RugbyRebels

Well, that's a huge issue, Porky... The gun laws already on the books aren't being enforced... Wonder why that is? It's shameful and irresponsible.

It most definitely has to change.

morepork wrote:Jared,

gun sale and crime stats are massively manipulated. It's powerful marketing info, so getting a truely objective assessment is near impossible. It's a bit like property ownership and immigration data back home....commercially sensitive information.

Oh I know.

But often the simplest answer is often the right one. Americans seem to think they are inherently different, that what has proven to work time and time again in other countries with very similar cultures, demographics and with other common, shared laws that work across both will for some reason not work with them in this instance because *insert utterly stupid reason here*.

Its like trying to argue 2+2=4 with a 3 year old and they won't listen.

morepork wrote: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.

Even the most obvious response that someone carrying a firearm may not be trained to use it properly and put innocent bystanders at greater risk doesn't seem to cut it. Ive met some very intelligent americans who refuse to accept any argument over this almost religious right they have to own a firearm. Even discussions on limiting the types of firearm become highly emotional.

I confess to not getting it. If you want to shoot for sport then fine, but many of the weapons being sold are pretty useless for that - their only purpose is to kill people.

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote: And gun crime rates in states with stricter gun control laws are irrelevant so long as there is free movement between states, which there is.

Like in Illinois, for example.

There's pretty much free movement between all 3 countries in North America, not just between states. I live at the southern border - lots of free movement in and out.

http://www.storyleak.com/woops-obama-or ... ave-lives/

Interesting if nothing else. Go on read it. Click the clicky links within it. You know you want to.

Coco wrote:

cashead wrote:

jared_7 wrote: And gun crime rates in states with stricter gun control laws are irrelevant so long as there is free movement between states, which there is.

Like in Illinois, for example.

There's pretty much free movement between all 3 countries in North America, not just between states. I live at the southern border - lots of free movement in and out.

http://www.storyleak.com/woops-obama-or ... ave-lives/

Interesting if nothing else. Go on read it. Click the clicky links within it. You know you want to.

The following is from the book the article quotes.

"Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). "

I also think it is fair to note that the conclusion your article reaches is based on a single paragraph in a 68 page report.

canta_brian wrote:

Coco wrote:

cashead wrote:
Like in Illinois, for example.

There's pretty much free movement between all 3 countries in North America, not just between states. I live at the southern border - lots of free movement in and out.

http://www.storyleak.com/woops-obama-or ... ave-lives/

Interesting if nothing else. Go on read it. Click the clicky links within it. You know you want to.

The following is from the book the article quotes.

"Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). "

I also think it is fair to note that the conclusion your article reaches is based on a single paragraph in a 68 page report.

Did you read all of it? Stay up all night sorting through the data? There was more than a 60+ page report, but my point was that the "facts" and "stats" are all over the place - they always are. it's nearly impossible to get anything conclusive about any of it.

This will never be an issue about facts and stats.
It is emotional, cultural, logical, illogical, opinion, and the list goes on and on.

Coco wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Coco wrote:
There's pretty much free movement between all 3 countries in North America, not just between states. I live at the southern border - lots of free movement in and out.

http://www.storyleak.com/woops-obama-or ... ave-lives/

Interesting if nothing else. Go on read it. Click the clicky links within it. You know you want to.

The following is from the book the article quotes.

"Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). "

I also think it is fair to note that the conclusion your article reaches is based on a single paragraph in a 68 page report.

Did you read all of it? Stay up all night sorting through the data? There was more than a 60+ page report, but my point was that the "facts" and "stats" are all over the place - they always are. it's nearly impossible to get anything conclusive about any of it.

This will never be an issue about facts and stats.
It is emotional, cultural, logical, illogical, opinion, and the list goes on and on.

Rubbish. Its a completely logical argument being met by illogical opinions and distortions. And it can't be about facts and stats because they are being blocked by one side, which in itself says all you need to know.

It really isn't that complex. The overwhelming majority of Americans want some level of increased gun control, but congress, lobbyists, the NRA, whoever - a small minority - have a much louder voice and more money.

You posting all these articles which twist and distort little bits of information and build doubt against every common sense argument is just pandering to exactly what those minority interest groups want.

jared_7 wrote:

Coco wrote:

canta_brian wrote: The following is from the book the article quotes.

"Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). "

I also think it is fair to note that the conclusion your article reaches is based on a single paragraph in a 68 page report.

Did you read all of it? Stay up all night sorting through the data? There was more than a 60+ page report, but my point was that the "facts" and "stats" are all over the place - they always are. it's nearly impossible to get anything conclusive about any of it.

This will never be an issue about facts and stats.
It is emotional, cultural, logical, illogical, opinion, and the list goes on and on.

Rubbish. Its a completely logical argument being met by illogical opinions and distortions. And it can't be about facts and stats because they are being blocked by one side, which in itself says all you need to know.

It really isn't that complex. The overwhelming majority of Americans want some level of increased gun control, but congress, lobbyists, the NRA, whoever - a small minority - have a much louder voice and more money.

You posting all these articles which twist and distort little bits of information and build doubt against every common sense argument is just pandering to exactly what those minority interest groups want.

Calm your tits, jared. All articles, graphs, and published stuff is twisted in this arena. That was my point. Every graph and piece of "evidence" posted in this entire thread is flawed. You act like this subject is not up for pondering, and get pissy cos some doubt was shed and your little thong panties got in a wad? Somebody asked what the stats are of guns saving lives.. I posted a couple things with that in mind.. conclusive, twisted or not. It is all twisted and contorted. Get over yourself.

Those aren't stats, they are numbers. There are formally trained individuals that can identify patterns out there...

Coco wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Coco wrote:
Did you read all of it? Stay up all night sorting through the data? There was more than a 60+ page report, but my point was that the "facts" and "stats" are all over the place - they always are. it's nearly impossible to get anything conclusive about any of it.

This will never be an issue about facts and stats.
It is emotional, cultural, logical, illogical, opinion, and the list goes on and on.

Rubbish. Its a completely logical argument being met by illogical opinions and distortions. And it can't be about facts and stats because they are being blocked by one side, which in itself says all you need to know.

It really isn't that complex. The overwhelming majority of Americans want some level of increased gun control, but congress, lobbyists, the NRA, whoever - a small minority - have a much louder voice and more money.

You posting all these articles which twist and distort little bits of information and build doubt against every common sense argument is just pandering to exactly what those minority interest groups want.

Calm your tits, jared. All articles, graphs, and published stuff is twisted in this arena. That was my point. Every graph and piece of "evidence" posted in this entire thread is flawed. You act like this subject is not up for pondering, and get pissy cos some doubt was shed and your little thong panties got in a wad? Somebody asked what the stats are of guns saving lives.. I posted a couple things with that in mind.. conclusive, twisted or not. It is all twisted and contorted. Get over yourself.

Thing is, it's not remotely twisted in the eyes of any right thinking person.

All the current bills are looking to achieve is some basic checks that would stop very specific people buying guns. People that society has decided in a case by case basis are dangerous.

Coco wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Coco wrote:
Did you read all of it? Stay up all night sorting through the data? There was more than a 60+ page report, but my point was that the "facts" and "stats" are all over the place - they always are. it's nearly impossible to get anything conclusive about any of it.

This will never be an issue about facts and stats.
It is emotional, cultural, logical, illogical, opinion, and the list goes on and on.

Rubbish. Its a completely logical argument being met by illogical opinions and distortions. And it can't be about facts and stats because they are being blocked by one side, which in itself says all you need to know.

It really isn't that complex. The overwhelming majority of Americans want some level of increased gun control, but congress, lobbyists, the NRA, whoever - a small minority - have a much louder voice and more money.

You posting all these articles which twist and distort little bits of information and build doubt against every common sense argument is just pandering to exactly what those minority interest groups want.

Calm your tits, jared. All articles, graphs, and published stuff is twisted in this arena. That was my point. Every graph and piece of "evidence" posted in this entire thread is flawed. You act like this subject is not up for pondering, and get pissy cos some doubt was shed and your little thong panties got in a wad? Somebody asked what the stats are of guns saving lives.. I posted a couple things with that in mind.. conclusive, twisted or not. It is all twisted and contorted. Get over yourself.

I don't need to calm my tits. The subject is not up for pondering for any sane, rational, logical person. Like the entire western world as well as the overwhelming majority of Americans. People deemed risky enough to be on a terror watch list should not be able to buy semi-automatic weapons. Someone off the street should not be able to buy an AR-15 within 10 minutes of walking into the store.

This is the reality:

http://66.media.tumblr.com/44c2ea436a11 ... 1_1280.png

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/560/medi ... es_464.gif

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/12/ ... 420211.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

You can spin it any way you want, America has a problem with gun violence. It also lets terror suspects buy guns, citizens to carry assault weapons, and people to pack whilst they get drunk in bars or whilst they teach kids in class. Unfortunately the gun lobby has blocked any studies into the area but my gut reaction is the these things may, just may, be related.

The vast majority of Americans welcome more stringent regulations and restrictions. However, when the regulations and restrictions already on the books are not being heavily enforced, it is hard for some to agree that even more regulation (that may not be enforced) will do much good. This is an issue for many people in America.

That is just completely illogical. Restrictions and regulations welcome, but let's not bother because they won't be enforced. Genius.

I agree. Illogical or not, it's touchy and will never be dealt with by looking at stats...numbers... or artcles written.

Coco wrote:I agree. Illogical or not, it's touchy and will never be dealt with by looking at stats...numbers... or artcles written.

What, so you just bury you head in the sand and hope nobody shoots you in the arse?

canta_brian wrote:

Coco wrote:I agree. Illogical or not, it's touchy and will never be dealt with by looking at stats...numbers... or artcles written.

What, so you just bury you head in the sand and hope nobody shoots you in the arse?

I don't know anyone hoping they don't get shot in the ass but that's a good question.

The bare bones of the matter are that it would be impossible to repeal gun laws in the US, the practical implications are unrealistic, the only things that can be done is tighter regulations from now on.

Of course mass shootings don't make people sleep any easier in their beds at night so when gun law is bought up in a reactionary way to a shooting the message is falling on deaf ears to an extent.

Meanwhile, Istanbul's main airport was hit by terrorists last night, resulting in 41 deaths and over 200 injured. My Lebanese pal had just flown in earlier that evening, arrived at 8pm. This is the 4th terrorist attack in Istanbul this year and there were also two big ones in Ankara. They're blaming ISIS again, but that doesn't seem particularly logical to me. The attacks in Ankara clearly targeted the Kurds, and the Kurds in Syria & Iraq have been leading the fight against ISIS (much to the Turkish government's outrage), so I can see some logic behind blaming ISIS for the Ankara attacks (serving as a proxy, no doubt), but none whatsoever behind blaming them for the others. Meanwhile, Turkish forces have decimated the south-east of the country in their "war against the PKK."

Turns out the perpetrators were Russians - of Daghestani, Uzbek & Kyrgyz origin.

ISIS my ass.

rowan wrote:Turns out the perpetrators were Russians - of Daghestani, Uzbek & Kyrgyz origin.

ISIS my ass.

What's the motive?

rowan wrote:Turns out the perpetrators were Russians - of Daghestani, Uzbek & Kyrgyz origin.

ISIS my ass.

Funded and trained by american neo-cons tho, yeah?

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Turns out the perpetrators were Russians - of Daghestani, Uzbek & Kyrgyz origin.

ISIS my ass.

What's the motive?

Good question. It was only a few days ago that the sultan delivered his grovelling apology to the Tsar, thus mending relations between Turkey and Russia, so I don't think a terrorist attack in response could have arrived so quickly. Most people seem to think these guys were connected to ISIS and it's blow-back for Turkey's bombing of the terrorist group in Syria. But I'm very skeptical about that, as Turkey seems to be devoting most of its attention in Syria to the Kurds, who just happen to be arch enemies of ISIS. So who knows? What were the motives behind the Paris and Brussels attacks? Just radicalized lunatics who managed to get their hands on some heavy duty weapons.

Funded and trained by american neo-cons tho, yeah?

ISIS - yes, to remove Assad, just like the Taliban was funded and trained to overthrow the progressive socialist government of Afghanistan.

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:Turns out the perpetrators were Russians - of Daghestani, Uzbek & Kyrgyz origin.

ISIS my ass.

What's the motive?

Good question. It was only a few days ago that the sultan delivered his grovelling apology to the Tsar, thus mending relations between Turkey and Russia, so I don't think a terrorist attack in response could have arrived so quickly. Most people seem to think these guys were connected to ISIS and it's blow-back for Turkey's bombing of the terrorist group in Syria. But I'm very skeptical about that, as Turkey seems to be devoting most of its attention in Syria to the Kurds, who just happen to be arch enemies of ISIS. So who knows? What were the motives behind the Paris and Brussels attacks? Just radicalized lunatics who managed to get their hands on some heavy duty weapons.

Funded and trained by american neo-cons tho, yeah?

ISIS - yes, to remove Assad, just like the Taliban was funded and trained to overthrow the progressive socialist government of Afghanistan.

The US funded the Taleban? Are you thinking of the Mujaheddin by any chance?

From which the Taliban evolved, yes. Just as ISIS evolved from the 'freedom fighters' the US sent into Syria to instigate this proxy war.

Meanwhile ISIS is alleged to have already claimed responsibility for the ongoing saga in Dhaka, but still hasn't claimed responsibility for the Istanbul airport attack 3 days ago. In fact, I'm pretty sure ISIS hasn't been alleged to have officially claimed any of the numerous terrorist attacks on Turkish soil over the past 2 years...