Jump to content
I asked the poster just one thing. An example, any example on where stricter gun laws made a difference. Australia is it and given that gun deaths started a downward trend about 27 years before the gun ban was passed it is possible the gun ban was a non factor. The poster said this in a previous post "Another falsely claimed that gun violence has gone up in Australia since the 1996 gun laws were enacted." Now he says this "And yes, gun related deaths did spike right after the 1996 Australia gun law was enacted, but then declined and have continued to decline." Either he won't provide the requested examples or he won't. My guess he won't because he can't. If you can provide the proof good on ya mate.
A poster says "Yes ....gun control measures do indeed work. I have given numerous examples. You can do the research yourself, I don't need to do your homework for you".
If you have as you say given numerous examples you must have written them down and left them next to your keyboard as the only example you have given is Australia. I believe if you actually had examples you would post them. This poster must not be aware that deaths due to guns peaked in Australia in 1968 and have been on a downward trajectory ever since. This poster must also not be aware that in 1996 the year the ban was passed there actually was a spike up in deaths due to guns that year. In 1997 the trend which began in 1969 resumed and gun deaths dropped. (all this information is available if one is willing to do actual research) If the trend in gun deaths started down in 1969, who is to say the ban passed in 1996 changed any thing.
The poster says others should do their research, maybe the poster should do some of their own.
Brian, be careful. The liberal prog is starting to get upset. He may soon go whining to to his protector the Pilot and get you banned. Thank you for sharing some of his hateful comments. It is a good reminder of just what type of person he is. The ironic thing is if others had said the same thing about him that he says about others the liberal prog would have flagged those comments and had them banned. Oh wait he did. I guess some people can dish it out but can't take it. Funny in a sad kind of way.
Chris, hope you are having a great time
James, I believe criminal is maybe understating just a tad bit how horrific these people are. They are terrorists. They cut peoples heads off, they burn people alive, they rape women and girls. They throw gays off of buildings, they stone people to death among other atrocities. What would you have us call them. Radical (redacted) criminals, radical (they who can't be named) terrorists? By using the term radical in front of the term Islamic it says we acknowledge that not all who practice the Islamic faith are terrorists. But ignoring the reality that some who claim to practice the Islamic faith are terrorists who perform such horrific acts against humanity is, well, I guess one could just stick their head in the sand.
You had asked about Australia. Found this info for you from the Australian Institute of Criminology.
"The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968."
Mr. Collins, Fortunately it is not only conservatives that use the term radical Islamic terrorism or terrorist. Libertarians, Independents, Republicans and yes even Democrats understand and properly identify the threat by its correct name. Unlike the current administration which treats that phrase the way The Fonz used to treat the word "wrong". If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and tastes like a duck then most likely it's a duck. Same with radical Islamic terrorism. Oh and if you need a topic for your next anti gun rant, here's a topic. Skip the legal gun owners, even the half-baked Charles Bronsons and go after the gang bangers in our inner cities that continue to kill at will. Just think of the lives that could be saved if our government went after and took away the guns from the bad guys. Cheers
giggles and grins from an article I read in the Federalist today.
"According to Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ronald Hopper, for example, censoring Mateen’s words would “prevent future action from happening” and “not give credence to individuals who have done terrorist acts in the past.”
Islamic Radical 1: Did you see that Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ronald Hopper refused to say the name of our organization?
Islamic Radical 2: I did! And, you know what, Omar? I hate America just a little bit less today. You know what I mean?"
Scott W. says "Ms Assam was not a random person carrying a concealed weapon. She was a former police officer serving on the church's security team."
what is your point in making the above statement. I do not believe Brian referred to her as a "random person carrying a concealed weapon". What's not to say there could have been a former police officer in Pulse (rather then the "half baked Charles Bronsons of Mr. Collins warped fantasy) and he/she was able to bring down the the terrorist.
I will ask Scott the same question Brian asked Ken but use Scott's own description.
Would you prefer that a former police officer serving on the church's security team had not taken her Beretta to church that day? If so, why?
And speaking of Mr. Collins "half-baked Charles Bronsons. While we will never know the answer, I wonder if the terrorist would have gone into that club if he thought there was any chance there were conceal and carry folks in there.
I am curious (and disappointed) why the Pilot would allow Mr. Collins to portray licensed gun owners as "half-baked Charles Bronsons". To the best of my knowledge most gun owners are law abiding folks and take the responsibility of owning firearms quite seriously. I am also quite disappointed that the terrorist attack by some one pledging allegiance to radical Islam has transcended once again into a rant about guns. Mr. Collins would have been better served to write a rant about radical Islamic terrorism. I played a lot of sports and an important rule was keep your eye on the ball. Make no mistake, radical Islamic terrorist are out to murder any and all that do not adhere to their warped beliefs. That is the ball that one needs to keep an eye on.
Last login: Thursday, June 23, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |