Reply With Quote
Give him a break. I doubt he expected to be DarrinSed when he woke up this morning. We've seen it can be a rough experience.
That has to be one of the worst attempts at logic I've ever seen.
Give him a break. I doubt he expected to be DarrinSed when he woke up this morning. We've seen it can be a rough experience.
Oh noes my e-rep is crumbling!
What were said senator's positions on guns and boys?
Last edited by Oh, Gee!!; 12-30-2012 at 04:59 PM.
You mean like how you rode the "no mass shootings since 1996" claim until I showed you otherwise, and after being prodded on it in every thread you finally admitted you were wrong, of course with the caveat that you were still right? Like that?
You're a compendium of pithy remarks but devoid of anything meaningful.
still itching for a fight, aren't you.
Go shoot something, tough guy. You're pithing yourself in rage.
As you stand by for any response, always at the ready. I wonder what your response time actually is? I would guess less than 1 hour.
Go shoot something, tough guy. You're pithing yourself in rage.
A reduction form 14 to one is not AS significant as a reduction form 14 to none; however, it is still a significant reduction. Because it is still significant, it speaks to the efficacy of the Australian ban.
Now hypocrisy not being a valid argument against an idea aside, the entire argument of the email is that this senator was for gun support yet he still used a gun to protect himself. Since he is a hypocrite we will do the guilt by association gig and conclude we shouldn't list nor trust those that support limiting gun rights.
If he is not really anti-gun then that whole house of cards falls down and it only becomes yet another anecdote.
We have discussed this several times and I am getting to the point where I feel I am giving you too much credit as for how intelligent you are. This is not an 'easy' concept but neither is it difficult.
Can you explain the 43 years between the 1928 mass killing and the subsequent 1971 mass killing? What laws or bans enabled that span of no mass shootings? What changed? What is to prevent another mass shooting since firearms are still available and you can kill someone with a .38 and a 10 round magazine, in fact you can kill 10 people without reloading, so it wasn't the absence of firearms.
I don't care about the email. It doesn't matter if the senator was for or against guns, he was a hypocrite and pointing out that politicians are dishonest is a wasted endeavor.Now hypocrisy not being a valid argument against an idea aside, the entire argument of the email is that this senator was for gun support yet he still used a gun to protect himself. Since he is a hypocrite we will do the guilt by association gig and conclude we shouldn't list nor trust those that support limiting gun rights.
Except that he defended himself successfully with a firearm. The rest, I agree.If he is not really anti-gun then that whole house of cards falls down and it only becomes yet another anecdote.
Like I said.We have discussed this several times and I am getting to the point where I feel I am giving you too much credit as for how intelligent you are. This is not an 'easy' concept but neither is it difficult.
Sorry I kept you waiting. I know it's very important to you that I respond.
Gave you time to clean your pants though.
We can tell how much you don't care by how you keep posting in this thread.Oh noes my e-rep is crumbling!
It's not about what you care about you megalomanical . The OP was by TSA not your racist ass. You did not make the argument and the response was to the OP. This isn't about you although you are intested in showing your ass to everyone this holiday it seems.
And you want to talk about moving the goalposts. Now you bring up pre 1970. I don't know. That is interesting to say the least/
I think that argument has merit though. The argument I would have made in your shoes from the get go would be that mass shootings are so rare relative to the time frames and populations involved that it would be impossible to make any commentary one way or another as to the efficacy. I have been waiting for a couple of days now for you to make that argument but you instead back into it from what I am guessing is a mailer.
I only wanted to point out that making the distinction from zero to one really did not posit much in your favor. I wanted to point out that you suck at picking your battles so to speak. The point still stands that there were no events for a decade following the ban and only one for all the time since. Myself, I am more interested in the larger sample sizes like the crime rates, gun accidents, deaths, crimes etc for our NATO allies. They seem to do better than we do in terms of gun policy as evidenced by them being in much better shape.
Less crime, less death, less accidents and so forth. This holds true for UK, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, etc.
That's it, ignore the points because you cannot address them. Ad hom attacks don't impress me.
So lives weren't important pre 1970? What's the statue of limitations?And you want to talk about moving the goalposts. Now you bring up pre 1970. I don't know. That is interesting to say the least/
No, I've purposely avoided it, because rare or not does not negate it's frequency if you call all other events noise. It would be casually dismissing the shootings. Instead, I wanted to focus on the "before there were many" part and see just how many and what the frequency actually was instead of just taking someone's word for it. To go 43 years without a mass murder is amazing, assuming it actually happened and someone wasn't hiding the truth. Then you have 3 or 4 of these things in a couple years, that really skewed the results. Outside of that anomaly, shootings were spaced 4 to 5 years apart, and the one in 2002 followed that trend being spaced 4 years from the Port Arthur shooting but only 2 years from the mass murder by arson.I think that argument has merit though. The argument I would have made in your shoes from the get go would be that mass shootings are so rare relative to the time frames and populations involved that it would be impossible to make any commentary one way or another as to the efficacy. I have been waiting for a couple of days now for you to make that argument but you instead back into it from what I am guessing is a mailer.
No, I feel safe in saying that the gun ban did not have that great of an effect on mass shootings, if any. Just judging by how these shooters have planned and carried out their attacks, it's not like they had guns laying around and one day decided to use them. They acquired guns for that purpose. They stocked up on ammo. You can still do both in Australia, you just need to concoct a reason. You can get illegal weapons. You're going to kill people, how legal do you need to be? There are surely people who would sell you their firearm and call it stolen for 2x what they paid for it. Surely there are still strawman purchases there. But that raises another question; how honest are they compared to us on average? How likely are they to skirt the law and sell things to people in an illegal fashion to make a profit, if they think they won't get caught?I only wanted to point out that making the distinction from zero to one really did not posit much in your favor. I wanted to point out that you suck at picking your battles so to speak. The point still stands that there were no events for a decade following the ban and only one for all the time since. Myself, I am more interested in the larger sample sizes like the crime rates, gun accidents, deaths, crimes etc for our NATO allies. They seem to do better than we do in terms of gun policy as evidenced by them being in much better shape.
I remember sitting at a cafe in Finland around 2am and there were three girls standing across the street waiting for the cross walk signal to change. It was -20 or something absurd and they just stood there, in tights, until the light changed. There wasn't a car in sight. I asked one of them about it when they entered the cafe and she said that they all regard laws in the same way, that if you don't always abide by them they are useless. That they are not to decide when and when not to obey laws. In the US people get run over for crossing a street 20 yards from an intersection. People intentionally go in and out the wrong doors. They drive off the interstate and onto the access roads on a whim, through the median. Many many people feel that laws are for other people, and they just want to sneak on through as if the machine won't know, as if they aren't part of society, that it exists around them only. Many other countries aren't like that at all. We are a self en led nation, we often don't give a damn about others despite our lip service to the contrary. In many countries, if you tell someone "hey, why don't you come over for dinner sometime?" you will probably see them that night because it's taken literally. Here's is a passing "get the away from me" said in a nicer tone. You probably won't see each other again until the next chance encounter.
Just saying we are not comparable to them, so why keep using them as a measuring stick?
However, the shootings are rare, but something else was happening at that time that's not happening now other than those shootings. I just haven't pinpointed it. It could be a statistical anomaly like how you can get 7 heads in a row with a perceived 50/50 chance each flip. You might try all day and not get 7, but then one day it might happen. It just does not make any sense that mass shootings would be affected by legal moves UNLESS we consider that a large percentage of the mass shooters were law abiding citizens prior to their romp, so perhaps they would be discouraged from attempting to acquire guns. I really doubt that though.
The crime rates are largely socioeconomically related. If gun opponents would say "deaths" instead of "gun related deaths", it would at least sound meaningful. If you get rid of anything you will lower the deaths related to it. That's a no brainer. It doesn't mean you lower crime related deaths. We should never consider suicide as a gun related death, not for accounting purposes, as it's a decision by an individual to exit the game, and they are just picking the easiest method they know.Less crime, less death, less accidents and so forth. This holds true for UK, Canada, France, Germany, Australia, etc.
Wrong...
This is his Tommy Gun:
That's funny because you rely on them so often.
i bet you wouldn't sell any of your guns even if i offer 10x the amount of cash you paid for it, and you're stupid to think the cops would believe your "i don't know" bull and let you walk free of charge. as long as you're the legal owner of the guns you should be responsible for keeping them from being accessed by ill-minded thugs, and you would also need a lawyer in the court of law if someone committed a crime with your guns tbhNo, I feel safe in saying that the gun ban did not have that great of an effect on mass shootings, if any. Just judging by how these shooters have planned and carried out their attacks, it's not like they had guns laying around and one day decided to use them. They acquired guns for that purpose. They stocked up on ammo. You can still do both in Australia, you just need to concoct a reason. You can get illegal weapons. You're going to kill people, how legal do you need to be? There are surely people who would sell you their firearm and call it stolen for 2x what they paid for it. Surely there are still strawman purchases there. But that raises another question; how honest are they compared to us on average? How likely are they to skirt the law and sell things to people in an illegal fashion to make a profit, if they think they won't get caught?
I'd sell every gun I own for just 2x what I paid. I'm pretty sure you couldn't afford any of them and I'm not sure you're legally allowed to own one.
Your other senseless yapping is pointless, since the conversation is about Australia.
Lol jacking off to your e-persona. Did you really just refer to yourself in the 3rd person while declaring e-victory? You liberals are weird.
Hey...Hi you doing Joe The Plumber...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E48QqcTOXeY
I don't think you know what I did there.
Don't worry about it.
The best vid online tbh. Maher is a genius a visionaire...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions