Paris shooting and casualties ?
Discussion
Troubleatmill said:
And as you want one... you should be immediately disqualified from owning one.
The only thing guns do.... is fire a piece of metal at a very high velocity with the intent to hit a target of the handler's choosing.
Every year 32,000 American die because of hand guns.
And do you want a sports car? The only thing they do is give you ability to fly down the road at immense speed. Providing the capability of breaking the law and crashing into pedestrians or a car full of children. The only thing guns do.... is fire a piece of metal at a very high velocity with the intent to hit a target of the handler's choosing.
Every year 32,000 American die because of hand guns.
Every year some 30,800 American die because of cars.
Well we don't need sports cars for the street, lets ban people who want them too.
And the above is?
It was a response, if you don't know, go read one.
---
Even thought equating what I wrote to what was posted (childlike?), I went looking for a so called 'gun-free' zone, seems to be the hot buzzword of a strident gun nut called
John Lott.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/john-l...
It was a response, if you don't know, go read one.
---
Even thought equating what I wrote to what was posted (childlike?), I went looking for a so called 'gun-free' zone, seems to be the hot buzzword of a strident gun nut called
John Lott.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/john-l...
Edited by Halb on Tuesday 24th November 21:03
rb26 said:
Troubleatmill said:
And as you want one... you should be immediately disqualified from owning one.
The only thing guns do.... is fire a piece of metal at a very high velocity with the intent to hit a target of the handler's choosing.
Every year 32,000 American die because of hand guns.
And do you want a sports car? The only thing they do is give you ability to fly down the road at immense speed. Providing the capability of breaking the law and crashing into pedestrians or a car full of children. The only thing guns do.... is fire a piece of metal at a very high velocity with the intent to hit a target of the handler's choosing.
Every year 32,000 American die because of hand guns.
Every year some 30,800 American die because of cars.
Well we don't need sports cars for the street, lets ban people who want them too.
Halb said:
And the above is?
It was a response, if you don't know, go read one.
---
Even thought equating what I wrote to what was posted (childlike?), I went looking for a so called 'gun-free' zone, seems to be the hot buzzword of a strident gun nut called
John Lott.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/john-l...
Nut? He's absolutely correct and a substantial part of that liberal article is easily proven wrong simply by the fact that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones.It was a response, if you don't know, go read one.
---
Even thought equating what I wrote to what was posted (childlike?), I went looking for a so called 'gun-free' zone, seems to be the hot buzzword of a strident gun nut called
John Lott.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/john-l...
Edited by Halb on Tuesday 24th November 21:03
mygoldfishbowl said:
Nut? He's absolutely correct and a substantial part of that liberal article is easily proven wrong simply by the fact that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones.
Never heard of him, went and looked.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Disputed_s...
http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-g...
"While his initial research was groundbreaking, further examination revealed numerous flaws. Today the “more guns, less crime” hypothesis has been thoroughly repudiated. On closer inspection his impressive credentials reveal an academic nomad, never able to secure a place in academia. His ethical transgressions range from accusations of fabricating an entire survey, to presenting faulty regressions, to creating elaborate online personas to defend his work and bash critics, to trying to revise his online history to deflect arguments. And this doesn’t even begin to cover the whole host of false claims and statistics he has peddled repeatedly in articles and TV appearances."
Is there anyone else? ANy other data?
mygoldfishbowl said:
Nut? He's absolutely correct and a substantial part of that liberal article is easily proven wrong simply by the fact that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones.
...but in a country where lots of guns are owned, readily available and there is a culture that sees them as important.The problem is too many guns in circulation/ownership. A "no guns" sign doesn't change that.
I
Thankfully the UK isn't a generally gun-toting land and long may it remain so. It would be a backward step to allow mass gun ownership and concealed carry.
Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 24th November 21:35
Halb said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
Maybe the people who carried out these studies could explain why the vast majority of mass shootings in America happen in gun free zones, and why city's that are gun free have the worst gun crime statistics.
Go read one and find out.Well done.
About ten years ago I read a booklet, an extended thesis in fact, on the Tet Offensive. Most of the material I had read focused on the media reports and the influence these had on the government and subsequently the ending of the war.
The writer's proposition in the booklet led on from the conclusion of the thesis: the offensive was a sign of weakness on behalf of the VC.
The reasoning was involved and complicated, and a little difficult to follow for those not well versed in trying to combat guerrilla warfare, but could be summed up thus:
The only reason the VC would have for changing tactics was that the ones they were using were unsuccessful and that they were pressured into trying a new one.
The author reckoned that the victory in the Tet, and the later similar but smaller one, was the nearest the USA came to winning the war. There was no argument about whether they could have had a complete victory. It was focused on the motives of the VC in mounting the Tet offensive.
Could this apply to IS? Is the bombing causing them major problems?
A possibility?
The writer's proposition in the booklet led on from the conclusion of the thesis: the offensive was a sign of weakness on behalf of the VC.
The reasoning was involved and complicated, and a little difficult to follow for those not well versed in trying to combat guerrilla warfare, but could be summed up thus:
The only reason the VC would have for changing tactics was that the ones they were using were unsuccessful and that they were pressured into trying a new one.
The author reckoned that the victory in the Tet, and the later similar but smaller one, was the nearest the USA came to winning the war. There was no argument about whether they could have had a complete victory. It was focused on the motives of the VC in mounting the Tet offensive.
Could this apply to IS? Is the bombing causing them major problems?
A possibility?
Troubleatmill said:
You are not making the compelling case you think you are.
That sports cars are unnecessary and can be sold to any idiot with a license for use on the public roads? In fact, any car is dangerous in the hands of an incompetent.... just like a gun. A gun in the hands of a responsible person is just as safe as a kitchen knife or any other sharp implement. For the record, I don't believe that a citizen needs a fully automatic rifle or concealable handgun. However I am adverse to the idea that we should ban anyone from owning firearms in the form of shotguns or bolt-action rifles. If they want to use it for recreational use, being in a free society, they should have the right to pursue that activity if they so wish. Why should responsible people be totally denied that liberty because of a few idiots? In the same way that a few a
holes in cars driving recklessly shouldn't result in sports cars being banned for the rest of us. rb26 said:
Troubleatmill said:
You are not making the compelling case you think you are.
That sports cars are unnecessary and can be sold to any idiot with a license for use on the public roads? In fact, any car is dangerous in the hands of an incompetent.... just like a gun. A gun in the hands of a responsible person is just as safe as a kitchen knife or any other sharp implement. For the record, I don't believe that a citizen needs a fully automatic rifle or concealable handgun. However I am adverse to the idea that we should ban anyone from owning firearms in the form of shotguns or bolt-action rifles. If they want to use it for recreational use, being in a free society, they should have the right to pursue that activity if they so wish. Why should responsible people be totally denied that liberty because of a few idiots? In the same way that a few aholes in cars driving recklessly shouldn't result in sports cars being banned for the rest of us. Look... try something like this.
A 9 mm gun will injure a person x percent
A 22mm gun will injure a person x percent
A 35mm gun will injure a person x percent
keep going...
And then the us which gun you want.
Cars are designed to get you from A to B
Guns are designed to accurately hit an object at very high speed.
woowahwoo said:
Troubleatmill said:
Cars are designed to get you from A to B
Guns are designed to accurately hit an object at very high speed.
Except, with a car, you don't need to be that accurate, and 40mph or more is usually fatal..to a pedestrian.Guns are designed to accurately hit an object at very high speed.
Let's keep this thread back on topic.
Derek Smith said:
About ten years ago I read a booklet, an extended thesis in fact, on the Tet Offensive. Most of the material I had read focused on the media reports and the influence these had on the government and subsequently the ending of the war.
The writer's proposition in the booklet led on from the conclusion of the thesis: the offensive was a sign of weakness on behalf of the VC.
The reasoning was involved and complicated, and a little difficult to follow for those not well versed in trying to combat guerrilla warfare, but could be summed up thus:
The only reason the VC would have for changing tactics was that the ones they were using were unsuccessful and that they were pressured into trying a new one.
The author reckoned that the victory in the Tet, and the later similar but smaller one, was the nearest the USA came to winning the war. There was no argument about whether they could have had a complete victory. It was focused on the motives of the VC in mounting the Tet offensive.
Could this apply to IS? Is the bombing causing them major problems?
A possibility?
There is a great deal that goes unreported.The writer's proposition in the booklet led on from the conclusion of the thesis: the offensive was a sign of weakness on behalf of the VC.
The reasoning was involved and complicated, and a little difficult to follow for those not well versed in trying to combat guerrilla warfare, but could be summed up thus:
The only reason the VC would have for changing tactics was that the ones they were using were unsuccessful and that they were pressured into trying a new one.
The author reckoned that the victory in the Tet, and the later similar but smaller one, was the nearest the USA came to winning the war. There was no argument about whether they could have had a complete victory. It was focused on the motives of the VC in mounting the Tet offensive.
Could this apply to IS? Is the bombing causing them major problems?
A possibility?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff