Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Matt on February 25, 2018, 07:29:08 PM
-
TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE DEAD IN THE TOP 20 MASS SHOOTINGS IN AMERICAN HISTORY BETWEEN 1949 TO 2018:
453
Oh, and 20 of those deaths were the perpetrators of those shootings.
So 433 innocent people died in the Top 20 mass shootings - which is actually spread over 23 shootings in the past 68 years, since there are four mass shootings tied for 20th place, which comprised a staggering 10 deaths over those four mass shootings. So even a lowly 10 deaths gets you in the top 20 for deadliest mass shootings in American history.
Oh, and this happened over the past 68 year period in the USA.
Interesting number - that averages 6.66 deaths per year over the past 68 years. ;D :-X This may be meaningful for any religious people or Christian Getbiggers reading.
Gee, so under 7 deaths per year in a population which was 149.2 million in 1949 at the time of the first mass shooting among the Top 20, and currently sits at 323.1 million.
I'm getting scared. ::)
Compare that to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which ramped political murders up from about one weekly under Tsar Nicholas II to 1,000 DAILY under the communist regime of the USSR under Stalin.
Here is the Wikipedia page where I got the information from. For those in denial, who will come back and say "Wikipedia sources don't count", go to the primary sources that Wikipedia links to. They will give you the same information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Deadliest_shootings
Can gun haters please learn math? ??? As a person with a 4-year university mathematics degree, it would mean a lot to me for the gun haters to learn, what, say, a fifth grader's level of mathematics knowledge? Thanks.
-
I'm getting so scared. ::)
Oh look, leftists/liberals suddenly learn logic:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345
-
TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE DEAD IN THE TOP 20 MASS SHOOTINGS IN AMERICAN HISTORY BETWEEN 1949 TO 2018:
453
Oh, and 20 of those deaths were the perpetrators of those shootings.
So 433 innocent people died in the Top 20 mass shootings - which is actually spread over 23 shootings in the past 68 years, since there are four mass shootings tied for 20th place, which comprised a staggering 10 deaths over those four mass shootings. So even a lowly 10 deaths gets you in the top 20 for deadliest mass shootings in American history.
Oh, and this happened over the past 68 year period in the USA.
Interesting number - that averages 6.66 deaths per year over the past 68 years. ;D :-X This may be meaningful for any religious people or Christian Getbiggers reading.
Gee, so under 7 deaths per year in a population which was 149.2 million in 1949 at the time of the first mass shooting among the Top 20, and is currently now 323.1 million.
I'm getting scared. ::)
Compare that to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which ramped political murders up from about one weekly under Tsar Nicholas to 1,000 DAILY under the communist regime of the USSR under Stalin.
Here is the Wikipedia page where I got the information from. For those in denial, who will come back and say "Wikipedia sources don't count", go to the primary sources that Wikipedia links to. They will give you the same information.
Can gun haters please learn math? ??? As a person with a 4-year university mathematics degree, it would mean a lot to me for the gun haters to learn, what, say, a fifth grader's level of mathematics? Thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Deadliest_shootings
259 died in the last 5 years ,dumb fuck , plus 100's injured
-
(https://i.giphy.com/media/qPkpcKcMVjl2U/200w.gif)
-
Millions of aborted children? Irrelevant. That's just a simple women's issue. Keep your laws off their body.
400 or so kids killed at school by other crazy kids? Catastrophe, our Constitutional right is now null and void.
Some kid's lives are very important, others are not.
Also, it's ok for parents to kill their children, but it's not ok for other kids to kill them.
-
"Hillary Clinton campaigned for tougher background checks and a ban on those on terror watch lists gaining access to firearms
This was seen by the National Rifle Association, which reportedly spent more than $26m on pro-Donald Trump's TV ads, as an attack on the Second Amendment of the US constitution which declares "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Why would tougher background checks and a ban on those on the terror watch list infringe?
-
Great post!
It will also be useful for people to learn HOW millions of innocent Europeans and Asians were murdered: starved, tortured to death, heads bashed in, throats slit, overworked and starved to death in gulags.
And people should get this: those flaming libs who want ultimate gun control are from the same cloth as the evil Bolshevik scum of the past, who love to see innocent and better people being hurt!
And let's not forget the pro-gun conservatives who portray Hitler as the ultimate gun controller when in fact the National Socialists PROMOTED responsible gun ownership and self defense and at the end of the war the Allies were astonished by the amount of guns and fencing swords the average German citizens owned!
-
a ban on those on the terror watch list infringe?
When did they get convicted of anything? And also what perimeters where used to add them to it?
-
Millions of aborted children? Irrelevant.
Embryo = child?
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/18/no-saving-child-instead-embryos-burning-building-not-negate-pro-life-position/
This is where the "embryo is a child" retards really choke and generally dance around the question
-
"Hillary Clinton campaigned for tougher background checks and a ban on those on terror watch lists gaining access to firearms
This was seen by the National Rifle Association, which reportedly spent more than $26m on pro-Donald Trump's TV ads, as an attack on the Second Amendment of the US constitution which declares "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Why would tougher background checks and a ban on those on the terror watch list infringe?
Because the terror watch list (or it might have been the no fly list) had no due process. You get on it the list with no due process and then it's up to you to convince the court to take you off the list.
You can't restrict constitutional rights with no due process.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Screening_Database -
Judging from the places it pulls from. A lot of the watch list are screen out already, via normal firearms law like the NICS checks and 4473 forms.
-
Because the terror watch list (or it might have been the no fly list) had no due process. You get on it the list with no due process and then it's up to you to convince the court to take you off the list.
You can't restrict constitutional rights with no due process.
Interesting viewpoint. So the FBI determining someone might be a terror threat and cant board a plane should not preclude them from buying an AR15 with bumpstock. Unless an arrest and trial occurs, no matter the bizzare behavior, in your opinion, they should still have access to buying weapons? I get that the no fly list had errors on it and shouldn't be the end all be all of the decision but don't you think it should certainly weigh in?
-
Interesting viewpoint. So the FBI determining someone might be a terror threat and cant board a plane should not preclude them from buying an AR15 with bumpstock. Unless an arrest and trial occurs, no matter the bizzare behavior, in your opinion, they should still have access to buying weapons? I get that the no fly list had errors on it and shouldn't be the end all be all of the decision but don't you think it should certainly weigh in?
No, not at all.
A US citizen can not have his constitutional rights taken away without due process. It's right in there if you read it.
-
No, not at all.
A US citizen can not have his constitutional rights taken away without due process. It's right in there if you read it.
If you were the the one making the call.. 2 days before Cruz shot up the school and killed 17, if you knew there were 30+ calls to his house, he had posted some disturbing things on FB and people were concerned he would be a school shooter, he allegedly referred to himself as a professional school shooter, was expelled from school, and he wanted to buy an AR-15 with all we now know about him, would you let them sell to him? He had no criminal record, no conviction and no due process. Or would you just say "It's his right" and let the chips fall where they may?
-
Interesting viewpoint. So the FBI determining someone might be a terror threat and cant board a plane should not preclude them from buying an AR15 with bumpstock. Unless an arrest and trial occurs, no matter the bizzare behavior, in your opinion, they should still have access to buying weapons? I get that the no fly list had errors on it and shouldn't be the end all be all of the decision but don't you think it should certainly weigh in?
Again, what perimeters are being used? Should the Black Panthers be denied? Should Klan members? Should anyone that doesn't agree with politically correct thought, even though they are completely non-violent?
If you look at the the various places used to compile it, most threats are screened out already via normal gun laws that everyone must pass -
1) Foreigners get denied guns because they are foreigners under current gun laws.
2) Any felons are automatically denied. Most States also deny people accused domestic violence now too, no conviction needed.
3) Anyone who under serious mental (hospitalised) care willed be denied.
That isn't bullshit, look at ATF Form 4473 and at NICS checks, they screen for all of that.
-
If you were the the one making the call.. 2 days before Cruz shot up the school and killed 17, if you knew there were 30+ calls to his house, he had posted some disturbing things on FB and people were concerned he would be a school shooter, he allegedly referred to himself as a professional school shooter, was expelled from school, and he wanted to buy an AR-15 with all we now know about him, would you let them sell to him? He had no criminal record, no conviction and no due process. Or would you just say "It's his right" and let the chips fall where they may?
I don't understand your question. In this hypothetical situation am I in the government or do I own a gun store?
Also, am I to infer that you are ok with depriving a US citizen of their constitution rights without due process? Should we amend the Constitution then?
-
If you were the the one making the call.. 2 days before Cruz shot up the school and killed 17, if you knew there were 30+ calls to his house, he had posted some disturbing things on FB and people were concerned he would be a school shooter, he allegedly referred to himself as a professional school shooter, was expelled from school, and he wanted to buy an AR-15 with all we now know about him, would you let them sell to him? He had no criminal record, no conviction and no due process. Or would you just say "It's his right" and let the chips fall where they may?
Why weren't your Brothers in Blue doing anything? They were the ones there 30+ times. They could've did something if they really wanted to -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act ;).
-
259 died in the last 5 years ,dumb fuck , plus 100's injured
Fuck off. Obama gave an average of $500mil per year of tax payers money to Planned Parent Hood. Asshole
https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/disentangling-the-data-planned-parenthood-affiliates-abortion-services
-
I don't understand your question. In this hypothetical situation am I in the government or do I own a gun store?
Also, am I to infer that you are ok with depriving a US citizen of their constitution rights without due process? Should we amend the Constitution then?
Lets see. We're talking about the no fly list to keep suspected terrorists off planes being connected with gun sales to a person on the list. For me, public safety is pretty important and I certainly wouldn't want a suspected terrorist buying an AR until questions get answered and the person is cleared. It's a small inconvenience for what it can detour in my opinion. I think if someone displays aggressive, violent tendencies, has referred to themselves as "A professional school shooter" been expelled from school, had numerous interactions with the law, seeing a therapist about these issues yet still shows signs of erratic behavior, I absolutley have no problem holding up that sale until he can be shown to not be the danger he has been projecting himself to be. It's common sense to me
-
Lets see. We're talking about the no fly list to keep suspected terrorists off planes being connected with gun sales to a person on the list. For me, public safety is pretty important and I certainly wouldn't want a suspected terrorist buying an AR until questions get answered and the person is cleared. It's a small inconvenience for what it can detour in my opinion. I think if someone displays aggressive, violent tendencies, has referred to themselves as "A professional school shooter" been expelled from school, had numerous interactions with the law, seeing a therapist about these issues yet still shows signs of erratic behavior, I absolutley have no problem holding up that sale until he can be shown to not be the danger he has been projecting himself to be. It's common sense to me
OK, so yes. You believe in denying Constitutional rights without due process. That isn't a small inconvenience.
What other Constitution rights is it ok to take away from people?
-
Matt can you do some research and find out how many lives were safely defended by guns in the United States over the same period?
-
Matt can you do some research and find out how many lives were safely defended by guns in the United States over the same period?
6.
-
6.
Damn I was hoping for at least 10.
-
Can gun haters please learn math? ??? As a person with a 4-year university mathematics degree, it would mean a lot to me for the gun haters to learn, what, say, a fifth grader's level of mathematics knowledge? Thanks.
This is either some pretty lazy trolling or some pretty lazy reasoning. I don't think a child would even be foolish enough pass off such lazy analysis as thoughtful, much less someone with a "4 year university mathematics degree."
First, using only this chart as reference, just a quick glance shows that the vast majority of those shootings have happened in the last decade. Secondly, that chart shows that the shootings are trending deadlier as time progresses. Along with deadlier incidents, we see that as time progresses shootings become more common. 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2017 all have multiple entries on a list with only 20 spots. Thirdly, and most importantly, why are you using a sample that encompasses 70 years and 20 events and conflating it with the total number of shootings/deaths/injuries? No matter how many words you cram into your post or how many "mathematics degrees" ::) you have, that screenshot does not equal 7 deaths a year.
-
This is either some pretty lazy trolling or some pretty lazy reasoning. I don't think a child would even be foolish enough pass off such lazy analysis as thoughtful, much less someone with a "4 year university mathematics degree."
First, using only this chart as reference, just a quick glance shows that the vast majority of those shootings have happened in the last decade. Secondly, that chart shows that the shootings are trending deadlier as time progresses. Along with deadlier incidents, we see that as time progresses shootings become more common. 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2017 all have multiple entries on a list with only 20 spots. Thirdly, and most importantly, why are you using a sample that encompasses 70 years and 20 events and conflating it with the total number of shootings/deaths/injuries? No matter how many words you cram into your post or how many "mathematics degrees" ::) you have, that screenshot does not equal 7 deaths a year.
I think Matt was quite generous as he didn't remove the numerous false flags on that list :D
-
OK, so yes. You believe in denying Constitutional rights without due process. That isn't a small inconvenience.
What other Constitution rights is it ok to take away from people?
Just that one
-
This is either some pretty lazy trolling or some pretty lazy reasoning. I don't think a child would even be foolish enough pass off such lazy analysis as thoughtful, much less someone with a "4 year university mathematics degree."
First, using only this chart as reference, just a quick glance shows that the vast majority of those shootings have happened in the last decade. Secondly, that chart shows that the shootings are trending deadlier as time progresses. Along with deadlier incidents, we see that as time progresses shootings become more common. 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2017 all have multiple entries on a list with only 20 spots. Thirdly, and most importantly, why are you using a sample that encompasses 70 years and 20 events and conflating it with the total number of shootings/deaths/injuries? No matter how many words you cram into your post or how many "mathematics degrees" ::) you have, that screenshot does not equal 7 deaths a year.
Al.. I don't think logic is allowed here.. It's not your fault, it threw me off too
I'm joking here..
-
Fuck off. Obama gave an average of $500mil per year of tax payers money to Planned Parent Hood. Asshole
https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/disentangling-the-data-planned-parenthood-affiliates-abortion-services
Obama didn't do shit. That money has been going to Planned Parenthood and none of it goes towards abortions as they are not allowed to use one penny for it. Planned Parenthood provides a number of health services for woman other than abortion.
-
OK, so yes. You believe in denying Constitutional rights without due process. That isn't a small inconvenience.
What other Constitution rights is it ok to take away from people?
So visa versa you are saying no matter the signs, info and likelihood a disturbed person will buy the gun and commit a mass shooting, as long as he hasn't been tried, he's good to go, the 2nd amendment trumps any common sense?
-
The concern is more how frequently these shootings are taking place. They used to occur once every few years, but now seem to be occurring every other month. We've already seen three since last summer.
-
The concern is more how frequently these shootings are taking place. They used to occur once every few years, but now seem to be occurring every other month. We've already seen three since last summer.
If they weren't reported there would be less of them, people see how much publicity and "fame" the shooters get so they want to be remembered and they go do it themselves,
the more you advertise something the more people will do it
We have a new policy at work regarding mental health, they are constantly talking about depression and bi polar on the work website, as such more people read it and think "hey thats me, I will have 6 months off with full pay if I say im depressed"
the more you talk about something the more it happens...
-
This is either some pretty lazy trolling or some pretty lazy reasoning. I don't think a child would even be foolish enough pass off such lazy analysis as thoughtful, much less someone with a "4 year university mathematics degree."
First, using only this chart as reference, just a quick glance shows that the vast majority of those shootings have happened in the last decade. Secondly, that chart shows that the shootings are trending deadlier as time progresses. Along with deadlier incidents, we see that as time progresses shootings become more common. 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2017 all have multiple entries on a list with only 20 spots. Thirdly, and most importantly, why are you using a sample that encompasses 70 years and 20 events and conflating it with the total number of shootings/deaths/injuries? No matter how many words you cram into your post or how many "mathematics degrees" ::) you have, that screenshot does not equal 7 deaths a year.
Since guns are the problem then people must have only started to own guns in the last decade, right? Wrong.
In 1925 you used to be able to order a fully automatic Thompson Sub and have it mailed to your house. Why were their no school shootings in those days?
We are going about solving this school shooting issue completely wrong. Guns are just the tool, you've got to deal with the root cause. What makes a person want to kill a bunch of school kids or concert goers?
What makes a person run over 50 people with a truck? What makes a person blow up buildings, or fly planes into them? We are digging in the wrong hole.
-
The concern is more how frequently these shootings are taking place. They used to occur once every few years, but now seem to be occurring every other month. We've already seen three since last summer.
And there is no reason to believe it will slow down
-
Since guns are the problem then people must have only started to own guns in the last decade, right? Wrong.
In 1925 you used to be able to order a fully automatic Thompson Sub and have it mailed to your house. Why were their no school shootings in those days?
We are going about solving this school shooting issue completely wrong. Guns are just the tool, you've got to deal with the root cause. What makes a person want to kill a bunch of school kids or concert goers?
What makes a person run over 50 people with a truck? What makes a person blow up buildings, or fly planes into them? We are digging in the wrong hole.
But while you are working on that problem... which you must admit will take time, perhaps decades, leaving the "tool" available seems irresponsible
-
So visa versa you are saying no matter the signs, info and likelihood a disturbed person will buy the gun and commit a mass shooting, as long as he hasn't been tried, he's good to go, the 2nd amendment trumps any common sense?
Again -
Why weren't your Brothers in Blue doing anything? They were the ones there 30+ times. They could've did something if they really wanted to -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act Wink.
That would have been enough to keep him from buying his firearms, that's been Federal Law since at least 1968 -
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
-
Again -
Why weren't your Brothers in Blue doing anything? They were the ones there 30+ times. They could've did something if they really wanted to -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act Wink.
That would have been enough to keep him from buying his firearms, that's been Federal Law since at least 1968 -
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
well, as Pray 4 War will attest, there are rights to be respected and unless certain elements are met, he is clearly a danger to himself or others or has caused bodily injury to another person or met the requirement of a terrorist threat, they had their hands tied.
I am speaking as a citizen with little knowledge of the nature of the calls. If I were allowed access to all the police reports of the responding officers I feel confident I could tell you if there was negligence or not, but without that access I could not. I can tell you it obviously sounds bad, but again, often times LE is hindered by statutes, laws and department policy. I'm in no way making excuses for them, just pointing out the possible problems they may have had. It very well could have been negligence, but I can't determine that. Hopefully the investigators will
-
If they weren't reported there would be less of them, people see how much publicity and "fame" the shooters get so they want to be remembered and they go do it themselves,
the more you advertise something the more people will do it
We have a new policy at work regarding mental health, they are constantly talking about depression and bi polar on the work website, as such more people read it and think "hey thats me, I will have 6 months off with full pay if I say im depressed"
the more you talk about something the more it happens...
I think you're right, but I also think there is simply no way to stop that. Some outlets refuse to name the shooter which I think is a start
-
Since guns are the problem then people must have only started to own guns in the last decade, right? Wrong.
In 1925 you used to be able to order a fully automatic Thompson Sub and have it mailed to your house. Why were their no school shootings in those days?
We are going about solving this school shooting issue completely wrong. Guns are just the tool, you've got to deal with the root cause. What makes a person want to kill a bunch of school kids or concert goers?
What makes a person run over 50 people with a truck? What makes a person blow up buildings, or fly planes into them? We are digging in the wrong hole.
Are you having a conversation with yourself? You quoted me but where you went with this is not where I (or any rational person) would have gone with that opening line. Yeah, guns have been around , but so have mental health problems. So, what are some other major factors that have changed over the last two decades. Do you think there are any differences between how someone ordered a thompson sub through the mail in 1925 and how someone might do it today?
-
But while you are working on that problem... which you must admit will take time, perhaps decades, leaving the "tool" available seems irresponsible
Even if we all agreed (which I don't and we will not) how do you get around the fact that nuts and criminals don't obey the law?
It's just a simple fact that the only people that would turn in their guns are the ones at very little risk of being a school shooter.
All you would do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.
-
I think you're right, but I also think there is simply no way to stop that. Some outlets refuse to name the shooter which I think is a start
I agree, to an extent. Several of these shooters have said they are either trying to make a point or seeking some type of notoriety.
-
well, as Pray 4 War will attest, there are rights to be respected and unless certain elements are met, he is clearly a danger to himself or others or has caused bodily injury to another person or met the requirement of a terrorist threat, they had their hands tied.
I am speaking as a citizen with little knowledge of the nature of the calls. If I were allowed access to all the police reports of the responding officers I feel confident I could tell you if there was negligence or not, but without that access I could not. I can tell you it obviously sounds bad, but again, often times LE is hindered by statutes, laws and department policy. I'm in no way making excuses for them, just pointing out the possible problems they may have had. It very well could have been negligence, but I can't determine that. Hopefully the investigators will
I don't know, seems they had ample warning that he was a threat to others -
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43071710 .
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article200126034.html .
We don't need to start chiseling at the Constitution, we just need to enforce what's on the books already.
-
I agree, to an extent. Several of these shooters have said they are either trying to make a point or seeking some type of notoriety.
I can't imagine news outlets not covering a mass shooting but I do wish they would all (by all I guess I mean MSM because there are literally hundreds of internet "news" sites that would have no problem broadcasting the name and image of the shooter) would agree to never mention the shooter(s) or show their pictures.
-
Again -
Why weren't your Brothers in Blue doing anything? They were the ones there 30+ times. They could've did something if they really wanted to -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act Wink.
That would have been enough to keep him from buying his firearms, that's been Federal Law since at least 1968 -
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx
From the link you mentioned
"Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the criteria:
Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential and present threat of substantial harm.
The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample, considerable, firm or strong.)"
I would have to read their reports to be able to say.. and so would anyone else
-
From the link you mentioned
"Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the criteria:
Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential and present threat of substantial harm.
The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample, considerable, firm or strong.)"
I would have to read their reports to be able to say.. and so would anyone else
We both know that if they really tried, they could've gotten it done. The FBI knew. The school knew. I'm sure the cops could've cajoled something up, if they really needed too. And if he did get committed, he'd have be kicked back when they ran the NICS.
Again, the existing law(s) would've worked if they tried.
-
I can't imagine news outlets not covering a mass shooting but I do wish they would all (by all I guess I mean MSM because there are literally hundreds of internet "news" sites that would have no problem broadcasting the name and image of the shooter) would agree to never mention the shooter(s) or show their pictures.
I don't know. I was in high school when the columbine shooting happened (the one that sort of set the trend) and this was something that was talked about a lot. I thought it was a good idea at one point, but now I feel that as much info as possible is best policy. Especially in an era when "crisis actors" and pizzagate are things people are things people actually believe in.
-
We both know that if they really tried, they could've gotten it done. The FBI knew. The school knew. I'm sure the cops could've cajoled something up, if they really needed too. And if he did get committed, he'd have be kicked back when they ran the NICS.
Again, the existing law(s) would've worked if they tried.
we both don't know but it is clear that you have jumped to that conclusion. The FBI certainly dropped the ball and yes, all the checks and balances that were supposed to save us sadly didn't work. which is why this 19 year old being able to buy what.. 10 weapons in a year is a little scary.
-
We don't need to start chiseling at the Constitution, we just need to enforce what's on the books already.
Yes, and we also need to remember that the right to keep and bear arms is what protects all the other rights in that document.
-
I don't know. I was in high school when the columbine shooting happened (the one that sort of set the trend) and this was something that was talked about a lot. I thought it was a good idea at one point, but now I feel that as much info as possible is best policy. Especially in an era when "crisis actors" and pizzagate are things people are things people actually believe in.
I just hate making anyone infamous for such a cowardly and brutal thing. I personally would rather not know their name or their life history. I don't mind hearing the stories of the heroes and the lives of the victims and survivors
-
Yes, and we also need to remember that the right to keep and bear arms is what protects all the other rights in that document.
so should you own a bazooka? LAWS Rocket? I don't think anyone is seriously interested in divesting you of handguns or hunting rifles, at least I'm not and most people who are advocating gun control aren't. You're 2nd amendment is not in danger, its what is reasonable to own is what is being discussed, agreed?
-
we both don't know but it is clear that you have jumped to that conclusion. The FBI certainly dropped the ball and yes, all the checks and balances that were supposed to save us sadly didn't work. which is why this 19 year old being able to buy what.. 10 weapons in a year is a little scary.
You're the guy crying about how mentally fucked up this kid was, and how we need new gun laws, etc.... But you even admit that they ones that could've stopped it were already there, and did nothing. But your solution is just to pile on more laws?
-
so should you own a bazooka? LAWS Rocket? I don't think anyone is seriously interested in divesting you of handguns or hunting rifles, at least I'm not and most people who are advocating gun control aren't. You're 2nd amendment is not in danger, its what is reasonable to own is what is being discussed, agreed?
What's the difference between an AR15 and a mini 14 ranch rifle?
Semi auto, magazine fed, capable of scoped shooting etc etc.
-
You're the guy crying about how mentally fucked up this kid was, and how we need new gun laws, etc.... But you even admit that they ones that could've stopped it were already there, and did nothing. But your solution is just to pile on more laws?
my argument is reduce the access to military type weapons; If someone comes up on the no fly list, might want to look into that before selling them a military style weapon.. and yes, enforce the laws already on the books.
-
so should you own a bazooka? LAWS Rocket? I don't think anyone is seriously interested in divesting you of handguns or hunting rifles, at least I'm not and most people who are advocating gun control aren't. You're 2nd amendment is not in danger, its what is reasonable to own is what is being discussed, agreed?
I do not agree. The language of the 2nd Amendment is very interesting. The founding fathers said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The word infringe is what what intrigues me. To "infringe" means...to encroach upon. "Encroach" means...to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another. Gradual steps. Not only did the founding fathers know that someday the government would try to take this right away, they also knew how. In gradual steps, slowly, silently chipping away at it until it is gone. Right in front of our faces.
No.
-
I do not agree. The language of the 2nd Amendment is very interesting. The founding fathers said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The word infringe is what what intrigues me. To "infringe" means...to encroach upon. "Encroach" means...to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another. Gradual steps. Not only did the founding fathers know that someday the government would try to take this right away, they also knew how. In gradual steps, slowly, silently chipping away at it until it is gone. Right in front of our faces.
No.
There are constitutional scholars, much brighter than I am, that will argue, and it seems very compelling that the 2nd amendment wasn't about you or I keeping arms but a "well regulated militia" which we are obviously not. So I don't think it is as cut and dried as you believe it to be.
-
259 died in the last 5 years ,dumb fuck , plus 100's injured
If you change the standard to 4+ people being shot as a "mass shooting", basically all of which are Black-on-Black drive-by shootings, or Hispanic-perpetrated.
Compare Canada to the USA in terms of murder after ADJUSTING FOR RACE, and then tell me how much more murder the USA has, 70% of which is perpetrated by Blacks or Hispanics - 51% by Black males alone!
Yeah, I'm the dumb fuck. ::)
PS - my favourite line from Canadians: "We are so much better than the USA. We have so much less violence, and we love diversity."
*sigh*
FOR THE LAST F*CKING TIME, RACIAL DIVERSITY IS THE REASON WHY THE USA HAS SO MUCH MORE VIOLENCE TO BEGIN WITH.
-
There are constitutional scholars, much brighter than I am, that will argue, and it seems very compelling that the 2nd amendment wasn't about you or I keeping arms but a "well regulated militia" which we are obviously not. So I don't think it is as cut and dried as you believe it to be.
No.
Don't be a dumb fuck. The constitution said that since all states need a "well-regulated militia", i.e., a MILITARY, to protect its borders, the people, i.e., the CITIZENS, need to have the right to bear arms to ensure the state militia [again, the MILITARY] doesn't turn against its people.
The founders of the USA had just fought a revolutionary war against the British. Hence they knew that the people needed protection from the state.
So no, no, no, no, no.
Why do people keep repeating that? ???
-
my argument is reduce the access to military type weapons
Ok, so what happens when you eliminate "Assualt Rifles", and the inevitable black market springs up?
Shall we also curtail the 1st Amendment, and ban gun smithing books? Machinist books? 3d printing programs, CNC programs, etc....? All of those are making untraceable weapons available to anyone who is willing to put the time in. One only needs to look at youtube for that.
What shall we do with the probably 1/2 a billion firearms already out there? I'd venture that a good proportion of them fit the definition.
Also the magazine really is the biggest distinguishing part of a gun that turns it from a sporting arm to a military one. Those were only regulated from 94 - 2004. How would you deal with the few billion that are around now?
-
The founders of the USA had just fought a revolutionary war against the British. Hence they knew that the people needed protection from the state.
This is the part that nobody talks about. This context of just having fought against a tyrannical government. That, and the fact that they say "the right of the people" make it pretty clear to me. The militia part is a prefatory statement explaining why the right is necessary. The language about what the actual right is and who it is for is quite clear. If the purpose of the right is to fight the government and not to go hunting then you have to infer that they wouldn't want the government to have machine guns and force the people to only have pistols. At that time citizens had the same guns that soldiers did. In fact many of the cannons used in the civil war were privately owned.
Scholars can argue anything. Scholars argue that there is no such thing as gender. The right is clear and it has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as being an individual right.
-
No.
Don't be a dumb fuck. The constitution said that since all states need a "well-regulated militia", i.e., a MILITARY, to protect its borders, the people, i.e., the CITIZENS, need to have the right to bear arms to ensure the state militia [again, the MILITARY] doesn't turn against its people.
The founders of the USA had just fought a revolutionary war against the British. Hence they knew that the people needed protection from the state.
So no, no, no, no, no.
Why do people keep repeating that? ???
Because it is truly ambiguous and depending on the interpretation can mean a couple things not unlike the bible and the many denominations. IF you care to copy and paste the actual amendment we can play scholar and debate it but there are supreme court justices who I dare say are more qualified to speak on it than a former cop and a math wizard, who have determined it means a militia.
-
This is the part that nobody talks about. This context of just having fought against a tyrannical government. That, and the fact that they say "the right of the people" make it pretty clear to me. The militia part is a prefatory statement explaining why the right is necessary. The language about what the actual right is and who it is for is quite clear. If the purpose of the right is to fight the government and not to go hunting then you have to infer that they wouldn't want the government to have machine guns and force the people to only have pistols. At that time citizens had the same guns that soldiers did. In fact many of the cannons used in the civil war were privately owned.
Scholars can argue anything. Scholars argue that there is no such thing as gender. The right is clear and it has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as being an individual right.
hahahaha only in America would someone need a cannon for home use.
Fucks sake....
-
This is either some pretty lazy trolling or some pretty lazy reasoning. I don't think a child would even be foolish enough pass off such lazy analysis as thoughtful, much less someone with a "4 year university mathematics degree."
First, using only this chart as reference, just a quick glance shows that the vast majority of those shootings have happened in the last decade. Secondly, that chart shows that the shootings are trending deadlier as time progresses. Along with deadlier incidents, we see that as time progresses shootings become more common. 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2017 all have multiple entries on a list with only 20 spots. Thirdly, and most importantly, why are you using a sample that encompasses 70 years and 20 events and conflating it with the total number of shootings/deaths/injuries? No matter how many words you cram into your post or how many "mathematics degrees" ::) you have, that screenshot does not equal 7 deaths a year.
The focus of this post is MASS SHOOTINGS because MASS SHOOTINGS are the events that are predominantly used by politicians and the Jewish/leftist media to disarm American citizens. MY POINT is that mass shootings cause FUCK ALL in terms of deaths in the grand scheme of things.
MORE PEOPLE DIE EVERY THREE YEARS OF ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK DUE TO PEANUTS FOR F*CK'S SAKE.
So if 433 deaths in 68 years scares you soooo much, then why aren't you banning peanuts, which killed over 10,000 people in the same time frame?
Seriously, if 433 deaths caused by something is cause to ban something, then an argument could be made to ban just about EVERYTHING.
In other words, banning assault rifles will do almost NOTHING in terms of lowering murder stats. You are willing to give up the right that virtually assures that no government can EVER overthrow the citizens of the USA, all so the murder rate drops to 99.9% of what it currently is. ::)
PS - Good luck taking guns away from the people who believe in gun rights - they are the ones who own the 300 MILLION GUNS IN THE USA.
HAHAHAHAHA.
You gun-hating losers want to take the rights away from the people who own 300 million guns.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good luck with that.
PPS - Maybe you can use peanuts to confiscate the 300 million guns from gun owners once they refuse to give up their guns? ???
Haha, stupid gun-hating losers.
-
hahahaha only in America would someone need a cannon for home use.
Fucks sake....
Well, with a 80 million Black and Hispanic Americans who commit 70% of all murders, yeah, people do need more security in the USA, assuming they live in the states with high levels of racial diversity. Those in majority-White areas are perfectly safe, with homicide rates roughly at or below 2.0 per 100,000 population per year, on par with Canada, Denmark, or any other majority-White nation. Although one should note that all European and other White-majority nations are seeing an increase in violent crime as their rates of racial diversity increase. Good. As much as I hate it, it is finally teaching White liberal idiots a lesson. It sucks that Vince Basile will be dead before the full accepted failure of racial diversity in the West is made official. Having lived his entire life in lily-White Australia or where ever he hails from.
But let me guess, you live in Europe, Canada, or Australia, or some lily-White state of the USA, far from diversity where it's safe, then trash the USA for being too violent, not grasping that racial diversity is the REASON for that violence?
I love how all the other loser White-majority countries have imported diversity to prove they aren't racist, only to see their rape and murder rates skyrocket as a result, haha. ;D
Be careful what you wish for - you might just get it! :)
-
Well, with a 80 million Black and Hispanic Americans who commit 70% of all murders, yeah, people do need more security in the USA, assuming they live in the states with high levels of racial diversity. Those in majority-White areas are perfectly safe, with homicide rates roughly at or below 2.0 per 100,000 population per year, on par with Canada, Denmark, or any other majority-White nation. Although one should note that all European and other White-majority nations are seeing an increase in violent crime as their rates of racial diversity increase. Good. As much as I hate it, it is finally teaching White liberal idiots a lesson. It sucks that Vince Basile will be dead before the full accepted failure of racial diversity in the West is made official. Having lived his entire life in lily-White Australia or where ever he hails from.
But let me guess, you live in Europe, Canada, or Australia, or some lily-White state of the USA, far from diversity where it's safe, then trash the USA for being too violent, not grasping that racial diversity is the REASON for that violence?
I love how all the other loser White-majority countries have imported diversity to prove they aren't racist, only to see their rape and murder rates skyrocket as a result, haha. ;D
Be careful what you wish for - you might just get it! :)
what use would a cannon be against someone attacking you , they only have to step a foot to one side and you will miss.
I never said the USA was too violent, 99.9% of gun owners in the states wouldn't have the bottle to shoot someone if their lives depended on it.
You are not a violent country, you are a country of shit scared pussies thinking that your guns will keep you safe.
-
The concern is more how frequently these shootings are taking place. They used to occur once every few years, but now seem to be occurring every other month. We've already seen three since last summer.
Wait, so the USA is becoming increasingly more violent as rafts of non-White people are being imported into the USA by the millions each year?
Wow. NO SHIT? Really? You don't say? Who could have predicted that one? ::)
So importing millions of people from third world shitholes with the highest rates of rape and violence in the world has resulted in a subsequent political disaster and diversity has DIVIDED people into separate armed camps, and more examples of people going postal are taking place?
Yep, no one saw that one coming. ::)
-
Wait, so the USA is becoming increasingly more violent as rafts of non-White people are being imported into the USA by the millions each year?
Wow. NO SHIT? Really? You don't say? Who could have predicted that one? ::)
So importing millions of people from third world shitholes with the highest rates of rape and violence in the world as resulted in a subsequent political disaster and diversity has DIVIDED people into separate armed camps, and more examples of people going postal are taking place?
Shit, who could have predicted that one? ::)
how many people from third world shitholes shoot up schools?
-
Great post!
It will also be useful for people to learn HOW millions of innocent Europeans and Asians were murdered: starved, tortured to death, heads bashed in, throats slit, overworked and starved to death in gulags.
And people should get this: those flaming libs who want ultimate gun control are from the same cloth as the evil Bolshevik scum of the past, who love to see innocent and better people being hurt!
And let's not forget the pro-gun conservatives who portray Hitler as the ultimate gun controller when in fact the National Socialists PROMOTED responsible gun ownership and self defense and at the end of the war the Allies were astonished by the amount of guns and fencing swords the average German citizens owned!
Yep! Exactly - Hitler promoted gun ownership. He increased gun rights in Germany, not the opposite. But he was a dictator very much in demand, so he didn't need to disarm his citizens. He knew that his citizens wanted him in power. Unlike the USSR [Jewish proxy state, administered disproportionately by Jewish Bolsheviks. I think Jews made up something like 30% of all people in positions of leadership in the USSR, despite being under 1% of its population, but you would have to check Wiki to confirm that 30% figure].
Great post, BBSSchlemiel. :)
-
how many people from third world shitholes shoot up schools?
For [I think] the third time in this thread:
Blacks and Hispanics commit 70% of all murders in the USA. But Hispanics are lumped as White people in the perpetrator category of the FBI stats, but as Hispanics in the victim category in order to make them look more like victims, but inflate the White murder rate. It's complete bullsh*t, and done on purpose, to make it look like Whites commit more murder in the USA than they do. So if an ethnically Mexican American citizen commits a murder, that counts as a "White American" committing the murder. ::) Again, it's complete bullsh*t.
As for how many third world people specifically shoot up schools, I would say the actual reason for those school shootings are likely SSRI-related, combined with the USA turning to sh*t due to diversity, and making people become more divided.
Diversity is shit. It just makes everyone feel like an out-group. Even for Jews - the intellectual force behind leftism, and those who created the ideological script the West is currently being destroyed by - are being harmed by diversity at this point. Specifically, in increased attacks of Jewish citizens in Western countries by imported Muslims.
But to answer your question - no, third world imported citizens are not the ones committing the vast majority of the school shootings. I'm saying that it is a governmental system not listening to White people, combined likely with over-prescribing of SSRIs, that is probably what is driving White people mad. Although on that note, Whites do not commit school shootings out of proportion to their population size. At 65% of the American population, White people commit about 65% of school shootings, or at least, all mass shootings in general.
Although on that note, who gives a f*ck about mass shootings being committed more by White people even IF that was true - WHICH IT ISN'T - because more Black people are murdered by other Black people in Chicago EACH YEAR.
Saying that White males commit the most mass shootings is as stupid as saying White males commit the most murders in the produce sections of grocery stores on Wednesday morning - IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY ONLY COMPRISE 0.000000001% OF ALL MURDERS ANYWAY.
Hyperbole - mass shootings are probably more than 0.1% of all murders in the USA each year.
SO WHOOP-DI-FUCKING-DOO - WHITE MALES COMMIT THE MAJORITY OF 0.1% OF THE USA'S ANNUAL MURDERS.
Except that they don't even do that. ::)
But that doesn't stop Jewish/leftist media outlets like Salon.com from making articles whining about that.
-
how many people from third world shitholes shoot up schools?
For [I think] the third time in this thread:
Blacks and Hispanics commit 70% of all murders in the USA. But Hispanics are lumped as White people in the perpetrator category of the FBI stats, but as Hispanics in the victim category in order to make them look more like victims, but inflate the White murder rate. It's complete bullsh*t, and done on purpose, to make it look like Whites commit more murder in the USA than they do. So if an ethnically Mexican American citizen commits a murder, that counts as a "White American" committing the murder. ::) Again, it's complete bullsh*t.
As for how many third world people specifically shoot up schools, I would say the actual reason for those school shootings are likely SSRI-related, combined with the USA turning to sh*t due to diversity, and making people become more divided.
Diversity is shit. It just makes everyone feel like an out-group. Even for Jews - the intellectual force behind leftism, and those who created the ideological script the West is currently being destroyed by - are being harmed by diversity at this point. Specifically, in increased attacks of Jewish citizens in Western countries by imported Muslims.
But to answer your question - no, third world imported citizens are not the ones committing the vast majority of the school shootings. I'm saying that it is a governmental system not listening to White people, combined likely with over-prescribing of SSRIs, that is probably what is driving White people mad. Although on that note, Whites do not commit school shootings out of proportion to their population size. At 65% of the American population, White people commit about 65% of school shootings, or at least, all mass shootings in general.
Although on that note, who gives a f*ck about mass shootings being committed more by White people even IF that was true - WHICH IT ISN'T - because more Black people are murdered by other Black people in Chicago EACH YEAR.
Saying that White males commit the most mass shootings is as stupid as saying White males commit the most murders in the produce sections of grocery stores on Wednesday morning - IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY ONLY COMPRISE 0.000000001% OF ALL MURDERS ANYWAY.
Hyperbole - mass shootings are probably more than 0.1% of all murders in the USA each year.
SO WHOOP-DI-FUCKING-DOO - WHITE MALES COMMIT THE MAJORITY OF 0.1% OF THE USA'S ANNUAL MURDERS.
Except that they don't even do that. ::)
But that doesn't stop Jewish/leftist media outlets like Salon.com from making articles whining about that.
None
fixed
-
Matt can you do some research and find out how many lives were safely defended by guns in the United States over the same period?
That's a great question, calfzilla.
To be honest, I look at guns [and nuclear weapons held by nation states] more like scarecrows - just knowing they are there to begin with deters people from committing violence.
I would have to look it up, but something like a clear majority [over 70%] of the deadliest shootings [or largest mass shootings] in recent American history took place in gun free zones.
That one that took place when The Dark Knight was playing in the theatre in 2008 - I think that theatre was declared a gun-free zone, for example.
-
HAHAHAHAHA, leftists are such dumb idiots. "Please government - take away my rights!! Oh, and you can have all of my guns. What can go wrong?" ;D
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater.html
-
HAHAHAHAHA, leftists are such dumb idiots. "Please government - take away my rights!! Oh, and you can have all of my guns. What can go wrong?" ;D
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater.html
you dont strike me as a gun owner, do you actually own a gun?
-
you dont strike me as a gun owner, do you actually own a gun?
He doesn't even live in the US. ??? ??? ???
Matt is the type who just goes along with the crowd because it makes him feel cool.
-
For [I think] the third time in this thread:
Blacks and Hispanics commit 70% of all murders in the USA. But Hispanics are lumped as White people in the perpetrator category of the FBI stats, but as Hispanics in the victim category in order to make them look more like victims, but inflate the White murder rate. It's complete bullsh*t, and done on purpose, to make it look like Whites commit more murder in the USA than they do. So if an ethnically Mexican American citizen commits a murder, that counts as a "White American" committing the murder. ::) Again, it's complete bullsh*t.
As for how many third world people specifically shoot up schools, I would say the actual reason for those school shootings are likely SSRI-related, combined with the USA turning to sh*t due to diversity, and making people become more divided.
Diversity is shit. It just makes everyone feel like an out-group. Even for Jews - the intellectual force behind leftism, and those who created the ideological script the West is currently being destroyed by - are being harmed by diversity at this point. Specifically, in increased attacks of Jewish citizens in Western countries by imported Muslims.
But to answer your question - no, third world imported citizens are not the ones committing the vast majority of the school shootings. I'm saying that it is a governmental system not listening to White people, combined likely with over-prescribing of SSRIs, that is probably what is driving White people mad. Although on that note, Whites do not commit school shootings out of proportion to their population size. At 65% of the American population, White people commit about 65% of school shootings, or at least, all mass shootings in general.
Although on that note, who gives a f*ck about mass shootings being committed more by White people even IF that was true - WHICH IT ISN'T - because more Black people are murdered by other Black people in Chicago EACH YEAR.
Saying that White males commit the most mass shootings is as stupid as saying White males commit the most murders in the produce sections of grocery stores on Wednesday morning - IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY ONLY COMPRISE 0.000000001% OF ALL MURDERS ANYWAY.
Hyperbole - mass shootings are probably more than 0.1% of all murders in the USA each year.
SO WHOOP-DI-FUCKING-DOO - WHITE MALES COMMIT THE MAJORITY OF 0.1% OF THE USA'S ANNUAL MURDERS.
Except that they don't even do that. ::)
But that doesn't stop Jewish/leftist media outlets like Salon.com from making articles whining about that.
Terrible that these mass shootings are even occurring & it seems more frequently
As you point out though in grand scheme of total shootings in America they are a tiny
Percentage of deaths.
Especially compared to the huge number of shooting committed by a minority group
IE Blacks - the media & it appears many others have conviniently forgot at about
That Huge Elephant in the Room & Are Concentrating on the ant on the floor.
All the shootings going on are Wrong and it is a Massive issue
Will banning guns solve it - yes it will help prevent a few of them,
Only those who want to have a gun & shoot people will still get them.
Guns are banned here in the uk That doesn’t result in zero shootings
The Blacks Mainly Have no problem getting guns & shooting each other
In America the shootings issue is going to be a very tough nut to crack
-
fixed
;D
No, it's not none. It's not zero. Third world immigrants in ALL cases and in ALL forms of crime [except those requiring intelligence, such as financial fraud] commit disproportionately high levels of crime.
Mass shootings are slightly more evenly distributed but the number wasn't zero. I don't even follow the mass shootings really, but wasn't the recent Florida one committed by someone with the last name "Cruz"? So he was Hispanic?
But yeah, as far as mass shootings are concerned, they aren't as radically racially lopsided as murder in general. Perhaps because it requires slightly more intelligence to actually get away with one, and anything requiring intelligence will see the participation of races with higher average intelligence. I.e., Virginia Tech shooting of 2007 comes to mind. Was it 37 shot there? Not too sure on that. I forget. And at 6:07AM here in THUNDER BAY, CANADA, where I live, I am not searching for it now.
Anyway.
I think mass shootings are caused by SSRI prescriptions gone mad combined with a divided and unstable political climate in the USA caused by diversity, in addition to - of course - access to types of firearms that cannot be purchased in Canada and other Western nations.
That side, with 433 people dead by mass shootings in the past 68 years, you can forgive me for not being in any hurry to take away the American right to bear arms as a result of that.
Not that you and other left-wingers have the power to disarm 90 million legal gun owners in the USA anyway. They have 300 million guns for crying out loud! How do you intend to take away their guns when THEY have the guns and you don't?
You didn't quite think that one through, did you? :D
-
He doesn't even live in the US. ??? ??? ???
Matt is the type who just goes along with the crowd because it makes him feel cool.
Yeah, because supporting gun rights is a popular mainstream opinion. ::)
Are you nuts? ??? Where I live, probably 80% of all citizens are against guns! I live in lily-White Canada, where people are too stupid to understand that American conservative/capitalist principles are what ALLOWS Canadian liberalism to exist in the first place! All of what we buy here comes from American corporations for crying out loud!
And no, I don't own a gun - I live in Canada where police can come to your house at any time if you are a gun owner. More or less. The gun laws here suck. And Canadians are too stupid to realize that the reason why Canada is a SAFER country than the USA is because we are a WHITER country.
More White people per-capita = safer country to live in.
More Black and Hispanic people per-capita = more violence in that country.
More hey, screw the facts right? ::)
-
the new founding fathers has banned class 4 weapons.
-
If they weren't reported there would be less of them, people see how much publicity and "fame" the shooters get so they want to be remembered and they go do it themselves,
the more you advertise something the more people will do it
We have a new policy at work regarding mental health, they are constantly talking about depression and bi polar on the work website, as such more people read it and think "hey thats me, I will have 6 months off with full pay if I say im depressed"
the more you talk about something the more it happens...
That isn't really practical though. Information gets passed on very quickly in the internet age and keeping facts hidden will further increase conspiracy theories. Even with this recent shooting, there were still false news being spread as to who the shooter was. Imagine how bad that would become if his identity was being kept secret.
-
so should you own a bazooka? LAWS Rocket? I don't think anyone is seriously interested in divesting you of handguns or hunting rifles, at least I'm not and most people who are advocating gun control aren't. You're 2nd amendment is not in danger, its what is reasonable to own is what is being discussed, agreed?
You're hopelessly clueless. They antigun factions knows full well that only 2.2% of gun violence is perpetrated with rifles ( an AR15 is a subset of rifles ) yet they are pushing heavily to get them " banned " and entertaining that do , when it has absolutely NO effect whatsoever , they'll move on to the " real " problem , pistols.
The second amendment is in danger and is under constant attack , you're an outsider looking in , there have been a 100 years of compromises and more and more laws ( over 50K last estimate ) Law abiding citizens are fucking fed up with being punished for the actions of criminals , it's immoral to punish the wrong people.
AR15 is a red herring , it's all bullshit that the mass media flames people into a frenzy with and you feel for it. You're more likely to be beaten to death with hands & feet than ever get shot with an AR , you're 3 times more likely to be stabbed to death than ever being shot with an AR.
The biggest problem with this whole " debate " is ignorance & perspective.
-
Wait, so the USA is becoming increasingly more violent as rafts of non-White people are being imported into the USA by the millions each year?
Wow. NO SHIT? Really? You don't say? Who could have predicted that one? ::)
So importing millions of people from third world shitholes with the highest rates of rape and violence in the world has resulted in a subsequent political disaster and diversity has DIVIDED people into separate armed camps, and more examples of people going postal are taking place?
Yep, no one saw that one coming. ::)
I'm referring to mass shooters and not overall crime. The concept of going into a crowded location and randomly gunning down as many people as possible is mostly a white American problem. Even Jared Taylor acknowledges that such atrocities are more commonly committed by whites.
I don't actually blame guns and view it as more of a societal issue linked to the decline of collectivism and the rise of current age nihilism/loneliness. However, due to the increase of such societal failures, America will continue to be plagued with such events - especially when access to firearms is so easy.
-
Yeah, because supporting gun rights is a popular mainstream opinion. ::)
Are you nuts? ??? Where I live, probably 80% of all citizens are against guns! I live in lily-White Canada, where people are too stupid to understand that American conservative/capitalist principles are what ALLOWS Canadian liberalism to exist in the first place! All of what we buy here comes from American corporations for crying out loud!
And no, I don't own a gun - I live in Canada where police can come to your house at any time if you are a gun owner. More or less. The gun laws here suck. And Canadians are too stupid to realize that the reason why Canada is a SAFER country than the USA is because we are a WHITER country.
More White people per-capita = safer country to live in.
More Black and Hispanic people per-capita = more violence in that country.
More hey, screw the facts right? ::)
tl;dr
-
Yep! Exactly - Hitler promoted gun ownership. He increased gun rights in Germany, not the opposite. But he was a dictator very much in demand, so he didn't need to disarm his citizens. He knew that his citizens wanted him in power. Unlike the USSR [Jewish proxy state, administered disproportionately by Jewish Bolsheviks. I think Jews made up something like 30% of all people in positions of leadership in the USSR, despite being under 1% of its population, but you would have to check Wiki to confirm that 30% figure].
Great post, BBSSchlemiel. :)
Seventy-five percent of the commissars were Jewish under Stalin.
-
hahahaha only in America would someone need a cannon for home use.
Fucks sake....
To be fair, he said during the Civil War. It was different then, and many men of a certain class in many nations privately owned such things.
You can certainly buy working cannon in the States now, but no one at all buys them for home/self defense. Most are bought by Revolutionary War or Civil War reenactors, and used as signal cannons, etc.....
Edit - I just checked Cannons are legal in Canada, and the laws governing them are similar to the US. Legal in England too, under a shotgun permit.
-
Would the total deaths due to home invasions not related to drug or gang activity i.e. the victims weren't drug dealers getting ripped off warrant owning a gun for home defense? If the number of deaths from mass shootings is so insignificant as to not warrant any action, maybe the reverse is true
-
Would the total deaths due to home invasions not related to drug or gang activity i.e. the victims weren't drug dealers getting ripped off warrant owning a gun for home defense? If the number of deaths from mass shootings is so insignificant as to not warrant any action, maybe the reverse is true
Boy you just keep digging yourself deeper ::)
-
Boy you just keep digging yourself deeper ::)
Interesting vague comment. Doesn't refute anything but the eye roll was powerful :)
-
Interesting vague comment. Doesn't refute anything but the eye roll was powerful :)
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof ;)
And I loved how you glossed right over my entire response to your bullshit in the previous post . Kid you're in WAY over your head on this subject , stop before you embarrass yourself even further.
-
lets try to be creative here guys
how about dogs in schools who can sniff out ammo and then bark and warn everybody
-
The focus of this post is MASS SHOOTINGS because MASS SHOOTINGS are the events that are predominantly used by politicians and the Jewish/leftist media to disarm American citizens. MY POINT is that mass shootings cause FUCK ALL in terms of deaths in the grand scheme of things.
MORE PEOPLE DIE EVERY THREE YEARS OF ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK DUE TO PEANUTS FOR F*CK'S SAKE.
So if 433 deaths in 68 years scares you soooo much, then why aren't you banning peanuts, which killed over 10,000 people in the same time frame?
Seriously, if 433 deaths caused by something is cause to ban something, then an argument could be made to ban just about EVERYTHING.
It's impressive that you managed to miss the point of my post so thoroughly. You are way off base here.
You are taking a portion of shootings, dividing the death toll by an arbitrary amount of years and, for some unknown reason, claiming that is the extent of the problem. In your opening post you said that 7 deaths per year is no big deal. There aren't seven deaths per year. It's still february and there have already been more than 7 deaths this year. There were hundreds of deaths and injuries last year and the year before and the year before that. Your 7 deaths figure is based on you pulling an arbitrary figure out of your ass and then dividing it by an arbitrary figure. Every year of the last decade has had far more than 7 deaths from mass shootings, not to mention the injuries.
It would be like me taking the combined wealth of the twenty richest people in america, dividing that figure by 20 and then claiming that everyone in america was a billionaire. For an alleged math whiz, your math skills are a joke.