide. *
Guns* are* just* one* among* numerous* available* deadly* instru‐
ments.* Thus,* banning* guns* cannot* reduce* the* amount* of* sui‐
cides.* Such* measures* only* reduce* the* number* of* suicides* by*
firearms.* Suicides* committed* in* other* ways* increase* to* make*
up* the* difference.* People* do* not* commit* suicide* because* they*
have* guns* available.* They* kill* themselves* for* reasons* they*
deem* sufficient,* and* in* the* absence* of* firearms* they* just* kill*
themselves*in*some*other*way.*
CONCLUSION*
This* Article* has* reviewed* a* significant* amount* of* evidence*
from* a* wide* variety* of* international* sources.* Each* individual*
portion* of* evidence* is* subject* to* cavil—at* the* very* least* the*
general* obj ection* that* the* persuasiveness* of* social* scientific*
evidence* cannot* remotely* approach* the* persuasiveness* of*
conclusions* in* the* physical* sciences.* Nevertheless,* the* bur‐
den* of* proof* rests* on* the* proponents* of* the* more* guns* equal*
more* death* and* fewer* guns* equal* less* death* mantra,* espe‐
cially* since* they* argue* public* policy* ought* to* be* based* on*
that* mantra.149* To* bear* that* burden* would* at* the* very* least*
require* showing* that* a* large* number* of* nations* with* more*
guns* have* more* death* and* that* nations* that* have* imposed*
stringent* gun* controls* have* achieved* substantial* reductions*
in* criminal* violence* (or* suicide).* But* those* correlations* are*
not* observed* when* a* large* number* of* nations* are* compared*
across*the* world.*
**************************************** **************************************** **********************************
both*male*and*female.*Compared*to*the*U.S.,*the*su icide*rate*for*males*ages*15*to*24*
years* in* Sri* Lanka* is* nearly* four* times* greater;* the* female* rate* nearly* 13* times*
greater.* The* most* common* mode* of* suicide* is* ingestion* of* liquid* pesticides.”* Lawrence* R.*
Berger,*Suicides* and*Pesticides* in* Sri*Lanka,*78*AM.* J.* PUB.* HEALTH*826*(1988)*(empha‐
sis*added).*
149.*(1)* Those* who* propose* to* change* the* status* quo* bear* the* burden* of* proving*
that* change* is* a* good* idea;* (2)* those* who* propose* a* new* policy* bear* the* burden* of*
proving*that*the*policy*is*a*good*idea;*and*(3)*in *a*free*society*those*who*propose*to*
abolish* a* personal* liberty* passionately* valued* by* millions* bear* the* burden* of* prov‐
ing*that*abolishment*is*a*good*idea.*
694* Harvard*Journal*of*Law*&*Public*Policy* [Vol.*30*
Over* a* decade* ago,* Professor* Brandon* Centerwall* of* the* Uni‐
versity*of*Washington*undertook*an*extensive,*stat istically*sophis‐
ticated*study*comparing*areas*in*the*United*States *and*Canada*to*
determine* whether* Canada’s* more* restrictive* policies* had* better*
contained* criminal* violence.* When*he*published*his* results* it* was*
with*the*admonition:*
If* you* are* surprised* by* [our]* finding[s],* so* [are* we].* [We]* did*
not* begin* this* research* with* any* intent* to* “exonerate”* hand‐
guns,*but*there*it*is—a*negative*finding,*to*be*su re,*but*a*nega‐
tive* finding* is* nevertheless* a* positive* contribution.* It* directs* us*
where*not*to*aim*public*health*resources.150**
**************************************** **************************************** **********************************
150.*Brandon* S.* Centerwall,* Authorʹs* Response* to* “Invited* Commentary:* Common*
Wisdom*and*Plain*Truth,”*134*AM.*J.*EPIDEMIOLOGY*1 264,*1264*(1991).*

[TSA]

:lmao

Just click the link.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Good monkey, you can highlight and copy and paste the last two pages. I am proud of you. Again I addressed the conclusion up above.

You didn't even read your copy and paste job or you would know that. Bad monkey.

[TSA]

Look Fuzzy, like I said, I'm done trying to out academic article the other, there are other ways to have a more casual debate. Why don't we just ask and answer questions, man to man. Imagine you and I are sitting on a beach, sipping some cervezas. Close your eyes, smell the ocean, taste the beer.......It'd go a little something like this.....


TSA: fuzzy, now that's its just the two of us hanging out on this beautiful beach, I'd like to ask you some questions, and don't worry, you don't have to act smart in front of the forum regulars and bring up a scholarly article, I just want your thoughts, from one man to another.

Fuzzy: Sure thing TSA, what is on your mind?

TSA: first thing fuzzy, you're very outspoken about the dangers of firearms and the risks that come with them, going as far as saying all semi-autos should be banned. With these feelings about dangerous firearms why do you yourself own one?

Fuzzy: hmmm.....

TSA: take you time fuzzy, I've got just one more question. You always talk about the UK and Australia, and get giddy when talking about their strict gun control, why haven't you moved there yet? The semi-auto ban you dream of will never happen in the US, so why stay living in fear and misery here?

[clambake]

he's not man enough to accept the challenge.

maybe his gf is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We're on a beach? Why do you hit on me, monkey.

[TSA]

Feel free to answer the questions at your leisure fuzzy, no pressure, just want your thoughts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So why did you not do a background check when you sold your AR-15?

[TSA]

So why did you not do a background check when you sold your AR-15?
I see you're still a little uncomfortable giving answers that are personal in matter so I'll go ahead and answer one first to ease you up a bit. I personally can not do background checks as I am not licensed to do so, but the shop I met the guy to do the transfer at is, so they ran a background check. I live in CA, kinda how it works here, got any more stupid questions or are you ready to answer mine?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lies

[TSA]

liesYou're insanely stupid. Back your claim up, and then get back to answering my questions.

I'm willing to answer everything, I've got nothing to hide, why can't you do the same?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm sure youre willing to answer everything about your personal life. You certainly are interested in mine. Then you talk about your fantasies of you and I being on a beach.

Are you gay?

[TSA]

I'm sure youre willing to answer everything about your personal life. You certainly are interested in mine. Then you talk about your fantasies of you and I being on a beach.

Are you gay?ah here we go with the patented chumpdumper routine I see. Get your own shitty shtick, at least that's his own.

You called me a liar, with no proof whatsoever. If this is your way of trolling its pretty awful, anyone can call someone a liar without backing it, what's the fun in that. Almost as bad as waiting for someone to reply and then saying haha i made you dance.
I've backed you into a corner and you got no where to go but answer two simple questions. Instead of answering a few questions of mine you deflect and throw out the are you gay line? Never thought it'd be so hard to get an opinion or answer out of someone, in fact ice never seen someone deflect as hard as you. At least the chumps, blakes, and pushers of the world aren't afraid of a little lively debate sharing their own thoughts. Enjoy being the political forum coward.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think your questions are besides the point and I don't like people trying to delve into my personal life. What I own or don't own is irrelevant to the reality of how guns effect death rates.

At the same time every time I want to talk about empirical facts you try and bring up the anecdote of me. When you did the 'me and Fuzzy are on a beach' thing it sets off my gaydar. It's a cliche romantic setting. I would feel the same way if you said "me and fuzzy are out eating dinner" or "me and fuzzy are out on vacation."

I think it's a legitimate question: are you gay. If you are uncomfortable answering it the whatevs. The reason why I ask is if you are indeed gay I want you to stop hitting on me.

[TSA]

You are an anonymous poster on a message board named fuzzyfuckinglumpkins. Who gives a fuck about your personal life I'm not asking for pictures of your wife's tits or where your children play soccer on the weekends. Stop being such a pussy. My questions are important to the discussion because I find it odd for someone to be so against guns, a gun owner. No one here but you gets all wound up like you do when asked if they own a firearm. You a convicted felon or something?

[Wild Cobra]

Just admit you were wrong already.

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/WoundProfilesAfterWallBarrier_zpse39475d8.jpg

http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

Here is all you need to know if you want to learn something. Now run along.
You're joking, right?

You expect Clamboy to admit he made a mistake?

LOL...

[Wild Cobra]

All this talk of guns made me decide my next gun purchase will be a Raging Bull 223, or some other that uses a 223 round or 5.56mm. Just to piss these libtards off

http://www.arcimboldeb.com/img/eventi/armi3/11.jpg (http://www.arcimboldeb.com/en/armi/evento/armi3)

[clambake]

accept the challenge together. or admit you're too afraid to prove it.

[sjacquemotte]

oL2-SGpZsq4Interview with Amanda Collins, rape victim who CO Dem told gun wouldn't have helpedPeople here in Colorado are flipping out. However Colorado springs is pretty conservative, compared to Denve

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are an anonymous poster on a message board named fuzzyfuckinglumpkins. Who gives a fuck about your personal life I'm not asking for pictures of your wife's tits or where your children play soccer on the weekends. Stop being such a pussy. My questions are important to the discussion because I find it odd for someone to be so against guns, a gun owner. No one here but you gets all wound up like you do when asked if they own a firearm. You a convicted felon or something?

BS68mBhktaA

Don't be mad.

I haven't asked you if you want to commit crimes together so why would you have cause to ask me if I was a felon?

You came up with a hypothetical of you and I hanging out on a beach. That's why I asked if you were gay. I said before that if you didn't want to answer it, I wasn't going to press you on it. I just told you that I didn't want you hitting on me like your beach fantasy. I don't want to hear about it. It makes me uncomfortable.

Now you seem to be overcompensating by this angry machismo thing. I am not going to answer your questions about my personal life. Using beach fantasies certainly is not going to change that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

States with the most gun control laws have the fewest gun-related deaths, according to a study that suggests sheer quantity of measures might make a difference.

But the research leaves many questions unanswered and won't settle the debate over how policymakers should respond to recent high-profile acts of gun violence.

In the dozen or so states with the most gun control-related laws, far fewer people were shot to death or killed themselves with guns than in the states with the fewest laws, the study found. Overall, states with the most laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws.

The results are based on an analysis of 2007-2010 gun-related homicides and suicides from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers also used data on gun control measures in all 50 states compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a well-known gun control advocacy group. They compared states by dividing them into four equal-sized groups according to the number of gun laws.

The results were published online Wednesday in the medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57572971/50-state-study-more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths/

[TSA]

Chicago says hi, coward.

[TSA]

And you quote an article that uses data collected in a study by the CDC, the same group you said cant get accurate data because the NRA blocked them. So now that the CDC data benefits your argument you want to use it? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're still mad. Like I said, I was not going to press you on why you pictured you and I on a beach. Let it go.

And we have already discussed how the laws of Cook county do not apply outside of Cook county.

I never said 'couldn't' I said they were limited. They didn't correlate according to ownership anyway. Critical thinking.

[spursncowboys]

You're still mad. Like I said, I was not going to press you on why you pictured you and I on a beach. Let it go.

And we have already discussed how the laws of Cook county do not apply outside of Cook county.

I never said 'couldn't' I said they were limited. They didn't correlate according to ownership anyway. Critical thinking. Although I am "pro-gun", it seems like you are losing in this...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Although I am "pro-gun", it seems like you are losing in this...

oh noes.

Normally when you judge a debate, you give a basis for your decision. You already admitted to not being objective so that gives a basis to dismiss your opinion.

If a guy makes up a story about you and he being on a beach how would that make you feel?