Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Per NPR this morning shooter had Nazi and "historical paraphernalia" either on him or at his residence.

wait a second, I thought you just got done saying how you defeated the nazi's ideas.

To be more extreme, we killed off far more powerful ideas in the idea of Nazis and the Greater Eastern Prosperity Sphere.

this does highlight the point that you can not defeat an ideology, the believers of the ideology might eventually discard it on their own, but it can never be forced.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Per NPR this morning shooter had Nazi and "historical paraphernalia" either on him or at his residence.

wait a second, I thought you just got done saying how you defeated the nazi's ideas.

We found the last Nazi! We defeated his ideas with four or five warnings shots directly to the torso.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.

There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.

The figure of declining gun ownership comes from a small survey of self reporting individuals. It is flawed in methodology for thinking that firearm owners are going to tell a stranger from a survey group they have never heard of how many, if any, firearms they possess. This study was also funded by people known for being unsympathetic to firearm ownership, and the full survey will not be available until - giving the propaganda plenty of time to get bedded in and parroted before being revealed for the junk that it is.

All the while actual credible sources are ignored as the FBI reports record breaking numbers of 4473s being processed, and record setting applications for CCW permits from women. Pew Research has instead put the figure at 44% of households owing a firearm. Add in the fact that the ladies clothing market for firearms related goods has exploded (unless you think Cletus is buying the hot pink holsters, and flashbang bras for himself).

So with a nudge and a wink you'll try to lead us to the conclusion that more guns in fewer hands is tied to lower violent crime. When it is instead shown that a liberalizing of firearm laws, and a greater number of people exercising the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their loved ones, is tied to a decrease in violent crime you'll move the goalposts and claim that correlation does not equal causation.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.

There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.

The figure of declining gun ownership comes from a small survey of self reporting individuals. It is flawed in methodology for thinking that firearm owners are going to tell a stranger from a survey group they have never heard of how many, if any, firearms they possess. This study was also funded by people known for being unsympathetic to firearm ownership, and the full survey will not be available until - giving the propaganda plenty of time to get bedded in and parroted before being revealed for the junk that it is.

All the while actual credible sources are ignored as the FBI reports record breaking numbers of 4473s being processed, and record setting applications for CCW permits from women. Pew Research has instead put the figure at 44% of households owing a firearm. Add in the fact that the ladies clothing market for firearms related goods has exploded (unless you think Cletus is buying the hot pink holsters, and flashbang bras for himself).

So with a nudge and a wink you'll try to lead us to the conclusion that more guns in fewer hands is tied to lower violent crime. When it is instead shown that a liberalizing of firearm laws, and a greater number of people exercising the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their loved ones, is tied to a decrease in violent crime you'll move the goalposts and claim that correlation does not equal causation.

the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.

sirlynchmob wrote:
the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.

Domestic abusers are already prohibited from owing firearms, or purchasing new ones, at the federal and state level.

Your claim that guns in the home are a greater risk to a family member than an intruder comes from a study that had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed.

Are you sure that :there is absolutely no truth to that statement" that private firearm ownership has no positive impact on crime? No positive impact like the NRA member who stopped the knife attack in Minnesota by a self radicalized individual? No positive impact there? Or the Wal-Mart employee who successfully defended himself against an armed assailant in Florida earlier this week (http://wsvn.com/news/local/walmart-employee-fatally-shoots-armed-robber-in-sunrise/) ? Or countless other examples such as this one from 4 days ago http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/09/23/burglar-shot.html


The National Research Council (an nonprofit, non-governmental organization that is not affiliated with the NRA) found that those who used firearms to defend themselves had lower injury rates than did victims who used other strategies.

Even the CDC in their most recent study found that "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.

There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.

The figure of declining gun ownership comes from a small survey of self reporting individuals. It is flawed in methodology for thinking that firearm owners are going to tell a stranger from a survey group they have never heard of how many, if any, firearms they possess. This study was also funded by people known for being unsympathetic to firearm ownership, and the full survey will not be available until - giving the propaganda plenty of time to get bedded in and parroted before being revealed for the junk that it is.

All the while actual credible sources are ignored as the FBI reports record breaking numbers of 4473s being processed, and record setting applications for CCW permits from women. Pew Research has instead put the figure at 44% of households owing a firearm. Add in the fact that the ladies clothing market for firearms related goods has exploded (unless you think Cletus is buying the hot pink holsters, and flashbang bras for himself).

So with a nudge and a wink you'll try to lead us to the conclusion that more guns in fewer hands is tied to lower violent crime. When it is instead shown that a liberalizing of firearm laws, and a greater number of people exercising the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their loved ones, is tied to a decrease in violent crime you'll move the goalposts and claim that correlation does not equal causation.

the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.

The fact that crime is going down, and requests for permits is going up seems to be pretty cut and dry.

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.

There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.

The figure of declining gun ownership comes from a small survey of self reporting individuals. It is flawed in methodology for thinking that firearm owners are going to tell a stranger from a survey group they have never heard of how many, if any, firearms they possess. This study was also funded by people known for being unsympathetic to firearm ownership, and the full survey will not be available until - giving the propaganda plenty of time to get bedded in and parroted before being revealed for the junk that it is.

All the while actual credible sources are ignored as the FBI reports record breaking numbers of 4473s being processed, and record setting applications for CCW permits from women. Pew Research has instead put the figure at 44% of households owing a firearm. Add in the fact that the ladies clothing market for firearms related goods has exploded (unless you think Cletus is buying the hot pink holsters, and flashbang bras for himself).

So with a nudge and a wink you'll try to lead us to the conclusion that more guns in fewer hands is tied to lower violent crime. When it is instead shown that a liberalizing of firearm laws, and a greater number of people exercising the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their loved ones, is tied to a decrease in violent crime you'll move the goalposts and claim that correlation does not equal causation.

the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.

The fact that crime is going down, and requests for permits is going up seems to be pretty cut and dry.

crime has been on a steady decline since my birth, you're welcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.

Domestic abusers are already prohibited from owing firearms, or purchasing new ones, at the federal and state level.

Your claim that guns in the home are a greater risk to a family member than an intruder comes from a study that had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed.

Are you sure that :there is absolutely no truth to that statement" that private firearm ownership has no positive impact on crime? No positive impact like the NRA member who stopped the knife attack in Minnesota by a self radicalized individual? No positive impact there? Or the Wal-Mart employee who successfully defended himself against an armed assailant in Florida earlier this week (http://wsvn.com/news/local/walmart-employee-fatally-shoots-armed-robber-in-sunrise/) ? Or countless other examples such as this one from 4 days ago http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/09/23/burglar-shot.html


The National Research Council (an nonprofit, non-governmental organization that is not affiliated with the NRA) found that those who used firearms to defend themselves had lower injury rates than did victims who used other strategies.

Even the CDC in their most recent study found that "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

ya and let's not forget this helpful guy:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

and this helpful lady:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/11/mich-woman-who-shot-at-shoplifters-gets-18-months-probation-vows-to-never-help-anybody-again/

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/

Though guns may be successfully used in self-defense even when they are not fired, the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less. Instead of keeping owners safer from harm, objective studies confirm that firearms in the home place owners and their families at greater risk. Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where guns are kept increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by between 40 and 170%.2 Another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology similarly found that “persons with guns in the home were at greater risk of dying from a homicide in the home than those without guns in the home.” This study determined that the presence of guns in the home increased an individual’s risk of death by homicide by 90%.3

sirlynchmob wrote:

 redleger wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Spree shootings have been going on in the USA for 100 years. The nation is told it's a problem every time it happens, and the NRA say the solution is more guns. Gun ownership is on the decline, though, and correlates to the declining crime rate though whether it is a cause or an effect or unconnected is not clear.

There is a small group of gun "super users" who own many weapons, and are partly responsible for the increasing number of guns in circulation. There is no suggestion that owning a large number of guns pre-disposes you to commit spree killings.

The figure of declining gun ownership comes from a small survey of self reporting individuals. It is flawed in methodology for thinking that firearm owners are going to tell a stranger from a survey group they have never heard of how many, if any, firearms they possess. This study was also funded by people known for being unsympathetic to firearm ownership, and the full survey will not be available until - giving the propaganda plenty of time to get bedded in and parroted before being revealed for the junk that it is.

All the while actual credible sources are ignored as the FBI reports record breaking numbers of 4473s being processed, and record setting applications for CCW permits from women. Pew Research has instead put the figure at 44% of households owing a firearm. Add in the fact that the ladies clothing market for firearms related goods has exploded (unless you think Cletus is buying the hot pink holsters, and flashbang bras for himself).

So with a nudge and a wink you'll try to lead us to the conclusion that more guns in fewer hands is tied to lower violent crime. When it is instead shown that a liberalizing of firearm laws, and a greater number of people exercising the right to bear arms and defend themselves and their loved ones, is tied to a decrease in violent crime you'll move the goalposts and claim that correlation does not equal causation.

the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. are you trying to claim that correlation equals causation? we know that is wrong as well. Guns in the home means a greater number of people killing loved ones in their home. It why there is a large push and laws are being passed to prevent people convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns. gun owners are more likely to kill a loved one than to stop any crime.

The fact that crime is going down, and requests for permits is going up seems to be pretty cut and dry.

crime has been on a steady decline since my birth, you're welcome.

sirlynchmob ,

Your name offends me. I am triggered, need a safe place because I am as soft as charmin. Oh wait that's not me...........

I'm sure that we can get off this tangent and get back to discussing the issues.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm sure that we can get off this tangent and get back to discussing the issues.

I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject

very well, til the next mass shooting, coming soon to a town near you. let's continue to do nothing and hope that something changes.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm sure that we can get off this tangent and get back to discussing the issues.

I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject

very well, til the next mass shooting, coming soon to a town near you. let's continue to do nothing and hope that something changes.

No... that's not what he's saying.

Back to OP: was the shooter actually wearing a Nazi uniform? Or some nazi paraphernalia???

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm sure that we can get off this tangent and get back to discussing the issues.

I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject

very well, til the next mass shooting, coming soon to a town near you. let's continue to do nothing and hope that something changes.

No... that's not what he's saying.

Back to OP: was the shooter actually wearing a Nazi uniform? Or some nazi paraphernalia???

He has a bunch of nazi stuff in his car. I didn't hear mention of a uniform.

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject

Far from it. I want us to get away from an unhelpful side bar on safe spaces and the impact of your birth so that you can actually address the points I have raised and not merely avoid them as you are currently attempting to do.

 whembly wrote:
Back to OP: was the shooter actually wearing a Nazi uniform? Or some nazi paraphernalia???

That is something that I would like to hear more of. Was he a collector of WWII memorabelia, or was he someone who actually sympathized with the Nazi ideology.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject

Far from it. I want us to get away from an unhelpful side bar on safe spaces and the impact of your birth so that you can actually address the points I have raised and not merely avoid them as you are currently attempting to do.

the link I sent which you obviously ignored addressed all your "points" with actual facts.

like this one:

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5
...
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice found that defensive gun use occurs at a dramatically lower rate, about 98.5% lower than the gun lobby has claimed.8

see it has sources cited.

you're 500,000 to 3 million per year is so grossly wrong, it's off by 98.5%, that's a pretty huge margin of error. But feel free to ignore my points and make up stuff I never said.

show me where I said anything on safe spaces, and the impact of my birth clearly shows how demonstrably flawed the argument of correlation = causation is. But I guess you're so used to missing the point, you missed that as well.

 Frazzled wrote:

Sure but he is a lawyer, he isnt going to have trouble finding work.

Thats an extremely incorrect statement in the US. We have a substantial surplus of bloodsuckers on this side of the pond.

Sure, but it still means he had a office relevant degree and professional standing. AFAIK most people with law degrees dont actually work in law.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm sure that we can get off this tangent and get back to discussing the issues.

I'll take that as, you've realized I'm correct and want to change the subject

very well, til the next mass shooting, coming soon to a town near you. let's continue to do nothing and hope that something changes.

No... that's not what he's saying.

Back to OP: was the shooter actually wearing a Nazi uniform? Or some nazi paraphernalia???

He has a bunch of nazi stuff in his car. I didn't hear mention of a uniform.

Conflicting. Sounds like he was wearing tacticool outfit/clothing of some sort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Sure but he is a lawyer, he isnt going to have trouble finding work.

Thats an extremely incorrect statement in the US. We have a substantial surplus of bloodsuckers on this side of the pond.

Sure, but it still means he had a office relevant degree and professional standing. AFAIK most people with law degrees dont actually work in law.

True words. Moi for instance.

sirlynchmob wrote:
the link I sent which you obviously ignored addressed all your "points" with actual facts.

like this one:

Claims that guns are used defensively millions times every year have been widely discredited. Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action.4 At least one study has found that carrying a firearm significantly increases a person’s risk of being shot in an assault; research published in the American Journal of Public Health reported that, even after adjusting for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.5
...
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice found that defensive gun use occurs at a dramatically lower rate, about 98.5% lower than the gun lobby has claimed.8

see it has sources cited.

you're 500,000 to 3 million per year is so grossly wrong, it's off by 98.5%, that's a pretty huge margin of error. But feel free to ignore my points and make up stuff I never said.

My most humble and sincere apologies for missing your automatically appended post. Had I seen it earlier I would have been happy to rebut it for the nonsense that it is.

Leaving aside the irony of claiming that only the NRA claims a positive impact on the private ownership of firearms while then quoting an organization dedicated to gun control (the Violence Policy Center), . The VPC's claims are based on the study by Dr. Kellerman which was deeply flawed in that it examined 420 homicides (when the annual average is between 15K-16K homicides), and only considered it a successful case of self defense if the attacker was killed. With many attacks being thwarted by merely presenting a firearm in self defense, or with non-fatal injury to the assailant, then this distorts the results considerably.

Of course I am amused by your slight of hand that the study by the non-partisan CDC which arrived at the conclusion that you dispute (without any substantive or accurate reason) that "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” is inaccurate when you are unable to show me how, all while relying upon the flawed studies of those chasing an agenda rather than facts. So it would be fair to say that the biased studies you are staking your arguments on are off "off by 98.5%, that's a pretty huge margin of error"

I am disappointed that someone who would rail against an organization like the NRA for their implicit bias would cite sources that are just as biased as you would protest.

sirlynchmob wrote:
show me where I said anything on safe spaces, and the impact of my birth clearly shows how demonstrably flawed the argument of correlation = causation is. But I guess you're so used to missing the point, you missed that as well.

The safe space comment was not directed to you, ever. It was a general appeal in the wake of the comment by redledger, and then your reply about the affect of your birth. Second to the point of the discussion on correlation and causation I have already raised that issue as unhelpful and intellectually dishonest (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/703607.page#8928227).

So, with respect, if anyone is "missing the point" in this thread it is not I.

it's funny you keep referring to a cdc study, yet are unable to post a link to it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
it's funny you keep referring to a cdc study, yet are unable to post a link to it.

Took about a minute to google it.
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
https://www.nap.edu/login.php?record_id=18319&page=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap.edu%2Fdownload.php%3Frecord_id%3D18319#

Prestor Jon wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
it's funny you keep referring to a cdc study, yet are unable to post a link to it.

Took about a minute to google it.
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

from that source:

Risk Factors Associated with Gun Possession

Certain aspects of suicide, homicide, and unintentional injury may be amenable to public health research. Some studies have concluded that persons who keep a firearm in the home may have a greater risk of suicide and homicide (Kellermann et al., 1993)

also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun”

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

odd, It's almost exactly what I've been saying.

sirlynchmob wrote:
from that source:

Risk Factors Associated with Gun Possession

Certain aspects of suicide, homicide, and unintentional injury may be amenable to public health research. Some studies have concluded that persons who keep a firearm in the home may have a greater risk of suicide and homicide (Kellermann et al., 1993)

also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun”

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

odd, It's almost exactly what I've been saying.

It is almost nothing like what you have been saying.

Here is what you have said;
"you're 500,000 to 3 million per year is so grossly wrong, it's off by 98.5%," - that finding is not supported by the CDC study
"the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less."

You claimed as fact that having a fun at home raised the risk of injury to the occupants. What the CDC said in relation to an increased risk by keeping a gun at home was in no way definitive. Saying that it "is possible" is very different to claiming that definitively "the evidence shows that their presence in the home makes a person more vulnerable, not less."

So while the CDC study said that there may be an increased risk, it did not claim it as a fact or provide any supporting evidence that it in fact was. To claim that this is "almost exactly" what you have been saying is grossly dishonest. In fact you were so dishonest that you neglected to mention that the passage from the CDC that you are claiming supports your argument is a quote from the Kellerman study, which has already been debunked above.



You have either not read the material, not understood the material, or are deliberately distorting the material in an attempt to support your argument.

What the report clearly said though was; "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

As have no established as fact from a variety of impartial and credible sources that private ownership of firearms does have a positive effect, so your argument that "the only one claiming guns have a positive impact on the crime rate is the NRA, there is absolutely no truth to that statement" is demonstrably false and without merit.

ENOUGH.

This isn't a gun control thread. This isn't going to BE a gun control thread. And anyone who continues to push the thread in that direction is going to be out of the OT Forum for at least a week.

There is a topic. Discuss it, or don't.

Yea you scurvy dogs...yarrr!

Evidently the tacticool outfit had Nazi emblems on it. No confirm if fake Nazi uniform or he sewed Nazi cray cray on his tacticool outfit before coockoo.

He also had 2,500 rounds in his car. Thats, what 90 lbs of ammo...in a Porsche...

A disgruntled lawyer wearing military-style apparel with old Nazi emblems had two weapons and more than 2,500 rounds of live ammunition when he randomly shot at drivers in a Houston neighborhood Monday before he was shot and killed by police, authorities said.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yea you scurvy dogs...yarrr!

Evidently the tacticool outfit had Nazi emblems on it. No confirm if fake Nazi uniform or he sewed Nazi cray cray on his tacticool outfit before coockoo.

He also had 2,500 rounds in his car. Thats, what 90 lbs of ammo...in a Porsche...

A disgruntled lawyer wearing military-style apparel with old Nazi emblems had two weapons and more than 2,500 rounds of live ammunition when he randomly shot at drivers in a Houston neighborhood Monday before he was shot and killed by police, authorities said.

More than 90 LBS. I carried around 300rds of 7.62 for my M240B gunner all through Iraq and that alone was like 40lbs.

I wonder if this loser was a frequent visitor of the many and varied alt-right fora out there, and if their hateful rantings had any influence on his outburst.

You're probably right. I am thumbnailing. A case of 9mms is about 31 lbs (some of us have been receiving presents in light of the next bullet bubble) and thats 2.5x that plus the bullet weight alone is 2x. Wow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
I wonder if this loser was a frequent visitor of the many and varied alt-right fora out there, and if their hateful rantings had any influence on his outburst.

Alt-right plants? Sorry rephrase please.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yea you scurvy dogs...yarrr!

Evidently the tacticool outfit had Nazi emblems on it. No confirm if fake Nazi uniform or he sewed Nazi cray cray on his tacticool outfit before coockoo.

He also had 2,500 rounds in his car. Thats, what 90 lbs of ammo...in a Porsche...

A disgruntled lawyer wearing military-style apparel with old Nazi emblems had two weapons and more than 2,500 rounds of live ammunition when he randomly shot at drivers in a Houston neighborhood Monday before he was shot and killed by police, authorities said.

That is a lot of weight for a 9mm, or even 5.56mm. Could it have been .22 instead?

 Frazzled wrote:
You're probably right. I am thumbnailing. A case of 9mms is about 31 lbs (some of us have been receiving presents in light of the next bullet bubble) and thats 2.5x that plus the bullet weight alone is 2x. Wow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
I wonder if this loser was a frequent visitor of the many and varied alt-right fora out there, and if their hateful rantings had any influence on his outburst.

Alt-right plants? Sorry rephrase please.

I think he meant forums not fora and it would be interesting to see if the murderer had contact with others who might have known about the attack or encouraged it.

1. I think one articla specifically said .45 acp but I could be wrong.

2. Yes, he should be fully and quickly investigated for just such an issue (did others know or aid).

 feeder wrote:
I wonder if this loser was a frequent visitor of the many and varied alt-right fora out there, and if their hateful rantings had any influence on his outburst.

Did any visits to left leaning sites influence Nidal Hassan, Aaron Alexis, Seung-Hui Cho, James Holmes, Amy Bishop, Andrew J. Stack, Jared Loughner, etc. when they committed their heinous acts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
2. Yes, he should be fully and quickly investigated for just such an issue (did others know or aid).

If others offered aid/support on an online forum then that should be easy to trace and track down those responsible.