Reply With Quote
He will find a way to get out. Pretty sure he has a bomb implanted in someone's stomach already.
So will the asshole shooter make it to trial or will he kill himself or be killed by a inmate, guard, or someone outside the jail where he's staying at?
He will find a way to get out. Pretty sure he has a bomb implanted in someone's stomach already.
Too soon?
He'll make it to trial.
He'll also "find god" while incarcerated, have his attorney file several lawsuits and appeals and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars until he gets diagnosed and is helped by the medical profession.
One day they will declare that he has been "rehabilitated."
They've released a list of the deceased and one of them is a 6 year old girl. Also read an article where inmates are actually plotting to kill him so he is under tight security.
Newly released inmates are saying he's acting bat crazy
You keep using the strawman argument that getting rid of guns will completely eliminate gun crime.
It wont.
But it will reduce gun crime.
Last part: Because this country is filled with idiots like DMC.A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.
Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.
But regardless, polls show that public at udes don’t change, even after a mass slaughter like this. Forty-nine percent say it’s more important to protect gun rights while 45 percent favor tighter gun control.
"Straw man" is used so often around here and it's apparent very few people even know the meaning of the term.
Also, owning a swimming pool doesnt give me the ability to end the lives of 12 people whenever I feel like it.
We dont think eliminating guns would eliminate all possibilities for a pyscho to kill the masses, we just want to eliminate the easiest , simplest and most effective method for pulling it off.
And while getting rid of swimming pools would suck for everyone in Phoenix, outlawing guns would hurts who?
Do you? If you think I didnt correctly use "straw man argument", i dont think YOU understand its meaning.
that's not what the studies by criminologists say. but keep ignoring facts and be driven by your emotions like a woman.
That's PROVEN to be incorrect, tbh...
Australia: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
Britain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
Chicago: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/01/...rol/index.html
DC: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296724,00.html
I could go on, but you get the point....
Nice try. Your links are garbage if you actually read them.
1. Your article for Britain is from 2001. Got anything from the last decade?
2. Your article for Britain is also looking at the two years following the gun ban which is an extreme small sample size.
3. The other article talk about a single city's ban on handguns. We need a national policy for any type of effectiveness.
More recent and relevant data: For international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[55] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pv.pdf
I posted this before but you keep using the same invalid argument so i doubt you'll care now.
Oh..and your australia link is from NCPA.
If youre going to provide links, at least use a source with some journalistic integrity.The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-profit American conservative think tank[1] whose goals are to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control. Topics addressed include reforms in health care, taxes, Social Security, welfare, education and environmental regulation.
Gun Homicide rate by nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
Us towards the very top. UK at the very bottom.
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
find a list for knife/blunt object homicides and i bet it looks something like a reverse.
Percentage of homicides involving firearms:
UK: 6 percent
US: 65 percent.
Does that mean that UK has the same homicide rate, just they use swords, swimming pools etc?
NOPE:
Homicide rate per 100k:
UK: 1.45
US: 4.55
there are countries on that list such as the ukraine who also outlaw guns, have an incredibly low gun homicide rate, but a disproportionately large non firearm homicide rate and total homicide rate much higher than ours. basically it comes down to how violent each society is, not the instruments used to kill. in the ukraine they are doing just fine finding ways to murder without using a gun. your entire argument is junk science and doesn't have a leg to stand on.
no, but in the UKraine they have a higher homicide rate using swords and swimming pools. like i told you antiamerican idiots back on page 1, it's a societal problem. countries like ukraine and to a lesser extent the US are much more violent than countries like the UK, guns or no guns.
also explain why in a country like the US, where guns are SO easily attainable, over 1/3 of the total homicides are committed WITHOUT one?
it just simply isn't a gun issue bro, i'm sorry if something happened to someone you know or you were affected by gun violence, but you have an emotional vendetta here. your thinking isn't based in logic or facts.
But what if there are sharks and gators in da pool?
You're acting like a handgun ban would immediately reduce gun crime, which it doesn't, as proven by the INCREASE in gun crime in the two years following Britain's handgun ban...
Yes, because national policies against other things such as alcohol and drugs have worked so well, B...3. The other article talk about a single city's ban on handguns. We need a national policy for any type of effectiveness.
Doesn't change the stats, B....
The problem with the gun control crowd is they differentiate between gun related crime and crime in general. Getting rid of knives would reduce knife related murders, but banning knives doesn't get rid of knives and murder is murder.
Your ilk tend to use misdirection and smoke and mirrors to make it appear as if you might have a case, but the fact that your ty arguments only surface after tragic events shows that, at the foundation of your argument lies a collage of illogical conclusions that, without the emotional jargon and the energy of the moment, are completely toothless.
When your argument is sound, it won't rely on tragic events to sway opinion. It will be true regardless, but your current argument isn't true ergo you rely on the energy of the moment.
The rantings of ignorant liberals like you don't move me in the least, because you are too uneducated in the facts of your cause to even be a threat. You're reduced to searching the internet for material to support your naive claims.
The idiot in Aurora would not have tried to kill people with a knife. Had he not been able to acquire a gun, he would have used a bomb. Someone who plans for months to kill people including booby trapping their own home with BOMBS will not hesitate to kill as many as possible, if that's his goal. This guy wasn't looking for numbers, he was going out wth a bang, He wasn't mad at people, he was convinced he was a villian and wanted to do what they do. He could have burned the place to the ground.
Manchurian Candidate anyone?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
