Holy crap. I'd never heard this before and your post sent me down a google rabbit hole. This is freaking amazing.
Please tell me you watched the new Cosmos series, episode 7 called the "Clean Room" tells us about a hero scientist who would not stop warning us of lead and its dangers. Mr Patterson is a hero.
Just like "I need a gun to protect myself" and "an armed society is a polite society", and all the other lies gun nuts tell themselves?
Strawman aside, Americans believe in self defense as a human right and have legal provisions to carry in most states, concealed or open. The stats show these people typically do better than those in gun free areas such as Chicago and Washington DC.
What's sad is the hoplophobes that push their anti gun agenda claim their arguments for banning/confiscating guns are strong. I wonder if their arguments are so strong why do they then have to prop them up with lies?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
And the 11 in the decade before the ban represents a weekend in the summer in Washinton DC.
Point being the article you linked to is a farce. But I suppose it's easier to believe a lie when it's convenient.
Can't you just look at it in a macro sense instead of nitpicking?
America has much higher gun violence rates than it's allies and other developed nations. You can't argue this.
America has the most liberal gun laws compared to said nations.
Can't you put two and two together and realize that if the end goal is safer society, then gun laws similar to the other nations needs to be instituted and the 2nd amendment amended?
^ It's not just an issue of the number of guns in the US but also an issue of the US 'gun culture'.
Of course it's possible to round up most of the guns in the US like the Australians did. However, there would be a great deal more push-back in the US likely to the point of armed resistance in some cases. Also, a great deal of other civil liberties would have to be bruised (if not broken) to actually make it work.
The only solution, IMO, is to change the mentality or the gun culture in the US but that takes a lot of time and only happens in increments. It has to start with small steps like banning certain types of weapons, more stringent background checks, psych profiles, etc. As the gun culture changes you take the next logical steps. In the meantime, I think we can expect more mass shootings followed by more hyperbole and vitriol from both sides.
If a bunch of murdered kindergarteners doesn't inspire Americans and American political leaders to do something, nothing will.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
Strawman aside, Americans believe in self defense as a human right and have legal provisions to carry in most states, concealed or open. The stats show these people typically do better than those in gun free areas such as Chicago and Washington DC.
What's sad is the hoplophobes that push their anti gun agenda claim their arguments for banning/confiscating guns are strong. I wonder if their arguments are so strong why do they then have to prop them up with lies?
Back handed insults are always best when having a discussion.
I haven't heard this argument before but increased spiritualism (only christian mind you) may be the answer to the mass shooting problem in the states....
I haven't heard this argument before but increased spiritualism (only christian mind you) may be the answer to the mass shooting problem in the states....
pffffffhahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
murica
Hey Bill, Europe has 4 times as many Nililists as the USA.
The Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
I haven't heard this argument before but increased spiritualism (only christian mind you) may be the answer to the mass shooting problem in the states....
Strawman aside, Americans believe in self defense as a human right and have legal provisions to carry in most states, concealed or open. The stats show these people typically do better than those in gun free areas such as Chicago and Washington DC.
What's sad is the hoplophobes that push their anti gun agenda claim their arguments for banning/confiscating guns are strong. I wonder if their arguments are so strong why do they then have to prop them up with lies?
Ha ha ha. I had to look this one up. It's pretty clever. Almost as clever as saying Chicago and Washington are "gun free areas".
October 2002, Monash University: 2 dead, 5 injured.
April 2011, Hectorville siege: 3 dead, 3 injured.
September 2014, Hunt murders: 5 dead.
December 2014, Sydney hostage crisis: 3 dead, 5 injured.
Sydney, Perth and Melbourne all have new special task forces to try and limit the amount of handgun crime committed by gangs in their cities.
That Slate article was from 2012, meaning only Monash University and Hectorville had happened. With both of those there were less than 5 people that were killed.
While there is no hard and fast definition of a "massacre" it would be reasonable to state that it would be 5 or more people killed. Which would mean there has been one since Port Arthur.
For someone who's putting their eggs in the "check your facts" basket, c'mon man. Did you really think that this entire board would miss the print date of the Slate article? Obviously you didn't miss it, as the time the article was written is a pretty important fact when researching dates.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
That Slate article was from 2012, meaning only Monash University and Hectorville had happened. With both of those there were less than 5 people that were killed.
While there is no hard and fast definition of a "massacre" it would be reasonable to state that it would be 5 or more people killed. Which would mean there has been one since Port Arthur.
For someone who's putting their eggs in the "check your facts" basket, c'mon man. Did you really think that this entire board would miss the print date of the Slate article? Obviously you didn't miss it, as the time the article was written is a pretty important fact when researching dates.
So why present three year old data if it's no longer factual?
The article itself talks about mass shootings not killings. As in 3 or more people shot. So yes, those all qualify. That's the hard and fast definition. If you want to move the goalposts to killings and not shootings that's up to you but flies in the face of what the article was talking about. However wrong they may be.
Yup, I made the mistake of assuming the entire board wouldn't check the date. I also made the mistake of assuming the entire board wouldn't spend ten seconds on google to research slates claims for themselves.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
