CT Shooting - Massive Shooting at School - 27 killed, 20 children

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Don't know if this was posted here or not but so it begins...This guy Gene is a fcking liar for sure.

[chaos]

Well, this is good for gun manufacturers and sales then. Personally, I doubt much will come of all the talk about banning guns anytime soon. Not to be too much of a cynic, but knee jerk politics are pretty transparent, shallow and self-serving.

I have no plans to get one while I can.

I already got one and will be getting more.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Don't know if this was posted here or not but so it begins...This guy Gene is a fcking liar for sure.

Reminds me of this COINTELPRO plant

[Quickerblade]

Don't know if this was posted here or not but so it begins...This guy Gene is a fcking liar for sure.

Oh fuck i told you guys, another fake fucken hero. truth be told 20 kids and 7 adults got shot dead, fair and square. Not heroes, but Victims. Sorry but true.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Chrisis Actors website

http://crisisactors.org/

[garebear]

.

[The Abdominal Snoman]

Oh fuck i told you guys, another fake fucken hero. truth be told 20 kids and 7 adults got shot dead, fair and square. Not heroes, but Victims. Sorry but true.

And because of this Gene Rosen's bloodline, the media will just let it go

[Radical Plato]

 

[NarcissisticDeity]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Now mind you our foreign friends this is an independent study NO WAY affiliated with any pro-gun group and you don't get much better than Harvard 

They answer these questions "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence."

Needless to say it's a resounding NO

Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

So when you wanna talk guns better bring facts and not emotions

[freespirit]

They answer these questions "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence."

The answer is simple:

[NarcissisticDeity]

The answer is simple:

Hahahahahahaha good point especially for most of the people who are anti-gun

[garebear]

The answer is simple:

.

[Radical Plato]

The answer is simple:

hundreds of millions of guns in the United States and you're suggesting the majority are owned by bad guys! Interesting
Statistically their is almost one gun for every citizen, so where are all the good guys with guns?  What you're actually advocating for is a wild west situation were large numbers of citizens are armed everywhere they go, you Americans are Nuts!

[NarcissisticDeity]

hundreds of millions of guns in the United States and you're suggesting the majority are owned by bad guys! Interesting

Read the study it puts EVERYTHING and ANYTHING you typed to bed. This is check mate 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[freespirit]

hundreds of millions of guns in the United States and you're suggesting the majority are owned by bad guys! Interesting
Statistically their is almost one gun for every citizen, so where are all the good guys with guns?  What you're actually advocating for is a wild west situation were large numbers of citizens are armed everywhere they go, you Americans are Nuts!

I did not suggest that. Fact is: you can not defend yourself unarmed against an armed crook. If you can, well congratulations, you are a magician.

[SF1900]

Just walk around with these 2 bodyguards and you wont need a gun

[Radical Plato]

Read the study it puts EVERYTHING and ANYTHING you typed to bed. This is check mate 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Everyone has a study these days, and they almost always a full of conformational bias, academia hand picking selective information and excluding damning information to advocate the political position they hold.  This studies have no longer become about facts, but about University's profiting by being funded by those who are trying to achieve a certain political outcome.  Anybody with time on their hands can easily disseminate these studies and often find the prejudice and biases of the academics who researched them.

Here in Australia we also have University studies, and through my years of studying Pitbulls and their inherent risk to citizens I discovered a PhD Candidate that was studying Dangerous Breeds of Dog that were to be used for the Governments Centre for Disease Control report, when I read her report, I found many omissions, exaggerations and blatant factual distortions and misrepresentations,  It became immediately apparent to me that she was a Pro pitbull Supporter, and regardless of the facts, she was going to put forward her Pro Pitbull argument.   So I did some research and discovered the PhD Candidate was a president for the Australian Pitbull Association and had not informed the university about this prior to commencing her PhD.  So I contacted the University in question, and they so far have pretended to take the matter seriously, and have told me their is an ongoing investigation, it's not so much that she was a president of a Pitbull Association, it's that she didn't admit to anything that would expose a conflict of interest.  

Too many people just see the letters PhD and automatically assume these are neutral participants, this is almost never true, the funding for these studies comes from the group with a vested interest and are swayed to present a biased report and conclusion, this is how it works.  Drug company sponsors University, University does study and viola!, discovers that the new drug that particular drug company is selling is perfectly SAFE, this is a crude example, for their is much politics involved, but everyone these days is a sell out whore, including your Mum!

[NarcissisticDeity]

Everyone has a study these days, and they almost always a full of conformational bias, academia hand picking selective information and excluding damning information to advocate the political position they hold.  This studies have no longer become about facts, but about University's profiting by being funded by those who are trying to achieve a certain political outcome.  Anybody with time on their hands can easily disseminate these studies and often find the prejudice and biases of the academics who researched them.

Here in Australia we also have University studies, and through my years of studying Pitbulls and their inherent risk to citizens I discovered a PhD Candidate that was studying Dangerous Breeds of Dog that were to be used for the Governments Centre for Disease Control report, when I read her report, I found many omissions, exaggerations and blatant factual distortions and misrepresentations,  It became immediately apparent to me that she was a Pro pitbull Supporter, and regardless of the facts, she was going to put forward her Pro Pitbull argument.   So I did some research and discovered the PhD Candidate was a president for the Australian Pitbull Association and had not informed the university about this prior to commencing her PhD.  So I contacted the University in question, and they so far have pretended to take the matter seriously, and have told me their is an ongoing investigation, it's not so much that she was a president of a Pitbull Association, it's that she didn't admit to anything that would expose a conflict of interest.  

Too many people just see the letters PhD and automatically assume these are neutral participants, this is almost never true, the funding for these studies comes from the group with a vested interest and are swayed to present a biased report and conclusion, this is how it works.  Drug company sponsors University, University does study and viola!, discovers that the new drug that particular drug company is selling is perfectly SAFE, this is a crude example, for their is much politics involved, but everyone these days is a sell out whore, including your Mum!

Meltdown 

Thanks for playing. 

[HockeyFightFan]

Here in Australia we also have University studies, and through my years of studying Pitbulls and their inherent risk to citizens I discovered a PhD Candidate that was studying Dangerous Breeds of Dog that were to be used for the Governments Centre for Disease Control report, when I read her report, I found many omissions, exaggerations and blatant factual distortions and misrepresentations,  It became immediately apparent to me that she was a Pro pitbull Supporter, and regardless of the facts, she was going to put forward her Pro Pitbull argument.   So I did some research and discovered the PhD Candidate was a president for the Australian Pitbull Association and had not informed the university about this prior to commencing her PhD.  So I contacted the University in question, and they so far have pretended to take the matter seriously, and have told me their is an ongoing investigation, it's not so much that she was a president of a Pitbull Association, it's that she didn't admit to anything that would expose a conflict of interest.  

Absolutely bat shit crazy.

If you don't see the world his way, he will stomp his feet and hold his breath until you do.   

It's really too bad the pit bulls wouldn't have just offed this waste of space.

[Radical Plato]

I did not suggest that. Fact is: you can not defend yourself unarmed against an armed crook. If you can, well congratulations, you are a magician.

Your assuming all crooks will murder you as soon as look at you, most criminals will try to AVOID shooting anyone as much as possible, as that elevates the crime to a level where they are looking at serious jail time, this is the way it goes, armed intruder(s) comes in, I am shocked but aware what is going on, I tell them I am no threat, discover what it is they want and tell them to take whatever they want!  They take what they want and leave, I am shaken up and in mild shock, the crook gets what he wanted.  The crook (s) leave, I ring the police and report the crime,   I spend a sleepless night and the next day I ring the Insurance company, that's how it goes down.  Now, if I (unarmed) attempted to tackle armed men, I must likely will get injured, but the crook would still prefer not to kill me (remember, he's thinking worse case scenario if he gets caught, he wants the charges read out in court to be minimised and the least serious).  

Now if I have a gun on the other hand, all of a sudden, an incident that is frightening but easily survivable if read correctly, has now become deadly, and depending on how much homework the crook(s) have done, and how many crooks their are and other factors like weapon skill level and the like, the situation has now become potentially deadly for all involved, the crook will almost certainly want to kill me now, and even if I manage to kill him, the whole ordeal will now be a whole lot more stressful for me, I will have to deal with the Police, Court rooms, Judges and a whole host of other issues, rather than some sleepless nights and a cheque from the Insurance Company.

I actually think must Gun owners have some superman complex and fantasize about being a HERO.

[Radical Plato]

Absolutely bat shit crazy.

If you don't see the world his way, he will stomp his feet and hold his breath until you do.   

Are you even aware you are describing the NRA and it's supporters.  The absolute lack of self awareness on behalf of Gun Nutters is staggering, I often wonder if they know they are full of shit but decide the profit they make from Guns is a worthwhile compromise or they actually believe the crap that comes out of their mouths!

[NarcissisticDeity]

Are you even aware you are describing the NRA and it's supporters.  The absolute lack of self awareness on behalf of Gun Nutters is staggering, I often wonder if they know they are full of shit but decide the profit they make from Guns is a worthwhile compromise or they actually believe the crap that comes out of their mouths!

You my dim witted friend are wrong on everything you type 

Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

[Maddy]

E-Kul
have you ever
thouht of using
you energy to
better your
own country

[Shockwave]

Here in Australia we also have University studies, and through my years of studying Pitbulls and their inherent risk to citizens I discovered a PhD Candidate that was studying Dangerous Breeds of Dog that were to be used for the Governments Centre for Disease Control report, when I read her report, I found many omissions, exaggerations and blatant factual distortions and misrepresentations,  It became immediately apparent to me that she was a Pro pitbull Supporter, and regardless of the facts, she was going to put forward her Pro Pitbull argument.   So I did some research and discovered the PhD Candidate was a president for the Australian Pitbull Association and had not informed the university about this prior to commencing her PhD.  So I contacted the University in question, and they so far have pretended to take the matter seriously, and have told me their is an ongoing investigation, it's not so much that she was a president of a Pitbull Association, it's that she didn't admit to anything that would expose a conflict of interest.  

Wow dude... just... wow. You have issues.

[Radical Plato]

there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime.

HA HA Keep telling yourself that!