Mass shooting at California Garlic Fest

[RavenHawk]

6 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

So you're okay with kids being gunned down, then, so long as your RIGHTS are protected, huh? You gun nuts are ****ing insane.

It’s a small price considering the alternative.  Personally, I am not ok with children being gunned down and it is an issue that needs to be dealt with but threatening the 2A is not the way to go.  But the Progs don’t want to get beyond that.  Progs care more about power than individual lives anyway.

[RavenHawk]

6 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

No. The understood that IN THERE TIME is was a good idea.

What you don’t understand is that they knew and understood human nature.  Our founding documents are based on the frailty of human nature.  That concept hasn’t changed in thousands of years and it’s not expected to change anytime soon.  The Progs exhibit that quite clearly.

 

It is silly and incomprehensible because you ignore logic and reason in favor of a cheap replacement for your own masculinity. (Or lack there of)

No, you ignore the logic and respond to knee-jerk emotions (human nature).  You’re referring to toxic masculinity, right?

[Gunn]

8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

?????  No, I don't.

I'll leave it at this, as that sort of approach adequately represents the problem here.  I didn't say that and if all you are going to do is get angry at what people do NOT say, then this debate is worthless. To clarify:

NO - I do not think that you are all lunatics.

YES - I already agreed that what works in Oz won't work in America as it's a very different culture and very few folk here are concerned at the fact they can't easily own a semi-automatic or much worse.   Thing is, it's not that difficult to get a gun licence here... unless you want a 'weapon of mass destruction'.  I think our laws are sensible, and I think your laws could be more sensible.  I agree that your checks before ownership needs to be a lot stricter, and should vary (ie be much more strict) for weapons that are, shall we say, 'rapid fire'.

I ask for no 'respect' for our choices - people are 100% welcome to disagree and suggest improvements.  That would seem to be more sensible than demanding respect....

 

Bye.

It's okay. I figured you might bow out. My answers to your other questions, besides the one you replied to, probably threw you off. So you picked the one question I asked you, in which you probably think gives you a way out of this conversation. I'm not sure how you derived anger out of my reply back to you or why I would be specifically angry at you. But the excuse to bow out because you think I'm angry at you seems lame, ChrLzs. I don't know, maybe you were mistakenly expecting it? That specific question you quoted, is a question out of confusion and curiosity as to what you are getting at or how you are linking my previous statement to BRD, as to how or why a maniac on a killing spree would be serious about lethal weapon operations, when they're not even in their right mind and serious about preserving their own life. I don't know, I just don't see the connection with your question.

Anyway as I said before, no amount of further gun control is going to work until at least those two other things I mentioned are fixed -  our mental health system and Mexican border control security. But it is my suspicion that once those two things are fixed first, our current gun laws would be fine as they are and we wouldn't have a need for further strict gun laws. But that's the two current factual problems we have here, that people from other countries seem to want to ignore and just want us to specifically concentrate on gun control.

 

5 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

*snip* I don't give a rats what your amendment says.  I was just reacting to what he falsely said about violent crimes in other countries when trying to justify your own home grown problems and 2) you can call them honey buns for all I care, instead of trying to give me lessons on gun security on a forum, save it for someone who cares and most importantly for one of those lunatics you have roaming around that will eventually shoot another bunch of innocent kids. *snip*

Don't try to BS me dude. The fact that you even bothered to reply back, shows overall that you do care and my reply bothered you. In any case, you were throwing in uncalled demeaning rimshot insults to @Aztek, that I'm pretty sure was meant to generalize most U.S. gun owners as well, instead of a plain general rebuttal, because you resented and got irritated at @Aztek, and couldn't stand his reply on the crime rate statics he gave to the other guy. So you knew what you were doing. So anytime you continue to make such ignorant assumptions on what you think is our justifications to own a gun or how we perceive the ownership of guns, expect more lessons/lectures in the future and deal with it or don't bother to reply at all. Your choice.

4 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

See my above response to the other fool who tried to lecture me in the same manner.

Lol. Yeah right. Sayz the ignorant who knows nothing about guns/U.S. gun ownership and pretends to not care. It's very simple, if you really don't care...stop responding.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Gunn

[Vorg]

https://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_shootings_psychiatric_drugs_antidepressants.html

From 2013:  Every mass shooting over last 20 years has one thing in common... and it's not guns

(Ammoland.com) Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and it's not the weapons used.

The overwhelming evidence points to the signal largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.

Multiple credible scientific studies going back more than a decade, as well as internal documents from certain pharmaceutical companies that suppressed the information show that SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior. One need only Google relevant key words or phrases to see for themselves. www.ssristories.com is one popular site that has documented over 4500 " Mainstream Media " reported cases from around the World of aberrant or violent behavior by those taking these powerful drugs.

And that all boils down to mental health.

[Vorg]

Of course all the other gun violence comes down to culture. When we have raps songs that glorify being "gangstas" with their "glocks" and such stuff like that, then it becomes reality on our streets daily here in the U.S. And then comes the Drug side of it. Most of our gun violence would probably go away on the streets if people were sober or off drugs for a while. But we know Democrats don't want a wall on our southern border, because where else can their girlfriends/boyfriends get drugs and OD from?

[Dark_Grey]

33 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

https://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_shootings_psychiatric_drugs_antidepressants.html

From 2013:  Every mass shooting over last 20 years has one thing in common... and it's not guns

(Ammoland.com) Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and it's not the weapons used.

The overwhelming evidence points to the signal largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.

Multiple credible scientific studies going back more than a decade, as well as internal documents from certain pharmaceutical companies that suppressed the information show that SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior. One need only Google relevant key words or phrases to see for themselves. www.ssristories.com is one popular site that has documented over 4500 " Mainstream Media " reported cases from around the World of aberrant or violent behavior by those taking these powerful drugs.

And that all boils down to mental health.

This needs to be brought in to every mass shooting discussion until it becomes mainstream discussion. 

[Dark_Grey]

12 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Yeah. I just don't understand why the test of the world won't respect our choice to gun down children with automatic weapons. The hell is their problem?

There are far more lives saved by guns than there are School shootings. More kids die choking on hot dogs than get shot. Gun control is racist and sexist - to solve one problem, School shootings, you want a blanket removal of guns from women and minorities? How many more rapes and domestic violence cases happen annually compared to School shootings? How many innocent black families are suffering gang violence in their neighbourhoods every day while the local law says "sorry, guns are bad so we can't allow you to own one. Good luck out there!"

We are supposed to be protecting women, not leaving them vulnerable because of some misplaced sense of Liberal morality. You guys are losing the plot here by focusing on one very specific instance of gun violence instead of the big picture. Maybe it's time to read through the "guns save lives" threads for a refresher on why innocent and sensible people need to own firearms. "A woman raped and murdered should not be thought morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and dead rapist at her feet."

[aztek]

it is funny , over 100 people die in car crashes daily, in usa, including kids,    school shootings take 0,2ppl max a day, yet i do not hear calls for stricter laws on driving, no calls to make it harder to buy a car, so apparently 100 people a year get all the attention, yet 35000 deaths is fine. nothing to see here,    it is obvious dems do not actually care about deaths, or children,  but guns unlike cars, is what can be turned against them , that is what they are afraid. and that is why they want to disarm us, not because less than 100 kids a year are killed,  hell gang violence takes several hundreds kids a month, but no one cares about gang shootings. they do not make such emotional headlines, not to mention street gangs in usa are mostly black and Hispanic, and it is racist to talk about it.  but legal gun owners are stereotyped as white trash  rednecks, those are fine to discriminate, insult, and take rights from

Edited August 2, 2019 by aztek

[highdesert50]

16 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Thank him as much as you want but he's telling you porkies just to justify his violent habit so he can keep his toys and above all, he's showing a complete lack of concern for a problem that is regularly killing kids.  Australia hasn't a gun or crime problem on the same scale the US has.  In fact before gun control took affect in the 90's Australia had a high rate of crime in percentage compared to other western nations.  Here, figures from the Institute of Criminology from 1988.  Just look at the first graph.

Nowadays the US has 4 times higher the crime rate (not only guns) that Australia and most other western countries have.  link  The US is 99th in the world (Australia 164th similar with France, UK, Portugal, Netherlands etc.), preceded by Central/South American and African tin pot corrupt dictatorships infested by criminal lord barons who rule over uneducated and poverty stricken populations.  Then again, you're better than Russia, run by the one and only supreme world dictator.

I know you didn't compare, but he did.  The US has the problem, he's trying to put other western nations in the same pot so he can justify why it's necessary to keep his toys.  Puzzling how these toys are so necessary in defending against murderers and yet when these mass shootings occur, despite the numerous guns you have circulating around, nobody ever cuts down the shooter/s.  Only when the police come does the shooter get killed or kill himself.

 

I won't disagree with you. Yet, I believe we can still be civil in our debates as we discuss our beliefs.

Sure, we can cite research and even associate confidence intervals to deal with chance effects. Consider that over five hundred researchers world-wide cited the results of over ten thousand studies and came to the conclusion that climate change is real. Yet, this is still debated. Beliefs are powerful -- what one believes to be true is either true, or becomes true.

We are the sum of our beliefs. So, beliefs rarely change instantaneously especially when they are fear-based and we find ourselves building walls instead of bridges. Sometimes we need to 'embrace the suck' for awhile before change occurs. And, we need to recognize the beliefs we maintain are very much the beliefs of the people we associate -- want to change a belief, associate with a different group of people, perhaps this forum. That's how empathy works and some consequential change of beliefs. That we don't forget that beliefs are the seeds of our reality.

We are fortunate that this international forum is largely civil and we can debate, perhaps even beat ourselves up a wee bit, but continue in a civil manner. Hence, my thank you.

 

[Big Jim]

1 hour ago, South Alabam said:

Of course all the other gun violence comes down to culture. When we have raps songs that glorify being "gangstas" with their "glocks" and such stuff like that, then it becomes reality on our streets daily here in the U.S. And then comes the Drug side of it. Most of our gun violence would probably go away on the streets if people were sober or off drugs for a while. But we know Democrats don't want a wall on our southern border, because where else can their girlfriends/boyfriends get drugs and OD from?

It's not the people using drugs that are doing the shooting, it's the people running the business.  The drug culture is a repeat of prohibition, when gangs killed each other for a piece of the liquor trade.  That all stopped when alcohol was made legal again.  If drugs were made legal and controlled there would be no more problem with the actual use of them than we currently have but the gangs would be out of business.  It could even reduce the incidence of overdose because the state would control the purity and quality of the drugs and not add fentanyl and drain cleaner.  

You also made a very good point about the psychotropic drugs administered to mental health patients.  Every drug has side effects and often they are not discovered until they have been in wide use for years.  It's much easier to identify side effects that are purely physical.  Hives and swelling are more obvious than weird thoughts so it stands to reason that many mental side effects go unnoticed.  There are better ways to manage and improve mental illness but they are more labor intensive and not as profitable as drugs. 

Edited August 2, 2019 by Big Jim
clarity

[Black Red Devil]

7 hours ago, aztek said:

yes i will keep my toys and you can't do a damn thing about it, get over it, it is not your country, 

I don't care, don't drag others into your equations.

[Black Red Devil]

7 hours ago, Gunn said:

Don't try to BS me dude. The fact that you even bothered to reply back, shows overall that you do care and my reply bothered you. In any case, you were throwing in uncalled demeaning rimshot insults to @Aztek, that I'm pretty sure was meant to generalize most U.S. gun owners as well, instead of a plain general rebuttal, because you resented and got irritated at @Aztek, and couldn't stand his reply on the crime rate statics he gave to the other guy. So you knew what you were doing. So anytime you continue to make such ignorant assumptions on what you think is our justifications to own a gun or how we perceive the ownership of guns, expect more lessons/lectures in the future and deal with it or don't bother to reply at all. Your choice.

Lol. Yeah right. Sayz the ignorant who knows nothing about guns/U.S. gun ownership and pretends to not care. It's very simple, if you really don't care...stop responding.

Lectures from you and aztec?  you couldn't make $hit like this up!

His reply? What reply, there wasn't any because his unsupported evidence was wrong and you're just another poor sucker that goes along with the crap because you can't stand the thought that some FACTS get in the way between you and your bedtime toys.  You call me ignorant while you're so obtuse you don't even know the difference between assumptions and facts.

Don't think I don't know he pulled Australia into this discussion on purpose as a provocation and you're the fool left here replying.  Nah while I keep enjoying myself with rag dolls like you I can toss around at pleasure, I think I'll keep going. Sorry...

Edited August 2, 2019 by Black Red Devil

[Black Red Devil]

7 hours ago, Gunn said:

It's okay. I figured you might bow out. My answers to your other questions, besides the one you replied to, probably threw you off.

[Black Red Devil]

5 hours ago, highdesert50 said:

I won't disagree with you. Yet, I believe we can still be civil in our debates as we discuss our beliefs.

Sure, we can cite research and even associate confidence intervals to deal with chance effects. Consider that over five hundred researchers world-wide cited the results of over ten thousand studies and came to the conclusion that climate change is real. Yet, this is still debated. Beliefs are powerful -- what one believes to be true is either true, or becomes true.

We are the sum of our beliefs. So, beliefs rarely change instantaneously especially when they are fear-based and we find ourselves building walls instead of bridges. Sometimes we need to 'embrace the suck' for awhile before change occurs. And, we need to recognize the beliefs we maintain are very much the beliefs of the people we associate -- want to change a belief, associate with a different group of people, perhaps this forum. That's how empathy works and some consequential change of beliefs. That we don't forget that beliefs are the seeds of our reality.

We are fortunate that this international forum is largely civil and we can debate, perhaps even beat ourselves up a wee bit, but continue in a civil manner. Hence, my thank you.

 

'Embrace the suck'?  I had to look that one up.  Good logic you have there buddy but I fear you'll have to suck for a while before change occurs.

[Gunn]

2 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Lectures from you and aztec?  you couldn't make $hit like this up!

His reply? What reply, there wasn't any because his unsupported evidence was wrong and you're just another poor sucker that goes along with the crap because you can't stand the thought that some FACTS get in the way between you and your bedtime toys.  You call me ignorant while you're so obtuse you don't even know the difference between assumptions and facts.

Don't think I don't know he pulled Australia into this discussion on purpose as a provocation and you're the fool left here replying.  Nah while I keep enjoying myself with rag dolls like you I can toss around at pleasure, I think I'll keep going. Sorry...

Ah good. So in all your diatribe nutshell, you're responding again because you do care and you obviously lied about not caring. So let's get back to the beginning of this argument.

First off, you need to produce peer reviewed psychological statistical data from a accredited academic source, that whenever your opposition ( that's our side) is in a gun debate, while producing such things as crime statistics, numbers, data, and whatever else in comparison between our countries, is therefore producing and using that information, to justify our right to have and own guns versus that we need no such thing, when all we need is a constitutional 2A amendment natural right. And that it's not just mindless nonsense of accusations and assumptions on your part or in other words, a typical strawman fallacy.

Second, once again, you need to produce peer reviewed psychological statistical data from a accredited academic source, that all gun owners do not take into consideration gun safety and/or the seriousness of owning and operating gun. And therefore, consider their guns as just "toys", "bedtime toys", playthings or whatever new description you want to make up. And once again, that it's not just mindless nonsense of accusations and assumptions on your part or in other words, a typical ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Black Red Devil]

1 hour ago, Gunn said:

Ah good. So in all your diatribe nutshell, you're responding again because you do care and you obviously lied about not caring. So let's get back to the beginning of this argument.

First off, you need to produce peer reviewed psychological statistical data from a accredited academic source, that whenever your opposition ( that's our side) is in a gun debate, while producing such things as crime statistics, numbers, data, and whatever else in comparison between our countries, is therefore producing and using that information, to justify our right to have and own guns versus that we need no such thing, when all we need is a constitutional 2A amendment natural right. And that it's not just mindless nonsense of accusations and assumptions on your part or in other words, a typical strawman fallacy.

Second, once again, you need to produce peer reviewed psychological statistical data from a accredited academic source, that all gun owners do not take into consideration gun safety and/or the seriousness of owning and operating gun. And therefore, consider their guns as just "toys", "bedtime toys", playthings or whatever new description you want to make up. And once again, that it's not just mindless nonsense of accusations and assumptions on your part or in other words, a typical ad hominem fallacy.

 

Simple stats show you're crime levels are 4 times higher than Australia and all other civilised countries.  Stats also show that you basically have one gun per capita, spend more money on guns, have had dozens of mass murders in the last couple of years against 0 in Australia and have the highest amount of victims of deaths by guns just below the likes of Nicaragua, Guatemala and Congo etc. 

Is that enough psychological statistical evaluation for you? and no I don't care, horrified that kids get killed for sure, but deep down don't care considering I know I'm trying to rationalise with a troglodyte and fully aware that it would probably be easier to get through to a brick wall.  Then again, if you want me to care keep your funny posts going (of which, some of the one I'm responding to you copied and pasted from a debate site).  Hilarious, especially the part where I'm the one at fault of ad hominem fallacies.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Black Red Devil

[Gunn]

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

Simple stats show you're crime levels are 4 times higher than Australia and all other civilised countries.  Stats also show that you basically have one gun per capita, spend more money on guns, have had dozens of mass murders in the last couple of years against 0 in Australia and have the highest amount of victims of deaths by guns just below the likes of Nicaragua, Guatemala and Congo etc.

Typical deflection from our core argument. Focus on the current argument. You are attempting deflect back to the overall general debate about crime rate statistics between you a @Aztek, not me, and you know that's not what I'm talking about or asking for.  What I asked for was peer reviewed psychological statistical data from a accredited academic source about gun owners like @Aztek, discussing and showing crime rate statistics as a justification to keep guns, and the specific descriptive words you used to describe guns as just "toys" .

Quote

Is that enough psychological statistical evaluation for you? and no I don't care, horrified that kids get killed for sure, but deep down don't care considering I know I'm trying to rationalise with a troglodyte and fully aware that it would probably be easier to get through to a brick wall.  Then again, if you want me to care keep your funny posts going (of which, some of the one I'm responding to you copied and pasted from a debate site).  Hilarious, especially the part where I'm the one at fault of ad hominem fallacies.

Again, focus on the current argument. More ad hominem attacks demonstrate typical knee-jerk insecure reactions because so far, you have nothing for the current argument. Where is your peer reviewed psychological statistical data about gun owners, having so-called argumentative justification agendas and false consideration about guns as just "toys" for the current argument?

Do you have the psychological statistical data or not?

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Gunn

[Black Red Devil]

6 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Simple stats show you're crime levels are 4 times higher than Australia and all other civilised countries.  Stats also show that you basically have one gun per capita, spend more money on guns, have had dozens of mass murders in the last couple of years against 0 in Australia and have the highest amount of victims of deaths by guns just below the likes of Nicaragua, Guatemala and Congo etc. 

Is that enough psychological statistical evaluation for you? and no I don't care, horrified that kids get killed for sure, but deep down don't care considering I know I'm trying to rationalise with a troglodyte and fully aware that it would probably be easier to get through to a brick wall.  Then again, if you want me to care keep your funny posts going (of which, some of the one I'm responding to you copied and pasted from a debate site).  Hilarious, especially the part where I'm the one at fault of ad hominem fallacies.

Why do I have to provide you with the info LOL? You’re the one talking the talk about gun ownership, enlighten us.

In the end, what are you trying to prove, that guns aren’t toys and are taken seriously by gun owners and that there is no causal evidence between guns and violent crime or that more guns in certain areas doesn’t correspond to more gun deaths? Says who anyway, the NRA?  No matter what psychological evaluation of data you come up with, the bottom line is that you’re always going to fall flat on your face because you have 4 times (in percentage) the amount of violent crimes and 12 times (again %) the amount of deaths by guns (homicides, suicides etc ), compared to most Western nations.

You can evaluate the causes and effects of gun ownership as much as you want, it’s nothing to do with me, as others have also politely pointed out.  My beef is with someone trying to claim there is more crime in Australia despite strict gun control which is a load of bolony and proven to be false.  If you can’t accept that to be my argument, I don’t care.  Anyway your strawman argument is starting to bore me.  Show me evidence that having guns reduces crime compared to other western nations or don’t bother me and give your psychological statistical data to other American posters who are willing to gobble up your nonsense.

Edited August 3, 2019 by Black Red Devil

[aztek]

as far as psychology goes, screen names tell quite a lot,  especially about insecurities.  names that people pick for themselves  reveal more than they realize, and judging by context of such peoples posts, my theory is 100% spot on, i usually ignore such people, unless they mention me by name,  and quoted.   they are waste of time

[aztek]

On 7/31/2019 at 2:19 PM, highdesert50 said:

If the intent is to use the gun for self-defense, then I have my personal reservations -- this is reflective of my beliefs. There are other means of self-defense that are more effective for a non-LEO than using a firearm where a high degree of accuracy is needed in an uncontrolled setting. Because most people are adverse to killing someone, there is typically some hesitation along with the effects of the body dumping endorphins etc for 'fight or flight' -- even practiced LEOs have issues with this leading to diminished accuracy. Secondly, there are the mental consequences of killing someone -- this is a variable yet important consideration. Thirdly, if I am in an incident where multiple people are involved, then how does LE distinguish me from the bad guy? Fourthly, my gun may be used against me or someone close to me. Or, I could use it on myself in a moment of despair -- e.g. first responders have the highest incidence of on-job suicide. Finally, there are some fairly powerful irritants that don't require accuracy, are non-lethal hence no hesitation, and can allow one time to escape.

here is your highly trained professional at work, and he will not face any punishment,  it was not  dumping endorphins or split second decision, , it was simple lack of care due to not having to deal with any  consequences, something that is very different from civilian situation, and it happens quite often.  

oh and another thing, if that cop shot someone else by mistake, that woman whose dog it was,would be charged with that person, murder. not  a cop who fired a shot.  it happened before, that is how cops have virtually no accountability,   

Edited August 3, 2019 by aztek

[Black Red Devil]

How weird, I quoted that gun guys post but it shows as if I quoted my own post!?  Hmmm.

[DarkHunter]

12 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Simple stats show you're crime levels are 4 times higher than Australia and all other civilised countries.  Stats also show that you basically have one gun per capita, spend more money on guns, have had dozens of mass murders in the last couple of years against 0 in Australia and have the highest amount of victims of deaths by guns just below the likes of Nicaragua, Guatemala and Congo etc. 

That whole 0 in Australia is just factually wrong.  Post 1996 Australia has had 28 mass casualty events in which a decent number had involved guns.

Technically there is also the problem with how mass murders is being defined as the definition is extremely lose and varies among organizations.

[highdesert50]

55 minutes ago, aztek said:

here is your highly trained professional at work, and he will not face any punishment,  it was not  dumping endorphins or split second decision, , it was simple lack of care due to not having to deal with any  consequences, something that is very different from civilian situation, and it happens quite often.  

You really don't need to try to convince me. There are over 600000 LEOs in the US. They are not infallible. Yet, the statistics speak for themselves. From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

• An estimated 1 in 8 U.S. residents age 16 or older, or 31.4 million persons, requested assistance from police at least once, most commonly to report a crime, suspicious activity, or neighborhood disturbance.
• About 85% of persons who requested police assistance were satisfied with the police response.
• No statistical differences were found between the percentage of Hispanics (86%), blacks (85%), and whites (83%) who reported a crime or neighborhood disturbance and felt the police were helpful.
• About 9 in 10 persons who requested police assistance reported that they were just as likely or more likely to contact the police again for a similar problem.

No sensation, just the facts.

[Gunn]

7 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

Why do I have to provide you with the info LOL? You’re the one talking the talk about gun ownership, enlighten us.

 

You made false accusations or red herrings and you were already enlightened with my post at 352.
 

Quote

 

In the end, what are you trying to prove, that guns aren’t toys and are taken seriously by gun owners and that there is no causal evidence between guns and violent crime or that more guns in certain areas doesn’t correspond to more gun deaths? Says who anyway, the NRA?  No matter what psychological evaluation of data you come up with, the bottom line is that you’re always going to fall flat on your face because you have 4 times (in percentage) the amount of violent crimes and 12 times (again %) the amount of deaths by guns (homicides, suicides etc ), compared to most Western nations.

You can evaluate the causes and effects of gun ownership as much as you want, it’s nothing to do with me, as others have also politely pointed out.  My beef is with someone trying to claim there is more crime in Australia despite strict gun control which is a load of bolony and proven to be false.  If you can’t accept that to be my argument, I don’t care.  Anyway your strawman argument is starting to bore me.  Show me evidence that having guns reduces crime compared to other western nations or don’t bother me and give your psychological statistical data to other American posters who are willing to gobble up your nonsense.

 

As expected, you produce more mindless diatribe and continue to skirt around the core argument, your false accusations about gun owner's posts and their guns as "toys" is nothing more than your own personal ignorant assumptions. My point still stands..

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

That whole 0 in Australia is just factually wrong.  Post 1996 Australia has had 28 mass casualty events in which a decent number had involved guns.

Technically there is also the problem with how mass murders is being defined as the definition is extremely lose and varies among organizations.

Do you have a source?