Two Common-Sense Articles About Shootings And Gun Control

Submitted by: 5cats 2 weeks ago in News & Politics

Recent protestors on both sides of the issue.

Two articles to counter the wave of lies from the MSM and the DNC, here's some facts...

Truck Control: One of several myths being pushed that are simply untrue and easy to disprove. Yet the DNC and MSM are doing just that: pushing lies and propaganda. Guns ONLY exist to kill people? They serve NO other purpose? 200 million Americans disagree, along with hundreds of millions around the world who hunt, target shoot or defend their homes.

More Guns = Fewer Homicides: That's the reality in the USA. The opposite of the Gun Grabber lies. There are more guns than ever before and yet both crime and homicide rates are falling steadily. Yet in Europe and other places the rates remain the same or are even rising in spite of the stricter gun controls. A brief look at why that is so.

Bonus Video: Here's a 90-second video of Senator Tim Kaine (D) (remember him?) talking out of his ass on things he knows absolutely nothing about, as usual. Amazing just how many things he gets wrong in such a short time!

There are 169 comments:
Male 296
Two questions for Second Amendment absolutists. What is the name of your "well-regulated militia" and what are the regulations that they enforce?
1
Reply
Male 40,772
pirhomaniak Citizens.
US Constitution.

Thanks for being polite!
0
Reply
Male 296
5cats As good a non-answer as any I've heard, so far.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
pirhomaniak It is a clear, concise and 100% accurate answer to your two questions. Sorry if you fail to understand it, oh well!

How about you: what specific law would you pass to prevent the Las Vegas shooting from happening again? 
0
Reply
Male 296
5cats So "militia" means "everyone, regardless of any actual affiliation" and "well-regulated" means... nothing, apparently? Since I fail to understand it, can you dumb it down for me? Because I thought words had meanings.

And well, that wasn't a loaded question at all... laws cannot prevent all tragedies from happening. They, however, can make them much less impactful, as well as less likely to occur.

This guy legally purchased enough firepower to possibly kill over 500 people in the span of 12 minutes. Does it sound acceptable that one person has this ability within the law? Why do you think people can't buy RPGs? Because the amount of damage one nutjob could do in a short period of time would be disastrous. How is this any different? Would you feel different if your family was among the casualties? (Go ahead and Google Caleb Keeter, a guitarist playing that night for the Josh Abbott Band, for his take on the situation. He was there.)

I don't have a specific answer to your question, because the answer is (*gasp*) nuanced. Maybe part of it is limiting high-capacity magazines to permitted ranges only; maybe it's background checks with red flags for random people buying large amounts of weaponry in a short period of time. I don't know, I'm not an expert. Experts should make that call.

You may be cool with the status quo, where an entire town's worth of people can be gunned down by one man in 12 minutes, but I'm not.

0
Reply
Male 40,772
pirhomaniak The Virginia Tech shooter had 2 ordinary pistols and a couple of hundred rounds of ammo. 

It is not unusual for people to own several guns and a few thousand rounds, or to own reloading equipment & such.

Once the Grabbers get a limit? That limit will move to total confiscation, this is their plan, they're openly saying it this past week or so. 

So no limit on the number one is 'allowed to own' and those other measures would cost piles of money and prevent nothing at all. That is what the 'silencer restrictions' are about right now and why the Repubs want to get rid of them: it's just costly and useless.

Thx for being polite!
0
Reply
Male 296
5cats Did you read Caleb Keeter's response? You asked me specifically about the Las Vegas shooting. But fine, let's look at the Virginia Tech shooting.

The shooter had 2 handguns and managed to kill 32 people and wound 17. How was the death count so high? The director of the trauma center expressly said it was because he used hollow-point ammunition. And hey, look at that, hollow-points are legal (outside of NJ). Would the death count have been less if hollow-points were illegal and much more difficult to acquire? Probably. Maybe only 10 people would have died instead of 32. Would that have mattered to the families of those who would have recovered instead of died? Definitely.

Don't give me this "slippery slope" bull. You have to draw a line somewhere. (Are you for or against everyone legally able to own fully-automatic, high-capacity magazine assault rifles? Why do you think the NRA itself came out for restricting bump stocks?) I myself didn't hear anything about "total confiscation" probably because that's not a thing. If a random person does mention it, it's a talking point people like yourself specifically look for to foam at the mouth about. (And following a mass shooting event, with so much unnecessary death, it's inevitable at least one person is going to bring it up.)

I love the "regulations are costly" argument, just for the fact that it's so ridiculous. Regulations are in place for a reason. I'm a good driver and I've never been in an accident, but I'm still glad we have drivers license exams and motor vehicle safety standards for the other morons on the road. Regarding silencers, do you want people to be able to kill each other more quietly? So that active shooters aren't found as quickly? Because that's the issue there, not this "hearing protection" garbage.

Anyway, like most Republicans (if that's who you identify with), I know that nothing I say will change your mind unless something happens to you personally. Much like Caleb Keeter.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
pirhomaniak You are retarded. Sorry.
The 'death count' was so high at VT because it was a GUN FREE ZONE!
And thus a one-eyed man in a nation of the blind is king!
He sat there and reloaded time after time! No worries, no one else has a firearm!
Until someone with a gun showed up and immediately stopped him.

So fuck your stupidity. Hollow point? Fucking shit. If you catch a 32 or 40 in the heart or the face? It doesn't fucking matter what 'point' it is YOU ARE DEAD!
Those victims BLED OUT ok? That is how most people die of gunshots! They died from BLOOD LOSS not instantly like in fucking Hollywood fictions. How fucking stupid are you?

The LINE IS DRAWN and you cannot step across it. Deal with reality: you shall not pass.

TRILLIONS of dollars ok? It would take TRILLIONS of dollars to confiscate every gun in America. Even you cannot deny that.

And after that? WHAT will stop more guns from entering? Like the thousands of TONS of drugs EVERY FUCKING YEAR FOR DECADES NOW? Directly into the hands of criminals and psychopaths. THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUNS! And your pathetic laws will not stop that.,
PROVE ME WRONG!
ANSWER MY QUESTION: What specific law would stop any mass shooting. This is not rhetorical it is a plain and honest question! If you provide an answer I will be 100% backing you! Ok? GO!

-1
Reply
Male 296
5cats  "Thanks for being polite!" "Thx for being polite!"

"You are retarded. Sorry."  "So fuck your stupidity." " How fucking stupid are you?"

Shame I can't say the same for you. So fuck your hypocrisy.

I'm almost impressed at either your fanaticism or ignorance. Probably both.

Let's get this out of the way. Read this slowly and feel free to repeat it to yourself. No one is going to confiscate all the guns. No legislation has even been proposed to confiscate all the guns. It's not a thing. Obama never proposed it, no senators or house members have ever proposed it. Nothing. I'm not for it, and neither are the majority of the American people. Fake argument over. For the love of Allah, pull your paranoid panties out of your ass.

I literally have no idea what your counter-argument is regarding my statement on hollow-point ammunition. Apparently you believe that regular bullets hitting not-instantly-lethal areas of the body do the exact same damage as expanding ammunition? They're specifically designed to kill more quickly. That's why they exist. They're outright banned in an entire state for that reason. But feel free to give your own personal opinion to any experienced armed service member or trauma nurse. They'll laugh you out of the room.

(For the record, at VA Tech, law enforcement was on the scene only 3 minutes after the first 911 call. And the good guy with a gun who stopped the VA Tech shooter was... technically himself, when he committed suicide. Over 2 hours later.)

You know what most psychopath mass-murderers are called before they commit mass-murders? Law-abiding citizens. There is always a line beyond which it is not acceptable to trust the general public to handle dangerous items responsibly. Again, how many people do you know with RPGs? There's a definite line there; would you like to see it erased? Can we trust that one nutjob won't fire one into a crowd?

I love it when people like yourself beg the question, "What specific law would you pass to prevent the Las Vegas shooting from happening again?" Because when people give you an answer, you immediately move the goalposts. Now it's, "What specific law would stop any mass shooting?" Not rhetorical my ass. Laws are not magic. Laws statistically make certain undesirable events less likely to happen, generally for the common good. Currently in the US, mass shootings (4 or more people injured or worse) happen an average of once per day. Once. Per. Fucking. Day. 4 or more people are shot by one person. So don't act like mass shootings are rare just because they don't make national news.

How about this for a thought experiment. If you had the ability, if certain gun regulations could have saved half of those innocent people who were killed in Las Vegas, would you go back in time and enact them to save their lives? Something simple: say the shooter could have only bought 10-round magazines, because 50-round magazines and up were restricted to permitted gun ranges only. Boom, 30 lives saved. Or were their deaths acceptable for the luxury of owning 100-round magazines? Meh, fuck 'em, they're strangers. What if just one of them was someone you cared about?

How have Australia's relatively new gun regulations been working out for them? (Pretty please check a reliable source, preferably an official Australian governmental study.)

And how's that Caleb Keeter homework coming along? Where's his line?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
pirhomaniak Sorry, I do try to be polite :/ I'm not perfect.

Feinstein, Pelosi and several others have openly said their goal is to disarm all Americans (except their personal security of course). This has been their stated, open goal for decades now. Yes, given ANY chance the Democrats WILL confiscate without due process. They refuse to Amend the constitution because they know that will explode in their faces, so they use unconstitutional means to try to find something that will slip past the courts.

Ban one type of ammo, then another, then restrict how much you're 'allowed' to own, then add huge 'safety taxes' on each round... it's has all been tried before.

On the scene, but they had no idea who or where the shooter was. 

So NO LAWS can possibly stop mass shootings then? Well I'm glad we agree on something, cheers! 

Australia had almost no mass shootings before their laws, and still have about the same. They now have just as many guns in circulation as before the laws, yet things like gun murder and gun crime remain... about the same. The laws cost billions and were useless, plain and simple.

Who?
0
Reply
Male 296
5cats Thank you, I'm not perfect either.

I don't care what anyone has heard. If you can find any legitimately-sourced proposed legislation in the past 50 years, I'll be happy to take a look at it. Trump "heard" this in 2015 about Obama.

"You know, the president is thinking about signing an executive order where he wants to take your guns away. You hear this one? This is the new. Not gonna happen. That won’t happen. But that’s a tough one, I think that’s a tough one for him to do when you actually have the Second Amendment. That’s tough. Because there’s plenty of executive orders being signed, you know that. And we can’t let that go on. So it’ll all stop … It’ll stop very soon, I think, because people are tired of what’s going on, and they’re tired of what’s happening to our country."

Nothing happened. Not even on his way out the door. It's all scare tactics, designed to manipulate people with similar mindsets as yourself. If Nancy Pelosi could slip through anything even remotely as monumental as total confiscation of all firearms through any court, I'll eat my damn boxers, because that woman is as inept as she is corrupt.

I don't accept defeatist arguments when it comes to laws. We don't do it with dangerous drugs, why do it with dangerous ammunition? People just keep overdosing on heroin... We should give up and make it legal because it's not working. People keep illegally immigrating into the country, we should tear down parts of the fence and reduce border patrols. Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see this same logic applied anywhere else.

Wrong. No law could possibly stop ALL mass shootings. Like all other laws, they reduce them. Less mothers losing sons, less fathers losing daughters, less goddamn memorials and GoFundMe's for victims. You don't think our current laws and regulations (lax as they are) currently prevent any?

I really don't know where you get your information about Australia, but it's clearly not where I get mine. From the Australian National Injury Surveillance Unit.

Association Between Gun Law Reforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979-2013

"Question  What happened to the trend in firearm deaths after Australia introduced extensive gun law reform in 1996, including a ban on semiautomatic rifles and pump-action shotguns?

Findings  In the 18 years before the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, whereas in the 20 years following the ban, no mass shootings occurred, and the decline in total firearm deaths accelerated.

Meaning  Implementation of a ban on rapid-fire firearms was associated with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths."

I know may not be able to change your mind, but I'm hoping you're at least rational enough to make an attempt to see my point of view. That's all I ask for. I hope I haven't wasted your time.

Caleb Keeter. He made a statement through Twitter following the Vegas shooting. Just Google him.
0
Reply
Male 555
1
Reply
Male 1,417
after DECADES of the Democrats doing all they can to confiscate our guns, NOTHING they say is to be believed.  There IS NO COMPROMISE with people whose end goal is total gun confiscation in America.  Period.
0
Reply
Male 296
spanz Doing all they can? Even when they had a super-majority they didn't pass anything. Venture out of your media bubble, please.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
spanz Terrible attitude to have.  THe problem is in the mirror spanz
1
Reply
13
Not to get too involved in this, as I'm only really familiar with Australian gun control, but feel compelled to point it out every time I see it wrongly stated or presented:

Gun control in Australia has been successful. 

Yes, I read the attached report claiming otherwise. And I read the Frasier Institute report it referenced. I'm not going to point out all the issues with the analysis, and the clear bias of the report, as the data is more than a decade out of date anyway.

But to be clear: if you use up to date data, and analyse it in a consistent and reasonable way - taking demographics and other variables into context - you can conclude that the gun laws have been successful. The vast majority of Australians would agree. 

And if you'd like a nice graph or two, try the one in this article which references recent UNODC data on homicides (a graph which is misrepresented in the Frasier Institute report) or the others based on more recent criminology statistics in Aus:

http://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-declining-homicide-rates-79654

Also, worth noting that I'm an Australian actuary, and come from a family of legal gun owners and users. That is, I am trained in interpreting statistics, and have first hand experience with the gun laws and their effect on this country.

Anyways, that's off my chest now. Please resume your debate about who slandered who and who has to apologise. 
2
Reply
Male 1,347
hoitymctoitpants That's all well and good about the guns but what about all the nasty critters that want to do you in down under? I think I rather face a gun.
0
Reply
13
scheckydamon Nasty critters? That's a funny name. We call 'em shazzwozzers. 
3
Reply
Male 1,347
hoitymctoitpants I live in the Blue Ridge Mountains in South Carolina. He we gots two kinds of critters, two legged and four legged. There's some 6 and 8 legged ones but they're fairly benign. The two legged ones are what we keep our guns for.
0
Reply
13
scheckydamon No matter how many legs our critters have, they all seem dangerous. Especially the 8 and 0 legged ones. Although the 8 legged ones that now only have 7 legs are the worst; they've seen some stuff. But we get by. 
0
Reply
Male 1,365
hoitymctoitpants hahahaha Simpsons reference points for you mate
0
Reply
Male 4,953
hoitymctoitpants Thanks, Hoity. Good info. I'm very interested in the Australian National Firearms Agreement (NFA), and it's always good to hear an Aussie's opinion on it.

Welcome to IAB, by the way. My apologies for the off-topic debate. It happens; I'm hoping it's done.

1
Reply
Male 4,155
Do we blame spelling errors on pens?
-1
Reply
Male 25
trimble 

No, but we do sometimes blame spelling errors on phones, computers and the like
0
Reply
Male 339
There is only one argument to make when in comes to gun regulation.

Has an elected government rounded up innocent people and murdered them?
Answer: Yes. 

Civilians should have access to the same firearms as the military so that they can defend themselves. 

Will people use that access to murder people like the radicalized muslim did in las vegas recently?
Answer: Yes.

The police aren't there to protect you. You must protect yourself.
0
Reply
Male 3,497
johncourage Who is this radicalized muslim?  Paddock?
1
Reply
Male 15,273
daegog I've never before met a nation of people, who so often face acts of terrorism, continue to deny that their own are responsible. When someone commits a senseless act of mass murder somehow the perpetrator must have secretly converted to Islam, and self radicalized without anyone noticing a change of behaviour before the act.

It's simple. Face up to the fact that and angry but sane white male, a Christian, a rich man with no significant criminal history and much to live for, can spontaneously decide to massacre a crowd full of his innocent countrymen. This is someone who can pass all your background checks and still be deadly. He is exactly the kind of man gun laws are designed to allow to arm himself for protection.

So live with this risk, or change gun control. What you choose is up to you, just don't live in denial or your choice will be based on a delusion.


2
Reply
Male 4,953
johncourage Where are you getting the information that Stephen Paddock was a radicalized Muslim? I'm following the story closely and haven't seen a single investigator make that claim.
0
Reply
Male 25
johncourage 

I'm wondering if you mean to say that citizens should be able to have m-16s, 30 cal machine guns, grenade launchers, bazookas, predator drones, f-16s, and nukes?

Probably not.  So perhaps then we are negotiating the details of what type of gun control you prefer vs what type of gun control someone else prefers.  What's in and what's out?
0
Reply
Male 339
dwaterd Why shouldn't citizens have access to any of those things?
I guess, "personal protection" could be the deciding factor.
"m-16s, 30 cal machine guns, grenade launchers, bazookas" could fall in the personal protection from government category.

"predator drones, f-16s" aren't firearms and shouldn't be regulated except with regards to use. I see no reason why any citizen shouldn't be able to purchase one or build it themselves.

"nukes" and I am sort of joking but if nations need nukes to deter attacks then perhaps citizens or at least communities should have nukes to deter attacks by their government in large nations.
0
Reply
Male 2,637
johncourage 
Your argument is pretty much the polar opposite of a ban on all arms.

It should be taken as seriously.
0
Reply
Male 7,943
johncourage This argument is silly.  Nukes for all, cruise missiles for me and tanks too!  All it takes is for one person to snap to trigger a ridiculous chain of horrible events.  Stupid stupid stupid.
1
Reply
Male 25
johncourage 

When you agree to participate in society (with the benefits of relative stability, and the hope that when we are all together we are capable of much more than by ourselves) you agree to give up certain personal liberties.  I.e. You agree not to steal my food, I agree not to piss in your water, and the like.  Negotiating these collective rules is one of the functions of a representative government.  "What's reasonable based on the best evidence" to ensure the common good should be the touchstone of good governance.  In my view, there is nothing sacred or magical about the U.S. constitution or the second amendment.  It's a remarkable document that was designed to be changed (amended) as the circumstances warrant.  Its designed to not be easy to change.... but it can be and has been from time to time when enough people realize life would likely be better if the document gets tweaked.

I'm hoping that most reasonable people would agree that the right to bear arms should have some kind of limitations.  A cost benefit analysis of higher impact weapons ranging from grenades to nukes likely results in a judgement of an untenable risk to the society in allowing their general availability.  Same thing with allowing just anyone unlimited access to ammonium nitrate, anthrax, or even a monopoly on an entire industry.

So again:  For me it is a discussion about where do you draw the line between individuals personal liberty, and the collective good.  
2
Reply
Male 4,155
Male 3,497
2
Reply
Male 40,772
daegog No. How can you be so fucking stupid? Is it a deliberate effort? If so you have succeeded admirably! 
-5
Reply
Male 15,273
5cats no information introduced and no logic applied. It's a pure ad hominem rebuttal and ergo, you have lost the argument.
2
Reply
Male 3,497
5cats If you could take your meds so you will calm down, that would be great.

After that, you can explain why you think that way.
3
Reply
Male 2
First Question: Do you have a gun licence?*
*Minimum qualifications needed: 10/10 stand still target rating of at least 10 metres. For each type of firearm desired. Applicant must have adequate and secure storage facility for firearm when not in use. Visual inspection is required by an authorised inspector. Applicant must have a form signed by a qualified medical professional stating that the applicant is sound of mind and body, and the professional can find no reason why the applicant cannot possess a firearm. This licence is only valid for five years then must be renewed in it's entirety.
Second Question: For what reason do you wish to purchase a firearm?

Personally, that is what I would like to see as a minimum happen when someone wants to purchase a firearm.
If you just want to shoot a gun, go to a gun range.
If you want personal protection, get a stun gun.
If you want to shoot someone, get together with a club, and shoot each other.

Or you could mandate that every child at birth gets a fully working firearm, and each birthday they get another firearm, to use as they please. Lets see what happens. Make it mandatory so that every person must wear a firearm when in public.
Oh, and when they turn eighteen, they get a bazooka, or a grenade launcher. Or a flame thrower.

A ban on guns is a stupid idea. Regulation works. Be smart.
0
Reply
Male 4,953
tjstorm Welcome to IAB, TJ. Make friends, have fun, and please keep your paws within the vehicle at all times.

Not sure why 5Cats thinks liberals will "attack" you. I, for one, thought your ideas about guns make a lot of sense.

At any rate, welcome again to our insane little corner of the internet.

~Squrlz pulls out the IAB Welcome Wagon~

1
Reply
Male 40,772
tjstorm Existing regulations work? Yes I agree 100%.
Welcome to IAB! The 'liberal-left' will attack you now, but don't worry about it.
-3
Reply
Male 2
5cats @
Hello Scats, Squirz4Ever,
Thank you for the welcome, but you might have me confused. I am afraid that for the most part, I am a part of the liberal-left as you would put it, although many times I do find myself tempered by the original right. Honestly, I think both America and the UK could be great again if the leaders listened to people from both sides of the isle, and made small but continuous steps to bring both sides of the countries together, rather than split them apart.

(Got to admit, in my daydreams, if I was the President Of These United States, I would like to think that I would hire republicans, democrats and independents. Because somewhere between them all, the truth must lay.)

And although I really didn't support the decision to elect Trump, I get that everybody had the really sucky alternative that is Hilary. It was like the democrats were actually trying their best no to give the American voters a good alternative.

By the way, I did read the Truck Control (mostyly) and the Don't Tell The Left (Quickly).

For the Truck Control, I think the point the article missed was that during it's lifetime, it was designed and used to deliver goods and consumables. That was it's purpose. It wasn't built as a self defense or offense weapon, it was designed to kill people, but to assist in human civilization. These cases were no more different than using a brick to cave in peoples' head, or to use electricity to electrocute one hundred people in a public pool. 
It takes a license, a medical report that you are fit and healthy and no mental issues to disqualify you. A company who owns the truck has to employ the person, saying that they trust him/her with this piece of potential lethal equipment if used improperly.

The same and more for planes. More regulations, more difficulty in CONVERTING them into a lethal weapon.

As for bombs, they require expertise to build properly in order not to blow yourself up, and to actual cause as much damage as possible.

Guns were designed almost solely for the purpose of taking human life, for killing.

Guns are now embedded too deeply in the American culture to ever take them away, even if it were possible, it would take at the very least the next Hundred Years to phase them out. America should be using the laws to determine who is allowed to purchase and own a personal firearm, and who should be using a gun range. Because not everyone knows that a firearm is not a toy, they don't know that they have to play safe.
2
Reply
Male 8
5 Cats must have taken a master class in employing logical fallacies, dishonest arguments, and bullying tactics. His misrepresentation of reality is so consistently divisive and harmful that I sometimes truly wonder if he's on a foreign government's payroll. A normal person can't be that toxic that much with out intention. 

We already have "truck control" of course. We have drivers licenses, registration and tags, competence testing, and lots and lots of safety regulation on construction. People who misuse them lose their license to use them and are consistently arrested when they drive without a license. And btw, trucks can't fit in a suitcase, so it's largely possible to "control" their use with curbs, fences and concrete.

It is completely wrong that more guns = less violence in any causal sense. In general, places with more guns have more gun violence. European rates may be slightly rising, but they are MUCH lower than ours. Obviously there are more factors than gun availability so it's possible to find periods of time (as presented here) where one variable is rising while the other's falling. But correlation doesn't imply causation, does it? (unless you can cynically use it in your argument, anyhow, I guess). 

Australia's experience with gun control is a terrific example of real causation. Mass murders have dramatically been reduced by some smart legal choices. If we didn't have irrational people like the OP in the U.S., no doubt we could work up something similarly effective. 

What's really bad about the post is that it's never grounded in any particular policy or proposal. It's never made clear what 5cats is arguing for or against. It's just a smear.  

The only policies I've recently heard in play are 1) let's not make silencers easier to get 2) let's do background checks on "gun-show" purchases 3) let's ban "assault weapons". 

Now, there are reasonable arguments for and against these policy proposals. But it's really hard to get to those when we have to wade through 5cats-style bile, misinformation, and chaos. 



8
Reply
Male 7,943
phacter Wow another top comment in this thread award nominee/winner.  Well said.
3
Reply
Male 15,273
phacter welcome (belated). I did a happy little squeal when I saw you write "logical fallacy". 5C feeds off our anger and frustration, so sometimes I just point out his logical fallacies, unfounded false statements, and ad hominem attacks. If we all get in on it, he won't have any one to argue with and will go mad with boredom.
2
Reply
Male 4,953
phacter Hey, Phacter. I'd welcome you to IAB, but I see you've been around for at least six years. A man of few comments.  :)

I have to agree with your concerns about 5Cats. He spreads a lot of misinformation and bile in an almost maniacal fashion. Perhaps manic is more accurate than maniacal. Take a look at his response to my comment regarding subsonic ammunition and suppressors elsewhere in this thread. Everything he states in his response is factually incorrect, yet he states it with the absolute confidence of a know-it-all.

To quote Lenin (with a bit of revision for present circumstances): "One fool can spread more misinformation in a minute than twelve intelligent IAB'ers can correct in an hour."
3
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever I have been being considerate towards you? 
I shall no longer make that mistake.
-4
Reply
Male 4,953
5cats Um, and exactly how have you been "considerate" towards me? Are you not merciful? LOL

PentaPuss, you regularly have your meltdowns on here. I rather doubt anything I do or don't do is going to affect your own inner time bomb.
2
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever Well! I was entirely considerate of you until you FALSELY accused me of being a paedophile.
And then asked others to report me to the RCMP based on your lies.
That is a crime ok? It is a criminal offence. I have the screenies to prove it.

After that? Yeah I figured you were fucking retarded and hostile. Even more so than when you demanded I be banned years ago! So fuck you!
 
You could EASILY "affect" our time here: You could: 
- admit you lied
- apologise for lying
- state clearly you have NO evidence for your accusations, that these were unfounded

And then fuck of. Ignore me PLEASE! JUST GO AWAY YOU FUCKING TROLL! Ok? Bye!
-4
Reply
Male 3,425
5cats dude. catgirls.
1
Reply
Male 4,953
5cats Wow. It always amazes me that you insist on dredging up the "Fur-Flinging Fuck-Fuck Games," as one IAB'er dubbed it. See, when you do this, it forces me to revisit the whole situation in order to correct your factual errors. And when I have to recap all that material, I don't think it helps your reputation on here at all. Oh well.

I never lied about you nor did I accuse you of a crime. What I did was to voice my opinion that due to your fascination with sexualized drawings of little girls, you shouldn't be working in a children's daycare center.

For a good two years, you'd been spamming IAB with sexualized drawings of prepubescent girls--your "catgirl" fetish. Girls who looked to be six- or seven-years-old were depicted in negligees, see-through blouses, or less and were all provocatively posed. One girl, who looked 7, had a distinct camel-toe formed by the ribbon covering her "bikini area" (she was wearing no pants, skirt, or underwear). It creeped a lot of people out. People complained. Whodat6484, for example, wrote in 2014: "That Catgirl sh*t is creepy man. Please find a new hobby or keep it behind closed doors."

When I first learned you were working with small children in a daycare center, due to a remark you let slip, an alarm went off and I eventually spoke up.

When I raised this concern, you flipped out. You denied that you worked with children--for two days you stonewalled, if I remember correctly, until you finally slipped up and stated you'd been tested for pedophilia (which made no sense if you'd only worked as a gas station attendant, which you were claiming).

I'm no longer as concerned as I was because so far as I can tell, you are being truthful when you say you no longer work in a daycare center. Thank goodness.

Now, let's address this claim of yours that I asked people to report you to the RCMP. That's a treasured little piece of nonsense that you love to cling to. At one point when I was recounting your pervy little girl fetish, I exclaimed, "Someone ought to report him to the RCMP!" I did not mean that literally, and I stated as such shortly after I wrote it. I had never accused you of a crime; there was nothing to report. The exclamation was along the lines of, "There ought to be a law!" and wasn't meant to be taken literally.

I have already apologized for making that statement once before, but if it pleases you, I'll do it again. I'm sorry I made that exclamation regarding the RCMP. It wasn't meant literally and I ought not to have said it.

But my opinion that a 54-year-old man who's obsessed with drawings of sexualized little girls shouldn't be working with children? That I stand by.
2
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever Thanks for finally clarifying that (RCMP) part. But it's minor if you still insist I'm a criminal ...

'due to a remark you let slip' again with your blatant lies? It was in my public profile, I frequently mentioned it in comments. 

And what evidence do you have that I'm 'obsessed with drawings of sexualized little girls'? Other that your imagination? You cannot tell the difference between anime (clean) and hentai (porn) then there's  no point. It's like saying Archie comics and Hustler are identical ...

Goodbye.

-3
Reply
Male 4,953
5cats I apologized for the RCMP remark the last time you brought it up. This is the second time I've said it wasn't meant literally and that I'm sorry I said it.

As for the rest of your comment, it's more of your trademark deception and nonsense.

First, I'm not "still insisting (you're) a criminal." I've never claimed any crime has been committed. All I've said, and continue to say, is that you shouldn't be working anywhere near small children.

Second, it's a total fabrication when you claim you "frequently" mentioned that you worked in a daycare center. When I first mentioned it, there was a fair amount of shock on IAB. Not a single IAB'er who endured your years of "catgirl" spamming has come forth and said they knew you worked in a daycare center. If it was ever in your profile, I never saw it and I looked at your profile frequently. Lastly, if your work in a children's daycare center was common knowledge, as you've taken to claiming lately, why did you spend two days trying to hide it when I first brought it to light?

Third, are you really asking what evidence I have that you are obsessed with drawings of sexualized little girls? Seriously?

For one thing, there's the pile of erotic little girl art you spammed on here and creeped everyone out with. Sorry, but throwing a pair of fuzzy ears onto a drawing of a semi-nude six-year-old who's posed provocatively and calling her a "catgirl" doesn't somehow cleanse the image of pedophilia. I have numerous examples of the drawings you posted in a "5Cats Catgirls" folder and could reproduce some of the perviest images here if you want, but I'd rather not.

For another, there's the statements you yourself made that attended these drawings, GIFs, and videos.

After linking to a pervy animated video featuring scantily clad "catgirls" who look to be six to eight years old, and which has since been taken down by YouTube, you wrote: "Somewhat 'adult' content so it's probably NSFW eh?... Foxgirls? Bunnygirls? Doggirls? They're all good! Yum! ... I like Disney cats! But catgirls wear sexier underwear."

After linking to an erotic animated game that features two "catgirls" who look to be around six years old, you wrote: "Honestly? This sort of 'erotic-game' is usually pretty dull! But the cuteness of the catgirls here is too much for me to resist!...The two-tails is just bonus! And yes, in various p0rn the tails get used for un-natural purposes... there's a fetish for that! ... Depending exactly how 'furry' they get? They usually have human-like 'parts' down there. Human-sized as well, usually... I like them because I like cats :-) And girls! And cuteness."

After posting a drawing of a "catgirl" who looks 10 years old in a sheer white shirt with no skirt, pants, or underwear, you wrote: "CATGIRL TIME! It's always catgirl time in my mind."

After all the pedophilic images and comments you posted, I'd have a hard time looking at myself in the mirror if I didn't raise the alarm after learning you worked in a daycare center.

As I've stated, I have reason to believe you when you now state you are no longer working with little children. So we're done here, I think. Unless, of course, you want to keep raising the topic for some peculiar reason.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever Fucking pack of lies, and skipped over several horrid things you said in those tirades.
Several people said they knew about my former career, they attested that I'd spoken about it several times.
You keep files on me? That's pathological and I'm done with your sickness.
-1
Reply
Male 15,273
5cats what's the number for the RCMP in your town? Just curious.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
phacter Hi, welcome to IAB!
Just using the tactics of the Gun Grabbers, that's OK right?
Didn't say it was 'causal' but there is evidence it is. Places that enact easier conceal-carry (for example) see crime fall dramatically. However? The fact remains the same: more guns and yet less crime across the board in the USA this past 15-20 years. And in Europe? Same or more crimes, especially rape. 
That is my point here: guns are NOT the cause of crime, period.

It is plain what I argue for: no 'knee jerk' laws which will make things much worse! 

#1 they are hard to get, and expensive! But many European nations allow freer access to them than the USA does, how do you reconcile that? And they are almost NEVER used in crimes, Hollywood has lied to you.
#2 Checks are mandatory in gun shows. Only liars claim otherwise. All laws both State and Federal are in place. There is no such thing as a 'gun show loophole' and this has been proven countless times.
#3 The are heavily restricted already. Learn what an actual 'assault rifle' is and how hard it is to get one. The MSM lies constantly about it. It seems none were used here, and there have been 3 (iirc) since 1936 used in mass killings. Three times, and one was a cop.

Show me my 'misinformation' I dare you! Your empty words are just more MSM hysteria.
-4
Reply
Male 1,365
5cats I'll re-post this question for a third time since my second attempt was deleted somehow... My question to you is: Would you trade in our gun control for what the USA has knowing that we would probably fall victim to the same fate of regular mass shootings?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
doiknowyou That's pure nonsense and you know it.

The #1 cause in the USA is not available guns, it is race-based drugs-gangs period.
We have the same problem in Canada where gangs roam our large cities.
0
Reply
Male 1,365
5cats so you're saying we wouldn't run the same risk given the same access to firearms as the Americans?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
doiknowyou Yes. We have a completely different culture and ethnic mix.
Outside of our 4-5 'big cities' we are the same as the "US Heartland" and their gun crime and gun murder rates are about the same as Europe and... as Canada's!

Don't you get it yet? It is the 9-10 huge Democrat-run cities driving the gun crime. The rest of America has NO such problems...

Machineguns and "assault rifles" and the rest are RARELY used in crimes. The thousands and millions of LEGAL owners are not criminals, period! Further restrictions of those items will do absolutely nothing to control crime. Nothing.
But they would actually increase crime and violence. And THAT is why we object!
0
Reply
Male 5,028
5cats Hey, I agree with you on something. Tim Kaine did not do enough research on silencers - he doesn't know what they actually do.
0
Reply
Male 5,028
5cats You talk about the "wave of lies from the MSM and the DNC" but then base everything in your post on an uber-partisan propaganda site and a site that is known for its right bias. Don't you see how hypocritical it is to attack the MSM with data from sites that are a thousand times worse? And screw your "Look he's attacking the source" BS argument. Uber-partisan sources on both sides should be pointed out.
2
Reply
Male 40,772
markust123
I'm glad I could find something you liked! Isn't it funny? Or terrifying? That guy was a few million votes away from being #2 in command right now... and he's a fucking idiot.

Untrue. Who do you think will point out the lies of the MSM and the Democrats like Kaine? MSNBC? CBS? HELL no! THEY ARE THE DNC's Propaganda Arm! So naturally 'alternate news' sites are the ones speaking the TRUTH (which even you agree they are telling the truth) ok? And what will the DNC and MSM say about those site? Can you guess? 

Partisan doesn't necessarily mean wrong, one can be both that and 100% truthful. In this case the MSM is 100% liars and that's a plain fact to say so.

You agree my 'partisan sites' are truthful (in this case at least!) and that the partisan MSM sites are liars... yet you claim you canno0t trust my sites because... ???
-4
Reply
Male 5,028
5cats, "Who do you think will point out the lies of the MSM and the Democrats like Kaine? MSNBC? CBS? HELL no! THEY ARE THE DNC's Propaganda Arm! So naturally 'alternate news' sites are the ones speaking the TRUTH (which even you agree they are telling the truth) ok? And what will the DNC and MSM say about those site? Can you guess?"

I don't use MSN as a source as they have proven themselves to be biased. CBS is actually pretty reliable. But even with them I check further when something doesn't feel right. How I know they are presenting news and not propaganda is I don't get upset when I read it. It's just news. The crap you read makes you upset at the other "side" because it is all sensational us-against-them bullshit. It's such poison. I don't know how you have looked at it for so long and have not figured this out. It took me about 2 years of being immersed in that world to see this and want to get out. You are going on 10+ years and are still falling for the lies and manipulation.
1
Reply
Male 5,028
5cats, "I'm glad I could find something you liked!"

You are the king of spin. I never said I liked it. I said I agreed with you that Tim Kaine didn't know what he was talking about when it came to silencers. And no, I don't think Tim Kaine was terrifying. He is actually near the very top of the list of people in congress who are the most liked. If anything maybe he is too nice for that world. 
 
5cats, "So naturally 'alternate news' sites are the ones speaking the TRUTH (which even you agree they are telling the truth)"

Jesus, you are such a deceptive little shit. The part I was responding to was about the YouTube clip you included at the end. Not anything from your partisan links.

5cats, "You agree my 'partisan sites' are truthful (in this case at least!) and that the partisan MSM sites are liars."

Repeating it again will not make it true. Again the part I was responding to was about the YouTube clip you included at the end. Not anything from your partisan links. 
2
Reply
Male 40,772
markust123 ok then
-2
Reply
Male 3,497
Bump stocks are totally over rated, the same effect can be achieved with practice.

Bump stocks simply allow anyone to fire automatically with little effort, doesn't matter they will probably get banned soon.




0
Reply
Male 15,273
Even the NRA realise bump stocks are bad:

[Breaking news]

http://m.newser.com/story/249654/nra-makes-big-move-in-wake-of-vegas-massacre.html
0
Reply
463
 http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

So yeh, between 1966 and 2012 the US accounted for 31% of mass shootings committed by civilians, despite only having less than 5% of the global population, but yeh, guns make you safer! 
2
Reply
Male 40,772
layla_wilson India, China, Brasil and 50 other nations have EQUALLY ACCURATE information as the USA does? Not the least bit doctored, altered or plain distorted by governments or by a lack of infrastructure? Really now?

Sweden and Denmark's police forces have been proven to "alter crime statistics' to match government policy, why wouldn't China et al?
-5
Reply
Male 50
More guns = less homicides?

The US has a homicide rate which is more than 5 times higher than the UK. The US public own about a quarter of a billion guns (112 guns per 100 people), the UK public own next to none (6 per 100 people).

So, can you please explain how on earth you can arrive at the above conclusion?


2
Reply
Male 40,772
ImaginaryN If you had BOTHERED to GLANCE at the links? You'd have your answer. :/

USA: More guns than ever over the last 20 years. Crime has gone down consistently, including murder and gun murders. More Guns = Less Crime, it's a fact.
-4
Reply
Male 9,769
There are 7 countries in the G7, the 7 leaders of the world.

The murder rate (per 100,000) is as follows:
Canada: 1.68
France: 1.58
Germany: 0.85
Italy: 0.78
Japan: 0.31
U.K.: 0.92
U.S.A.: 4.88

So what the fuck is wrong with us? What is the defining difference? It's not the guns?
2
Reply
Male 40,772
holygod Race-based drugs gangs in the large metropolitan areas. 
Honestly now: you take those "war zones" out (and you said it was OK to do so earlier) and the rest of the US is barely higher than Europe's average.
-4
Reply
Male 25
I mean... Christ on a cracker, even the NRA says bump-stocks should be better regulated...
2
Reply
Male 368
dwaterd “...Christ on a cracker...” sounds delicious.
0
Reply
Male 1,365
skeeter01 Cheesus snacks
1
Reply
Male 1,739
Absolutely. Everyone needs an assault rifle with a bump stock, suppressor and several 100 round drum magazines for home defense in case the Russians invade. 
2
Reply
Male 25
oobaka 

Don't forget a silencer!
1
Reply
Male 1,739
dwaterd Suppressor IS a silencer....just so ya know.
0
Reply
Male 1,746
dwaterd Of course not, how else are we going to get the kids involved?
1
Reply
Male 25
Once again, what has been presented is more of the same "your ideas for gun control don't work cause reason x,y,z". But no ideas on how to curb gun violence.  Isn't that really the only relevant topic on this issue at this point?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
dwaterd Stay the course, don't make things worse by spending billions on actions that will make things worse!
And no, I don't have to "provide an alternative" to prove your side is wrong. That is nonsense. Your side is wrong, period, no excuses!
Welcome to IAB!
-4
Reply
Male 25
5cats 

Not saying you have to provide an alternative.  Just pointing out the situation.  Excusing the grand generalization, but I guess the difference between people like you and people like me is that I'm hopeful that there are solutions to problems, and I'm willing to try on different ideas to figure out which might work out best.  At least on this issue, you seem to be content with the status quo so much so that it appears you don't think there is a problem.   I'm not content.

Welcome to IAB!  Feel free to add something of value if you've got the time.
3
Reply
Male 40,772
dwaterd AND AGAIN I REPEAT! I do not have to offer ANY alternatives! That is bullshit.
Your position is WRONG, I have PROVEN IT and I have NO need to show why anything other than the way things are now is required.
Can you disprove my position? Then do so! Ok?
Simply bitching about how pitiful your side is doesn't disprove my side...
Ad something to my welcome?
WELL!
You asked for it:
https://imgur.com/8wTxkJu
-4
Reply
Male 25
5cats 

Quite simple to disprove your position really...

You might have heard about something happening in Las Vegas recently?

How's that "constant vigilance" working out for you?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
dwaterd You have a way to stop 330 million people from doing any crimes ever? Let's hear it...
-1
Reply
Male 25
5cats 

Not 330 million people from doing any crimes ever... no... that seems kinda a steep bar to vault.

How about something that could prevent the deaths of 100 people a year, that costs no additional money to implement, doesn't infringe on anyone's ability to "defend themselves against a corrupted government", and could be implemented in the next six months. Interested?

What if it actually cost one million dollars to do the same? Still interested?

What if it meant you could only kill 72 corrupt government soldiers when they "come for your property" instead of 73?  Still interested?

What are the parameters by which any actionable plan would be acceptable to you?  How many guns do you need?  Infinite?  How powerful?  Infinite?  Would you be willing to give in on any measure of currently held constitutional, legally held "freedoms" if you could be guaranteed that lives would be saved?

Me personally, I don't accept owning an assault rifle as a proxy for freedom.  Others dissent from this and I respect their right to that thought.  (As an aside: If you were a good shot, perhaps when society collapses, you can use your .22 rifle to kill one of them and take their assault rifle. That would save you a lot of money I think.) 

 This conversation should be about finding common ground to address problems. Not giving up because "there is no solution".  That's the bullshittyest of bullshit of all.  No solution = I'm lazy, not smart enough or not invested enough to think of a way.  

0
Reply
Male 40,772
dwaterd "what if" is not an answer. 
Actual assault rifles are already heavily restricted. You have nothing? Just admit it. I have already offered a solution, but you have not.
0
Reply
Male 1,746
Here are two common-sense refutations:

ARTICLE 1:
(1) After terrorists killed people with trucks, car companies in both Britain and in the U.S. restricted who could rent vans and trucks. So, yes, we do enact changes for truck control, but no changes for gun control.

We also enacted many changes for plane control, but no changes for gun control.

The only thing that is unique about guns is that restrictions to obtain a gun are less strict than restrictions to obtain a car or to board a plane.

(2) America isn't the only place that gun deaths happen. America is just has the highest rate of gun deaths per capita, and the highest rate of gun deaths per time period. That is the unique situation. The whole "This is the only place where it happens" quote is an oversimplification of these two facts.

(3) Few people really know exactly what causes gun violence in America because Republicans have repeatedly stripped the CDC of funding to even research gun violence. If the U.S. was actually allowed to collect that information, maybe we could find better ways to address the problem. Unfortunately, without that information, everyone is taking their best guess.

(4) Gun control laws are not gun prohibition laws. That is ridiculous. Everclear is illegal in the state of California because it is very easy to kill yourself if you drink Everclear. That doesn't stop people from getting drunk here, or even from killing themselves with alcohol poisoning here. We just can't easily kill ourselves with Everclear...we need to use less powerful alcohols in California. Likewise, we can make some weapons illegal without outlawing guns completely. Heck, we outlaw nuclear weapons but not grenades. Yet nobody is saying that outlawing nuclear weapons infringes on our right to bear arms. This is totally a false equivalence. 

ARTICLE 2: As barry9a points out below, the statistics are completely cherry-picked. Look at all the data instead of only filtered data, and this correlation falls flat.

Also, if you compare state-by-state, the states with more guns have more gun-related deaths, strangely enough.


It's all how you look at the facts and cherry-pick facts. That's why it's important to look at all the facts instead of just a few cherry-picked facts. If you only look at a few cherry-picked facts, you can prove just about anything.

Like Obama said, just treat gun threats the same way we treat car threats and the same way we treat airplane threats, and you'll satisfy most proponents of gun control laws. Keep providing gun owners with preferential treatment, and proponents of gun control laws will point out your hypocrisy. Again, and again, and again, and again.
5
Reply
Male 4,953
bliznik

Great comment, Bliznik. One of the best comments I've seen on IAB in a long time. Kudos.
1
Reply
Male 39,958
According to that graph there are more gun deaths in Montana than New York or Chicago ?   Bull Shit
0
Reply
Male 1,739
Gerry1of1 A majority of the gun deaths in Montana are suicides
0
Reply
Male 2,637
Gerry1of1
In 2014 there were 15,872 homicides in the US. link

In Canada there were 521. link

That's how you'd rather look at statistics?
0
Reply
Male 39,958
jaysingrimm 521 homicides you know of. That stat only means the US is better at finding the bodies.

:D
-1
Reply
Male 2,637
Gerry1of1 
Where's that shoe Squrlz' been talking about?

I want to throw it at you ;)
1
Reply
Male 1,746
Gerry1of1 This is by state, not by city, and it's per capita, not total. 

In 2015, the state of Illinois had 1,220 gun deaths, of which 470 were in Chicago. So Chicago makes up most of the gun deaths in the state of Illinois. The state of Montana only had 205 gun deaths. So both Chicago and the state of Illinois had more gun deaths than the state of Montana in 2015.

But in 2015, the state of Illinois had 12.84 million people, while the state of Montana only had 1.03 million people. So, per capita, Montana had more gun deaths, even though Montana overall had fewer gun deaths.

Stats are tricky things.
2
Reply
Male 1,317
bliznik yes, funny things those stats are.  Gun deaths aren’t of interest to most people, homicides are (suicide and accidents, while tragic, don’t interest me regarding guns.  Some asshat shooting and killing me does though)

The 2015 homicide total for Montana was 36 (that’s not a rate, that’s the total) over a population of 1M for a rate of 3.5 per 100k.  The total for Illinois was 744 over a population of 12.84M for a rate of 5.8 per 100k.  Now with Chicago having 468 gun deaths in a population of 2.814M that yields a rate of, wait for it.... 16.6 per 100k (note there were 528 homicides in Chicago in 2015 so for parity it should be 18.8)

I don’t think Chicago’s gun ownership rate (legal that is) is higher than Montana’s.

Granted This is all homicides and it’s by any method but I’m sure guns account for 90% of them based on Chicago’s data.  It doesn’t include shootings which suck a lot too.

So you see that just because redneck states have a lot of guns per capita, they aren’t necessarily that dangerous because they don’t seem to be shooting and killing other people they way they do in the ‘hood.

P.S. the amount of non homicide deaths in the western states was covered in IAB some time back.  Alaska and places like that had a very high rate of suicide by gun as compared to NYC.
0
Reply
Male 1,746
woodyville06 Yup, limiting access to weapons that can kill many people won't do anything about suicides, or about gun assaults where there are only a few victims. Context is everything.
0
Reply
Male 39,958
bliznik "stats are tricky things" .... 

"There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics" - Benjamin Disraeli 
-1
Reply
Male 40,772
Gerry1of1 Mark Twain? Lolz! One of those smart guys said it :-)
-1
Reply
Male 39,958
5cats Mark Twain popularized it, but he gave credit to Prime Minister Disraeli
-1
Reply
Male 40,772
Gerry1of1 Oh ok! I knew both had said it, but who first? Thanks!
-2
Reply
463
Gerry1of1 what's funny is he was a conservative prime minister. To this day the Tory party use rhetoric like that to get away with their bullshit. 
0
Reply
Male 4,953
Gerry1of1 I'm not sure it's bullshit, Gerry. The deaths are normalized across each state's population. In other words, you have to average in all the the rest of Illinois with Chicago's numbers and the large gun death numbers for Chicago are further diluted by the city's large population. Another factor: Gun deaths by suicide outnumber gun deaths by homicide by roughly 2-to-1.

Bottom line: The facts that guns are readily available all across Montana and a lot of people commit suicide together outweigh the fact that a small subset of criminals within Chicago are shooting a lot of people.
3
Reply
463
Gerry1of1 gun deaths per 100,000 Gerry, not so bullshit if you can accurately read a simple graph :)
2
Reply
Male 15,273
layla_wilson you were doing so well with just facts and logic. Don't turn into a sixth cat.
0
Reply
Male 39,958
layla_wilson Thanks for the insult, that's what people use when they don't have facts. Maybe you should read not just the graph but how it's calculated. . . Or does the graph fit your agenda so you don't want to see the truth ?
-4
Reply
463
Gerry1of1 according to that graph there are more deaths per 100,000 and a higher % of gun owning households in Montana. doesn't in anyway mean there is more deaths in Montana overall

You simply don't understand what it says, irrelevant of if it's factual or not 
0
Reply
Male 39,958
layla_wilson Like most you think if someone disagrees with you they "don't understand it"..... How superior of you.  

Never try to discuss something with a liberal.
-2
Reply
Male 4,953
Gerry1of1 Gerry! C'mon. I'm a liberal. Am I so bad? I think you're still angry that I threw a wooden shoe at you.
0
Reply
Male 39,958
squrlz4ever squirrels, like liberals, are rodents.

0
Reply
Male 4,953
Gerry1of1 *fume* ~throws second wooden shoe~

They come in pairs, you know!
2
Reply
Male 3,497
Stats are funny things.. Do you realize you or a loved one is more likely to kill themselves with your legally acquired gun vs protection from an armed intruder?

You are literally facilitating your own death when you buy a gun.
3
Reply
Male 4,155
daegog I should be dead 14 times over then.
0
Reply
463
Btw more guns = less homicide is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read. Had guns never been legal for civilian purchase (but police still armed) I assure you that homocide rates would be lower.
1
Reply
451
Also, I wonder if "I will not register my guns" guy registers his car.
2
Reply
Male 40,772
barry9a Your right to own a car (or a horse) is not in the US Constitution. Don't bother to try again, you bring shame to your ancestors...
-3
Reply
451
The 2nd link is, again, stacking the deck. Showing crime rates in graphs from 1990 is highly disingenuous on two fronts. Firstly, 1990 was a crime peak - extend the graph back a couple of decades and the peak is obvious. Secondly, around 1990 was when America's love affair with incarceration really started, and incarceration rates shot through the roof throughout the 90s. EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE of these articles COMPLETELY ignores the effect of incarceration on crime rate.

As for "more guns = fewer homicides", the past couple of years of gun-buying frenzy hasn't shown that to be true. 14,249 homicides in the US in 2014, 15,883 in 2015, and 17,250 in 2016.
4
Reply
Male 40,772
barry9a No, actually? the 1970's were by FAR much more violent.

And you are comparing total numbers then with a with a MUCH BIGGER population now. Dude, you're not in Kindergarten any more...
-4
Reply
451
5cats for fuck's sake, going from 14k to 17k homicides in 2 years is a 20% increase over that time. Are you really saying that the US population grew significantly more than 20% from 2014 to 2016?

In 2014 the US population was 318M, and in 2016 it was 323M, a growth of only 1.5% - less than a tenth of the growth in homicides. And you dare accuse others of spiking the facts.
0
Reply
Male 260
barry9a You raise a point in the first paragraph that I hadn't considered.

Have you any links that I can start with to follow this up?
0
Reply
451
mikesex I don't have specific links - I used to argue gun control a lot on the net quite a while back. But you can do a google image search for "crime rate historical US" and you'll see all sorts of graphs. Pick a few that look quality, and visit the page. Some of the articles are cooked, some of them are fair, but pretty much all of them show a peak in crime rate around 1990.

If you want to look at the actual statistics, go to the source - government sites like the FBI. That's where all the articles get their stats from. View what the stats look like for the various crimes on offer, and you won't be relying on some site's "interpretation". Homicide is the best crime to base things on, because it's pretty obvious and its definition doesn't change much over the years (things like 'rape' and 'assault' have definitions that change frequently). Similarly, things like rape are much more reported than they used to be, which alters the statistics, but homicide has always been reported - it's a very simply-defined crime.

Then you can do the same for "US historical incarceration rate". It really J-curved in the 1990s.


Bonus factoid: The claim "concealed carry laws reduce crime" is also false. Washington state went concealed carry in 1961, and its crime rates rose and fell in harmony with the other states around it.
0
Reply
Male 368
The sad part is, nobody is suggesting ALL guns be banned.  Even I have no issue with people owning guns.  I just object to the ridiculously overpowered ones being available to all with a rather weak background check process.  Semi-automatic assault rifles or others that work with high volume magazines, or those that can be (fairly) easily and cheaply modified to work just like fully automatic machine guns shouldn't be easy to get.  Maybe the criteria should be if your gun is more powerful than the police's top weapon, you probably shouldn't be able to buy it without jumping through a bunch of hoops.  

In truth, I'd even be OK with selling overpowered guns to the masses if the gun-loons would be willing to register them with the understanding that if a gun that is registered in their name is used in a crime and they can't show proof that they sold it, or that they reported it stolen, then THEY are held accountable.  

To me, that's a reasonable solution to this impasse.  But even THAT is too strict for the gunnies.  Not sure why they object, though.  I mean, isn't their whole argument that they are law abiding, responsible gun owners, and as such, they should not be prevented from owning a gun if they want one.  Sure... I even agree with that argument.  But if you truly are so responsible with your guns, then there shouldn't be any issue with you putting up your freedom as collateral for the privilege of owning a high-powered weapon, right?  After all, responsible gun owners won't have their guns stolen, will they?  And surely you'd keep records of its sale, or at the very least keep tabs on them so if they are stolen, you'd notice pretty quickly, right?
1
Reply
Male 4,155
skeeter01 "overpowered guns"??? That sounds like a "girl too pretty" to me.
1
Reply
Male 368
trimble Good point.  My phrasing is a bit awkward and redundant.  But just like a "girl too pretty" or having "too much money," there are definite downsides to having an "overpowered gun".
0
Reply
Male 25
skeeter01 

Right.  It's funny that we all agree (or most of us anyway) that a normal civilian human person (squirrels might be exempt) should not be able to own a grenade launcher or bazooka or tank or nuclear weapon but god forbid we limit the size of a bullet magazine.  "I might need 17 rounds to take down that deer, or intruder, or beloved family member sneaking home late at night". Let's all admit we are arguing about what's reasonable... and not about "taking away my constitutional rights".
2
Reply
Male 7,943
Hillarious, "common sense" from 5cats?  That was a joke.
3
Reply
Male 1,739
normalfreak2 I had to come look at the oxymoron for some shits and giggles.
1
Reply
463
"Guns don't kill people, criminals do"

No criminals kill people with guns. But neither is responsible for the death, it's the bullet. But then again, while the bullet does the damage what actually kills people us the internal/external bloodless and trauma.

So. Guns don't kill people, criminals don't kill people, bullets don't kill people, a humans inability to withstand  bullet fired from a gun in the hands of a criminal(or police man) is the true killer.

Wanna know how to fix the problem? Stricter gun controls. End of. 

But that won't happen, instead they are probably gonna legalize suppressors. It's amazing how fucking stupid people can be.
3
Reply
Male 1,347
layla_wilson No get it right. Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people. If you’re a doush and mentally loose and kill people, who’s fault is it? The gun’ or the  doush?
-4
Reply
Male 15,273
scheckydamon it's the fault of the legislator douche who let the armed douche arm himself.
-1
Reply
Male 15,273
scheckydamon I'm standing here in a back alley of a dodgy part of town smoking a cigar to avoid bothering people with smoke. I'm wearing a $2,000 suit and a $5,000 watch. The chances of my getting mugged with a gun are zero. We have strict gun laws and effective enforcement.

There are still plenty of guns, but in the hands of law enforcement and the military.

Are these two statements connected? Would I be better off if people could easily buy a gun with little/no registration or qualification?
0
Reply
463
scheckydamon stricter gun controls = less gun crime/less mass shootings.

There will always be nutjobs, it's a case of limiting their potential for harm. Great example: stricter gun controls.

As an fyi, I've never seen a gun in the hands of anyone other than a policeman. I never see that there's been a drive by in my local neighbourhood. And the fact that police have killed 5 people with guns in 1 year made the national headlines because it was more than previous years... 

But yeh, your totally all safer when everyone is armed to the teeth.
3
Reply
Male 40,772
layla_wilson Oh right! lets make guns ILLEGAL then Criminals won't have any!


-3
Reply
451
5cats If laws are wholly ineffective, then why protest against them?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
barry9a Because

That is why.
-1
Reply
463
5cats that's a lovely looking summercamp, is there activities and washing facilities?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
layla_wilson Free showers!
0
Reply
463
5cats well, it's worked in the UK and Australia, guns illegal or highly restricted for public use = far less gun crime.
1
Reply
Male 1,739
layla_wilson And Canada where 5cats is from (to the embarrassment of us all)
0
Reply
2,845
layla_wilson 

Silencers are already legal. Read the NFA (national fire arms act of 1934). I have 4 of them, all stamped and legal. 
0
Reply
463
skypirate are proud of that? Why the fuck does a civilian need 4 surpressers?? I don't mean this in offence but it's entirely unnessisary.

2
Reply
Male 15,273
layla_wilson I'm against firearms proliferation but I don't believe we should limit people's ownership of sound modifiers, except perhaps for subsonic and small calibre firearms. 
0
Reply
Male 40,772
layla_wilson Honest question:
Why not?
Can you demonstrate exactly how owning a sound suppressor is a criminal act?
Please. Be. Specific!
-1
Reply
Female 4,441
layla_wilson Hearing protection isn't necessary?
-2
Reply
2,845
layla_wilson Proud? Not really. I didn't make them some one else did. I certainly enjoy them and I like shooting without ears. 
0
Reply
Male 1,746
skypirate You remove your ears before you shoot? Wow, you're taking safety to the next level...
0
Reply
Male 1,082
I stopped reading after "Do we need truck control".
1
Reply
81
you dont need a silencer to defend yourself with a firearm. you only need a silencer to get away with murder. 
2
Reply
Male 40,772
bill_watson LOLZ! You've seen too many Hollywood myths lies brother! LOLZ! Too stupid for words really...
-3
Reply
Male 9,769
bill_watson Ok. Well, I sorta disagree. If someone breaks into your house and you shoot a gun in a small enclosed space it can blow your ear drums out. A silencer helps with that.

Also it doesn't really make it all that easier to get away with murder. They don't work like in Jamed Bond movies. It still is a loud ass gun shot. Just a bit less loud ass.
0
Reply
Male 4,953
holygod I've seen videos of people firing subsonic ammunition (which eliminates the hypersonic crack of conventional ammo) with a silencer and it's pretty darn quiet. The combination is no louder than a BB gun, but lethal at close to medium range.

I'm not sure if the combination could or would be used in a situation like Las Vegas, where the shooter was firing at targets 400 yards away. But in a nightclub like Orlando? There is no chance that anyone would hear the gun over the music. The only sign that somebody was shooting would be the dropping bodies.

Here are two examples of what I'm talking about.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever Subsonic is not even remotely as lethal as regular ammo.

.22 caliber SR is nothing remotely like .223 or .40 ammo. Even .22 LR is much more lethal.

From 400 yards, with him inside a room? There wasn't much noise anyhow but people still heard it. And MOST people didn't react until others started falling, they thought it was fireworks or something, the noise level made no difference.

And suppressors make the shots slower, and less accurate. And they melt after just 50 or 100 rounds... and he didn't have any! Criminals outside of Hollywood fiction never do! This is a FAKE CRISIS. 
-4
Reply
Male 4,953
5cats As usual, much of your information is wrong.

First, most subsonic ammo is more than adequate in terms of lethality because the manufacturers slow the muzzle velocity by making the bullets weigh more. The added mass doesn't make up for all the energy lost due to the lower speed--velocity is squared in the energy equation, after all--but it makes up enough of it to retain a lethal punch.

Currently, the subsonic ammo of choice for America's special forces and SWAT teams is the .300 AAC Blackout round, which has as much muzzle energy as a hypersonic AK-47 round. Link

Second, suppressors make little or no difference in the speed of the bullet. From Accurate Shooter, a website for gun enthusiasts: "Modern suppressors allow the use of full-power ammunition, do not reduce the muzzle velocity, do not contact the bullet during flight, and often aid accuracy." Link

Third, your claim that "There wasn't much noise anyhow" from the Las Vegas shooter is nonsense. Have you watched the videos? The report from Paddock's rifle and the hypersonic crack of the bullets is extremely loud--so loud that you easily hear them over the country music in a recording made from the front row before the stage. Link

You say the noise level "made no difference"? Bullfeathers. It was the noise level that led a Mandalay Bay security guard into the hallway outside Paddock's room, which caused Paddock to shoot at the guard through the door and terminate his killing spree ten minutes after he started.

It amazes me how much misinformation you spread on here.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever Why do I bother trying to treat you like a reasonable human being?
You are fucking shit.

Oh BTW? Hit me with your -1 for every post and comment!
Then transfer to your puppets and repeat! Several times!

You are pathetic.
-3
Reply
Male 4,953
5cats I feel your pain; I know it has to be hard when you keep screwing up on here and getting the facts wrong.

Also, for the thousandth time: I have never used a sockpuppet on IAB, I do not currently use a sockpuppet on IAB, and I never will use a sockpuppet on IAB.

Currently, the only IAB'er I am aware of who is using a sockpuppet is you, with your MoldySod account.

Any questions?
1
Reply
Male 7,943
squrlz4ever RIGHT ON SQURLZOUT!  ;-p
0
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever Nope! I caught you, and you have no ability other than a word from FancyLad himself to overturn my opinion.
One of your puppets said "I said..." and when I went back to that thread? To see what was said? It was YOU.
So? Here's a question: why do you lie so much?
Why do you -1 every single post and comment?
Why have you not killed yourself yet?
-5
Reply
Male 1,739
5cats Why haven't you tried to give a more believable response to the fact you thought the mayor in Puerto Rico was a man other than a lame attempt at calling it a typo?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
oobaka Yes. Because it was a typo. Him... Her... typo, mistake, error.

You have nothing but THIS? What a fucking joke you have made yourself...
0
Reply
Male 4,953
5cats I see you're on a roll tonight. Caught me? You've caught me in nothing but the tangled delusions of your own mind.

I saw when you started to think I had a sockpuppet and it was ridiculous. I had posted a bulleted list of the many obscene things you'd said during one of your meltdowns. Then another user--I think it was Rumham or Stifler, I forget which--copied and pasted all or part of that list and used it in a response to you, prefaced by "And you wonder why people don't like you?"

And like an idiot, you went "AHA! It's the same list. I've caught you!" That is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen. Yet the more you keep recounting this idiocy of yours, the more you convince yourself it is solid evidence. Good Lord, you are a piece of work.

The fortunate thing here is that, even over the internet, true personalities emerge with time. When I truthfully state that I have never used a sockpuppet on here, people generally believe me. Honesty tends to work that way; it is its own reward.

On the other paw, when you deny that MoldySod is your sockpuppet? Everyone knows you're a liar.

Like it or not, the truth will out. Good for me; not so good for you.
1
Reply
Male 5,028
squrlz4ever I would be shocked if thething911 is not 5cats also. After I pointed this out he had thething911 say things that he thought would not sound like him but if you look at the recent comments for thething911 he is right back to sounding like 5cats:

"Now we're stuck with cunts like you."

"well, when in a few days, when I'm proven right for the sixty millionth fucking time, you can stuff your comment right back up your ass."

"eat a dick, fuckboi."

It's that middle one that is the most telling.
1
Reply
Male 40,772
markust123 this shit again? fuck off boy...
0
Reply
Male 4,953
markust123 Yeah, it certainly has the 5Cats ring to it. ~Squrlz shakes his head slowly~ I am sometimes at a loss when it comes to the things 5Cats does on here.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
squrlz4ever So I should just accept your word, but you will never accept mine? Typical...
I have no puppets, why would I? I say everything in my own name, what good would a puppet be? But for you it was a way to get around my ignoring you, plain and simple. Same for the other puppet-masters here... 
-2
Reply
Male 7,943
squrlz4ever 5cats is completely delusional.  I wish my Canadian brother would seek mental help.  He desperately needs it.  His vicious Trolling and lying is bad for him and everyone that loves him.  Get help my brother.
1
Reply
Male 39,958
L for the woman holding the sign about Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton & Madison.... they would have denied her right to vote. And I'm fairly certain Reagan would too.
0
Reply