• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Today in mass shootings

Look, it's Vagina Man himself, coming up for air.

He told me he and his family had more intelligence than me and mine just in the tip of his penis.

What Indy was really modest about and didn't mention is that they are quite artistic as well. One should always strive to be well rounded.

Here is some video of his brothers at a recent family reunion.

 
Last edited:
. If that means going to war with the inner city gangbangers, have at it

ha ha

You'd have white cops shooting gangbangers in their homes? And of course, they wouldn't answer any knocks on the door, so they'd be busting down some doors...400 dead cops the first night,


oh yeah, I can see the headlines now....

Helter Skelter!
 
I see the Constitution as the sole source of protection FROM the Federal governmnent.

Go on.

Aren't you going to add that the Constitution is however flawed because it doesn't say what the Federal Government should be doing FOR you?
 
Last edited:
rs_600x600-150616115156-trump3.jpg

He's not president. Nice try.
 
What's insane about it? What's wrong with it? If I had 100 guns what difference does it make? I can't shot more than one at a time. What's insane is thinking that sheer numbers of guns has anything to do with gun violence.

From the Oregon shooting... "Law enforcement officials have said they recovered 14 firearms and spare ammunition magazines.." That's what's wrong with it, but clearly that escapes you and many others, for whatever reason(s).

Uh, I'm gunna hafta go with what's behind curtain # 1 Alex. For someone to think that the number of guns available to a person is directly proportional to the threat that person is to society is as delusional a premise as I think I have ever heard.

That would mean that this guy....

th



.is twice as dangerous as this guy...

th


[video]http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEV7wOsBNWdgUAR3InnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzaGc4Nmk zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDRkZSQTA4XzEEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1444159630/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.youtube.com%2fwatch%3fv%3dXI76-D93xq4/RK=0/RS=9krMJaLA0z5P1evJ19c_fQrjaQA-[/video]

FyW0oL4.jpg
 
Last edited:
gunsnosa.jpg


Now, a clear correlation exists. When the numbers are crunched, they are highly statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Thus, when we consider countries that are similar to the United States, a strong correlation exists between the number of guns per capita and the gun-related homicide rate.


This is quoted out of this article:

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/the-correlation-between-guns-and-homicide-rate.html


Anyone that thinks there isn't a correlation between the number of guns floating around a civilized country (not in civil war) and their gun violence is beyond stupid. It's the only correlation that exists that holds up to scrutiny and rational analysis.

Even if you look at a state by state basis, if more guns exist in that state, than more crimes than normal INVOLVE a gun. I'm not saying guns increase or decrease crime. I'm not saying guns are the reason. But make no mistake about it, when crimes occur, if guns are more readily available, then people will use them to commit those crimes.

Again, I ask all gun owners who fully support the 2nd amendment to the Nth degree if there is any reasonable way you see to reduce the overall number of firearms in this country per capita that you wouldn't oppose based on the 2nd amendment?

Can it be done?

Because all this other blather every time this happens is meaningless.
 

Love the fine print at the bottom.....nice source.


And Hinckley just walked away, right? Pretty disingenuous example.

This isn't about gun regulation. It's about the sheer NUMBER of guns in existence in America.

There are 1 billion firearms in the world and 300 million are in the United States. Think about that for a second.

The question to ask any gun rights activist is "Can you propose a method of reducing the number of firearms on U.S. soil while maintaining your belief the Constitution is being followed?". My answer to that as a "gun rights activist (which is a false characterization of 2nd amendment supporters as the right(s) already exist....a better characterization would be "gun rights defenders") would be 'no....why would I want to'?That's the ONLY question we need to reach with debate that makes both sides happy. I don't want more gun restrictions. You obviously do by given premise of your first posit. I don't want to defy the Constitution. Again, yes, you do. I just want less guns out there in America because I KNOW less guns means less gun violence. You may believe that but you don't "know" it. If you did it would have to be proveable and you can't prove any such thing. No other bullshit correlation exists other than that. It's not drugs. It's not gun laws. It's not safety zones. It's not dealing with depression. Those are all cover ups to the real issue.

We just have WAY too many guns floating around our country. If we can approach gun owning Americans with this simple idea, there has to be a solution.

Unfortunately, I worry the "gun fight" has just been used by as a propaganda machine by gun manufacturers to encourage MORE gun ownership. And really it's not even more people owning guns. It's just gun owners own more guns now.

Again, your opinion and conjecture and very likely false. I personally know many more people who own and carry handguns now than 10-15 years ago
.

I don't have a solution to the issue other than to just let it keep going the way it's going and hope it's not my community to hit next.

I "hope" you never find yourself in a situation where you need a gun and find yourself having to "hope" someone nearby does.

When I was growing up in rural arkansas, we had several guns in the house. Leaning against the wall near easy access to ammo. During hunting season, kids would drive to school with their guns in their cars so they could go hunting after school without going home first.

I can't remember one incident of gun violence related to any of those guns.


"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear language.

Grew up in a Pgh. suburb but did the same......it wasn't a long drive to hunt.

Just out of curiosity, what other specific part of the Consitution do you walk around with printed on your t-shirt in big, bold, black letters? You guys take that 2nd amendment to heart, like there's no tomorrow. Anything else out there of interest beyond having the right to arm ourselves to the teeth?

They are all equally important.....this happens to be the one most often and currently under attack. Also kinda what the thread's about.

From the Oregon shooting... "Law enforcement officials have said they recovered 14 firearms and spare ammunition magazines.." That's what's wrong with it, but clearly that escapes you and many others, for whatever reason(s).

What? You need to clarify. I still don't know what's wrong with it?

Absolutely, that's not even a question. Why would big, urban cities be exempt? It would be the first place to start rounding up illicit firearms. If that means going to war with the inner city gangbangers, have at it. No, what the cited proposal means, and what you are evidently okay with or overlooking is a house to house warrantless search. That war's been going on for 3-4 decades. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to round up guns from inner city gangs? Been murdering each other with uzis, ak47's, glocks, shotguns, what have you. Why not start there?

And where do you stop? Simple. All law abiding, responsible, sane citizens can keep their guns. Distinguish yourselves from the wackadoos, terrorists & gang bangers, you can have all the guns on the planet, including bazookas and ballistic missiles. Why would that be asking too much, from law abiding citizens?
 
Just out of curiosity, what other specific part of the Consitution do you walk around with printed on your t-shirt in big, bold, black letters? You guys take that 2nd amendment to heart, like there's no tomorrow. Anything else out there of interest beyond having the right to arm ourselves to the teeth?

You say that like believing in and honoring the Constitutional is reprehensible...which is reprehensible.
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, what other specific part of the Consitution do you walk around with printed on your t-shirt in big, bold, black letters? You guys take that 2nd amendment to heart, like there's no tomorrow. Anything else out there of interest beyond having the right to arm ourselves to the teeth?

Well, I'd say all of the Bill of Rights is pretty important. I'd expect they may have been put in the order they are for a reason, although I think the 1st and 2nd could be reversed with no change in the meaning. The rest are only protected by the first two.

Due to the interwebs and other technology, I think the gubmint would have a great deal of trouble shutting down the 1st amendment. They can try (and I believe do) through intermediaries.

Due to the number of guns, I think they would have trouble confiscating those, so the 2nd amendment should be pretty safe. If they cant deport 11 million illegals how are they going to confiscate 300m guns? Again, they try and this one is under assault on an almost daily basis. In fact, Congress and local governments seem to have a great deal of trouble with "shall not be infringed". Use of language like "common sense gun laws" is double speak for various forms of infringement.

#3 Quartering of soldiers. #1 and #2 help protect this one. Sure, my little 9mm, if I hadn't lost it in that tragic everglades accident, won't stop armed soldiers from coming into my home, but it makes sure that they have to bring an armed assault team to do so, which neighbors will see, and bring #1 into focus and use. Maybe no one would give a ****. Although not a 3rd amendment issue, see MOVE in Philadelphia or Waco for what can be done by the government without many people seeming to care much. I think the 2nd amendment ensures that anything like this has to be committed out in the open rather than undercover of darkness.

#4 Another under daily assault, but in a technological method that we cannot defend via normal means and can only use #1 to try to break.

All of the others are only protected by the first two amendments. Nothing else would protect those. Again this is why I think the order of those amendments is important and that "shall not be infringed" was intentional.
 
gunsnosa.jpg


Now, a clear correlation exists. When the numbers are crunched, they are highly statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Thus, when we consider countries that are similar to the United States, a strong correlation exists between the number of guns per capita and the gun-related homicide rate.


This is quoted out of this article:

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/the-correlation-between-guns-and-homicide-rate.html


Anyone that thinks there isn't a correlation between the number of guns floating around a civilized country (not in civil war) and their gun violence is beyond stupid. It's the only correlation that exists that holds up to scrutiny and rational analysis.

Even if you look at a state by state basis, if more guns exist in that state, than more crimes than normal INVOLVE a gun. I'm not saying guns increase or decrease crime. I'm not saying guns are the reason. But make no mistake about it, when crimes occur, if guns are more readily available, then people will use them to commit those crimes.

Again, I ask all gun owners who fully support the 2nd amendment to the Nth degree if there is any reasonable way you see to reduce the overall number of firearms in this country per capita that you wouldn't oppose based on the 2nd amendment?

Can it be done?

Because all this other blather every time this happens is meaningless.

VERY massaged numbers..........from your own article;

As shown, when considered from a global perspective, there is no correlation between the number of guns per capita in a country and the number of firearm-related homicides. Note that the United States has, by far, the most number of guns per capita, at 89 per 100, but a homicide by firearm rate of only 3 per 100,000. Compare that to Honduras, which has only 6.2 guns per 100 people but a sky-high homicide by firearm rate of 68 per 100,000.

And from a link within the article used to "bolster" the article;

If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state. There were 77 firearms murders in DC in 2010, down 22% on 2009

DC with the strictest gun laws in the country.
 
Indy are you 12-13 years old? If so, my apologies, above all to your parents. I had no idea. Would never have picked on you had I known your age. Very brave and thoughtful for such a young man, to post on a messageboard like this. Keep reading and posting, but remember, there's nothing better than getting some fresh air and riding your bicycle around. Stay safe and get back home by sundown!

Yep. Only people older than 12-13 say things like "Look, it's Vagina Man himself, coming up for air."
 
Absolutely, that's not even a question. Why would big, urban cities be exempt? It would be the first place to start rounding up illicit firearms. If that means going to war with the inner city gangbangers, have at it. That war's been going on for 3-4 decades. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to round up guns from inner city gangs? Been murdering each other with uzis, ak47's, glocks, shotguns, what have you. Why not start there?

And where do you stop? Simple. All law abiding, responsible, sane citizens can keep their guns. Distinguish yourselves from the wackadoos, terrorists & gang bangers, you can have all the guns on the planet, including bazookas and ballistic missiles. Why would that be asking too much, from law abiding citizens?

The problem is that the gubmint gets to define "terrorist". They don't want to use the word for Muslim Extremist, though. Weird.
 
gunsnosa.jpg


Now, a clear correlation exists. When the numbers are crunched, they are highly statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Thus, when we consider countries that are similar to the United States, a strong correlation exists between the number of guns per capita and the gun-related homicide rate.


This is quoted out of this article:

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/the-correlation-between-guns-and-homicide-rate.html


Anyone that thinks there isn't a correlation between the number of guns floating around a civilized country (not in civil war) and their gun violence is beyond stupid. It's the only correlation that exists that holds up to scrutiny and rational analysis.

Even if you look at a state by state basis, if more guns exist in that state, than more crimes than normal INVOLVE a gun. I'm not saying guns increase or decrease crime. I'm not saying guns are the reason. But make no mistake about it, when crimes occur, if guns are more readily available, then people will use them to commit those crimes.

Again, I ask all gun owners who fully support the 2nd amendment to the Nth degree if there is any reasonable way you see to reduce the overall number of firearms in this country per capita that you wouldn't oppose based on the 2nd amendment?

Can it be done?

Because all this other blather every time this happens is meaningless.

Yeah, I know statistics and I know what they mean. Do you have a fancy chart and statistic for illegals vs. legal guns and firearm homicides? If you don't, the statistic is worthless. I mean, I guess you could make the case that if we confiscated all guns, the criminals would not longer have them, but that seems silly when they would get guns just as easily as they get drugs.

Also, firearm deaths are not more important to me than beating deaths, violent rapes or any other murders or violent attempted murders.

Again, shot or beaten to death by a baseball bat unable to defend myself? Worse, having wife and kids beaten by a baseball bat while I cannot defend them? Easy choice, I vote for keeping "shall not be infringed" in force
 
The problem is that the gubmint gets to define "terrorist". They don't want to use the word for Muslim Extremist, though. Weird.

And now we start seeing why we honor the Constitution as the end-all, be-all. All one needs do is look at Fort Hood. Bammy can't use the word "terrorist" in his language. He won't call terrorism "terrorism." It's "workplace violence." A muzzie walks into his former place of employment in OK and beheads people, it's "workplace violence."

Tibs and Libs (I like that) want to bypass the Constitution, and slap labels on people. "All law abiding citizens..." How do you get there? How do you define that in a way that can't be misinterpreted and politicized? In Bammy's world, radical Islamists are law-abiding citizens. Lotta people will have a problem with them having guns. Then you'd have people not being able to have guns due to technicalities, like speeding tickets, perhaps.

Ark's right. You cannot trust the Government to enforce a narrower, selective view of this Amendment.
 
* It's a trick question. The answer is, if the Federal government expects me to play by the rules, they can damn well play by the same rules. Otherwise, **** 'em.

Hence, the 2nd Amendment. It is like some one could see this coming. N'at.
 
VERY massaged numbers..........from your own article;

As shown, when considered from a global perspective, there is no correlation between the number of guns per capita in a country and the number of firearm-related homicides. Note that the United States has, by far, the most number of guns per capita, at 89 per 100, but a homicide by firearm rate of only 3 per 100,000. Compare that to Honduras, which has only 6.2 guns per 100 people but a sky-high homicide by firearm rate of 68 per 100,000.

And from a link within the article used to "bolster" the article;

If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 12 firearms murders per 100,000 men, women and children in the state. There were 77 firearms murders in DC in 2010, down 22% on 2009

DC with the strictest gun laws in the country.

I hadn't noticed, but the R-squared number will (usually) range from 0-1. An R-squared of 1 relates to perfect correlation (but not, necessarily causation!) where as 0 indicates no correlation. I don't think an R-squared of 0.5 shows much distinct correlation, but I have forgotten a lot about specifics for testing. Either way, correlation <> causation.
 
Hey guys, here's a rock solid proposal I'm sure you'll all join me in supporting. Click here to sign the petition. Act now, don't get left out!
http://act.everytown.org/sign/obama..._&utm_medium=_b&utm_campaign=ExecutiveActions

Sign the petition to President Obama to tell him you support him in taking executive action to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

Dear Mr. President,

88 Americans are killed by gun violence every day in this country, with hundreds more injured

We know you are open to addressing this issue without Congress, and we therefore encourage you to consider the five following actions your administration can take without Congressional approval:

1. Remove exemptions that let dangerous people carry guns near our children's schools
2. Make sure high-volume gun sellers become licensed dealers and are required to conduct background checks for all gun sales.
3. Ensure that federal law enforcement notifies local law enforcement when dangerous criminals try to illegally buy guns at dealers in their community
4. Help states that require background checks for all gun sales to enforce existing laws on the books
5. Don't let convicted domestic abusers buy guns just because they're not married to the person they abused

You can learn more about these important measures here: http://every.tw/1VyIDWj

Thank you for speaking so passionately about this issue and for your dedication to saving lives by strengthening our nation's gun laws.
 
I see the Constitution as the sole source of protection FROM the Federal governmnent.

They are one in the same, Tibs. The Constitution protects me from the Federal government by specifically restricting the Federal government's power over me.

How does the Constitution limit the Federal government's power over me? By specifically delineating actions that the Federal government (and by Supreme Court edict, extended to state and local governments as well) CANNOT take against me. The 2nd amendment is one such right, very clearly delineated - "the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

If you wish to amend the Constitution to change that law, so be it. But you cannot simply pretend the law does not exist, any more than I can pretend that the government's laws about paying taxes don't exist. It is a two-way street, Tibs. I can be expected to live up to my end only because Federal, state and local governments live up to theirs.
 
Anyone that thinks there isn't a correlation between the number of guns floating around a civilized country (not in civil war) and their gun violence is beyond stupid. It's the only correlation that exists that holds up to scrutiny and rational analysis.

Two points.

(1) Correlation does NOT imply causation. To wit:

correlation-does-not-imply-causation.png


6a00d8341c4eab53ef01a3fd10d66b970b-640wi


(2) The 2nd amendment. Do I care that somebody hates the 2nd amendment and wants all guns out of private hands? No, I don't. I really don't. A person's own opinion on gun ownership does not and cannot override the Constitution. The 2nd amendment is not advisory or suggestive; it is the law. Can you imagine the reaction if government passed laws restricting the 1st amendment as frequently and as cavalierly as they did the 2nd amendment?
 
1. Remove exemptions that let dangerous people carry guns near our children's schools

I know, let's pass a law that makes shooting children in schools illegal! Problem solved!
 
Hey guys, here's a rock solid proposal I'm sure you'll all join me in supporting. Click here to sign the petition. Act now, don't get left out!
http://act.everytown.org/sign/obama..._&utm_medium=_b&utm_campaign=ExecutiveActions

Sign the petition to President Obama to tell him you support him in taking executive action to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

Dear Mr. President,

88 Americans are killed by gun violence every day in this country, with hundreds more injured

We know you are open to addressing this issue without Congress, and we therefore encourage you to consider the five following actions your administration can take without Congressional approval:

1. Remove exemptions that let dangerous people carry guns near our children's schools
2. Make sure high-volume gun sellers become licensed dealers and are required to conduct background checks for all gun sales.
3. Ensure that federal law enforcement notifies local law enforcement when dangerous criminals try to illegally buy guns at dealers in their community
4. Help states that require background checks for all gun sales to enforce existing laws on the books
5. Don't let convicted domestic abusers buy guns just because they're not married to the person they abused

You can learn more about these important measures here: http://every.tw/1VyIDWj

Thank you for speaking so passionately about this issue and for your dedication to saving lives by strengthening our nation's gun laws.

1. it is illegal for me to pick up my kids at school if I have a gun with me, if I have to go on school grounds. Not even if my gun is unloaded in a locked container in the trunk. (PS this might have recently changed). My guess is that "dangerous people", probably won't pass the background check and would, already, be breaking the law...

2. I'd expect that most "high volume gun sellers" are FFL dealers and conduct background checks. One thing you have to sign when you buy a gun is that you are buying it for yourself. If you buy a bunch of guns making that statement and sell them pretty quickly, I'm pretty sure you are violating an existing law.

3. OK by me. Lets add that Federal LEO should also assist the State/Local LEO's in enforcing other laws rather than hinder such. You know, like illegal immigration, for instance....

4. Not sure why states need big brother to help. They need Big Brother to stay out of the way.

5. OK, but depends on the conviction, shouldn't it? Was it 20 years ago and the person is different now? What about reformed people who are not felons?

6. **** The Big O. He spouts bullshit without solving any actual problems.
 
6. **** The Big O. He spouts bullshit without solving any actual problems.
LOL, the two-terms have been weighing on you guys. Only another year to go, hold on tight. I know the feeling. I remember the tail end of George W's presidency, it was like pulling teeth, excruciating.
 
LOL, the two-terms have been weighing on you guys. Only another year to go, hold on tight. I know the feeling. I remember the tail end of George W's presidency, it was like pulling teeth, excruciating.

Our long national nightmare is nearly over but we will need a President with the stones to overturn a lot of Bomma's regulations and executive orders and extend a middle finger to everyone who calls them racists for doing so. Which leaves Trump and Cruz.
"You're destroying the legacy of the First Black President!"
"**** His legacy. It's a bad legacy.''
Be good times.
 
Top