It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Monsieur_PatateThe implication is that a lot of firearm homicides were likely prevented while the others remained stable? There was not more homicides from other weapons, it remained stable from the previous years. You didn't even look at the study, did you? Too many words for you I guess.
Look at 1992-2002 for LHS, all the values are close to the mean, it's a low standard deviation, from a statistical perspective it's about as stable as it gets across the entire dataset. And LHS was not on a sustained downward trend either prior to 1992:
The one argument you could make just by looking at the graph here is that RHS was already on a slight downward trend since 1986 (yeah I'm helping you out because you're struggling pretty hard here). To that I'll counter by saying that the trend accelerated following 1996 with the two largest drops registered post-1988. I'd also point you to the other study I previously linked that determined the odds of the drop in mass shootings being due to chance and not the agreement at 1 in 200,000.
Nothing is ever 100% in the world of stats, but based on the data available here, seems pretty likely that the agreement prevented homicides rather than transferred them to another weapon as you suggested.
Additionally, the reason the significant RHS drop didn't impact the overall homicide rate that much like you said is simply because firearm homicides were only a fraction of overall homicides in Australia at the time (only 18%).
Do the same math in the US where firearm homicides account for 79% of all homicides and you're likely to get a more significant overall drop here.
Lastly, Australia had a much smaller problem then that the US does today. Our rate today is 3 times what Australia's rate was in 1990, and that's after years of riding the global downward trend too. That would also contribute to expecting proportionally more lives saved by doing the same thing in the US.
And as a side-note, although you traded horses many times since making your original 'argument' that gun ownership prevents homicides (lol), it is disproved by this use case too, just in case you still had doubts.
My god you are truly a dumb fuck. If the number of firearm homicides went down but the number of over all homicides stayed the same then the number of non-firearm homicides didn’t rEmAiN StAbLE, it went up you dumb fuck
Craw_DaddyMy god you are truly a dumb fuck. If the number of firearm homicides went down but the number of over all homicides stayed the same then the number of non-firearm homicides didn’t rEmAiN StAbLE, it went up you dumb fuck
Did you read the study? It didn't stay the same overall lmao, only the number of non-firearm homicides stayed the same. Firearm-homicides went down, and overall homicides went slightly down (but not by a whole lot because firearm homicides were only accounting for 18% of homicides in the first place)
Craw_DaddyYeah I’m honest unlike you. Go read some more vox articles idiot. Gun control didn’t work in Australia and France can suck my balls
I've given you countless data points and studies proving you wrong, not only have you failed to provide evidence for any of your 'claims', but you've also failed to counter any of the data I presented going against your arguments (and you jumped from one idea to the next to pathetically try and save face).
All I'm doing is showing you the data, sorry you don't like it because facts don't fit the narrative you've been spoon-fed, looks like your feelings are hurt.
Please, go ahead and show me how the 2 published and peer reviewed Australian studies demonstrating the overwhelmingly likely efficacy of their gun regulations posted in this thread are wrong?
I'll be sure to point those research teams to this thread so you can educate them buddy.
Monsieur_PatateI've given you countless data points and studies proving you wrong, not only have you failed to provide evidence for any of your 'claims', but you've also failed to counter any of the data I presented going against your arguments (and you jumped from one idea to the next to pathetically try and save face).
All I'm doing is showing you the data, sorry you don't like it because facts don't fit the narrative you've been spoon-fed, looks like your feelings are hurt.
Please, go ahead and show me how the 2 published and peer reviewed Australian studies demonstrating the overwhelmingly likely efficacy of their gun regulations posted in this thread are wrong?
I'll be sure to point those research teams to this thread so you can educate them buddy.
I could look up 100 studies proving your dumb ass wrong but I have a life lmao. Australian gun control didn’t work and you can’t do simple math. Fuckin moron
Craw_DaddyI could look up 100 studies proving your dumb ass wrong but I have a life lmao. Australian gun control didn’t work and you can’t do simple math. Fuckin moron
Monsieur_PatatePlease, go ahead and show me how the 2 published and peer reviewed Australian studies demonstrating the overwhelmingly likely efficacy of their gun regulations posted in this thread are wrong?
I'll be sure to point those research teams to this thread so you can educate them buddy.
Ya know I can't believe I actually did this, I really need to get a life apparently, but I actually went out and pulled the numbers on homicides from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and population data from the UN.
The rate of homicide per 100k for these given years is as follows:
As you can see clearly and as I said before: THE OVERALL RATE OF HOMICIDE STAYED THE SAME IN SPITE OF GUN CONTROL. In fact, it went up! now kindly go fuck yourself with your shitty StUdIEs and confirmation bias.
Here are the data sets I used. You can crunch the numbers yourself, moron.
Craw_DaddyYa know I can't believe I actually did this, I really need to get a life apparently, but I actually went out and pulled the numbers on homicides from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and population data from the UN.
The rate of homicide per 100k for these given years is as follows:
As you can see clearly and as I said before: THE OVERALL RATE OF HOMICIDE STAYED THE SAME IN SPITE OF GUN CONTROL. In fact, it went up! now kindly go fuck yourself with your shitty StUdIEs and confirmation bias.
Here are the data sets I used. You can crunch the numbers yourself, moron.
So glad you took the time out of your busy schedule! I'm happy to keep embarrassing you by providing the answers you would already have had you actually read that study from Australian National University.
Had you read it, you'd have seen that they've broken it down much further for good reasons. Your raw data is not wrong, but you fail to understand that this doesn't show what you think it does because of your limited understanding of statistics (and somewhat limited cognitive abilities, but that's okay, I'm happy to help).
You won't hear it from me, so here's their verbatim answer to your argument that because the overall rate remained stable, it means there was substitution and the firearm homicides were just replaced by non-firearm homicides:
"Two findings mitigate against the notion of substantial method substitution. First, non-firearm suicides and homicides fell substantially on aggregate in Australia in the period 1997–2006. Second, the estimated time pattern of the response of non-firearm deaths (suicides in particular) is not what we would expect to see in the case of method substitution.It is also inconsistent with suggestions, based on time series analysis, that the uptick in non-firearm suicides in the period 1997–2000 could have been a consequence of the buyback.
Our results show, by contrast, that that jump occurred primarily in the states where the fewest guns were handed in, and where the gun buyback would have been expected to have the least effect."
Go look at the details of the analysis if you still doubt their findings. And please do not hesitate to reach out to the research team so you can educate them on how their methodology is wrong and you know better lmao.
As a reminder, the general conclusion of the study is "We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on nonfirearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate."
"AuStRaLiAm GuN CoNtRoL DidN't WoRk" You're such a joke lmao.
Monsieur_PatateSo glad you took the time out of your busy schedule! I'm happy to keep embarrassing you by providing the answers you would already have had you actually read that study from Australian National University.
Had you read it, you'd have seen that they've broken it down much further for good reasons. Your raw data is not wrong, but you fail to understand that this doesn't show what you think it does because of your limited understanding of statistics (and somewhat limited cognitive abilities, but that's okay, I'm happy to help).
You won't hear it from me, so here's their verbatim answer to your argument that because the overall rate remained stable, it means there was substitution and the firearm homicides were just replaced by non-firearm homicides:
"Two findings mitigate against the notion of substantial method substitution. First, non-firearm suicides and homicides fell substantially on aggregate in Australia in the period 1997–2006. Second, the estimated time pattern of the response of non-firearm deaths (suicides in particular) is not what we would expect to see in the case of method substitution.It is also inconsistent with suggestions, based on time series analysis, that the uptick in non-firearm suicides in the period 1997–2000 could have been a consequence of the buyback.
Our results show, by contrast, that that jump occurred primarily in the states where the fewest guns were handed in, and where the gun buyback would have been expected to have the least effect."
Go look at the details of the analysis if you still doubt their findings. And please do not hesitate to reach out to the research team so you can educate them on how their methodology is wrong and you know better lmao.
As a reminder, the general conclusion of the study is "We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on nonfirearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate."
"AuStRaLiAm GuN CoNtRoL DidN't WoRk" You're such a joke lmao.
So I’m other words my numbers are correct but the researchers in the study you found on google manipulated their numbers to match a bias they had going into the study. Good to know.
Craw_DaddySo I’m other words my numbers are correct but the researchers in the study you found on google manipulated their numbers to match a bias they had going into the study. Good to know.
No lol, in other words: You're out of your depth and have no idea how statistics work. The study literally explains how they analyzed and interpreted, not only the same raw data you found, but also many many additional data points to come to their conclusion.
Contrary to you, this is a serious scientific study using proper methodology, they didn't spend 5 minutes on google trying to cherry pick numbers to try and save face on a ski forum lmao.
If you thought the study was flawed, you'd point to specifics in their work, but you can't. (let's be real, you obviously don't have the intellect to even understand their findings, let alone try and poke holes in it)
So your next strategy is to discredit the study? "researchers in the study you found on google are biased"
This is a published and peer reviewed study from the Australian National University, which is a public research university with 6 Nobel laureates among its faculty. But hey, forget these guys, Craw_Daddy said they were not a reliable source because their findings didn't match his political viewpoint!
I'm sure anyone reading this will appreciate the irony in you calling them biased.
Monsieur_PatateNo lol, in other words: You're out of your depth and have no idea how statistics work. The study literally explains how they analyzed and interpreted, not only the same raw data you found, but also many many additional data points to come to their conclusion.
Contrary to you, this is a serious scientific study using proper methodology, they didn't spend 5 minutes on google trying to cherry pick numbers to try and save face on a ski forum lmao.
If you thought the study was flawed, you'd point to specifics in their work, but you can't. (let's be real, you obviously don't have the intellect to even understand their findings, let alone try and poke holes in it)
So your next strategy is to discredit the study? "researchers in the study you found on google are biased"
This is a published and peer reviewed study from the Australian National University, which is a public research university with 6 Nobel laureates among its faculty. But hey, forget these guys, Craw_Daddy said they were not a reliable source because their findings didn't match his political viewpoint!
I'm sure anyone reading this will appreciate the irony in you calling them biased.
You're struggling so hard it's hilarious.
Lol how did I cherry pick numbers? Go look at the xcel file from the Australian government under the “homicide” section. It’s literally that easy. I don’t give a shit about your biased study. My numbers don’t lie. The rate of homicide did not go down in spite of the rate of firearm homicides going down
Craw_DaddyLol how did I cherry pick numbers? Go look at the xcel file from the Australian government under the “homicide” section. It’s literally that easy. I don’t give a shit about your biased study. My numbers don’t lie. The rate of homicide did not go down in spite of the rate of firearm homicides going down
You don't even understand the numbers you picked, that's my entire point lol. There's a reason why the rate did not go down, the study explains it, and you're refusing to read it.
You're basically saying that your own 'conclusion' (from reading a single data point) is more scientifically valid than the conclusion of a peer-reviewed study from a reputable research university leveraging hundreds of data points and proven statistical models.
That's a very strong argument, you've really outdone yourself with that one.
Monsieur_PatateYou don't even understand the numbers you picked, that's my entire point lol. There's a reason why the rate did not go down, the study explains it, and you're refusing to read it.
You're basically saying that your own 'conclusion' (from reading a single data point) is more scientifically valid than the conclusion of a peer-reviewed study from a reputable research university leveraging hundreds of data points and proven statistical models.
That's a very strong argument, you've really outdone yourself with that one.
Lol Jesus Christ man you just won’t quit. We’ve been discussing the rate of homicide per 100k since the beginning of the argument. I am showing you beyond a shadow of a doubt what that rate is in a country that implemented strict gun control measures and you can clearly see that the number does not go down, it goes up in the years following. That rate is composed of a firearm and non-firearm homicide rate. If, as you have been claiming, the firearm homicide went down in those years then the non-firearm rate WENT UP during that same period. I’m sitting here saying 2 + 2 = 4 and you’re trying to claim it’s 3 because I’m not accounting for other factors. You look so fucking dumb right now lmao
**This post was edited on Sep 10th 2022 at 3:54:54pm
Craw_DaddyLol Jesus Christ man you just won’t quit. We’ve been discussing the rate of homicide per 100k since the beginning of the argument. I am showing you beyond a shadow of a doubt what that rate is in a country that implemented strict gun control measures and you can clearly see that the number does not go down, it goes up. That rate is composed of a firearm and non-firearm homicide rate. If, as you have been claiming, the firearm homicide went down in those years then the non-firearm rate WENT UP during that same period. I’m sitting here saying 2 + 2 = 4 and you’re trying to claim it’s 3 because I’m not accounting for other factors. You look so fucking dumb right now lmao
The research referenced is also using homicide per 100k as a data point, even broken down by province lol.
