Mock

They probably weigh as much as their backpacks do. Those things get heavy after a few weeks when they start getting full of junk.

(10-14-2015, 07:20 PM)crash Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2015, 06:51 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2015, 06:42 PM)crash Wrote: [ -> ]Yet the population grew, therefore homicides per capita fell. Now quote the US numbers if we want to talk mediocrity.

Your growth rate was 1.2% per year. If it wasn't for the uptick in 1999 you might be onto something, but alas you grew your average 1.2%, had "no guns" and an increase in homicides. Apparently Fosters is Australian for beer and murder without guns is Australian for winning.

Apparently you get sucked in by marketing hype and what you see on TV. Fosters is Australian for cats piss that we export to gullible dopes with no taste buds. Hardly anyone in Australua drinks it. I haven't even seen it anywhere for sale lately.

Now on those number again..

The US homicide rate sits at about 5 per 100000 citizens per annum. The Australian rate is 1. Your gun related homicide rate is about 3.5, making your non gun related homicides about 1.6.

So, even your non gun related homocide rate, per capita, is higher than our total?

Still winning!

You better reward your own mediocrity with a Fosters.

The numbers for your ban on guns don't support any change in homicide rates regardless of your growth rate. The mean is actually dead even with what it was prior to the ban on guns in your country and it cost your govt. tons of money to pull it off. You want to call that winning, be my guest. Your participation trophy is on it's way.

What President Obama noted after the Umpqua College shooting is that some countries, including Australia, have enacted gun laws designed to eliminate or reduce mass shooting murders and it's been effective.

Australia hasn't had a "mass shooting" in almost 20 years. That's an achievement, considering the number of mass murders that the U.S. has seen over that same period and the recent escalation in those types of killings.

If the gun homicide rate in Australia has held steady for almost 20 years and mass murders that would have driven it up were prevented, it would certainly be considered a "win" in my book.

(10-15-2015, 11:26 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]What President Obama noted after the Umpqua College shooting is that some countries, including Australia, have enacted gun laws designed to eliminate or reduce mass shooting murders and it's been effective.

Australia hasn't had a "mass shooting" in almost 20 years. That's an achievement, considering the number of mass murders that the U.S. has seen over that same period and the recent escalation in those types of killings.

If the gun homicide rate in Australia has held steady for almost 20 years and mass murders that would have driven it up were prevented, it would certainly be considered a "win" in my book.

So it's all about HOW all those people got murdered. Gotcha. We have different ideas about what winning is when it comes to murder I guess.

(10-15-2015, 11:37 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]So it's all about HOW all those people got murdered. Gotcha. We have different ideas about what winning is when it comes to murder I guess.

No. You don't get it or me, Gunnar, unsurprisingly.

It's about "preventative" measures working effectively.

If there had been a few more Port Arthur type mass murders over the last 2 decades in Australia, the murder count and per capita murder rate would be higher than it is now and higher than it was 20 years ago. But, those mass murders didn't happen because, some contend, the gun controls that were enacted after Port Arthur effectively prevented them.

Australia is a democracy. It doesn't have state-controlled or censored media. It's a massive social media market. They've got plenty of mentally ill people running around Down Under just like we do here.

And yet, while the U.S. has had hundreds of mass shootings over the last two decades, Australia has had none. So, I personally believe there's a reasonable possibility that their gun control measures helped to prevent some shooting deaths, shooting deaths that don't typically involve criminal victims. That's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

It seems to bother you that actions taken to prevent mass shootings have apparently worked and saved some Australian lives. But, obviously, nobody can tell you with certainty or specificity how many mass murders and how many deaths were prevented as a result of the gun control measures enacted, nor how that would have affected the total body county/per capita rates. So, just consider yourself a winner for contending it must be a zero sum achievement.

HotD, you still don't get it.

It's not the gun.

Those mass murders are still happening in Australia, the perps are just using alternative 'tools' now, i.e., dynamite, C4, knives, baseball bats, etc.

Edit: I forgot my favorite new 'tool' for mass homicide:

The automobile.

Just a observation.
We as a group have spent almost 3 years making 2327 posts amongst a dozen or two posters and we are no closer to figuring out a answer to this problem now than we were when this thread started. We just keep going in circles like a dog chasing its tail. And we wonder why nothing is getting done in America when it comes to solving this issue. Well maybe we don't wonder why, but this thread is perfect example of what is happening.
Not bitching or pointing a finger just talking out loud.

(10-15-2015, 12:09 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-15-2015, 11:37 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]So it's all about HOW all those people got murdered. Gotcha. We have different ideas about what winning is when it comes to murder I guess.

No. You don't get it or me, Gunnar, unsurprisingly.

It's about "preventative" measures working effectively.

If there had been a few more Port Arthur type mass murders over the last 2 decades in Australia, the murder count and per capita murder rate would be higher than it is now and higher than it was 20 years ago. But, those mass murders didn't happen because, some contend, the gun controls that were enacted after Port Arthur effectively prevented them.

Australia is a democracy. It doesn't have state-controlled or censored media. It's a massive social media market. They've got plenty of mentally ill people running around Down Under just like we do here.

And yet, while the U.S. has had hundreds of mass shootings over the last two decades, Australia has had none. So, I personally believe there's a reasonable possibility that their gun control measures helped to prevent some shooting deaths, shooting deaths that don't typically involve criminal victims. That's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

It seems to bother you that actions taken to prevent mass shootings have apparently worked and saved some Australian lives. But, obviously, nobody can tell you with certainty or specificity how many mass murders and how many deaths were prevented as a result of the gun control measures enacted, nor how that would have affected the total body county/per capita rates. So, just consider yourself a winner for contending it must be a zero sum achievement.

The numbers show that the number of lives lost is even whether guns are used or not. All I'm saying is that banning guns in other countries hasn't been effective in lowering homicide rates. I am opposed to legislation that will take more rights away from me without an effective impact. What "bothers me" as you put it, is people who lobby to make things illegal based on an ideal or current event without considering the downstream effects. None of us will be winners as long as sheeple keep levying for more government and less rights.

(10-13-2015, 04:22 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]And this is precisely what pro-2^nd Amendment nut jobs sound like.

"If you don't like the amount of guns in our society, and you don't like how many people get senselessly murdered every year, you're a fucking pussy."

Did I miss something?

Great argument, barrister.

Wow, you're a real fucking genius. Talk about taking the focus off (again) of the real issue, by suggesting that I arm myself and stand guard at my kids school. Or pull them out and home school them.

You're a piece of shit and you know it.

Do you feel better somehow trying to insult me, when all I've done is state the truth that no matter how many people get murdered by guns, you don't give a shit. Period.

Just don't fuck with your 'right' to own them.

At least FU admitted it. I respect him for saying it.

You, on the other hand, think that the solution to this is to get all the pussies to either own guns, or simply shut the fuck up.

Nice.

You poor thing!

This post rivals an Aussie meltdown. Seriously, what was it that caused you to go off the rails?

Maybe after you get over being butt-hurt and feeling emasculated, you'll point out where I suggested you arm yourself. You jumped to that conclusion all by yourself. Honestly, I don't think you have the psychological stability to own or carry a weapon. But thank goodness, that's not up to me . . . it's your right, as long as you answer truthfully on your application. ( Note to Spy and Hill: I am pointing out a deficiency within the gun purchase application. )

I did notice you didn't take umbrage with my analysis of your "No Dog - No Care" egocentric nonsense. Must have been spot-on.

Actually, Spy, I was hoping you would post that you contacted your representatives (local, state, federal) and expressed your strong and personal feelings, regarding guns and murderers. Or maybe submitted an OpEd piece to the paper . . . both after after Sandy Hook.

Possibly, if you are active with your Parent Teacher organization, you would chair or participate in a committee addressing potential massacres and ways to thwart them to keep all on school property, safe.

Maybe organize a charity golf game for gun awareness, security guards, metal detectors, etc.

Embrace Crash's observation: The Glorification of America's Gun Culture. Lobby for less violence in movies, television and video games. Or start by banning them from your home and your external entertainment choices, if you haven't done so, already.

Maybe contribute time or treasure to a Mental Health Lobby or an anti-gun group.

Circulate a petition demanding that gun crimes carry mandatory sentences or a no plea bargain clause.

Attend City Council Meetings . . . get your concerns on the agenda for discussion.

Start a NPC with a mission aligned with your gun ownership views.

Support and invest in businesses that have an anti-gun stance.

Adopt a Chicago black youth or a whole gang. Okay . . . maybe not a whole gang.

Those are just a few examples of constructive and positive steps to be proactive.

That's Iron Man stuff, sweetie.

To my knowledge, I never advocated that all citizens be armed nor have I advocated that all eligible Americans should own or carry a firearm.

To my knowledge, I never stated that citizens should own as many guns as they want.

To my knowledge, I never stated an opposition to universal background checks.

To my knowledge, I never addressed the fact that the US Seventh Court of Appeals ruled that undocumented immigrants have 2^nd Amendment rights, even if their presence in the US is criminal.

To my knowledge, I never stated my opinion on an annual registration fee, for guns, similar to auto registration . . . or a requirement that all gun owners carry mandatory insurance. Again, similar to automobile ownership and registration.

To my knowledge, I have not revealed my position on high capacity magazines or "assault" type weapons or the expiration of the law, in 2004. [Hmmm . . . I wonder how that fits in with the CNN article?]

To my knowledge, I have not revealed my affiliation to groups considered pro and anti-gun or my activities or actions associated with each.

To my knowledge, I have not contrasted and compared the rights of the mentally ill and the rights of someone who owns a registered, legal silencer or full-auto weapon.

To my knowledge, I have not revealed my position on an 18 year old being allowed to possess a sidearm, yet not purchase one.

However, I have been a staunch advocate for mental health treatment.

I have been a staunch critic of the deficiencies in the ACA regarding mental health treatment.

I stated that I own a firearm, but not how many. JSYK - more than one but less than a gazillion.

I stated that I have a Conceal Carry Permit.

I have been a staunch critic of the 23 Executive Orders (signed after Sandy Hook) as being ineffectual and any other "dog and pony show" legislation or posturing.

I have been a staunch critic of the weakness in our current background check system and the lack of trust in those performing them. Think Fast and Furious and Dylan Roof.

I have been a staunch advocate to hold liable and prosecute criminals for gun crimes . . . most recently the mother in Oregon. (Yes. I say impanel a Grand Jury immediately.)

I have been a staunch advocate to prosecute those who circumvent existing gun laws.

I have been a staunch advocate for responsible, 2^nd Amendment gun ownership. This includes, but is not limited to: training and securing weapons.

I have posted deliberately inflammatory statements to promote discussion, opinion or rage posts.

I never hesitated to call you a bitch, gay, arrogant or a pussy, when you are or because you are.

Hint: Now is the time to seize the opportunity and focus on the fact I NEVER mentioned I posted any sympathy for the victims. Please . . . go for it! There's your "gimme".

And all of the above and more, within this forum.

I'd call you a liar, but I think the shame of your impotence FROM DOING NOTHING turned you into a sniveling child having a tantrum. Lanza lives in your head, rent free.

That's why I'm convinced you attribute YOUR gun fears, as being MY position. That's on you.

Be sure and fact-check me, sport. That includes asking your kids about the whole puss-thing, too. Remember, kids might lie to please their parent.

All after a quick viewing of Steel Magnolias . . . naturally.

Thanks again for the meltdown.

(10-13-2015, 04:49 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]Tiki,

Only have a few words for you....let's see if I can dumb it down enough for YOU to understand....In my travels through life, I find that people who consistently and constantly put other people down, do so because of
massive insecurities....You resort to name calling and insults when other persons of equal or superior intelligence disagree with you....When I was in High School, we called such people, bullies......
I find that your dry humor turns sour at some point in your quest to showcase just how "special" you are...
I fail to understand why you can't make your points (for us dummies) without personal insults. I just think that reflects immaturity on your part....

I'm confused.

I don't recall calling you names and since you didn't provide any examples, I will assume you were prompted by my recent posts, to Spy. Why this wasn't addressed in the "Some Honest Therapy" forum, is a mystery. I'll try and include gun references in my response to be germane.

As you are going to battle for another, I will forever rename you ( in my head ): "Donna Quixote" ( For those in Tempe or Sanctuary cities, the fact I used a Hispanic surname is not an example of racism. If I stated that her post had "no legs" and I'll rename her "Consuelo" . . . that, too, is not racist. It is a juvenile and crude phonetic play on words. It is completely politically incorrect and a deliberate mock . . . but not racist . . . unless someone says it is. Quixote is a literary reference. ).

Your "intellectual or academic superiority" premise that you attribute to me, is YOUR belief about me. It is false. Academic credentials and intellectual superiority is aussie's and Cracker's shtick. Mine is the disgruntled Native American and ellipsis usage . . . with attempts at satire. I've stated, more times than I can count, I like simple and am a simpleton. Full, honest, self-deprecating disclosure. Sorry you missed these confessions.

I have, on at least one occasion, fully disclosed that I consider myself an irreverent provocateur and do not succumb to the delusion that I will sway minds, opinion or expect to be liked, loved or admired within this forum. As if my choice of avatar doesn't scream this. If memory serves me correctly, the last time was during an exchange, with aussie.

To be my intellectual superior, all one needs is a Fifth [Grade] education or an Honorary Degree from Temple ( I used the Temple reference as a dig to Bill Cosby . . . purely to satisfy my racist tendencies . . . unless someone says it's not racist ) OR does not suffer from FAS ( See how I used a condition that is common with certain Native American tribes and thus, perpetuating the stereotype that us Injuns are predominately alcoholic and incapable of cohesive thoughts - This bolsters your position about my posts' content. ).

However, while waiting in a Planned Parenthood clinic, to have my lady parts examined, I read an article on "Projection", in Psychology Today. It wasn't penned by a trained psychologist, but by a guy who binge-watched Anger Management ( See how I used a known publication and pointed out that the author might not be an "expert" and yet, I'll use his words as a published authority, to prove my point. For those of you in Mesa, I used Planned Parenthood because of its current controversial prominence and the anger it stirs in you. Plus, I emphasized their non-abortion service to piss-off other PP abortion haters ).

If I understood the article correctly, your observation about intellectual superiority and inferiority actually points to YOUR intellectual doubts and fears that you are attempting to project on me.

Stop that thinking, woman! You're a 100 watt bulb compared to my 40 watts! Do I need a parenthetical notation here? No. I stand by my words. ( Note to self: Have patronizing gene checked for mutation - self explanatory )

I appreciate your life journey experiences and applying them to my attitude and behavior. Privately, I would agree that you were on target but since admitting this might revoke my CCP and have my bazillion guns confiscated, I will just give you a wink and a nod. ( See how I used my horrid behavior and attitude and related them to gun ownership and potential flaws in our current ownership climate ).

As this is Mock, I'll call members names if and when I feel like doing so. However, I will address the substance of their post and NOT if they agree with my position, before doing so. Except if used as an opening salvo, to set the tone, because some dumbshit didn't acknowledge my genius or gets me all butt-hurt ( See how I am contradicting myself to validate your post about me. I'm just a needy girl crying for attention. Gosh! I suddenly feel cleansed! JSYK - That was sarcasm . . . including the sentence preceding the parenthesis ).

Again, if you missed it in the fifth paragraph, I have no delusion of swaying minds or opinions. I do, however, believe a response addressing specifics in my post and not some rambling or diatribe, if one chooses to respond, is a reasonable expectation. I try and address specifics and hope for the same, from others.

I did that with your "you don't know the facts", "full of shit" and "oh, wise one" post.

This current post, I used parenthetical notations to assist those possibly feeling "left behind" ( Not in the Christian rapture way, but in the "What the fuck, long-winded, stupid point is this twat trying to make?" way ) to understand my inane and witless remarks.

And of course, to climb down from my ivory tower and "dumb down" for the masses ( *Here's an opportunity for you to fill in the parentheses* ).

If you find my personality loathsome, me being "full of shit" or my posts offensive, don't read them and ignore me.

No one is holding a gun to your head ( As this is a thread on guns, see how I . . . never mind ).

(10-15-2015, 02:35 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-13-2015, 04:22 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]And this is precisely what pro-2^nd Amendment nut jobs sound like.

"If you don't like the amount of guns in our society, and you don't like how many people get senselessly murdered every year, you're a fucking pussy."

Did I miss something?

Great argument, barrister.

Wow, you're a real fucking genius. Talk about taking the focus off (again) of the real issue, by suggesting that I arm myself and stand guard at my kids school. Or pull them out and home school them.

You're a piece of shit and you know it.

Do you feel better somehow trying to insult me, when all I've done is state the truth that no matter how many people get murdered by guns, you don't give a shit. Period.

Just don't fuck with your 'right' to own them.

At least FU admitted it. I respect him for saying it.

You, on the other hand, think that the solution to this is to get all the pussies to either own guns, or simply shut the fuck up.

Nice.

To my knowledge, I never stated my opinion on an annual registration fee, for guns, similar to auto registration . . . or a requirement that all gun owners carry mandatory insurance. Again, similar to automobile ownership and registration.

"This is getting old... GUNS ARE FOR KILLING!!!"

(10-13-2015, 06:14 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]You're gonna have to dumb it way down for me Tiki.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with your "Top 28 mass murders by president's political affiliation" statistics.

Are you contending that the political affiliation of the president in office is a direct contributor to the number of shooters who pull the trigger and murder 4 or more people in a single incident?

Here's what I posted:

(10-13-2015, 03:33 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]My statement that more mass-shootings occur during a Democrat presidency was an attempt to make an absurd correlation, relating to gun violence. There are so many out there, I thought it would be fun to present another . . . a lampoon. It was in the same vein as having a gun buyer sign a paper (promising to break no laws) and comparing it with the Iran agreement.

Anyone with a modicum of sense, sanity and rationality would see the ridiculousness of the relationship. No . . . I take that back. Those who are governed by entrenched emotion, preconceived perceptions and contempt . . . prior to investigation . . . would predictably take offense. Maybe those with the flu, too.

The facts are clear: A Democrat Administration causes people to commit mass murder. This conclusion is from The Onion. They also concluded you have a greater chance of being a victim of a mass-shooter in months beginning with an "A" or "J".

The whole "big flashing neon sign" Onion thing didn't seal the deal, for you?

What can I say? Oh, well.

There is no comprehensive and codified database, regarding every aspect of firearms.

I believe you've posted this fact, too.

Anyway, I read the CNN article about an hour after listening to Cross-Eyed and Painless.

The article is titled: 28 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts. It was updated at 6:17 PM ET, Sat October 3, 2015.

I included EVERY shooting and the dates, listed in the article. NOTHING was omitted to manipulate the outcome. CNN gave me 28 shootings and I used them all.

I stated the source and key words contained in the title.

Ima gonna bet no one bothered to search for and read this article, before commenting.

I don't fault that attitude. It's a time saver and doesn't prevent one from taking and spouting their offense with the "fact" or the poster. Maybe both!

As CNN is not typically connected with the political right (the pro-gun and NRA crowd), I tossed it out as another "fact", gleaned from data published by a reputable source.

If the article was published by a source perceived to be associated with the GOP, it would have been ignored . . . for the obvious and predictable pro-gun, alleged bias, bullshit.

So, there it was . . . data supporting a definitive and undeniable "fact"!

Then, a statement containing the "fact" and possibly suggesting a correlation.

Regardless of the party, I would have posted the same statement: "Why do more mass-shootings occur when a [fill in the blank] occupies the White House?".

If it turned out to be Republican, instead of Democrat, I believe the statement would have been challenged, too. And quite possibly used as . . . dare I say "ammunition" . . . against the pro-gun positions.

Although my statement is true, based on one specific, published article . . . there is no correlation to a particular political party in the White House and the resulting occurrences of mass-shootings. Or is there?

Do you think some of the other "facts" being offered as support, on either side of the issue, suffer from the same flaw and are accepted as truth . . . or maybe just by one side of the debate, only? You know the ones . . . "those" people!

That was a rhetorical question.

I blame CNN and the Talking Heads, for my post. They made me a victim!

I want to be a victim. Victims get love and concern. However, not from selfish, pro-gun people.

I hold Spy as Mock's authority on 80's music and groups. Many of you are good, but he cries. I mean he cries to the lyrics . . . not the whole bitch of Lanza's ghost thing, again . . . strictly the lyrics.

Yes . . . I know the Heads were around in the 70's and I am being serious about the little, panty-waste's ( deliberate play on words, user ) knowledge of 80's music and groups.

If anyone should be able to explain the connection, it would be him.

If he can't or is unwilling, the 80's title is up for grabs.

But seriously, why would anyone care about my stupid-ass connection?

Music doesn't kill people . . . or does it?

Again . . . both are rhetorical.

Sweet naked baby Jesus!

I feel like I've just testified before Congress.

As an aside . . . please forgive the delay in my postings. And for full disclosure purposes, these responses were composed off-line, due to time constraints and lack of wireless (no way was I doing this on my phone). Nothing was tweaked or edited ( except the text coloring ) because I wasn't responding in real time.

On Tuesday, a 32 year old, single mom underwent a double mastectomy. She has Stage 3 breast cancer. With the assistance of two friends, we are taking turns attending to her needs and those of her 6 year old daughter.

Even though I don't have a dog in the fight, I won't pass on an opportunity to make a difference, when I can and if I choose to do so.

And it seems I am making one.

The little one loves it when I read "NRA Bedtime Stories", to her. She's so cute when she plays with my loaded Browning and fills my 20, high-capacity magazines . . . all while humming Sinatra's "Chicago".

All of the above is true . . . except for two sentences ( For those of you in Avondale, this doesn't mean that it's really Stage 2 and one of the two, isn't a friend. ).

(10-14-2015, 09:13 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Since we have brought up credible sources, does anyone use snopes at all? Just wondering how reliable they are.

IIRC, I posted some charts re: gun homicides per country from factcheck.org.

I don't think having "gun free zones" here and there would accomplish a damn thing. I'be said before gun control/reform needs to occur on a national level to be at all effective.

(10-15-2015, 03:53 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2015, 09:13 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Since we have brought up credible sources, does anyone use snopes at all? Just wondering how reliable they are.

IIRC, I posted some charts re: gun homicides per country from factcheck.org.

I don't think having "gun free zones" here and there would accomplish a damn thing. I'be said before gun control/reform needs to occur on a national level to be at all effective.

And even then might not be effective.

(10-15-2015, 03:53 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-14-2015, 09:13 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Since we have brought up credible sources, does anyone use snopes at all? Just wondering how reliable they are.

IIRC, I posted some charts re: gun homicides per country from factcheck.org.

I don't think having "gun free zones" here and there would accomplish a damn thing. I'be said before gun control/reform needs to occur on a national level to be at all effective.

I used Snopes a lot and now there is Factcheck, and something called Politico....oh dang, i can't remember the correct name and don't have time to look it up...but i did some research on credibility on all three....Use as a source, but never believe everything you read (which we already know).

I would add that the only way a "gun free" zone might work is if it were set up with airport type security, x-ray equipment, etc. Even then I imagine a disgruntled employee could work around that.

(10-15-2015, 05:51 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I would add that the only way a "gun free" zone might work is if it were set up with airport type security, x-ray equipment, etc. Even then I imagine a disgruntled employee could work around that.

Plus unless the attendant at that entrance was armed and trained, it wouldn't make a difference. They would just be the first to die that day.