It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Here’s What The World Thinks About The American Response To The Oregon Massacre

page: 15
53
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Kryties

What guns will you ban? And why? What laws would you pass? And why?


Feel free to take an in depth look at the laws we currently have in Australia and assume that I am advocating for similar laws in America.

Here is a good place to start: en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The wolrd is niave about goverments ruining their lives as well.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


Everything I have claimed IS true and I have backed them up with government sources. Not biased articles by the anti-gun crowd.


Prove they are biased and prove they are wrong.

Just because they do not agree with what you think does not make them wrong mate, just in case you were confused.


What gun control measures in the US would stop mass shootings? How many illegal firearms are estimated in the US?

How many guns in the US vs Australia pre required buy back?

How would these gun measures help the actual homicide rate?

Where are the actual US homicide rate numbers coming from?

How many mass shooters were on or coming off of psychotropics?

How much does increasing law enforcement and creating civil service programs effect the homicide rate?

Do you know what criminologists theorize as homicide and violent crime causes?

Do these gun measure actually represent criminology philosophies of causation?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

Prove they are on topic.....YOUR TOPIC.


Mate, you are the one claiming they are false, the onus is on YOU to prove so, something which you have not done.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


Everything I have claimed IS true and I have backed them up with government sources. Not biased articles by the anti-gun crowd.


Prove they are biased and prove they are wrong.

Just because they do not agree with what you think does not make them wrong mate, just in case you were confused.


What gun control measures in the US would stop mass shootings? How many illegal firearms are estimated in the US?

How many guns in the US vs Australia pre required buy back?

How would these gun measures help the actual homicide rate?

Where are the actual US homicide rate numbers coming from?

How many mass shooters were on or coming off of psychotropics?

How much does increasing law enforcement and creating civil service programs effect the homicide rate?

Do you know what criminologists theorize as homicide and violent crime causes?

Do these gun measure actually represent criminology philosophies of causation?


That would require WAY too much research for the OP to actually dig into and find real stats by government to prove each of these points. It is much easier to regurgitate biased sources that are easy to research by Googling "mass shootings" and copy/pasting their articles.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

So you want us to be like Australia? Umm no thank you. If those Chinese ever sail over good luck to them.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh

The leading cause of death is being born.


Funnily enough the leading cause of death is also death.

Please explain what that has to do with the topic and what your opinion on the article is that I linked here?


The point is, that you would rather our people be defenseless.. Just like the countries that the US walks all over.

I'm sorry that these things happen. I'm sorry that people die. I'm not insane, I'm not angry or a sad human being, and for the most part, I am a pacifist. I don't agree with your assumption that mass shootings will somehow be magically negated through legislation. You are not hearing what I am telling you. The occasional nutjob with a litany of mental instability is the least of America's problems. If we allow our government to negate our right to bear arms, we will suffer genocide at the hands of our puppet government and it's handlers.

I am not willing to take that chance. I was raised to believe in a number of things that are being negated as we speak, people do not change. This puts me and those of like mind on an endangered species list. You will not win your "social justice" argument because you do not live here... You were not raised this way.

Your statistics mean nothing. People die... They die every day for every reason, some for even being conceived. The world is not fair. So as long as there is a tool to level the playing field, I will utilize it happily... Guns are fun.. I haven't even killed anything with my guns since I was a young child. It made me feel bad, and I didn't kill any longer. Didn't change how much I enjoy guns though.

Does any of this make sense to you? It's a damn tool. It is a tool that has the versatility of a hammer.

Yea?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Has anybody ever taken upper level statistic courses, and learned how to manipulate figures to show just about anything you want to show,


Exactly. Which is why I made this comment a few pages back:


originally posted by: kosmicjack
I mean, statistically speaking, a hospital labor and delivery team could have a 99% success rate and pat themselves on the back. Realistically though, it may well mean they dropped one poor baby on it's head and it died.

Statistics are sometimes merely a rhetorical convenience.



edit on 10/6/2015 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Uh...if you buy a gun from a pawn shop, Walmart, gunshop or from any ffl you MUST filled out and go through a background check.

Do you know what America has that those other countries do not? A second #iing amendment.

These "powerful assault weapons " you speak of ate no more powerful than the hunting rifles you use. They just " look" powerful. Citizens cannot and do not have access to fully automatic machine guns. What will more gun laws do? Will criminals suddenly stop buying illegal guns if the law says you cannot do so?lol
edit on 6-10-2015 by Mike6623 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

Prove they are on topic.....YOUR TOPIC.


Mate, you are the one claiming they are false, the onus is on YOU to prove so, something which you have not done.


The onus is on me? You are the one straying from the topic YOU created and screamed at everyone to stay on. Yet because your original argument failed you are now bringing in Googles articles regurgitated with no links to any facts.

If you really want me to tear your post apart for you I can.....I have done it on NUMEROUS other threads and am happy to oblige. I prefer not to waste my time posting the same thing over and over but if you insist I break it down for you I can.

At this point you have done no research yourself....you have other people's ideas and writings copy/pasted into a post. That is the easy way....I could also go the easy route and search pro-gun articles and copy/paste. Unfortunately I like non-biased research when I crush an OP such as yours so there is no doubt at all you are incorrect.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Kryties

What guns will you ban? And why? What laws would you pass? And why?


Feel free to take an in depth look at the laws we currently have in Australia and assume that I am advocating for similar laws in America.

Here is a good place to start: en.wikipedia.org...



You are missing the point of many people here posting their opinions.

Guns have little or nothing to do with the problem. The gun is only an instrument to cause chaos from what appears to be a overwhelming sense of instability, on many levels.

What we are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg.

People in the USA do not want to address lifestyles, neglect of family units for financial gain and bling, and our socially acceptable broken family unit MO.

Although we look polished on the outside, many people in the USA and other parts of the world are screaming for help on the inside, due to adopted western philosophies.

Until we change our lifestyles this will continue till it reaches epidemic proportions.
edit on 6-10-2015 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack



Realistically though, it may well mean they dropped one poor baby on it's head and it died.

In their defense, they can really be slippery.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


Everything I have claimed IS true and I have backed them up with government sources. Not biased articles by the anti-gun crowd.


Prove they are biased and prove they are wrong.

Just because they do not agree with what you think does not make them wrong mate, just in case you were confused.


What gun control measures in the US would stop mass shootings? How many illegal firearms are estimated in the US?

How many guns in the US vs Australia pre required buy back?

How would these gun measures help the actual homicide rate?

Where are the actual US homicide rate numbers coming from?

How many mass shooters were on or coming off of psychotropics?

How much does increasing law enforcement and creating civil service programs effect the homicide rate?

Do you know what criminologists theorize as homicide and violent crime causes?

Do these gun measure actually represent criminology philosophies of causation?


That would require WAY too much research for the OP to actually dig into and find real stats by government to prove each of these points. It is much easier to regurgitate biased sources that are easy to research by Googling "mass shootings" and copy/pasting their articles.


Yeah not expecting a response.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

That would require WAY too much research for the OP to actually dig into and find real stats by government to prove each of these points. It is much easier to regurgitate biased sources that are easy to research by Googling "mass shootings" and copy/pasting their articles.


STOP with the personal attacks please. For your information I was in the process of looking some of that up but you jumped the gun and came in with another unwarranted attack. I am trying to keep this thread civil and YOU are doing your darndest to turn it into an insult-fest.

If you are so interested in the answers to those questions I would advise that YOU also go and have a look.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

The onus is on me? You are the one straying from the topic YOU created and screamed at everyone to stay on.


I am simply answering peoples assertions to various different sub-topics contained within the overall topic.


Yet because your original argument failed you are now bringing in Googles articles regurgitated with no links to any facts.


Except for the links that contain facts. Don't forget those



If you really want me to tear your post apart for you I can.....I have done it on NUMEROUS other threads and am happy to oblige. I prefer not to waste my time posting the same thing over and over but if you insist I break it down for you I can.


I could not be bothered dealing with your Mr Tough Guy attitude. I am not stopping you from doing what you claim you can do, so it begs the question as to why you have not done so?


At this point you have done no research yourself....


Except all that research I DID do. Don't forget that



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

That would require WAY too much research for the OP to actually dig into and find real stats by government to prove each of these points. It is much easier to regurgitate biased sources that are easy to research by Googling "mass shootings" and copy/pasting their articles.


STOP with the personal attacks please. For your information I was in the process of looking some of that up but you jumped the gun and came in with another unwarranted attack. I am trying to keep this thread civil and YOU are doing your darndest to turn it into an insult-fest.

If you are so interested in the answers to those questions I would advise that YOU also go and have a look.


How is this an insult fest OR personal attack? I have called you no names or done anything of the sort. I simply pointed out that your articles are BS and you are copy/pasting straight from a biased news source with skewed data.

How did I jump the gun? YOU posted the copy/paste article for us to read. Seems YOU jumped the gun by posting before researching the article yourself. I responded to YOUR jumping the gun.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Well, what is truly amazing is how many people (here and elsewhere) quote statistics with absolutely no idea about how they work just to support some point.

In the context of this discussion concepts such as distribution, mean and mode, representative sample, data sets. Any correlation about firearms is irrelevant unless the correlation is made with representative data sets. This means, in almost all instances, the need to compare things using per capita data. Anything less, such as aggregate counts, percent increases / decreases, etc is irrelevant...and frankly just propaganda and noise.

Case in point; a tiny south pacific island could have 100 inhabitants and have an annual average of 0% murder rate. If one person gets killed the murder rate jumps a "staggering" 100%. The same math works in reverse.

Demographics also play an important role, but they are also a convenient way for people to intentionally exclude relevant data to suit their agenda. This is often the case. An example of this is when people cite a statistic and then qualify it with something like "developed world", or "3rd world country".

The unfortunate facts are, the United States is very difficult to compare to other countries for a couple significant reasons:

1. The US has significant land mass and population. In order to compare statistics from other countries you need to group countries together, but the laws are often vastly different between these grouped countries, hence no valid comparison (i.e. dissimilar data, not representative sample).

2. In the same breath, population density also plays a significant role. So even the US is hard to compare when you compare regional densities in places like NYC to lesser population densities (with considerably more land mass) like Alaska.

3. Other factors such as income level, education, mobility, political demographics, government corruption also play significant roles.

So, yes, people can prove virtually anything with some pretty convincing statistics. However, many of those 'convincing' statistics are sorely lacking in this thread!


edit on 10/6/2015 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

The onus is on me? You are the one straying from the topic YOU created and screamed at everyone to stay on.


I am simply answering peoples assertions to various different sub-topics contained within the overall topic.


Yet because your original argument failed you are now bringing in Googles articles regurgitated with no links to any facts.


Except for the links that contain facts. Don't forget those



If you really want me to tear your post apart for you I can.....I have done it on NUMEROUS other threads and am happy to oblige. I prefer not to waste my time posting the same thing over and over but if you insist I break it down for you I can.


I could not be bothered dealing with your Mr Tough Guy attitude. I am not stopping you from doing what you claim you can do, so it begs the question as to why you have not done so?


At this point you have done no research yourself....


Except all that research I DID do. Don't forget that


Where are the links to your research? I claim no tough guy action at all...

The only "research" you did was read a VOX article, then copy and pasted it saying you took a while to read it. How is that research at all?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

That would require WAY too much research for the OP to actually dig into and find real stats by government to prove each of these points. It is much easier to regurgitate biased sources that are easy to research by Googling "mass shootings" and copy/pasting their articles.


STOP with the personal attacks please. For your information I was in the process of looking some of that up but you jumped the gun and came in with another unwarranted attack. I am trying to keep this thread civil and YOU are doing your darndest to turn it into an insult-fest.

If you are so interested in the answers to those questions I would advise that YOU also go and have a look.


m.fbi.gov...://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
en.m.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join