Started By
Message

re: Obama's CDC study on Firearms.

Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:47 pm to
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
76732 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:47 pm to
quote:

then


No, not "then."
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63232 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:48 pm to
quote:

You are, as you've shown again and again.
Posted by wickowick
Head of Island
Member since Dec 2006
46352 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:48 pm to
quote:

I'm not aware of any studies that have a rigorous state by state analysis of concelaed carry laws and the impact on self-defense. If you know of any, I'd love to read them!


If a study doesn't take that into account, isn't it worthless?
Posted by Vacherie Saint
Member since Aug 2015
47485 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:48 pm to
What a closed minded clown Bama is
Posted by civiltiger07
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2011
15062 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:48 pm to
quote:

You can't win a shootout with the cops. Stop believing that you could.


Did I say anything about winning a shoot out with cops?
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
76732 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:48 pm to
quote:

That idiocy was sig worthy indeed.


Watching her fall on her face about a vehicle registration point was maybe even better.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63232 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:49 pm to
quote:

I'm not aware of any studies that have a rigorous state by state analysis of concelaed carry laws and the impact on self-defense
Of course you aren’t.
Posted by Jbird
Shoot the tires out!
Member since Oct 2012
90256 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:50 pm to
quote:

Watching her fall on her face about a vehicle registration point was maybe even better.
Pepperidge farms vaguely members.
Posted by civiltiger07
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2011
15062 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:52 pm to
quote:

Ban on certain types of weapons overwhelmingly used in mass casualty events and little else - e.g. AR-15s


Hold on, you have said many times that you aren’t for gun bans?

When other posters bring up Homicide stats with rifles you dismiss them by saying you don’t want to focus on banning a firearm?! So which is it?
Posted by Vacherie Saint
Member since Aug 2015
47485 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:52 pm to
Pepperidge farm isn't metadata!!!
Posted by Jbird
Shoot the tires out!
Member since Oct 2012
90256 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:53 pm to
quote:

Pepperidge farm isn't metadata!!!
Or peer reviewed!
Posted by TenWheelsForJesus
Member since Jan 2018
11293 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:53 pm to


Why the push to ban guns when we are pretty close to the middle of the pack in Guns vs Gun Deaths? From the terribly designed chart, we are better than everyone but Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, Greece, and Chile. And that takes into consideration that approximately 80% (going by memory) of our gun deaths are from drug dealing gangbangers, you know, the people that don't buy their guns legally. According to your own graph, the number of gun deaths caused by legal gun owners is small enough to not warrant a need for new laws.
Posted by wickowick
Head of Island
Member since Dec 2006
46352 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:55 pm to
That includes suicides and justifiable homicides in that graph.
Posted by bfniii
Member since Nov 2005
17840 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:56 pm to
quote:

it contains features that no civilian needs in day to day life.
NOT....THE....POINT

also, you are proving my point for me. if "daily use" is being proposed as a differentiating factor, then objects that do have daily use purposes and have been used to kill means that the factor is useless which proves the point that the OBJECT DOESN'T KILL. you are addressing the effect, not the cause.
Posted by Robin Masters
Birmingham
Member since Jul 2010
35851 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:57 pm to
Interesting thread!

Wasn’t “full-auto” designed to be for suppression and not as a more efficient means to kill troops?
If this is true then the implied assumption that a full-auto military rifle being in a civilian shooting is gaining some advantage, intended strictly for the battlefield, is factually incorrect?
This post was edited on 3/6/18 at 9:58 pm
Posted by BamaAtl
South of North
Member since Dec 2009
22253 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:58 pm to
quote:

“Taking someone’s word” because of their position is the opposite of objectivity.


It's not taking someone's word, it's understanding that he's not speaking off the cuff and he's not making up numbers. But because you don't like his (valid) conclusions, you try to cast aspersions upon the whole institution.
Posted by bfniii
Member since Nov 2005
17840 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 9:59 pm to
quote:

You're more likely to be murdered by a firearm than a knife in the US
more "missing the forest because of the trees." first, knives are infinitely more common than guns. second, you are proving the point that the object is the effect. the cause is the human will to kill someone else. the more you use this absurd reasoning, the more you implicate yourself as a cat4 lib - totally irrational, possibly mentally ill
Posted by Jbird
Shoot the tires out!
Member since Oct 2012
90256 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:00 pm to
quote:

Wasn’t “full-auto” designed to be for suppression and not as a more efficient means to kill troops?
Yes.
Posted by civiltiger07
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2011
15062 posts
Posted on 3/6/18 at 10:01 pm to
quote:

Wasn’t “full-auto” designed to be for suppression and not as a more efficient means to kill troops?


I’m not sure about it being “designed” for that, but that is the common use for it. Military or law enforcement don’t flip their rifles into full-auto when they bust down a door. They are in semi-auto.
Jump to page
Page First 15 16 17 18 19 ... 58
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 17 of 58Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram