pBills Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 He's the Hatfield to your and Conner's McCoys. Now THAT was dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Now THAT was dumb. Pretty sure we could put it to a vote and you'd lose: Many to 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 If the facts aren't hard to find, you should try finding some. That link is nonsense. I'm not sure what exactly your problem with it is. It was one that I quickly pulled up in a search. There are a thousand other sources if you want to pursue it. If you have a problem how about you put up something to refute it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 I'm not sure what exactly your problem with it is. It was one that I quickly pulled up in a search. There are a thousand other sources if you want to pursue it. If you have a problem how about you put up something to refute it? My problem is that not only a cursory search proves it false (Australia did not "ban handguns", Aussies have never had a guaranteed right to gun ownership), but about thirty seconds of thought should convince anyone with half a brain that it's bull **** (hint: look up the definition for "statistically significant"). And I'd put up something to refute it...but I'm busy. So do a cursory search and give it thirty seconds of half-brained thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 Pretty sure we could put it to a vote and you'd lose: Many to 3. Yeah, and a vote from this board means a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 1, 2010 Share Posted July 1, 2010 My problem is that not only a cursory search proves it false (Australia did not "ban handguns", Aussies have never had a guaranteed right to gun ownership), but about thirty seconds of thought should convince anyone with half a brain that it's bull **** (hint: look up the definition for "statistically significant"). And I'd put up something to refute it...but I'm busy. So do a cursory search and give it thirty seconds of half-brained thought. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp This link starts with part 1 whereas the previous link started with part 2. You might want to start at the beginning. Based on some of your other posts I expected a little more and I'm a little dissappointed in you. First off, the article never mentioned an outright handgun ban in Australia, and secondly you pull one stat out of two full pages and declare it not statistically significant. Third, if you disagree with something or want to call it out for inaccuracy you could do so with a modicum of tact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp This link starts with part 1 whereas the previous link started with part 2. You might want to start at the beginning. Based on some of your other posts I expected a little more and I'm a little dissappointed in you. First off, the article never mentioned an outright handgun ban in Australia, and secondly you pull one stat out of two full pages and declare it not statistically significant. Third, if you disagree with something or want to call it out for inaccuracy you could do so with a modicum of tact. Again...I'm busy. But it's still bull ****. It's a complete misstatement and mis-presentation of the Australian government's own data. And I don't !@#$ing need tact. Ref. my sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrojanitor Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Yes, but we wouldn't have the problem of drugs available to school kids if we didn't have guns available in the US to be smuggled into Mexico. If we ban guns in the US, then Mexico couldn't smuggle them in, which means the drug cartels would be unarmed, which means the drug cartels would fail, and ergo, ipso facto such as...no more drugs would enter the US. Geez, do I have to explain everything to you guys? i don't know, my high school pot dealer grew it in his bedroom closet. I saw his set up once--didn't notice any armed Mexicans milling about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WisconsinBillzFan Posted July 7, 2010 Author Share Posted July 7, 2010 More fun from Obama's hometown. He organized this community alright... http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1609351110/Pol...lving-fireworks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts