America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by banderl. 234 replies replies.
5 Pages<12345>
"Mass shootings"
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
teddyballgame Offline
#101 Posted: Mon, Dec 7 2015, 7:54 PM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
victor, I know it is hard for you to think rationally, as you love the role of devils advocate.
Oh, yes you do.

When you don't have gun free zones and people can either open carry or it is easier to obtain a CCW permit without jumping through bureaucratic hoops, the crime goes down.

I am talking about law abiding citizens, mind you. Legal gun ownership. Criminals are going to get guns and wreak havoc no matter what-but it is funny how they trend toward the "gun free zones"

How about this logic:'

There is a place that guns are all over the place, congested in a confined area. There are massive amounts of guns and ammo all over the place. Seems ripe for your theory.
The places are The Gun Shows.
Just how many mass shootings take place at these gun shows?
I can't think of any because a a guy that opened fire there would be swiss cheese in seconds.

What are these "other studies" are you pointing to?- you alluded to one.

Get off your soap box and lets see some numbers
victor809 Offline
#102 Posted: Mon, Dec 7 2015, 8:03 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
teddyballgame wrote:
victor, I know it is hard for you to think rationally, as you love the role of devils advocate.
Oh, yes you do.

When you don't have gun free zones and people can either open carry or it is easier to obtain a CCW permit without jumping through bureaucratic hoops, the crime goes down.

I am talking about law abiding citizens, mind you. Legal gun ownership. Criminals are going to get guns and wreak havoc no matter what-but it is funny how they trend toward the "gun free zones"

How about this logic:'

There is a place that guns are all over the place, congested in a confined area. There are massive amounts of guns and ammo all over the place. Seems ripe for your theory.
The places are The Gun Shows.
Just how many mass shootings take place at these gun shows?
I can't think of any because a a guy that opened fire there would be swiss cheese in seconds.

What are these "other studies" are you pointing to?- you alluded to one.

Get off your soap box and lets see some numbers



I fully admit I enjoy playing the devil's advocate. Don't think you've discovered something special and new. However, I'm very clear when I am playing devil's advocate, and when one play's devil's advocate one is taking a position one doesn't necessarily believe in. In this case the only position I've taken is that there are statistics to back tony's claim, therefore the statement that it is baseless is incorrect. I believe that position because I have seen the statistics I referenced. Therefore I am not playing the devil's advocate in this case.

Unlike you, I'm not going to play some coy little "you can google it yourself" bs game. Here are references to the statistics, it took 2 seconds to grab these, I'm sure one could find more. If you really want to argue the statistics, one can pull the original studies and start going through the data itself.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/new-study-is-latest-to-find-that-higher-rates-of-gun-ownership-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-crime/

http://www.dw.com/en/study-links-gun-ownership-rates-to-mass-shootings/a-18667703
teedubbya Offline
#103 Posted: Mon, Dec 7 2015, 9:19 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
All the gun shows I go to specifically do not allow loaded guns.
tonygraz Offline
#104 Posted: Mon, Dec 7 2015, 10:48 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
http://abc13.com/news/arizona-gun-show-shooting-man-accidentally-shoots-friend/1111685/
teddyballgame Offline
#105 Posted: Tue, Dec 8 2015, 1:48 AM EST
Joined: 09-16-2015
Posts: 592
well, yes, there are going to be accidental shootings. that doesn't qualify for the "mass shooting" category.

Thank you for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
TMCTLT Offline
#106 Posted: Tue, Dec 8 2015, 8:55 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
victor809 wrote:
.... I understand that the limits of your capability really can't stretch beyond the painfully obvious. But for the rest of us, someone referencing a study correlating gun ownership with mass shootings would mean areas with high gun ownership would have a correlating high number of mass shootings. It isn't rocket surgery, and isn't really newsworthy (the fewer regulations around accessing firearms, the more likely someone who wants to shoot a lot of people will buy one)... but your buddy was claiming tony's statement was baseless.... that is inaccurate.

There are other studies that show a correlation between gun ownership and high crime rates in areas as well.

The statistics exist. They may be accurate, they may be misleading or they may be somewhere int the middle. That's for someone who cares to determine (and has the intelligence to parse statistics, I'm not holding my breath for you to provide a damning rebuttal to statistics of any sort).





Victor, nearly everything you post is distorted or misleading...that's what you guys do to uphold your self important yet false intellect.

I really wish you would give it a try.....I'll let you know when I'm ready. Statistics like many other things are used and manipulated to uphold the liberal lefts diatribe...and you are very good @ it chatty Kathy
victor809 Offline
#107 Posted: Tue, Dec 8 2015, 1:01 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
TMCTLT wrote:
[/h]



Victor, nearly everything you post is distorted or misleading...that's what you guys do to uphold your self important yet false intellect.

I really wish you would give it a try.....I'll let you know when I'm ready. Statistics like many other things are used and manipulated to uphold the liberal lefts diatribe...and you are very good @ it chatty Kathy


There is so much packed into this post... it's like a clown car.
First, I love that you highlighted my "I'm not holding my breath for you to provide a damning rebuttal to statistics of any sort" and then immediately failed to provide a damning rebuttal to the statistics, instead some weak "liberals use statistics to uphold their diatribe!!" whimper. As if math is a tool only the democrats can use. You do understand math, right?

Here... I'm going to help you a little. When someone provides you with a report with statistics showing correlation of something you disagree with, whining about people manipulating statistics shows intellectual weakness. If you want to argue against it, look up the study provided and dig into the numbers. The study has a methods section, look at sample size, is it statistically significant? Look at p-value, does it show a predictive tendency? Hell, look at the actual items they are correlating, do they represent reality? There are a nearly infinite number of smart questions which can be asked about any statistical analysis. And IF your claim that they are manipulating it is true, then those questions will show that they are manipulating it. Just whining and saying liberals manipulate statistics is weak and partisan.

Again though, you miss the crux of the entire post.
TBG stated tony's post was "baseless". Around the same time I read that post, I had seen some articles linking statistical correlations. I pointed out to TBG that tony's post can't possibly be "baseless" if there is a study which it is based on, and I provided that study. If you want to argue the study is wrong, then go dig the damn thing up and argue it with tony like any intelligent person would. Only after you have proven the study to be incorrect can you again make the claim that his argument is baseless.

But, I don't usually expect you to act like an intelligent person. You're probably just going to jump up and down with a bunch of blanket statements about liberals wanting to take away your guns, which incidentally is completely irrelevant to the conversation you're trying to have with me.
DrafterX Offline
#108 Posted: Tue, Dec 8 2015, 1:27 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
Ram has a bat... ram27bat
banderl Offline
#109 Posted: Tue, Dec 8 2015, 7:12 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
victor809 wrote:
There is so much packed into this post... it's like a clown car.
First, I love that you highlighted my "I'm not holding my breath for you to provide a damning rebuttal to statistics of any sort" and then immediately failed to provide a damning rebuttal to the statistics, instead some weak "liberals use statistics to uphold their diatribe!!" whimper. As if math is a tool only the democrats can use. You do understand math, right?

Here... I'm going to help you a little. When someone provides you with a report with statistics showing correlation of something you disagree with, whining about people manipulating statistics shows intellectual weakness. If you want to argue against it, look up the study provided and dig into the numbers. The study has a methods section, look at sample size, is it statistically significant? Look at p-value, does it show a predictive tendency? Hell, look at the actual items they are correlating, do they represent reality? There are a nearly infinite number of smart questions which can be asked about any statistical analysis. And IF your claim that they are manipulating it is true, then those questions will show that they are manipulating it. Just whining and saying liberals manipulate statistics is weak and partisan.

Again though, you miss the crux of the entire post.
TBG stated tony's post was "baseless". Around the same time I read that post, I had seen some articles linking statistical correlations. I pointed out to TBG that tony's post can't possibly be "baseless" if there is a study which it is based on, and I provided that study. If you want to argue the study is wrong, then go dig the damn thing up and argue it with tony like any intelligent person would. Only after you have proven the study to be incorrect can you again make the claim that his argument is baseless.

But, I don't usually expect you to act like an intelligent person. You're probably just going to jump up and down with a bunch of blanket statements about liberals wanting to take away your guns, which incidentally is completely irrelevant to the conversation you're trying to have with me.




Why do you bother?



Libtard!
pdxstogieman Offline
#110 Posted: Tue, Dec 8 2015, 8:02 PM EST
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
Forget "Mass Shootings" and al the semantic quibbling about the data. The US has a per capita gun homicide rate that is around 20 times that of other modern industrialized nations. 3.2 homicides by shooting per 100K population. Australia has .14 per 100K population. 80% of all homicides in the US are committed with guns. 320 Million guns privately owned in the US. 0.88 guns per person. Only 29% of households own guns in the US. So those that own guns own multiple guns. US has by far the highest concentration of privately held guns in the world. Are we safer because of the pervasive presence of guns? The facts tell the story: F#ck No. Now go and grouse about the veracity of the data.
tonygraz Offline
#111 Posted: Tue, Dec 8 2015, 9:31 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
If more guns equals less crime then the government should issue m-16s and ammo to all Americans that are too poor to buy one. That should make us all safe - write your congressman.
99cobra2881 Offline
#112 Posted: Tue, Dec 8 2015, 9:47 PM EST
Joined: 11-19-2013
Posts: 2,472
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." - Benjamin Franklin
victor809 Offline
#113 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 12:29 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
banderl wrote:
Why do you bother?



Libtard!


Ya know... I haven't had a chance to beat a homeless person up recently... this sort of does it in a pinch. :)

These butt nuggets aren't going to change their views, and I don't actually want them to... but I fervently hope that if they are told enough times how they are arguing incorrectly, perhaps some time in the far flung future they'll be able to defend their views in a way that doesn't sound like a toddler screaming about eating their broccoli.
danmdevries Offline
#114 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 6:06 AM EST
Joined: 02-11-2014
Posts: 17,426
DrafterX wrote:
Depends... a concealed carry permit requires training. .. at least it used to... Mellow


Indiana does not have any requirements beyond fingerprints and a fee.
TMCTLT Offline
#115 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 6:26 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
victor809 wrote:
Ya know... I haven't had a chance to beat a homeless person up recently... this sort of does it in a pinch. :)

These butt nuggets aren't going to change their views, and I don't actually want them to... but I fervently hope that if they are told enough times how they are arguing incorrectly, perhaps some time in the far flung future they'll be able to defend their views in a way that doesn't sound like a toddler screaming about eating their broccoli.




Yeah....that's how your entire disgusting party mindset thinks, repeat the BS enough and eventually the others will " believe it" But you'd be Wrong!!!!

And I'm sure you had more than ample opportunities to accost or beat the homeless, practice....practise ( don't worry you'll get better @ it, helll have your GF give you some tips!!!!


And everyone KNOW's your affinity towards Butt nuggets...Enough said sick bassard
cacman Offline
#116 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 8:51 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Anyone that beats up a homeless person over a dog then has the balls to lecture others on how to argue on a cigar forum isn't worth listening to - unless you're a Lib.
tonygraz Offline
#117 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 10:49 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
danmdevries wrote:
Indiana does not have any requirements beyond fingerprints and a fee.


So any ignorant Indiana resident can get a permit if they have fingers and the money. That explains the stats in another topic.
teedubbya Offline
#118 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 10:57 AM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
They also elected a Muslim to the house of reps
DrafterX Offline
#119 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 11:55 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
tonygraz wrote:
So any ignorant Indiana resident can get a permit if they have fingers and the money. That explains the stats in another topic.



I'm betting the ignorant ones don't have guns... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#120 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 12:30 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
TMCTLT wrote:
Yeah....that's how your entire disgusting party mindset thinks, repeat the BS enough and eventually the others will " believe it" But you'd be Wrong!!!!

And I'm sure you had more than ample opportunities to accost or beat the homeless, practice....practise ( don't worry you'll get better @ it, helll have your GF give you some tips!!!!


And everyone KNOW's your affinity towards Butt nuggets...Enough said sick bassard


Ok... your reading comprehension is just piss poor. You even highlighted the passage yourself and still didn't understand it. The points I continue to repeat are not a position, not a political position, and are in no way party affiliated (unless you personally want to affiliate intelligent discussion with a liberal party, like you appear to be trying to). The points I continue to repeat are a method of arguing using numbers, rational thought and logical connections between real numbers and decisions.

The funny thing is, that you're telling me that I'm wrong, that there's no way however hard I try, that you'll make an intelligent argument.

.... maybe you're correct.
victor809 Offline
#121 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 12:34 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
cacman wrote:
Anyone that beats up a homeless person over a dog then has the balls to lecture others on how to argue on a cigar forum isn't worth listening to - unless you're a Lib.


Tell us more about your parking spaces in the 'burgh... at least I deal with my confrontations head-on, rather than having people mysteriously end up with two slashed tires in the morning...
victor809 Offline
#122 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 12:35 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
I'm betting the ignorant ones don't have guns... Mellow


Maybe we should give them some?
DrafterX Offline
#123 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 1:46 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
more free stuff..?? Huh
gummy jones Offline
#124 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 3:54 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
rabble rabble rabble

the guns the guns the guns

rabble rabble

[turning blind eye to failed entitlement programs, breakdown of the family unit with illegitimate birth rate being the majority in certain populations, loss of accountability, opiate epidemic, etc]
dstieger Offline
#125 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 4:00 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
tore your dress?
pdxstogieman Offline
#126 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 4:03 PM EST
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
99cobra2881 wrote:
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." - Benjamin Franklin


Those who think having a society overrun by gun toting dweebs is essential to liberty, while turning a blind eye to the carnage that ensues every single day because of gun fixation are full of ****

Countries that don't have 1/20th our gun homicide rate nor anywhere near the rate of civilian gun ownership per capita don't have liberty? Bullsh!t.
DrafterX Offline
#127 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 4:05 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
I think you'd be very happy there... just sayin.. Mellow
gummy jones Offline
#128 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 4:06 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
pdxstogieman wrote:
Those who think having a society overrun by gun toting dweebs is essential to liberty, while turning a blind eye to the carnage that ensues every single day because of gun fixation are full of ****

Countries that don't have 1/20th our gun homicide rate nor anywhere near the rate of civilian gun ownership per capita don't have liberty? Bullsh!t.






so guns cause homicides?
or at least "gun fixation" does?

interesting.

and no, no nation on this earth has anywhere close to the freedoms we do here
but fear not, at this rate, loss of freedom is certainly only "a generation away"
ZRX1200 Offline
#129 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 4:06 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
Frank, how often do you wear your seat belt?

Only when you wreck your car?
teedubbya Offline
#130 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 4:09 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Didn't we cover that?
pdxstogieman Offline
#131 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 4:13 PM EST
Joined: 10-04-2007
Posts: 5,219
victor809 wrote:
There is so much packed into this post... it's like a clown car.
First, I love that you highlighted my "I'm not holding my breath for you to provide a damning rebuttal to statistics of any sort" and then immediately failed to provide a damning rebuttal to the statistics, instead some weak "liberals use statistics to uphold their diatribe!!" whimper. As if math is a tool only the democrats can use. You do understand math, right?

Here... I'm going to help you a little. When someone provides you with a report with statistics showing correlation of something you disagree with, whining about people manipulating statistics shows intellectual weakness. If you want to argue against it, look up the study provided and dig into the numbers. The study has a methods section, look at sample size, is it statistically significant? Look at p-value, does it show a predictive tendency? Hell, look at the actual items they are correlating, do they represent reality? There are a nearly infinite number of smart questions which can be asked about any statistical analysis. And IF your claim that they are manipulating it is true, then those questions will show that they are manipulating it. Just whining and saying liberals manipulate statistics is weak and partisan.

Again though, you miss the crux of the entire post.
TBG stated tony's post was "baseless". Around the same time I read that post, I had seen some articles linking statistical correlations. I pointed out to TBG that tony's post can't possibly be "baseless" if there is a study which it is based on, and I provided that study. If you want to argue the study is wrong, then go dig the damn thing up and argue it with tony like any intelligent person would. Only after you have proven the study to be incorrect can you again make the claim that his argument is baseless.

But, I don't usually expect you to act like an intelligent person. You're probably just going to jump up and down with a bunch of blanket statements about liberals wanting to take away your guns, which incidentally is completely irrelevant to the conversation you're trying to have with me.


I'm sure TMCTLT is savoring the above warm cup of STFU you served him. I doubt however that he'll let a totally rational, fact based response like yours deter him from further baseless responses.
victor809 Offline
#132 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 4:17 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
pdxstogieman wrote:
I'm sure TMCTLT is savoring the above warm cup of STFU you served him. I doubt however that he'll let a totally rational, fact based response like yours deter him from further baseless responses.


Honestly, I doubt he understands the response.

Actually, given that he completely ignored it and instead focused on a response with much shorter sentences, I'm sure he didn't understand it.

But hey... I talk to my girlfriend's dog as well. I don't expect and intelligent response from him either.
DrafterX Offline
#133 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 4:21 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
victor809 wrote:


But hey... I talk to my girlfriend's dog as well. I don't expect and intelligent response from him either.



You should listen to him.. just cause you don't expect an intelligent response doesn't mean he isn't giving one... Not talking
victor809 Offline
#134 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 4:22 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
DrafterX wrote:
You should listen to him.. just cause you don't expect an intelligent response doesn't mean he isn't giving one... Not talking


Are we talking about the dog or TCBetc? Because I might believe you if you're referring to the dog.
TMCTLT Offline
#135 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 6:10 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
victor809 wrote:
Ok... your reading comprehension is just piss poor. You even highlighted the passage yourself and still didn't understand it. The points I continue to repeat are not a position, not a political position, and are in no way party affiliated (unless you personally want to affiliate intelligent discussion with a liberal party, like you appear to be trying to). The points I continue to repeat are a method of arguing using numbers, rational thought and logical connections between real numbers and decisions.

The funny thing is, that you're telling me that I'm wrong, that there's no way however hard I try, that you'll make an intelligent argument.

.... maybe you're correct.




Sorry Chatty Kathy but I will NEVER trust the " numbers " you hold SO dearly when the people and organizations compiling them.....want nothing more than to put MORE WORTHLESS LAWS on the books that will do Nothing other than make life difficult for law abiding SANE gun owners. And yes it is ALL based on political positioning....sorry




victor809 wrote:
Honestly, I doubt he understands the response.

Actually, given that he completely ignored it and instead focused on a response with much shorter sentences, I'm sure he didn't understand it.

But hey... I talk to my girlfriend's dog as well. I don't expect and intelligent response from him either.



No I didn't ignore it....and don't flatter youself thinking your the only one here able to grasp certain " concepts "

You and PDX and Tony should all get together for a sleepover.....and compare your intellects!!!!! You could have a " Hey we think alike " Circle jerk "


pdxstogieman wrote:
I'm sure TMCTLT is savoring the above warm cup of STFU you served him. I doubt however that he'll let a totally rational, fact based response like yours deter him from further baseless responses.



I'll bet it took you a couple solid hours to come up with that insightful post
tonygraz Offline
#136 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 6:24 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
Looks like pdx called it.
victor809 Offline
#137 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 6:48 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
TMCTLT wrote:
Sorry Chatty Kathy but I will NEVER trust the " numbers " you hold SO dearly when the people and organizations compiling them.....want nothing more than to put MORE WORTHLESS LAWS on the books that will do Nothing other than make life difficult for law abiding SANE gun owners. And yes it is ALL based on political positioning....sorry







No I didn't ignore it....and don't flatter youself thinking your the only one here able to grasp certain " concepts "

You and PDX and Tony should all get together for a sleepover.....and compare your intellects!!!!! You could have a " Hey we think alike " Circle jerk "





I'll bet it took you a couple solid hours to come up with that insightful post


Dude. I don't hold any general "number" dearly. I hold the concept of using facts, specifics and data to support one's argument dearly. You AGAIN claim that the organizations compiling the numbers are somehow altering them... without actually trying to provide any evidence. As I said 3 times before, this is an intellectually weak argument. If you see a flaw in their numbers, then point it out. If you're unwilling to put in the effort to analyze the data someone provided to you and attack it with a cogent argument, then you appear intellectually lazy.

I don't think I'm the only one able to grasp certain concepts. I simply don't believe YOU are able to grasp certain concepts.

And again, you resort to completely infantile insults...

Simple question. Do you even know what you and I are arguing over in this specific thread? I am afraid you may not.
victor809 Offline
#138 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 6:49 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tonygraz wrote:
Looks like pdx called it.

Yep
tonygraz Offline
#139 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 6:49 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
More stats on more guns, more murders: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/8/9870240/gun-ownership-deaths-homicides
victor809 Offline
#140 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 6:53 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
tonygraz wrote:
More stats on more guns, more murders: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/8/9870240/gun-ownership-deaths-homicides


Dude... did TBG ever apologize and admit he was wrong for calling your claims baseless?

I bet he hasn't.


... the manners on people here.
99cobra2881 Offline
#141 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 7:54 PM EST
Joined: 11-19-2013
Posts: 2,472
Haha I love how the liberals on here argue that chitcago is "relatively safe" with a total of 472 murders to a population of 2,722,389 versus a total population in the United States of 321,216,397 that has seen a total of 462 people killed in mass shootings this year. Less people killed in the entire United States in all the mass shootings this year than have been killed in Chicago alone!!!!

Yet here the libs are on here arguing for gun control in the United States because it is part of the liberal socialist agenda and they have heard it so often they actually believe things in the United States are so out of sorts that gun control is necessary and the 2nd amendment should be infringed upon!!!

So chitcago is "relatively safe" but something has to be done about gun control in the United States because .00000144% of the United States population has been killed this year in mass shootings. However Chicago being the bastion of liberal policies and strict gun control has seen .00017% of its population murdered.

The liberal socialist gun control agenda in America from a numbers standpoint looks exactly like what I thought it was. A socialist attempt to usurp the constitutional rights of the average American citizen in order to make that citizen powerless against the will of the government.
tonygraz Offline
#142 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 8:28 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
victor809 wrote:
Dude... did TBG ever apologize and admit he was wrong for calling your claims baseless?

I bet he hasn't.


... the manners on people here.




No, I wonder if he isn't really Teddy Cruz.
tonygraz Offline
#143 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 8:31 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,280
The 2nd amendment argument is nothing but NRA/Gun nut fraud. No reasonable person could read it and not understand what it was really all about. If you think you really have the right now to bear arms, try going into a government building with a gun.
banderl Offline
#144 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 8:40 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
99cobra2881 wrote:
Haha I love how the liberals on here argue that chitcago is "relatively safe" with a total of 472 murders to a population of 2,722,389 versus a total population in the United States of 321,216,397 that has seen a total of 462 people killed in mass shootings this year. Less people killed in the entire United States in all the mass shootings this year than have been killed in Chicago alone!!!!

Yet here the libs are on here arguing for gun control in the United States because it is part of the liberal socialist agenda and they have heard it so often they actually believe things in the United States are so out of sorts that gun control is necessary and the 2nd amendment should be infringed upon!!!

So chitcago is "relatively safe" but something has to be done about gun control in the United States because .00000144% of the United States population has been killed this year in mass shootings. However Chicago being the bastion of liberal policies and strict gun control has seen .00017% of its population murdered.

The liberal socialist gun control agenda in America from a numbers standpoint looks exactly like what I thought it was. A socialist attempt to usurp the constitutional rights of the average American citizen in order to make that citizen powerless against the will of the government.



You tell em, Dude!
banderl Offline
#145 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 8:44 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
victor809 wrote:
Dude. I don't hold any general "number" dearly. I hold the concept of using facts, specifics and data to support one's argument dearly. You AGAIN claim that the organizations compiling the numbers are somehow altering them... without actually trying to provide any evidence. As I said 3 times before, this is an intellectually weak argument. If you see a flaw in their numbers, then point it out. If you're unwilling to put in the effort to analyze the data someone provided to you and attack it with a cogent argument, then you appear intellectually lazy.

I don't think I'm the only one able to grasp certain concepts. I simply don't believe YOU are able to grasp certain concepts.

And again, you resort to completely infantile insults...

Simple question. Do you even know what you and I are arguing over in this specific thread? I am afraid you may not.




Victor, he told you in a post somewhere in this thread that he wanted you to come down to his level.
Maybe you should start with the 1st grade level and go from there.
victor809 Offline
#146 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 8:55 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
banderl wrote:
Victor, he told you in a post somewhere in this thread that he wanted you to come down to his level.
Maybe you should start with the 1st grade level and go from there.


Does the forum allow me to draw in crayon?
99cobra2881 Offline
#147 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 9:01 PM EST
Joined: 11-19-2013
Posts: 2,472
tonygraz wrote:
The 2nd amendment argument is nothing but NRA/Gun nut fraud.


That's your opinion. I tend not to to associate the word fraud with the constitution but most liberals do because it's the only thing standing in the way of their agenda.

tonygraz wrote:
No reasonable person could read it and not understand what it was really all about.


Yes tell me what part of "shall not be infringed" I'm not understanding?

tonygraz wrote:
If you think you really have the right now to bear arms, try going into a government building with a gun.


Guns aren't allowed in some places but that doesn't mean I forfeit my right to own them upon entering. Funny that only the government security guards are armed in a government building!!!








victor809 Offline
#148 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 9:02 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
99cobra2881 wrote:
Haha I love how the liberals on here argue that chitcago is "relatively safe" with a total of 472 murders to a population of 2,722,389 versus a total population in the United States of 321,216,397 that has seen a total of 462 people killed in mass shootings this year. Less people killed in the entire United States in all the mass shootings this year than have been killed in Chicago alone!!!!

Yet here the libs are on here arguing for gun control in the United States because it is part of the liberal socialist agenda and they have heard it so often they actually believe things in the United States are so out of sorts that gun control is necessary and the 2nd amendment should be infringed upon!!!

So chitcago is "relatively safe" but something has to be done about gun control in the United States because .00000144% of the United States population has been killed this year in mass shootings. However Chicago being the bastion of liberal policies and strict gun control has seen .00017% of its population murdered.

The liberal socialist gun control agenda in America from a numbers standpoint looks exactly like what I thought it was. A socialist attempt to usurp the constitutional rights of the average American citizen in order to make that citizen powerless against the will of the government.


Dude... you need to learn to standardize your numbers. Why would you compare murders in chicago to mass shootings in the US? That's just... weird.
Incidentally, I did the work for you (you're welcome) and the murder rate in chicago IS higher than the rest of the US.... The percentages are 0.0155% for chicago vs 0.0038% for the rest of the US, approximately 4x higher. I have no idea what you are trying to compare by looking at mass shootings in one group and murders in another.
banderl Offline
#149 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 9:10 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
victor809 wrote:
Does the forum allow me to draw in crayon?



Only IF you CAN print LIKE this.ram27bat
banderl Offline
#150 Posted: Wed, Dec 9 2015, 9:12 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
victor809 wrote:
Dude... you need to learn to standardize your numbers. Why would you compare murders in chicago to mass shootings in the US? That's just... weird.
Incidentally, I did the work for you (you're welcome) and the murder rate in chicago IS higher than the rest of the US.... The percentages are 0.0155% for chicago vs 0.0038% for the rest of the US, approximately 4x higher. I have no idea what you are trying to compare by looking at mass shootings in one group and murders in another.



Victor, I'm sure that this subject was a talking point in certain places on the interwebs in the past week.
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages<12345>
Back to Top