Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Poll Poll
Question: Is Panther a sycophantic pretend American?

Yes    
  2 (20.0%)
No    
  5 (50.0%)
More than 1 syllable confuses Panther    
  3 (30.0%)




Total votes: 10
« Created by: rhino on: Jan 6th, 2020 at 11:15pm »

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 
Send Topic Print
177 gun deaths (Read 17540 times)
PZ547
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9282
Gender: male
Re: 177 gun deaths
Reply #255 - Jan 19th, 2020 at 9:40am
 
Jasin wrote on Jan 19th, 2020 at 9:38am:
Oprah once showed a hidden camera experiment where they placed a life-like replica pistol in a random locker at various (Primary level) schools.
79% of the time the kid's 'automatic' response was to 'play' - point the gun at his friend(s) and shoot when they found it.





Ophrah  Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

this comedy just gets better
Back to top
 

All my comments, posts & opinions are to be regarded as satire & humour
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 45583
Gender: male
Re: 177 gun deaths
Reply #256 - Jan 19th, 2020 at 9:44am
 
I know. I know. Oprah Show of all things.
But it does go to show those kiddie computer games are working.
Roblox is for infants/kids ages and 90% of them incorporate 'killing'.
Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
PZ547
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9282
Gender: male
Re: 177 gun deaths
Reply #257 - Jan 19th, 2020 at 9:58am
 
Jasin wrote on Jan 19th, 2020 at 9:44am:
I know. I know. Oprah Show of all things.
But it does go to show those kiddie computer games are working.
Roblox is for infants/kids ages and 90% of them incorporate 'killing'.




I'm laughing because someone a few posts before yours cited Harvard

then Oprah

two of the most reviled sources in the world these days.  And owned down to their boot laces


but most people aren't suggesting putting guns in the hands of children

who does that?  Lunatics?  Homicidal maniacs?  Harvard and Oprah because that's all they've got and they're hoping no one will notice how absurd their reasoning is?

Most people assume someone capable of handling a gun responsibly will have access to that gun

as we know, dumb crooks have guns.  And they use them.  And they're getting them from somewhere

so it's an unlevel playing field with disastrous repercussions for the one who's gun-less

Police have guns.  Wonder why?

Military puts guns into the hands of 18 year olds and teaches them how to fire and kill.  Wonder why?

Bank robbers, rapists, lunatics, etc. have guns.  Because it gives them the advantage

Cops and military have guns because they know it gives them power and gives them at least a 50/50 chance of emerging alive from whatever confrontation

but the BULK of humanity .. the yous and mes -- they're rendered powerless, disadvantaged, robbed, raped and dead

I say no.  If someone intends to harm me or someone, something I care about .. then I want an equalizer

I might be in the loo when I'm attacked or invaded.  Big disadvantage there

Not as if I'm invading anyone or their property.  And if I DID, then I'd expect my potential victim to defend him/her self

BUT, if I have the gun, I win

If the invader or robber or rapist or lunatic has a gun and I have nothing but a roll of toilet paper or a toothbrush … the other guy wins

I don't want to die that way

I don't want my family to die or suffer at the hands of someone who has no right to attack them

the ordinary person in this and other countries has been deprived of means of self defence through some laughably faked 'massacres' such as Port Arthur and Dunblane

Do you like being deprived of a means to defend yourself from attack when you least expect it?  As in when you're asleep in your bed?  I don't.  I want to have at least a decent chance of protecting myself and my family

I want a gun.  Then let's see how motivated to continue his attack the attacker is.  Bet he tries to dial it down, say he's in the wrong place, hit on the wrong person, didn't mean it, etc.

Guns are as harmless as electricity and mobile phone chargers if handled responsibly

and if some low IQ military cadet can have a gun AND training AND permission to use it against strangers …. then I want a gun too, not to harm anyone except if they try to harm me
Back to top
 

All my comments, posts & opinions are to be regarded as satire & humour
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 45583
Gender: male
Re: 177 gun deaths
Reply #258 - Jan 19th, 2020 at 10:22am
 
American people will put down their guns.
If the Australian people pick up theirs.

Simple Maths.

USA: President owns a gun. USA people don't.
Aust: Aust People own guns. PM doesn't.
(USA Politically/Militarily empowers the pole position individual, Australia is the reverse - it empowers the Fans).
Simples.  Wink


...its the Media that is 'corrupting' this equation.
Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17388
Gender: male
Re: 177 gun deaths
Reply #259 - Jan 19th, 2020 at 10:54am
 
SadKangaroo wrote on Jan 19th, 2020 at 9:31am:
Dnarever wrote on Jan 19th, 2020 at 9:02am:
It is a fact that a gun owner is very many times more likely to shoot him/her self, a family member or a friend than to ever be used in self defence.


That might be a statistical fact, but it doesn't change anything. 


Repeating lies doesn't make your bullshit true.

Quote:
CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.

Thread here- http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1524533839/0



Do retarded leftists understand maths?

2.5 million cases of defensive gun use a year shows guns are very effective for self defence.

Gun numbers have increased in the US while firearm homicides have decreased an inconvenient truth for the bedwetting hoplophobes.

Back to top
 

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.
 
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17388
Gender: male
Re: 177 gun deaths
Reply #260 - Jan 19th, 2020 at 10:58am
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 16th, 2020 at 8:01pm:
Dnarever wrote on Jan 16th, 2020 at 7:50pm:
New Harvard Research Debunks the NRA’s Favorite Talking Points

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/gun-research-harvard-nra/

Quote:
“Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.” Or: “If only more ordinary citizens were armed, they could stop mass shootings.” As we’ve shown in our reporting, these arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny.


That can't be right. Baron said Harvard's really into the NRA's favourite talking points. He even posted a link.

You've posted Mother Jones. Now what's it to be?

Harvard or Mother?


Mother Jones has 118 mass shootings from 1982-2019 which is much lower than the number of mass shootings the bedwetting hoplophobes in this forum claim have happened in the US.

The bedwetting hoplophobes will cherry pick whatever they can and ignore anything that goes against the narrative they're trying to construct.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-da...

Back to top
 

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57064
Here
Gender: male
Re: 177 gun deaths
Reply #261 - Jan 19th, 2020 at 3:13pm
 
Did a 2007 Harvard University study prove that areas with higher rates of gun ownership have lower crime rates?


There was no such official Harvard “study.”


It is true, however, that gun rights advocates Gary Mauser and Don Kates co-authored a 2007 paper in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, arguing that higher rates of gun ownership correlated with lower crime rates, Snopes.com notes.

The paper, however, was not peer-reviewed,
Harvard University does not consider it a study
, and it misrepresented separate research to draw unsupported conclusions.

After the Umpqua (Ore.) Community College shooting in October, an undated article on the website BeliefNet titled “Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link Between Firearms, Crime and Gun Control” went viral on social media.

The BeliefNet article never linked to the document on which it was based, and stated: “According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.”

The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy describes itself as “one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship.”

Articles in that journal are not the same as peer-reviewed research published in science-related journals as “studies.” Using the term “study” to refer to that 2007 article, FactCheck.org said, implied that the conclusions by its authors were vetted under rigorous study conditions, which didn’t appear to be the case.


The paper was credited to authors Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser. A profile for Kates describes him as ”[one of the] foremost litigators, criminologists and scholars on the Second Amendment and the fundamental right to self-defense and the individual right to keep and bear arms in the country.”

https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20151121/news/801257662


i.e - This means that it was made up by gun nutz.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Online


Representative of me

Posts: 39384
Re: 177 gun deaths
Reply #262 - Jan 19th, 2020 at 4:57pm
 
...
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57064
Here
Gender: male
Re: 177 gun deaths
Reply #263 - Jan 19th, 2020 at 7:10pm
 
Quote:
CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.


There are some people who do not laugh at this one.

Normally if something said sounds too stupid to be true there is normally an already stated and obvious reason for that.

A more controlled study found a result of about 65,000 incidents and even that was thought to be exaggerated.

Unless of course we count farmers defending against rabbits and hunters defending against ducks.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mortdooley
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6772
Texas Gulf Coast
Gender: male
Re: 177 gun deaths
Reply #264 - Jan 19th, 2020 at 9:12pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Jan 19th, 2020 at 9:02am:
Mortdooley wrote on Jan 18th, 2020 at 10:21pm:
Dnarever wrote on Jan 16th, 2020 at 7:50pm:
New Harvard Research Debunks the NRA’s Favorite Talking Points

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/gun-research-harvard-nra/

Quote:
“Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.” Or: “If only more ordinary citizens were armed, they could stop mass shootings.” As we’ve shown in our reporting, these arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny.




The piece is pure opinion, no facts!

Quote:
Generally speaking, when it comes to deciding who should be listened to, I look to a couple questions to guide my direction. First, “cui bo·no?”, or in English, “Who benefits?”. Second, “What’s their experience?”. Third, “What’s their successes?”. Fourth, “Ramifications of applying that advice?”. Fifth, “What’s their reputation?”.


And of course, what is their agenda?


Fact check agrees with their view as the NRA position is factually incorrect.

The NRA statement on guns make you safer is a pants on fire one.

It is a fact that a gun owner is very many times more likely to shoot him/her self, a family member or a friend than to ever be used in self defence.



That has a lot to do with other criminal activity these people are involved in. People generally know their local drug dealers and gang bangers if they live in those neighborhoods. The rest of us don't shoot friends and family!!! The US has a lower suicide rate than most Westernized countries, they just use other methods to check out.
Back to top
 

The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. ~Ecc. 10:2
 
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Online



Posts: 45583
Gender: male
Re: 177 gun deaths
Reply #265 - Jan 19th, 2020 at 10:00pm
 
True Morty.
Australia may not have a gun problem.
But we have a very high suicide rate and the highest ratio per population in the world of narcotic (drugs/alcohol) use in the world.
Another shipment of MDMA has entered Australia (located in Sahul - the most virulent region of the world... naturally) with 'double' the dosage.

We are currently under attack from nations like China, Mexico, Columbia and more with their massive shipments.
We don't have war here... just the subtle suicide of self destruction.

Most Rural Towns and big cities are filled with drug zombies evreywhere.
Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 
Send Topic Print