Mr. Incognito
-
Posts
1,136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Mr. Incognito
-
-
watched like 1 minute of it til i couldnt handle listening to that dork
-
nah no ban on kitchen knives or pizza slicers, never even heard
Not a ban on kitchen knives yet but i read a few articles about it recently, look them up they are easy to find. As for the pizza cutter i was wrong, they aren't banned, but you need ID to buy one since it falls under the knife laws
-
because we realise how fucking stupid it is to allow people to own guns.
Meanwhile, your violent crime rate in UK hasn't gone down with the over the top gun control, it's done the opposite.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/334904/violent-britain-charles-c-w-cooke
Didn't the UK also ban pizza slicers at one point? And I'm not really that familiar with their knife laws but I recently heard a proposed ban on long kitchen knives to deter stabbings. I wonder what's next.
-
so you're saying that because 130 million more guns are now (statistically) owned by ~20% of the US population ... that violent crime has not gone up? and the NRA/gun owners across america deserve a high five for this? sorry... nah.
crime stats are complex and multifaceted enough that trying to boil them down to one factor (guns) is childish and does everyone a disservice. For example, pro-gun types like to point out that when DC relaxed its handgun law slightly (allowing one per household that must stay in the house for the purpose of defense only), the crime rate started to fall.
Anyone who's spent any time in dc since then could also tell you that the city has been overwhelmingly swept by gentrification since 2008 and long before. the "murder capital" is no longer and hasn't been for a long time; in fact, just recently it was announced that the city is no longer more than half black, benefitting from federal growth and spending post-9/11 that has bucked every major national recession. DC is safer than ever. And handguns don't have a single thing to do with it.
No, im not saying the NRA deserves a high five for a drop in violent crime, nor am i saying that crime stats should be boiled down to one factor, being guns. go back, and read what i said in my last post. I have said what my point is too many times now but to reiterate it YET AGAIN...the numbers, taken directly from the FBI site, point to a drop in violent crime and a rise in gun ownership. do they necessarily correlate? not really, besides through the fact that more legal guns have not shown to increase violent crime, as was/is argued by anti gun lobbies. the numbers are in front of you, the FBI link is in the same article. That's pretty much the best i can do to spoon feed it to you.
Whether handguns have anything to do with DC being safer than ever or not doesn't really matter, because the point is handguns are legal to own in DC now. Maybe you can say they have nothing to do with it, but you can't deny that them being legal has made anything worse. so really, what is your point?
If you don't want a gun, that's fine. if you dont like them, whatever. doesn't really make a difference to me, but it surprises me how adamant a lot of people on a graffiti message board are to restrict people's rights, and for what gain?
and for the hell of it:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=hp_opinion
-
Why am I the only one interpreting the article as its meant by pointing out that more guns doesn't mean more crime? The whole point is to dispute other anti gun lobbies like the Brady campaign who have so diligently defended the position that more guns equates to more crime, when its simply not the case, as proven year after year.
It's not a suggestion that more equals less crime BECAUSE there is more, it's that as ownership skyrockets, crime also happens to go down, according to FBI. Ownership not necessarily coinciding with a crime decrease, but also not a cause for violent crime increase. Is that redundant enough to understand now?
-
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/more-guns-and,-you-guessed-it-less-crime-again.aspx
"In 2011, as compared to 2010, the total violent crime rate decreased 4.3 percent, to a 41-year low, down 49 percent since the all-time high in 1991. The murder rate decreased 2.1 percent, to a 48-year low, down 52 percent since 1991. "
"Meanwhile during the last 20 years, the number of privately owned guns has risen by about 130 million"
-
tried like 4 times, didn't work.
...realized i was on bangbros, not brazzers.
(props)
-
By the way--would someone on the pro-gun side of things like to address Columbine? There was an armed guard there if I remember correctly. Was he just not "advertised" enough, or was he outgunned so he should have been given an AR15 to level the playing field? I'd find it hard to believe Klebold and Harris weren't aware of him.
I'm being a dick, but that's a serious question I'd be interested in hearing a response to.
I dunno about Klebold but Harris was definitely aware of the cop since they got into a shootout...
I don't know a lot about Columbine but the argument is that the cop who patrolled the school and got into the gunfight with Harris in the parking lot bought time for the victims, regardless of him not necessarily stopping Harris.
I'll also point out again from the pro gun side that I don't advocate putting an armed guard in every school in the country instead of getting rid of "gun free zone" nonsense at schools.
-
a bunch of craftsman stuff and that dope hess truck
-
preferring to not look past the surface and with and exceedingly loose grasp of history.
I'm not exactly sure what you're basing this on, but probably not the annual number of crimes prevented every year by legal/private guns which is in the millions apparently.
comparing guns to alcohol, cigarettes and car accidents is stupid because those three make up a landslide number of deaths comparatively, and like walid already said, there is a level of control for each. look how well those warning labels, drinking ages, and driver's licenses work out to keep people safe and alive. laws don't necessarily equate to "better" safety. in fact, im pretty sure laws are just made for stupid people.
I also get annoyed knowing that politicians or hollywood slime blabbering on about gun control probably have an easy time doing so, knowing their personal armed guards will take care of them whenever they need it. must make it a little easier for them to sleep at night anyway.
-
I´m sorry to hear about your friend....unfortunately, I don´t think we´re going to learn what we need to learn this time around, or the next time this happens. The US as a society is too good at avoidance to confront the real issues, like ¨what are we doing that causes people to snap and start shooting into groups of other people more than anywhere else in the civilized world?¨
^this
-
I do not know anyone who succesfully used a gun to thwart a atacker except in the case of folks that were already up to some dirt.
Jeez, I thought I would give your source the benefit of the doubt and check it out, the 10 percent stat you cite was posted by "marktwain" on what apears to be a forum, you do realize that he is dead right?
i gotta be honest and say i have no idea what the fuck you're talking about in these two lines.
as for a source, skim through this:
http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
look for other sources if you feel the need to.
I don't know what percentage "needed" assault weapons because im not too sure what actually defines an assault weapon, are you? some say full auto, some say semi auto, which puts handguns into the assault weapon category.
-
10 was sarcasm.
To the actual thread topic, again, i cannot believe Lapiere called for an armed guard in every school. Some real facepalm shit.
-
what i'm suggesting is that your idea of more guns in the scenario historically has done NOTHING to stop mass shooters, perhaps someday that routine will break, but it hasn't yet. and like typical gun rhetoric your entire argument is based in hypotheticals, not in history or reality.
I wonder if you or bullshit overly-liberal mother jones have ever considered how many armed civilians have taken out would-be mass shooters? I guess it only counts though once the killer has piled up at least 10 bodies. here's a few for the hell of it..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911219/posts
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1446
(golden food market shooter)
and nevermind the thousands of other instances of armed citizens defending themselves or preventing crimes.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2969594/posts
"Definitions and precise numbers vary by researcher, but it is clear that at least 10 percent of mass shootings are stopped by armed citizens. I believe this is the minimum number, the actual number may be much higher, because when a citizen stops an intended mass shooting early, it never becomes a successful mass shooting and may never become a news story of note. "
something else mother jones forgot to mention is that practically all of those places they listed in their article were gun free zones. hence the point of reducing those zones. the right to carry concealed has done more than a "gun free zone" has and will ever do.
-
So you're suggesting the teachers/staff who got killed that day really had no chance against this kid because he was a mass shooter?
-
Ask a parent who buried their kid in CT this week what they think about this... I know one personally... no bullshit.
Actually I would be curious to see what one of them would say. They live in a city with the 4th strictest gun laws in our country. There is no doubt in my mind someone's life, if not multiple others, could have been spared that day had conceal carry been legal on school grounds.
-
Asking where the control is on cars/fast food/alcohol/tobacco/whatever ignores the glaring fact that a gun is something solely designed to kill.
It literally serves no other purpose in the grand scheme of things, which is why you're never going to hear the "control" debate being applied in a similar way to any of those other things...
ironic that something designed "solely to kill" also happens to be the least dangerous in terms of deaths per year than everything else listed (cars, alcohol, tobacco) and lets just say fast food can lump in with obesity lumped in with heart disease.
-
i knew the end of the world is something way too cool to ever happen in real life
-
I'm an NRA life member and even I think their suggestion of having an armed guard at every school is totally ridiculous. I really don't understand how that sounds like a good idea. I'd back the idea of teachers/school employees having the option to carry concealed if they are already licensed though.
-
CT has the 4th strictest gun laws in the US, and maybe this point doesn't matter, but the shooter's guns definitely weren't acquired legally. He stole his Mother's. not to mention he wasn't even 21. as AOD said a bunch of times, you'll notice the areas where crazy shit like this happens tend to have stricter gun laws.
meanwhile in Virginia, while gun sales soar, violent gun crime is down 27%
-
usually lurkin on @valeria_orsini
-
quality storytelling but am i gonna be the only one who asks WHY?
-
Take advantage of it, because it will never happen as fast as it is happening right now.
This.
-
dude must have been talking some shit!
NRA: Put an armed guard in every school, yeah guns!
in News
Posted