Ban guntard offspring from public schools

[Guns R Bad]

"Texas school shooting suspect said to have used father's guns, wore 'Born to Kill' shirt in Facebook post"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-school-shooting-suspect-20180518-story.html

--
'nuff said

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Typical leftist-- wants to ban rights based on clothing worn.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, Guns R Bad wrote:
> "Texas school shooting suspect said to have used father's guns, wore 'Born to Kill' shirt in Facebook post"
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-school-shooting-suspect-20180518-story.html
>

A better idea would be to ban public schools and instead give education vouchers
to parents to send their kids to the school of their choice. But then the
lefties wouldn't be able to indoctrinate young minds with their propaganda.

There is a reason young people tend to be liberal and grow more conservative as
they get older. The public schools have filled their impressionable minds with
left wing mush and it often takes many years of real world experience before
they learn what crap they were fed in school. Sadly, some never figure it out.

[Guns R Bad]

On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:07:56 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, Guns R Bad wrote:
> > "Texas school shooting suspect said to have used father's guns, wore 'Born to Kill' shirt in Facebook post"
> >
> > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-school-shooting-suspect-20180518-story.html
> >
> A better idea would be to ban public schools and instead give education vouchers
> to parents to send their kids to the school of their choice.

Also ban guntards from making public policy...

"Charters not outperforming nation’s traditional public schools, report says"

https://tinyurl.com/y7ebl3zp

"How for-profit charter schools are ripping off California taxpayers"

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article154084079.html

"One of the big differences between traditional public school and charters is that when charter schools fail financially there is nothing the state can do about it.

Imagine that. It’s YOUR money. Gone. Poof!"

https://tinyurl.com/yc6dkuyh

But then the
> lefties wouldn't be able to indoctrinate young minds with their propaganda.

TRANSLATION: "we want lefties to ejucate kiddies with fauxnews like us!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgRGGpf3dc8

[Guns R Bad]

Typical rightard -- teaches offspring to shoot but now how to dress or get potty trained

[bigdog]

As is the case in all businesses, the free market culls the losers and the
strong survive. Consumers vote with their dollars. If private schools were so
bad, why do wealthy people choose to send their kids to them instead of the
public schools. A voucher program allows everyone the same choice. Of course
there will be underperformers as there are in any business but they won't last.

[benj]

Many examples of the latter in this newsgroup.

[Guns R Bad]

Latter is shown below...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgRGGpf3dc8

Sorry, meant laughter

[Guns R Bad]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 19 May 2018 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad

<soll...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:10:33 AM UTC-5, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 May 2018 21:21:13 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
>> <soll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Texas school shooting suspect said to have used father's guns, wore 'Born to Kill' shirt in Facebook post"
>> >
>> >http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-school-shooting-suspect-20180518-story.html
>>
>> Typical leftist-- wants to ban rights based on clothing worn.
>
>Typical rightard -- teaches offspring to shoot but now how to dress or get potty trained

Typical leftist- wants his kids as ignorant as possible and thinks
guns have something to do with potty training.

You've always been this stupid, haven't you?

[Guns R Bad]

Yes it's stupid to think guntards could be potty trained

[MattB]

On Sat, 19 May 2018 04:10:28 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@null.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 May 2018 21:21:13 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
><soll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Texas school shooting suspect said to have used father's guns, wore 'Born to Kill' shirt in Facebook post"

He also had a hat with the peace symbol on his facebook page should we
ban liberal hippies?

>>
>>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-school-shooting-suspect-20180518-story.html
>
>Typical leftist-- wants to ban rights based on clothing worn.

I like you idea let Republican people taxes go to pay for republican
schools and let Democrat taxes go to liberal schools. Each pay for
their own.

[pyotr filipivich]

Guntard - are those are the 'tards who have no idea how guns work,
or what laws already exist?
--
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 20 May 2018 15:54:26 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad

<soll...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 3:37:49 PM UTC-5, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2018 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
>> <soll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 6:10:33 AM UTC-5, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 18 May 2018 21:21:13 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
>> >> <soll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Texas school shooting suspect said to have used father's guns, wore 'Born to Kill' shirt in Facebook post"
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-school-shooting-suspect-20180518-story.html
>> >>
>> >> Typical leftist-- wants to ban rights based on clothing worn.
>> >
>> >Typical rightard -- teaches offspring to shoot but now how to dress or get potty trained
>>
>> Typical leftist- wants his kids as ignorant as possible and thinks
>> guns have something to do with potty training.
>>
>> You've always been this stupid, haven't you?
>
>Yes it's stupid

Of course it is. What to wear, what to say, what to think-- leftists
LOVE forcing people to conform.

[Guns R Bad]

On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 6:12:52 PM UTC-5, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Guntard - are those are the 'tards who have no idea how guns work,
> or what laws already exist?

they're the tards who know nothing about life except how to shoot guns.

they belong in kennels, not public schools

[Guns R Bad]

When/where did a guntard think ?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 20 May 2018 18:27:19 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad

You guntards NEVER think! LOL

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Typical leftist- send your enemies to the camps.

Is it any WONDER we want guns to protect ourselves from you psychos?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 19 May 2018 08:19:16 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
<soll...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 7:07:56 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 12:21:14 AM UTC-4, Guns R Bad wrote:
>> > "Texas school shooting suspect said to have used father's guns, wore 'Born to Kill' shirt in Facebook post"
>> >
>> > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-texas-school-shooting-suspect-20180518-story.html
>> >
>> A better idea would be to ban public schools and instead give education vouchers
>> to parents to send their kids to the school of their choice.
>
>Also ban guntards from making public policy...

Now you know why normal people want guns- to protect ourselves from
leftist slime like yourself.

[Guns R Bad]

normal people aren't the problem--it's guntards we need to cage up

[Guns R Bad]

On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 8:31:45 PM UTC-5, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2018 18:25:39 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
> <soll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 6:12:52 PM UTC-5, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> >> Guntard - are those are the 'tards who have no idea how guns work,
> >> or what laws already exist?
> >
> >they're the tards who know nothing about life except how to shoot guns.
> >
> >they belong in kennels, not public schools
>
> Typical leftist- send your enemies to the camps.

Rabid animals should always be caged

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 20 May 2018 18:42:14 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
<soll...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Typical leftist- send your enemies to the camps.
>>

>>Is it any WONDER we want guns to protect ourselves from you psychos?

>Rabid animals should always be caged

Or shot! We'll just pretend there is no cure for you people when the
time comes, OK?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 20 May 2018 18:37:41 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
<soll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Also ban guntards from making public policy...
>>
>>

>>Now you know why normal people want guns- to protect ourselves from
>>leftist slime like yourself.

>normal people aren't the problem--it's guntards we need to cage up

We're not going to cage you people! That takes too much time and
effort.

[Scout]

"Guns R Bad" <soll...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:99107ec8-1d33-49a1...@googlegroups.com...

Then by your standards you need to be caged. Just saying....

[Scout]

"Guns R Bad" <soll...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1bebc0d1-c4ed-4c51...@googlegroups.com...

So are you claiming to be a normal person who is a problem.....or a guntard
that needs to be caged?

Either way, it looks like you're threat to others' liberty.

[MattB.]

Is he claiming Gang members are "guntards"?
>

[Scout]

"MattB." <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7nl6gd98rdgm8u43q...@4ax.com...

hard to tell what he's claiming other than he has an untreated phobia
concerning guns and those who have them.

[MattB]

Seems many liberals do. Yet they are the first to call on the police.
Gangs are scum thought he'd agree with that at least.
>

[max headroom]

In news:pdvo7u$fij$6...@dont-email.me,
Scout <me4...@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> typed:

Don't assume that poster is male. The posts indicate they arise not in the brain but in a pair of
ovaries.

[Guns R Bad]

Liberty is protected by caging up society's degenerates (i. e. guntards)

[Guns R Bad]

On Monday, May 21, 2018 at 6:28:36 PM UTC-5, Scout wrote:

Guntards don't know to build cages; they only know how to shoot guns.

Fortunately, normal people can build cages to put the guntards in

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 06:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
<soll...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Liberty is protected by caging up society's degenerates

Typical leftist. This is why we need guns.

[Guns R Bad]

Guntard "logic"--protecting kids from being shot at schools by inbred lunatics is a "phobia."

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 06:19:28 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad

you. You're supposed to stay at least 100 yards away from schools,
correct?

[Guns R Bad]

Guntard can be arrested by cops by calling them at least 100 yards away

[MattB]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 06:19:28 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad

Do you consider Gang members like those is Chicago, LA to be
"guntards"?? They kill many people a year and yet the MSM doesn't say
much. Why is that?

[Scout]

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
news:i268gdhh36sfmc8rj...@4ax.com...

Notice how he equates a imprisonment with liberty?

Makes me wonder if he's serving 20-life in liberty.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:20:15 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad

Is your illeism the result of drug use, childhood brain damage, or
both?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Always "the camps" with these people.

[Guns R Bad]

Guntard offspring have deprived all normal schoolkids of their liberties by threatening them w/guns.

So when the guntard offspring* are locked up (during school hours), then those schoolkids will have their rights back

[Guns R Bad]

99.99% of all US school shootings involve guntard offspring going bonkers, NOT gang-related shootings

[MattB]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 13:05:38 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad

So you answer is liberals don't consider Gang murders to be gun crimes
or wrong? That driving around killing kids is OK if you are in a
gang?

[de chucka]

However gang related shooting, while a major problem, only account for
13% of gun murders in the US.

[max headroom]

In news:669d2f63-6550-456b...@googlegroups.com,
Guns R Bad <soll...@gmail.com> typed:

> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 6:19:30 PM UTC-5, Scout wrote:
>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>> news:i268gdhh36sfmc8rj...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 06:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
>>> <soll...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Liberty is protected by caging up society's degenerates

>>> Typical leftist. This is why we need guns.

>> Notice how he equates a imprisonment with liberty?

>> Makes me wonder if he's serving 20-life in liberty.

> Guntard offspring have deprived all normal schoolkids of their
> liberties by threatening them w/guns.

Where does the Constitution guarantee a right to be free of fear?

You ARE aware that threatening anyone with a gun is already a crime, right? If you weren't lying,
all of these "threateners" would be facing criminal charges now.

[MattB]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 07:13:46 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Does this include suicides? I'm talking about non-suicide deaths
murder.

Take Chicago

Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 157
Shot & Wounded: 810
Total Shot: 967
Total Homicides: 190

Majority are gang related.

[de chucka]

Suicide isn't murder

I'm talking about non-suicide deaths
> murder.
>
> Take Chicago

Why not the murder capital of the US, St Louis? or any of the other 6
cities that have a bigger number of murders then Chicago?

>
> Year to Date
> Shot & Killed: 157
> Shot & Wounded: 810
> Total Shot: 967
> Total Homicides: 190
>
> Majority are gang related.

In the US the vast majority of murders are not gang related
>

[MattB]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:43:26 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>

I believe you.

>> murder.
>>
>> Take Chicago
>
>Why not the murder capital of the US, St Louis? or any of the other 6
>cities that have a bigger number of murders then Chicago?

That is per cap rating not total murders. 75% of all murders in St
Louis are black.

>>
>> Year to Date
>> Shot & Killed: 157
>> Shot & Wounded: 810
>> Total Shot: 967
>> Total Homicides: 190
>>
>> Majority are gang related.
>
>In the US the vast majority of murders are not gang related

You can say that and you might be right but just by looking at Chicago
it is high.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

Why is it 12% of the population do so many murders 52.3 percent if it
isn't a culture problem?


>>

[benj]

Anyone notice how insane the above rant is?

Just checking.

[de chucka]

How else do you measure it to get a comparison?

75% of all murders in St
> Louis are black.

Black lives matter

>>>
>>> Year to Date
>>> Shot & Killed: 157
>>> Shot & Wounded: 810
>>> Total Shot: 967
>>> Total Homicides: 190
>>>
>>> Majority are gang related.
>>
>> In the US the vast majority of murders are not gang related
>
> You can say that and you might be right but just by looking at Chicago
> it is high.

13% of gun murders in the US

>

> https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers
>
> Why is it 12% of the population do so many murders 52.3 percent if it
> isn't a culture problem?

If socio-economics is a cultural thing I'd agree with you. If you look
at crime maps of the US they correlate strongly with lower
socio-economic area. Same in Aus

[benj]

Killing deplorables children to prevent crimes is a great idea!
It's right up there with universal castration to prevent all rapes
forever. You can be first. we'll give you the time, date and clinic
address where to show up.

[benj]

Gang murders aren't crimes, because gang violence is due to white racism
and society. The members themselves aren't responsible. Society is.

[de chucka]

You truly are a fucking nutcase

[MattB]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 10:49:50 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>

Tome that is true but to some not so much.

>
>>>>
>>>> Year to Date
>>>> Shot & Killed: 157
>>>> Shot & Wounded: 810
>>>> Total Shot: 967
>>>> Total Homicides: 190
>>>>
>>>> Majority are gang related.
>>>
>>> In the US the vast majority of murders are not gang related
>>
>> You can say that and you might be right but just by looking at Chicago
>> it is high.
>
>13% of gun murders in the US
>
>>
>> https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers
>>
>> Why is it 12% of the population do so many murders 52.3 percent if it
>> isn't a culture problem?
>
>If socio-economics is a cultural thing I'd agree with you. If you look
>at crime maps of the US they correlate strongly with lower
>socio-economic area. Same in Aus

I can see that. Not sure gun control can fix that.

[de chucka]

It won't fix the 'plight' of those in lower SE groups but would reduce
the consequences of their crimes as occurs in Aus, UK, Europe, Canada
and other country's with a solid rule of law
>
>

[MattB]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 11:12:55 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>

The key point in what you said was "solid rule of law" the USA no
longer has that as being Politically Correct puts a shadow on it. I
don't see a easy fix for the problem.
>>
>>

[max headroom]

In news:9ZnNC.58150$Mj2....@fx22.iad,
benj <be...@nobody.net> typed:

I'm pretty sure most of us did.

But what can you expect from someone whose 'nym is Guns R Bad?

> Just checking.

[max headroom]

In news:UY-dnTR-VJADkpvG...@westnet.com.au,
de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

Benj posits a typical pinkie argument, and I'm surprised you agree that it's a nutcase's argument.

[de chucka]

You certainly have one compared to Trump's shithole countries like
Mexico. On the WJP rule of law index US 13, UK 11, Aus 10 Mexico 92 out
of 113 countries.

https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/wjp-rule-law-index/wjp-rule-law-index-2017%E2%80%932018
you'll have to get the PDF

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C-CdnR3JAdcFjJvG...@westnet.com.au...

Please cite your proof for this claim of causality.

...or are you going to once again deny that you said what you just did?

[Scout]

"MattB" <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tk4cgdl62phrc9muq...@4ax.com...

Further, if a country has a "solid rule of law" then would it really matter
what the gun control laws are?

It would seem to me that it shouldn't matter since they are already strongly
engaged in controlling the cause of all crime.....criminals. As such whether
guns are legal or not wouldn't seem to have much impact since the country is
already taking the criminals into custody and those people left, the law
abiding, generally aren't going to misuse the guns for crime anyway.

[de chucka]

Obviously yes, look at the countries in the top 10 or 20 and you'll see
they don't have the US murder rate

>
> It would seem to me that it shouldn't matter since they are already
> strongly engaged in controlling the cause of all crime.....criminals. As
> such whether guns are legal or not wouldn't seem to have much impact
> since the country is already taking the criminals into custody and those
> people left, the law abiding, generally aren't going to misuse the guns
> for crime anyway

Except when the previously law abiding citizen gets tanked up or has an
argument with the spouse or a neighbour or stranger and pulls out an
effective and efficient killing tool. Should we also talk about the
correlation between having access to a gun and suicide?

[de chucka]

How can an inanimate object cause anything. That is one dumb fall-back
posistion when you can't counter the facts.

[de chucka]

On 24/05/2018 11:39 AM, max headroom wrote:
> In news:UY-dnTR-VJADkpvG...@westnet.com.au,
> de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>> On 24/05/2018 10:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2018 5:13 PM, de chucka wrote:
>
>>>> However gang related shooting, while a major problem, only account
>>>> for 13% of gun murders in the US.
>
>>> Gang murders aren't crimes, because gang violence is due to white
>>> racism and society. The members themselves aren't responsible.
>>> Society is.
>
>> You truly are a fucking nutcase
>
> Benj posits a typical pinkie argument,

Wasn't he stupid

> and I'm surprised you agree that it's a nutcase's argument.

It obviously is given you've had a black POTUS

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:yZOdnUFmxcRNt5vG...@westnet.com.au...

So what you're telling me is that gun control is NOT the solution to violent
crime, but rather a strong rule of law is. Which I admit the US is lacking
due in large part to the same idiot liberals who are pushing gun control as
the solution to violent crime.

>> It would seem to me that it shouldn't matter since they are already
>> strongly engaged in controlling the cause of all crime.....criminals. As
>> such whether guns are legal or not wouldn't seem to have much impact
>> since the country is already taking the criminals into custody and those
>> people left, the law abiding, generally aren't going to misuse the guns
>> for crime anyway
>
> Except when the previously law abiding citizen gets tanked up or has an
> argument with the spouse or a neighbour or stranger and pulls out an
> effective and efficient killing tool.

Which exist in multitude in any household, and such occurrences are pretty
rare. So, again there is no real need to impose gun control. Since by your
own admission the objective isn't to target criminals, but rather the law
abiding in the HOPE that in such a rare fit of insane rage they won't grab a
knife, club, length of cord or any of a multitude of weapons that can be
used to kill in such a fit of rage. Excuse me, but that seems rather
authoritarian for my tastes and it's almost as if you are treating people as
if they were already criminals particularly when the overwhelming majority
never will be such a criminal.

> Should we also talk about the correlation between having access to a gun
> and suicide?

Go right ahead, because plenty of research has established that serious
suicide is means independent and if one means isn't available another lethal
means can and will be readily substituted. So the most you can do is show a
correlation in which may show a preference for one means over another, but
what you can't show is that controlling that means will alter the suicide
rate. If you can't establish causality then you can't assert that gun
control would have any impact.

After all if gun control were the solution then Japan wouldn't have one of
the highest suicide rates in the world at 19.7 per 100K while the US is way
down at 12.6 per 100K

Nope, if guns were the cause of suicide then the US should lead the world in
suicide rates. But we don't.

So go ahead show us your correlation and then make the false assertion that
the correlation is at all meaningful because of whatever causality you try
to imply exists.

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:L4ednZCBd7K0vpvG...@westnet.com.au...

Oh, I agree the US has a lack of the rule of law, and our crime is
increasing because of it.

But gun control doesn't fix the problem of a poor rule of law.

Rather it would be someone pushing a political agenda with crime as the
excuse.

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:yZOdnUBmxcSBtpvG...@westnet.com.au...

Then your claim is crap and you shouldn't have made it.

[max headroom]

In news:yZOdnUNmxcTHtpvG...@westnet.com.au,

de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

> On 24/05/2018 11:39 AM, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:UY-dnTR-VJADkpvG...@westnet.com.au,
>> de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:
>>> On 24/05/2018 10:51 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2018 5:13 PM, de chucka wrote:

>>>>> However gang related shooting, while a major problem, only account
>>>>> for 13% of gun murders in the US.

>>>> Gang murders aren't crimes, because gang violence is due to white
>>>> racism and society. The members themselves aren't responsible.
>>>> Society is.

>>> You truly are a fucking nutcase

>> Benj posits a typical pinkie argument,

> Wasn't he stupid

No, he is advancing your education.

> > and I'm surprised you agree that it's a nutcase's argument.

> It obviously is given you've had a black POTUS

And do you believe Black Lives Matter and the NAACP dissolved upon his inauguration?

[max headroom]

In news:yZOdnUBmxcSBtpvG...@westnet.com.au,
de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

You guessed it, Scout.

[de chucka]

Define what you believe is rare

So, again there is no real need to impose gun control.
> Since by your own admission the objective isn't to target criminals, but
> rather the law abiding in the HOPE that in such a rare fit of insane
> rage they won't grab a knife, club, length of cord or any of a multitude
> of weapons that can be used to kill in such a fit of rage.

The data shows that in a household with a gun you are more likely to be
murdered then in one without

Excuse me,
> but that seems rather authoritarian for my tastes and it's almost as if
> you are treating people as if they were already criminals particularly
> when the overwhelming majority never will be such a criminal.
>
>
>> Should we also talk about the correlation between having access to a
>> gun and suicide?
>
> Go right ahead, because plenty of research has established that serious
> suicide is means independent and if one means isn't available another
> lethal means can and will be readily substituted.

Let's see it

So the most you can do
> is show a correlation in which may show a preference for one means over
> another, but what you can't show is that controlling that means will
> alter the suicide rate.  If you can't establish causality then you can't
> assert that gun control would have any impact.
>
> After all if gun control were the solution then Japan wouldn't have one
> of the highest suicide rates in the world at 19.7 per 100K while the US
> is way down at 12.6 per 100K
>
> Nope, if guns were the cause of suicide then the US should lead the
> world in suicide rates. But we don't.

Cause?

[de chucka]

Gun control and a good rule of laws saves lives or maybe you believe
that somehow the USA is special compared to the rest of the world.
However even in the US gun laws work it seems from this recent article

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2673375?resultClick=1&redirect=true

You'll probably only be able to get the abstract

[de chucka]

Black lives matter just as white ones, hispanics, asian ones do. Why
would it dissolve?
>
>

[MattB]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 12:27:50 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>

Interesting why isn't Israel listed?

[de chucka]

No idea, there are only 113 listed out of the 193 in the UN assume it
has to do with data collection or something, quite a few of the Pacific
Island countries aren't list

[MattB]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 15:29:36 +1000, de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com>

Would have been interesting to see where they put it. I'd say about
25 to 30.

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:9omdnYzpxavN1ZvG...@westnet.com.au...

Nice assertion, but I note the lack of any proof of causality.

Further I note you don't address the issue of whether it’s the strong rule
of law that actually saves lives with or without gun control.

>or maybe you believe
> that somehow the USA is special compared to the rest of the world. However
> even in the US gun laws work it seems from this recent article
>
> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2673375?resultClick=1&redirect=true
>
> You'll probably only be able to get the abstract

It's enough to note they are looking at a correlation and one which looks at
states as a whole rather than with a more focused approach.

Because in 54% of US counties there was a ZERO homicide rate in 2016.

And 2% of US counties comprised 51% of the homicide rate, and 5% comprised
68% of the homicide rate.

So I really doubt that you're going to find that strong gun control is
associated with a reduced homicide rate unless you open it up to state wide
levels to dilute the hot spots where homicides are really taking place.

As far as suicides are concerned, and I bet they are the KEY factor in
producing the correlation noted making the homicide issue a moot point but
including it is great for implying a false implication, all the correlation
shows is that where more people have guns, more people are likely to use
guns when engaged in serious suicide. Which when you think about it, really
doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. The guns don't cause them to
be suicidal and it's not like the individual couldn't and wouldn't simply
switch to an alternative highly lethal method if guns weren't around.
Further, the research presented shows that serious suicide is deemed to be
means independent.

So....other than a correlation produced by suicides who are more likely to
chose a gun if one is around and the implied implication that murderers
would do the same, NONE of which shows or even implies causality.

So why would we think that gun control would have ANY impact on that, or
that should an impact occur that the individuals involved wouldn't simply
switch to a similarly lethal means?

No, your fly by hit piece really doesn't show anything that would indicate
the gun control saves lives. At most it might influence means, but unless
you think that people are less dead because they were killed with something
other than a gun.....what are you after?

[Scout]

"max headroom" <maximus...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:pe5def$bdo$3...@dont-email.me...

> In news:yZOdnUBmxcSBtpvG...@westnet.com.au,
> de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:
>
>> On 24/05/2018 12:18 PM, Scout wrote:
>>> "de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C-CdnR3JAdcFjJvG...@westnet.com.au...
>>>> On 24/05/2018 11:06 AM, MattB wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2018 10:49:50 +1000, de chucka
>>>>> <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> If socio-economics is a cultural thing I'd agree with you. If you
>>>>>> look at crime maps of the US they correlate strongly with lower
>>>>>> socio-economic area. Same in Aus
>
>>>>> I can see that. Not sure gun control can fix that.
>
>>>> It won't fix the 'plight' of those in lower SE groups but would
>>>> reduce the consequences of their crimes as occurs in Aus, UK,
>>>> Europe, Canada and other country's with a solid rule of law

(Step 1)

>>> Please cite your proof for this claim of causality.

(Step 2)

>> How can an inanimate object cause anything. That is one dumb fall-back
>> posistion when you can't counter the facts.

(Step 3)

>>> ...or are you going to once again deny that you said what you just did?
>
> You guessed it, Scout.
>

It's not hard. It follows a simple basic pattern

1) He asserts guns or gun control cause this or that
2) I ask to see the study showing the causality asserted
3) He denies ever saying there was causality
4) Wait a random time
5) Return to step 1.

Steps 4 & 5 are now taking place in the background and we will see the
return to step 1 in a reasonably short period of time.

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:Za6dnddRYa9E2JvG...@westnet.com.au...

rare.
[rer]
ADJECTIVE
(of an event, situation, or condition) not occurring very often.
"a rare genetic disorder"

synonyms: infrequent · few and far between · scarce · sparse · scattered ·

>
> So, again there is no real need to impose gun control.
>> Since by your own admission the objective isn't to target criminals, but
>> rather the law abiding in the HOPE that in such a rare fit of insane rage
>> they won't grab a knife, club, length of cord or any of a multitude of
>> weapons that can be used to kill in such a fit of rage.
>
> The data shows that in a household with a gun you are more likely to be
> murdered then in one without

Sure and the data also shows that in a household with a deadbolt you are
even more likely to be murdered than in one without.

So what’s your point?

Do you think having a deadbolt lock causes you to be murdered?


Hey, here's a notion....people who live in high crime areas, and/or are at
greater risk of being the victims of violent crime are more likely to have
deadbolts or a gun.

Gee, who would ever think of that. A correlation without any direct
causality.

>
> Excuse me,
>> but that seems rather authoritarian for my tastes and it's almost as if
>> you are treating people as if they were already criminals particularly
>> when the overwhelming majority never will be such a criminal.
>>
>>
>>> Should we also talk about the correlation between having access to a gun
>>> and suicide?
>>
>> Go right ahead, because plenty of research has established that serious
>> suicide is means independent and if one means isn't available another
>> lethal means can and will be readily substituted.
>
> Let's see it

Do your own research.

> So the most you can do
>> is show a correlation in which may show a preference for one means over
>> another, but what you can't show is that controlling that means will
>> alter the suicide rate. If you can't establish causality then you can't
>> assert that gun control would have any impact.
>>
>> After all if gun control were the solution then Japan wouldn't have one
>> of the highest suicide rates in the world at 19.7 per 100K while the US
>> is way down at 12.6 per 100K
>>
>> Nope, if guns were the cause of suicide then the US should lead the world
>> in suicide rates. But we don't.
>
> Cause?

Well that's what you're trying to imply, that guns cause people to commit
suicide.

[de chucka]

Seems they did,

> As far as suicides are concerned, and I bet they are the KEY factor in
> producing the correlation noted making the homicide issue a moot point
> but including it is great for implying a false implication, all the
> correlation shows is that where more people have guns, more people are
> likely to use guns when engaged in serious suicide. Which when you think
> about it, really doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. The
> guns don't cause them to be suicidal and it's not like the individual
> couldn't and wouldn't simply switch to an alternative highly lethal
> method if guns weren't around. Further, the research presented shows
> that serious suicide is deemed to be means independent.

What the stats show us is that if you have access to a gun your are more
likely to die from suicide

>
> So....other than a correlation produced by suicides who are more likely
> to chose a gun if one is around and the implied implication that
> murderers would do the same, NONE of which shows or even implies causality.
>
> So why would we think that gun control would have ANY impact on that, or
> that should an impact occur that the individuals involved wouldn't
> simply switch to a similarly lethal means?

Study shows that they don't

>
> No, your fly by hit piece really doesn't show anything that would
> indicate the gun control saves lives. At most it might influence means,
> but unless you think that people are less dead because they were killed
> with something other than a gun.....what are you after?

Show that gun control works in the USA as well
>
>

[de chucka]

So nothing cool

>
>>  So the most you can do
>>> is show a correlation in which may show a preference for one means
>>> over another, but what you can't show is that controlling that means
>>> will alter the suicide rate.  If you can't establish causality then
>>> you can't assert that gun control would have any impact.
>>>
>>> After all if gun control were the solution then Japan wouldn't have
>>> one of the highest suicide rates in the world at 19.7 per 100K while
>>> the US is way down at 12.6 per 100K
>>>
>>> Nope, if guns were the cause of suicide then the US should lead the
>>> world in suicide rates. But we don't.
>>
>> Cause?
>
> Well that's what you're trying to imply,  that guns cause people to
> commit suicide.

Crap but I'm sure you'll claim I did

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:5bKdnYSTf-c2-pvG...@westnet.com.au...

It's a very simple question. So why can't you give me an answer?

>> Hey, here's a notion....people who live in high crime areas, and/or are
>> at greater risk of being the victims of violent crime are more likely to
>> have deadbolts or a gun.
>>
>> Gee, who would ever think of that. A correlation without any direct
>> causality.
>>

So much for what you tried to imply.

>>>
>>> Excuse me,
>>>> but that seems rather authoritarian for my tastes and it's almost as if
>>>> you are treating people as if they were already criminals particularly
>>>> when the overwhelming majority never will be such a criminal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Should we also talk about the correlation between having access to a
>>>>> gun and suicide?
>>>>
>>>> Go right ahead, because plenty of research has established that serious
>>>> suicide is means independent and if one means isn't available another
>>>> lethal means can and will be readily substituted.
>>>
>>> Let's see it
>>
>> Do your own research.
>
> So nothing cool

Nope, I told you it's out there. If you're truly interested then you can
find it yourself. If you're not, then that shows me your argument isn't
about suicides isn't about knowing the facts, but merely as an excuse to
push your political agenda.

>>
>>> So the most you can do
>>>> is show a correlation in which may show a preference for one means over
>>>> another, but what you can't show is that controlling that means will
>>>> alter the suicide rate. If you can't establish causality then you
>>>> can't assert that gun control would have any impact.
>>>>
>>>> After all if gun control were the solution then Japan wouldn't have one
>>>> of the highest suicide rates in the world at 19.7 per 100K while the US
>>>> is way down at 12.6 per 100K
>>>>
>>>> Nope, if guns were the cause of suicide then the US should lead the
>>>> world in suicide rates. But we don't.
>>>
>>> Cause?
>>
>> Well that's what you're trying to imply, that guns cause people to
>> commit suicide.
> Crap but I'm sure you'll claim I did

Not this time, but you often make such claims of causality, and I keep
spanking you for doing so.

>>>> So go ahead show us your correlation and then make the false assertion
>>>> that the correlation is at all meaningful because of whatever causality
>>>> you try to imply exists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>

So, now that we've established that your suicide correlation is meaningless.
Do you have something else you would like to show me to support your notion
that gun control actually does something about violent crime?

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:5bKdnYWTf-di-5vG...@westnet.com.au...

<crickets>

>>
>> >or maybe you believe
>>> that somehow the USA is special compared to the rest of the world.
>>> However even in the US gun laws work it seems from this recent article
>>>
>>> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2673375?resultClick=1&redirect=true
>>>
>>> You'll probably only be able to get the abstract
>>
>> It's enough to note they are looking at a correlation and one which looks
>> at states as a whole rather than with a more focused approach.
>>
>> Because in 54% of US counties there was a ZERO homicide rate in 2016.
>>
>> And 2% of US counties comprised 51% of the homicide rate, and 5%
>> comprised 68% of the homicide rate.
>>
>> So I really doubt that you're going to find that strong gun control is
>> associated with a reduced homicide rate unless you open it up to state
>> wide levels to dilute the hot spots where homicides are really taking
>> place.
>>
>

<crickets>

> Seems they did,
>> As far as suicides are concerned, and I bet they are the KEY factor in
>> producing the correlation noted making the homicide issue a moot point
>> but including it is great for implying a false implication, all the
>> correlation shows is that where more people have guns, more people are
>> likely to use guns when engaged in serious suicide. Which when you think
>> about it, really doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. The guns
>> don't cause them to be suicidal and it's not like the individual couldn't
>> and wouldn't simply switch to an alternative highly lethal method if guns
>> weren't around. Further, the research presented shows that serious
>> suicide is deemed to be means independent.
>
> What the stats show us is that if you have access to a gun your are more
> likely to die from suicide

Really? Can you show me the causality, or are you simply asserting a
correlation that doesn't mean anything?

After all, you're also more likely to die from suicide if you drink. You're
also more likely to die from suicide if you're a man.
You're also more likely to die from suicide depending on your age.

So do you think your gender, drinking or age is going to cause you to commit
suicide?

>>
>> So....other than a correlation produced by suicides who are more likely
>> to chose a gun if one is around and the implied implication that
>> murderers would do the same, NONE of which shows or even implies
>> causality.
>>
>> So why would we think that gun control would have ANY impact on that, or
>> that should an impact occur that the individuals involved wouldn't simply
>> switch to a similarly lethal means?
>
> Study shows that they don't

Then you should have no problems producing them, because no one else has
been able to establish such causality. Indeed a few years ago there was a
study that collected a whole pile of studies to see if such causality could
be shown to exist. They couldn't find it. But I'm sure you're so much
smarter than they were.

>
>>
>> No, your fly by hit piece really doesn't show anything that would
>> indicate the gun control saves lives. At most it might influence means,
>> but unless you think that people are less dead because they were killed
>> with something other than a gun.....what are you after?
>
> Show that gun control works in the USA as well

I don't claim it does.

[max headroom]

In news:9omdnY_pxauR1JvG...@westnet.com.au,

Thanks for proving your ignorance of America once again.

[Guns R Bad]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:46:24 PM UTC-5, max headroom wrote:
> In news:669d2f63-6550-456b...@googlegroups.com,
> Guns R Bad <soll...@gmail.com> typed:
>
> > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 6:19:30 PM UTC-5, Scout wrote:
> >> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
> >> news:i268gdhh36sfmc8rj...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 06:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
> >>> <soll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Liberty is protected by caging up society's degenerates
>
> >>> Typical leftist. This is why we need guns.
>
> >> Notice how he equates a imprisonment with liberty?
>
> >> Makes me wonder if he's serving 20-life in liberty.
>
> > Guntard offspring have deprived all normal schoolkids of their
> > liberties by threatening them w/guns.
>
> Where does the Constitution guarantee a right to be free of fear?

The Constitution DOES NOT guarantee a RIGHT to a public education.

Public education is a PRIVILEGE meant only for normal children, NOT guntard offspring who are a threat to public safety

[max headroom]

In news:a0b6a4da-bf3b-45df...@googlegroups.com,

Guns R Bad <soll...@gmail.com> typed:

> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:46:24 PM UTC-5, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:669d2f63-6550-456b...@googlegroups.com,
>> Guns R Bad <soll...@gmail.com> typed:
>>> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 6:19:30 PM UTC-5, Scout wrote:
>>>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:i268gdhh36sfmc8rj...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 06:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
>>>>> <soll...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>> Liberty is protected by caging up society's degenerates

>>>>> Typical leftist. This is why we need guns.

>>>> Notice how he equates a imprisonment with liberty?

>>>> Makes me wonder if he's serving 20-life in liberty.

>>> Guntard offspring have deprived all normal schoolkids of their
>>> liberties by threatening them w/guns.

>> Where does the Constitution guarantee a right to be free of fear?

> The Constitution DOES NOT guarantee a RIGHT to a public education.

Irrelevant. Where does the Constitution guarantee a right to be free of fear?

>> You ARE aware that threatening anyone with a gun is already a crime, right? If you weren't lying,
>> all of these "threateners" would be facing criminal charges now.


[crickets]

[de chucka]

What I find hilarious is that these are the same arguments put up by the
tobacco companies, cigarettes are inanimate objects, not everybody who
smokes die of smoking related illnesses it is only a correlation

>
> After all, you're also more likely to die from suicide if you drink.
> You're also more likely to die from suicide if you're a man.
> You're also more likely to die from suicide depending on your age.
>
> So do you think your gender, drinking or age is going to cause you to
> commit suicide?

Neither will guns but like all those above there is a co-relationship

>
>
>
>>>
>>> So....other than a correlation produced by suicides who are more
>>> likely to chose a gun if one is around and the implied implication
>>> that murderers would do the same, NONE of which shows or even implies
>>> causality.
>>>
>>> So why would we think that gun control would have ANY impact on that,
>>> or that should an impact occur that the individuals involved wouldn't
>>> simply switch to a similarly lethal means?
>>
>> Study shows that they don't
>
> Then you should have no problems producing them, because no one else has
> been able to establish such causality. Indeed a few years ago there was
> a study that collected a whole pile of studies to see if such causality
> could be shown to exist. They couldn't find it. But I'm sure you're so
> much smarter than they were.

Guns don't cause you to commit suicide but you have a greater risk of
dying from suicide with an access to guns

>
>
>>
>>>
>>> No, your fly by hit piece really doesn't show anything that would
>>> indicate the gun control saves lives. At most it might influence
>>> means, but unless you think that people are less dead because they
>>> were killed with something other than a gun.....what are you after?
>>
>> Show that gun control works in the USA as well
>
> I don't claim it does.

The study shows it does
>
>

[de chucka]

because it is inanely stupid and you have not produced the data or the
mechanism of action

>
>>> Hey, here's a notion....people who live in high crime areas, and/or
>>> are at greater risk of being the victims of violent crime are more
>>> likely to have deadbolts or a gun.
>>>
>>> Gee, who would ever think of that. A correlation without any direct
>>> causality.
>>>
>
> So much for what you tried to imply.
>
>>>>
>>>>  Excuse me,
>>>>> but that seems rather authoritarian for my tastes and it's almost
>>>>> as if you are treating people as if they were already criminals
>>>>> particularly when the overwhelming majority never will be such a
>>>>> criminal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we also talk about the correlation between having access to
>>>>>> a gun and suicide?
>>>>>
>>>>> Go right ahead, because plenty of research has established that
>>>>> serious suicide is means independent and if one means isn't
>>>>> available another lethal means can and will be readily substituted.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see it
>>>
>>> Do your own research.
>>
>> So nothing cool
>
> Nope, I told you it's out there. If you're truly interested then you can
> find it yourself. If you're not, then that shows me your argument isn't
> about suicides isn't about knowing the facts, but merely as an excuse to
> push your political agenda.

You made the statement it is up to you to prove it but you can't. I back
up my statements

>
>>>
>>>>  So the most you can do
>>>>> is show a correlation in which may show a preference for one means
>>>>> over another, but what you can't show is that controlling that
>>>>> means will alter the suicide rate.  If you can't establish
>>>>> causality then you can't assert that gun control would have any
>>>>> impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> After all if gun control were the solution then Japan wouldn't have
>>>>> one of the highest suicide rates in the world at 19.7 per 100K
>>>>> while the US is way down at 12.6 per 100K
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, if guns were the cause of suicide then the US should lead the
>>>>> world in suicide rates. But we don't.
>>>>
>>>> Cause?
>>>
>>> Well that's what you're trying to imply,  that guns cause people to
>>> commit suicide.
>> Crap but I'm sure you'll claim I did
>
> Not this time, but you often make such claims of causality, and I keep
> spanking you for doing so.

Well that's a change

>>>>> So go ahead show us your correlation and then make the false
>>>>> assertion that the correlation is at all meaningful because of
>>>>> whatever causality you try to imply exists.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> So, now that we've established that your suicide correlation is
> meaningless.

It is a fact backed up by numerous studies which I have cited many times

Do you have something else you would like to show me to
> support your notion that gun control actually does something about
> violent crime?

The JAMA study
>
>

[de chucka]

Please enlighten me?

[max headroom]

In news:jaqdncjItvrBuZrG...@westnet.com.au,

As someone once said, "Make Google your friend."

[de chucka]

snip

>> Please enlighten me?
>
> As someone once said, "Make Google your friend."
>

What a cop-out. Obviously your comment was BS

[max headroom]

In news:s5KdnUOr6PUK1ZrG...@westnet.com.au,
de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

> snip

>>>>>> And do you believe Black Lives Matter and the NAACP dissolved upon
>>>>>> his inauguration?

>>>>> Black lives matter just as white ones, hispanics, asian ones do. Why
>>>>> would it dissolve?

>>>> Thanks for proving your ignorance of America once again.

>>> Please enlighten me?

>> As someone once said, "Make Google your friend."

> What a cop-out. Obviously your comment was BS

That's just what I thought when *you* said it.

I'm not about to teach Mr Australian-Expert-On-All-Things-American current American society. If
you're unfamiliar with Black Lives Matter and NAACP, maybe you should just refrain from typing.

[de chucka]

I do know about them just wondering about your comment in relationship
to them.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 11:53:18 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad

<soll...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 5:46:24 PM UTC-5, max headroom wrote:
>> In news:669d2f63-6550-456b...@googlegroups.com,
>> Guns R Bad <soll...@gmail.com> typed:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 6:19:30 PM UTC-5, Scout wrote:
>> >> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@null.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:i268gdhh36sfmc8rj...@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 06:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Guns R Bad
>> >>> <soll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Liberty is protected by caging up society's degenerates
>>
>> >>> Typical leftist. This is why we need guns.
>>
>> >> Notice how he equates a imprisonment with liberty?
>>
>> >> Makes me wonder if he's serving 20-life in liberty.
>>
>> > Guntard offspring have deprived all normal schoolkids of their
>> > liberties by threatening them w/guns.
>>
>> Where does the Constitution guarantee a right to be free of fear?
>
>The Constitution DOES NOT guarantee a RIGHT to a public education.

As you amply demonstrate every post.

[max headroom]

In news:T9ydnY6F7MBtzZrG...@westnet.com.au,
de chucka <Dech...@hotmail.com> typed:

> I do know about them just wondering...

He hasn't participated in this thread.

> ... about your comment in relationship to them.

You seem to think Obama's election ended the Professional Victims playing the race card.

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jaqdnc7ItvrKvprG...@westnet.com.au...

So, the fact that you're more likely is utterly meaningless because there is
no causality, and the correlation might be the result of other facts, or it
could just be a statistical anomaly.

There for your implication that this correlation is at all relevant is
dismissed.

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jaqdncnItvqsuZrG...@westnet.com.au...

Neither have you........but that didn't stop you from posting.

Meanwhile, the question doesn't need to data or a mechanism of action in
order to answer, the question is what your opinion would be on the situation
indicated.

Surely you know your own opinion and you don't need someone else to tell you
what it is, or do you?

[Scout]

"de chucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:T9ydnY6F7MBtzZrG...@westnet.com.au...

If you knew about them, then you couldn't need to wonder about the
relationship to him his comment has.

[de chucka]

The data was in the study I cited and the mechanism of action is that
gun fire a projectile at high speeds

>
> Meanwhile, the question doesn't need to data or a mechanism of action in
> order to answer, the question is what your opinion would be on the
> situation indicated.
>
> Surely you know your own opinion and you don't need someone else to tell
> you what it is, or do you?

I prefer to base my posts on data and I have none on the correlation
between deadbolts and murder or strawmen and murders

[de chucka]

The co-relationship stands if you are in denial it is only your problem

[de chucka]

Really? Why?