If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.

Focuspants

Canada780 Posts

December 20 2012 18:26 GMT

#5761

If you want to make the argument that your "right and freedom" to spend your money on whatever you want, regardless of its harmful potential, outweighs the cost of having dangerous weapons floating around and the lives that costs, you can make that argument. Is it right or wrong, I guess thats subjective. Most of the world would say its wrong, some of you might say its right.

However, to remove the responsibility from guns, for the damage they cause is not logical or right. You always see the argument that the gun didnt kill the person, the person did. They solely blame it on the perpetrator, and their character and mental condition. yet, in their next breathe, they show a case where a gun defended someone successfully, and fully attribute the defense of that person to the firearm, and not at all to the fact that they are a good person, and have a stable mind and living situation. You cant have your cake and eat it too. The guns are still at least partially responsible for the damage they cause.

I personally dont think there is a place for firearms in a civilized society, other than in the hands of law enforcement and the military. If you believe that there is a place for them, then you better do everything in your power to limit the certain harm that they will cause. All I see is, "I havent done anything wrong so I should be able to buy whatever I want". Meanwhile, people that said the exact same thing you said, and felt the same way you did, all of a sudden had something happen, and now used that firearm to hurt someone else or themselves.

jacosajh

2919 Posts

December 20 2012 18:30 GMT

#5762

On December 21 2012 03:15 farvacola wrote:

Show nested quote +

Excellent comprehension, mate, but you've missed the part where I simply said that the opinion of removing firearms might be reasonable in a few decades. Again, read the thread your posting in.

This is what I mean. I don't think it'd be reasonable to assume removal of firearms in the foreseeable future is possible unless some other things in American culture changes as well. Maybe in Canada, you can assume your neighbor won't try to rob you at gunpoint (so I've been told is the general feeling). But in the US, most people probably feel that the prevailing "selfish American attitude" means that they need to be more protective. If you can take that away, then maybe you can get more Americans to be willing to give up their "arms for self-defense claim" as in other countries. (As a gun enthusiast myself, I wouldn't mind this.) I believe, that it just so happens that fixing that issue also corresponds to fixing other cultural issues that would prevent these types of atrocities -- thereby making the anti-gun stance irrelevant.

farvacola

United States18818 Posts

December 20 2012 18:31 GMT

#5763

On December 21 2012 03:20 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:

Show nested quote +

Well that makes more sense then. Forgive me for not digging through 288 pages to get caught up on everyones opinion on the matter

Understandable, but I think a troublesome dynamic is being spoken to via this exchange, a dynamic that tends to pop up during the discussion of contentious subject matter. Gun's rights folk are quick to assume that those who seek regulation are going to "take away all our guns!" while on the other side regulation minded folk see guns rights people as insane backwater militia types. Though, to be fair, both extremes have their representation in this thread, only I'm slightly more worried about the pro-gun side. Most of the "get rid of guns" opinions are from Canada and Europe, so their distaste for American gun culture makes a lot of sense, but those US citizens in this thread who point to some sort of revolutionary capacity for firearm ownership and how we need our guns to keep authority in check, those are the sorts of people we ought to be worried about. One thing we haven't really touched on in this thread is the stunning recent rise in hate and anti-government groups in the US, but we'd be silly to pretend that this doesn't directly touch on the topic of gun ownership here in the states. But I digress.

Number of U.S. Hate Groups Is Rising, Report Says

Jayme

United States5866 Posts

December 20 2012 19:03 GMT

#5764

On December 21 2012 03:05 AmericanNightmare wrote:

Show nested quote +

Riddled with crime and death... come on Mr Sensational.. I'm told that I should worry for my safety should I travel to the CR.. my government tells me your country is "riddled" with crime towards tourist.. After reading the Department of States CR information it will be a place I won't ever be going..

Show nested quote +

Why not? If I want to spend my hard earned money on a weapon that can fire 900 rounds in under a minute why shouldn't I be allowed to? I have done nothing ever in my life time to show I shouldn't have such a weapon. Do I have a practical use for a weapon like that? Nope.. but I don't see the practical use for people to have 5 cars in a household of 3... or for 1 family to have houses all around the country..

I should be able to buy any gun I wish as long as I have proven that I'm not a risk... And saying I might be a risk in the future doesn't cut it because it can't be proven.. If I can legally buy a sound suppressor then why can't I buy a modern automatic rifle?

