The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
his gun vault shows he was truly a 'man of the peeps'! Freedom!!!
Except for the fancy chairs that looks just like home.
Just like he fell for the globull warming scam.
Question, waldo. You clearly despise Americans, thinking us all beer-bellied, pistol-totin', right-wing rednecks, so wouldn't the notion of us shooting each other be a good thing in your book?
Before you get all froggy, I ask the same question of the teabaggers, i.e., why are they upset about ISIS, seeing as how ISIS's main occupation is killing Muslims, which the teabaggers adore.
Before you get all froggy, I ask the same question of the teabaggers, i.e., why are they upset about ISIS, seeing as how ISIS's main occupation is killing Muslims, which the teabaggers adore.
somehow... you think your lil' process makes sense! You take the Brady state ratings, in isolation of their accompanying gun deaths, and you presume to match those ratings up against a separate source also providing gun death numbers. As I pointed out to you, as you continue to ignore, those two separate sources of gun death numbers don't match... they're not even close. Of course, the Brady state ratings are based on state level conditions and presume to reflect upon the respective state gun death rating numbers... again, I provided you the image from the Brady document YOU LINKED TO. Again, this following image showing a strong correlation:
as is your way, now highlighted several times in this thread, you just think you can pull numbers (now ratings in this case) and use them however you want to suit your agenda. Now, if you fully qualified the distinction/difference between the two separate sources of gun death rate numbers... and, in kind, properly rationalized your use of those Brady ratings, then others could evaluate whether or not they agree with your summary review/analysis and your use of the Brady ratings. But you've done none of this! All you've done is take the Brady ratings, use them against YOUR preferred set of gun death rate numbers and offered up your "ta da" results! I don't have the 2012 numbers... but I expect these following 2013 gun death rate numbers should showcase the folly of your stooopid agenda driven failed ways (from 2012-to-2013, within the top 10 lowest gun death rate numbers, New Hampshire has replaced Maine... all other 9 states are the same):
note the sources of data Colpy! That's where you start... if you don't like/don't accept the gun death rate numbers from the document reference THAT YOU LINKED TO, challenge those sources, the U.S. CDC proper & the U.S. CDC's National Center for Injury Control and Prevention. Until you do that, your use of those related Brady state ratings/findings has NO credibility - NONE.
Question: do you interpret anyone who questions the failings represented within the American Gun Culture as "despising Americans"? If so, there's a whole lot of Americans... despising Americans! Ya see what I did there, right... you see that, right?
your drive-by BS on the GW/AGW/CC subject carries no weight... you most certainly can't argue a damn thing. Other than your usual drive-by prattle or C&P wizardry, you have yet to support/substantiate anything. Of course, your continual fall-back when challenged in that regard, is to fall-back to your ever present "safety blankee". You know, where you say you don't need to support anything...... because you state/claim that, "SOMEWHERE" in past CC threads, the point/issue/statement/claim has already been shown to be true! :mrgreen:
Last edited:
Waldo, you need a new job as a fruit picker. 
And you are losing your mind.
You need to calm down. You are getting very excited. Is that the low frustration threshold?
You accuse me of taking "the Brady ratings, use them against YOUR preferred set of gun death rate numbers"
Ah, I'm sorry Buddy, but I never use "gun death rate numbers", because, as I've argued throughout this thread and others, gun death numbers are a fraud.
In fact, that has been one of the main factors in this entire, long argument.
But not only are you so incompetent that you believe "gun death rate numbers" are relevant, you also have not even grasped the fact that I would never use "gun death rate numbers", despite me telling you they are completely irrelevant for the last 14 pages of text.
Your reading comprehension skills are not just low, they appear to be non-existent.
And you are losing your mind.You need to calm down. You are getting very excited. Is that the low frustration threshold?
You accuse me of taking "the Brady ratings, use them against YOUR preferred set of gun death rate numbers"
Ah, I'm sorry Buddy, but I never use "gun death rate numbers", because, as I've argued throughout this thread and others, gun death numbers are a fraud.
In fact, that has been one of the main factors in this entire, long argument.
But not only are you so incompetent that you believe "gun death rate numbers" are relevant, you also have not even grasped the fact that I would never use "gun death rate numbers", despite me telling you they are completely irrelevant for the last 14 pages of text.
Your reading comprehension skills are not just low, they appear to be non-existent.
Last edited:
you are so full of shyte... such a blowhard! Your "preferred set of gun death rate numbers" is exactly that... you simply choose to dance around it by not calling it that, by not recognizing (RATHER, NOT ADMITTING) how you're using that data. We've come full circle... even aligning to the other like failed attempt you tried earlier in this thread. In both cases, earlier in the thread or this latter Brady case reference, you're attempting to use your preferred data... your data preference... murder data, at large, without any qualification to guns. And you're making your summary statements on unqualified murder data as if you're speaking to guns only. That sir, that is your GUN DEATH RELATED DATA... whether you admit it, or not! Again, if you're going to speak to gun murder rate data... then you need QUALIFIED GUN MURDER RATE DATA! Again, we've already played this out earlier in this thread!
other than for your self-serving, agenda driven, gunNuttery purposes, what gives you the right, the liberty, to use unqualified murder death rate data as if you're speaking to GUNS ONLY, as the causal agent? In this latter Brady case reference, you're taking the respective Brady GUN focused state scorecard ratings and you're putting them up against your data, your preferred data, your UNQUALIFIED MURDER RATE DATA... and you're making summary statements and assessments on the respective state GUN laws/regulations/policies/etc., in relation to those Brady GUN focused state ratings. And somehow... you think there's nothing wrong with that... you think that's a legitimate use of data... a representative qualification of the Brady gun focused state scorecard ratings. And, of course, you do this while presuming to (insult peppered), speak of my incompetence and comprehension difficulties!!! :mrgreen: That sir... that is your grand incompetence, your failed comprehension, your purposeful manipulation of data to suit your gunNut agenda... your bluster, your BLOWHARDINESS!
Remember my buddy with the roll of bridge tokens?
Perhaps you could hire him as a tutor in Reading Comprehension.
I mean, the level of stupidity you have displayed on this thread is absolutely incredible.
And you have exacerbated it by your didplays of bad temper, and your refusal to acknowledge the slightest error, even when the error is blatantly obvious.
You really are a piece of work.
I mean, I am really sorry Waldo, but you are obviously a complete moron.
I am sincerely gobsmacked.
I accept your unconditional surrender... and I didn't need no gunz! :mrgreen:
I'm serious.
That's okay, Buddy.
Delusions are just one of the reasons you need psychological help.
(my surrender) I am really lol
That's okay, Buddy. Delusions are just one of the reasons you need psychological help.
I've already highlighted your delusions throughout this thread; most particularly your self-aggrandized ones! Apparently, that question is most inconvenient for you to answer... you're repeatedly refusing to answer it; you're dodging it, running away from it! Instead you revert to your tried & true: insult and attempted marginalization.
Colpy, perhaps one of your posse lappers will answer the question you refuse to answer.
as published in the American Journal of Public Health: The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010
a "robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates"
causation????? Apparently..... not enough good guys! :mrgreen:
as published in the American Journal of Public Health: The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010
a "robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates"
causation????? Apparently..... not enough good guys! :mrgreen:
Last edited:
"a "robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates" causation????? Apparently..... not enough good guys!"
Apparently there are enough that the whining of a Canadian has not affected their rights, which still stand, odd that. btw, where are all your Yeomen? Are they lined up to discuss this issue? Perhaps if those who believe in rights are in the majority on this forum then you should find a place that embraces your mistaken thoughts.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder - Forums at Psych Central
Apparently there are enough that the whining of a Canadian has not affected their rights, which still stand, odd that. btw, where are all your Yeomen? Are they lined up to discuss this issue? Perhaps if those who believe in rights are in the majority on this forum then you should find a place that embraces your mistaken thoughts.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder - Forums at Psych Central
oh noooos! Not another azzhole with an internet medical degree :mrgreen:
and... you also appear to be another U.S. wannabe! C'mon... even member Colpy says he personally supports gun licensing and background checks! Oh, wait... he throws that to the gutter when his U.S. wannabe self rises... carry on!
:lol::lol::lol:
Colpy, if I were you, I'd be getting a helluva laugh out of this thread.
Seriously, who gives a fukk !
:lol:
You are calling someone a "US Wannabe", right after you have used many US graphs, charts, etc, to make a point? Interesting, now where are your many backers? Azzholes and wannabes are your ammo? Now i understand why Colpy has described you as being not very intelligent. Carry on.