SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[The Black Forrest]

It's mostly just snark.

It's immature and stupid.

Sooo? “Gun grabbers” isn’t?

[Telconi]

It's immature and stupid.

Sooo? “Gun grabbers” isn’t?

No.

[Gun Manufacturers]

NRA members are also most likely secretely racist. What kind a person would be in the NRA? A straight white right wing male

Oops.

OT, but I like the hat. I just prefer it in the standard blue and white.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

Your "minority" is 43% of American households. I have to say that is almost have of American households, and I know for a fact half of America is not dead.

Your sources have been biased. Your own sources say crime decreased after gun ownership increased. "City officials tout that a year after the law was implemented, burglaries in Kennesaw dropped by more than half; by 1985 they were down by 80 percent." And the minute you take guns away from law-abiding citizens, is the minute the bad guys with illegal guns will take advantage. If you ban guns, only bad guys will have guns. Short of a wall, which you most likely oppose, guns will flow though this country like never before.

Saying that people should have guns because people are not infallible? Is this a joke? I hate violence as much as the next guy, but at the least I am real. Are you saying we should not have an armed police force because they are not infallible? That we should have an unarmed military because they are not infallible. Yes they make human mistakes, but they are all needed to protect this great country. It is crazy to suggest that. Cause if America did that, Russia and China surely wouldn't follow suit. I wish for would peace too, but be real, that isn't the truth in present day. We as a people do what we need to defend ourselves.

Your own source once again refutes some of your claims. By your own logic, that 4 people are killed per one person having a gun, the population of America should be around -222,496,000. And there is no way for a population to go into the negatives, so that is bullshit.

You point out uprisings where there was no violation of those people's rights. The government preserves people's rights though order, and there is no need for violence. But you are quite wrong however, ever heard of the Civil War?

Yeah you try to undermine America's victory - not cool. We fought the greater portion of the war WITHOUT French support. And you point to Spain and Germany. Sure Spain was an enemy of England, but Germany was fucking sending mercenaries to fight the colonist so learn your history. You are disrespecting every man, woman, and child who died bravely in the Revolutionary War, and all the wars protecting YOUR RIGHTS since. It is shameful you would say such a thing. You are disrespecting our troops who give their lives so you can shit on their name.

You talking about WWI has no relevance. I was saying remember why we aren't a British colony right now. They tried to take our weapons, and we fought back.

I mean, if you hate America so much, like you don't have to stay here. Simple as that. Japan is very strict in gun laws, you could go there, where even your kitchen knifes are border line illegal.

Ah yes, the old "if you don't like it, leave" with a dash of WHY YOU HATE DA TROOPS. If anything you're disrespecting them because they gave their lives so people have the freedom to say things like that.

I'm not disrespecting the troops. He is undermining their victory and and they did not sacrifice their lives for people to disrespect them. They fight to protect our rights from people like you who want to take away the Second Amendment. If anything, my ancestors have served this country's great military even when they were fighting against their own people, against their own family.

[The Black Forrest]

Sooo? “Gun grabbers” isn’t?

No.

[The Black Forrest]

Yeah the whole "People only like human rights so they can get off to them" is a fun little line of thought.

ugh fucking free speech fetishists why do they want to be able to say things without extensive government oversight

When “free speech fetishists” start having multiple mass shootings per week; give me a call.

[Telconi]

ugh fucking free speech fetishists why do they want to be able to say things without extensive government oversight

When “free speech fetishists” start having multiple mass shootings per week; give me a call.

Ooh, what about them Qur'an fetishists who killed 3,000 people in New York. Can we go confiscate all their religious paraphernalia? Does it make it okay if we make it a "Mandatory Buyback"

[The Black Forrest]

When “free speech fetishists” start having multiple mass shootings per week; give me a call.

Ooh, what about them Qur'an fetishists who killed 3,000 people in New York. Can we go confiscate all their religious paraphernalia? Does it make it okay if we make it a "Mandatory Buyback"

Hmmm? I suspect buying a gun is a bit easier then taking over plane.

I understand your frustration. More and more regulations happening. There was a time nobody would consider officially calling the NRA a terrorist organization.

People are tiring of the mass shootings.

[Galloism]

Ooh, what about them Qur'an fetishists who killed 3,000 people in New York. Can we go confiscate all their religious paraphernalia? Does it make it okay if we make it a "Mandatory Buyback"

Hmmm? I suspect buying a gun is a bit easier then taking over plane.

Probably not at the time.

[Fahran]

No.

It is at the very least not a snide insinuation of sexual attraction to inanimate objects.

[Fahran]

People are tiring of the mass shootings.

You mean progressives are becoming more extreme even as homicides decline, yes?

[Telconi]

Ooh, what about them Qur'an fetishists who killed 3,000 people in New York. Can we go confiscate all their religious paraphernalia? Does it make it okay if we make it a "Mandatory Buyback"

Hmmm? I suspect buying a gun is a bit easier then taking over plane.

I understand your frustration. More and more regulations happening. There was a time nobody would consider officially calling the NRA a terrorist organization.

People are tiring of the mass shootings.

Being tired isn't an excuse for being shit.

[Galloism]

People are tiring of the mass shootings.

You mean progressives are becoming more extreme even as homicides decline, yes?

I’ve noticed a paradox where the safest people tend to have the most fear.

Not sure why, but I’m starting to suspect our brain wasn’t designed in such a manner as to cope with a generally non-threatening environment.

[TENNOHEIKA BANZAI NIHON]

Ooh, what about them Qur'an fetishists who killed 3,000 people in New York. Can we go confiscate all their religious paraphernalia? Does it make it okay if we make it a "Mandatory Buyback"

Hmmm? I suspect buying a gun is a bit easier then taking over plane.

I understand your frustration. More and more regulations happening. There was a time nobody would consider officially calling the NRA a terrorist organization.

People are tiring of the mass shootings.

It isn't the gun, it is the person using the gun. We need more mental health and background checks. For example in 9/11 not a single gun was fired let look at the devastation.

[Fahran]

You mean progressives are becoming more extreme even as homicides decline, yes?

I’ve noticed a paradox where the safest people tend to have the most fear.

Not sure why, but I’m starting to suspect our brain wasn’t designed in such a manner as to cope with a generally non-threatening environment.

It doesn't help that the media is thriving on negativity. I suppose without the commies we need a new villain or rallying point.

[Telconi]

I’ve noticed a paradox where the safest people tend to have the most fear.

Not sure why, but I’m starting to suspect our brain wasn’t designed in such a manner as to cope with a generally non-threatening environment.

It doesn't help that the media is thriving on negativity. I suppose without the commies we need a new villain or rallying point.

But we could maybe not pick each other.

[The Black Forrest]

It is at the very least not a snide insinuation of sexual attraction to inanimate objects.

That is the crux of the problem. Problems will never get solved or a common ground found if snide comments are being thrown back and forth.

[Telconi]

It is at the very least not a snide insinuation of sexual attraction to inanimate objects.

That is the crux of the problem. Problems will never get solved or a common ground found if snide comments are being thrown back and forth.

This isn't really one of those issues.

[The Black Forrest]

That is the crux of the problem. Problems will never get solved or a common ground found if snide comments are being thrown back and forth.

This isn't really one of those issues.

I can understand why you would think this....

[Telconi]

This isn't really one of those issues.

I can understand why you would think this....

I honestly can't understand why you think otherwise. But ot is what it is

[Chernoslavia]

This isn't really one of those issues.

I can understand why you would think this....

He isn't wrong.

[Kowani]

Your "minority" is 43% of American households. I have to say that is almost have of American households, and I know for a fact half of America is not dead.

There’s a sizable difference between owning a gun and being in a household with one. Because you see, not only is 43% technically a minority, it also happens to be that the number of people who actually own guns is 30%.

Your sources have been biased.

Nice allegation with no proof.

Your own sources say crime decreased after gun ownership increased. "City officials tout that a year after the law was implemented, burglaries in Kennesaw dropped by more than half; by 1985 they were down by 80 percent."

Literally the next paragraph: “But while burglary numbers did drastically decline in Kennesaw after 1981, those statistics can be misleading. McDowall took a closer look at the numbers and noticed that 1981 was an anomaly—there were 75 percent more burglaries that year than there were, on average, in the previous five years. It is no surprise that the subsequent years looked great by comparison. McDowall studied before-and-after burglary numbers using 1978, 1979 or 1980 as starting points instead of 1981 and, as he reported in a 1989 paper, the purported crime drop disappeared. ”

And the minute you take guns away from law-abiding citizens, is the minute the bad guys with illegal guns will take advantage. If you ban guns, only bad guys will have guns.

You know what? No. At this point, you’re going to have to bring up some actual data, because I’m tired of arguing unsubstantiated points.

Short of a wall, which you most likely oppose, guns will flow though this country like never before.

Drugs flow through the entry points now. Guns wouldn’t be any different. Stop with the red herrings.

Saying that people should have guns because people are not infallible? Is this a joke? I hate violence as much as the next guy, but at the least I am real. Are you saying we should not have an armed police force because they are not infallible?

I mean, it definitely shouldn’t be as militarized as it is today.

That we should have an unarmed military because they are not infallible.

’You know what you should have? Less military.

Yes they make human mistakes, but they are all needed to protect this great country.

Best way to do that is economic interdependence, not military superiority.

It is crazy to suggest that. Cause if America did that, Russia and China surely wouldn't follow suit.

I don’t think you quite understand the current situation between the US and those countries.

I wish for would peace too, but be real, that isn't the truth in present day. We as a people do what we need to defend ourselves.

Except that a massively armed populace doesn’t contribute to that at all.

Your own source once again refutes some of your claims. By your own logic, that 4 people are killed per one person having a gun, the population of America should be around -222,496,000. And there is no way for a population to go into the negatives, so that is bullshit.

That’s not what it says… It says that for every 1 life saved by a gun, 4 innocent ones are lost. That is a very different claim.

You point out uprisings where there was no violation of those people's rights.

…Nat Turner was literally a slave.

The government preserves people's rights though order, and there is no need for violence. But you are quite wrong however, ever heard of the Civil War?

Yes. How’d that work out for the rebels?

Yeah you try to undermine America's victory - not cool. We fought the greater portion of the war WITHOUT French support.

Sigh. Let’s begin.
Military hostilities begin at Lexington and Concord, in 1775. Now, France had been covertly aiding the Americans before that, sending thousands of pounds of war supplies. France doesn’t officially enter the war until 1777, after Saratoga, but the Revolutionary War doesn’t end until 1783. So, yeah. You fought 2 years without open French support, 0 on your own, and the other 6 with.

And you point to Spain and Germany. Sure Spain was an enemy of England, but Germany was fucking sending mercenaries to fight the colonist so learn your history.

Baron Von Steuben trained literally your entire army. You don’t win without him.

You are disrespecting every man, woman, and child who died bravely in the Revolutionary War, and all the wars protecting YOUR RIGHTS since. It is shameful you would say such a thing. You are disrespecting our troops who give their lives so you can shit on their name.

No? I’m pointing out that they alone weren’t responsible for their success.

You talking about WWI has no relevance. I was saying remember why we aren't a British colony right now. They tried to take our weapons, and we fought back.

…How did you manage to miss the point that badly?

I mean, if you hate America so much, like you don't have to stay here. Simple as that. Japan is very strict in gun laws, you could go there, where even your kitchen knifes are border line illegal.

“If you hate slavery, just move to Massachusetts!”
-John Calhoun, probably.

[Kowani]

You can make tinfoil hat jokes all you like. You wouldn't trust a Christian science center. Neither do I, I just also tend to look at liberal academia with the same scepticism.

See, the thing is, they’re not directly comparable. There’s this thing, it’s called peer review. You should try learning about it.

The Stanford study is made by Donahue, who has a tendency to try to dress up liberal stances as science. Not an uncommon problem. I was talking about the second one. Where they use suicides by firearm as a standin for firearm ownership statistics.

“In this paper we exploit a new well-validated proxy for local gun-ownership prevalence -- the proportion of suicides that involve firearms -- together with newly available geo-coded data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, to produce the first systematic estimates of the net effects of gun prevalence on residential burglary patterns.”
It’s almost like there are multiple tools being used.

Done so. Well, chucked money to people who do so. Gun Advocacy groups are great.

I await your inevitable loss.

I'd almost say look it up yourself, but I feel like you would find some crackpot study claiming all crime is gun crime. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america gun crime makes up 7-8 Percent of gun crime.

Thank you. However, there’s a small problem with this data. See, they cite the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey, for the claim of 8%, but don’t actually link to it. The links provided within the article are circular. But somehow, every single other claim made actually has a working link. Funny how that works.

Linking entire studies is kinda shitty behavior. I'm not going to keep reading propaganda. Mark Duggan also seems to have that pesky issue where his entire career is lending scientific credibility to liberal stances.

Oh, I didn’t expect you to read it. My point was just that I have the data, and you don’t. Furthermore, that it is consistent data, across multiple studies.

This is a thing that happens. Get over thinking that just because it was published by a dude With a degree it's fact.

Good thing peer reviews exist, then.

No. The national debate is about rifles.

That’s great. I’m talking about guns.

. Most people, even liberals like owning guns.

30% of people and 15% of Democrats is not “most people.”

EDIT: Fixed URL tag.

[Telconi]

You can make tinfoil hat jokes all you like. You wouldn't trust a Christian science center. Neither do I, I just also tend to look at liberal academia with the same scepticism.

See, the thing is, they’re not directly comparable. There’s this thing, it’s called peer review. You should try learning about it.

The Stanford study is made by Donahue, who has a tendency to try to dress up liberal stances as science. Not an uncommon problem. I was talking about the second one. Where they use suicides by firearm as a standin for firearm ownership statistics.

“In this paper we exploit a new well-validated proxy for local gun-ownership prevalence -- the proportion of suicides that involve firearms -- together with newly available geo-coded data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, to produce the first systematic estimates of the net effects of gun prevalence on residential burglary patterns.”
It’s almost like there are multiple tools being used.

Done so. Well, chucked money to people who do so. Gun Advocacy groups are great.

I await your inevitable loss.

I'd almost say look it up yourself, but I feel like you would find some crackpot study claiming all crime is gun crime. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america gun crime makes up 7-8 Percent of gun crime.

Thank you. However, there’s a small problem with this data. See, they cite the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey, for the claim of 8%, but don’t actually link to it. The links provided within the article are circular. But somehow, every single other claim made actually has a working link. Funny how that works.

Linking entire studies is kinda shitty behavior. I'm not going to keep reading propaganda. Mark Duggan also seems to have that pesky issue where his entire career is lending scientific credibility to liberal stances.

Oh, I didn’t expect you to read it. My point was just that I have the data, and you don’t. Furthermore, that it is consistent data, across multiple studies.

This is a thing that happens. Get over thinking that just because it was published by a dude With a degree it's fact.

Good thing peer reviews exist, then.

No. The national debate is about rifles.

That’s great. I’m talking about guns.

. Most people, even liberals like owning guns.

30% of people and 15% of Democrats is not “most people.”

EDIT: Fixed URL tag.

It's possible to like something you yourself do not care to participate in, or cannot participate in right?

[Grinning Dragon]

I wouldn't put much stock in a gallup poll on firearm ownership, not many are going to answer in the affirmative that they own firearms as it really isn't of anyone's business, poll or not. In the past I've answered no or will give contradictory answers, I am sure I am not alone in doing so.