Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 188

Thread: Why You NEED Standard Capacity Magzines: Multiple Home Invaders

  1. -151
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by NY8123 View Post
    You missed my point. What you just said is my point exactly. The stats are manipulated to show what the author wants to purvey and when you break down Australia it shows exactly why comparison is wrong between the US and Australia but all the media and talking heads want to report is buy back = less deaths but in actually in the case of suicide the deaths by other means actually rose after the buy back. So people still off'ed themselves, just less did it with guns and in fact did it more frequently after the buy back.
    Again, suicides are tragic but, in my opinion, they should not be mentioned in any discussion about gun safety.

    The only guns stats relevant to this discussion should be gun-murders. Criminal-shooting-criminal statistics should not be included.


    When it comes to gun related deaths here's what I think is relevant (wording subject to change):

    - number of incidents of legally possessed firearms being used in a murder
    - number of accidental deaths caused by legally possessed firearms

    vs

    - number of incidents of people protecting themselves with a firearm.
    Last edited by GoFins!; 05-07-2013 at 03:24 PM.
    “I’m somewhat disappointed that more African Americans don’t think for themselves and just go with whatever they’re supposed to say and think."


    - Dr. Benjamin Carson
    Quote Quote  

  2. -152
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    11,773
    vCash:
    5793
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Here you go, GoFins. This link provides a bunch of the information in one place.

    http://cameronreilly.com/2012/12/17/guns-in-australia/
    The guy who runs this blog knows nothing about statistical relevance or downward trends. In fact his point in case the first graph shows a strong downward trend in gun related deaths before 1996 with 1996 (the buy back) being a flier. There are upward fliers (88, 96) and downward fliers (2004, 05) and the rest of the graph fits perfectly on a trend line with good certainty. The "huge drop" after 1996 (97) was actually an increase when compared to 93,94 & 95.

    The problem that any group has whether pro gun or not when comparing Australia to the US is exactly what the report I cited shows, the relative numbers in Australia where so low to begin with that the error bars in the data are outside the range which kills the statistical relevance. The US is two orders of magnitude higher in terms of gun homicide so comparing the numbers is extremely difficult and a huge stretch, which ever way you want to go with it.
    Last edited by NY8123; 05-08-2013 at 08:29 AM.
    "I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally" ~ W.C. Fields

    Quote Quote  

  3. -153
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    11,773
    vCash:
    5793
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by GoFins! View Post
    Again, suicides are tragic but, in my opinion, they should not be mentioned in any discussion about gun safety.

    The only guns stats relevant to this discussion should be gun-murders, and criminal-shooting-criminal statistics should not be included.

    When it comes to gun related deaths here's what I think is relevant (wording subject to change):
    the number of incidents of people with clean records committing gun murders vs the number of incidents of people protecting themselves with a gun.
    and that plays into reporting methods which is why comparing country to country is so difficult and at times wrong. Some countries include suicide in the "murder rate" as they view it as self murder some do not.

    Suicide should be excluded in all discussions. End of story but it isn't.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -154
    AFCMiamiEast's Avatar
    Who pissed in your kool aide?

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2012
    Posts:
    1,686
    vCash:
    1595
    Loc:
    Delray Beach, Florida
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Tannehill 171972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    So you post a quote to support your argument that somebody apparently made up and attributed to Thomas Jefferson like six years ago and I'm the one with no credibility. LOL!

    I like how you think the murder rate in countries like Venezuela, Brazil and ****ing Zimbabwe are tremendously relevant to the conversation, though. Hell of a trump card. No way are there, you know, fairly significant variables to why the murder rates in those countries are the way they are.
    I know you will love this one:

    "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Ben Franklin
    Keep using personal blogs off of Google to help (using that term VERY loosely) your argument, I'll stick with history brother.



    "Sometimes when I close my eyes, I can't see."
    Quote Quote  

  5. -155
    SpurzN703's Avatar
    I like your style Dude

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    26,762
    vCash:
    8016
    Loc:
    703 Virginia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91Tannehill 172013 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by AFCMiamiEast View Post
    Who would have thought that firearms could ever serve a purpose in protection? It's irrational, I know.
    Not much more rational than either scenario I mentioned.



    Quote Quote  

  6. -156
    Spesh's Avatar
    Fat Kid

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    7,873
    vCash:
    3346
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by AFCMiamiEast View Post
    I know you will love this one:



    Keep using personal blogs off of Google to help (using that term VERY loosely) your argument, I'll stick with history brother.
    I prefer this quote:

    A witty saying proves nothing.
    Voltaire
    And of course your like history. Except when it gets in your way. Like how our Founding Fathers slaughtered native americans, stole land, engaged in slavery, labeled political opponents as traitors, dueled to settle policy issues, and supported castration. But hey, the new history books dont mention that stuff, i wonder why:

    After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/ed...n/13texas.html
    "I'm not here to be a distraction," Pouncey said.
    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10...ogical-testing
    Quote Quote  

  7. -157
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,298
    vCash:
    30656
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by AFCMiamiEast View Post
    I can go on and on, did you not participate in any American history classes? It's beyond me how you are completely naive to our founding father's main focus of interest:
    Not that it particularly matters but I was an AP History student in high school and achieved the highest possible score on the AP History exam.

    Quote Originally Posted by AFCMiamiEast View Post
    As previously stated, anyone who was worth a damn in our history books, disagrees with you. I would confidently say that the men who built one of, if not the greatest empire in human history, are probably more philosophically advanced than you.
    What is it with these history books you're reading? First they have made up quotes from Thomas Jefferson and now we're an empire? Jeez. No wonder you're so mixed up.

    As for the quotes you posted, I have no trouble believing that at least some of the founding fathers believed in an absolute right to bear arms, no matter the context. But look at the Patrick Henry quote you're citing here. It clearly supports my interpretation of the 2nd amendment rather than yours. Henry was agitating against having a standing army and thought the security of the state should be left in the hands of local militias. This was the common mindset of late 18th America, imo. It's why a permanent standing army wouldn't be established until the next century. This "consensus" you're trying to find on the meaning of the 2nd amendment in 1791 just doesn't exist.

    In any case, there is nothing in the Constitution that says I have to or even should interpret it according to the mindset of the people who wrote it. The law, as Thomas Jefferson said, is for the living rather than the dead.

    ---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by GoFins! View Post
    Thank you.

    One would think this would be big news in Australia. The only links I've seen are apparently to fake news reports.

    I have no dog in this fight. It's interesting to see both sides of the story.

    By the way, do you realize that if anyone else used a personal blog as a source you'd respond with a facepalm? I choose not to dismiss your source outright on that basis though.
    That's fair criticism. I prefer not to post from personal blogs but it was the most comprehensive source of information I could find.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -158
    SpurzN703's Avatar
    I like your style Dude

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    26,762
    vCash:
    8016
    Loc:
    703 Virginia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91Tannehill 172013 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by AFCMiamiEast View Post
    As previously stated, anyone who was worth a damn in our history books, disagrees with you. I would confidently say that the men who built one of, if not the greatest empire in human history, are probably more philosophically advanced than you.
    Hmm. Muskets and cannons vs. drones, machine guns, Terminators walking around, bombs, hijackings, nukes, etc.

    Same threats back then and up into now right?
    Quote Quote  

  9. -159
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    8,298
    vCash:
    30656
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by NY8123 View Post
    The guy who runs this blog knows nothing about statistical relevance or downward trends. In fact his point in case the first graph shows a strong downward trend in gun related deaths with 1996 (the buy back). There are upward fliers (88, 96) and downward fliers (2004, 05) and the rest of the graph fits perfectly on a trend line with good certainty. The "huge drop" after 1996 (97) was actually an increase when compared to 93,95 & 95.

    The problem that any group has whether pro gun or not with comparing Australia to the US is exactly what the report I cited shows, the relative numbers in Australia where so low to begin with that the error bars in the data are outside the range which kills the statistical relevance. The US is two orders of magnitude higher in terms of gun homicide so comparing the numbers is extremely difficult and a huge stretch, which ever way you want to go with it.
    It's not a perfect comparison, I agree. But it's the best one we have.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -160
    GoFins!'s Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Feb 2008
    Posts:
    492
    vCash:
    1096
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by PhinzN703 View Post
    Hmm. Muskets and cannons vs. drones, machine guns, Terminators walking around, bombs, hijackings, nukes, etc.

    Same threats back then and up into now right?
    Why isn't this line of this "thinking" ever applied to other Rights outlined in our Constitution and it's Amendments?
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-05-2013, 11:20 AM
  2. Saudis signal boost in production capacity
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-21-2008, 09:42 PM
  3. Iran Doubles Nuke Enrichment Capacity
    By WharfRat in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-28-2006, 03:34 PM
  4. Again with the double standard
    By PhinPhan1227 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-28-2006, 02:16 PM
  5. Double standard
    By 67Stang in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-30-2004, 01:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •