Actually, I made a typo. This is the way my post should have read:

I only thought of buying a 12 gauge pump action shot gun when I thought the African Americans in my neighborhood would go on a rampage when George Zimmerman was acquitted. Fortunately, there were no riots, and I did not buy the shotgun. I have never owned a gun. It has been years since I fired one. I do not like guns.

Like most people, in my own life I have known success and failure, happiness and sorrow.

Unlike some posters here I do not project anger and hate. I would never post something like this, or feel this way:

The reason you feel this way about me is not because I gratuitously attack you like you gratuitously attacked me just now. It is because I post facts about racial differences that have legitimate policy implications, and that you know are true, but do not want to be reminded of.

If you were an isolated crank, your hate filled diatribes directed at me would not matter. Unfortunately, you are one of many who suppress an honest and public discussion of this important matter which deserves to be discussed publicly and honestly when discussing immigration policy, criminal justice, and affirmative action.

This is what George Orwell had to say about you (plural) and your (plural) hate:

 

Demonic possession is held by many belief systems to be the spirit possession of an individual by a malevolent preternatural being, commonly known as a demon. Descriptions of demonic possessions often include erased memories or personalities, convulsions (i.e. epileptic seizures or “fits”) and fainting as if one were dying.[1] Other descriptions include access to hidden knowledge (gnosis) and foreign languages (xenoglossy), drastic changes in vocal intonation and facial structure, the sudden appearance of injuries (scratches, bite marks) or lesions, and superhuman strength. Unlike in channeling, the subject has no control over the possessing entity and so it will persist until forced to leave the victim, usually through a form of exorcism.

Many cultures and religions contain some concept of demonic possession, but the details vary considerably. The oldest references to demonic possession are from the Sumerians, who believed that all diseases of the body and mind were caused by "sickness demons" called gidim or gid-dim.[2] The priests who practised exorcisms in these nations were called ashipu (sorcerer) as opposed to an asu (physician) who applied bandages and salves.[3] Many cuneiform clay tablets contain prayers to certain gods asking for protection from demons, while others ask the gods to expel the demons that have invaded their bodies.

Shamanic cultures also believe in demon possession and shamans perform exorcisms. In these cultures, diseases are often attributed to the presence of a vengeful spirit (or loosely termed demon) in the body of the patient. These spirits are more often the spectres of animals or people wronged by the bearer, the exorcism rites usually consisting of respectful offerings or sacrificial offerings.

Christianity holds that possession derives from the Devil, i.e. Satan, or one of his lesser demons. From Wikipedia

 

There couldn't possibly be (multiple) confounding variables. Nope, definitely not.


I don't think the problem exists from the prevalence of firearms. That's not a popular opinion amongst some. I think the problem is in mental health. Interestingly, the article itself mentions this! A huge stigma exists in mental health to the point where some won't seek help. On top of that, mental health funding isn't exactly a priority in the U.S.. We also have our homelessness issues due to the same since it' a major cause. We already know that veterans come back with a variety of mental illnesses and we already know that there are a lot of homeless vets. So why aren't we putting money into it? I'll play on fear: how long until we get veterans doing attacks? (I'm sure SOMEBODY'S seen "Assault on Wall Street")

Now that I've gone off on a tangent... On top of the mental health issues, the article completely ignores attacks other than those via firearm. I suspect that this evens out a bit once you include other "mass attacks". I honestly can't name a mass knife attack in the U.S., but I can name at least one in the U.K and multiple in China. People will use what is available IF they are going to attack.... but if we got them help beforehand it'd never happen.

Overall, this article pushes a disingenuous point, however; those trying to say "more guns = more safety" are far beyond disingenuous. Let's say we're all armed. What happens in that theater in Colorado? I'm sure several people are having an orgasm in their hero complex right now; they're eager to tell us all about how they'd take out that shooter. But they don't realize that person #42 sees the "hero" shooting, so they aim for them, thinking they're the shooter.... then person #21 aims for #42... etc.



Also, we, as Americans, tend to overestimate threats. Let's take the article's own figures: 292 attacks with an average of 6.87 victims each. For easy math, I'll even up it to 10 victims: 2920 victims. Let's look at the top killer of Americans:

Note that homicide and, for that matter TERRORISM is not listed. We have bigger problems - notably health issues....

Happy Thanksgiving.

 

Criminals obey gun laws. The fallacy the Left wants you to believe. Criminals vote for gun control, to make their crimes easier

 

This post doesn't have a single fallacy, not one...NOPE!

 

as a none American I have one question. With regards to the 4 terrorist deaths and the 32,000 gun deaths. Why do Americans feel safer with BILLIONS (possibly trillions) of Dollars being spent on 'fighting terrorism' but think the gun laws are fine and dandy?

On this side of the pond, we hear a lot about the 2nd amendment and the sanctity of it but that was written at a time where slavery was cool and people were shitting in the street! The word amendment has a meaning and it can still be applied to the current 2nd amendment.

As an outsider to the USA and from a country where the majority of our police dont even carry guns, the USA culture for firearms in incomprehensible!

 

The U.S. gun laws are not fine and dandy, there are way too many gun laws that have been proven to be a total fucking failure, and have not prevented anything that it was ever intended to prevent.

Slavery was never cool in the U.S., there were several debates prior to the creation of this nation to abolish slavery, obviously that is not taught in the ''over the pond'' text books, not in the U.S. text books.

So what, who cares, guns are not the only means for an impressive violent crime murder rate, people kill people, and not all murders are done with guns.

Low violent crime rates in the U.S. are typical found where ''gun laws'' are at a minimum , obviously another fact that is not found in ''over the pond'' text books.

 

Oh, so funny!!! I expected a feeble response. Attack is not always the best form of defence! Sometimes, your opinion is just wrong, like the USA gun culture. You cannot defend 32,000 gun deaths a year!!! I consider a bullet to be a pretty Fucking violent crime!!!

 

And to simplify, the point about the second amendment, it is out of date and antiquated! The mention of slavery and shitting in street was irony!! Not a literal debate about slavery but, that was you diversion tactic to avoid the real debate!

 

I was not attacking, just logically explaining, yet I can understand how you would conceive it as attack.

I'm certainly not defending 32,000 gun deaths in the U.S., only merely defending MY Constitutional right to have guns.

Bullets are not ''pretty fucking violent'', another leftist misconception you have, the individual pulling the trigger, IS ''pretty fucking violent''.

 

What do you know TROLL.?

 

Hahahaha why am I a troll? You are a classic example of an ignorant person who has an opinion but no intellectual argument because, even through your stupidity, you realise you cannot defend the indefensible!

 

He resorts to insults when he is at a loss

 

Like so many others here.

 

Yup

 

Other factors that need to be considered are the increase in the prison population, and the increase in abortions that followed the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The same kind of females who are most likely to give birth to boy babies who grow up to be violent criminals are also most likely to have abortions. They are unmarried and stupid.

The argument that more abortions lead to less crime was presented in Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. Until I read their book I was opposed to the Roe v. Wade decision because I thought it was a flimsy piece of legal reasoning, and because I thought it had benefited the Republican Party. I still think it is a flimsy piece of legal reasoning. I still think it benefits the Republican Party.

 

I would like to prohibit flaming here. That would leave ace's 'n 8's 69magpie, and a few others speechless. Hopefully, they would leave.

 

If you achieved that doggo then you'd be the only one here....

Talking to yourself and drowning in your own shite.

 

A brief conversation between deviousdave and me would express more knowledge and wisdom than you have expressed since you came here.

 

That'd surely be a riveting conversation, guaranteed to put everyone to sleep.