School Shooting at Community College in Oregon

[boutons_deux]

Guns also serve purposes that aren't against the law

I didn't say they were.

Under my rules, Good Guys can have all they guns they qualify for, can pay for, and can stay annually qualified and payint out. This approach criminalizes more thoroughly and with lower thresholds the Bad Guys.

I would also pay a bounty equal to the price of confiscated guns to people who turn in anybody, good or bad guy, without proper registration, insurnace, proof of purchase.

[spurraider21]

I didn't say they were.

Under my rules, Good Guys can have all they guns they qualify for, can pay for, and can stay annually qualified and payint out. This approach criminalizes more thoroughly and with lower thresholds the Bad Guys.

I would also pay a bounty equal to the price of confiscated guns to people who turn in anybody, good or bad guy, without proper registration, insurnace, proof of purchase.
im not necessarily against any of this. im just not for destruction of all confiscated weapons. its inneficient

[boutons_deux]

im not necessarily against any of this. im just not for destruction of all confiscated weapons. its inneficient

inefficient? strange term. Why put guns back in circulation when there are already a couple 300M guns too many in circulation?

Good Guys who's guns have been confiscated can get them back if they re-qualify, pay up whatever, after a painful waiting period of at least severa months.

btw, any household where a member has more than one DUI or stimulant violation loses all the guns until ... I dunno, ... a long time.

any household where there is physical abuse loses all guns until ...

any body with a restraining order loses all guns until 1 year after the order is lifted.

[spurraider21]

inefficient? strange term. Why put guns back in circulation when there are already a couple 300M guns too many in circulation?

Good Guys who's guns have been confiscated can get them back if they re-qualify, pay up whatever, after a painful waiting period of at least severa months.

btw, any household where a member has more than one DUI or stimulant violation loses all the guns until ... I dunno, ... a long time.

any household where there is physical abuse loses all guns until ...

any body with a restraining order loses all guns until 1 year after the order is lifted.
financially inefficient. money down the drain.

if ur all for the good guys buying guns, why not let them just buy the confiscated guns instead of destroying them and forcing the manufacturers to build another one

[boutons_deux]

financially inefficient. money down the drain.

if ur all for the good guys buying guns, why not let them just buy the confiscated guns instead of destroying them and forcing the manufacturers to build another one

not gonna setup govt employees to sell confiscated guns, destroy them. My stringent rules will put a huge dent in the gun mfrs profits, EFFICIENTLY.

[ducks]

You didn't have to.
cheaper then beef

[ducks]

lol at people thinking there are to many guns out there
if the president was so sure guns are a problem why do people protect him with guns

[ducks]

also if his health care was so great why is he not on it

[ChumpDumper]

Except Australia has had mass shootings since 1996

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murdersDepends on our definition, but if you use the loosest definition you get two. How many have we had this year using your definition?

[boutons_deux]

Brady Campaign: Oregon sheriff must ‘immediately resign’ for ‘extremist’ Sandy Hook and pro-gun views


http://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Douglas-County-Sheriff-John-Hanlin-800x430.jpg

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has called for Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin to immediately resign his position and to step down as the lead investigator for the Umpqua Community College mass shooting case.

“Citizens of Oregon voted for the expansion of Brady background checks in a law signed by Governor Brown this past May,” Brady Campaign President Dan Gross noted in a statement (http://www.bradycampaign.org/press-room/brady-campaign-calls-for-immediate-resignation-of-douglas-county-sheriff-john-hanlin#.VhH3xTYrkrl.twitter) over the weekend.

“In pledging not to enforce the new law, John Hanlin has clearly demonstrated that his political ideology trumps his responsibility to protect his community. The victims of last week’s shooting and the entire community deserve a thorough investigation that will get to the bottom of this heinous crime – an investigation that must be grounded in facts and evidence, not myth and bias.”

Gross also pointed to the fact that Hanlin had posted a video on Facebook suggesting that the Sandy Hook shootings had been plot by the federal government to pass gun control laws.

“John Hanlin is not the man for the job,” Gross said during a conference call on Monday (http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/10/gun-control_group_says_sheriff.html).

Gross argued that it would be difficult to trust that the sheriff had not omitted facts from the investigation because of his “extremist ideology.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/brady-campaign-sheriff-must-immediately-resign-for-extremist-sandy-hook-and-pro-gun-views/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

I bet this asshole is member of insane Oath Keepers.

[boutons_deux]

Hanlin writing Biden that he wouldn't enforce the law

https://www.facebook.com/DouglasCoSO/photos/a.102713029813203.5661.100871513330688/403994713018365/?type=3

[SpursforSix]

Hanlin writing Biden that he wouldn't enforce the law

https://www.facebook.com/DouglasCoSO/photos/a.102713029813203.5661.100871513330688/403994713018365/?type=3

Interesting. So you're saying that the shooting was actually set up by POTUS as payback. Possibly using an MK Ultra asset.

[m>s]

^daily reminder that no one ever reads your links

[boutons_deux]

crazy bitch

Oregon shooter’s mother was an avid gun enthusiast who stockpiled weapons for fear of confiscation

Details emerge painting a picture of a mother who armed and trained her disturbed son

14 guns.

The 26-year-old man who walked into a writing class last Thursday armed with six guns, spare ammunition magazines and body armor to carry out the latest American mass shooting, had even more weaponry stockpiled in the home he shared with his mother.

In total, law enforcement officials confiscated 14 guns belonging to Christopher Harper-Mercer or his mother, Laurel Harper.

Officials said the guns were all traced back to a federal firearms dealer and seven of the weapons had been purchased legally by Harper-Mercer or other family members over the last three years.
According to multiple (http://www.vocativ.com/news/236762/oregon-shooter-chris-harper-mercer-guns/) reports (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mom-oregon-shooter-bragged-weapons-online-report-article-1.2383689), the shooter’s mother boasted online about her arsenal and feared that gun ownership would soon be restricted.

“When the mood strikes,” Harper reportedly wrote on Facebook, “I sling an AR, Tek-9 or AK over my shoulder, or holster a Glock 21 (not 22), or one of my other handguns, like the Sig Sauer P226, and walk out the door.” Shotguns, she said, “are a little too cumbersome to open carry.”

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/05/oregon_shooters_mother_was_an_avid_gun_enthusiast_ who_stockpiled_weapons_for_fear_of_confiscation/

[SpursforSix]

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/05/oregon_shooters_mother_was_an_avid_gun_enthusiast_ who_stockpiled_weapons_for_fear_of_confiscation/



so the mom was in on it? I hadn't seen that take yet. Wonder if BigMedia lets it out???

[boutons_deux]

so the mom was in on it? I hadn't seen that take yet. Wonder if BigMedia lets it out???

nuture or nature? this crazy bitch probably got corrupted in her parents home about guns

[SpursforSix]

nuture or nature? this crazy bitch probably got corrupted in her parents home about guns

wait...are you saying that her parents are in on this also? Who was president when her parents became operatives? Do you think it was that damn Nixon????

[boutons_deux]

wait...are you saying that her parents are in on this also? Who was president when her parents became operatives? Do you think it was that damn Nixon????

no. I'm guessing her gun obsession certainly was an example for her sicko son, indicating she's probably a sicko herself. "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle ... "

[SpursforSix]

no. I'm guessing her gun obsession certainly was an example for her sicko son, indicating she's probably a sicko herself. "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle ... "

yeah...that was a crazy movie fo sho. Whatever happened to her?

[Blizzardwizard]

Except Australia has had mass shootings since 1996

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

Australia has been far safer from gun crime since the implementation of strict gun laws.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w

[boutons_deux]

yeah...that was a crazy movie fo sho. Whatever happened to her?

probably her father, siblings.

[SpursforSix]

probably her father, siblings.

no...I mean what happened to Rebecca DeMornay. She had those two iconic roles but nothing else to speak of.

[boutons_deux]

no...I mean what happened to Rebecca DeMornay. She had those two iconic roles but nothing else to speak of.

the movie title is the origin of the phrase

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw391.html

[SpursforSix]

the movie title is the origin of the phrase

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw391.html

what phrase? The Hand that Rocks the Cradle?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Homicidea
Assaultb
Sexual assault
Robberyc
Kidnapping/abduction


1996
354
114,156
14,542
16,372
478


1997
364
124,500
14,353
21,305
564


1998
334
130,903
14,689
23,801
707


1999
385
134,271
14,699
22,606
766


2000
362
138,708
16,406
23,336
695


2001
347
152,283
17,577
26,591
767


2002
366
160,118
18,718
20,989
706


2003
341
157,280
18,025
19,709
696


2004
302
156,849
19,171
16,513
768


2005
301
166,507
18,695
17,176
729


2006
321
172,441
19,555
17,375
726


2007
283
176,077
19,954
17,996
733


2008
293
170,720
19,992
16,513
788


2009
293
175,277
18,807
15,238
564


2010
261
171,083
18,027
14,631
608


2011
276
117,992
17,592
13,653
675


2012
297
116,105
18,153
13,155
636




Australia always had low gun crime. Was the tradeoff worth the spike in assault/sexual assault/robbery?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Australia has been far safer from gun crime since the implementation of strict gun laws.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w

see above

[Blizzardwizard]

Australia always had low gun crime. Was the tradeoff worth the spike in assault/sexual assault/robbery?

You say tradeoff as if gun control was the direct reason for this spike? I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

But you accept that strict gun control has resulted in less homicides and less gun murders?

[tbdog]

Australia has very high Rape and burglary recorded offences. I am not sure why that is, and I do not believe it is related to gun control. I am not sure how many of those recorded offences resulted in a charge or conviction of a offender. Maybe Australians are more likely to report a crime than other countries? I just don't know. But I don't see the connection with gun control.

[ChumpDumper]

Australia always had low gun crime. Was the tradeoff worth the spike in assault/sexual assault/robbery?What happens to cause the rates to go down?

Do they get more guns that year?

[TheSanityAnnex]

You say tradeoff as if gun control was the direct reason for this spike? I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

But you accept that strict gun control has resulted in less homicides and less gun murders?If we can't say gun control was the reason for the spike in assault/sexual assault/robbery we can not say gun control has resulted in less gun homicides either. Gun crime was on a steady decline before the 1996 ban.

[ChumpDumper]

If we can't say gun control was the reason for the spike in assault/sexual assault/robbery we can not say gun control has resulted in less gun homicides either. Gun crime was on a steady decline before the 1996 ban.Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?

All gun crime was on the decline prior to 1996.

[ChumpDumper]

All gun crime was on the decline prior to 1996.You did not answer my question.

Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?

[Blizzardwizard]

If we can't say gun control was the reason for the spike in assault/sexual assault/robbery we can not say gun control has resulted in less gun homicides either. Gun crime was on a steady decline before the 1996 ban.

We can assert that gun control has resulted in less gun homicides, as there are stats and figures to prove it. Whereas there's no facts that suggest there is a direct link between increased gun controls and the increase of other types of crime beside homicides, that's nothing more than a hypothesis.

[TheSanityAnnex]

We can assert that gun control has resulted in less gun homicides, as there are stats and figures to prove it. Whereas there's no facts that suggest there is a direct link between increased gun controls and the increase of other types of crime beside homicides, that's nothing more than a hypothesis.
I'm sure you'll have the stats and figures to prove your assertion. In the meantime some stats and figures...

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854

“The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.“


more stats and figures...

http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/bakersamaraijcjs2015vol10issue1.pdf



“Studies on Australia’s firearms legislation, using different time series and different statistical methodologies, have produced consistent results. In light of this, it appears reasonable to conclude that on the basis of available research there is no evidence for an impact of the NFA [Australia’s gun control legislation] on firearm homicides…
Although the total number of published peer-reviewed studies based on time series data remains relatively small (fewer than 15 studies, at the time of writing), none of these studies has found a significant impact of the Australian legislative changes on the pre-existing downward trend in firearm homicide.“

[ChumpDumper]

lol "open" "scholarly" publishing.

Just the fact you had to dig that deep says all I need to know.

[diego]

assuming that chart is absolute numbers and not per capita, they look like totals to me-

australia's population has increased by about 20% since 96, Im not going to run the numbers because there is probably a specific way to do it but clearly you can see that relative to population size murder and robbery are way down, assault is about the same maybe a tad less, and sexual assault and kidnapping a little up. The net reduction in all crimes is significant.

Guns will always exist, they cant be written off the planet. But it makes a big difference when they are difficult to obtain. I dont think its about making it expensive, I think its about making it demanding in knowledge and discipline and requiring hoops and hurdles, periodic tests, even random gun inspection (ie, you are a registered gun owner and at any point officials can come and ask you to show them your gun, how you are keeping it, demonstrate proficiency/knowledge). Maybe it doesnt even have to be that intrusive, but something along those lines will instantly weed out the dumbasses from the responsible gun owners, who love their guns enough to learn the new rules- being rich doesnt exempt you from being a dumbass. and yes it counts for criminals too, because if they can reduce the amount of available weapons criminals will have a much harder time obtaining expensive black market guns, and the criminals who have those guns will also have to be more careful with them because they wont be as easy to replace if lost.

Im curious about these supposed cases of extremely well armed robbers busting in to average joe's homes to steal kill and rape. Does this actually happen anywhere? oh right, like this (http://www.wired.com/2011/05/drug-raid-turns-ugly-as-swat-guns-down-marine-vet/) . Doesnt seem like a good reason to get an ar-15

[Splits]

:lmao two "studies" attributed to the same two people who just happen to be members of "International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH), Australia". Gee, I wonder if there was any predisposition to their findings? Fucking idiot.

[Blizzardwizard]

:lmao two "studies" attributed to the same two people who just happen to be members of "International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH), Australia". Gee, I wonder if there was any predisposition to their findings? Fucking idiot.

I was thinking the same. Geez :lol

[SocialJusticeWarrior]

:lmao two "studies" attributed to the same two people who just happen to be members of "International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH), Australia". Gee, I wonder if there was any predisposition to their findings? Fucking idiot.
What is your problem with women in science, you white cis-male misogynist shitlord?

[boutons_deux]

This Is How the Paranoid Right Keeps America Armed to the Teeth: The Lies and Distortions They Use After Every Massacre

1. Christopher Harper-Mercer’s murder spree will be presented as part of a “War on Christians.” While the vast majority of social, political, and economic power in the United States is held by those who identity as “Christian,” somehow there is a “war” on them. Moreover, the Republican Party’s candidates, almost to the one, are Christian theocrats who believe that the United States ought to be ruled by “Christian principles.” Muslims and atheists are two of the most disliked groups according to recent public opinion polls in the United States. Yet, “Christians” can somehow imagine themselves as “victims” in America.

2. Christopher Harper-Mercer is a self-identified “conservative.” (http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/chris-harper-mercer-umpqua-community-college-ucc-roseburg-oregon-shooting-shooter-gunman-dead-eggman-4chan-name-id-identity-photos-twitter-social-media-facebook-youtube/) The right-wing media will of course deny his statement of political agency and identification. In that move, Christopher Harper-Mercer will be transformed into a “liberal” or “progressive.”

3. Christopher Harper-Mercer is a right-wing mass shooter and domestic terrorist. His behavior is part of a broader pattern where right-wing domestic terrorists (http://www.democracynow.org/2015/6/25/does_us_ignore_right_wing_terror) have been identified as the biggest threats to the American “homeland” in the post-9/11 era. This fact is inconvenient for the American right. It must be twisted into something else for their worldview to remain internally consistent.

4. Unlike “Muslim terrorists,” Christopher Harper-Mercer will likely be identified as some type of “lone wolf” with “mental health issues” or who is on “drugs.” There will likely be no soul searching about the right-wing reactionary online and other media that helped to motivate Christopher Harper-Mercer to kill nine people.

5. Gun violence is a public health crisis (http://www.drsforamerica.org/learn/gun-violence-prevention). The United States leads the “developed world” in mass shootings and gun violence. Yet, this event will be twisted by ammosexuals and the National Rifle Association as an example of how it is actually more, and not fewer guns in schools, colleges, and universities, that will deter mass shootings. This is Orwellian Newspeak logic mixed with 1980s hyper-masculine action movie dreams. In an example of twisted and backwards thinking, somehow more firearms are imagined to be a cure for gun violence and mass shooting events, as opposed to removing firearms from circulation.

6. The Umpqua Community College shooting is a “false flag” operation. right-wing conspiracy websites almost automatically default to fantastical explanations for gun violence and murder when Occam’s razor will suffice. No elaborate explanations are needed: a heavily armed person with a grievance of some sort, and who was armed with multiple guns, decided to commit an act of mass murder. The facts are not that complicated.


http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/how-paranoid-right-keeps-america-armed-teeth-lies-and-distortions-they-use-after?akid=13548.187590._tetCr&rd=1&src=newsletter1043561&t=14

[Splits]

What is your problem with women in science, you white cis-male misogynist shitlord?

:lol

This troll has potential, Melody

[TheSanityAnnex]

lol "open" "scholarly" publishing.

Just the fact you had to dig that deep says all I need to know.

In depth rebuttal

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lmao two "studies" attributed to the same two people who just happen to be members of "International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH), Australia". Gee, I wonder if there was any predisposition to their findings? Fucking idiot.

In depth rebuttal

[TheSanityAnnex]

I was thinking the same. Geez :lol

In depth rebuttal

[Blizzardwizard]

In depth rebuttal

Any other 'studies' to 'prove' a direct correlation between gun laws and increases in assault and robbery?

[ChumpDumper]

In depth rebuttal
A study from Jeanine Baker of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia and Samara McPhedran, then of the University of Sydney, concluded (pdf) that suicide rates declined more rapidly after the law's enactment, but found no significant result for homicides; Leigh and Neill argue (pdf) that this paper's methodology is deeply flawed, as it includes the possibility that fewer than one death a year could occur. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health noted (pdf) that the Baker and McPhedran method would find that the law didn't have a significant effect if there had been zero gun deaths in the year 2004, or if there weren't negative deaths later on. The authors, he concluded, "should know better."http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

Links to the in depth rebuttal pdfs are in the article.

She didn't stay at the U of Sydney much longer FYI.

And you never answered this question:

Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?

[Blizzardwizard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/23/what-happened-after-australia-banned-lots-of-guns-after-a-massacre/


"firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides."

[TheSanityAnnex]

Any other 'studies' to 'prove' a direct correlation between gun laws and increases in assault and robbery?

I've presented the numbers showing a decline in gun homicides that was trending down before the 1996 ban in Australia. The same decline was trending down in New Zealand as well and they enacted no ban.

[boutons_deux]

I've presented the numbers showing a decline in gun homicides that was trending down before the 1996 ban in Australia. The same decline was trending down in New Zealand as well and they enacted no ban.

.. but not with the dramatic drops after the legislation and buyback

[ChumpDumper]

I've presented the numbers showing a decline in gun homicides that was trending down before the 1996 ban in Australia. The same decline was trending down in New Zealand as well and they enacted no ban.
Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/23/what-happened-after-australia-banned-lots-of-guns-after-a-massacre/

"firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent in the decade after the law was introduced."

From your link:

"The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people resulted in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding wasn't statistically significant"

''Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides."

"It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well"

Evidence it reduced homicides is weak and it was already trending down.

[ChumpDumper]

From your link:

"The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people resulted in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding wasn't statistically significant"

''Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides."

"It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well"

Evidence it reduced homicides is weak and it was already trending down.
Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?

[TheSanityAnnex]

.. but not with the dramatic drops after the legislation and buyback

"but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding wasn't statistically significant."

[Blizzardwizard]

I've presented the numbers showing a decline in gun homicides that was trending down before the 1996 ban in Australia. The same decline was trending down in New Zealand as well and they enacted no ban.

But gun homicide rates have dropped at a more significant rate after 1996. From 1979 to 1996, a period of 17 years, 9 of those years had an increase in gun deaths on the year before. From 1996 to 2013, a period of 17 years also, only 5 of those years had an increase in gun deaths on the year before.

[Blizzardwizard]

From your link:

"The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people resulted in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding wasn't statistically significant"

''Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides."

"It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well"

Evidence it reduced homicides is weak and it was already trending down.

At a more significant rate than in previous years before.

[Blizzardwizard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/23/what-happened-after-australia-banned-lots-of-guns-after-a-massacre/


"firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides."

[TheSanityAnnex]

At a more significant rate than in previous years before.

"but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding wasn't statistically significant."

[ChumpDumper]

"but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding wasn't statistically significant."
Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?

[Blizzardwizard]

"but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding wasn't statistically significant."

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

"While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws."

[Blizzardwizard]

Oh, and

"firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides."

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

"While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws."

Were you aware Australia is back to the same amount of guns owned before the 1996 buy back that destroyed 1 million guns? Following your logic gun homicides should be on the rise correct?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html

[Medvedenko]

What's the difference if all countries had nuclear capabilities? Not just the actual 9 nations that currently have them with USA and Russia accounting for 90% of them. It's a simple metaphor, if more guns in the USA and less stringent rules around the possession of them would increase safety, then why don't all countries starting building bombs for safety.....

I know it's an extreme, so think of it this way.....there's a reason for disarmament and nuclear programs going away, not increasing. That's the USA problem....more guns and more gun violence equates more profit. That's the bottom line, not safety.

[Blizzardwizard]

Were you aware Australia is back to the same amount of guns owned before the 1996 buy back that destroyed 1 million guns? Following your logic gun homicides should be on the rise correct?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html

You're deviating like crazy. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Bogus, War-for-Money on Christians

Tennessee GOPer: 'Christians Who Are Serious' Should Be Armed

Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey (R) wrote Friday on Facebook that Christians who were serious about their faith should consider getting gun permits following the massacre at an Oregon community college.

Chris Harper Mercer shot and killed nine people and injured nine others before killing himself Thursday at Umpqua Community College. Victims of the shooting and their family members have told news outlets that the shooter asked his victims (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/umpqua-college-shooting-religion-victims) whether they were Christians before he shot them.

On Facebook, Ramsey reacted to the shooting by pointing to it as another example in which "Christians and defenders of the West" have been targeted.

He wrote that it was "time to prepare."

"I would encourage my fellow Christians who are serious about their faith to think about getting a handgun carry permit," he wrote.

"I have always believed that it is better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ron-ramsey-tennessee-guns-christians?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

2nd Amendment! :lol

Paranoia, the n!gg@s and ragheads gonna getcha! :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

You're deviating like crazy. :lol
Were you aware the amount of privately owned guns in Australia is back to the pre 1996 buy back yes or no?

[boutons_deux]

Bobby Jindal blames Oregon shooter’s anti-gun dad: ‘He owes us all an apology’

He said mass shootings had little to do with the easy availability of guns.

“These acts of evil are a direct result of cultural rot, and it is cultural rot that we have brought upon ourselves, and then we act like we are confounded and perplexed by what is happening here,” Jindal said.

Jindal rattled off a litany of root causes, including the glorification of “sick and senseless acts of violence in virtually every element of our pop culture” — something he said had been going on for at least a generation.

He blamed violence in movies, TV shows, music and video games.

“Rape, torture, murder, mass murder, all are cinematic achievements,” Jindal said.

“Our music does the same thing, we promote evil, we promote the degradation of women, we flaunt the laws of God and common decency and we promote it all and we flood our young people with it.”
He said legal abortion and treatment of the elderly showed that “we have no regard for the sanctity of human life in any regard.”

But mostly, he blamed single mothers and absentee fathers.

“Let’s get really politically incorrect here and talk specifically about this horror in Oregon,” Jindal said. “This killer’s father is now lecturing us on the need for gun control and he says he has no idea (http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/05/chris-mercers-dad-wants-to-know-where-he-got-those-guns/) how or where his son got the guns.”

Jindal continued his personal attack on the killer’s father.

“Of course he doesn’t know,” Jindal said. “You know why he doesn’t know? Because he is not, and has never been in his son’s life. He’s a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public. He’s the problem here.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/bobby-jindal-blames-oregon-shooters-anti-gun-dad-he-owes-us-all-an-apology/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Thanks, Louisiana. Your macaca is one fucked up asshole.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/bingo.png

[TheSanityAnnex]

Were you aware the amount of privately owned guns in Australia is back to the pre 1996 buy back yes or no?

:lol scattered like water bugs

[boutons_deux]

more guns = more gun violence

[Th'Pusher]

Were you aware the amount of privately owned guns in Australia is back to the pre 1996 buy back yes or no?

Private Gun ownership per capita has increased by how much?

[boutons_deux]

Lou Dobbs: 'almost a straight line' between mass shootings, school prayer (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/06/1428409/-Lou-Dobbs-almost-a-straight-line-between-mass-shootings-school-prayer)

Fox News Business Genius Lou Dobbs knows why we're having all these mass shootings in our schools. No, it's not the guns. It's never the guns. (http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/10/05/lou-dobbs-there-is-almost-a-straight-line-betwe/205968)


Public schools, public school boards should demand a return to the Judeo-Christian ethic, to the practice of religion in our schools, prayer in schools, in my opinion.

And, there is almost a straight line between what happened in 1963 and the denial of the right to pray in our public schools, and violence in our schools and our society, that has risen exponentially over that time.


So God is murdering our children because they don't pray enough and is causing hurricanes because gay people have too many rights these days,

but when it comes to interest rates and dividends and oil spills and layoffs and American hedge fund managers hedge fund managing the world economy four feet into a six foot grave, you'll not hear Lou Dobbs offer up a peep about divine intervention in those cases.

Because if he used those theories in his "business" analysis, he'd be off the air before the first commercial break.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/06/1428409/-Lou-Dobbs-almost-a-straight-line-between-mass-shootings-school-prayer?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

[Splits]

:lol scattered like water bugs


''Australia's public health effort to reduce the risk of gun violence led the world,'' he said. ''After melting down a million guns, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot fell by more than half. Plus, we've seen no mass shootings in 16 years,'' Professor Alpers said.

He said that because of law changes, the new guns were not military-style semi-automatics, which were banned and surrendered after Port Arthur, and that handguns were now harder to import into Australia.

...

While there was an initial spike when owners of now-banned multishot rifles and shotguns replaced their weapons with single-fire guns in the four years after Port Arthur

Did you even read your own link or just the headline? Perhaps the fact that semi-autos, multi-shot rifles and shotguns, and most handguns are banned has something to do with the DRASTIC reduction of gun-related deaths? Seriously, trying to debate you is like trying to reason with a 4 year old. That's why you're routinely ignored.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Did you even read your own link or just the headline? Perhaps the fact that semi-autos, multi-shot rifles and shotguns, and most handguns are banned has something to do with the DRASTIC reduction of gun-related deaths? Seriously, trying to debate you is like trying to reason with a 4 year old. That's why you're routinely ignored.

Except there was no drastic reduction of gun homicides due to the ban, the trend continued down just as it was before the 1996 ban, just as New Zealand's trend continued down without a ban.

[TheSanityAnnex]

more guns = more gun violence

Try again

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/100315-beltway-Image-Two.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

:lol scattered like water bugsHow many semi-auto rifles?

Are you allowing for Australia's population growth in the same time?

[ChumpDumper]

Also:
Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?You gonna keep water bugging this question? :lol

[Blizzardwizard]

Were you aware the amount of privately owned guns in Australia is back to the pre 1996 buy back yes or no?

WTF I don't care, how about defending some of your own points first for once instead of completely changing the argument every time someone presents you with facts. :downspin:

"While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws."

Does this not prove that gun laws have not only brought the number of gun homicides down, but also at a faster rate than before the laws were implemented?

[Blizzardwizard]

Oh, and you also seemingly have completely abandoned your claim that there was some sort of 'trade off' and link between increasing gun controls and the increase in assaults and robbery.

"firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides."

[Blizzardwizard]

:lol scattered like water bugs

:lol at you, the king of dodging and avoiding questions calling anyone else out.

[Blizzardwizard]

Also:You gonna keep water bugging this question? :lol

You ain't getting an answer, you know that right? :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

WTF I don't care, how about defending some of your own points first for once instead of completely changing the argument every time someone presents you with facts. :downspin:

"While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws."

Does this not prove that gun laws have not only brought the number of gun homicides down, but also at a faster rate than before the laws were implemented?You should care about the number of guns on hand as you've been arguing that the reduction in numbers led to the reduction of gun homicides. Why were gun homicides trending steadily downward before 1996? Why do gun homicides continue to trend downward despite there now being as many guns as pre 1996?

And to your second part i already answered earlier:

"The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people resulted in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding wasn't statistically significant"

''Other studies are more hesitant to draw conclusions about homicides, but generally agree that the law did a lot to reduce suicides."

"It seems reasonably clear, then, that the gun buyback led to a large decline in suicides, and weaker but real evidence that it reduced homicides as well"

[TheSanityAnnex]

Oh, and you also seemingly have completely abandoned your claim that there was some sort of 'trade off' and link between increasing gun controls and the increase in assaults and robbery.

"firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides."
You realize your quote has fuck all to do with assaults and robberies correct?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Will someone post some data that proves the ban was statistically significant in reducing gun homicides in Australia this is getting boring.

[ChumpDumper]

Will someone post some data that proves the ban was statistically significant in reducing gun homicides in Australia this is getting boring.Will you answer this question you have been water bugging since yesterday:
Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?

[Th'Pusher]

...also, can you provide a definition of, per capita? I'm relatively confident you're unfamiliar with the very basic concept.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Will you answer this question you have been water bugging since yesterday:

Why have you asked me this fifteen times? Guns used in mass killings in Australia are down, seems like fire and blunt instruments are the way to go there these days, and arson looks to be pretty damn effective and the new method of choice.

Now back to gun homicides, do you have any data to present that shows a statistically significant reduction in gun homicides due to the ban? Blizzardwanker has failed time and time again.

[TheSanityAnnex]

...also, can you provide a definition of, per capita? I'm relatively confident you're unfamiliar with the very basic concept.
claim was more guns=more gun violence
Per capita need not apply. You were ignored the first time for a reason.

[ChumpDumper]

Why have you asked me this fifteen times?Because you go full water bug and never answer.
Guns used in mass killings in Australia are down, seems like fire and blunt instruments are the way to go there these days, and arson looks to be pretty damn effective and the new method of choice.You went full water bug again and didn't answer the question.
Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?

[Th'Pusher]

claim was more guns=more gun violence
Per capita need not apply. You were ignored the first time for a reason.
Incorrect. Your question was, "Were you aware the amount of privately owned guns in Australia is back to the pre 1996 buy back yes or no?"

Per capita should absolutely be considered when answering this question. Now show me you know why.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Because you go full water bug and never answer.You went full water bug again and didn't answer the question.

Your question was answered.

[ChumpDumper]

Your question was answered.No, little water bug -- it was not.
Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Incorrect. Your question was, "Were you aware the amount of privately owned guns in Australia is back to the pre 1996 buy back yes or no?"

Per capita should absolutely be considered when answering this question. Now show me you know why.

You are confusing separate conversations with boutons and blizzard.

[TheSanityAnnex]

No, little water bug -- it was not.

How long is it going to take you to figure out you are the only one left talking about mass shootings?

[ChumpDumper]

How long is it going to take you to figure out you are the only one left talking about mass shootings?I just want you to answer this question, little water bug:
Well, there were seven mass shootings in the ten years before the law change, and by your definition two mass shootings in the 19 years since.

Does that seem like a steady decline to you?

[Th'Pusher]

You are confusing separate conversations with boutons and blizzard.

Incorrect again.


http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

"While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws."


Were you aware Australia is back to the same amount of guns owned before the 1996 buy back that destroyed 1 million guns? Following your logic gun homicides should be on the rise correct?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html


You're deviating like crazy. :lol


Were you aware the amount of privately owned guns in Australia is back to the pre 1996 buy back yes or no?

You're not good at making arguments.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I just want you to answer this question, little water bug:
More entertained watching you grovel around begging for an answer to a question I've never disputed.

[ChumpDumper]

You're not good at making arguments.He did link some non peer-reviewed papers that were almost scholarly.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Incorrect again.









You're not good at making arguments.
I see you are still confused and have left out boutons

[Th'Pusher]

He did link some non peer-reviewed papers that were almost scholarly.

He get's super emotional when discussing this particular subject...and Hillary Clinton...and Barak Obama...

He's a very emotional man.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Lots of yapping and not a single post from any of you showing the ban had a statistically significant impact on the gun homicide rate.

I'll even accept an almost scholarly review.

[ChumpDumper]

More entertained watching you grovel around begging for an answer to a question I've never disputed.lol grovel.

Well, I'm glad you agree that the rate of mass shootings dropped more after the 1996 law than any other stat you've been discussing.

[TheSanityAnnex]

He get's super emotional when discussing this particular subject...and Hillary Clinton...and Barak Obama...

He's a very emotional man.
:lol I read your posts with a lisp anytime you start on this :lol

[Th'Pusher]

I see you are still confused and have left out boutons

I'm not confused. I posted your direct responses to BW. Boutons posted more guns=more gun violence later in the thread. It's upstream for all to read. Stop trying to deny reality.

[ChumpDumper]

Lots of yapping and not a single post from any of you showing the ban had a statistically significant impact on the gun homicide rate.

I'll even accept an almost scholarly review.I'll take the statistically significant impact on the mass shooting and suicide rates and be pretty happy with that tbh.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol I read your posts with a lisp anytime you start on this :lol

:tu

emo.

[TheSanityAnnex]

lol grovel.

Well, I'm glad you agree that the rate of mass shootings dropped more after the 1996 law than any other stat you've been discussing.
Glad we agree on something. Now would you like to discuss the statistically insignificant drop in gun homicide rate due to the ban or are you strictly here for mass shooting discussion only?

[Th'Pusher]

no s in emo :lol

[Clipper Nation]

He get's super emotional when discussing this particular subject...and Hillary Clinton...and Barak Obama...

He's a very emotional man.

Th'Playtex fagging up another thread, with no shame in her game.

[TheSanityAnnex]

no s in emo :lol

It's pronounced "themo" so yes still a lisp for you.

[Th'Pusher]

Th'Playtex fagging up another thread, with no shame in her game.

Someone's boyfriend showed up to not add any value.

:lol Godor
:lol Xeer

[Th'Pusher]

It's pronounced "themo" so yes still a lisp for you.

:td for not making sense.

[ChumpDumper]

Glad we agree on something. Now would you like to discuss the statistically insignificant drop in gun homicide rate due to the ban or are you strictly here for mass shooting discussion only?I'd take Australia's homicide rate any day of the week.

[Clipper Nation]

Thomeone'thhh boyfriend thowed up to not add any value.

:lol Godor
:lol Theer
Th'Playtex

[TheSanityAnnex]

:td for not making sense.

A proper lisp also is not limited to just the "ssss" but also takes advantage of the "thhhh". My old college roommate had the worst you could imagine drove me fucking nuts. He's a professor now and still talks the same, not sure how his students can keep a straight face I would lose it laughing.

[Th'Pusher]

Th'Playtex
Are you still planning on writing in Ron Paul on 2016 presidential ballot?

[Th'Pusher]

A proper lisp also is not limited to just the "ssss" but also takes advantage of the "thhhh". My old college roommate had the worst you could imagine drove me fucking nuts. He's a professor now and still talks the same, not sure how his students can keep a straight face I would lose it laughing.
But emo starts with a long e. Not a ssss or a thhh which is why it doesn't make any sense.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'd take Australia's homicide rate any day of the week.
I'm not going to follow you around for days asking you the same question over and over. I'll assume your non-answer is just agreeing that the gun ban did nothing statistically significant to reduce the gun homicide rate.

[TheSanityAnnex]

But emo starts with a long e. Not a ssss or a thhh which is why it doesn't make any sense.

you're sthooo th'emo justth sthaaap

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not going to follow you around for days asking you the same question over and over. I'll assume your non-answer is just agreeing that the gun ban did nothing statistically significant to reduce the gun homicide rate.You asked me if I want to discuss it.

What's to discuss?

[TheSanityAnnex]

You asked me if I want to discuss it.

What's to discuss?

Do you want to discuss whether or not the ban had a statistically significant impact on the gun homicide rate?

[Cry Havoc]

Has the Jim Jefferies stand up been posted yet?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you want to discuss whether or not the ban had a statistically significant impact on the gun homicide rate?What's to discuss?

[Th'Pusher]

you're sthooo th'emo justth sthaaap

Oh my. Not only does he not understand basic concepts like per capita, he also doesn't know what constitutes a lisp. As hard as you try to appear intelligent, it's pretty obvious that you're not a very smart man. Fortunately it doesn't take much upstairs to sling avocados.

[TheSanityAnnex]

What's to discuss?
Whether or not the ban had a statistically significant impact on the gun homicide rate

[Clipper Nation]

Are you thtill planning on writing in Ron Paul on 2016 prethidential ballot?

You still a cuck? Don't bother answering, we all know you are one.

[ChumpDumper]

Whether or not the ban had a statistically significant impact on the gun homicide rateThat's been decided. You've really been trying to discuss that all this time?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Oh my. Not only does he not understand basic concepts like per capita, he also doesn't know what constitutes a lisp. As hard as you try to appear intelligent, it's pretty obvious that you're not a very smart man. Fortunately it doesn't take much upstairs to sling avocados.
:lol Th'lisp expert
:lol slinging avocados. You know I'm not a broker.

[TheSanityAnnex]

That's been decided. You've really been trying to discuss that all this time? What was the decision?

[ChumpDumper]

What was the decision?Holy shit! You don't know?

It was statistically insignificant in the studies I saw.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Th'Pusher]

You still a cuck? Don't bother answering, we all know you are one.
:sleep

[TheSanityAnnex]

Holy shit! You don't know?

It was statistically insignificant in the studies I saw.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

You are going to make Blizzardwizard cry in his breakfast tea

[ChumpDumper]

You are going to make Blizzardwizard cry in his breakfast teaNah. The overall homicide rate was already low. Det mass shooting tho.

[boutons_deux]

These murderers were made at home: The Oregon shooter’s mother armed her son — just like Adam Lanza’s did

Today’s New York Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-keeping-firearms.html?_r=0):

Unlike his father, who said on television that he had no idea Mr. Harper-Mercer cared so deeply about guns, his mother was well aware of his fascination. In fact, she shared it: In a series of online postings over a decade, Ms. Harper, a nurse, said she kept numerous firearms in her home and expressed pride in her knowledge about them, as well as in her son’s expertise on the subject.


The killer’s mother, a divorced nurse named Laurel Harper, kept a small arsenal in the apartment she shared with her son, and often commented on both medical issues and handguns on Yahoo Answers.

The Times again:

In an online forum, answering a question about state gun laws several years ago, Ms. Harper took a jab at “lame states” that impose limits on keeping loaded firearms in the home, and noted that she had AR-15 and AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, along with a Glock handgun. She also indicated that her son, who lived with her, was well versed in guns, citing him as her source of information on gun laws, saying he “has much knowledge in this field.”


As disturbing as this is on its own – a mother who connects with her son not through a shared love of hiking or soccer or music or books but rather discharging military weaponry – it has a frightening echo that’s not mentioned in the Times story: Adam Lanza, the mentally disturbed man who slaughtered children in Newtown, Conn., also seemed to connect with his mother most powerfully through handguns.

Nancy Lanza, in fact, took her son shooting when he was only four.




From The Progressive (http://www.progressive.org/news/2013/12/186007/one-year-after-sandy-hook-shooting-still-family-sport):



The late Nancy Lanza in Newtown grew up with firearms and had a pistol permit. She returned to shooting with more intensity, according to one family friend, after her 2009 divorce. She wanted to bond with her youngest son, Adam, especially, who five years before, at 13, had been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, and who, instead of getting better, had been showing signs of social dysfunction and anxiety.

“Shooting was a pastime in which the family engaged,” reads the Connecticut State’s Attorney report of the Sandy Hook massacre released last month. “Both the mother and the shooter took National Rifle Association (NRA) safety courses. The mother thought it was good to learn responsibility for guns. Both would shoot pistols and rifles at a local range and the shooter was described as quiet and polite.”


There are plenty of parents who hunt with their children perfectly safely. And it’s not fair to demonize single mothers, which may be why the Times did not mention the similarity between the two families.

But in both the cases of Roseburg and Newtown, parents knew that their sons had serious mental problems – Nancy Lanza described her son as a “lost cause” — and still heavily armed them and trained them to kill people.

It’s enough to make you wonder: What the hell were they thinking? In one case, we’ll never know: Adam Lanza shot and killed his mother on his way out the door. But dozens of people and their families paid the price.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/06/these_murderers_were_made_at_home_the_oregon_shoot ers_mother_armed_her_son_just_like_adam_lanzas_did/

[boutons_deux]

Rand Paul: Put Stickers On School Windows Warning 'You Will Be Shot'

Falsely suggesting that the recent mass shooting at an Oregon community college took place in a gun-free zone (http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2015/10/umpqua_community_college_not_a.html), Sen. Rand Paul said yesterday that as president he would encourage every school in America to place stickers on its windows warning potential criminals that teachers are armed and “you will be shot.”

The Kentucky Republican told Iowa talk radio host Jan Mickelson (http://mickelson.libsyn.com/tuesday-october-10-2015) that the Oregon shooting was “an incredible tragedy, but it’s even made worse by the president politicizing it and jumping in.” The president “doesn’t understand,” he said, that “the problem is mental illness and not necessarily gun registration or gun ownership.”

“The other common denominator, other than mental illness,” he added, “is that people are going to places where guns are prohibited. So when you have a gun-free zone at a school, it’s like an invitation, if you are crazy and want to shoot people, that’s where you go. I would do the opposite. I would have and encourage every school in American put stickers on every window going into the school saying, ‘We are armed. Come in at your own peril. We have concealed carry for teachers who have it and we also have armed security and you will be shot.’”

Such stickers should be placed on “every cockpit of every commercial airliner” and on “every school,” he said.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rand-paul-put-stickers-school-windows-warning-you-will-be-shot

:lol you libertarians really got a brilliant Pres candidate there! :lol

[Blizzardwizard]

Will someone post some data that proves the ban was statistically significant in reducing gun homicides in Australia this is getting boring.

"While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws."

[Blizzardwizard]

Now back to gun homicides, do you have any data to present that shows a statistically significant reduction in gun homicides due to the ban? Blizzardwanker has failed time and time again.

I have provided you with clear facts showing you this, many times. You just choose not to except it as it doesn't fit your agenda. How about you provide some clear data NOT showing a statistical increase in the decline of gun homicides since the new laws. Papers from a clearly biased source don't count, btw.

[Blizzardwizard]

Blizzardwanker has failed time and time again.

Eh, I preferred Faggotwizard tbh.

[Blizzardwizard]

You are going to make Blizzardwizard cry in his breakfast tea

I don't like tea, can it be breakfast beer?

[TheSanityAnnex]

I have provided you with clear facts showing you this, many times. You just choose not to except it as it doesn't fit your agenda. How about you provide some clear data NOT showing a statistical increase in the decline of gun homicides since the new laws. Papers from a clearly biased source don't count, btw.


It was statistically insignificant in the studies I saw.

[Trill Clinton]

is everyone satisfied with the amount of coverage this case got in comparison to the church shooting or should we stretch it out a few more weeks?

[m>s]

Trill Clinton, doggie

[TheSanityAnnex]

is everyone satisfied with the amount of coverage this case got in comparison to the church shooting or should we stretch it out a few more weeks?

Shooter was half black non-story now.

[hater]

Another shooting at a campus. Arizona.

3 fatalities