You have not proven anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, if you think that you're actually even more pathetic than I thought. I literally gave you an actual peer reviewed scientific study disproving your point and you keep pushing your personal 'analysis' as a fact? You're desperate. The study directly addresses the point you're making and disproves it, yet you refuse to read it. I understand why though, after I have proven you wrong on every single one of the weak arguments you brought up in this thread, that's all you have left at this point, you poor thing.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but no one will take your 'opinion' over the conclusion of a peer reviewed scientific study from a reputable research university, if you think otherwise your delusional on top of being an idiot.
I'm sorry the reality of data is hurting your feelings so much.
Monsieur_PatateThe research referenced is also using homicide per 100k as a data point, even broken down by province lol.
You have not proven anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, if you think that you're actually even more pathetic than I thought. I literally gave you an actual peer reviewed scientific study disproving your point and you keep pushing your personal 'analysis' as a fact? You're desperate. The study directly addresses the point you're making and disproves it, yet you refuse to read it. I understand why though, after I have proven you wrong on every single one of the weak arguments you brought up in this thread, that's all you have left at this point, you poor thing.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but no one will take your 'opinion' over the conclusion of a peer reviewed scientific study from a reputable research university, if you think otherwise your delusional on top of being an idiot.
I'm sorry the reality of data is hurting your feelings so much.
Look at the numbers yourself then dip shit. Unless the Australian government conspired to inflate their homicide numbers or the UN is inflating Australian population numbers then the homicides rates I gave you are correct beyond a shadow a shadow of a doubt lmao. You’re so dumb I’m honestly embarrassed for you. You can’t even do simple math lol
**This post was edited on Sep 10th 2022 at 4:29:54pm
Craw_DaddyLook at the numbers yourself then dip shit. Unless the Australian government conspired to inflate their homicide numbers or the UN is inflating Australian population numbers then the homicides rates I gave you are correct beyond a shadow a shadow of a doubt lmao. You’re so dumb I’m honestly embarrassed for you. You can’t even do simple math lol
**This post was edited on Sep 10th 2022 at 4:29:54pm
Holy shit, you gotta be trolling at this point, you can't possibly be that dumb? Read the study and please stop embarrassing yourself, I'm starting to feel bad.
The study literally explains in great detail why coming to your conclusion is wrong. Simply put so maybe you'll understand (not holding my breath tho) they have the data you have (in addition to numerous other data points, as I've already explained), and after doing an analysis of ALL the data to isolate and understand possible factors and variables, their conclusion is that you are wrong. And yes, I believe them over you, because unlike you and you fifth grade understanding of math, they're actually qualified to make a statistical study.
I don't want to spoil you because I'm sure you'll read the study one day (lol), but by looking at state by state numbers (and not just a single country-level data point like you did) and comparing both firearm homicides and non-firearm homicides to the number of gun buybacks per state, state specific regulations, and a bunch of other variables, they were able to prove statistically that there was no substitution. They demonstrated the statistical efficacy of stricter gun control, and also explained that the the buy-backs work better in tandem with strict regulations (as opposed to only buybacks). They also cover a bunch of other topics and findings in the study, it's pretty extensive, as if it were a peer-reviewed study from a reputable research university, you should really read it.
I know most of what I said probably flew over your head, so in simpler terms: you're wrong, you don't even understand why, and while that's pretty sad, it's not surprising.
Monsieur_PatateHoly shit, you gotta be trolling at this point, you can't possibly be that dumb? Read the study and please stop embarrassing yourself, I'm starting to feel bad.
The study literally explains in great detail why coming to your conclusion is wrong. Simply put so maybe you'll understand (not holding my breath tho) they have the data you have (in addition to numerous other data points, as I've already explained), and after doing an analysis of ALL the data to isolate and understand possible factors and variables, their conclusion is that you are wrong. And yes, I believe them over you, because unlike you and you fifth grade understanding of math, they're actually qualified to make a statistical study.
I don't want to spoil you because I'm sure you'll read the study one day (lol), but by looking at state by state numbers (and not just a single country-level data point like you did) and comparing both firearm homicides and non-firearm homicides to the number of gun buybacks per state, state specific regulations, and a bunch of other variables, they were able to prove statistically that there was no substitution. They demonstrated the statistical efficacy of stricter gun control, and also explained that the the buy-backs work better in tandem with strict regulations (as opposed to only buybacks). They also cover a bunch of other topics and findings in the study, it's pretty extensive, as if it were a peer-reviewed study from a reputable research university, you should really read it.
I know most of what I said probably flew over your head, so in simpler terms: you're wrong, you don't even understand why, and while that's pretty sad, it's not surprising.
There you have it folks. The Australians were able to prove “statistically” that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. And it’s PeEr ReViEwEd!! Lmao you’re such a joke man.
also France fuckin sucks. Go eat some snails Pepe le bitch
I could also kick your fuckin ass. I want you to know that.
**This post was edited on Sep 10th 2022 at 5:29:12pm
Craw_DaddyThere you have it folks. The Australians were able to prove “statistically” that 2 + 2 does not equal 4. And it’s PeEr ReViEwEd!! Lmao you’re such a joke man.
also France fuckin sucks. Go eat some snails Pepe le bitch
I could also kick your fuckin ass. I want you to know that.
**This post was edited on Sep 10th 2022 at 5:29:12pm
I know the job is done when the only argument you have left is a physical threat lmao, I can now peacefully exit the thread.
Craw_DaddySince you’re just going to start using hypothetical scenarios here, let me offer an alternative one. If people in Canada had access to firearms then this incident likely wouldn’t have happened or far fewer would have been killed because the victims would have had the means to defend themselves. Guns are used defensively millions of times each year in the US.
People can easily make bombs or drive trucks into crowded areas and rack up even larger kill counts than they could with a gun. So I’ll say it again, evil people will always find a way to kill others. Gun laws and hypotheticals won’t change that.
I wouldn't say it's that hard to get a firearm in Canada. Revolvers and rifles are fairly common in the prairies. Pretty much any land owner in Alberta and Saskatchewan that's even somewhat rural owns a gun.
S.J.WAustralian here. Yes it did. The gun buyback was extremely successful. And it was one of John Howard’s crowing achievements.
Lol well the numbers and several experts say otherwise but you can go fuck a kangaroo about it or whatever it is you dumb fucks do. Too bad you don’t live in the greatest nation ever conceived.
**This post was edited on Sep 10th 2022 at 9:20:26pm
Craw_DaddyLol well the numbers and several experts say otherwise but you can go fuck a kangaroo about it or whatever it is you dumb fucks do. Too bad you don’t live in the greatest nation ever conceived.
**This post was edited on Sep 10th 2022 at 9:20:26pm
What we don’t do is die in preventable mass shootings in schools.
S.J.WWhat we don’t do is die in preventable mass shootings in schools.
Want to guess what the odds of being involved in a mass shooting are in a country of over 300 million? I'll give you a hint they're pretty low. Do you walk outside and fear being struck by lightning on a regular basis?
Craw_DaddyWant to guess what the odds of being involved in a mass shooting are in a country of over 300 million? I'll give you a hint they're pretty low. Do you walk outside and fear being struck by lightning on a regular basis?
No because being struck by lightning isn’t preventable. Mass shootings are.
S.J.WNo because being struck by lightning isn’t preventable. Mass shootings are.
being struck by lightning is entirely preventable you idiot. god you Aussies are stupid as shit... we need to just steal all your Australian Shepards, didgeridoos, and boomerangs and let china come butt rape you assholes since you'd be completely fucked without our military protecting you. I give tens of thousands of dollars to my government each year. why the fuck should you benefit from that? so sad
Craw_Daddybeing struck by lightning is entirely preventable you idiot. god you Aussies are stupid as shit... we need to just steal all your Australian Shepards, didgeridoos, and boomerangs and let china come butt rape you assholes since you'd be completely fucked without our military protecting you. I give tens of thousands of dollars to my government each year. why the fuck should you benefit from that? so sad
Na it’s really not. I’m only half joking. I wish my government spent less money on the military and more on community outreach and mental health counseling to prevent a lot of homicides and suicides from occurring. Instead we spend billions each year on something that drains our resources and directly benefits your country. And then people like you have the nerve to say we should take away a god given right from our citizens. How about you just defend yourselves then since you want to tell us how to live.
Craw_DaddyNa it’s really not. I’m only half joking. I wish my government spent less money on the military and more on community outreach and mental health counseling to prevent a lot of homicides and suicides from occurring. Instead we spend billions each year on something that drains our resources and directly benefits your country. And then people like you have the nerve to say we should take away a god given right from our citizens. How about you just defend yourselves then since you want to tell us how to live.
The irony of an American to tell others how to live.
Craw_DaddyHow about you just defend yourselves then since you want to tell us how to live.
Lol Australia has been defending itself and its possessions just fine since 1945, and they haven't had a mass shooting since they banned all the big guns...
And don't even say they're gonna get taken over by China without the US - China is all bark and no bite militarily, not to mention their navy is wholly incapable of such a manoeuvre.
DingoSeanNah sorry dude but it's the ease of access and proliferation of dangerous guns. Plain and simple.
Oh is that why the rate of homicides in Australia didn’t go down for 5 years when they implemented gun control? If it’s just the guns then it should have gone down immediately right? Well it didn’t.
Craw_DaddyOh is that why the rate of homicides in Australia didn’t go down for 5 years when they implemented gun control? If it’s just the guns then it should have gone down immediately right? Well it didn’t.
If only there was a peer reviewed study from a reputable university able to give an answer to that question.. Oh wait, there's one! You simply refuse to acknowledge it because you don't like that they disproved your only argument. Pretty desperate if you ask me.
Craw_DaddyLol well the numbers and several experts say otherwise
Well, then surely you can give us at least one peer reviewed study on the matter from one of those 'several experts', right?
Spoiler alert: You can't, because they don't exist and you're making shit up to pathetically try and save face.
Monsieur_Patate Well, then surely you can give us at least one peer reviewed study on the matter from one of those 'several experts', right?
Spoiler alert: You can't, because they don't exist and you're making shit up to pathetically try and save face.
lol I don't care. fuck your studies. All you do is search google for things that confirm your bias. I went out and got the data directly from the Australian government's website in spite of the fact that it could have proved me wrong and calculated the homicide rate myself. you're such an annoying little gnat, I could slap you across the mouth and you wouldn't do a thing about it bitch. get out of my thread. don't @me, just leave, you pussy.
**This post was edited on Sep 11th 2022 at 12:26:46pm
DingoSeanNah sorry dude but it's the ease of access and proliferation of dangerous guns. Plain and simple.
Dangerous people are the problem. Guns are the solution. For example, if I pass through Jem's neighborhood, I'm going to be CCing. You just never know around some people.
DingoSeanLol Australia has been defending itself and its possessions just fine since 1945, and they haven't had a mass shooting since they banned all the big guns...
And don't even say they're gonna get taken over by China without the US - China is all bark and no bite militarily, not to mention their navy is wholly incapable of such a manoeuvre.
Craw_Daddylol I don't care. fuck your studies. All you do is search google for things that confirm your bias. I went out and got the data directly from the Australian government's website in spite of the fact that it could have proved me wrong and calculated the homicide rate myself. you're such an annoying little gnat, I could slap you across the mouth and you wouldn't do a thing about it bitch. get out of my thread. don't @me, just leave, you pussy.
**This post was edited on Sep 11th 2022 at 12:26:46pm
Oh oh, someone's big mad!
I'm sorry your feelings are hurt by an "annoying little gnat" proving you wrong on a ski forum. You seem easily triggered, so I'll take my leave before causing you an aneurysm, we wouldn't want that!
(and maybe consider seeing a therapist about those violent thoughts you're having? Seems unhealthy to me)
Monsieur_PatateOh oh, someone's big mad!
I'm sorry your feelings are hurt by an "annoying little gnat" proving you wrong on a ski forum. You seem easily triggered, so I'll take my leave before causing you an aneurysm, we wouldn't want that!
(and maybe consider seeing a therapist about those violent thoughts you're having? Seems unhealthy to me)
Toodaloo!
