Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
how about you presenting some facts to back up your argument. you seem to be pretty void on being able to do that. yet you are very vocal that others don't. time to drop the liberal hypocriscy and step up to the plate.
Already did that. Try and keep up. LOL.
The colorful graphs you peddle are not based in reality. For your domestic, American stats, you always try to mix suicide data in that skews the results against guns. Most people are not worried about suicides, they are worried about crime. All the highest crime areas in the US are product of demographics, not guns or gun laws.
Your ignorance of the world is telling. The graph showing international homocide data is mostly garbage. In Western countries like the US and most of Europe, there will be fairly accurate data. In China and more so in India and Packistan, do you honestly think after every suspicious death a CSI unit like the ones we have here are going to do a true crime investigation then report the findings to the government?
Only an ignorant fool would believe this. In Third World ****holes like India, if a husband beats his wife to death, the local police would usually do a poor job looking into it---if at all. There would usually be no arrests and nothing to report.
This is even worse in most African nations. In Camaroon, there isn't even a 911 call service, let alone even local police to call in most of the country. When roving gangs kill people in their homes or checkpoints, there is nobody in the government there to record what's going on. Idiot websites like Nationmaster list Camaroon as one the safest countries in the world.
You just wasted all that time replying to the "graphs" i posted. Great!
Only problem is, I never posted a single graph...or image. Whoops! Might want to double check what I actually did or did not say.
I joke sometimes and say you people are illiterate, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's actually true.
and you never posted a single accurate fact. sounds like you're on a rollAlready did that. Try and keep up. LOL.
The colorful graphs you peddle are not based in reality. For your domestic, American stats, you always try to mix suicide data in that skews the results against guns. Most people are not worried about suicides, they are worried about crime. All the highest crime areas in the US are product of demographics, not guns or gun laws.
Your ignorance of the world is telling. The graph showing international homocide data is mostly garbage. In Western countries like the US and most of Europe, there will be fairly accurate data. In China and more so in India and Packistan, do you honestly think after every suspicious death a CSI unit like the ones we have here are going to do a true crime investigation then report the findings to the government?
Only an ignorant fool would believe this. In Third World ****holes like India, if a husband beats his wife to death, the local police would usually do a poor job looking into it---if at all. There would usually be no arrests and nothing to report.
This is even worse in most African nations. In Camaroon, there isn't even a 911 call service, let alone even local police to call in most of the country. When roving gangs kill people in their homes or checkpoints, there is nobody in the government there to record what's going on. Idiot websites like Nationmaster list Camaroon as one the safest countries in the world.
You just wasted all that time replying to the "graphs" i posted. Great!
Only problem is, I never posted a single graph...or image. Whoops! Might want to double check what I actually did or did not say.
I joke sometimes and say you people are illiterate, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's actually true.
You just wasted all that time replying to the "graphs" i posted. Great!
Only problem is, I never posted a single graph...or image. Whoops! Might want to double check what I actually did or did not say.
I joke sometimes and say you people are illiterate, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's actually true.
Yes, I see that now--being new to this forum's format I'm not used to the small subheadings. My bad.
Looking back at what you did post, you site Austrailian gun control laws and believe they would reduce crime in America.
The demographics of America are much different than in Australia. Just because some law has some effect in one country does not mean it will have any effect in another.
Gun laws in Europe have really no correlation to the amount of crime. If gun control laws were all that, then why is there much greater crime in the UK than in Switzerland?
Look at page 77: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data...Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf
If Australia's gun control laws are going to reduce crime, then having almost the same laws should reduce crime in other countries---per the logic of the anti-gunners. Why then does Mexico have such violence when their laws are just as restrictive as Australia's?
and you never posted a single accurate fact. sounds like you're on a rollThe colorful graphs you peddle are not based in reality. For your domestic, American stats, you always try to mix suicide data in that skews the results against guns. Most people are not worried about suicides, they are worried about crime. All the highest crime areas in the US are product of demographics, not guns or gun laws.
Your ignorance of the world is telling. The graph showing international homocide data is mostly garbage. In Western countries like the US and most of Europe, there will be fairly accurate data. In China and more so in India and Packistan, do you honestly think after every suspicious death a CSI unit like the ones we have here are going to do a true crime investigation then report the findings to the government?
Only an ignorant fool would believe this. In Third World ****holes like India, if a husband beats his wife to death, the local police would usually do a poor job looking into it---if at all. There would usually be no arrests and nothing to report.
This is even worse in most African nations. In Camaroon, there isn't even a 911 call service, let alone even local police to call in most of the country. When roving gangs kill people in their homes or checkpoints, there is nobody in the government there to record what's going on. Idiot websites like Nationmaster list Camaroon as one the safest countries in the world.
You just wasted all that time replying to the "graphs" i posted. Great!
Only problem is, I never posted a single graph...or image. Whoops! Might want to double check what I actually did or did not say.
I joke sometimes and say you people are illiterate, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's actually true.
Already did that. Try and keep up. LOL.
links or its just another one of your lies
For fuck sake. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/300386-obama-s-gun-report-backfires-guns-save-lives-6.html#post7444975
It was literally two pages ago. You owe me an apology for how lazy you are, but I don't expect it.
and you never posted a single accurate fact. sounds like you're on a rollThe colorful graphs you peddle are not based in reality. For your domestic, American stats, you always try to mix suicide data in that skews the results against guns. Most people are not worried about suicides, they are worried about crime. All the highest crime areas in the US are product of demographics, not guns or gun laws.
Your ignorance of the world is telling. The graph showing international homocide data is mostly garbage. In Western countries like the US and most of Europe, there will be fairly accurate data. In China and more so in India and Packistan, do you honestly think after every suspicious death a CSI unit like the ones we have here are going to do a true crime investigation then report the findings to the government?
Only an ignorant fool would believe this. In Third World ****holes like India, if a husband beats his wife to death, the local police would usually do a poor job looking into it---if at all. There would usually be no arrests and nothing to report.
This is even worse in most African nations. In Camaroon, there isn't even a 911 call service, let alone even local police to call in most of the country. When roving gangs kill people in their homes or checkpoints, there is nobody in the government there to record what's going on. Idiot websites like Nationmaster list Camaroon as one the safest countries in the world.
You just wasted all that time replying to the "graphs" i posted. Great!
Only problem is, I never posted a single graph...or image. Whoops! Might want to double check what I actually did or did not say.
I joke sometimes and say you people are illiterate, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's actually true.
links or its just another one of your lies
For fuck sake. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/300386-obama-s-gun-report-backfires-guns-save-lives-6.html#post7444975
It was literally two pages ago. You owe me an apology for how lazy you are, but I don't expect it.
nice opinion piece.
Obama ordered a study on gun violence, and he got one, just not the one he may have been wanting. The new study is out and the conclusion is that there are more benefits to concealed and open carry than there are negative side effects.
Read at Obama's Gun Report Backfires--Guns Save Lives -
This opinion piece is already faulty:
In my opinion, the report also highlights the area of the gun debate that is going largely unanswered. The report further confirms that most gun deaths are at the hands of those who used the gun for suicidenot homicide. Suicide by guns outweighs the amount of deaths caused by violent crimes by 61%. This is not a gun issue; this is a mental health issue, but the President and friends dont want to focus on that side of things.
That's a flat out lie.
My statement was that Australia was able to pass legislation that had a direct impact on the number of mass shootings in that country.
You just wasted all that time replying to the "graphs" i posted. Great!
Only problem is, I never posted a single graph...or image. Whoops! Might want to double check what I actually did or did not say.
I joke sometimes and say you people are illiterate, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's actually true.
Yes, I see that now--being new to this forum's format I'm not used to the small subheadings. My bad.
Looking back at what you did post, you site Austrailian gun control laws and believe they would reduce crime in America.
The demographics of America are much different than in Australia. Just because some law has some effect in one country does not mean it will have any effect in another.
Gun laws in Europe have really no correlation to the amount of crime. If gun control laws were all that, then why is there much greater crime in the UK than in Switzerland?
Look at page 77: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data...Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf
If Australia's gun control laws are going to reduce crime, then having almost the same laws should reduce crime in other countries---per the logic of the anti-gunners. Why then does Mexico have such violence when their laws are just as restrictive as Australia's?
My statement was that Australia was able to pass legislation that had a direct impact on the number of mass shootings in that country.
My statement was that Australia was able to pass legislation that had a direct impact on the number of mass shootings in that country.
Do you have any great gun control ideas that will reduce crime in Mexico?
I'd bet you don't.
My statement was that Australia was able to pass legislation that had a direct impact on the number of mass shootings in that country.
Do you have any great gun control ideas that will reduce crime in Mexico?
I'd bet you don't.
Yes, I see that now--being new to this forum's format I'm not used to the small subheadings. My bad.
Looking back at what you did post, you site Austrailian gun control laws and believe they would reduce crime in America.
The demographics of America are much different than in Australia. Just because some law has some effect in one country does not mean it will have any effect in another.
Gun laws in Europe have really no correlation to the amount of crime. If gun control laws were all that, then why is there much greater crime in the UK than in Switzerland?
Look at page 77: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data...Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf
If Australia's gun control laws are going to reduce crime, then having almost the same laws should reduce crime in other countries---per the logic of the anti-gunners. Why then does Mexico have such violence when their laws are just as restrictive as Australia's?
My statement was that Australia was able to pass legislation that had a direct impact on the number of mass shootings in that country.
There you go again with attempting to filter your information by using terms like mass ‘shootings’ rather than just looking at the mass killing.
The fact is that there are still mass killings going on in Australia. There have been at least 3 separate mass killings through arson rather than shootings in the last decade. They are still having people killed through mass killings. Further, as has already been pointed out to you, mass killings are a meaningless metric. Why were there no mass killings between 1977 and 1986? There was no weapons ban then. Taking rare occurrences and using that to justify nationwide law THAT DOES NOT REDUCE HOMICIDE RATES is illogical. Mass shootings do not occur at a rate that makes statistical analysis of them meaningful.
My statement was that Australia was able to pass legislation that had a direct impact on the number of mass shootings in that country.
Do you have any great gun control ideas that will reduce crime in Mexico?
I'd bet you don't.
I'll take it by moving the goal posts to the problems of a 3rd world country you have no rational response to what my original statement was. Got it.
Looks like cherry picking from the report
Have the whole report so that we can see its findings? Should be interesting
My statement was that Australia was able to pass legislation that had a direct impact on the number of mass shootings in that country.
There you go again with attempting to filter your information by using terms like mass shootings rather than just looking at the mass killing.
The fact is that there are still mass killings going on in Australia. There have been at least 3 separate mass killings through arson rather than shootings in the last decade. They are still having people killed through mass killings. Further, as has already been pointed out to you, mass killings are a meaningless metric. Why were there no mass killings between 1977 and 1986? There was no weapons ban then. Taking rare occurrences and using that to justify nationwide law THAT DOES NOT REDUCE HOMICIDE RATES is illogical. Mass shootings do not occur at a rate that makes statistical analysis of them meaningful.
LOL, you sure do try hard. I'll give you that. Since you felt the need to butt in to the conversation I was having with someone else, you would have noticed that person made a comment that legislation has never been shown to have an impact on mass shootings. I was responding to show that indeed does have an impact.
But please keep going on your tirade. It's cute.
There you go again with attempting to filter your information by using terms like mass shootings rather than just looking at the mass killing.
The fact is that there are still mass killings going on in Australia. There have been at least 3 separate mass killings through arson rather than shootings in the last decade. They are still having people killed through mass killings. Further, as has already been pointed out to you, mass killings are a meaningless metric. Why were there no mass killings between 1977 and 1986? There was no weapons ban then. Taking rare occurrences and using that to justify nationwide law THAT DOES NOT REDUCE HOMICIDE RATES is illogical. Mass shootings do not occur at a rate that makes statistical analysis of them meaningful.
LOL, you sure do try hard. I'll give you that. Since you felt the need to butt in to the conversation I was having with someone else, you would have noticed that person made a comment that legislation has never been shown to have an impact on mass shootings. I was responding to show that indeed does have an impact.
But please keep going on your tirade. It's cute.
I will because each and every time you ignore the data given, refuse to post actual points and refuse to post counter data, it reveals how hollow and asinine your arguments already are. Dont fret; I have no real intention of actually debating you as it has been shown you are incapable of that level of discourse. Others are reading though and it is obvious from the outset that you are blinding yourself to anything that does not support your assertion.
Never mind that you have refused to address the points, never mind that you have now moved the goalposts no less than 3 times and never mind that even when you did I STILL brought something to the table that shows your argument is asinine, I understand that you cannot critically think about those things that are counter to your already reached conclusion.
It is for the others here that I tear down your arguments as they have noticed and commented.
If you ever actually wanted to address the points it would be refreshing but I doubt that such will happen.
Did anyone read this link. Gawd its like a strawman factory over there.
A recent study supervised by the CDC and carried out by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council found that individuals involved in violent crimes who defended themselves with a gun were far less likely to be injured than those who were not carrying a firearm.
Wait, so hold on. If a person is attacked...and they have a gun for defense...they are LESS likely to get hurt. Hold on hold on....If you have a gun you mean that someone wont ignore it and attack anyway?
Bwahahaa...These ppl watch too much Walking Dead because Zombies are the only bunch that fights you with a gun.
Again, something that NO ONE OPPOSES but for some reason they say the obvious then attempt to throw it in Obamas face like he said ANYTHING about it. lol
Did anyone read this link. Gawd its like a strawman factory over there.
A recent study supervised by the CDC and carried out by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council found that individuals involved in violent crimes who defended themselves with a gun were far less likely to be injured than those who were not carrying a firearm.
Wait, so hold on. If a person is attacked...and they have a gun for defense...they are LESS likely to get hurt. Hold on hold on....If you have a gun you mean that someone wont ignore it and attack anyway?
Bwahahaa...These ppl watch too much Walking Dead because Zombies are the only bunch that fights you with a gun.
Again, something that NO ONE OPPOSES but for some reason they say the obvious then attempt to throw it in Obamas face like he said ANYTHING about it. lol
Youre an idiot. The poi t is those people had guns, so they were less likely to be harmed, a nobrainer i know, so the question is, why do you want people to be less armed, and therefore more,likely to be harmed?
