Rampage shooting in Santa Barbara by misogynist 22-yo.

[Raw Shark]

And assuming he was we must remember that the recruiting call for those in fact includes 40 (IIRC) sexual slave virgins(!) no less.

It's 72 virgins. Not sure why such a random number, or why virgins*, but there it is.

* I've never personally de-virginized somebody. Not sure why, it just weirds me out.

[Vain]

And assuming he was we must remember that the recruiting call for those in fact includes 40 (IIRC) sexual slave virgins(!) no less.

It's 72 virgins. Not sure why such a random number, or why virgins*, but there it is.

* I've never personally de-virginized somebody. Not sure why, it just weirds me out.

It is neither. Anyone who makes it into paradise (including but not limited to martyrs) is promised a non-specific plural number of houri to serve them. Houri are described as pure spiritual beings, beautiful, eternally young, hairless and also transparent (!). They serve both men and women who arrive in paradise, and there is some debate about whether they are lacking in gender or whether there are both male and female houri.

The specific number 72 comes from the hadiths and there are some scholars who believe that 72 wives is a mistranslation and it may have originally been 72 angels or even 72 raisins.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

And assuming he was we must remember that the recruiting call for those in fact includes 40 (IIRC) sexual slave virgins(!) no less.

It's 72 virgins. Not sure why such a random number, or why virgins*, but there it is.

* I've never personally de-virginized somebody. Not sure why, it just weirds me out.

Are those boys sure it's not "Virgils" instead of "virgins?"

[duelling banjos][/duelling banjos]

[Purple]

And assuming he was we must remember that the recruiting call for those in fact includes 40 (IIRC) sexual slave virgins(!) no less.

It's 72 virgins. Not sure why such a random number, or why virgins*, but there it is.

* I've never personally de-virginized somebody. Not sure why, it just weirds me out.

Why would it weird you out?

[Raw Shark]

Why would it weird you out?

No idea. I've come as close as I could several times (no really - use your imagination here) and always hesitated. Something about being immortalized as The First or something. It's a weird mental block.

[Lonestar]

hey, at least your post had substance, compared to Lonestar's and Shep's, both of which are fresh enough shitposts I wouldn't put them on my roses for 12 months.

Yes, My post was a shitpost, compared to the guy who laid out bait with a clearly false statement(referring to increasingly restrictive laws a "concrete gun rights bills).

But it dosen't matter. America has decided the situation is fine, the current situation is clearly working, and short of a massive investment in mental health treatment, the deaths of a few dozen a year is an acceptable price to pay to be able to shoot recreationally.

(1)Nearly none of the "gun rights nutcases" as Maraxus so eloquently put it, fight it on recreational use grounds. It's often viewed as an extension for the right to self defense, even if they mostly just put it through paper. It's certainly is the case with me.

(2)Property rights still exist in the country, and however much you may personally be a cowardly shit who gladly strips others of their rights because of your feels, a compelling argument can be made to most people that arbitrary confiscation of property(and that's what it will lead to) for at the absolute best a marginal reduction of active shooters is a Bad Thing.

[MKSheppard]

We put up permanent memorials where people are killed in drunk driving incidents

You mean like that stretch of road where a cop near me put his cruiser into a tree responding to a call? The cops have repainted a piece of guardrail there as the "Thin Blue Line" motif; but it remains to be seen how long the area will remember him.

[MKSheppard]

for at the absolute best a marginal reduction of active shooters is a Bad Thing.

1% of all murders in Maryland are with rifles. "Assault weapons" are an even tinier subset of that 1%; but it's bound to grow as more and more modern sporting rifles are sold, such as Tavors and more people buy them instead of fudd fuddiest hunting rifles in .270 by god winchester.

[madd0ct0r]

hey, at least your post had substance, compared to Lonestar's and Shep's, both of which are fresh enough shitposts I wouldn't put them on my roses for 12 months.

Yes, My post was a shitpost, compared to the guy who laid out bait with a clearly false statement(referring to increasingly restrictive laws a "concrete gun rights bills).

But it dosen't matter. America has decided the situation is fine, the current situation is clearly working, and short of a massive investment in mental health treatment, the deaths of a few dozen a year is an acceptable price to pay to be able to shoot recreationally.

(1)Nearly none of the "gun rights nutcases" as Maraxus so eloquently put it, fight it on recreational use grounds. It's often viewed as an extension for the right to self defense, even if they mostly just put it through paper. It's certainly is the case with me.

(2)Property rights still exist in the country, and however much you may personally be a cowardly shit who gladly strips others of their rights because of your feels, a compelling argument can be made to most people that arbitrary confiscation of property(and that's what it will lead to) for at the absolute best a marginal reduction of active shooters is a Bad Thing.

Fine then, mah handsome cowboy, lemme rephrase that for you. "But it dosen't matter. America has decided the situation is fine, the current situation is clearly working, and short of a massive investment in mental health treatment, the deaths of a few dozen a year is an acceptable price to pay to be able to maintain their right to own something that gives them a false sense of security and is sometimes used to shoot recreationally."

Property rights is obviously in direct conflict with regulation of stuff a society decides is overall negative for everyday members to wave around everyday, while that stuff is still owned (and ignoring sensible middle road options just like my handsome cowboy did). But we said the same about slaves, and we said the same about opiates, and I'm not sure what the current status of various exotic pets, but I'm pretty sure that varies year on year, state by state.
Oh, but yeah SELF DEFENSE (and I'm an snivelling coward for not needing a gun to avoid getting mugged, apparently). Yeah well, the day wearing a gun stops me getting shot or smacked on the back of a head by a brick, I'll acknowledge the point, but for now, I reckon my cowboy has been watching too many films, and puts too much faith in irrational members of society behaving rationally. G'Night y'all.

[Joun_Lord]

the deaths of a few dozen a year is an acceptable price to pay to be able to maintain their right to own something that gives them a false sense of security and is sometimes used to shoot recreationally."

False sense of security my oversized pimply behind. People do use firearms to successfully defend themselves, defend their families, defend their property, and to defend others.

Now if you are talking about the idiots who believe firearms are some magic totem that will ward off evil through its unholy power (I'll get to that a bit more later gator), yeah then its a false sense of security. But most gun owners aren't a bunch of cowadooty kids or complete idiots and understand firearms are not an instant "I win" device.

Oh, but yeah SELF DEFENSE (and I'm an snivelling coward for not needing a gun to avoid getting mugged, apparently). Yeah well, the day wearing a gun stops me getting shot or smacked on the back of a head by a brick, I'll acknowledge the point, but for now, I reckon my cowboy has been watching too many films, and puts too much faith in irrational members of society behaving rationally. G'Night y'all.

Guns will not stop you getting shot or beat up anymore then having insurance will stop your house from burning down or airbags will stop your car from wrecking. Firearms are not some magic totem that will ward off evil through its unholy power when you wave it around or just by having it like some cold metal safety blanket, it is a tool to be used to defend oneself incase something bad happens.

And no you aren't a coward for not having a wepon. Clearly you believe you are capable of avoiding injury or death without one. Maybe you're right, you'd know how dangerous your life is and whats risk you face as nobody knows you better then you. Well maybe the NSA but you can't exactly call them up to get them to critique your life.

Other people do think they need a gun, other people have NEEDED a firearm and successfully defended their lives with them. People have stopped muggings, women (and presumably men) have stopped rapists, people have stop home invasions, and defending themselves from couple of guys who were up to no good making trouble in their neighborhood.

Are those people cowards because they had to use a weapon to defend themselves?

Also "ya'll"? Thats OUR word, you have no right to use it! Thats offensively offensive!!!!

[madd0ct0r]

On phone. Would you consider this to be a reputable source?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firea ... gun-use-2/

[Flagg]

Blah blah blah reasonable argument blah blah.

Blah blah blah semi reasonable counter argument blah blah.

Fuck you!

No, fuck you!

Fuck you harder!

Your mother sucks cocks in hell fucker!

No u!

No, u!!!

Shep: unrelated graph

[Joun_Lord]

On phone. Would you consider this to be a reputable source?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firea ... gun-use-2/

Probably not though thats only because I find most any surveys suspect at best and prone to bias. Surveys tend to use leading questions or confusing ones to try to get the result they want. The bias of the person making the survey and studies is called into question, too often they seem to take construct a study to reach preconceived results. Doing a bit of research one of the primary authors David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael seems anti-gun. Saying shit like "anyone using a gun is a wuss", "They’re somebody to look down at because they couldn’t defend themselves or couldn’t protect others without using a gun" because I guess little old ladies being menaced by some 20 year old, women being raped, and people being attacked should do the honorable thing and engage in fisticuffs. I just eye-rolled at that bullshit so hard my eyeballs are hurting. Pro-gun or anti-gun, I think most save this idiot can agree that potential rape victims and the elderly fighting some in shape young person IS NOT FUCKING BRAVE.

That actual factual legitimate anger aside, these studies are also around 20 years old (though I wanted to write 10 years because I keep thinking the 90s were still last decade) and from a no doubt small sample size. I also question who would over the phone be admitting to using firearms illegally.

This is a problem (well one of them) with the NRA. There refusal to allow any government research into gun violence makes it so there is only biased studies like this or NRA fund overtly pro-gun studies that are just as untrustworthy and biased as this study. I think we can both agree that some unbiased neutral studies would be good for everyone. Well everyone save maybe the NRA and the Brady Campaign but personally I think both of them can eat a bag of soggy rotten donkey dicks with a butter knife. Both are moronic zealots.

[madd0ct0r]

Other people do think they need a gun, other people have NEEDED a firearm and successfully defended their lives with them. People have stopped muggings, women (and presumably men) have stopped rapists, people have stop home invasions, and defending themselves from couple of guys who were up to no good making trouble in their neighborhood.

On phone. Would you consider this to be a reputable source?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firea ... gun-use-2/

Probably not though thats only because I find most any surveys suspect at best and prone to bias. Surveys tend to use leading questions or confusing ones to try to get the result they want. The bias of the person making the survey and studies is called into question, too often they seem to take construct a study to reach preconceived results. Doing a bit of research one of the primary authors David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael seems anti-gun. Saying shit like "anyone using a gun is a wuss", "They’re somebody to look down at because they couldn’t defend themselves or couldn’t protect others without using a gun" because I guess little old ladies being menaced by some 20 year old, women being raped, and people being attacked should do the honorable thing and engage in fisticuffs. I just eye-rolled at that bullshit so hard my eyeballs are hurting. Pro-gun or anti-gun, I think most save this idiot can agree that potential rape victims and the elderly fighting some in shape young person IS NOT FUCKING BRAVE.

That actual factual legitimate anger aside, these studies are also around 20 years old (though I wanted to write 10 years because I keep thinking the 90s were still last decade) and from a no doubt small sample size. I also question who would over the phone be admitting to using firearms illegally.

This is a problem (well one of them) with the NRA. There refusal to allow any government research into gun violence makes it so there is only biased studies like this or NRA fund overtly pro-gun studies that are just as untrustworthy and biased as this study. I think we can both agree that some unbiased neutral studies would be good for everyone. Well everyone save maybe the NRA and the Brady Campaign but personally I think both of them can eat a bag of soggy rotten donkey dicks with a butter knife. Both are moronic zealots.

So basically, you dismiss the havard source, which isn't just a paper but is a summary paper that summarises a bunch of different other studies into self defence with guns claims. You defend your self with righteous (not right) anger, at the idea of forcing grandma to beat off a mugger with her handbag, but then freely admit you ain't got any data or statistics to back this up and that they probably don't exist (at least, not ones where you think the author likes guns). So there ain't shit I can do here becuase just like the NRA, you're refusing to engage at a level above gut reactions and truthiness.

I will bet you $25 on payapl though, that, in any five year period over the last two decades, in the continental USA, more people were killed by by guns than cases where a gun was used in self defence against rape or by a senior citizen to prevent a mugging. $25, on the table.

[MKSheppard]

Shep: unrelated graph

Flagg: Shep said something about my dog.

Essentially.

[MKSheppard]

I will bet you $25 on payapl though, that, in any five year period over the last two decades, in the continental USA, more people were killed by by guns than cases where a gun was used in self defence against rape or by a senior citizen to prevent a mugging. $25, on the table.

Just read the NRA's magazine, they have a column each month on cases like that.

[Flagg]

Shep: unrelated graph

Flagg: Shep said something about my dog.

Essentially.

You mean the 18 months of random racist IM's about my dog until I got tired of laughing at your sad sack psychopathy and blocked you? Hurt your feelings?

[Joun_Lord]

So basically, you dismiss the havard source, which isn't just a paper but is a summary paper that summarises a bunch of different other studies into self defence with guns claims. You defend your self with righteous (not right) anger, at the idea of forcing grandma to beat off a mugger with her handbag, but then freely admit you ain't got any data or statistics to back this up and that they probably don't exist (at least, not ones where you think the author likes guns). So there ain't shit I can do here becuase just like the NRA, you're refusing to engage at a level above gut reactions and truthiness.

A bunch of suspect studies done by biased people and from a time when gun crime (and unimportant other crime) was far higher then it was now. It would be like McDonalds doing a study to prove that eating hamburgers don't make you fat. Whether or not its true you darn well know the horrifying clown people making it are going to make sure it says McDonalds hamburgers are healthy and nutritious and don't look and taste actual cow patties.....as in feces....poop.

And it is most certainly righteous anger to be angry that someone implies its a good thing for some old person to (try to) fight off a mugger with their hands. That is, to use a word possibly offensive, fucking retarded. Beyond fucking retarded. Its sickening and show a disregard for human life, for the lives of the most vulnerable.

And and I need not studies or data to back up the fact old people get attacked, women get raped, you don't need studies to know that happens. Go ahead Google "elderly attacked" on the Googles that do nothing if you don't believe me (and why should you, I'm biased, also maybe bi but only for Vin Diesel because he's a handsome man). Pages and pages and pages also more pages of the elderly getting attacked, unable to defend themselves against far younger and far strong attackers. Same with Googling women raped. Might try Googling men raped but thats probably just going to find you femdom porn so might want to skip that......maybe.

While I wouldn't call what I'm doing "gut reactions and truthiness" because I do have facts backing my position for the goods of gun ownership, I cannot engage with facts and statistics as you might want because the only ones that exist are biased ones. Would you like me to post bullshit done by pro-gunners to counter the bullshit you posted done by anti-gunners? Post my own outright lies, half truths, twisted facts, and cherry picked answers too?

Here have fun on a bun.

http://americangunfacts.com/

I will bet you $25 on payapl though, that, in any five year period over the last two decades, in the continental USA, more people were killed by by guns than cases where a gun was used in self defence against rape or by a senior citizen to prevent a mugging. $25, on the table.

Betting is illegal and immoral!!! Also I'd probably lose because I'm sure more people were killed by guns then used to stop rape and senior citizen for atleast two reasons. One, America does have a extreme violence problem not just guns but violence in general, hence the fact people being raped and older being attacked is a problem.

Two, thats no even close to the only instances of self defense. Nor should it only be. The elderly need self defense more then most because they are physically frail much of the time, unable to fight back, too immobile to run away or get help, and will usually be living alone. Rape is just bad and we want to stop that where ever possible. Except prison rape and dude rape, no we'd rather make stand-up about that. But other people not old or being raped are just as entitled to self defense even if they could physically fight off an attacker. All those instances of self defense together would no doubt far exceed the number of people who have died in criminal homicides. But again find reliable numbers thanks to the NRA (and probably anti-gun groups to be fair) not wanting the real numbers out there.

However if my clearly unbiased and totally factual and not at all biased or having any reason to lie link that is totally honest honestly is being honest, and it clearly is why would it be?, more women defend themselves from sexual harm then homicides. In 2012 there were supposedly 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings while according to the link 200,000 women yearly defend themselves from sexual abuse. My math sucks testicles like Lindsay Lohan on any Friday night but I think the women saved from sexual abuse is higher.

But again, from a biased source, number no doubt bullshit, biased sources lie or twist facts. I want a burger and some twisty fries and know I won't get fat because a survey by McDonalds say burgers won't give me man titties.

[MKSheppard]

You mean the 18 months of random racist IM's about my dog until I got tired of laughing at your sad sack psychopathy and blocked you? Hurt your feelings?

To be honest, I had forgotten all about your dog until you started talking about it -- and even now, I'm still not sure what's going on. But I sure could have used that dog a few years ago.

[MKSheppard]

From Bodymore:

http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/balt ... e-shooting

Investigators say 23-year-old Warren was a member of a "hitmen for hire" club and was arrested Tuesday night with two guns on his person.

Police believe he was the only shooter.

At the time of his arrest Warren was on probation for armed robbery and is "a person of interest in more than one crime of violence," Baltimore Police Commissioner Kevin Davis noted.

Warren is allegedly part of the "10 Grand Club," which Davis described as "a group that considers themselves bad guys, hitmen for hire."

The shooting happened during a Memorial Day cookout shortly after 3 p.m. on East 43rd Street near York Road. When officers arrived they found four victims with gunshot wounds -- and a fifth was found inside a nearby residence.

Investigators believe the shooting stemmed from an earlier altercation.

I'm sure he had his HQL and had been background checked through 11-jillion databases by MSP.

[madd0ct0r]

So basically, you dismiss the havard source, which isn't just a paper but is a summary paper that summarises a bunch of different other studies into self defence with guns claims. You defend your self with righteous (not right) anger, at the idea of forcing grandma to beat off a mugger with her handbag, but then freely admit you ain't got any data or statistics to back this up and that they probably don't exist (at least, not ones where you think the author likes guns). So there ain't shit I can do here becuase just like the NRA, you're refusing to engage at a level above gut reactions and truthiness.

A bunch of suspect studies done by biased people and from a time when gun crime (and unimportant other crime) was far higher then it was now.
--snip--
However if my clearly unbiased and totally factual and not at all biased or having any reason to lie link that is totally honest honestly is being honest, and it clearly is why would it be?, more women defend themselves from sexual harm then homicides. In 2012 there were supposedly 8,342 criminal homicides using guns, 20,666 suicides with guns, and 548 fatal unintentional shootings while according to the link 200,000 women yearly defend themselves from sexual abuse. My math sucks testicles like Lindsay Lohan on any Friday night but I think the women saved from sexual abuse is higher.

But again, from a biased source, number no doubt bullshit, biased sources lie or twist facts. I want a burger and some twisty fries and know I won't get fat because a survey by McDonalds say burgers won't give me man titties.

I think were it says 'link' you intended to paste a link? If its the american gunfacts one that 'fact' is from a paper from 1995. They found 0.54% of households said they had used a gun defensively over the last five years. 0.54% of 4997 households surveyed is 27 households.

The 200,000 rapes can be found if you multiply their 1995 survey estimate of 8% of all defensive gun uses by 2.5 million estimated annual DGUs. All is based on the 27 households that reported DGUs to their survey. 8% of 27 is 2, btw. They provide no sampling error calculations in the paper. 1995 was a simpler time...

[MKSheppard]

In Judge Allen's statement he raised some question as to the value of a pistol or revolver in the hands of the private citizen in case of a hold-up. The committee may be interested to know that in the city of Chicago in 1932, 63 hold-up men and burglars were killed by gunfire. Of that number, 26, or approximately 40 percent, were killed by armed citizens. In 1933, 71 thugs were killed in Chicago, of which number 33, or pretty nearly 50 percent, were killed by armed citizens. These figures, of course, have no reference to gang killings, but to the killing of bandits during attempted hold-ups or burglaries. In the past 3 years there have been reported to us, through the medium of newspaper clippings and personal letters, several hundred cases in which attempted burglaries and hold-ups have been frustrated by the fact that the citizen against whom the felony was attempted, or a passer-by, was armed.

We do not favor promiscuous gun-toting, but it is a fact which cannot be refuted that a pistol or revolver in the hands of a man or woman who knows how to use it is one thing which makes the smallest man or the weakest woman the equal of the burliest thug.

General Milton Reckord, Executive Vice President of the NRA and Adjutant General of Maryland; 1934.

[Flagg]

In Judge Allen's statement he raised some question as to the value of a pistol or revolver in the hands of the private citizen in case of a hold-up. The committee may be interested to know that in the city of Chicago in 1932, 63 hold-up men and burglars were killed by gunfire. Of that number, 26, or approximately 40 percent, were killed by armed citizens. In 1933, 71 thugs were killed in Chicago, of which number 33, or pretty nearly 50 percent, were killed by armed citizens. These figures, of course, have no reference to gang killings, but to the killing of bandits during attempted hold-ups or burglaries. In the past 3 years there have been reported to us, through the medium of newspaper clippings and personal letters, several hundred cases in which attempted burglaries and hold-ups have been frustrated by the fact that the citizen against whom the felony was attempted, or a passer-by, was armed.

We do not favor promiscuous gun-toting, but it is a fact which cannot be refuted that a pistol or revolver in the hands of a man or woman who knows how to use it is one thing which makes the smallest man or the weakest woman the equal of the burliest thug.

General Milton Reckord, Executive Vice President of the NRA and Adjutant General of Maryland; 1934.

I'm sure nothing has changed in the 82 years since that was written.

[MKSheppard]

I'm sure nothing has changed in the 82 years since that was written.

82 years ago, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States was ranting about how the NRA and it's 1 million members was more powerful than the U.S. Department of Justice.

[Flagg]

I'm sure nothing has changed in the 82 years since that was written.

82 years ago, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States was ranting about how the NRA and it's 1 million members was more powerful than the U.S. Department of Justice.

And we were in the middle of the Great Depression, crime was high, and millions of people in America rode horses and had no electricity or indoor plumbing. If only we had a time machine we could send you back there.