Re: Perhaps We Need Some New Ideas?

[tyre biter]

On 7/27/2017 4:43 PM, de chucka wrote:
>> Yup in the Jones World, the constitution is invalid because it's old.
>> Bible is even older and even MORE Invalid. Like Windoze only the "latest
>> version" will do. The Communist manifesto was written LONG after the
>> constitution and thus, is superior to it. We have already adopted much
>> of it so why not go all the way? All those other communist states
>> crashed and burned because they were run by idiots. Once Democrats are
>> in charge THEY will show you that this system is not a failure and can
>> really work! Kim Jong Un totally agrees with them.
>
>
> Well done Benj you proved his point beautifully

Silence Auztard, you prove daily that a goodly portion of humans ought
never even have been conceived.

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:50:23 -0600, in talk.politics.guns tyre biter
<b...@ben.dum> wrote:

>Silence Auztard, you prove daily that a goodly portion of humans ought
>never even have been conceived.

Ain't you glad they aren't all armed to the teeth?

Jones

[tyre biter]

On 7/27/2017 5:58 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:50:23 -0600, in talk.politics.guns tyre biter
> <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>
>> Silence Auztard, you prove daily that a goodly portion of humans ought
>> never even have been conceived.
>
> Ain't you glad

Your days of consuming air need to cease immediately, traitorous
gun-grabbing burnout.

[tyre biter]

On 7/27/2017 5:34 PM, !Jones wrote:
>> Did you have a point?
> Yeah.
>

No, you are a risible liar and a gun-grabbing burnout - die soon.

[tyre biter]

On 7/27/2017 5:36 PM, !Jones wrote:
>> Libs don't do quantity.
> Absolutely we do!

Just look at the national debt!

[Spain]

On 7/27/2017 5:40 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>

> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:32:36 -0400, in talk.politics.guns benj
> <be...@nobody.net> wrote:
>
>> Lessee. If guns for good guys are so absolutely useless...
>
> Well, let's look at history: have you reduced our crime rate any?

Whose crime rate?

Chicago or Detroit's?

> (Actually, you've managed to increase it.)

You're saying he's black?

> Have you stopped any
> crimes?

Have you?

> If so, how many?

Are you still felching spaniels>

> Why can't we see it in our national
> statistics?

We do:

http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2014/08/11/firearm-ownership-reduces-crime/

During the King riots, neighbors asked if I was going to leave. Having
friends in Orange County, I easily could have escaped the riot area and
stayed with them.

It is important to understand that telephones didn’t work in South
Central during the first day of the riots and worked intermittently for
several more days. During these times, calling 911 was not an option.
Neighbors that previously thought it strange for me to have firearms
quickly developed an appreciation for having someone around with several.

Fortunately it was not necessary to use my firearms, but I did carry a
concealed handgun out into the street one night, when several of us
saved a black man’s life. He was being attacked and beaten with a club
by five men.

When the police finally arrived, no charges were filed against the
attackers. They were drunk Hispanics attacking a black man. From the
police point of view, why bother?

For several decades, criminology researchers have found that gun control
does not increase public safety. Researchers such as Gary Kleck, John
Lott, and others have found high rates of violent crime are associated
with cities with highly restrictive gun control laws. Examples include
Washington D.C., New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles.

When concealed carry permits laws are enacted, violent crime declines.
But who needs research findings? Anyone paying attention to the news
should be able to see that during recent years, as concealed carry
permits have become more easily available and firearms ownership has
increased, violent crime rates have declined.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013

The chart below was inspired by a similar one featured by Max
Ehrenfreund in his recent Wonkblog post titled “We’ve had a massive
decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.” In contrast
to the widely embraced narrative, perpetuated by liberal politicians and
the media, that gun violence in America is getting worse all the time,
the data reveal that the exact opposite is true.

According to data retrieved from the Centers for Disease Control, there
were 7 firearm-related homicides for every 100,000 Americans in 1993
(see light blue line in chart). By 2013 (most recent year available),
the gun homicide rate had fallen by nearly 50 percent to only 3.6
homicides per 100,000 population.

Ehrenfreund says that “Even as a certain type of mass shooting is
apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less
violent place. Much of the decline in violence is still unexplained, but
researchers have identified several reasons for the shift.” He then
points to factors explaining the decline in violent crime in general and
gun homicides in particular, including more police officers on the beat
making greater use of computers, a decline in alcohol consumption, less
lead exposure, and an improving economy.

But there’s another possible reason for the decline in gun violence
overlooked by Ehrenfreund – the significant increase in the number of
guns in America, illustrated above by the dark blue line in the chart.

Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report
(and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more
guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned
firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million
in 2013.

Adjusted for the U.S. population, the number of guns per American
increased from 0.93 per person in 1993 to 1.45 in 2013, which is a 56
percent increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during
the same period when gun violence decreased by 49 percent (see new chart
below). Of course, that significant correlation doesn’t necessarily
imply causation, but it’s logical to believe that those two trends are
related. After all, armed citizens frequently prevent crimes from
happening, including gun-related homicides, see hundreds of examples
here of law-abiding gun owners defending themselves and their families
and homes.

In a December 2013 Breitbart article, “Congressional Study: Murder Rate
Plummets as Gun Ownership Soars,” Awr Hawkins referred to the CRS report
referenced above and connected the two trends:

"So after all the pro-gun control grandstanding and the relentless focus
on how the so-called easy availability of guns drives up crime, the CRS
report shows that more guns–especially more concealable guns–has
actually correlated with less crime."
Bottom Line: Even if you’re not convinced that increased gun ownership
reduces violent crime and gun homicides, you should be totally convinced
of this indisputable fact: Gun violence has been decreasing
significantly over time, not increasing as you’ll frequently hear from
anti-gun politicians and progressives. The gun-related homicide rate of
3.6 deaths per 100,000 population in each of the years 2010, 2011 and
2013 makes those recent years the safest in at least 20 years, and
possibly the safest in modern U.S. history, since “older data [before
1993] suggest that gun violence might have been even more widespread
previously,” according to Ehrenfreund.



> I'd say that you're just pretty useless...

I'd say you need long dirt nap, you gun-grabbing traitor!

> unless killing 50-some odd
> faggots is "useful".
>
> Jones

Citation?

[Spain]

On 7/27/2017 5:49 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:32:36 -0400, in talk.politics.guns benj
> <be...@nobody.net> wrote:
>

>> Notice that Jones doesn't mention that virtually all mass shooting took
>> place in "gun free zones"
>
> Absolutely not! Most happened in places allowing free carry. In
> fact,

In fact:

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:28:40 -0600, in talk.politics.guns tyre biter
<b...@ben.dum> wrote:

>Just look at the national debt!

What about it? (Yup, it's big!!!) Let's look at it:

Reagan was the biggest budget-buster of all (since WWII, anyway) with
a 190% debt increase; Bush(43) was second with an 85% increase. Obama
came in third at 70%. Which part of it do you wish to examine? The
simple fact is that republicans do not have a very good record on
national debt... yeah, they cut taxes, then they just keep right on
spending!

"Supply-side economics" only works when you cut spending; it all goes
out the window if we're running a deficit.

The scary part about Donald is that he lacks a fuckin' *clue* what
he's gonna do until he wakes up and his "tweet-muse" is upon him.

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:33:48 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Spain
<ka...@mad.rid> wrote:

>Whose crime rate?

What country are we talking about?

Jones

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:34:50 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Spain
<ka...@mad.rid> wrote:

>In fact:
>
>http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2014/08/11/firearm-ownership-reduces-crime/

OK, let's hit an agreement, shall we? Now, mainstream media are
either "fake news" or they're a credible source of reliable
information... which way do you want to go with that?

I mean, I can cite news articles to the contrary until the cows come
home and all you'll do is cry: "FAKE NEWS". As soon as you see some
obscure editorial from a Virginia suburban rag you *like*, it suddenly
becomes a *FACT*. OK, which is it? Are the mainstream media facts,
or are they fake? You don't get to have it both ways.

You see, it all seems to depend on whether or not you like the
article; if it agrees with your bias, it's a fact; otherwise, it's
fake.

Jones

[de chucka]

Love the article "But who needs research findings?" Yeah bugger the
research feelings are more accurate

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:22:01 -0600, in talk.politics.guns tyre biter
<b...@ben.dum> wrote:

>Your days of consuming air need to cease immediately, traitorous
>gun-grabbing burnout.

Calm down.

(hee hee!)

[!Jones]

x-no-idiots: yes

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:28:13 -0600, in talk.politics.guns tyre biter
<b...@ben.dum> wrote:

>No, you are a risible liar and a gun-grabbing burnout - die soon.

He'll be chewing the rug soon.

[benj]

On 7/27/2017 9:06 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:34:50 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Spain
> <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
>
>> In fact:
>>
>> http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2014/08/11/firearm-ownership-reduces-crime/
>
> OK, let's hit an agreement, shall we? Now, mainstream media are
> either "fake news" or they're a credible source of reliable
> information... which way do you want to go with that?

Media are all fake news. They are paid propagandists. It's that simple.
It's their job. I know of NO example where a journalist wrote a story
and reported ALL facts correctly. Even journalists when asked could not
produce such a case.

> I mean, I can cite news articles to the contrary until the cows come
> home and all you'll do is cry: "FAKE NEWS". As soon as you see some
> obscure editorial from a Virginia suburban rag you *like*, it suddenly
> becomes a *FACT*. OK, which is it? Are the mainstream media facts,
> or are they fake? You don't get to have it both ways.

So sure, Libs control most major media and love to point to it as if it
proved something. it does not. It's like pointing to a stack of Batman
comics and saying it proves Trump lies. But that also means that it does
not go the other way either. Shit is shit. It all stinks.

> You see, it all seems to depend on whether or not you like the
> article; if it agrees with your bias, it's a fact; otherwise, it's
> fake.

No, it means if the Article supports a Lib agenda (as most do) then all
libs point to it as truth. When an article happens to list a few facts
that oppose lib views then intelligent people will ape libs and use
their own propaganda against them. Great politics but still probably the
article is wrong in some major facts.

[tyre biter]

On 7/27/2017 6:55 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:28:40 -0600, in talk.politics.guns tyre biter
> <b...@ben.dum> wrote:
>
>> Just look at the national debt!
>
> What about it?

Demotardia = Obozo's Trojan Horse.

When you die under it, thank him, traitor.

[tyre biter]

On 7/27/2017 5:57 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>

> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:32:36 -0400, in talk.politics.guns benj
> <be...@nobody.net> wrote:
>
>> Yup in the Jones World, the constitution is invalid because it's old.
>

> I never said that, dude; I'm just saying that

You grab guns, you fucking traitor to this nation!

DIE REAL SOON!

[tyre biter]

On 7/27/2017 5:58 PM, !Jones wrote:

I couldn't give a flying intercontinental trans hemispheric bullet
trajectory, traitor.

But I'd LOVE to see and Auztard put your burnout ass down.

[tyre biter]

On 7/27/2017 6:00 PM, !Jones wrote:
> (Oh, who am I to tell you how to post?)
>
> Jones

I tell you now - KILL YOURSELF!

[Spain]

Why don't you just DIE?

[Spain]

On 7/27/2017 7:06 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:34:50 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Spain
> <ka...@mad.rid> wrote:
>
>> In fact:
>>
>> http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/2014/08/11/firearm-ownership-reduces-crime/
>
> OK, let's hit an agreement, shall we?

No.

> Now, mainstream media are
> either "fake news" or they're a credible source of reliable
> information... which way do you want to go with that?

Neither way, asshole.

They're a partisan mouth organ of the left, largely.

I will no longer sort their lies.

It's a waste of time.

> I mean, I can cite news articles to the contrary until the cows come
> home and all you'll do is cry: "FAKE NEWS".

Cite?

> As soon as you see some
> obscure editorial from a Virginia suburban rag you *like*, it suddenly
> becomes a *FACT*.

Rebut it with FACTS then, gun grabbing traitor!

> OK, which is it? Are the mainstream media facts,
> or are they fake? You don't get to have it both ways.

Oh but I do, as that citation was not in any way lamestream media.

See how that works, simp?

You just got publicly PUNKD again, old man!

> You see, it all seems to depend on whether or not you like the
> article; if it agrees with your bias, it's a fact; otherwise, it's
> fake.
>
> Jones

You just got your ass handed back to you, now go chew on it, cunt.

[tyre biter]

On 7/27/2017 7:13 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
>

> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 18:08:32 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
> Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> In "Deck the Halls", "Don we now our gay apparel" does not suggest you
>> should dress like a flaming homosexual.
>
> It might; it all depends on the context

Fuck off and go back to sucking cawks, you mincing burnout faggot.

[tyre biter]

Die real soon.

[tyre biter]

You'll be flat faced on it- dead.

[Gunner Asch]

Actually Jobub..you keep posting erroneous (lie filled) posts and in
your buffoonery..you think they are GOOD. When others show proof they
are deeply flawed..you suddenly change the topic, or go another
direction and claim something else. Its part and parcel of who and
what you are. We have all seen it. Which is why you keep getting so
much flack over it. Yet you sit there on your fat ass and keep doing
it. Hence we will keep calling you on it. Afterall...shooting
varmints in the head with gentle BB guns to keep people like you
stirred up can be oodles of fun.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus