(06-08-2022 12:10 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Guns per 100k citizens:
US: 120; Ukraine: 9.9

Gun deaths per 100k:
US: 12.2; Ukraine: 1.36

The data says we could cut the death rate by closer to 90% than 50%. That's why I said at least half.

How many of those guns listed above in the US are legal gun owners? When you take care of that issue I think you'll see tons of deaths go down, especially in gun restrictive California and Chicago.. Even Philly and NY.

(06-08-2022 12:10 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Guns per 100k citizens:
US: 120; Ukraine: 9.9

Gun deaths per 100k:
US: 12.2; Ukraine: 1.36

The data says we could cut the death rate by closer to 90% than 50%. That's why I said at least half.

I think that looking at a single variable is simplifying a very complicated problem. Following this mindset, you would argue that kids should be banned from eating ice cream in order to prevent them from drowning.


Ignoring culture, history, and economic factors is extremely short sighted.

(06-06-2022 10:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:34 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Is this where we point out that average AR can't be used in many states for deer hunting because the caliber is too small? So, Scorpius wants to ban a gun too small for deer, but everything up to a "bear" caliber is fine?
I can't get my mind around any of that.

One thing that most "gun control" advocates, particularly the most draconian of them, seem to share in common is that they don't know anything about guns.

Exactly. And if you don't own guns, and don't know anything about them, then you think it's perfectly okay to take everybody else's guns, since it won't affect you.

Even though it's a constitutional right. They don't want to hear about "BS constitutional rights."

Flip the switch and take away their car or access to alcohol, and see how they react.

(06-08-2022 08:17 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:34 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Is this where we point out that average AR can't be used in many states for deer hunting because the caliber is too small? So, Scorpius wants to ban a gun too small for deer, but everything up to a "bear" caliber is fine?
I can't get my mind around any of that.

One thing that most "gun control" advocates, particularly the most draconian of them, seem to share in common is that they don't know anything about guns.

Exactly. And if you don't own guns, and don't know anything about them, then you think it's perfectly okay to take everybody else's guns, since it won't affect you.

Even though it's a constitutional right. They don't want to hear about "BS constitutional rights."

Flip the switch and take away their car or access to alcohol, and see how they react.

Remember it's not illegal to drink and drive, if it was, bars wouldn't have parking spots for customers.. It's illegal to drive drunk.

Sorry to interrupt your morning, but Joy Behar has some of her brilliance to share with you.

Apparently, Joy doesnt know who is committing most of the gun crimes now. Just another ill-informed leftist moron.

(06-10-2022 09:03 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Sorry to interrupt your morning, but Joy Behar has some of her brilliance to share with you.

The only way to make Biden look even remotely competent to hold office is to always have Joy speak immediately after he does.

(06-10-2022 09:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only way to make Biden look even remotely competent to hold office is to always have Joy speak immediately after he does.

What does that leave for Kamala to do?

(06-10-2022 09:58 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only way to make Biden look even remotely competent to hold office is to always have Joy speak immediately after he does.

What does that leave for Kamala to do?

Lol—-Wille Brown can answer that.

(06-10-2022 10:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:58 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only way to make Biden look even remotely competent to hold office is to always have Joy speak immediately after he does.

What does that leave for Kamala to do?

Lol—-Wille Brown can answer that.

Oooh Low Blow...

Doh!

Best take I have seen on Kamala is when Judge Jeanine said that Kamala is LAZY.

(06-10-2022 10:14 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:58 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only way to make Biden look even remotely competent to hold office is to always have Joy speak immediately after he does.

What does that leave for Kamala to do?

Lol—-Wille Brown can answer that.

Oooh Low Blow...

Doh!

In more ways than one

Low Blow.......I think that's her native American name.

(06-10-2022 10:39 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Low Blow.......I think that's her native American name.

But it is pronounced:

Low-em' Blow-em'

(06-08-2022 12:10 AM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 03:48 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 03:16 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:53 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Well duh, this is how the world operates now. We're no longer in the 18th century. What are we 12? Time to grow up. If you think Ukraine having terrorist level of guns in their society beforehand would have had ANY positive effect on what unfolded, you're naive. If anything it would have given Russia more ammunition on the Nazi claim.

The less capable one is to defend themselves the more likely they are to be attacked. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept then you likely should refrain from calling others naive.

You're exactly right. And the way they could have defended themselves against an invasion were if the heavy military weapons we are sending them now would have been sent to them 10 years ago. Russia would have went no where near Crimea or the Donbas region. Throwing more guns in there would have just emboldened them, particularly the rebels in those regions, and thus Russia.

I'd like just ONE example where in a functioning developed democracy, an armed uprising wasn't terrorism. Just ONE example. There are MANY examples of terrorism and the attempted overthrowing of democracy because of guns, even very near our own with the Civil War.

(06-07-2022 02:54 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  As I have stated previously. I am all for screening / background checking whatever....

However - That will not stop even one of these shootings..... NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

If we had the same gun restrictions as Ukraine did before Russia invaded, our gun related deaths would go down by at least half.

Back Your last sentence up with facts

Guns per 100k citizens:
US: 120; Ukraine: 9.9

Gun deaths per 100k:
US: 12.2; Ukraine: 1.36

The data says we could cut the death rate by closer to 90% than 50%. That's why I said at least half.

Quote:19,384 gun deaths in US in 2020

393,000,000 guns in the US

.00493% success rate by the inanimate gun

If you include suicides, it's like 37k a year. You have to include suicide because probably at least half of those people could be saved if they didn't have such an easy way out. We know this is a fact because studies have shown suicide deaths have gone down in cities after putting fencing on bridges, on top of buildings, etc. So if you reduce guns, of course it will reduce suicide as well. Gives people more time to think if it's harder to do. Same logic follows for any kind of death by gun.

So I'd say we'd save at least 20k lives a year if we had Ukraine level restrictions on firearms in this country. And we could still proudly say we have the right to bear arms. All that blood is on Republican hands.

But Republicans are used to blood on their hands. The data shows they have at least another matching 20k/yr lives on their hands for not supporting universal healthcare as well. It just all falls on deaf ears. Actually when it comes to healthcare, I think it's closer to 60k/yr lives lost as a result of not being up to the standards of the rest of the developed world.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

This is comedy gold, it's so bad I don't even know where to start.



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

He can't help himself. Thinks that people are listening to him instead of laughing.

When he asked, 'what are we, 12?' I took him at his word.

(06-10-2022 10:39 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Low Blow.......I think that's her native American name.

Spread Eagle

(06-08-2022 05:33 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 11:04 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:30 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Where's scrote disappeared to??

He thought he was giving birth, but he ended up just being constipated.

It actually is like giving birth. First there are the "contractions". And then when the "water breaks" you have at most 5 min to get to a bathroom.

(06-08-2022 05:43 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 12:10 AM)scorpius Wrote:  If you include suicides, it's like 37k a year. You have to include suicide because probably at least half of those people could be saved if they didn't have such an easy way out. We know this is a fact because studies have shown suicide deaths have gone down in cities after putting fencing on bridges, on top of buildings, etc. So if you reduce guns, of course it will reduce suicide as well. Gives people more time to think if it's harder to do. Same logic follows for any kind of death by gun.

So I'd say we'd save at least 20k lives a year if we had Ukraine level restrictions on firearms in this country. And we could still proudly say we have the right to bear arms. All that blood is on Republican hands.

But Republicans are used to blood on their hands. The data shows they have at least another matching 20k/yr lives on their hands for not supporting universal healthcare as well. It just all falls on deaf ears. Actually when it comes to healthcare, I think it's closer to 60k/yr lives lost as a result of not being up to the standards of the rest of the developed world.

Complete and utter bullshite.

Why not do your own googling on the topic? If you go into it with a completely open mind, you'll come to the same conclusions I have.
Sure you can pass these people off as worthless to society or some other garbage like it's different here, but there are still many lives that could be saved.

(06-08-2022 06:43 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 12:10 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Guns per 100k citizens:
US: 120; Ukraine: 9.9

Gun deaths per 100k:
US: 12.2; Ukraine: 1.36

The data says we could cut the death rate by closer to 90% than 50%. That's why I said at least half.

How many of those guns listed above in the US are legal gun owners? When you take care of that issue I think you'll see tons of deaths go down, especially in gun restrictive California and Chicago.. Even Philly and NY.

Legal or not is irrelevant. The variable that matters the most BY FAR is the per capita number of guns in society. Everything else is just nibbling around the edges of the problem. Anything we can do to reduce the number of guns in society is going to directly and meaningfully reduce the number of gun deaths.

(06-10-2022 10:43 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 12:10 AM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 03:48 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 03:16 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 03:58 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  The less capable one is to defend themselves the more likely they are to be attacked. If you cannot grasp this very simple concept then you likely should refrain from calling others naive.

You're exactly right. And the way they could have defended themselves against an invasion were if the heavy military weapons we are sending them now would have been sent to them 10 years ago. Russia would have went no where near Crimea or the Donbas region. Throwing more guns in there would have just emboldened them, particularly the rebels in those regions, and thus Russia.

I'd like just ONE example where in a functioning developed democracy, an armed uprising wasn't terrorism. Just ONE example. There are MANY examples of terrorism and the attempted overthrowing of democracy because of guns, even very near our own with the Civil War.

(06-07-2022 02:54 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  As I have stated previously. I am all for screening / background checking whatever....

However - That will not stop even one of these shootings..... NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

If we had the same gun restrictions as Ukraine did before Russia invaded, our gun related deaths would go down by at least half.

Back Your last sentence up with facts

Guns per 100k citizens:
US: 120; Ukraine: 9.9

Gun deaths per 100k:
US: 12.2; Ukraine: 1.36

The data says we could cut the death rate by closer to 90% than 50%. That's why I said at least half.

Quote:19,384 gun deaths in US in 2020

393,000,000 guns in the US

.00493% success rate by the inanimate gun

If you include suicides, it's like 37k a year. You have to include suicide because probably at least half of those people could be saved if they didn't have such an easy way out. We know this is a fact because studies have shown suicide deaths have gone down in cities after putting fencing on bridges, on top of buildings, etc. So if you reduce guns, of course it will reduce suicide as well. Gives people more time to think if it's harder to do. Same logic follows for any kind of death by gun.

So I'd say we'd save at least 20k lives a year if we had Ukraine level restrictions on firearms in this country. And we could still proudly say we have the right to bear arms. All that blood is on Republican hands.

But Republicans are used to blood on their hands. The data shows they have at least another matching 20k/yr lives on their hands for not supporting universal healthcare as well. It just all falls on deaf ears. Actually when it comes to healthcare, I think it's closer to 60k/yr lives lost as a result of not being up to the standards of the rest of the developed world.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

This is comedy gold, it's so bad I don't even know where to start.



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Well, obviously the only way people off themselves is by gun or jumping. How do you not know that? What are you, 12?

(06-10-2022 02:27 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 05:33 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 11:04 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-06-2022 10:30 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Where's scrote disappeared to??

He thought he was giving birth, but he ended up just being constipated.

It actually is like giving birth. First there are the "contractions". And then when the "water breaks" you have at most 5 min to get to a bathroom.

(06-08-2022 05:43 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 12:10 AM)scorpius Wrote:  If you include suicides, it's like 37k a year. You have to include suicide because probably at least half of those people could be saved if they didn't have such an easy way out. We know this is a fact because studies have shown suicide deaths have gone down in cities after putting fencing on bridges, on top of buildings, etc. So if you reduce guns, of course it will reduce suicide as well. Gives people more time to think if it's harder to do. Same logic follows for any kind of death by gun.

So I'd say we'd save at least 20k lives a year if we had Ukraine level restrictions on firearms in this country. And we could still proudly say we have the right to bear arms. All that blood is on Republican hands.

But Republicans are used to blood on their hands. The data shows they have at least another matching 20k/yr lives on their hands for not supporting universal healthcare as well. It just all falls on deaf ears. Actually when it comes to healthcare, I think it's closer to 60k/yr lives lost as a result of not being up to the standards of the rest of the developed world.

Complete and utter bullshite.

Why not do your own googling on the topic? If you go into it with a completely open mind, you'll come to the same conclusions I have.
Sure you can pass these people off as worthless to society or some other garbage like it's different here, but there are still many lives that could be saved.

(06-08-2022 06:43 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 12:10 AM)scorpius Wrote:  Guns per 100k citizens:
US: 120; Ukraine: 9.9

Gun deaths per 100k:
US: 12.2; Ukraine: 1.36

The data says we could cut the death rate by closer to 90% than 50%. That's why I said at least half.

How many of those guns listed above in the US are legal gun owners? When you take care of that issue I think you'll see tons of deaths go down, especially in gun restrictive California and Chicago.. Even Philly and NY.

Legal or not is irrelevant. The variable that matters the most BY FAR is the per capita number of guns in society. Everything else is just nibbling around the edges of the problem. Anything we can do to reduce the number of guns in society is going to directly and meaningfully reduce the number of gun deaths.

So if I have 5 guns and get rid of 2 how many less gun deaths do you think will occur?