Originally posted by Surtur
You have to love how he says he is gonna start off by listing "facts" then misleads about the effectiveness of the australian gun ban. Their gun crime rates were very small before the ban and were already steadily shrinking.
And then went up after the gun ban went into place. And then spiked again 8 years later. And had another very deadly mass shooting since the gun ban.
It's as if guns have f*ck all to do with causing human on human violence.
Originally posted by Blakemore
im not an expert, neither are you........................ so fu
Originally posted by dadudemon
And then went up after the gun ban went into place. And then spiked again 8 years later. And had another very deadly mass shooting since the gun ban.It's as if guns have f*ck all to do with causing human on human violence.
I'm an expert on Australia's violent crime and gun laws.
There, argument settled with the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."
Keep in mind, the anti-gun assholes try to move the goalposts to "gun crime" instead of violent crime. As anyone who spent a bit of time in criminology knows, violent crime is the real issue. Intentional homicides and non-lethal violent crimes are the actual criminological topic that all of these policies should focus on.
It would be nice if every single person participating in government always had to make honest policies based on science and not dishonest arguments like "restrictive gun laws reduced gun crime (but we won't tell you that violent crime and intentional homicide rates remained unchanged or even increased)."
I can't wait for the godlike AI to be invented. Look forward to that day a lot. 🙂
Originally posted by Blakemore
Like I said, they were just jokes about an assault rifle isn't protection. It's to assault terrorists from a long distance. Military combat is not home protection.
The ar-15 style rifle isn't a fully automatic or even capable of 3 round burst, it's a relatively low caliber rifle round that is semi-auto. One pull one round.
By the by AR was a monicer for armalite industries way back in the day. Hands down violence from guns is generally from side arms/pistols and used in inner city violence, aside from that homicides it's the number 1 tool for suicide that is thrown in deaths for the usa at least.
Fun fact the .223 round in the first m-16 fired so fast and carried so little mass it broke on a 1 inch thick plank of pinewood at 100 yards I believe.
Originally posted by dadudemonYou're an expert. 😂 You live in redneck Oklahoma and have confessed to being mormon. Dumb-de-de-dumb dumb dumb!
I'm an expert on Australia's violent crime and gun laws.There, argument settled with the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."
Keep in mind, the anti-gun assholes try to move the goalposts to "gun crime" instead of violent crime. As anyone who spent a bit of time in criminology knows, violent crime is the real issue. Intentional homicides and non-lethal violent crimes are the actual criminological topic that all of these policies should focus on.
It would be nice if every single person participating in government always had to make honest policies based on science and not dishonest arguments like "restrictive gun laws reduced gun crime (but we won't tell you that violent crime and intentional homicide rates remained unchanged or even increased)."
I can't wait for the godlike AI to be invented. Look forward to that day a lot. 🙂
Originally posted by Blakemore
You're an expert.
Why, thank you.
Originally posted by Blakemore
You live in redneck Oklahoma
No, I live in two liberal cities in Oklahoma. Cities which voted for your perverted racist guy: Biden.
Originally posted by Blakemore
have confessed to being mormon.
If by confessed, you mean "bragged", yes, I am definitely Mormon.
Agnostic.
But Mormon.
Now personally attack me more than address the facts. It will help you with your cognitive dissonance.
The bad rap conspiracy theorists get annoys me greatly.
UFO's used to be considered the domain of crackpots. Until the government officially released video footage evidence of UFO's.
The people who look down on conspiracy theorists miss the point. Of COURSE there is rarely solid evidence of said conspiracy. Do they really expect an individual to be capable of cracking open a conspiracy? If they believe this possible, why not offer their insights on how to accomplish this, instead of nay saying?
And if they truely believe it impossible, is their position that one should never speculate on matters, until someone in authority proves otherwise? Ours is to accept what we know as fact, and never ask questions, such as plausable motives, means, or methods? Which one can certainly speculate on, without hard evidence, based on a number of factors (Such as history, and examples of such scenerios playing out)
Personally, I think skepticism of authority and power is healthy. Guilty until proven innocent, for people with the power to shape nations.