Plus people always talk about the number of gun deaths(and dishonest enough to include suicides when what people care about is guns being used to kill others), but they rarely discuss the number of times guns are used defensively each year. Which far outstrips the number of deaths per year, even if you include suicides. And a defensive use of a gun isn't even necessarily an instance of using it to kill someone or even firing it. If you try to rob me and I pull out a gun and you back off and leave...I just used that gun to defend myself.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
And here is Ben debunking the nonsense Jimmy Kimmel spewed with some interesting stats:
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Uh, no. You've misunderstood what the expert said and have went off in a tangent posting statistics that have little bearing on what was claimed. What the expert said was that America's lax gun laws allow extremists to more easily purchase lethal weapons, and we have more than one example of terrorist groups encouraging their members to take advantage of America's gun laws. The expert said nothing about the correlation (or lack thereof) between gun ownership and overall homicides, or indeed mass shootings (although America undoubtedly leads the world in that metric). He simply cited America's current regulations as a potential danger as they could be exploited by extremists. That's his job as a counter terrorism expert, to pre-empt the actions of terrorists and identify vulnerabilities. Relative to other countries, purchasing guns in America is very easy, so that will be a tempting target for terrorists and is a totally fair thing to draw attention to.
Last edited by lazybones on Dec 31st, 2017 at 07:04 PM
How do you recommend we solve a situation like...a private transaction of a gun? Because that is how these things happen. There is no "gunshow loophole". There is a "private transaction loophole", a licensed firearm seller cannot legally sell you a gun at a gun show without a background check and ID. So how do we stop it? I'm curious for solutions. Like if some dude is selling a gun privately and I have cash money on hand, what law prevents that from going down?
This is an open question to anyone here: I'm genuinely curious about viable solutions.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Dec 31st, 2017 at 07:13 PM
When ISIS claimed they we’re going to infiltrate the refugee camps, the left said nothing. But when ISIS talks about guns, dear Lord, stop the presses.
Illegal selling of guns at gun show is not the majority, is the minority. I think steps should be taken to stop this from happening, but let’s not use it as away to pass more useless laws.
Lol, valid points that I'm sure will be either ignored or some half assed excuse made for it.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
I'm still waiting on proof in regards to this claim.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
The hilarious thing is fully automatic assault rifles are illegal and have been since the 80s lol. So of course you wouldn't go through a background check. I'm shocked that criminals that sell guns don't do background checks.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Jan 1st, 2018 at 12:32 AM
Indeed, you would literally need a time machine in order to legally purchase a fully automatic assault rifle. And if one has a time machine why waste it on that?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
You can actually legally purchase them now, it's just not easy or cheap.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
That's honestly very interesting, haven't seen mass shootings broken down that way before. On the other hand, though, there was a recent study which found that the US only has 5% of the world's population but 31% of its mass-shootings, so that would suggest it's still a much bigger problem in America than other countries.
All that being said, the musings of a counter terrorist expert are not flawless. But I doubt someone with almost 3 decades of experience would be ignorant of the statistics, and must have good reasons for his concerns (one of them being the words and claims of the terrorists themselves).
You underestimate the determination of this statist. .
Anyway, I'll be getting a new computer on Wednesday which will free me from the malaise of my smartphone. You could use the time between now and then to write up a plea for mercy, and perhaps I will consider it. .
If there was the same 24-month long vetting process in place before one could purchase a firearm as there is for one to enter the country as a refugee, you might have an argument.
"You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully-automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card"
Prove it.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
The hilarious thing is it seems like it would be easier to just illegally purchase these weapons lol.
I'm thinking that terrorists probably would just buy one illegally as opposed to the long ass wait time, the large amount of money, the yearly taxes you need to pay where if you fail you need to sell the gun...yeah, sounds like a lot of hassle for a terrorist.
I do hope it was just Adam making the retarded claim. It is alarming if this "expert" thinks this is possible.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Jan 1st, 2018 at 03:46 PM
This study is quite frankly inaccurate. The crimonlogist Gary Kleck has detailed his issues with the studies. I will mention a few.
Problem 1: The study attempts to analyize 46 years of data. The problem with this is that, "while data may be easily found for U.S. shootings, compiling information for developing nations could be all but impossible.". Due to the artificially low data, it creates a potempkin phasad that indicates that U.S. represents a higher bulk of mass shootings then it actually does.
Problem 2: Lankford, the author of the study, has not yet provided his methodology as to how he found the mass-shooting rates in developing countries. While Fox certainly is a skewed source, I found this passage interesting.
Problem 3: The lack of peer review. To quote Kleck and professor Reed,
The only people who reviewed the study were anonymous, independent researchers.
Problem 4: Even if the data were true, the US does not have the highest mass-shooting mortallity per capita.
(please log in to view the image)
Problem 5: I am now going to cite a graph which has a lot of contention and hopefully justify its usage.
(please log in to view the image)
So, there are two studies which have different results then this graph. So, why is this analysis more accurate then the other two. The first contrary analysis was conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety. The first fault is that it includes masshootings in private homes. The problem with including private homes is that the reasoning behind a public and private mass shooting is notably different.(Drug crimes, robery, kidnapping, murder). So, the research which is inside of this graph looks as at mass public shootings. Here is the FBI's definition of a mass public shooting:
The second contrary study is inside Louis Klarevas. The issue with Klarevas is that he does not use the FBI definition of mass shootings. To quote Klarevas,
Here is the FBI definition of a mass shooting.
So it is my contention that Lott's graph is the most accurate.
Problem 6: All mass shootings, including private ones, make up less then 1% of firearm homicides. And of course there is the study by Gium which indicates that assault rifle bans increase public mass shootings.
He did not provide any evidence to substaite his claims. So, while he may be aware of studies which I did not mention in either of my posts, he never cited any.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 31st, 2017 05:28 PM
. 
.
