truth on hold Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Did you read your study? Hey joe nice catch. The AP author of the article -- chelsea carter -- yeah CARTER, as in jimmy freaking liberal icon CARTER. Yeah should have known. F#cking lib scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Hey joe nice catch. The AP author of the article -- chelsea carter -- yeah CARTER, as in jimmy freaking liberal icon CARTER. Yeah should have known. F#cking lib scum. No dipshit. It's no longer 1994. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 No dipshit. It's no longer 1994. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 But if you remove the city of Chicago, we drop all the way to number 47. What if we add in the unincorporated us territory of Puero rico? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 We had long guns in our house growing up, so I am used to them. I personally don't care if people want to own guns. All I ask is that the owner exercise proper care and control. That means not leaving loaded guns around where kids can get them, and if you insist on having an arsenal, invest in big heavy gun safe, preferably bolted to the floor, as we did, to keep them out of the hands of evildoers if your house is burgled. Regarding assault weapons - that's different. Those guns exist only for one reason: to kill people. Period. I really don't see why any private individual would need to own one. Given that people DO want to own them, then I would prefer that there be a little bit better screening process to try to reduce the number of whack jobs that end up with these things. It is ironic that it's harder to own a car (and keep it licensed and registered) than it is to own an assault weapon. Of course the BEST solution would be a trigger lock coded to the thumbprint of the licensed owner. I can't imagine any responsible gun owner having an issue with that, since it could be a theft deterrent in addition to a protection. However, people get too freaked out on both sides of the discussions. Gun people want to own as many guns as they can afford, with no strings, and anti-gun people want to take them all away. And in the meantime, nuts get guns and innocent people get killed. Freedom's not free, but it's always the innocents who pay the price isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 It's no longer 1994. What else could I say? Everyone is gay What else could I write? I don't have the right What else should I be? All apologies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) No dipshit. It's no longer 1994. Hey just one guy here using Google search. Sadly and unexpectedly the different sources and sorts are telling a similar story. But hey instead of dumping on it, why don't you take your fingers out of your ass and nose, pitch in and do your own searches? See if you can find a richer, more current data sets which tell a different story ? Or a clear and compelling reason why the information may have changed since the time this stuff was collected? And hey meazza how about you ? Got anything to offer but one word insults and smiley faces? One reason I haven't gotten to you yet like your buds Dc tom and robs gun house, is because your posts are even more lacking, impossible as that may seem. Hey speaking of those ass clowns who claim to barely notice me yet continue to reply to my posts, heck even reply to posts from others talking about me! Lol geez they've got chapped so bad when I dressed them down recently, acting like total puss bags ever since. Makes me wonder if they're really closet liberals Edited July 23, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Hey just one guy here using Google search. Sadly and unexpectedly the different sources and sorts are telling a similar story. But hey instead of dumping on it, why don't you take your fingers out of your ass and nose, pitch in and do your own searches? See if you can find a richer, more current data sets which tell a different story ? Or a clear and compelling reason why the information may have changed since the time this stuff was collected? And hey meazza how about you ? Got anything to offer but one word insults and smiley faces? One reason I haven't gotten to you yet like your buds Dc tom and robs gun house, is because your posts are even more lacking, impossible as that may seem. Hey speaking of those ass clowns who claim to barely notice me yet continue to reply to my posts, heck even reply to posts from others talking about me! Lol geez they've got chapped so bad when I dressed them down recently, acting like total puss bags. Makes me wonder if they're really closet liberals Just let it go bro... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) And hey meazza how about you ? Got anything to offer but one word insults and smiley faces? One reason I haven't gotten to you yet like your buds Dc tom and robs gun house, is because your posts are even more lacking, impossible as that may seem. Hey speaking of those ass clowns who claim to barely notice me yet continue to reply to my posts, heck even reply to posts from others talking about me! Lol geez they've got chapped so bad when I dressed them down recently, acting like total puss bags. Makes me wonder if they're really closet liberals Right chump. Just let it go bro... He's losing his mind. Edited July 23, 2012 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Right chump. He's losing his mind. He's upset about the shooting, as are the rest of us. I really think he is well intentioned on this, although I don't agree with a lot of what he is saying will fix the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 He's upset about the shooting, as are the rest of us. I really think he is well intentioned on this, although I don't agree with a lot of what he is saying will fix the problem bull ****. He acts like a !@#$ing twat and then gets pissed when people laugh at him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 ABC News is absolutely falling apart. How many here saw reference from ABC News quoting the shooter's mother stating "You have the right person"? Ridiculous. Arlene Holmes, the mother of Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes, has suggested that ABC News mischaracterized her when it reported that her initial statement to the reporter, "you have the right person," was a reference to her son. "This statement is to clarify a statement made by ABC media. I was awakened by a call from a reporter by ABC on July 20 about 5:45 in the morning. I did not know anything about a shooting in Aurora at that time," Holmes said in a statement this afternoon, read to the national press by attorney Lisa Damiani. "He asked if I was Arlene Holmes and if my son was James Holmes who lives in Aurora, Colorado. I answered yes, you have the right person. I was referring to myself." "I asked him to tell me why he was calling and he told me about a shooting in Aurora," she continues. "He asked for a comment. I told him I could not comment because I did not know if the person he was talking about was my son, and I would need to find out." In the first paragraph of its initial report on Friday, ABC News reported that it had identified the correct James Holmes because his mother "told ABC News her son was likely the alleged culprit, saying, 'You have the right person.'" If Arlene Holmes' latest statement is true, it means that she did not tell ABC News her son was likely the alleged culprit, calling into question the reporting of a network that has already been marred by one inaccuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) That makes sense, her words did seem a little odd in the context of the original story. Would have only made sense if she knew what he was up to in advance. Making her complicit. I thought she must have been some nasty looking thing too. But in these pics she looks downright presentable and decent, especially in the face of what's going on. But her son OMG what a wing nut. http://www.wptv.com/gallery/news/news_photo_gallery/james-holmes-court-photos-aurora-colorado-dark-knight-rises-shooting-suspect-in-court Only downside left keeping him around. Ever seen anyone so out of it looking? Just inject him now seriously. Before he hurts anyone else. Still don't see why anyone would consider the ABC thing an important part of the story however. The focus needs to be on the victims, caring for the scores of injured and healing support for their families, witnesses and the community. And of course doing everything we can to prevent this going forward. Edited July 23, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Slice it from different angles and the results are similar. Here's another for example: The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found. http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html So hold on ..... Wait for it ...... Here comes ...... Kaboom!!!! The people compiling the stats are no doubt Liberals!!! That's more like it. The next step is to examine the data at the next level. That means considering other factors that may effect those statistics such as cultural and demographic differences, like gang activity which IIRC has a profound impact on those numbers (if I have time later I'll try to dig up some info on that; it's been a while since I devoted any time to this issue). Then you have to consider homicide numbers in general (some people who kill with a gun would kill anyway, others wouldn't; you have to find a way to quantify it to have meaningful data). Then that must be weighed against the incidences of violence averted by guns. Comparing violent crime rates between states with strict gun laws against those with weak gun laws can also be instructive. After all that you still have to come up with a plan that will effectively address the harm in question that isn't outweighed by the damage of unintended consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) Yeah more like it alright. More like you that is, predisposing your "analysis" in an attempt to skew the data to suppOrt your desired conclusion. Guessing this construct came from an "independent" research group sponsored by the big moniedNRA. So let's examine the points, one by one: Gang activity: what if the gangs didn't have guns? Homicide substitution rates: sounds extremely vague and unquantifiable but hey maybe throw it as a curve ball anyway, see what happens; Violence averted by guns: from what I've seen a very insignificant number. And unreliable too because as Kellerman pointed out in previous analysis Posted here you don't know if the gun was the primary averting factor or better preparedness on the part of the target (a security conscioous gun owner for example may also have better alarms), eliminating the perpetrators element of surprise; State by state comparisons: probably the poorest of all measures. Guns being highly portable and state lines being undefended make it simple transport them from one state to another. Furthermore many illegal guns were originally legally purchased, then made illegal via theft from individuals and stores. Stolen caches of almost anyhing are often moved out of the areas from where they're taken.. And of course quite revealing that not a single factor you sight has the potential to move the analysis in the other direction. For example the fuzzy homicide substitution claim that some of the murders would occur without guns. What about the phenoma of induced homicide by having a gun in the home? Referencing Kellerman again partly for his use of actual figures: Research by Dr. Arthur Kellerman has shown that keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one. That is, excluding many other factors such as previous history of violence, class, race, etc., a household with a gun is 2.7 times more likely to experience a murder than a household without one, even while there was no significant increase in the risk of non-gun homicides! Let's also revisit the "gang" element you keep stressing. How are you factoring in the very real possibility of gang-induced activity from gun possession? One would imagine murders from "drive by" shootings would be sharply curtailed if the available weapon was a knife. Edited July 24, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 He's upset about the shooting, as are the rest of us. I really think he is well intentioned on this, although I don't agree with a lot of what he is saying will fix the problem AND he's losing his mind. They're not exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Let's also revisit the "gang" element you keep stressing. How are you factoring in the very real possibility of gang-induced activity from gun possession? One would imagine murders from "drive by" shootings would be sharply curtailed if the available weapon was a knife. You know here in Canada gun laws are very strict. Certainly keeping the gun violence down from gangs http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2012/07/17/19994691.html http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/colorado-shooting-victim-survived-toronto-eaton-centre-shooting-1.886613 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Reasonable levels of firepower will always be with us. Unreasonable levels of fire power should be rooted out. /topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Reasonable levels of firepower will always be with us. Unreasonable levels of fire power should be rooted out. /topic I agree but I think jtsp's response was idiotic since many gang members here get their hands on some pretty !@#$ed up weapons even as it is impossible for me to even carry a weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I agree but I think jtsp's response was idiotic since many gang members here get their hands on some pretty !@#$ed up weapons even as it is impossible for me to even carry a weapon. Carry your pistol or whatever. Gangs will always be able to get their hands on those. And there are a ton of other weapons out there (I wonder why there are so many?) that they will have as well. In any event nobody is going to walk around carrying an assault rifle for protection to out arm a potential maniac. Stop selling them. And in my communist mentality, make them illegal. They can be used for only 1 thing and that's shooting up a ton of people and creating a **** storm. Let's start the process of making them impossible to buy, and as hard to get as possible. They're too dangerous. I haven't been reading the entire back and forth but if Joe is advocating gun bans all together he's hurting the cause just as much as nut balls who say arm away with anything. It's about reasonable people coming together and saying too much is too much. Protect yourself and hunt. The vast majority of Americans do not own, and do not have a problem preventing other people from owning...assault weapons. Bring back the federal assault weapon ban and empower the ATF to wage a war on overly dangerous guns. A gun that can shoot 100 people in a minute is no less dangerous than a huge bomb. The majority of Americans can agree on these points when the discussion isn't warped into an all or nothing "guns or no guns" pitch. The "guns or no guns" pitch is exactly what the gun lobby wants. The fact of the matter is their profits will go down. People buy less guns. They can't compensate buy pushing more dangerous guns to expand the product line and selling more guns to fewer people. It is the only reasonable approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts