Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Bob Costas
()
Date: December 03, 2012 12:24PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/jovan-belcher-kansas-city-chiefs-murder-suicide-tragedy-girlfriend-self-leave-orphan-daughter-why-still-playing-sunday-120112
Y'alls can say what you want all up in here but...if Belcher doesn't own a guy, he and his girlfriend are alive today.
Y'alls can say what you want all up in here but...if Belcher doesn't own a guy, he and his girlfriend are alive today.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
amen to that
()
Date: December 03, 2012 12:35PM
True enough. I heard they ate with plastic utensils and carved their Thanksgiving bird with a rock. (not a rock that could be used to bludgeon someone to death though).
Like I always say, if Cain didn't have a gun, Abel would have lived!
Like I always say, if Cain didn't have a gun, Abel would have lived!
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Tiger Woods
()
Date: December 03, 2012 12:49PM
If I hadn't owned a golf club that crazy bitch I was married to wouldn't have beaten me half to death with it.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Lt Col Obvious
()
Date: December 03, 2012 12:52PM
amen to that Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True enough. I heard they ate with plastic
> utensils and carved their Thanksgiving bird with a
> rock. (not a rock that could be used to bludgeon
> someone to death though).
It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat or stab someone to death than it does to pull a trigger.
Guns making killin' easy.
-------------------------------------------------------
> True enough. I heard they ate with plastic
> utensils and carved their Thanksgiving bird with a
> rock. (not a rock that could be used to bludgeon
> someone to death though).
It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat or stab someone to death than it does to pull a trigger.
Guns making killin' easy.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
13th Amendment
()
Date: December 03, 2012 12:52PM
Bob Costas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if Belcher doesn't own a guy, he and his
> girlfriend are alive today.
Belcher was a slave owner?
-------------------------------------------------------
> if Belcher doesn't own a guy, he and his
> girlfriend are alive today.
Belcher was a slave owner?
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
reality sets in
()
Date: December 03, 2012 12:56PM
Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> amen to that Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > True enough. I heard they ate with plastic
> > utensils and carved their Thanksgiving bird with
> a
> > rock. (not a rock that could be used to
> bludgeon
> > someone to death though).
>
> It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat or stab
> someone to death than it does to pull a trigger.
>
> Guns making killin' easy.
Last week: http://news.yahoo.com/police-wyo-murder-suicide-happened-during-class-235147631.html
Besidese, are you saying that an NFL athlete would have a hard time beating someone to death with a baseball bat or similar blunt object?
If you don't like firarms, start a movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
-------------------------------------------------------
> amen to that Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > True enough. I heard they ate with plastic
> > utensils and carved their Thanksgiving bird with
> a
> > rock. (not a rock that could be used to
> bludgeon
> > someone to death though).
>
> It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat or stab
> someone to death than it does to pull a trigger.
>
> Guns making killin' easy.
Last week: http://news.yahoo.com/police-wyo-murder-suicide-happened-during-class-235147631.html
Besidese, are you saying that an NFL athlete would have a hard time beating someone to death with a baseball bat or similar blunt object?
If you don't like firarms, start a movement to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
O.J.
()
Date: December 03, 2012 12:56PM
Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> amen to that Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > True enough. I heard they ate with plastic
> > utensils and carved their Thanksgiving bird with
> a
> > rock. (not a rock that could be used to
> bludgeon
> > someone to death though).
>
> It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat or stab
> someone to death than it does to pull a trigger.
>
> Guns making killin' easy.
Tell me about it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> amen to that Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > True enough. I heard they ate with plastic
> > utensils and carved their Thanksgiving bird with
> a
> > rock. (not a rock that could be used to
> bludgeon
> > someone to death though).
>
> It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat or stab
> someone to death than it does to pull a trigger.
>
> Guns making killin' easy.
Tell me about it.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Leftist Gorilla
()
Date: December 03, 2012 12:57PM
reality sets in Wrote:
> If you don't like firarms, start a movement to
> repeal the 2nd Amendment.
I have and soon we'll be pulling guns from warm, alive hands.
> If you don't like firarms, start a movement to
> repeal the 2nd Amendment.
I have and soon we'll be pulling guns from warm, alive hands.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Lt Col Obvious
()
Date: December 03, 2012 01:02PM
reality sets in Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Last week:
> http://news.yahoo.com/police-wyo-murder-suicide-ha
> ppened-during-class-235147631.html
>
> Besidese, are you saying that an NFL athlete would
> have a hard time beating someone to death with a
> baseball bat or similar blunt object?
Really?
Are you debating the effort required to murder via gun/knife/beating?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Last week:
> http://news.yahoo.com/police-wyo-murder-suicide-ha
> ppened-during-class-235147631.html
>
> Besidese, are you saying that an NFL athlete would
> have a hard time beating someone to death with a
> baseball bat or similar blunt object?
Really?
Are you debating the effort required to murder via gun/knife/beating?
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
James Madison
()
Date: December 03, 2012 01:03PM
reality sets in Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > amen to that Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > True enough. I heard they ate with plastic
> > > utensils and carved their Thanksgiving bird
> with
> > a
> > > rock. (not a rock that could be used to
> > bludgeon
> > > someone to death though).
> >
> > It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat or
> stab
> > someone to death than it does to pull a
> trigger.
> >
> > Guns making killin' easy.
>
>
>
> If you don't like firarms, start a movement to
> repeal the 2nd Amendment.
LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Who's going to write the next one? Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > amen to that Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > True enough. I heard they ate with plastic
> > > utensils and carved their Thanksgiving bird
> with
> > a
> > > rock. (not a rock that could be used to
> > bludgeon
> > > someone to death though).
> >
> > It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat or
> stab
> > someone to death than it does to pull a
> trigger.
> >
> > Guns making killin' easy.
>
>
>
> If you don't like firarms, start a movement to
> repeal the 2nd Amendment.
LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Who's going to write the next one? Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton?
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
nope
()
Date: December 03, 2012 01:03PM
Leftist Gorilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> reality sets in Wrote:
>
> > If you don't like firarms, start a movement to
> > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
>
> I have and soon we'll be pulling guns from warm,
> alive hands.
LOL. It seems to be catching on. I see all those Congressional hearings taking place on it. LOL.
-------------------------------------------------------
> reality sets in Wrote:
>
> > If you don't like firarms, start a movement to
> > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
>
> I have and soon we'll be pulling guns from warm,
> alive hands.
LOL. It seems to be catching on. I see all those Congressional hearings taking place on it. LOL.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
reality sets in
()
Date: December 03, 2012 01:09PM
Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> reality sets in Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Last week:
> >
> http://news.yahoo.com/police-wyo-murder-suicide-ha
>
> > ppened-during-class-235147631.html
> >
> > Besidese, are you saying that an NFL athlete
> would
> > have a hard time beating someone to death with
> a
> > baseball bat or similar blunt object?
>
> Really?
>
> Are you debating the effort required to murder via
> gun/knife/beating?
I am pointing out that you are devoid of common sense. A single blow from a man of Belcher's size would have ended her life. Very little effort involved.
-------------------------------------------------------
> reality sets in Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Last week:
> >
> http://news.yahoo.com/police-wyo-murder-suicide-ha
>
> > ppened-during-class-235147631.html
> >
> > Besidese, are you saying that an NFL athlete
> would
> > have a hard time beating someone to death with
> a
> > baseball bat or similar blunt object?
>
> Really?
>
> Are you debating the effort required to murder via
> gun/knife/beating?
I am pointing out that you are devoid of common sense. A single blow from a man of Belcher's size would have ended her life. Very little effort involved.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
not true
()
Date: December 03, 2012 01:11PM
James Madison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention to
> repeal the 2nd Amendment.
No it doesn't. You shouldn't be blaspheming President Madison's name with your lack of understanding of Constitutional Law.
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention to
> repeal the 2nd Amendment.
No it doesn't. You shouldn't be blaspheming President Madison's name with your lack of understanding of Constitutional Law.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
????
()
Date: December 03, 2012 01:51PM
not true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James Madison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention
> to
> > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
>
> No it doesn't. You shouldn't be blaspheming
> President Madison's name with your lack of
> understanding of Constitutional Law.
If you are correct why doesn't the Violence Policy Center have that at top of their agenda?
-------------------------------------------------------
> James Madison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention
> to
> > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
>
> No it doesn't. You shouldn't be blaspheming
> President Madison's name with your lack of
> understanding of Constitutional Law.
If you are correct why doesn't the Violence Policy Center have that at top of their agenda?
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Leftist Gorilla
()
Date: December 03, 2012 03:01PM
James Madison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> reality sets in Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > amen to that Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > True enough. I heard they ate with plastic
> > > > utensils and carved their Thanksgiving bird
> > with
> > > a
> > > > rock. (not a rock that could be used to
> > > bludgeon
> > > > someone to death though).
> > >
> > > It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat or
> > stab
> > > someone to death than it does to pull a
> > trigger.
> > >
> > > Guns making killin' easy.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you don't like firarms, start a movement to
> > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
>
> LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention to
> repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> Who's going to write the next one? Joe Biden or
> Hillary Clinton?
Oh...I'm aware of "what it will take". I've been working on this since before you were born. You go ahead and keep screaming and reloading...while you still can. Once the 2nd Amendment is repealed (and it won't be tomorrow), you'll be gunless, silent and still...dick-less.
-------------------------------------------------------
> reality sets in Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > amen to that Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > True enough. I heard they ate with plastic
> > > > utensils and carved their Thanksgiving bird
> > with
> > > a
> > > > rock. (not a rock that could be used to
> > > bludgeon
> > > > someone to death though).
> > >
> > > It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat or
> > stab
> > > someone to death than it does to pull a
> > trigger.
> > >
> > > Guns making killin' easy.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you don't like firarms, start a movement to
> > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
>
> LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention to
> repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> Who's going to write the next one? Joe Biden or
> Hillary Clinton?
Oh...I'm aware of "what it will take". I've been working on this since before you were born. You go ahead and keep screaming and reloading...while you still can. Once the 2nd Amendment is repealed (and it won't be tomorrow), you'll be gunless, silent and still...dick-less.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
stan hansen
()
Date: December 03, 2012 03:01PM
Fuck Costas and the horse he rode in on. I wager that prick lives in a secure building or gated community. I live in the real world you stinking liberal and in my world you need a gun for protection. I dont have Geeves stopping the thugs from making off with my wide screen nor do I have Bubba riding around in a security car making sure strangers stay strangers.
Unless you want to provide me with a 24 hour armed guard than GTFO.
Unless you want to provide me with a 24 hour armed guard than GTFO.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
ffx con
()
Date: December 03, 2012 03:13PM
Costas reminds me of that fat pig rosie odonnell. She opened her big mouth saying no one needs to own a gun. Yet she had a private armed bodyguard. Typical loud mouth liberals live in a fantasy world where everyone gets along. She was also a shill for Kmart at one time when they were the biggest seller of guns in the U S.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Leftist Gorilla
()
Date: December 03, 2012 03:23PM
ffx con Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Costas reminds me of that fat pig rosie odonnell.
> She opened her big mouth saying no one needs to
> own a gun. Yet she had a private armed bodyguard.
> Typical loud mouth liberals live in a fantasy
> world where everyone gets along. She was also a
> shill for Kmart at one time when they were the
> biggest seller of guns in the U S.
I see...so, the ONLY course of action when you don't "get along" with someone is to pull a gun and shoot them dead? Ok, I got it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Costas reminds me of that fat pig rosie odonnell.
> She opened her big mouth saying no one needs to
> own a gun. Yet she had a private armed bodyguard.
> Typical loud mouth liberals live in a fantasy
> world where everyone gets along. She was also a
> shill for Kmart at one time when they were the
> biggest seller of guns in the U S.
I see...so, the ONLY course of action when you don't "get along" with someone is to pull a gun and shoot them dead? Ok, I got it.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
James Madison
()
Date: December 03, 2012 03:33PM
Leftist Gorilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James Madison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > reality sets in Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > amen to that Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > True enough. I heard they ate with
> plastic
> > > > > utensils and carved their Thanksgiving
> bird
> > > with
> > > > a
> > > > > rock. (not a rock that could be used to
> > > > bludgeon
> > > > > someone to death though).
> > > >
> > > > It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat
> or
> > > stab
> > > > someone to death than it does to pull a
> > > trigger.
> > > >
> > > > Guns making killin' easy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you don't like firarms, start a movement
> to
> > > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> >
> > LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention
> to
> > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> > Who's going to write the next one? Joe Biden or
> > Hillary Clinton?
>
> Oh...I'm aware of "what it will take". I've been
> working on this since before you were born. You go
> ahead and keep screaming and reloading...while you
> still can. Once the 2nd Amendment is repealed (and
> it won't be tomorrow), you'll be gunless, silent
> and still...dick-less.
What will it take? Been working on this since 1948? Oh yeah...
The rest of your drivel isn't worth responding to.
-------------------------------------------------------
> James Madison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > reality sets in Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > amen to that Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > True enough. I heard they ate with
> plastic
> > > > > utensils and carved their Thanksgiving
> bird
> > > with
> > > > a
> > > > > rock. (not a rock that could be used to
> > > > bludgeon
> > > > > someone to death though).
> > > >
> > > > It takes A LOT more effort/intent to beat
> or
> > > stab
> > > > someone to death than it does to pull a
> > > trigger.
> > > >
> > > > Guns making killin' easy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you don't like firarms, start a movement
> to
> > > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> >
> > LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention
> to
> > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> > Who's going to write the next one? Joe Biden or
> > Hillary Clinton?
>
> Oh...I'm aware of "what it will take". I've been
> working on this since before you were born. You go
> ahead and keep screaming and reloading...while you
> still can. Once the 2nd Amendment is repealed (and
> it won't be tomorrow), you'll be gunless, silent
> and still...dick-less.
What will it take? Been working on this since 1948? Oh yeah...
The rest of your drivel isn't worth responding to.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Archie Bunker
()
Date: December 03, 2012 04:06PM
Bob Costas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Y'alls can say what you want all up in here
> but...if Belcher doesn't own a guy, he and his
> girlfriend are alive today.
Gloria: Daddy, did you know that sixty percent of the people murdered in this country in the last ten years were killed by guns?
Archie: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Y'alls can say what you want all up in here
> but...if Belcher doesn't own a guy, he and his
> girlfriend are alive today.
Gloria: Daddy, did you know that sixty percent of the people murdered in this country in the last ten years were killed by guns?
Archie: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Lt Col Obvious
()
Date: December 03, 2012 04:23PM
http://www.livescience.com/1216-homicide-rates-higher-states-guns-home.html
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2012 04:24PM by Lt Col Obvious.
Attachments:
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/03/2012 04:24PM by Lt Col Obvious.
Attachments:
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
you suck
()
Date: December 03, 2012 04:50PM
Leftist Gorilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see...so, the ONLY course of action when you
> don't "get along" with someone is to pull a gun
> and shoot them dead? Ok, I got it.
Thugs live off pussies like you who think well if I just give them my wallet they wont harm me.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see...so, the ONLY course of action when you
> don't "get along" with someone is to pull a gun
> and shoot them dead? Ok, I got it.
Thugs live off pussies like you who think well if I just give them my wallet they wont harm me.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
HeardItBefore
()
Date: December 03, 2012 05:04PM
Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.livescience.com/1216-homicide-rates-hig
> her-states-guns-home.html
CDC: Full of shit as usual.
http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/9485/how-your-tax-dollars-demonize-your-guns/
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.livescience.com/1216-homicide-rates-hig
> her-states-guns-home.html
CDC: Full of shit as usual.
http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/9485/how-your-tax-dollars-demonize-your-guns/
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
HeardItBefore
()
Date: December 03, 2012 05:06PM
Forgot to mention. If you want to have some fun, Google CDC+Zombies
Seems like they are in need of some things to do.
Seems like they are in need of some things to do.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
496
()
Date: December 03, 2012 05:39PM
Fuck Whitlock. He is a sensationalist.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Lt Col Obvious
()
Date: December 03, 2012 05:47PM
HeardItBefore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://www.livescience.com/1216-homicide-rates-hig
>
> > her-states-guns-home.html
>
> CDC: Full of shit as usual.
>
> http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/9485/how-
> your-tax-dollars-demonize-your-guns/
That NRA screed does not in any way address the study I cite.
Why did you post it here?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> http://www.livescience.com/1216-homicide-rates-hig
>
> > her-states-guns-home.html
>
> CDC: Full of shit as usual.
>
> http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/9485/how-
> your-tax-dollars-demonize-your-guns/
That NRA screed does not in any way address the study I cite.
Why did you post it here?
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
HeardItBefore
()
Date: December 03, 2012 06:09PM
Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HeardItBefore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> >
> http://www.livescience.com/1216-homicide-rates-hig
>
> >
> > > her-states-guns-home.html
> >
> > CDC: Full of shit as usual.
> >
> >
> http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/9485/how-
>
> > your-tax-dollars-demonize-your-guns/
>
> That NRA screed does not in any way address the
> study I cite.
>
> Why did you post it here?
From your own link:
"The survey is part of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. They combined homicide deaths over a three-year period, from 2001 to 2003, for each state."
The CDC has been pushing a liberal political agenda for many years and my tax dollars are paying for it. "Screed"? No, just the simple truth.
-------------------------------------------------------
> HeardItBefore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> >
> http://www.livescience.com/1216-homicide-rates-hig
>
> >
> > > her-states-guns-home.html
> >
> > CDC: Full of shit as usual.
> >
> >
> http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/9485/how-
>
> > your-tax-dollars-demonize-your-guns/
>
> That NRA screed does not in any way address the
> study I cite.
>
> Why did you post it here?
From your own link:
"The survey is part of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. They combined homicide deaths over a three-year period, from 2001 to 2003, for each state."
The CDC has been pushing a liberal political agenda for many years and my tax dollars are paying for it. "Screed"? No, just the simple truth.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Leftist Gorilla
()
Date: December 03, 2012 07:04PM
you suck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leftist Gorilla Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I see...so, the ONLY course of action when you
> > don't "get along" with someone is to pull a gun
> > and shoot them dead? Ok, I got it.
>
> Thugs live off pussies like you who think well if
> I just give them my wallet they wont harm me.
So, in your scenario here, I'm walking down the street minding my own business. I round a corner or pass other natural cover when all of the sudden some nappy-headed thug jumps out holding a gun on me. He got the drop on me, right? If he sees me as so much as twitch for my piece, he's going to smoke me, right? Because he ALREADY HAS HIS GUN OUT, RIGHT? How does a gun help me here?
Maybe you heard about the gun owner whose daughter went to stay at a friend's house for the night? Then in the middle of the night, she rememebered that she left her jacket at home. So, she and her friend snuck out to go back to her house to get the jacket. They "break-in" to her own house. Her Dad hears the ruckuss, grabs his smokewagon and goes to investigate. The daughter and her friend hear the Dad coming down the hall and try to hide in the closet. The Dad, certain in the dark that he has trapped an intruder in his home because hey, it can't be the daughter because she's over at her friend's house, right?...throws open the closet door and unloads his clip into his daughter and her friend, killing them. Guns in the hands of private citizens kill far more innocent people than they "save" and there's nothing that gun advocates can say against that fact.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Leftist Gorilla Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I see...so, the ONLY course of action when you
> > don't "get along" with someone is to pull a gun
> > and shoot them dead? Ok, I got it.
>
> Thugs live off pussies like you who think well if
> I just give them my wallet they wont harm me.
So, in your scenario here, I'm walking down the street minding my own business. I round a corner or pass other natural cover when all of the sudden some nappy-headed thug jumps out holding a gun on me. He got the drop on me, right? If he sees me as so much as twitch for my piece, he's going to smoke me, right? Because he ALREADY HAS HIS GUN OUT, RIGHT? How does a gun help me here?
Maybe you heard about the gun owner whose daughter went to stay at a friend's house for the night? Then in the middle of the night, she rememebered that she left her jacket at home. So, she and her friend snuck out to go back to her house to get the jacket. They "break-in" to her own house. Her Dad hears the ruckuss, grabs his smokewagon and goes to investigate. The daughter and her friend hear the Dad coming down the hall and try to hide in the closet. The Dad, certain in the dark that he has trapped an intruder in his home because hey, it can't be the daughter because she's over at her friend's house, right?...throws open the closet door and unloads his clip into his daughter and her friend, killing them. Guns in the hands of private citizens kill far more innocent people than they "save" and there's nothing that gun advocates can say against that fact.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
DOTF
()
Date: December 03, 2012 08:00PM
Leftist Gorilla Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you suck Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Leftist Gorilla Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I see...so, the ONLY course of action when
> you
> > > don't "get along" with someone is to pull a
> gun
> > > and shoot them dead? Ok, I got it.
> >
> > Thugs live off pussies like you who think well
> if
> > I just give them my wallet they wont harm me.
>
> So, in your scenario here, I'm walking down the
> street minding my own business. I round a corner
> or pass other natural cover when all of the sudden
> some nappy-headed thug jumps out holding a gun on
> me. He got the drop on me, right? If he sees me as
> so much as twitch for my piece, he's going to
> smoke me, right? Because he ALREADY HAS HIS GUN
> OUT, RIGHT? How does a gun help me here?
>
> Maybe you heard about the gun owner whose daughter
> went to stay at a friend's house for the night?
> Then in the middle of the night, she rememebered
> that she left her jacket at home. So, she and her
> friend snuck out to go back to her house to get
> the jacket. They "break-in" to her own house. Her
> Dad hears the ruckuss, grabs his smokewagon and
> goes to investigate. The daughter and her friend
> hear the Dad coming down the hall and try to hide
> in the closet. The Dad, certain in the dark that
> he has trapped an intruder in his home because
> hey, it can't be the daughter because she's over
> at her friend's house, right?...throws open the
> closet door and unloads his clip into his daughter
> and her friend, killing them. Guns in the hands of
> private citizens kill far more innocent people
> than they "save" and there's nothing that gun
> advocates can say against that fact.
Bullshit.
-------------------------------------------------------
> you suck Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Leftist Gorilla Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I see...so, the ONLY course of action when
> you
> > > don't "get along" with someone is to pull a
> gun
> > > and shoot them dead? Ok, I got it.
> >
> > Thugs live off pussies like you who think well
> if
> > I just give them my wallet they wont harm me.
>
> So, in your scenario here, I'm walking down the
> street minding my own business. I round a corner
> or pass other natural cover when all of the sudden
> some nappy-headed thug jumps out holding a gun on
> me. He got the drop on me, right? If he sees me as
> so much as twitch for my piece, he's going to
> smoke me, right? Because he ALREADY HAS HIS GUN
> OUT, RIGHT? How does a gun help me here?
>
> Maybe you heard about the gun owner whose daughter
> went to stay at a friend's house for the night?
> Then in the middle of the night, she rememebered
> that she left her jacket at home. So, she and her
> friend snuck out to go back to her house to get
> the jacket. They "break-in" to her own house. Her
> Dad hears the ruckuss, grabs his smokewagon and
> goes to investigate. The daughter and her friend
> hear the Dad coming down the hall and try to hide
> in the closet. The Dad, certain in the dark that
> he has trapped an intruder in his home because
> hey, it can't be the daughter because she's over
> at her friend's house, right?...throws open the
> closet door and unloads his clip into his daughter
> and her friend, killing them. Guns in the hands of
> private citizens kill far more innocent people
> than they "save" and there's nothing that gun
> advocates can say against that fact.
Bullshit.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
go to your room
()
Date: December 03, 2012 08:08PM
"If he sees me as so much as twitch for my piece, he's going to smoke me, right? Because he ALREADY HAS HIS GUN OUT, RIGHT? How does a gun help me here?"
it doesnt because you are a pussy who is scared of guns.
it doesnt because you are a pussy who is scared of guns.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: December 03, 2012 08:22PM
HeardItBefore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The CDC has been pushing a liberal political
> agenda for many years and my tax dollars are
> paying for it. "Screed"? No, just the simple
> truth.
The CDC reports facts. The CDC controls the spread of horrible disease that could wipe out humanity.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The CDC has been pushing a liberal political
> agenda for many years and my tax dollars are
> paying for it. "Screed"? No, just the simple
> truth.
The CDC reports facts. The CDC controls the spread of horrible disease that could wipe out humanity.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: December 03, 2012 08:24PM
not true Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James Madison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention
> to
> > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
>
> No it doesn't. You shouldn't be blaspheming
> President Madison's name with your lack of
> understanding of Constitutional Law.
You need 38/50 states to change anything with the Constitution. Alternatively, you can have a special convention set up.
-------------------------------------------------------
> James Madison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LOL! It would take a Constitutional Convention
> to
> > repeal the 2nd Amendment.
>
> No it doesn't. You shouldn't be blaspheming
> President Madison's name with your lack of
> understanding of Constitutional Law.
You need 38/50 states to change anything with the Constitution. Alternatively, you can have a special convention set up.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
HeardItBefore
()
Date: December 03, 2012 08:31PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HeardItBefore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The CDC has been pushing a liberal political
> > agenda for many years and my tax dollars are
> > paying for it. "Screed"? No, just the simple
> > truth.
>
> The CDC reports facts. The CDC controls the spread
> of horrible disease that could wipe out humanity.
They are also partisan when it comes to global warming and every other item on the Democratic agenda. Coincidence?
-------------------------------------------------------
> HeardItBefore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The CDC has been pushing a liberal political
> > agenda for many years and my tax dollars are
> > paying for it. "Screed"? No, just the simple
> > truth.
>
> The CDC reports facts. The CDC controls the spread
> of horrible disease that could wipe out humanity.
They are also partisan when it comes to global warming and every other item on the Democratic agenda. Coincidence?
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Leftist Gorilla
()
Date: December 03, 2012 09:36PM
go to your room Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If he sees me as so much as twitch for my piece,
> he's going to smoke me, right? Because he ALREADY
> HAS HIS GUN OUT, RIGHT? How does a gun help me
> here?"
>
> it doesnt because you are a pussy who is scared of
> guns.
Fail. I've passed an NRA gun safety course. I can't very well turn off the guns in this country if I don't understand the culture. I'm not afraid of guns. I don't like what people do with them.
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If he sees me as so much as twitch for my piece,
> he's going to smoke me, right? Because he ALREADY
> HAS HIS GUN OUT, RIGHT? How does a gun help me
> here?"
>
> it doesnt because you are a pussy who is scared of
> guns.
Fail. I've passed an NRA gun safety course. I can't very well turn off the guns in this country if I don't understand the culture. I'm not afraid of guns. I don't like what people do with them.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
be prepared
()
Date: December 03, 2012 09:56PM
If a guy wants to break into my home in the middle of the night and I feel my safety or that of my family is in danger he is going to learn just how many pellets are in a round of buckshot.
As far as gun control do you honestly think criminals are going to turn theirs in because it is a new law added to the several thousand existing ones on the book. A carpenter would no more give up his tools, for both it is neccessary for their occupation.
As far as gun control do you honestly think criminals are going to turn theirs in because it is a new law added to the several thousand existing ones on the book. A carpenter would no more give up his tools, for both it is neccessary for their occupation.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
glare glare
()
Date: December 04, 2012 10:38AM
So all of these drugged up out of control black folk going around shooting everyone, is the whites man fault, KKK conspirarcy.The NRA isn't about keeping ourselves free of tyranny, its about killing black people! He was a black guy his his but mind was full of white guy thoughts! Jason Whitlock: you are a mindless drone. Not you,not Costas,Not your Messiah Obama and all the kings men will ever disarm America!
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
CP
()
Date: December 04, 2012 11:16AM
glare glare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So all of these drugged up out of control black
> folk going around shooting everyone, is the whites
> man fault, KKK conspirarcy.The NRA isn't about
> keeping ourselves free of tyranny, its about
> killing black people! He was a black guy his his
> but mind was full of white guy thoughts! Jason
> Whitlock: you are a mindless drone. Not you,not
> Costas,Not your Messiah Obama and all the kings
> men will ever disarm America!
It's George Bush's fault.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So all of these drugged up out of control black
> folk going around shooting everyone, is the whites
> man fault, KKK conspirarcy.The NRA isn't about
> keeping ourselves free of tyranny, its about
> killing black people! He was a black guy his his
> but mind was full of white guy thoughts! Jason
> Whitlock: you are a mindless drone. Not you,not
> Costas,Not your Messiah Obama and all the kings
> men will ever disarm America!
It's George Bush's fault.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Lt Col Obvious
()
Date: December 04, 2012 05:24PM
*
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Aqua Buddha
()
Date: December 04, 2012 05:29PM
Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> *
+ 1 good buddy! Thumbs up and HITTING LIKE CUZ I AGREE!
-------------------------------------------------------
> *
+ 1 good buddy! Thumbs up and HITTING LIKE CUZ I AGREE!
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Dr. Doctor
()
Date: December 04, 2012 05:33PM
Aqua Buddha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > *
>
>
> + 1 good buddy! Thumbs up and HITTING LIKE CUZ I
> AGREE!
You two are the same person with split personalities. LOL. Nice 7 month hiatus to prove it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > *
>
>
> + 1 good buddy! Thumbs up and HITTING LIKE CUZ I
> AGREE!
You two are the same person with split personalities. LOL. Nice 7 month hiatus to prove it.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
money hall
()
Date: December 04, 2012 05:36PM
I'll turn in mine when the criminals turn in theirs.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
HeardItBefore
()
Date: December 04, 2012 06:06PM
Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> *
More garbage from the CDC via the VPC via Soros. Bullshit and nothing else.
-------------------------------------------------------
> *
More garbage from the CDC via the VPC via Soros. Bullshit and nothing else.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
researcher bias
()
Date: December 04, 2012 06:27PM
Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> *
What you left out was the fact the study did not distinguish between high gun areas and low gun areas or areas where guns are banned when showing their stats. All the did was lump them together to prove their fallacy in a biased study. For every study that proves that with flawed methodology I can show you a study that disproves it.
They even state themselves they CANNOT link the guns to the deaths as people could have been buying the guns BECAUSE of the murder rate
Tell me this why does Switzerland have the highest gun ownership in the world yet have one of the lowest murder rates?
-------------------------------------------------------
> *
What you left out was the fact the study did not distinguish between high gun areas and low gun areas or areas where guns are banned when showing their stats. All the did was lump them together to prove their fallacy in a biased study. For every study that proves that with flawed methodology I can show you a study that disproves it.
They even state themselves they CANNOT link the guns to the deaths as people could have been buying the guns BECAUSE of the murder rate
Tell me this why does Switzerland have the highest gun ownership in the world yet have one of the lowest murder rates?
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
????
()
Date: December 04, 2012 06:34PM
researcher bias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > *
>
> What you left out was the fact the study did not
> distinguish between high gun areas and low gun
> areas or areas where guns are banned when showing
> their stats. All the did was lump them together
> to prove their fallacy in a biased study. For
> every study that proves that with flawed
> methodology I can show you a study that disproves
> it.
>
> They even state themselves they CANNOT link the
> guns to the deaths as people could have been
> buying the guns BECAUSE of the murder rate
>
> Tell me this why does Switzerland have the highest
> gun ownership in the world yet have one of the
> lowest murder rates?
Not trying to answer this question but one thing puzzles me. DC, Chicago, NYC, and other large cities have very low LEGAL gun ownership rates but in reality, ILLEGAL firearms are eveywhere. Any way to estimate how many illegal firearms are in DC?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lt Col Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > *
>
> What you left out was the fact the study did not
> distinguish between high gun areas and low gun
> areas or areas where guns are banned when showing
> their stats. All the did was lump them together
> to prove their fallacy in a biased study. For
> every study that proves that with flawed
> methodology I can show you a study that disproves
> it.
>
> They even state themselves they CANNOT link the
> guns to the deaths as people could have been
> buying the guns BECAUSE of the murder rate
>
> Tell me this why does Switzerland have the highest
> gun ownership in the world yet have one of the
> lowest murder rates?
Not trying to answer this question but one thing puzzles me. DC, Chicago, NYC, and other large cities have very low LEGAL gun ownership rates but in reality, ILLEGAL firearms are eveywhere. Any way to estimate how many illegal firearms are in DC?
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
capt cirk
()
Date: December 04, 2012 07:10PM
Tell me this why does Switzerland have the highest
> gun ownership in the world yet have one of the
> lowest murder rates?
ummmm I think we all know why that is
> gun ownership in the world yet have one of the
> lowest murder rates?
ummmm I think we all know why that is
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
researcher bias
()
Date: December 04, 2012 07:30PM
???? Wrote:
> Not trying to answer this question but one thing
> puzzles me. DC, Chicago, NYC, and other large
> cities have very low LEGAL gun ownership rates but
> in reality, ILLEGAL firearms are eveywhere. Any
> way to estimate how many illegal firearms are in
> DC?
You can estimate based off of gang activity and crimes with firearms but no way to get an accurate number. Theres more than likely thousands of them though in every city and DC is no exception.
> Not trying to answer this question but one thing
> puzzles me. DC, Chicago, NYC, and other large
> cities have very low LEGAL gun ownership rates but
> in reality, ILLEGAL firearms are eveywhere. Any
> way to estimate how many illegal firearms are in
> DC?
You can estimate based off of gang activity and crimes with firearms but no way to get an accurate number. Theres more than likely thousands of them though in every city and DC is no exception.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
SoylentGreen
()
Date: December 04, 2012 07:43PM
Six states with the highest rate of gun ownership..........
You'd think that would be very easy to back up what with the internet and all.
Too bad all the anti-gun websites can't agree on which states those six are.
First one I read, Wyoming was #1.
Second one I read, Wyoming was #4.
Third one I read Wyoming didn't make the top 6.
In short, your c&p argument sucks.
You'd think that would be very easy to back up what with the internet and all.
Too bad all the anti-gun websites can't agree on which states those six are.
First one I read, Wyoming was #1.
Second one I read, Wyoming was #4.
Third one I read Wyoming didn't make the top 6.
In short, your c&p argument sucks.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: December 04, 2012 08:20PM
HeardItBefore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are also partisan when it comes to global
> warming and every other item on the Democratic
> agenda. Coincidence?
Global warming is a fact. People on both sides acknowledge it. The dispute is over if humans are helping it along or if it's a natural thing. Evidence suggests it's natural, but there's significant evidence to say that humans are a primary cause of its current extremity.
People using guns kill people. That's also a fact. Guns do kill people, but they can't do it alone... naturally. The answer is not banning guns. The liberals want to do that. If you want to fix the problem, the answer is enforcing current laws. Background checks need to be done whenever someone wants to buy a gun. Going to a gun show and buying a gun is too easy. The laws (if enforced) wouldn't make it that easy.
The NRA is not a reputable source of information when it comes to anything. I support gun ownership. I believe the right to own a gun shouldn't be infringed upon by either party. I hate what people do with guns, because that starts the huge "guns are evil!" debate. I want people to own guns. I want people to own guns RESPONSIBLY.
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are also partisan when it comes to global
> warming and every other item on the Democratic
> agenda. Coincidence?
Global warming is a fact. People on both sides acknowledge it. The dispute is over if humans are helping it along or if it's a natural thing. Evidence suggests it's natural, but there's significant evidence to say that humans are a primary cause of its current extremity.
People using guns kill people. That's also a fact. Guns do kill people, but they can't do it alone... naturally. The answer is not banning guns. The liberals want to do that. If you want to fix the problem, the answer is enforcing current laws. Background checks need to be done whenever someone wants to buy a gun. Going to a gun show and buying a gun is too easy. The laws (if enforced) wouldn't make it that easy.
The NRA is not a reputable source of information when it comes to anything. I support gun ownership. I believe the right to own a gun shouldn't be infringed upon by either party. I hate what people do with guns, because that starts the huge "guns are evil!" debate. I want people to own guns. I want people to own guns RESPONSIBLY.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
researcher bias
()
Date: December 04, 2012 08:45PM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Global warming is a fact. People on both sides
> acknowledge it. The dispute is over if humans are
> helping it along or if it's a natural thing.
> Evidence suggests it's natural, but there's
> significant evidence to say that humans are a
> primary cause of its current extremity.
No theres not. We have 100 years of data which is nothing in the earths life time. Theres also no data supporting human involvement, its all been disproven and was doctored. Just like the O zone layer was going to go away because of spray cans. A nobel winner resigned from a group stating global warming because there was no evidence and the temp has remained stable for long periods.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nobel-prize-winner-resigns-over-an-incontrovertible-stance-on-global-warming/
Mars and the sun also have hotter surfaces but Im sure that because of the Mars rover. Next well hear cavemen started the ice age by discovering fire
Humans have very little impact on the planet as a whole we can make it so its less pleasant to live on but thats about it. Mother nature does far worse things to her self than we could ever do.
> People using guns kill people. That's also a fact.
> Guns do kill people, but they can't do it alone...
> naturally. The answer is not banning guns. The
> liberals want to do that. If you want to fix the
> problem, the answer is enforcing current laws.
> Background checks need to be done whenever someone
> wants to buy a gun. Going to a gun show and buying
> a gun is too easy. The laws (if enforced) wouldn't
> make it that easy.
I agree with most of it and no one is in favor of having people have guns who shouldnt have them. The simple fact though are people who dont care about murder laws dont care about gun control laws. People will always be killed with things, knifes kill people all the time but so do cars yet people dont want them banned. Theres also nothing easy about buying a gun at a gun show thats all a myth. The same background checks are conducted
Blaming a gun for a death is like blaming spoons for making people fat.
> The NRA is not a reputable source of information
> when it comes to anything. I support gun
> ownership. I believe the right to own a gun
> shouldn't be infringed upon by either party. I
> hate what people do with guns, because that starts
> the huge "guns are evil!" debate. I want people to
> own guns. I want people to own guns RESPONSIBLY.
The vast majority of people do own guns responsibly but you dont hear about the millions of owners a year who didnt kill people. The NRA picks and chooses what it wants to use but for the most part uses solid information. Their basic points are right and supported by research
Its not different than anything else its only as dangerous as the hands that its in. People who want to get guns will weather theyll legal or not. Its easier to get drugs than it is to get booze in a lot of places and any sort of limiting or banned will just have more guns running in those drug shipments for those who want it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Global warming is a fact. People on both sides
> acknowledge it. The dispute is over if humans are
> helping it along or if it's a natural thing.
> Evidence suggests it's natural, but there's
> significant evidence to say that humans are a
> primary cause of its current extremity.
No theres not. We have 100 years of data which is nothing in the earths life time. Theres also no data supporting human involvement, its all been disproven and was doctored. Just like the O zone layer was going to go away because of spray cans. A nobel winner resigned from a group stating global warming because there was no evidence and the temp has remained stable for long periods.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nobel-prize-winner-resigns-over-an-incontrovertible-stance-on-global-warming/
Mars and the sun also have hotter surfaces but Im sure that because of the Mars rover. Next well hear cavemen started the ice age by discovering fire
Humans have very little impact on the planet as a whole we can make it so its less pleasant to live on but thats about it. Mother nature does far worse things to her self than we could ever do.
> People using guns kill people. That's also a fact.
> Guns do kill people, but they can't do it alone...
> naturally. The answer is not banning guns. The
> liberals want to do that. If you want to fix the
> problem, the answer is enforcing current laws.
> Background checks need to be done whenever someone
> wants to buy a gun. Going to a gun show and buying
> a gun is too easy. The laws (if enforced) wouldn't
> make it that easy.
I agree with most of it and no one is in favor of having people have guns who shouldnt have them. The simple fact though are people who dont care about murder laws dont care about gun control laws. People will always be killed with things, knifes kill people all the time but so do cars yet people dont want them banned. Theres also nothing easy about buying a gun at a gun show thats all a myth. The same background checks are conducted
Blaming a gun for a death is like blaming spoons for making people fat.
> The NRA is not a reputable source of information
> when it comes to anything. I support gun
> ownership. I believe the right to own a gun
> shouldn't be infringed upon by either party. I
> hate what people do with guns, because that starts
> the huge "guns are evil!" debate. I want people to
> own guns. I want people to own guns RESPONSIBLY.
The vast majority of people do own guns responsibly but you dont hear about the millions of owners a year who didnt kill people. The NRA picks and chooses what it wants to use but for the most part uses solid information. Their basic points are right and supported by research
Its not different than anything else its only as dangerous as the hands that its in. People who want to get guns will weather theyll legal or not. Its easier to get drugs than it is to get booze in a lot of places and any sort of limiting or banned will just have more guns running in those drug shipments for those who want it.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Yucky24.
()
Date: December 04, 2012 08:49PM
As we always see from the anti-gunners, they accuse gun rights advocates of being paranoid racists who are only carrying their firearms to protect themselves from feral mud people. And that's actually pretty accurate. But is that really something we should be ashamed of?
Notice how they're trying to make White people ashamed of doing the practical.
Mud people really do commit most of the violent crime in America. That's not dishonest, KKK, neo-Nazi propaganda. It's the ugly truth. Go look up the crime statistics.
http://unamusementpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/flyer1_crime.jpg
So, why are White people evil and why should they be ashamed to admit that they carry firearms to protect themselves primarily from "hispanics" and blacks?
It's common sense. They commit the most violent crime and they target White people because they're racists who hate Whites and because Whites are usually easy victims. And because nigs are absolutely obsessed with fucking White females as evidenced by internet dating statistics and rape statistics.
Whites generally follow the law and so don't want to get thrown in jail or sued for using violent force. And Whites have been brainwashed to believe that their race is evil and deserves any abuse it gets from mud people.
Welp, it looks like White tolerance and self-loathing has finally started to show some signs of coming to an end as Whites are increasingly arming up to the teeth and shooting their nig attackers...
And thank God for that. It's long overdue...
Nigs have simply gotten far too uppity.
Like wild animals beoming increasingly aggressive as a result of environmental conservationist efforts, the feral nig has completely lost its natural fear of the White Man...
Notice how they're trying to make White people ashamed of doing the practical.
Mud people really do commit most of the violent crime in America. That's not dishonest, KKK, neo-Nazi propaganda. It's the ugly truth. Go look up the crime statistics.
http://unamusementpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/flyer1_crime.jpg
So, why are White people evil and why should they be ashamed to admit that they carry firearms to protect themselves primarily from "hispanics" and blacks?
It's common sense. They commit the most violent crime and they target White people because they're racists who hate Whites and because Whites are usually easy victims. And because nigs are absolutely obsessed with fucking White females as evidenced by internet dating statistics and rape statistics.
Whites generally follow the law and so don't want to get thrown in jail or sued for using violent force. And Whites have been brainwashed to believe that their race is evil and deserves any abuse it gets from mud people.
Welp, it looks like White tolerance and self-loathing has finally started to show some signs of coming to an end as Whites are increasingly arming up to the teeth and shooting their nig attackers...
And thank God for that. It's long overdue...
Nigs have simply gotten far too uppity.
Like wild animals beoming increasingly aggressive as a result of environmental conservationist efforts, the feral nig has completely lost its natural fear of the White Man...
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Southeast.Jerome
()
Date: December 04, 2012 09:16PM
capt cirk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell me this why does Switzerland have the
> highest
> > gun ownership in the world yet have one of the
> > lowest murder rates?
>
>
> ummmm I think we all know why that is
No niggaz! Dat's why!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell me this why does Switzerland have the
> highest
> > gun ownership in the world yet have one of the
> > lowest murder rates?
>
>
> ummmm I think we all know why that is
No niggaz! Dat's why!
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Yucky24.
()
Date: December 04, 2012 09:53PM
Yucky24. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As we always see from the anti-gunners, they
> accuse gun rights advocates of being paranoid
> racists who are only carrying their firearms to
> protect themselves from feral mud people. And
> that's actually pretty accurate. But is that
> really something we should be ashamed of?
It's funny that I'd write nonsesne like this.
The truth is, there is no reason to own a handgun, much less tens of them, unless you're a hateful scumbag. I am that in spades.
> Notice how they're trying to make White people
> ashamed of doing the practical.
As if whites were the only race that buys guns. Goddamn, am I a douche or what?
> Mud people really do commit most of the violent
> crime in America. That's not dishonest, KKK,
> neo-Nazi propaganda. It's the ugly truth. Go look
> up the crime statistics.
Here in reality, I know that guns = death, regardless your race, creed, or color.
> So, why are White people evil and why should they
> be ashamed to admit that they carry firearms to
> protect themselves primarily from "hispanics" and
> blacks?
Oh, of courseI know I'm an asswipe. No need to remind me.
> It's common sense. They commit the most violent
> crime and they target White people because they're
> racists who hate Whites and because Whites are
> usually easy victims. And because nigs are
> absolutely obsessed with fucking White females as
> evidenced by internet dating statistics and rape
> statistics.
>
> Whites generally follow the law and so don't want
> to get thrown in jail or sued for using violent
> force. And Whites have been brainwashed to believe
> that their race is evil and deserves any abuse it
> gets from mud people.
>
> Welp, it looks like White tolerance and
> self-loathing has finally started to show some
> signs of coming to an end as Whites are
> increasingly arming up to the teeth and shooting
> their nig attackers...
I bluster alot, but deep down, I hate myself and am ashamed of my racial heritage.
> And thank God for that. It's long overdue...
>
> Nigs have simply gotten far too uppity.
>
> Like wild animals beoming increasingly aggressive
> as a result of environmental conservationist
> efforts, the feral nig has completely lost its
> natural fear of the White Man...
Oh, and if you can't tell from my vitrol, what I want most in this world is to be owned sexually by a black bull. I would worship his BCC...I quiver with anticipation.
-------------------------------------------------------
> As we always see from the anti-gunners, they
> accuse gun rights advocates of being paranoid
> racists who are only carrying their firearms to
> protect themselves from feral mud people. And
> that's actually pretty accurate. But is that
> really something we should be ashamed of?
It's funny that I'd write nonsesne like this.
The truth is, there is no reason to own a handgun, much less tens of them, unless you're a hateful scumbag. I am that in spades.
> Notice how they're trying to make White people
> ashamed of doing the practical.
As if whites were the only race that buys guns. Goddamn, am I a douche or what?
> Mud people really do commit most of the violent
> crime in America. That's not dishonest, KKK,
> neo-Nazi propaganda. It's the ugly truth. Go look
> up the crime statistics.
Here in reality, I know that guns = death, regardless your race, creed, or color.
> So, why are White people evil and why should they
> be ashamed to admit that they carry firearms to
> protect themselves primarily from "hispanics" and
> blacks?
Oh, of courseI know I'm an asswipe. No need to remind me.
> It's common sense. They commit the most violent
> crime and they target White people because they're
> racists who hate Whites and because Whites are
> usually easy victims. And because nigs are
> absolutely obsessed with fucking White females as
> evidenced by internet dating statistics and rape
> statistics.
>
> Whites generally follow the law and so don't want
> to get thrown in jail or sued for using violent
> force. And Whites have been brainwashed to believe
> that their race is evil and deserves any abuse it
> gets from mud people.
>
> Welp, it looks like White tolerance and
> self-loathing has finally started to show some
> signs of coming to an end as Whites are
> increasingly arming up to the teeth and shooting
> their nig attackers...
I bluster alot, but deep down, I hate myself and am ashamed of my racial heritage.
> And thank God for that. It's long overdue...
>
> Nigs have simply gotten far too uppity.
>
> Like wild animals beoming increasingly aggressive
> as a result of environmental conservationist
> efforts, the feral nig has completely lost its
> natural fear of the White Man...
Oh, and if you can't tell from my vitrol, what I want most in this world is to be owned sexually by a black bull. I would worship his BCC...I quiver with anticipation.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Young Curmudgeon
()
Date: December 04, 2012 11:03PM
researcher bias Wrote:
> No theres not. We have 100 years of data which is
> nothing in the earths life time. Theres also no
> data supporting human involvement, its all been
> disproven and was doctored. Just like the O zone
> layer was going to go away because of spray cans.
> A nobel winner resigned from a group stating
> global warming because there was no evidence and
> the temp has remained stable for long periods.
The ozone layer was affected by CFCs and DDT. Both have been banned now. Unfortunately, there's an issue in not using either of them. Both prevented the growth of mosquito populations; it's possible we'll see malaria coming into this country now. 100 years of data is miniscule. There's no data either way by that logic. The temperature is rising. I don't know what you'd call that, but I call it global warming.
> Mars and the sun also have hotter surfaces but Im
> sure that because of the Mars rover. Next well
> hear cavemen started the ice age by discovering
> fire.
That's specious reasoning. The Ice Age started because of the eruption of a supervolcano, not horrendously dissimilar to Yellowstone.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif
> Humans have very little impact on the planet as a
> whole we can make it so its less pleasant to live
> on but thats about it. Mother nature does far
> worse things to her self than we could ever do.
Again, your reasoning is that we don't have a ton of data. My reasoning is that there's considerable evidence for both sides. The Earth warms and cools. That's not a point of contention between any reputable scientists.
> I agree with most of it and no one is in favor of
> having people have guns who shouldnt have them.
> The simple fact though are people who dont care
> about murder laws dont care about gun control
> laws. People will always be killed with things,
> knifes kill people all the time but so do cars yet
> people dont want them banned. Theres also nothing
> easy about buying a gun at a gun show thats all a
> myth. The same background checks are conducted.
Unlicensed sellers aren't required to conduct background checks by federal law. It's up to the states to deal with that. That's a loophole that needs to be closed. People will always be killed with things. It's in our nature. If we're banning guns, let's ban everything else potentially hazardous. Hell, let's go live in a bubble.
> Blaming a gun for a death is like blaming spoons
> for making people fat.
Michelle Obama would probably try that argument.
>
> The vast majority of people do own guns
> responsibly but you dont hear about the millions
> of owners a year who didnt kill people. The NRA
> picks and chooses what it wants to use but for the
> most part uses solid information. Their basic
> points are right and supported by research
>
> Its not different than anything else its only as
> dangerous as the hands that its in. People who
> want to get guns will weather theyll legal or not.
> Its easier to get drugs than it is to get booze
> in a lot of places and any sort of limiting or
> banned will just have more guns running in those
> drug shipments for those who want it.
The NRA picks and chooses what it wants, yes. Their basic points tend to be somewhat valid, but are supported by what they want to show. I don't count it as a reputable source because it's not unbiased. However, that means there are very few unbiased sources about anything. The NRA is right that there's some perceived idea of "guns are evil!" However, the NRA is not right in saying that the CDC is deliberately obfuscating facts simply because it doesn't agree with the CDC.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2012 11:03PM by Young Curmudgeon.
> No theres not. We have 100 years of data which is
> nothing in the earths life time. Theres also no
> data supporting human involvement, its all been
> disproven and was doctored. Just like the O zone
> layer was going to go away because of spray cans.
> A nobel winner resigned from a group stating
> global warming because there was no evidence and
> the temp has remained stable for long periods.
The ozone layer was affected by CFCs and DDT. Both have been banned now. Unfortunately, there's an issue in not using either of them. Both prevented the growth of mosquito populations; it's possible we'll see malaria coming into this country now. 100 years of data is miniscule. There's no data either way by that logic. The temperature is rising. I don't know what you'd call that, but I call it global warming.
> Mars and the sun also have hotter surfaces but Im
> sure that because of the Mars rover. Next well
> hear cavemen started the ice age by discovering
> fire.
That's specious reasoning. The Ice Age started because of the eruption of a supervolcano, not horrendously dissimilar to Yellowstone.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif
> Humans have very little impact on the planet as a
> whole we can make it so its less pleasant to live
> on but thats about it. Mother nature does far
> worse things to her self than we could ever do.
Again, your reasoning is that we don't have a ton of data. My reasoning is that there's considerable evidence for both sides. The Earth warms and cools. That's not a point of contention between any reputable scientists.
> I agree with most of it and no one is in favor of
> having people have guns who shouldnt have them.
> The simple fact though are people who dont care
> about murder laws dont care about gun control
> laws. People will always be killed with things,
> knifes kill people all the time but so do cars yet
> people dont want them banned. Theres also nothing
> easy about buying a gun at a gun show thats all a
> myth. The same background checks are conducted.
Unlicensed sellers aren't required to conduct background checks by federal law. It's up to the states to deal with that. That's a loophole that needs to be closed. People will always be killed with things. It's in our nature. If we're banning guns, let's ban everything else potentially hazardous. Hell, let's go live in a bubble.
> Blaming a gun for a death is like blaming spoons
> for making people fat.
Michelle Obama would probably try that argument.
>
> The vast majority of people do own guns
> responsibly but you dont hear about the millions
> of owners a year who didnt kill people. The NRA
> picks and chooses what it wants to use but for the
> most part uses solid information. Their basic
> points are right and supported by research
>
> Its not different than anything else its only as
> dangerous as the hands that its in. People who
> want to get guns will weather theyll legal or not.
> Its easier to get drugs than it is to get booze
> in a lot of places and any sort of limiting or
> banned will just have more guns running in those
> drug shipments for those who want it.
The NRA picks and chooses what it wants, yes. Their basic points tend to be somewhat valid, but are supported by what they want to show. I don't count it as a reputable source because it's not unbiased. However, that means there are very few unbiased sources about anything. The NRA is right that there's some perceived idea of "guns are evil!" However, the NRA is not right in saying that the CDC is deliberately obfuscating facts simply because it doesn't agree with the CDC.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2012 11:03PM by Young Curmudgeon.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
researcher bias
()
Date: December 05, 2012 12:26AM
Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> The ozone layer was affected by CFCs and DDT. Both
> have been banned now. Unfortunately, there's an
> issue in not using either of them. Both prevented
> the growth of mosquito populations; it's possible
> we'll see malaria coming into this country now.
> 100 years of data is miniscule. There's no data
> either way by that logic. The temperature is
> rising. I don't know what you'd call that, but I
> call it global warming.
Yes for the most part there is no data on temps or climate other than major changes. We have no clue what it naturally does. What we do know are volcanos and earthquakes are far worse than anything we can do.
Theres minor changes that have occurred naturally over the course of the earth. The sun isnt a constant temp and neither is the earths core. Global warming is fine, saying theres data supporting or that humans are the cause is not.
The biggest problem with the ozone layer was that it was caught up in the same enviro mass hysteria were seeing with global warming. That stuff may have been banned in some countries but not in places like China. The earth will be fine.
> That's specious reasoning. The Ice Age started
> because of the eruption of a supervolcano, not
> horrendously dissimilar to Yellowstone.
Its the same logic. Im well aware humans had nothing to do with the ice age like we have nothing to do with global warming. But if people say that were the cause of global warming than we must have been the cause of the major climate changes in the earths past since it cant possibly be the earth changing on its own.
> Again, your reasoning is that we don't have a ton
> of data. My reasoning is that there's considerable
> evidence for both sides. The Earth warms and
> cools. That's not a point of contention between
> any reputable scientists.
The earth does warm and cool but theres not considerable evidence for both sides of man made global warming. Theres science which says man isnt causing it and then theres those people that want man to be the cause of it and are working backwards to try and prove it. Just think of the countless times people have said that an oil spill will ruin the ocean forever, it didnt. Pretty much the same thing here. When you want to see what you want to see youll get creative with data, the PSU studies were just flat out faked as well.
> Unlicensed sellers aren't required to conduct
> background checks by federal law. It's up to the
> states to deal with that. That's a loophole that
> needs to be closed. People will always be killed
> with things. It's in our nature. If we're banning
> guns, let's ban everything else potentially
> hazardous. Hell, let's go live in a bubble.
Theres very few unlicensed sellers at those shows and they are legally responsible if they sell to someone who shouldnt have been able to buy one. Its the one time you can actually get fair value for your weapons in this area as opposed to the dealers having you buy the balls since you cant sell directly.
Id be fine if there was a place you could go to have the background check done before a direct sale, but like most gun laws it doesnt make much sense not being able to sell to someone you know is legally allowed to have it. That only applies to handguns and assault rifles too. Makes no sense you can go in and buy every rifle and shotgun in the building but without a concealed carry permit can only get one handgun.
But I agree banning guns is stupid. Murder wasnt invented when gun power was.
> Michelle Obama would probably try that argument.
Touche
> The NRA picks and chooses what it wants, yes.
> Their basic points tend to be somewhat valid, but
> are supported by what they want to show. I don't
> count it as a reputable source because it's not
> unbiased. However, that means there are very few
> unbiased sources about anything. The NRA is right
> that there's some perceived idea of "guns are
> evil!" However, the NRA is not right in saying
> that the CDC is deliberately obfuscating facts
> simply because it doesn't agree with the CDC.
They do pick what they want, but it doesnt mean theyre wrong. At the very least theyre less bias than the anti gun groups are with what they present.
They arent saying that because they dont agree theyre saying that because the CDC really is doing that though. The studies the CDC cites are methodologically flawed and the same trash that comes out of the Violence Policy Center. If the CDC really was being unbiased they would present evidence on both sides and use more statistically significant methods.
The study provided above is the perfect example. They say states that have high gun ownership have higher deaths. Thats not academic thats grouping data to the outcome you want. Use Ohio for example. Lots of people own guns in Ohio and Cleveland has a lot of murders yet guns are banned there. What the study doesnt tell you is that likely the majority of the murders occurred in a large city in the state where guns arent allowed drawing a false conclusion. A real study would have broken the state into counties and compared heavy gun county rates to non gun counties or the cities were theyre banned.
------------------------------------------------------->
> The ozone layer was affected by CFCs and DDT. Both
> have been banned now. Unfortunately, there's an
> issue in not using either of them. Both prevented
> the growth of mosquito populations; it's possible
> we'll see malaria coming into this country now.
> 100 years of data is miniscule. There's no data
> either way by that logic. The temperature is
> rising. I don't know what you'd call that, but I
> call it global warming.
Yes for the most part there is no data on temps or climate other than major changes. We have no clue what it naturally does. What we do know are volcanos and earthquakes are far worse than anything we can do.
Theres minor changes that have occurred naturally over the course of the earth. The sun isnt a constant temp and neither is the earths core. Global warming is fine, saying theres data supporting or that humans are the cause is not.
The biggest problem with the ozone layer was that it was caught up in the same enviro mass hysteria were seeing with global warming. That stuff may have been banned in some countries but not in places like China. The earth will be fine.
> That's specious reasoning. The Ice Age started
> because of the eruption of a supervolcano, not
> horrendously dissimilar to Yellowstone.
Its the same logic. Im well aware humans had nothing to do with the ice age like we have nothing to do with global warming. But if people say that were the cause of global warming than we must have been the cause of the major climate changes in the earths past since it cant possibly be the earth changing on its own.
> Again, your reasoning is that we don't have a ton
> of data. My reasoning is that there's considerable
> evidence for both sides. The Earth warms and
> cools. That's not a point of contention between
> any reputable scientists.
The earth does warm and cool but theres not considerable evidence for both sides of man made global warming. Theres science which says man isnt causing it and then theres those people that want man to be the cause of it and are working backwards to try and prove it. Just think of the countless times people have said that an oil spill will ruin the ocean forever, it didnt. Pretty much the same thing here. When you want to see what you want to see youll get creative with data, the PSU studies were just flat out faked as well.
> Unlicensed sellers aren't required to conduct
> background checks by federal law. It's up to the
> states to deal with that. That's a loophole that
> needs to be closed. People will always be killed
> with things. It's in our nature. If we're banning
> guns, let's ban everything else potentially
> hazardous. Hell, let's go live in a bubble.
Theres very few unlicensed sellers at those shows and they are legally responsible if they sell to someone who shouldnt have been able to buy one. Its the one time you can actually get fair value for your weapons in this area as opposed to the dealers having you buy the balls since you cant sell directly.
Id be fine if there was a place you could go to have the background check done before a direct sale, but like most gun laws it doesnt make much sense not being able to sell to someone you know is legally allowed to have it. That only applies to handguns and assault rifles too. Makes no sense you can go in and buy every rifle and shotgun in the building but without a concealed carry permit can only get one handgun.
But I agree banning guns is stupid. Murder wasnt invented when gun power was.
> Michelle Obama would probably try that argument.
Touche
> The NRA picks and chooses what it wants, yes.
> Their basic points tend to be somewhat valid, but
> are supported by what they want to show. I don't
> count it as a reputable source because it's not
> unbiased. However, that means there are very few
> unbiased sources about anything. The NRA is right
> that there's some perceived idea of "guns are
> evil!" However, the NRA is not right in saying
> that the CDC is deliberately obfuscating facts
> simply because it doesn't agree with the CDC.
They do pick what they want, but it doesnt mean theyre wrong. At the very least theyre less bias than the anti gun groups are with what they present.
They arent saying that because they dont agree theyre saying that because the CDC really is doing that though. The studies the CDC cites are methodologically flawed and the same trash that comes out of the Violence Policy Center. If the CDC really was being unbiased they would present evidence on both sides and use more statistically significant methods.
The study provided above is the perfect example. They say states that have high gun ownership have higher deaths. Thats not academic thats grouping data to the outcome you want. Use Ohio for example. Lots of people own guns in Ohio and Cleveland has a lot of murders yet guns are banned there. What the study doesnt tell you is that likely the majority of the murders occurred in a large city in the state where guns arent allowed drawing a false conclusion. A real study would have broken the state into counties and compared heavy gun county rates to non gun counties or the cities were theyre banned.
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
Ralph Pootawn
()
Date: December 05, 2012 08:25AM
Has he been fired yet?
Re: Jason Whitlock on Gun Control
Posted by:
????
()
Date: December 05, 2012 10:25AM
researcher bias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----->
> > The ozone layer was affected by CFCs and DDT.
> Both
> > have been banned now. Unfortunately, there's an
> > issue in not using either of them. Both
> prevented
> > the growth of mosquito populations; it's
> possible
> > we'll see malaria coming into this country now.
> > 100 years of data is miniscule. There's no data
> > either way by that logic. The temperature is
> > rising. I don't know what you'd call that, but
> I
> > call it global warming.
>
> Yes for the most part there is no data on temps or
> climate other than major changes. We have no clue
> what it naturally does. What we do know are
> volcanos and earthquakes are far worse than
> anything we can do.
>
> Theres minor changes that have occurred naturally
> over the course of the earth. The sun isnt a
> constant temp and neither is the earths core.
> Global warming is fine, saying theres data
> supporting or that humans are the cause is not.
>
> The biggest problem with the ozone layer was that
> it was caught up in the same enviro mass hysteria
> were seeing with global warming. That stuff may
> have been banned in some countries but not in
> places like China. The earth will be fine.
>
> > That's specious reasoning. The Ice Age started
> > because of the eruption of a supervolcano, not
> > horrendously dissimilar to Yellowstone.
>
> Its the same logic. Im well aware humans had
> nothing to do with the ice age like we have
> nothing to do with global warming. But if people
> say that were the cause of global warming than we
> must have been the cause of the major climate
> changes in the earths past since it cant possibly
> be the earth changing on its own.
>
> > Again, your reasoning is that we don't have a
> ton
> > of data. My reasoning is that there's
> considerable
> > evidence for both sides. The Earth warms and
> > cools. That's not a point of contention between
> > any reputable scientists.
>
> The earth does warm and cool but theres not
> considerable evidence for both sides of man made
> global warming. Theres science which says man
> isnt causing it and then theres those people that
> want man to be the cause of it and are working
> backwards to try and prove it. Just think of the
> countless times people have said that an oil spill
> will ruin the ocean forever, it didnt. Pretty
> much the same thing here. When you want to see
> what you want to see youll get creative with data,
> the PSU studies were just flat out faked as well.
>
>
> > Unlicensed sellers aren't required to conduct
> > background checks by federal law. It's up to
> the
> > states to deal with that. That's a loophole
> that
> > needs to be closed. People will always be
> killed
> > with things. It's in our nature. If we're
> banning
> > guns, let's ban everything else potentially
> > hazardous. Hell, let's go live in a bubble.
>
> Theres very few unlicensed sellers at those shows
> and they are legally responsible if they sell to
> someone who shouldnt have been able to buy one.
> Its the one time you can actually get fair value
> for your weapons in this area as opposed to the
> dealers having you buy the balls since you cant
> sell directly.
>
> Id be fine if there was a place you could go to
> have the background check done before a direct
> sale, but like most gun laws it doesnt make much
> sense not being able to sell to someone you know
> is legally allowed to have it. That only applies
> to handguns and assault rifles too. Makes no
> sense you can go in and buy every rifle and
> shotgun in the building but without a concealed
> carry permit can only get one handgun.
>
> But I agree banning guns is stupid. Murder wasnt
> invented when gun power was.
>
>
> > Michelle Obama would probably try that argument.
>
>
> Touche
>
>
> > The NRA picks and chooses what it wants, yes.
> > Their basic points tend to be somewhat valid,
> but
> > are supported by what they want to show. I
> don't
> > count it as a reputable source because it's not
> > unbiased. However, that means there are very
> few
> > unbiased sources about anything. The NRA is
> right
> > that there's some perceived idea of "guns are
> > evil!" However, the NRA is not right in saying
> > that the CDC is deliberately obfuscating facts
> > simply because it doesn't agree with the CDC.
>
> They do pick what they want, but it doesnt mean
> theyre wrong. At the very least theyre less bias
> than the anti gun groups are with what they
> present.
>
> They arent saying that because they dont agree
> theyre saying that because the CDC really is doing
> that though. The studies the CDC cites are
> methodologically flawed and the same trash that
> comes out of the Violence Policy Center. If the
> CDC really was being unbiased they would present
> evidence on both sides and use more statistically
> significant methods.
>
> The study provided above is the perfect example.
> They say states that have high gun ownership have
> higher deaths. Thats not academic thats grouping
> data to the outcome you want. Use Ohio for
> example. Lots of people own guns in Ohio and
> Cleveland has a lot of murders yet guns are banned
> there. What the study doesnt tell you is that
> likely the majority of the murders occurred in a
> large city in the state where guns arent allowed
> drawing a false conclusion. A real study would
> have broken the state into counties and compared
> heavy gun county rates to non gun counties or the
> cities were theyre banned.
The NRA only uses FBI crime data in their reports. That way if the VPC
objects they can take it up with the FBI.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----->
> > The ozone layer was affected by CFCs and DDT.
> Both
> > have been banned now. Unfortunately, there's an
> > issue in not using either of them. Both
> prevented
> > the growth of mosquito populations; it's
> possible
> > we'll see malaria coming into this country now.
> > 100 years of data is miniscule. There's no data
> > either way by that logic. The temperature is
> > rising. I don't know what you'd call that, but
> I
> > call it global warming.
>
> Yes for the most part there is no data on temps or
> climate other than major changes. We have no clue
> what it naturally does. What we do know are
> volcanos and earthquakes are far worse than
> anything we can do.
>
> Theres minor changes that have occurred naturally
> over the course of the earth. The sun isnt a
> constant temp and neither is the earths core.
> Global warming is fine, saying theres data
> supporting or that humans are the cause is not.
>
> The biggest problem with the ozone layer was that
> it was caught up in the same enviro mass hysteria
> were seeing with global warming. That stuff may
> have been banned in some countries but not in
> places like China. The earth will be fine.
>
> > That's specious reasoning. The Ice Age started
> > because of the eruption of a supervolcano, not
> > horrendously dissimilar to Yellowstone.
>
> Its the same logic. Im well aware humans had
> nothing to do with the ice age like we have
> nothing to do with global warming. But if people
> say that were the cause of global warming than we
> must have been the cause of the major climate
> changes in the earths past since it cant possibly
> be the earth changing on its own.
>
> > Again, your reasoning is that we don't have a
> ton
> > of data. My reasoning is that there's
> considerable
> > evidence for both sides. The Earth warms and
> > cools. That's not a point of contention between
> > any reputable scientists.
>
> The earth does warm and cool but theres not
> considerable evidence for both sides of man made
> global warming. Theres science which says man
> isnt causing it and then theres those people that
> want man to be the cause of it and are working
> backwards to try and prove it. Just think of the
> countless times people have said that an oil spill
> will ruin the ocean forever, it didnt. Pretty
> much the same thing here. When you want to see
> what you want to see youll get creative with data,
> the PSU studies were just flat out faked as well.
>
>
> > Unlicensed sellers aren't required to conduct
> > background checks by federal law. It's up to
> the
> > states to deal with that. That's a loophole
> that
> > needs to be closed. People will always be
> killed
> > with things. It's in our nature. If we're
> banning
> > guns, let's ban everything else potentially
> > hazardous. Hell, let's go live in a bubble.
>
> Theres very few unlicensed sellers at those shows
> and they are legally responsible if they sell to
> someone who shouldnt have been able to buy one.
> Its the one time you can actually get fair value
> for your weapons in this area as opposed to the
> dealers having you buy the balls since you cant
> sell directly.
>
> Id be fine if there was a place you could go to
> have the background check done before a direct
> sale, but like most gun laws it doesnt make much
> sense not being able to sell to someone you know
> is legally allowed to have it. That only applies
> to handguns and assault rifles too. Makes no
> sense you can go in and buy every rifle and
> shotgun in the building but without a concealed
> carry permit can only get one handgun.
>
> But I agree banning guns is stupid. Murder wasnt
> invented when gun power was.
>
>
> > Michelle Obama would probably try that argument.
>
>
> Touche
>
>
> > The NRA picks and chooses what it wants, yes.
> > Their basic points tend to be somewhat valid,
> but
> > are supported by what they want to show. I
> don't
> > count it as a reputable source because it's not
> > unbiased. However, that means there are very
> few
> > unbiased sources about anything. The NRA is
> right
> > that there's some perceived idea of "guns are
> > evil!" However, the NRA is not right in saying
> > that the CDC is deliberately obfuscating facts
> > simply because it doesn't agree with the CDC.
>
> They do pick what they want, but it doesnt mean
> theyre wrong. At the very least theyre less bias
> than the anti gun groups are with what they
> present.
>
> They arent saying that because they dont agree
> theyre saying that because the CDC really is doing
> that though. The studies the CDC cites are
> methodologically flawed and the same trash that
> comes out of the Violence Policy Center. If the
> CDC really was being unbiased they would present
> evidence on both sides and use more statistically
> significant methods.
>
> The study provided above is the perfect example.
> They say states that have high gun ownership have
> higher deaths. Thats not academic thats grouping
> data to the outcome you want. Use Ohio for
> example. Lots of people own guns in Ohio and
> Cleveland has a lot of murders yet guns are banned
> there. What the study doesnt tell you is that
> likely the majority of the murders occurred in a
> large city in the state where guns arent allowed
> drawing a false conclusion. A real study would
> have broken the state into counties and compared
> heavy gun county rates to non gun counties or the
> cities were theyre banned.
The NRA only uses FBI crime data in their reports. That way if the VPC
objects they can take it up with the FBI.