Snobike Mike
Banned
And therein lies the rub. Putting restrictions on law abiding people to try and stop criminals and terrorist who don't follow laws is.....well.....idiotic. Unless of course the agenda is something else.
50 shot dead - Orlando shooting
- Thread starter -D-
- Start date
And therein lies the rub. Putting restrictions on law abiding people to try and stop criminals and terrorist who don't follow laws is.....well.....idiotic. Unless of course the agenda is something else.
Riceburner
Well-known member
But having controls and restrictions(like in Canada) make it harder for the criminals to get too. The law abiding will go thru the proper channels and still get their guns. The criminals have to try to circumvent and get punished harsher(hopefully). Unlike the US where it's pretty easy for anyone to get....even those on a watch list.
Good lord - there's no irony to someone being 'against' suicide (by gun or otherwise), but 'for' assisted suicide.
I will repeat, since it seems some are blithely ignoring my statement, and have zero input towards the original topic anymore.
Manipulating and cherry picking data from people who have done the same, shouldn't interest us here.
This isn't about individual murders, but mass killings. Are they on the decline? Rising? Or isn't there enough data at the moment?
What needs to be done to make sure it declines? How will the U.S. amendment be protected in the meantime?
Manipulating and cherry picking data from people who have done the same, shouldn't interest us here.
This isn't about individual murders, but mass killings. Are they on the decline? Rising? Or isn't there enough data at the moment?
What needs to be done to make sure it declines? How will the U.S. amendment be protected in the meantime?
too funny
Politicians and rich liberals who wanna grab guns are all too eager to be protected by armed security 24/7. They also all send their kids to schools with armed guards. I suppose having weapons to defend oneself is a-ok if you're rich and privileged. If you're just a Joe Nobody, **** you and your family.
Politicians and rich liberals who wanna grab guns are all too eager to be protected by armed security 24/7. They also all send their kids to schools with armed guards. I suppose having weapons to defend oneself is a-ok if you're rich and privileged. If you're just a Joe Nobody, **** you and your family.
And again with the deflection. That's total rubbish, and not relevant. C'mon, you want to argue or not?!?
Yo guy, not responding to you at all. You're also 20 pages late for an argument wtf you think we been doin, son???
All the prominent US gun grabbers are FILTHY rich liberals. But the power of the people by way of the NRA's massive membership of common every-day folk cannot be defeated with dirty money - thankfully.
All the prominent US gun grabbers are FILTHY rich liberals. But the power of the people by way of the NRA's massive membership of common every-day folk cannot be defeated with dirty money - thankfully.
Still not relevant. What's that got to do with mass shootings? Are they on the rise? What's to be done about them?
A party for 50 people being shot dead. You're trying to get me to stereotype you! Or are you stereotyping yourself and I'm just noticing?
Try again. There were reports of a mass shooting in Germany, but maybe only four shots fired and attacker killed?: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/europe/germany-cinema-attack
If we're talking about dogs, i agree, if an owner decides to kill his dog, whether he does it with a shotgun or through injection comes down to the same thing.
But for someone to commit suicide in his/her house with a gun vs to die of assisted suicide = 2 different settings
There are more gates to go through, more information is given to the patient, etc.
more info found in here
http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/humanrights/endoflife/euthanasia/lpad#V
Firearm for suicide would be a lot more impulsive. And it's not necessarily the kind of decision you want to make on an impulse.
-D-
Banned
From another thread.
They can regulate bumpers because people are getting hurt...as per post seems like a handful and they took action to protect EVERYONE ELSE.
They can regulate bumpers because people are getting hurt...as per post seems like a handful and they took action to protect EVERYONE ELSE.
Those aren't facts. They're opinions, and conjecture based on doctored statistics.
Even the conclusion at the end of your quote bubble states that attributing the decline to the NFA was at best an inference.
In fact, the article itself points to the already declining rate of gun homicides and gun suicides in Australia making interpretation difficult.
As well, your example provides a glaring example of the mis-information the anti-gun lobby spew out, and which anti-gun people buy into uncritically:
The "fact" you suggest is that the ban and buy back reduced firearms-related homicide and firearms-related suicides is a disingenuous statistic. It implies the ban and buy back were responsible for the a reduction in homicides and suicides, but it's only looking and gun related.
When then overall homicide and suicide rates (by any means) are viewed, it can clearly be seen that these numbers do not deviate statistically. In fact, one article I found shows that the overall suicide rate actually went up during the buy back period and in 1998 http://www.ic-wish.org/McPhedran Baker Suicide Trends HP.pdf
The fact is this: anti-gun people distort real facts to support an anti-gun fairy tale.
The example I pointed out originally is well understood: that statistic of a 1/2 million gun homicides in the USA spans a huge number of years, over a population of 320 million, AND included justifiable homicides (police shootings, self-defence, etc.)
try arguing against that fact instead of posting up mis-informed rhetoric.
Even the conclusion at the end of your quote bubble states that attributing the decline to the NFA was at best an inference.
In fact, the article itself points to the already declining rate of gun homicides and gun suicides in Australia making interpretation difficult.
As well, your example provides a glaring example of the mis-information the anti-gun lobby spew out, and which anti-gun people buy into uncritically:
The "fact" you suggest is that the ban and buy back reduced firearms-related homicide and firearms-related suicides is a disingenuous statistic. It implies the ban and buy back were responsible for the a reduction in homicides and suicides, but it's only looking and gun related.
When then overall homicide and suicide rates (by any means) are viewed, it can clearly be seen that these numbers do not deviate statistically. In fact, one article I found shows that the overall suicide rate actually went up during the buy back period and in 1998 http://www.ic-wish.org/McPhedran Baker Suicide Trends HP.pdf
The fact is this: anti-gun people distort real facts to support an anti-gun fairy tale.
The example I pointed out originally is well understood: that statistic of a 1/2 million gun homicides in the USA spans a huge number of years, over a population of 320 million, AND included justifiable homicides (police shootings, self-defence, etc.)
try arguing against that fact instead of posting up mis-informed rhetoric.
Might work better if you read the actual report rather than relying on some else's biased interpretation.
oh the irony. Both sides arguing that the other keeps pulling data out of their orafices, while doing the same.
lets stick with actual facts, shall we?
oh the irony. Both sides arguing that the other keeps pulling data out of their orafices, while doing the same.
lets stick with actual facts, shall we?