Didn’t read anything you just wrote except the last word. Toodaloo bitch boy
Craw_DaddyOh is that why the rate of homicides in Australia didn’t go down for 5 years when they implemented gun control? If it’s just the guns then it should have gone down immediately right? Well it didn’t.
Lol Youre cherrypicking the fuck out of a statistic. compare Australian gun homicides to those in the USA today.
HiHowAreYouDangerous people are the problem. Guns are the solution. For example, if I pass through Jem's neighborhood, I'm going to be CCing. You just never know around some people.
Dangerous people are a big problem, but they become a much bigger problem when you make it easy as fuck for them to get, not just a gun, but many guns. Make it just a little harder with a few more hoops to jump through for everyone to get guns - especially big fast shooting large-capacity guns, and you inherently make it harder for dangerous people to get said guns.
I have no idea what your analogy is saying. You're speaking a foreign language or something.
DingoSeanLol Youre cherrypicking the fuck out of a statistic. compare Australian gun homicides to those in the USA today.
It's clear as day.
I’m getting the number of homicides committed in a country that implemented many of the exact gun control measures you want. I don’t see how that’s cherry picking, it’s a case study in gun control and it’s pretty clear that it had no effect…
the CCP and PRC is a paper tiger... they will not do shit... they can't afford to... at least until they decide they're desperate enough...
Here's my analogy of PRC...
P. R. China is a short 22-year-old dude who thinks he's hot shit because he's from some well-established family in town with a storied history - however, a while back that family went on some hard luck, and then made it worse by making some absolutely boneheaded decisions that were super embarrassing to the point where people sometimes don't always take them seriously anymore, even though now they have a business that's doing really well and people have been happy to do business with them for the last couple decades.
This short jerk now works for the family business and started making good money.. started going to the gym and building his muscles and bought some fancy car and he thinks he's just super fuckin cool... he starts antagonizing all the other people in town and struts around acting like he's worth a damn... picking fights he will never fight and totally projecting toughness... Especially with this other kid who he demands be his best friend because they grew up together...
He's being more of a nuisance by the day, all while he's really super dependent on the community for his family's business. But now due to his antics, people are starting to take their business elsewhere. He's freaking out a bit and acting even more extra... he probably won't do shit right now but he's obviously a bit of a loose cannon and it's kinda hard to tell what point it is where he will snap and punch the kid he's making demands with to be his best friend and causing a big fucking fight where everyone loses...
Craw_DaddyI’m getting the number of homicides committed in a country that implemented many of the exact gun control measures you want. I don’t see how that’s cherry picking, it’s a case study in gun control and it’s pretty clear that it had no effect…
Australia has about the same population and economic size as Texas...
DingoSeanAustralia has about the same population and economic size as Texas...
Which one has had more gun homicides since 1996?
Is Australia on the border with Mexico? Does one of its major metropolitan areas share a border with Juarez? No? Then I guess comparing them is kind of dumb. What Australia is is an isolated island nation and that eliminates many of the variables that we have here in the US. What we see with them is that gun control did not effect the rate of homicide.
Craw_DaddyIs Australia on the border with Mexico? Does one of its major metropolitan areas share a border with Juarez? No? Then I guess comparing them is kind of dumb. What Australia is is an isolated island nation and that eliminates many of the variables that we have here in the US. What we see with them is that gun control did not effect the rate of homicide.
Lol Buddy you can't go blaming this on Mexico and immigrants. Mexico isn't bringing guns into the USA, but rather the other way around. Juarez has it bad BECAUSE it's next to the USA.
The biggest variable in the USA for firearms-related deaths is the fact that it's really fuckin easy to get guns.
DingoSeanLol Buddy you can't go blaming this on Mexico and immigrants. Mexico isn't bringing guns into the USA, but rather the other way around. Juarez has it bad BECAUSE it's next to the USA.
The biggest variable in the USA for firearms-related deaths is the fact that it's really fuckin easy to get guns.
Oh I can definitely blame it on Mexico. Juarez is the 6th most dangerous city in the world and it’s right there sharing a metropolitan area with El Paso. It serves as a major point of entry for the cartels bringing drugs into the US. If you don’t think the cartels and drug trade bring violent crime then you are an absolute fool.