Automatic rifles are used for two primary things. Suppressive fire and killing a whole shit load of people. There is no other purpose. You do not use an automatic rifle for home defense. You do not use an automatic rifle to hunt. You use it to kill people. That...is...it. It is a tool specifically designed to kill people in an efficient manner.

The primary difference between someone having five cars and multiple houses as opposed to owning a fully automatic assault rifle is enormous...primarily because the purpose of owning a car or a house doesn't revolve around killing people.

Do I think people should be allowed to own guns? Yea sure. Do I think there should be heavy restrictions on it? Yes...most definitely. Everyone doesn't need a gun. I see no practical application for even a semi automatic rifle for a civilian and I honestly believe that most people shouldn't be able to purchase one. If you want to purchase something for home defense then you get a shotgun or a handgun. Can they kill people? Absolutely. Do they have practical applications? Absolutely.

Your logic basically asserts that I should be able to purchase hand grenades with my hard earned money just because...or hell a rocket launcher for that matter...how about a patriot missile launching system? Yea...I don't agree with you.

jinorazi

Korea (South)4948 Posts

December 20 2012 19:19 GMT

#5765

On December 21 2012 04:03 Jayme wrote:

Show nested quote +

some people love different kind of guns just like some people love different kind of cars.
i'd love to get a 800hp car or modify my car to do so but there are others that see it as an idiotic thing to do, just like people see guns as a tool for killing only.
gun lovers dont see guns as a purpose to shoot people but rather a hobby about guns it self. i see gun enthusiasts loving their guns just like car enthusiasts love cars, once your fear of firearms fades after being around it, that taboo feeling disappears. (i was like that at first)
but it is very dangerous and it should never ever be in incapable hands, just like fast cars.

there are collectors/enthusiasts of machine guns, cannons, artillery, flamethrowers and whatnot, they are enthusiasts, not killers.

i'm for better and well thought out regulation (drawing a line whats ok or not for civilians, stricter accessibility), not a complete gun ban.

BallinWitStalin

1177 Posts

December 20 2012 19:22 GMT

#5766

On December 21 2012 04:03 Jayme wrote:

Show nested quote +

Yeah pretty much this. You have to draw your line in the sand somewhere. There's a spectrum of weaponry between a small rifle and a nuclear bomb. Societies draw a line somwhere on that spectrum limiting what civilians are allowed to own. Some people want the line drawn at hunting rifles, others at handguns, others at assault rifles. But as the poster above said, what really differentiates between an assault rifle and a grenade or rocket launcher? All three are primarily designed to kill people effectively, one is just based on a controlled combustion explosion firing a projectile, something it shares in common with other devices that have legitimate uses (rifles for hunting, potentially handguns for other reasons). The distinction is largely arbitrary, though. Why not have civilians able to purchase grenades, or rocket launchers, or tanks, or howitzers, or a variety of other exotic weaponry that could "possibly" be used for self-defense? People draw lines usually based on the destructive capacity of those weapons. For some reason, though, because assault rifles are based on a similar design principle relative to hunting rifles they're okay? It really does seem pretty arbitrary to me.

farvacola

United States18818 Posts

December 20 2012 19:47 GMT

#5767

Despite recent progress in some states, millions of mental-health records remain missing from the national database that gun dealers use to run background checks on potential buyers, according to a new analysis of federal data by a coalition of U.S. mayors.

Amid growing discussion of the need for new legislation on gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the gaps in mental-health records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System compromise one of the main measures already in place for gun dealers and law enforcement to prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group of more than 800 city leaders that recently analyzed new Federal Bureau of Investigation data.

Federal law prohibits firearms sales to anyone declared mentally unfit by a court or similar body. In the 1990s, the FBI began assembling a national database of individuals prohibited from buying firearms, partly with the help of a 1993 federal law that required states to report mental-health records to the FBI. But in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the requirement, ruling that states could share mental-health records as they wished.

Contributions to the database have since been sparse, because of privacy laws, technological hurdles and the costs of reporting, according to a July report by the Government Accountability Office.

Just 12 states account for the vast majority of the mental-health records in the national database, the GAO found, "and most states have made little or no progress in providing these records."

Millions of Mental-Health Records Missing From Gun-Dealer Database

Defacer

Canada5052 Posts

December 20 2012 20:05 GMT

#5768

On December 21 2012 03:26 Focuspants wrote:
If you want to make the argument that your "right and freedom" to spend your money on whatever you want, regardless of its harmful potential, outweighs the cost of having dangerous weapons floating around and the lives that costs, you can make that argument. Is it right or wrong, I guess thats subjective. Most of the world would say its wrong, some of you might say its right.

However, to remove the responsibility from guns, for the damage they cause is not logical or right. You always see the argument that the gun didnt kill the person, the person did. They solely blame it on the perpetrator, and their character and mental condition. yet, in their next breathe, they show a case where a gun defended someone successfully, and fully attribute the defense of that person to the firearm, and not at all to the fact that they are a good person, and have a stable mind and living situation. You cant have your cake and eat it too. The guns are still at least partially responsible for the damage they cause.

I personally dont think there is a place for firearms in a civilized society, other than in the hands of law enforcement and the military. If you believe that there is a place for them, then you better do everything in your power to limit the certain harm that they will cause. All I see is, "I havent done anything wrong so I should be able to buy whatever I want". Meanwhile, people that said the exact same thing you said, and felt the same way you did, all of a sudden had something happen, and now used that firearm to hurt someone else or themselves.

While I think that there should be a intelligent, enforceable and regulated pathway to gun ownership for civilians, I want to thank you for pointing out the intellectual dishonesty of the pro-gun zealots.

You can't argue that 'people kill people,' and then turn around and suggestion that even easier access to guns to teachers, librarians or your dog-walker is some kind of solution to preventing gun violence ... as if the simple act of gun ownership creates a forcefield of invincibility around potential victims, and somehow equalizes you against criminals and lunatic with guns.

Pro-Gun advocates are quick to point out that guns don't kill people, but they are the one's that talk about guns like they are magic objects that insure the personal safety of anyone that uses them. It's an idiotic line of reasoning.

JingleHell

United States11308 Posts

December 20 2012 20:24 GMT

#5769

It isn't automatically intellectual dishonesty, they merely assume everyone understands the inherent difference between self defense and murder. (Which are certainly different in the eyes of the law at a bare minimum.)

Yes, the gun enables both, but the person who pulls the trigger is the deciding factor on whether the gun is being used for good or evil. To show the examples where a gun saves innocent lives after pointing out that the gun is merely a tool is no different than people who point to tragedy to vilify that tool.

If you can say "X wouldn't have happened the same way without a gun", it's not at all unfair for me to say "Ah, but Y wouldn't have succeeded in defending himself without a gun".

So, since that's out of the way, it really comes down to a few factors.

1: Will people still do bad things without guns?
2: Can guns actually be effectively taken out of the system?
3: Will the potential reduction in mass violence be countered by a potential increase in localized violence and crime?

iplayBANJO

United States129 Posts

December 20 2012 20:40 GMT

#5770

I still think this whole self defense argument everyone is having is not wholly applicable to American gun laws, and find it very odd that people keep bringing up automatic weapons and assault rifles as if they are the primary weapons used in spree shootings. The Bushmaster rifle used in the most recent school shooting incident was a semi-automatic rifle, unless somehow his mother was allowed to own one of the law enforcement or military models which come with three round burst or fully automatic capabilities. The point being that even though it was a long rifle with the appearance of an assault rifle, it was no more dangerous than the handguns he carried with him.

As far as the self defense argument is concerned, armed self-defense actually has its basis in American culture in British common law. This means it was never, or rarely, written down explicitly in American law; it was just commonly accepted. American law, in this case Constitutional law, explicitly protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms for the security of the free state. This is with the intention of protecting the population from oppression through military force. The feasibility of self-defense with firearms has actually been limited through American laws going all the way back to colonial times, which I have mentioned examples of previously in this thread, by state and local governments. The legal problem now with even these types of legislation is that the fourteenth amendment has incorporated many of the Constitutional amendments to apply to the states, as well as the state militias (the National Guard) are almost entirely under federal control. These create not only legislative confusion as to the purpose and affect of the second amendment, but also practical concerns as to its application as well.

I felt it necessary to point out that the issue of gun control, in America at least, is not as simple as what is necessary for self defense. There are other factors which are historically persistent and any honest discussion about gun control in the United States must take these things into consideration. Americans, as a people, have a very tenuous faith in the government to protect them as they are always aware of the ability for a government to oppress its people through many different means, of which force of arms is the most obvious and physically concerning.

mcc

Czech Republic4646 Posts

December 20 2012 20:42 GMT

#5771

On December 21 2012 01:54 Esk23 wrote:

Show nested quote +

On December 21 2012 01:45 mcc wrote:

On December 21 2012 01:28 Esk23 wrote:

On December 21 2012 01:14 mcc wrote:

On December 21 2012 01:02 Esk23 wrote:

On December 21 2012 00:55 mcc wrote:

On December 21 2012 00:53 Esk23 wrote:
Here you go guys, proof it's the drugs that cause this violence. Here is a list of shootings, all connected to psychiatric drugs:

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

There's a reason why Switzerland has a gun in every household there yet gun violence is so, so low. The difference is that 1 in 5 Americans are on psychiatric drugs, the US uses %80 of the world's painkillers while being only %4 of the world's population. US has a major drug problem as I stated before, check the link.

That is no proof. It is as simplistic explanation as saying that gun prevalence alone is the case. It might be some factor, but limited one.

It's clear proof. Sorry that you're disappointed it's not the guns. Some people have the "I have to be right" issue I see.

Are you dense ? In the post you respond to I am saying it is also not guns alone. You seem to be the one with kneejerk reactions and ideological attitude. "It is the guns" is as simplistic and stupid explanation as "It is the drugs". God forbid social phenomena are actually complex.

So let's see. People who use guns to murder (or any other method) others are crazy yes? %99.99 of gun owners and an even higher pecentage of people in the US DO NOT murder. What do people who do mass shootings or even multiple murders have in common? Drugs. What's the difference between law-abiding citizens who own guns who DON'T use their guns to murder have with criminals who do use them for murder? The difference is the latter is either 1) mentally insane or 2) is on some type of drug, specifically psychiatric drug or 3) both of 1 and 2.

What are you even arguing? That taking every single gun out of the US will reduce gun related violence? Probably. Will it stop the crazy people on drugs from continuing to find ways to murder people? No. Will it stop criminals from committing crime? No. Will it make law abiding citizens safer? No. Will it make criminals safer? Yes. Will it be easier for criminals to commit crimes knowing their victims don't have guns? Yes.

Again, Switzerland has a gun in almost every single household yet they have a very low crime rate and gun related violence or homicide rate. A clear big difference between the US and Switzerland is that one of them has 1 out of 5 of their citizens on psychiatric drugs and uses %80 of the world's pain killers while being %4 of the world's population. US has a MAJOR drug abuse problem while Switzerland does not.

People in Switzerland also eat more cheese and produce more watches. Your grasp of statistical evidence and causality vs correlation is non-existent.

People who use guns to murder others are sometimes crazy and sometimes not. So no, your first assumption is already wrong. Your other inferences are similarly wrong. There are plenty of multiple murderers that are not on drugs or drugs have absolutely no impact on their murders and are not mentally insane.

What I am arguing is that blaming the difference in violence in US compared to let's say Switzerland solely (or even mostly) on drugs is simplistic and there is absolutely no proof that it is like that. Other than nonsensical correlations like my example with cheese and watches.

If you're a moron and think cheese and watches have an impact on violence then you can. You just posted that murderers are "sometimes insane, sometimes not." At this point I'm not even taking you seriously anymore. Murder is insanity, unlawful killing of someone is insane. How is murder not insane? Killing in self defense is different.

If you want to put silly things like cheese and watches on the same scale of drugs, clearly, you have no idea what the effects of drugs are:

"The Physicians' Desk Reference lists the following adverse reactions (side effects) to antidepressants among a host of other physical and neuropsychiatric effects. None of these adverse reactions (side effects) is listed as Rare. They are all listed as either Frequent or as Infrequent:"

Manic Reaction (Mania, e.g., Kleptomania, Pyromania, Dipsomania, Nymphomania)
Hypomania (e.g., poor judgment, over spending, impulsivity, etc.)
Abnormal Thinking
Hallucinations
Personality Disorder
Amnesia
Agitation
Psychosis
Abnormal Dreams

Emotional Lability (Or Instability)
Alcohol Abuse and/or Craving
Hostility
Paranoid Reactions
Confusion
Delusions
Sleep Disorders
Akathisia (Severe Inner Restlessness)
Discontinuation (Withdrawal) Syndrome
Impulsivity

http://www.ssristories.com/index.html

I don't believe "Cheese and watch making" have any bad side effects. Please stop being stupid and compare the side effects of drugs to cheese and watch making.

The point of those examples was to show that correlation does not mean causation, which you still cannot comprehend. You showed no compelling evidence that the causation in the case of drugs is relevant and more importantly causes majority or all of the claimed effects. The only thing you showed is complete ignorance of statistics, psychiatry and logic. Just because drugs have negative psychological side effects is no evidence of them causing increase in violence on a scale that would explain the majority of the observed effect. You show no numbers, nor mechanisms strong enough to cause the effect of the magnitude observed in reality.

Insanity in the context you use is term from psychiatry and there it does not follow that murderer is mentally insane. If you want to use terminology use it correctly. Even if we agreed that they are insane, there are different kinds of "insanity" and you show no evidence that drugs cause the ones associated with increased violence in amount significantly big enough to cause the observed effects.

Again you show that you have no idea what "proof" means in empirical sciences and have no idea about what counts as conclusive evidence.

To show what you want to show you would have to at least show that there is correlation on bigger range of countries. Why there are such a big differences in violence between different EU countries without corresponding levels of drug use. That is because you are trying to explain complex social phenomena by simplistic explanation. Not really surprising considering your nonsensical claims.

mcc

Czech Republic4646 Posts

December 20 2012 20:49 GMT

#5772

On December 21 2012 02:10 jacosajh wrote:

Show nested quote +

On December 21 2012 02:04 Focuspants wrote:

On December 21 2012 02:01 Esk23 wrote:

On December 21 2012 01:45 silynxer wrote:

On December 21 2012 01:38 Esk23 wrote:

On December 21 2012 01:35 silynxer wrote:

On December 21 2012 01:28 Esk23 wrote:

On December 21 2012 01:14 mcc wrote:

On December 21 2012 01:02 Esk23 wrote:

On December 21 2012 00:55 mcc wrote:
[quote]
That is no proof. It is as simplistic explanation as saying that gun prevalence alone is the case. It might be some factor, but limited one.

It's clear proof. Sorry that you're disappointed it's not the guns. Some people have the "I have to be right" issue I see.

You could go back one page and read what a guy from Switzerland wrote about the gun situation in his country and how it is a bit different from the US.
Btw you can use the same argument like above about people who use drugs or are mentally ill, a really high percentage of them does not kill anyone, but those who manage to do so are likely to own guns (I will not make that argument because it's simplistic and stupid and perhaps not even true, I just try to show you that the situation might be somewhat more complex than you are painting here).

Or maybe because most of the people on those drugs commit suicide rather than go on shooting sprees. I agree that we need to make sure we have ways to keep guns out of mentally insane or psychiatrically drugged people, BUT this has to be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens rights to own guns who have done nothing wrong.

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=suicides

Suicide is another interesting topic. People who own guns are more likely to die in a suicide (because they are more likely successful), there was a study linked in this thread I think. Whether that's good or bad or not that bad is again a bit difficult to decide.
Your links to ssristories do not show anything if you do not have a complete list of all incidents (with and without drug or suicide).

People die from suicide 3-4 times more than they do from firearms. If I find a statistic that shows how many people who commit suicide are on drugs or psychiatric drugs I will post it.

If someone wants to commit suicide, they will do so with or without a gun.

"The Harvard School of Mental Health just published the results of a study that examined the relationship between household firearms ownership and the rate of suicide. According to the study suicide among people 45 years of age and younger suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States. Among the 50 states in the United States, those with higher rates of household gun ownership had higher rates of suicide among children, women and men.

It is important to understand, according to the study, that the higher rates of suicide among those who own guns has to do with the fact that guns are much more lethal than other methods of attempting suicide. What is troubling about this is that suicide attempts are viewed as a desperate call for help among those who are depressed or mentally ill with a psychotic illness. The rate of successful suicide completions is far less for people who use other methods than using a gun. For example, 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. These people are found alive 97% of the time. Those who succeed in using drugs to attempt suicide are successful only 3% of the time. By contrast, more than 90% of all suicide attempts by use of firearms are successful. The bottom line is that anyone using a gun to commit suicide is not likely to have their call for help heard and responded to before its too late."

That is all you need to know. There is a chance to receive help if you survive. You don't survive if you use a gun. It is a waste of a potentially salvageable life.

Again, you are wanting to deal with the symptom, not the cause. Taking away guns would decrease the amount of total successful suicides? But what about dealing with why people want to commit suicides? Unless you think there is no issue there -- suicide attempts will happen no matter what you do and there is no value in trying to deal with this issue?

So basically we end up with a lot more of people, who probably happen to have mental issues, but of no way with trying to cope with this? So we just assign someone to watch them 24/7? Or hope that the 3% chance of success decreases or holds up over infinity time?

In a lot of cases there is no way to help the person before he attempts a suicide, because he hides that anything is wrong. So by eliminating guns from the equation you allow that cause to be discovered and treated. You are assuming there is a way to treat the cause beforehand. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. In the latter case lack of guns allows possibly saving that person.

mcc

Czech Republic4646 Posts

December 20 2012 20:58 GMT

#5773

On December 21 2012 03:05 AmericanNightmare wrote:

Show nested quote +

I have no idea what your government tells about Czech Republic. Maybe you should post it so I can laugh at their statements.
You might face pickpockets in CR. Now lets look at murders for example, oh, wait you are completely riddled with those compared to us. It is not sensationalism, it is simple look at the relative numbers. As I said you are no hellhole, but considering your wealth you are relatively dysfunctional compared to the countries with similar economical state.

Dracolich70

Denmark3820 Posts

December 20 2012 20:58 GMT

#5774

More guns. And when the criminals bring something more lethal, bring me some of that and then some.

Zaqwe

591 Posts

December 20 2012 21:28 GMT

#5775

Its very easy to see when you look at statistics that the policies of European nations are not at all beneficial to their citizens. They seem to be deliberately intended to increase crime. Perhaps that is their goal, as increased crime justifies increased government power and government budgets.

Sadly so many Europeans seem to have Stockholm syndrome and happily go along with whatever policy their government institutions demand, regardless of the cost to themselves.

US’ Violent Crime Rates Compared To Western Europe’s

Western Europe’s violent crime rate is 265% of the United States, while the murder rate is 43% higher than the US. And Europe’s violent crime and homicide rates are rising again, while the United States rates continue to fall. The following graphic gives an overview of the situation.

[image loading]

http://extranosalley.com/?p=30730

jinorazi

Korea (South)4948 Posts

December 20 2012 21:35 GMT

#5776

On December 21 2012 06:28 Zaqwe wrote:
Its very easy to see when you look at statistics that the policies of European nations are not at all beneficial to their citizens. They seem to be deliberately intended to increase crime. Perhaps that is their goal, as increased crime justifies increased government power and government budgets.

Sadly so many Europeans seem to have Stockholm syndrome and happily go along with whatever policy their government institutions demand, regardless of the cost to themselves.

US’ Violent Crime Rates Compared To Western Europe’s

Western Europe’s violent crime rate is 265% of the United States, while the murder rate is 43% higher than the US. And Europe’s violent crime and homicide rates are rising again, while the United States rates continue to fall. The following graphic gives an overview of the situation.

[image loading]

http://extranosalley.com/?p=30730

is UK the bastard child of europe? lol

mcc

Czech Republic4646 Posts

December 20 2012 21:38 GMT

#5777

On December 21 2012 06:28 Zaqwe wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

http://extranosalley.com/?p=30730

Yes, very trustworthy source. Funny how all official data actually contradict his statement that "murder rate is 43% higher than the US". Basically he is lying to fulfill his ideological agenda.

KwarK

United States41949 Posts

December 20 2012 21:40 GMT

#5778

http://extranosalley.com/?p=30730

Those graphs are fictional.

farvacola

United States18818 Posts

December 20 2012 21:47 GMT

#5779

He's trying to pull a Ross Perot. Don't fall for it!

KingLol

54 Posts

December 20 2012 22:06 GMT

#5780

Hahaha, oh man those graphs are hilarious xD

The guy that made them should at least have cited an imaginary source or something to make it look less obvious.

Prev 1 287 288 289 290 291 891 Next

Please or register to reply.

If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming