Mass Killer bought his rifles legally.

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
And the 2nd never mentioned any such thing as rising up against any government .
Sure it does

" The security of a free state"

When government restricts our freedoms it is no longer legitimate and must be opposed.

The founding fathers saw no need to put that language in the Constitution since they all knew why they had just rebelled against the government of Great Britain that had become illegitimate and tyrannical.
 

eider

Well-known member
You need to learn some history about my country. Otherwise you are just talking out your butt.
Which means that you could not produce anything from your Constitution to support your claims.

The day that you and some minority ruse up against your government, then you will be riding up against the country, which Constitution points out is its people, all of them.

Maybe that's why the people will need a gun for defence?
 

Right Divider

Body part
Which means that you could not produce anything from your Constitution to support your claims.
The Constitution is based on principles that are not in the Constitution.
That you have no clue what those principles are is clear.
The day that you and some minority ruse up against your government, then you will be riding up against the country, which Constitution points out is its people, all of them.
🤪
Maybe that's why the people will need a gun for defence?
Guns are an excellent form of self-defense.
 
Last edited:

eider

Well-known member
Hanson is one of the most intelligent people you could hope to listen to.

At no point did Mr Hanson suggest any kind of uprising or civil war is about to happen

At the end of the interview he recommended:-
..... 'do no harm' ......... 'don't bait each other'........ 'find commonality'...... 'don't shout down speakers'........ 'don't harass'......

My best precis:- ...... he wanted communication between the large 'blue' population and the large 'red' map....... interesting. His definitions.

He made a point of saying .....'its unnececessary to call folks idiots'.

He was sad about the antifa and blm rallies but didn't really enlarge.
 

Lon

Well-known member
You can't read.
Uneducated. Illiterate?
I wrote '''IF'''' that's what you think.
🤔
So you missed my point.
But I got yours.
You think that mentally ill folks should have the right to buy rifles, pistols, grenade launchers, shoulder fire missiles etc.
So in English, the second:
If that's what you think, then that's what you think.
Would be a proposition about your assessment of what he thinks, thus the 'If' is applied to 'that's what you think. It didn't set the former as a question, more akin rather to 'since you believe that, then that is what you believe' specifically because you didn't set the former with a question mark. Most often it means "Since/because you believe that way so strongly, we are at odds and I cannot say anything meaningful, but from my perspective: completely wrong" (not that such is necessarily the only interpretation, but in conversation, it is most often the gist one retains). RD can defend himself, but I yet think it matters when we speak, that the better we do it, the less gets in the way of clear communication.
 

eider

Well-known member
🤔

So in English, the second:

Would be a proposition about your assessment of what he thinks, thus the 'If' is applied to 'that's what you think. It didn't set the former as a question, more akin rather to 'since you believe that, then that is what you believe' specifically because you didn't set the former with a question mark. Most often it means "Since/because you believe that way so strongly, we are at odds and I cannot say anything meaningful, but from my perspective: completely wrong" (not that such is necessarily the only interpretation, but in conversation, it is most often the gist one retains). RD can defend himself, but I yet think it matters when we speak, that the better we do it, the less gets in the way of clear communication.
If that's what you think, Lon.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The BBC reports that Brandon Hole was interviewed by FBI agents last year and police seized a shotgun that he owned. Although his mother had reported her worries about his mental health he was able to purchase two rifles later on, last year.

And his mass shooting has been one of several this month, we hear.

His 2nd Amendment rights were solid for him, it seems.

He began shooting "randomly" almost immediaely after exiting his car, according to police.
Seven people were also injured and the gunman apparently killed himself before police arrived, officials say.
At least four of those killed were members of the Sikh community, according to local media.
"It has to end," President Biden said. "Every day there's a mass shooting in the United States if you count all those who were killed out in the streets of our cities and our rural areas, it's a national embarrassment and it must come to an end."


www.bbc.co.uk › world-us-canada-56791321
21 hours ago — Brandon Hole legally bought two rifles despite having had a gun ... did not identify Hole as following extremist ideology, Agent Keenan said.
So what?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
"It has to end," President Biden said. "Every day there's a mass shooting in the United States if you count all those who were killed out in the streets of our cities and our rural areas, it's a national embarrassment and it must come to an end"
The first place to start:

Screenshot_20210424-094201_Google.jpg
 

eider

Well-known member
Why don't you ever answer questions when they're posed to you?

I'll ask again...

So what?
I can see that you had difficulty with my answer Clete.
Let me show you again...

Brandon Hole whose Mother had reported her fears over his mental health, and previously had a shotgun taken away from him after the FBI interviewed him, managed to purchase two rifles legally last year. He then went to his workplace and shot 14 people, injuring 7 of them and murdering 7. This mass shooting was one of several in the USA in April, one of over 150 in 2021.

You posted:- So what?

I answered:- So it looks as if the question of keeping and bearing fast fire guns will be raised yet again.

If there is anything else I can do to help you Clete, please do ask.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I can see that you had difficulty with my answer Clete.
Let me show you again...

Brandon Hole whose Mother had reported her fears over his mental health, and previously had a shotgun taken away from him after the FBI interviewed him, managed to purchase two rifles legally last year. He then went to his workplace and shot 14 people, injuring 7 of them and murdering 7. This mass shooting was one of several in the USA in April, one of over 150 in 2021.

You posted:- So what?

I answered:- So it looks as if the question of keeping and bearing fast fire guns will be raised yet again.

If there is anything else I can do to help you Clete, please do ask.
You can pretend like I'm the one who's being stupid but my question is rhetorical and is succeeding in demonstrating that it is actually you who cannot think past his own nose

Make the argument eider! If you can.

Explain how one has to do with the other and what you think the proper response to such an event should be.

You won't do it and even if you do, you won't post it because even someone as dull as you will see how the act of thinking makes it's obvious that there isn't any real substance to your position whatsoever. This, and I'd wager most of your life is based on emotional considerations and the expediency of the moment. There no thought given to how crimes are actually committed or who commits them. There isn't any thought given to the consequences of removing liberty for the sake of supposed safety. There isn't any thought given to justice. In fact, there isn't any thought involved at all and I've exposed it with a two word question that you cannot (will not) answer without exposing yourself as either an idiot or a fraud.

Clete
 

eider

Well-known member
You can pretend like I'm the one who's being stupid but my question is rhetorical and is succeeding in demonstrating that it is actually you who cannot think past his own nose

Make the argument eider! If you can.

Explain how one has to do with the other and what you think the proper response to such an event should be.
You probably won't understand this, but there are several ways that gun controls can help to reduce loss of life ....
Criminal record checks.
Mental health records.
Restricted sales of semi-auto weapons.
Mandatory safety courses.
Mandatory tests leading to licences.
Mandatory gun safes and home security inspections.
Mandatory gun insurance for all .

That would do for a start.

You won't do it and even if you do, you won't post it because even someone as dull as you will see how the act of thinking makes it's obvious that there isn't any real substance to your position whatsoever.
Wrong.

There no thought given to how crimes are actually committed or who commits them. There isn't any thought given to the consequences of removing liberty for the sake of supposed safety.
Wrong.

There isn't any thought given to justice.
Wrong

In fact, there isn't any thought involved at all and I've exposed it with a two word question that you cannot (will not) answer without exposing yourself as either an idiot or a fraud.
Wrong
You have a nice day, Clete.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Cites for your former please.
You have to look up civilian gun ownership by country, by year. And murders or intentional homicides by country, by year. Both of these datasets are available freely from unbiased sources on the internet.

You have to make matched data now, combining the countries and the murders and the guns, in one dataset of matched data. Use the same year for all the data if you can, and if you can't pick something reasonable, including inspecting the annual data in both cases, and judging where the best figure might be, based on trendlines of each country's data, then exclude it from the analysis. Out of about 200 sovereign countries in the world, you should easily be able to have 150 countries' data in your dataset after removing missing or unreasonable data.

(The only countries you might have trouble with are relatively insignificant on the global stage. Very small population countries whose data wouldn't sway the analysis much anyway, sometimes are missing one of the figures, either we know how many murders but not the number of guns, or the other way around, but in any case, it doesn't carry much weight in the analysis anyway due to its population size.)

Since "gun ownership rate" and "murder rate" are just gun ownership and murders divided by population, there's no need to use rates when doing the regression. Just plotting the data of guns vs. murders with a scatterplot chart, and inserting a trendline, will show you that the coefficient of the line's formula is slightly negative. That is, the more the guns owned by civilians, the lower the murders, that's just a fact, a mathematical fact.

I understand that this might sound far-fetched, but the data and the very basic statistics I'm running on these data, don't lie: The relationship between all the guns in the world (the United States having around 400 million guns, or 1.2 per American), and basically nothing (Taiwan, Japan, for example have very few, more like 0.01 rather than the USA's 1.20) being in civilian hands, with murder rate, is nil.

One possible interpretation of these data and their statistics is that murderers don't care how many guns you have, based on whatever calculus that murderers use to decide to murder. If you have a lot of guns, or no guns, they're still going to go ahead and attempt to commit murder on you, and sometimes, they'll succeed at that attempted murder.
I've been under threat before yes. Certainly wouldn't have wanted to shoot the folk involved.
Well that's completely irrelevant, what's relevant is somebody else being under the same threat as you were under, and what you would be willing to restrict their having in the way of weaponry at that moment that could constitute a bearable arm, when their life or limb is in the same danger that your life or limbs were in.

Anyone who is OK restricting a murder victim from having a weapon that would have saved their life by disabling the attempted murderer successfully (viz., such that he is not longer a threat), is a party to immorality, in the same way that anybody who doesn't condemn child rape is part of the problem, even if they themselves don't commit child rape.
 

eider

Well-known member
Well that's completely irrelevant, .....................
Yes...........
Anyone who is OK restricting a murder victim from having a weapon..............................in the same way that anybody who doesn't condemn child rape............................
You got that wrong.
Anybody who doesn't condemn mass killers using legally purchased weapons is as disgusting as somebody who does not condemn child rape.

....better...... fixed.
 
Top