Aldon Smith Agrees to Plea Deal

[NinerSickness]

Look, at this point it doesn't really matter. I think we've got a serious problem with gun violence in the country that demands action beyond further reducing regulations on guns. You disagree with part or all of that. We're not likely to change one another's minds.

I think a really good compromise would be to simply exempt all women and anyone over the age of... say... 27 from gun regulations as those people are clearly not the problem when it comes to gun violence.

 

[OzzieGiant]

I think a really good compromise would be to simply exempt all women and anyone over the age of... say... 27 from gun regulations as those people are clearly not the problem when it comes to gun violence.

The only people purporting a failure of the gun reform in Australia is the pro gun lobby in the US via teh manipulation of statistics. It is widely accepted to have been an outstanding success in Australia.


No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

 

[NinerSickness]

The only people purporting a failure of the gun reform in Australia is the pro gun lobby in the US via teh manipulation of statistics.

Manipulation of statistics? I got the information from the Australian Institute of Criminology. What a weak and lazy way to try to dismiss data because you don't like it.

Gun crime more than doubles in one year in England after the '97 gun ban, and you anti-gun people still can't admit you're wrong. Mind blowing.

And by the way, I used to be an anti-gun person (still never owned one) until I saw that every single place on planet earth there's a gun ban crime goes up.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Manipulation of statistics? I got the information from the Australian Institute of Criminology. What a weak and lazy way to try to dismiss data because you don't like it.

Gun crime more than doubles in one year in England after the '97 gun ban, and you anti-gun people still can't admit you're wrong. Mind blowing.

And by the way, I used to be an anti-gun person (still never owned one) until I saw that every single place on planet earth there's a gun ban crime goes up.

Did you notice who wrote that article?

 

[whysies]

Did you notice who wrote that article?

Legit loled

I would be surprised that Sick is going to ride this contrarian schtick into the ground. But then I remember how vehemently he has stuck to his guns* regarding his retarded trade ideas and this all makes sense.

*no pun intended

 

[joshuar56]

Manipulation of statistics? I got the information from the Australian Institute of Criminology. What a weak and lazy way to try to dismiss data because you don't like it.

Gun crime more than doubles in one year in England after the '97 gun ban, and you anti-gun people still can't admit you're wrong. Mind blowing.

And by the way, I used to be an anti-gun person (still never owned one) until I saw that every single place on planet earth there's a gun ban crime goes up.

Doubled? From what, 3 to 6???

 

[deep9er]

It shows that the prevalence of home owners (and business owners) with guns is a significant factor in how criminals operate. Nobody's saying it's the only factor.

There are simply far fewer home invasions & robberies (armed or otherwise; residential or business) in places where people tend to have a lot of guns.

you're focusing on what gun advocates are focusing on.......protecting yourself. agree that is a good reason so not arguing against this INTENT.

however, because more and more 'good' people are obtaining guns, these same guns are becoming more accessible to people who shouldn't have them. children and teens are able to get them and end up shooting themselves, their friend, or schoolmates. parents like to think its the other parents who didn't do a good job securing it, until it happens to them.

mentally unstable people are able to obtain them, and they randomly shoot people at roads/highways, in theatres, shopping malls, on college campus', etc. these aren't the extreme mental cases, but the borderline cases. can your guns at home protect your family in these situations? were Columbine HS students protected by their parents?

then there are those who steal guns, and it gets circulated amongst the "gang bangers", and other criminals. they return to commit crimes on you with YOUR gun(s).

if NOBODY had any guns, there would still be crimes, but much less innocent people would die.

 

[NinerFan52]

if NOBODY had any guns, there would still be crimes, but much less innocent people would die.

this is true, but the problem occurs with removing all the guns at the same time. They are so prevelant in our society that it would be about as successful as prohibition. Criminals would still have access to the guns, law abiding citizens wouldn't.

 

[NinerSickness]

Doubled? From what, 3 to 6???

From 2,636 in 1997 to 5,871 in 1998 (the year following the gun ban). England has the highest gun crime rate of any 1st-world nation on planet earth.

I remember how vehemently he has stuck to his guns

My guns? I've never owned a gun in my life.

 

[NinerSickness]

if NOBODY had any guns, there would still be crimes, but much less innocent people would die.

Kind of like nobody owns guns in England? Because they're illegal, is it safe to assume nobody owns guns there?

Oh wait, they have the highest gun crime of any 1st-world nation on planet earth. So clearly making guns illegal doesn't mean that nobody will own guns. That just means only law-abiding people won't have guns.

 

[whysies]

My guns? I've never owned a gun in my life.

Not sure if comedic genius or low IQ contrarian schtick.

Also,

 

[whysies]

Did you notice who wrote that article?

Bump

 

[NinerSickness]

Bump

I got those Australia stats from Australian Institute of Criminology.

The England stats I got from a British Newspaper I've never heard of called the daily mail. Obviously I don't read British publications. It cited 2,636 crimes involving guns in 1997 and 5,871 in 1998. Are those numbers not correct? If they're not correct, them please enlighten us on what the actual gun crime statistics were from those years.

Or, because we both know those numbers are accurate and you're not going to produce a "correct" number, you can keep insisting on ignoring the fact that gun crime goes up everywhere they limit legal gun ownership on the face of the planet.

 

[whysies]

I got those Australia stats from Australian Institute of Criminology.

The England stats I got from a British Newspaper I've never heard of called the daily mail. Obviously I don't read British publications. It cited 2,636 crimes involving guns in 1997 and 5,871 in 1998. Are those numbers not correct? If they're not correct, them please enlighten us on what the actual gun crime statistics were from those years.

Or, because we both know those numbers are accurate and you're not going to produce a "correct" number, you can keep insisting on ignoring the fact that gun crime goes up everywhere they limit legal gun ownership on the face of the planet.

Now I'm not sure if this is contrarian low-IQ schtick or just a reader of stupid conservative chain emails.

Look, I wasn't talking about Britain dawg, Crimson was directing you to an article someone posted that you railed against. Did you catch who wrote it?

Spoiler: it was someone from the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Also, I think the Daily Mail is a legit publication in GB but I don't really know that for sure.

 

[NinerSickness]

Now I'm not sure if this is contrarian low-IQ schtick or just a reader of stupid conservative chain emails.

Crimson was directing you to an article someone posted that you railed against. It was someone from the Australian Institute of Criminology.

1. I didn't rail against the article; I railed against the accusation that I was manipulating statistics. I didn't even read the posted article. But after your post I did go back and read that article, and they didn't make a single claim about how many armed robberies there were in 1996, 1997, 1998 or any other year. If you claim a statistic is incorrect, you should provide the correct ones. They didn't.

2. I was not emailed any of these articles; I found them myself.

Again, we both know you're not going to provide any "correct" statistics, so you need a different angle.

 

[deep9er]

this is true, but the problem occurs with removing all the guns at the same time. They are so prevelant in our society that it would be about as successful as prohibition. Criminals would still have access to the guns, law abiding citizens wouldn't.

yes, we all wish we could limit guns only to those who should have it - military and law enforcement. but we wouldn't be able to remove all the 'bad' guns, no way. reduce it or reduce it indirectly (no ammo), but not eliminate it.

at least reducing it will reduce innocent fatalities, and that's a start.

 

[NinerSickness]

at least reducing it will INCREASE innocent fatalities, and that's a start.

FIFY.

 

[whysies]

1. I didn't rail against the article; I railed against the accusation that I was manipulating statistics. I didn't even read the posted article. But after your post I did go back and read that article, and they didn't make a single claim about how many armed robberies there were in 1996, 1997, 1998 or any other year. If you claim a statistic is incorrect, you should provide the correct ones. They didn't.

2. I was not emailed any of these articles; I found them myself.

Again, we both know you're not going to provide any "correct" statistics, so you need a different angle.

I think you rage is coloring your perspective and you're losing track of who you're arguing what against. Just take a deep breath Sick.

I'm not saying anything about statistics myself (something something "damned lies" something something), I was more commenting on the absurdity of you repeatedly flying off the handle when people disagree with you and strapping yourself to the sinking ship that is one of your arguments because you somehow know more about random ass topics because you're smarter than everyone, including people who do the shit you argue about/for/against for a living.

Like I always say though, Sick gonna Sick and I dig it brother, keep on doing your thing.

 

[NinerSickness]

You think that was flying off the handle?

You should see people react to my claim that Kaepernick is a dumb QB if you want to see people thoroughly removed from the vicinity of any and all handles.

 

[deep9er]

Kind of like nobody owns guns in England? Because they're illegal, is it safe to assume nobody owns guns there?

Oh wait, they have the highest gun crime of any 1st-world nation on planet earth. So clearly making guns illegal doesn't mean that nobody will own guns. That just means only law-abiding people won't have guns.

but your using the general "gun crime" stat, without knowing other factors? for example, where did these crimes occur? what if 95% of these gun crimes are robbery of drug stores, bank robbers, drug deals gone bad, etc.? if the majority of these 'gun crimes' were not at homes, then the premise of protecting "you and yours", wouldn't apply.

are these stats still current today, or has gun crimes been reduced over time?