And you're against that?
The Right To Bear Arms
Speaking about guns and flamethrowers, is there such as thing as a Black Rhino bullet? I read about such a thing in a war novel and wondered if it existed.
Haha never satisfied are you? Even when there are clearly footnotes that tell you the exact, unbiased, source.
And, no, black rhino ammo isn't real.
The site he linked is called "gunowners.org". Is Ahnk REALLY supposed to be satisfied with that??
Considering the footnotes in their report are listed in full and even taken in part from democratic party research in points, yes he should.
It’s the put-up or shut-up method - if you can't put-up evidence that the source is inaccurate, shut-up and accept it.
Yeah okay, then why are republican outfits still attacking Farenheit 9/11? SURELY ALL THOSE PRETTY FOOTNOTES PROVE HE IS THE JESUS.
No. It's called selective memory, it works with statistics gathering too.
Here's a few interesting facts I found in my research.
In 1997, there 2,579 homicides in California. In California, Blacks were the victims of homicide 26.6%. Hispanics, a whopping 45.1%. White people were 21.4%. Of the victims, they were only strangers 35% of the time. 50.5% time they were an aquantince. An intersting note is that of people killed in their homes, the numbers are quite different. Whites were victims 47.7% of the time, compared to respective numbers of 22.2 and 25.7% for hispanics and blacks. No doubt that right wing institutions are getting us to buy guns, WHITE PEOPLE ARE DYING! MY GAWD! MY GAWD! When broken down by the weapon used in the crime in homicides in California, here's a shocker now, 72.3 percent of the time, it was a firearm. The closest competitor is knife, used in 12.1% of the crimes. In California in 1997, 11.1% of crimes were commited during a rape, burglary, or home invasion. 25.2% were gang related. All other, which encompasses justifiable homicide, should have reported an overwhelming number. The final tally? 13.1 percent. More then drug related cases (not linked to gangs) and more then home invasions by a burgler. But the dominant reason for homicide, clocking in at a whopping 43.1%, was arguement. Arguement, by rich white people with guns, turns tragic. But guns save lives! Think that rich white people comment was unfair? Proportionatly, more white people died as a result of arguement (58.2%) then blacks and hispanics, clocking in at 39.9 and 37.9%, respectively. Compare that to the paltry rate of 3.4% of white people killed in a gang related incident. Or the less then ten percent of white people killed in rapes or bulglaries, or the less then 20% of white people killed in all other situations. The numbers for rape, bulglary, and justifiable homicide are even lower for blacks and hispanics. UNFORTUNATLY, my research into justifiable homicide falls short as there is no percentage of law enforcement officer or private citizen commiting the act. Why, exactly, I dunno. But they break it down by the usual suspects. It was the black guy in your home, with the gun!!! Actually, the truth is in justifiable homicides by police officers, it is the white guy (44.9%) in the street (63.6%) for directly assaulting the officer (a slack jaw enducing 79.7%). Compare that to justfiable homocide by private citizen, and the numbers come up much, much different. According to the private citizen, he was a dark guy (only 20% were white), it was in his home (37.8%), and he was robbing him! GOD MAN SAVE YOUR FAMILY! SAVE YOUR FRIENDS! SAVE YOUR FUCKING LAZYBOY! (suprise suprise, 82.2% of justifiable homicides commited by the private citizen was while the victim was commiting a "crime"). These numbers are entirely dubious. It all smacks of a little bullshit... why would the police not kill people during crimes, why? Because police officers are trained to use a gun to defuse a situation first. Civilians are often not trained on situation, only mechanics of the weapon. More then that, one wonders why if some of those justifiable homicides were actually murders... it's happened before. Since it isn't broken down by crime, we can't see the numbers that prevented, say, a rape then those that were merely shot for breaking a window. The prodominant stat that sticks out to me is that white people are dying. Thus, I am not suprised to see prodiminently black outlets like GunOwners.org letting people know that white people have guns, and will kill people. So please don't break into that house Mr. Black Man.
http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/homicide/homi97/homi97.pdf
This is straight from the government. And don't say they have some whacko lobby in plan since they admit that the homicide rate is falling.
As much as I enjoy this debate, it's clear that you two are insane and will continue to kill people who open your door. Thus, I decline an invitation, presented or not, to continue this debate.
To Kas: You're insane too. It's no wonder you love these guys.
For those of you who don't want to go sifting through the url Ahnk provided to find the site instead of the .pdf, here.
That being said, your research only covers California. Personally I'm not exactly sure that's a very good state to make an example of. I've lived there most of my life (in four different cities), and I can say without a doubt that out of all the places I've lived, my time in Cali was one long instance of WTF.
That statement right there shows me you didn't read hardly a lick of what I wrote in my last 5-6 posts. If providing intelligent conversation as well as common sense and sound reasoning to defend a stance on something is your definition of insane, then I really don't know what else to say. I've been polite, I've [hopefully] been clear in everything I explained, and even after being flamed I never once retaliated with anything other than logical rebuttals and replies.
That being said, your research only covers California. Personally I'm not exactly sure that's a very good state to make an example of. I've lived there most of my life (in four different cities), and I can say without a doubt that out of all the places I've lived, my time in Cali was one long instance of WTF.
That statement right there shows me you didn't read hardly a lick of what I wrote in my last 5-6 posts. If providing intelligent conversation as well as common sense and sound reasoning to defend a stance on something is your definition of insane, then I really don't know what else to say. I've been polite, I've [hopefully] been clear in everything I explained, and even after being flamed I never once retaliated with anything other than logical rebuttals and replies.
You're defending a guy who made a flamethrower and labelling it common sense.
Rediculous.
Rediculous.
Spellcheck.