What are we gonna do about white people and all their guns?

[DBT]

Although Australia does have that "frontier" culture (IIRC) and you made it - I'm curious about the difference. Is it being part of the commonwealth?

Probably just a matter of the differences in history, no real ''Wild West'' like in America, conditions and events shaping the general character and perception of a society, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Link, please. Further the reason I am asking for a link is because I want to read a content which will support the specifics of this claim :

because we have medical doctors performing 12 hours of colonoscopies and forced enemas because a cop think that maybe possibly the guy being medically raped might have drugs

Here is the first time I heard about it. There was a thread on the old board I'm surprised you missed it. At the time there were other articles highlighting the prevalence of this. While he did win a settlement of course no body was punished. Unless police murder someone in a flagrant and wanton manner and there is uncontrovertible proof of their guilt and sufficient public outcry only then they may lose their job and recieve a slap on the wrist.

Thank you. It is just terrible! Invalid warrant and resulting unethical behavior on the part of health care professionals.Any word as to whether the 2 physicians were reported to the State Medical Board and any penalties?

I would be very surprised if the board did anything at all. Hopefully he'll get nailed in a malpractice suit but even that doesn't strike me as too likely--he doesn't have any lasting injuries. I expect outrage but nothing to happen to anyone involved.

 

[Mageth]

Those guns were most likely manufactured in the US, so how does this answer the question?

I do not have time now but I will try to find the stats showing that the majority of mass shooters obtained their guns legally.

They probably did. Focusing on mass shooters is the wrong thing, though--the number who die to such crazies is actually quite low. You're more likely to be killed by lightning than by a mass shooter.

Oh, that makes it all right, then. [facepalm]

In the U.S., about 54 people are killed each year on average by lightning.

151 mass shootings victims, 2012

View attachment 446View attachment 447

Learn the difference.

You are comparing dead to dead or injured.

What the fuck difference does that make? You're "more likely to be killed by..." was, and remains, a senseless and ridiculous "defense" of mass shootings. This fruity post of yours just compounds the ridiculousness.

BTW, it's rather humorous that you were the first to compare that particular apple to the orange in question.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What the fuck difference does that make? You're "more likely to be killed by..." was, and remains, a senseless and ridiculous "defense" of mass shootings. This fruity post of yours just compounds the ridiculousness.

BTW, it's rather humorous that you were the first to compare that particular apple to the orange in question.

The point is that you compared the number killed by lightning with the number killed or injured in shootings in an attempt to rebut my assertion.

 

[Nexus]

What the fuck difference does that make? You're "more likely to be killed by..." was, and remains, a senseless and ridiculous "defense" of mass shootings.

No one is defending or advocating mass shootings. Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers is simply a way to calm down the histrionics of anti-gun nuts.

 

[Mageth]

What the fuck difference does that make? You're "more likely to be killed by..." was, and remains, a senseless and ridiculous "defense" of mass shootings.

No one is defending or advocating mass shootings. Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers is simply a way to calm down the histrionics of anti-gun nuts.

"Defense" was in quotes. Loren's "argument" is along the lines of "Why worry so much about mass shootings when you're more likely to be killed by lightning?" Which is a ridiculous and pointless argument. What the fuck do lightning statistics have to do with anything??? Your attempt at defense of this silly argument does nothing to improve it.

BTW, I for one am not an "anti-gun nut", and yet I am quite concerned about mass shootings in the country. "Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers" contributes nothing to the discussion of the problem and what to do about it, and does nothing to "calm down" my concern over the problem. Attempting to gloss over the problem of mass shootings as "not as bad as lightning" does nothing for the discussion. It's a pointless and useless assertion.

And it's still comical that Loren wanted me to "learn the difference" between the apple and orange that he brought up.

 

[Mageth]

What the fuck difference does that make? You're "more likely to be killed by..." was, and remains, a senseless and ridiculous "defense" of mass shootings. This fruity post of yours just compounds the ridiculousness.

BTW, it's rather humorous that you were the first to compare that particular apple to the orange in question.

The point is that you compared the number killed by lightning with the number killed or injured in shootings in an attempt to rebut my assertion.

No, the point is still that you don't have a point. "It's not as bad as lightning, so why worry yourself?" is not a point, no matter the exact statistics. You could use "It's not as bad as cancer!" or "It's not as bad as heart disease!" and you still wouldn't have a point.

 

[Sabine Grant]

What the fuck difference does that make? You're "more likely to be killed by..." was, and remains, a senseless and ridiculous "defense" of mass shootings.

No one is defending or advocating mass shootings. Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers is simply a way to calm down the histrionics of anti-gun nuts.

Do you evaluate Gabrielle Giffords to be engaging in "histrionics" while being an "anti-gun nut"?

 

[Nexus]

What the fuck difference does that make? You're "more likely to be killed by..." was, and remains, a senseless and ridiculous "defense" of mass shootings.

No one is defending or advocating mass shootings. Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers is simply a way to calm down the histrionics of anti-gun nuts.

Do you evaluate Gabrielle Giffords to be engaging in "histrionics" while being an "anti-gun nut"?

Does she start multiple discussions every week every time someone gets shot in America? If she does then yes she would one, although in her case it would at least be understandable due to her personal tragedy.

BTW, I for one am not an "anti-gun nut", and yet I am quite concerned about mass shootings in the country. "Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers" contributes nothing to the discussion of the problem and what to do about it, and does nothing to "calm down" my concern over the problem.

The fact you're "quite concerned" over such a unlikely occurrence is the hallmark of irrational fear. If pointing out how little harm these shootings mean to society overall doesn't calm down your concern that's further evidence you're not approaching this topic rationally.

 

[Mageth]

BTW, I for one am not an "anti-gun nut", and yet I am quite concerned about mass shootings in the country. "Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers" contributes nothing to the discussion of the problem and what to do about it, and does nothing to "calm down" my concern over the problem.

The fact you're "quite concerned" over such a unlikely occurrence is the hallmark of irrational fear.

And you accuse others of "histrionics". Anyone who thinks "It's not as bad as lightning, so why worry?" is a stupid-ass and pointless asssertion is expressing "irrational fear". How absurd.

Did I say I was "quite concerned" that I would be shot in a mass shootings? No? That's right, I didn't.

Do I have, or have I expressed, an "irrational fear" of mass shootings? No? That's right, I do not have, and I have not, expressed such an "irrational fear".

If pointing out how little harm these shootings mean to society overall doesn't calm down your concern that's further evidence you're not approaching this topic rationally.

Bull fuckin' shit. (Forgive my French.) "Pointing out how little harm these shootings mean to society overall" is pointless in a rational discusson of the topic. It serves no purpose at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What the fuck difference does that make? You're "more likely to be killed by..." was, and remains, a senseless and ridiculous "defense" of mass shootings.

No one is defending or advocating mass shootings. Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers is simply a way to calm down the histrionics of anti-gun nuts.

"Defense" was in quotes. Loren's "argument" is along the lines of "Why worry so much about mass shootings when you're more likely to be killed by lightning?" Which is a ridiculous and pointless argument. What the fuck do lightning statistics have to do with anything??? Your attempt at defense of this silly argument does nothing to improve it.

BTW, I for one am not an "anti-gun nut", and yet I am quite concerned about mass shootings in the country. "Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers" contributes nothing to the discussion of the problem and what to do about it, and does nothing to "calm down" my concern over the problem. Attempting to gloss over the problem of mass shootings as "not as bad as lightning" does nothing for the discussion. It's a pointless and useless assertion.

And it's still comical that Loren wanted me to "learn the difference" between the apple and orange that he brought up.

The point is mass shootings kill fewer people than lightning. Thus they warrant less effort to protect against them than lightning does.

And you still don't see that comparing deaths to deaths and injuries isn't valid?? Lightning kills only about 10%, thus if we are comparing deaths + injuries it's ~500 vs ~150--thus we should spend three times the effort on lightning.

 

[Bronzeage]

What the fuck difference does that make? You're "more likely to be killed by..." was, and remains, a senseless and ridiculous "defense" of mass shootings.

No one is defending or advocating mass shootings. Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers is simply a way to calm down the histrionics of anti-gun nuts.

"Defense" was in quotes. Loren's "argument" is along the lines of "Why worry so much about mass shootings when you're more likely to be killed by lightning?" Which is a ridiculous and pointless argument. What the fuck do lightning statistics have to do with anything??? Your attempt at defense of this silly argument does nothing to improve it.

BTW, I for one am not an "anti-gun nut", and yet I am quite concerned about mass shootings in the country. "Highlighting the probabilities compared to other dangers" contributes nothing to the discussion of the problem and what to do about it, and does nothing to "calm down" my concern over the problem. Attempting to gloss over the problem of mass shootings as "not as bad as lightning" does nothing for the discussion. It's a pointless and useless assertion.

And it's still comical that Loren wanted me to "learn the difference" between the apple and orange that he brought up.

The point is mass shootings kill fewer people than lightning. Thus they warrant less effort to protect against them than lightning does.

And you still don't see that comparing deaths to deaths and injuries isn't valid?? Lightning kills only about 10%, thus if we are comparing deaths + injuries it's ~500 vs ~150--thus we should spend three times the effort on lightning.

How much effort do we currently spend on lightning? What would be the result if we did nothing? If our anti-lightning measures substantially reduce lightning death and injury, would this be an argument in favor of more effort to prevent mass shootings?