RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Do you have Donald Trump's email address? I also suspect far more people are killed in car accidents or as a result of consuming McDonalds and other junk food.

And?

Unless people's intentions when they drive their cars is to kill other people I don't get your argument. How death from a poor diet is relevant I don't also don't know.

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Do you have Donald Trump's email address? I also suspect far more people are killed in car accidents or as a result of consuming McDonalds and other junk food.

And?

Unless people's intentions when they drive their cars is to kill other people I don't get your argument. How death from a poor diet is relevant I don't also don't know.

I think the point is opportunity.

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Do you have Donald Trump's email address? I also suspect far more people are killed in car accidents or as a result of consuming McDonalds and other junk food.

And?

Unless people's intentions when they drive their cars is to kill other people I don't get your argument. How death from a poor diet is relevant I don't also don't know.

Point being perhaps that efforts made to reduce obesity and make driving safer will save more lives than persecuting minorities.

Edit: Notwithstanding the need to do something about America's insane gun culture.

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

UGagain wrote:

The problem is with you. Not other posters, dipshit.

Your problem is that you're utterly stupid and you have no balls.

You're running around squealing about people who don't believe the telly box like you do. And whining about them using correct language (because you're too stupid to understand it).

What an utterly pathetic excuse you are for a man.

If you want an echo chamber, ask Hammy for a Eunuch's Room.

Feel better now? Meds kicked back in yet? Just keep swinging if not, I can take it.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Grow a pair, you fucking nonce.

[emoji2] brilliant. I am genuinely delighted by this.

Since I've had a vasectomy your ball-less jibe is, in literal terms, disappointingly close to the, er, bone, as it were. Ehem.

Happily for me, my self-esteem doesn't rely on trolling internet fora acting like an insanely hypocritical liar in order to throw insults around. Clearly you and I are very different people, but "vive la difference", as I once read in a book.


Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Feel better now? Meds kicked back in yet? Just keep swinging if not, I can take it.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Grow a pair, you fucking nonce.

[emoji2] brilliant. I am genuinely delighted by this.

Since I've had a vasectomy your ball-less jibe is, in literal terms, disappointingly close to the, er, bone, as it were. Ehem.

Happily for me, my self-esteem doesn't rely on trolling internet fora acting like an insanely hypocritical liar in order to throw insults around. Clearly you and I are very different people, but "vive la difference", as I once read in a book.


Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You attacked me buddy.

You're the hypocrite.

See, you can't even take responsibility for your own actions. How you'd have any self esteem is beyond me.

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Grow a pair, you fucking nonce.

[emoji2] brilliant. I am genuinely delighted by this.

Since I've had a vasectomy your ball-less jibe is, in literal terms, disappointingly close to the, er, bone, as it were. Ehem.

Happily for me, my self-esteem doesn't rely on trolling internet fora acting like an insanely hypocritical liar in order to throw insults around. Clearly you and I are very different people, but "vive la difference", as I once read in a book.


Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You attacked me buddy.

You're the hypocrite.

See, you can't even take responsibility for your own actions. How you'd have any self esteem is beyond me.

Are you talking about the posts on the RR dead thread?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: [emoji2] brilliant. I am genuinely delighted by this.

Since I've had a vasectomy your ball-less jibe is, in literal terms, disappointingly close to the, er, bone, as it were. Ehem.

Happily for me, my self-esteem doesn't rely on trolling internet fora acting like an insanely hypocritical liar in order to throw insults around. Clearly you and I are very different people, but "vive la difference", as I once read in a book.


Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You attacked me buddy.

You're the hypocrite.

See, you can't even take responsibility for your own actions. How you'd have any self esteem is beyond me.

Are you talking about the posts on the RR dead thread?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You attacked me, cunt. Figure it out.

Wait, is this thread now about Donny's balls?

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Feel better now? Meds kicked back in yet? Just keep swinging if not, I can take it.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Grow a pair, you fucking nonce.

What a fucking intellectual you are. Got any evidence for this accusation? Or perhaps you're just too fucking stupid to know what a nonce is.

Oh fuck off you waste of space.

Anyone who believes that ISIS is anything but a US psy-op is a fucking idiot.

UGagain wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Grow a pair, you fucking nonce.

What a fucking intellectual you are. Got any evidence for this accusation? Or perhaps you're just too fucking stupid to know what a nonce is.

Oh fuck off you waste of space.

Fuck off yourself, you great big intellectual you. Fucking idiot.

UGagain wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

UGagain wrote:
You attacked me buddy.

You're the hypocrite.

See, you can't even take responsibility for your own actions. How you'd have any self esteem is beyond me.

Are you talking about the posts on the RR dead thread?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You attacked me, cunt. Figure it out.

So, just to get this straight... on a thread that discussed how personal attacks were ruining any chance of a decent debate, you reckon that the best way to make your case is by swinging right into the gutter and attack me in the most personal way you can think of.

This is your best work ever UG.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

cashead wrote:Wait, is this thread now about Donny's balls?

Without wishing to overstate the influence of my genitalia in general, we're in danger of having 2 threads about my balls.

I've never felt so powerful.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You will all be pleased to know that the Senate rejected imposing restrictions on gun sales to individuals on no-fly watch lists because the NRA says it will be used to discriminate against honest law abiding 'Murricans.


Awesome logic.

morepork wrote:You will all be pleased to know that the Senate rejected imposing restrictions on gun sales to individuals on no-fly watch lists because the NRA says it will be used to discriminate against honest law abiding 'Murricans.


Awesome logic.

I saw that in the papers yesterday. From memory, 4 different pieces of legislation were rejected (created by both sides).

I'm not sure how bad a massacre would need to be to get Americans to change their minds?

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:You will all be pleased to know that the Senate rejected imposing restrictions on gun sales to individuals on no-fly watch lists because the NRA says it will be used to discriminate against honest law abiding 'Murricans.


Awesome logic.

I saw that in the papers yesterday. From memory, 4 different pieces of legislation were rejected (created by both sides).

I'm not sure how bad a massacre would need to be to get Americans to change their minds?

Around 70% of the general public support tighter regulation, but the fucking lobby groups have everyone in their pocket.

Uphill struggle. The problem is that when the argument is that with every massacre, the answer is more guns, it becomes a vicious circle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So there's been something like 30 mass shootings in the States this decade. Are there any recorded examples of a lawfully armed civilian preventing or ending such an attack?

Is there any correlation between the location of mass shootings and the proportion of citizens permitted to carry firearms or who actually do?

This whole more guns to prevent gun crime seems nuts to me.

Good question and would an attack that was deterred by the presence of firearms be known or news worthy?

I agree with you btw I think it's total nonsense. But their argument does have a small degree of logic, even if it's impractical.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lizard wrote:So there's been something like 30 mass shootings in the States this decade. Are there any recorded examples of a lawfully armed civilian preventing or ending such an attack?

Is there any correlation between the location of mass shootings and the proportion of citizens permitted to carry firearms or who actually do?

This whole more guns to prevent gun crime seems nuts to me.

That 30 number is extremely low; it really depends on what definition you are using. I'd imagine thats FBI data which requires 4 or more killed and ignores gang and domestic violence to focus just on people seeking to kill others indiscriminately. Quite narrow.

If you change the definition to all incidents where 4 or more people are wounded or killed, you get about 1 a day for the last decade.

I'd imagine in any country not the US, a gunman killing or wounding at least 4 people would be considered a mass shooting.

Sandydragon wrote:Good question and would an attack that was deterred by the presence of firearms be known or news worthy?

You'd think that the NRA would make damned sure that everyone knows about it, and would bring up any and every case it can find everytime yet another mass-shooting makes the news.

jared_7 wrote:That 30 number is extremely low; it really depends on what definition you are using. I'd imagine thats FBI data which requires 4 or more killed and ignores gang and domestic violence to focus just on people seeking to kill others indiscriminately. Quite narrow.

If you change the definition to all incidents where 4 or more people are wounded or killed, you get about 1 a day for the last decade.

I'd imagine in any country not the US, a gunman killing or wounding at least 4 people would be considered a mass shooting.

Talk about cherry picking the data to make it merely mind-blowingly horrendous.
And yet despite all of that, you've a much higher chance of being shot by the police than everyone else added together (unless yo'ure white I presume).

Nine Myths About Gun Control
http://rense.com/general76/mths.htm

Tons of data out in the webisphere if you are willing to inform yourself on stats and facts and even differing opinions.

Read both points of view.. You might be surprised at what you conclude. Link above might get you started.

Hard to get definite numbers of lives saved because most of the time brandishing a weapon results in no crime committed and the perpetrator fleeing the scene - without the firearm.being discharged.

Lets say: Family of 5 at home when 2 guys break in, (not sure if they are armed) dad grabs shotgun and "click click" loads the chamber, suspects hear that and take off running. How many lives were saved? 5? All 7? How do you determine?. Its a guess.

Concealed carry states apparently have less gun crime - maybe crime in general. Criminals have no idea who is carrying or not. Quite a risky gamble.

**No idea the date on the link above, was just using it as a different perspective than what has been posted in this thread.

I think if I lived in the States and had to vote (and live my life) to deal with this stuff, I would do the research.

For now, I'm happy to live in relative ignorance and just believe that Americans are all nuts.

Coco wrote:Concealed carry states apparently have less gun crime - maybe crime in general. Criminals have no idea who is carrying or not. Quite a risky gamble.

Eh, sort of, but not really. There's also no actual evidence that concealed carry has a statistically significant impact on crime at all.

Brandishing a firearm......it's the OK corral.


It's just ridiculous. You want to be tooled up because the baddies are tooled up, and the baddies are tooled up because gun sales are comically unregulated. I'd suggest any "statistics" on crime rates associated with concealed carry are offset by the number of children shooting their relatives with negligent discharges. FFS, keep your concealed carry if you must, live that Red Dawn fantasy, but for the love of fuck, stop blocking attempts to prevent the mentally ill and criminally suspect from buying assault weapons. I mean, FUCK.