• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

Ziggurat said:
I already looked at it. My criticism stands: they do not separate out causes of homicide. Different causes of homicide have very different dynamics, and different associated risk factors. If you think "Household members" means we're talking about domestic violence, you're kidding yourself. If a drug gang shoots up a rival dealer's house and kills his mom, well, that's a household member who was a homicide victim, and if that drug dealer had a gun in the house, then a firearm was accessible to her. But that's got **** all to do with domestic violence.
Click to expand...

How often do you have rival gang members in the same household? That is truely a weird claim. It isn't about shootings at home, it is about shootings at home between people who live there.

Now that at least is domestic violence even if there was not a previous history of domestic abuse.
 
NoahFence said:
Wow... that goalpost moved even faster than a speeding bullet!
Click to expand...

My point is it's a matter of volume, when new firearms are added to the confiscate list every year, eventually ALL guns may be confiscated its not an unreasonable conclusion ... albeit I am in Canada where we have more guns confiscated than in the US.

When NO guns are being confiscated (and I mean from legal gun owners) then the difference becomes clear.
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
Fortunately, here in Florida, as long as the woman fears for her life (and does so legitimately )she won't even see the inside of a jail. Abuser leaves traces (unless it is psychological abuse rather than physical) and traces mean evidence/proof of reason to fear for life and, thus fine to shoot. Wish more women took that option as opposed to living in constant fear.
Click to expand...

Unless she misses and they consider it a warning shot.

Or the police shoot her after she defends herself. Though I guess in that case there was no judicial punishment.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I know liberals and progressives that advocate that. It certainly is not the whole, but we have some standard that says what position can apply to the term "liberal". How much do you need?
Click to expand...

Certainly is not the whole? It certainly IS the minority. We will never have a ban on all guns. What we will have is continued absurd strawmans from the right who like to SAY things like "liberals want to ban all guns" despite zero evidence. If you're going to paint an entire group, you need to make sure that what you're saying represents the majority, not a few fringe players.
 
Yeggster said:
My point is it's a matter of volume, when new firearms are added to the confiscate list every year, eventually ALL guns may be confiscated its not an unreasonable conclusion ... albeit I am in Canada where we have more guns confiscated than in the US.

When NO guns are being confiscated (and I mean from legal gun owners) then the difference becomes clear.
Click to expand...

Confiscate list? LOL!!
 
NoahFence said:
Certainly is not the whole? It certainly IS the minority. We will never have a ban on all guns. What we will have is continued absurd strawmans from the right who like to SAY things like "liberals want to ban all guns" despite zero evidence. If you're going to paint an entire group, you need to make sure that what you're saying represents the majority, not a few fringe players.
Click to expand...

So greater than 50%? And how do we define liberal?

There is a few things I am perfectly comfortable painting liberals with. Such as they are very nice people. And they want to ban guns and gun accessories.
 
Last edited:
Yeggster said:
It's endless! ... an acquaintance of mine had ALL his guns confiscated and destroyed ... simply because one of his kids said something stupid on the internet ... this happens every DAY in Canada
Click to expand...

Good.

If the US brought the hammer down in that manner maybe we wouldn't have to read about this :rule10: every other week.
 
ponderingturtle said:
How often do you have rival gang members in the same household? That is truely a weird claim. It isn't about shootings at home, it is about shootings at home between people who live there.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. That's entirely your imagination. "Household" is relevant because that's the unit which was sampled. They looked at households, checked if firearms were available, and then checked if anyone within the household committed suicide or was the victim of a homicide. There's nothing in there about the homicides needing to be between members of the household.

Seriously, go look.
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426
 
bit_pattern said:
That's either a mistake or a lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed my preceding post and chalk it up as a mistake.



Do you have *any* evidence that gun ownership reduces incidences of domestic violence, or is it all just feelpionions?



Right. I get it. Your unsubstantiated assertions are FACTS but my sourced and referenced statistics are "facts". I see how this game is played.
Click to expand...

bit_pattern said:
So no facts? Just more feelpinions?



No. Yet a large percentage of domestic violence victims have been threatened with guns.



Again, you are making the claim that guns protect potential victims. Where are your stats?



Again, facts please.



"May" isn't good enough - where are your facts?
Click to expand...

bit_pattern said:
Uh, when was that?



Your opinions are based on feelings, and nothing you've been able to show subsequently has demonstrated otherwise. There is clear statistical data showing guns are a far greater threat to women at risk of domestic violence and zero to the contrary.

Again, I invite you to support your feelpinions with evidence. I would be fascinated to see the proof that guns protect women from domestic violence. It shouldn't be that hard to do if reality in anyway intersects with your feelings.



"Simple logic"

"Common sense"

"Feelpinion"
Click to expand...

Maybe we should arm the English language to defend itself against another beating like that.
 
NoahFence said:
Good.

If the US brought the hammer down in that manner maybe we wouldn't have to read about this :rule10: every other week.
Click to expand...

It's easy when it's not YOUR ox being gored eh?:( ... how about they confiscate $3000 worth of your video game consoles computer and TV's ... because they create violent offenders? (just an exaggeration to make a point BTW)

I think if they didn't PROMOTE the events and make celebrities of the killers (by that I mean banning all news reports) that would help much more ... since elimination of all firearms is impossible ... why not work toward something that can actually help?
 
logger said:
Why don't you just admit, someone who is hell bent on doing this,is going to do it, it is up to the individual to protect themselves. No law you could add is going to stop these things but I can stop it happening to me, which is why I carry a firearm.





Only ridiculous because you refuse to THINK about it in an intelligent way.
Click to expand...


The U.S. has one of the highest rates of firearm ownership in the world - why can you not protect yourselves with what you already have?
 
Yeggster said:
It's easy when it's not YOUR ox being gored eh?:( ... how about they confiscate $3000 worth of your video game consoles computer and TV's ... because they create violent offenders? (just an exaggeration to make a point BTW)

I think if they didn't PROMOTE the events and make celebrities of the killers (by that I mean banning all news reports) that would help much more ... since elimination of all firearms is impossible ... why not work toward something that can actually help?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the default position south of your border is to ignore these things, so the Canadian policy of confiscating guns (got a link btw?) is fine with me.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't know. Wasn't asked. The goalpost I had was to find something firearm related that was supported by at least 20% of a political group.
Click to expand...

That 20% was off the top of my head. It meant nothing other than to illustrate that "liberals" who want to ban all guns are the abject minority.

You know how gun nuts love to claim that the bad guys with guns are the minority? Same thing.

You're the one who demanded I quantify "fringe" with a number by the way. Don't forget that.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
I don't know. Wasn't asked. The goalpost I had was to find something firearm related that was supported by at least 20% of a political group.
Click to expand...
Just so we are clear. Those sentiments mean nothing. The Democrats had their collective rear ends handed to them on gun control. They can't even get a bill passed that is supported by most gun owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom