I wouldn't mind having some beers with Alex Jones. Piers Morgan is cock. Good on Alex for yelling at him.
Don't think there is much difference. You express your actual opinion and we think you're trolling already.Extra Medium wrote:
Bah, I was going to post something serious but I've decided these forums are ass.
I give up and I'm just going to be a full blown troll from now on.
Oh damn I lost it when Alex started speaking with a British accent. +1 Alex Jones. Much respected gained.
Why do you care what people in other countries on an internet board think about guns? Instead of stressing about it here, how about you go to the range tomorrow and punch some holes in a target.-Sh1fty- wrote:
It's very manipulative.
I feel terrible in this thread. I feel like I have the right mindset about guns but cannot open my mouth without sounding retarded. Wish WPA, RDX, and more folks who are a lot more eloquent and better at this would post more.
Or get laid. Either way.
Baba Booey
No it's more about me having trouble expressing myself properly than what they think. I always having more trouble communicating when a screen is put between me and a person. sigh
Anyway, I'm going shooting Saturday with friends.
Anyway, I'm going shooting Saturday with friends.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Nobody commented on this.Justifiable Homicide
Private Citizen 2010
Total Firearms 232
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … rtbl15.xls
I wonder if this include cases that went to trial and the accused were found not guilty. If it doesn't this number may rise slightly.
Justifiable Homicide
Law Enforcement 2010
Total Firearms 385
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … rtbl14.xls
Based on this information there were 617 justifiable homicides by firearm in 2010.
62.39% by police and 37.60% by citizen
Citizens used their guns in justifiable homicides 60% as much as police.
I hear people claim cops need guns because their chance of needing them is much more frequent.
Some say the chance of a citizen needing a gun is so rare, but its not much different than police.
At least as far as justifiable homicides statistics go.
This information shows how much citizens use their guns when the problem comes to them.
The cops on the other hand seek out or respond to the problem.
When there is a mass-shooting some talk about all the lives that could have been saved if we had more firearm laws/restrictions. You don't hear about the 232 people who justifiably shot and killed someone who threatened the life or safety of others. These are just people who actually killed someone in defense. In my opinion the use of firearms for defense, without resulting in someone being shot or killed, if accurately recordable, would be pretty high.
1 million pmags on backorder
those comments
those comments
that's the only possible reason, his entertainment value drops sharply after watching more than 2 videos.aynrandroolz wrote:
also he has an absolutely massive audience, which suggests that many people find him credible, if not at least sane.Jaekus wrote:
To be fair he didn't just get some guy off the street who unknowingly got put on the spot, he got someone who is a national broadcaster who knows is well aware and experienced when it comes to public speaking.Cybargs wrote:
best set up EVER. Bring in most batshit insane person to defend gun rights, makes all gun rights people look the same. trolling at its best.
no, that's a fallacy. He has a large audience so that makes him credible? No.
"many people find him credible" was my phrase, you fucking mong. so don't misquote me and then dismiss a misquotation. THAT'S a fallacy.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
no, that's a fallacy. He has a large audience so that makes him credible? No.
and who are you to say that all of his listeners don't find him credible? even if they aren't in total consonance with his political views, they at least find him SANE, which was my (facetious) second point. i doubt all those millions of people are listening as a routine in performative irony.
No, that information shows how much people shoot and kill other people. What's the stat for how many times a citizen/cop brandished a weapon and shot and injured someone? Brandished a weapon and shot themselves or an innocent bystander? Brandished a weapon and had someone retreat or do as they were instructed?west-phoenix-az wrote:
Nobody commented on this.Justifiable Homicide
Private Citizen 2010
Total Firearms 232
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … rtbl15.xls
I wonder if this include cases that went to trial and the accused were found not guilty. If it doesn't this number may rise slightly.
Justifiable Homicide
Law Enforcement 2010
Total Firearms 385
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … rtbl14.xls
Based on this information there were 617 justifiable homicides by firearm in 2010.
62.39% by police and 37.60% by citizen
Citizens used their guns in justifiable homicides 60% as much as police.
I hear people claim cops need guns because their chance of needing them is much more frequent.
Some say the chance of a citizen needing a gun is so rare, but its not much different than police.
At least as far as justifiable homicides statistics go.
This information shows how much citizens use their guns when the problem comes to them.
The cops on the other hand seek out or respond to the problem.
When there is a mass-shooting some talk about all the lives that could have been saved if we had more firearm laws/restrictions. You don't hear about the 232 people who justifiably shot and killed someone who threatened the life or safety of others. These are just people who actually killed someone in defense. In my opinion the use of firearms for defense, without resulting in someone being shot or killed, if accurately recordable, would be pretty high.
If it's a cop in California shooting someone, it's virtually always a 'justifiable' homicide just because it's a cop doing the shooting.
If you want people to comment on something, do more than just post the news story. You are saving yourself a post if you comment like you did the second time around.
"which suggests many people find him credible." You might as well quote the whole thing. Nope, that's a fallacy. No need for the name-calling you angry angry man.aynrandroolz wrote:
"many people find him credible" was my phrase, you fucking mong. so don't misquote me and then dismiss a misquotation. THAT'S a fallacy.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
no, that's a fallacy. He has a large audience so that makes him credible? No.
and who are you to say that all of his listeners don't find him credible? even if they aren't in total consonance with his political views, they at least find him SANE, which was my (facetious) second point. i doubt all those millions of people are listening as a routine in performative irony.
Millions of people listen to Rush LImbaugh. The demographics have been studied and as much as 40-50% of people who listen to Rush are people who don't agree with him/liberals/people who don't think he's sane. So you can doubt all you want, but you're wrong.
edit: actually I was thinking of Bill O'Reilly (another conservative blowhard), not Rush. But the point still stands.
can you source that? I'm curious to look at these demographicsKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The demographics have been studied and as much as 40-50% of people who listen to Rush are people who don't agree with him/liberals/people who don't think he's sane. So you can doubt all you want, but you're wrong.
see my edit. it was bill o'reilly i was thinking of, not Rush. I'll see if I can find the study.
Were talking about alex jones. I think the only people who ever listen to him are conspiracy nutbags. Oreilly is entertaining, but not jones.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
see my edit. it was bill o'reilly i was thinking of, not Rush. I'll see if I can find the study.
Pires is an absolute genius for having Jones on the show to make himself look like an incredibly sane and intelligent man. I would have absolutely loved to see Jones do a 180 and be extremely rational and present an intelligent argument backed by true facts.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Doing some quick back of the envelope math with those numbers of yours.west-phoenix-az wrote:
Nobody commented on this.Justifiable Homicide
Private Citizen 2010
Total Firearms 232
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … rtbl15.xls
I wonder if this include cases that went to trial and the accused were found not guilty. If it doesn't this number may rise slightly.
Justifiable Homicide
Law Enforcement 2010
Total Firearms 385
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … rtbl14.xls
Based on this information there were 617 justifiable homicides by firearm in 2010.
62.39% by police and 37.60% by citizen
Citizens used their guns in justifiable homicides 60% as much as police.
I hear people claim cops need guns because their chance of needing them is much more frequent.
Some say the chance of a citizen needing a gun is so rare, but its not much different than police.
At least as far as justifiable homicides statistics go.
This information shows how much citizens use their guns when the problem comes to them.
The cops on the other hand seek out or respond to the problem.
When there is a mass-shooting some talk about all the lives that could have been saved if we had more firearm laws/restrictions. You don't hear about the 232 people who justifiably shot and killed someone who threatened the life or safety of others. These are just people who actually killed someone in defense. In my opinion the use of firearms for defense, without resulting in someone being shot or killed, if accurately recordable, would be pretty high.
232 justifiable homicides / 315000000 people total in the US = 7.365 X 10^-7 <- Ignoring various factors
How about something a little more exact
232 justifiable homicides / 70000000 gun owners = 3.314 X 10^-6 <- Chance a gun owner will use their gun(s) in a justifiable homicide. (Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ow … erica.aspx)
According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, there are a little under 800,000 police and detectives in the US. (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-servi … ctives.htm)
385 justifiable homicides / 800000 police and detectives = 4.8125 X 10^-4 <- Chance a law enforcement officer will use their weapon in a justifiable homicide (without excluding those with desk jobs and such)
So I would say a cop is much more likely to need a gun than the average gun owner. I would say a citizen using a gun in a justifiable homicide is pretty rare (According to some other statistics I am looking at, it is less likely than fatally slipping in the bathtub or shower and dating a supermodel). Now I will admit that this is not the most statistically rigorous evaluation, but I think it put things in a little better perspective.
It's Alex Jones. He's not rational and can't present an intelligent argument based on true facts (WTF redundancy).-Sh1fty- wrote:
Pires is an absolute genius for having Jones on the show to make himself look like an incredibly sane and intelligent man. I would have absolutely loved to see Jones do a 180 and be extremely rational and present an intelligent argument backed by true facts.
I think when someone starts sprouting 'New World Order' and '9/11 was an inside job, building's were demolished with explosives' it's a cue to switch off.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It's Alex Jones. He's not rational and can't present an intelligent argument based on true facts (WTF redundancy).-Sh1fty- wrote:
Pires is an absolute genius for having Jones on the show to make himself look like an incredibly sane and intelligent man. I would have absolutely loved to see Jones do a 180 and be extremely rational and present an intelligent argument backed by true facts.
yes, but the size of his audience would suggest that, even if only 10% are die-hard 'amen brother' in agreement with him, many people do find him credible. not "he has a large audience, therefore he is credible by virtue of popularity" (i.e. the Justin Bieber Is A Good Musician Fallacy). not "i'm going to guess arbitrarily at how many viewers are sincere fans and how many are liberals on a sightseeing tour" (i.e. the Ken Jennings Nuh-uh-uh I Have The Last Word Fallacy). if he has 60m viewers and even 1 million are the constitutional fundamentalists, living in communes in the mountains of the mid-west... a lot of people find him credible. his ideology speaks to a lot of americans.M.O.A.B wrote:
I think when someone starts sprouting 'New World Order' and '9/11 was an inside job, building's were demolished with explosives' it's a cue to switch off.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It's Alex Jones. He's not rational and can't present an intelligent argument based on true facts (WTF redundancy).-Sh1fty- wrote:
Pires is an absolute genius for having Jones on the show to make himself look like an incredibly sane and intelligent man. I would have absolutely loved to see Jones do a 180 and be extremely rational and present an intelligent argument backed by true facts.
Oh, I'm not dimissing that. Some people will certainly find him credible, like those who believe in the Westboro morons. Scary thought, especially when the majority of those who wholeheartedly agree with Jones are likely to be armed to the teeth. Heavily armed sheep of a whacko talker? Not a good combo.
The wackos that would follow a person like Jones are the one who would commit massacres or do something stupid and illegal. That's why we need good people with weapons to stop them. Think of all the robberies, rapes, and murders of people who should "Call the cops!" and wait for help instead of pull a CCW and defend themselves. All those smug guys on TV in favor of gun control wouldn't be that way if some 6'4'' 230lb guy came to beat the shit out of them. I'd like to see them try and call the cops in a situation like that. "Excuse me sir, I'm called the cops. Would you mind waiting until they got here before attacking me? Thank you kindly." Works every time damnit
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
are you bloody serious-Sh1fty- wrote:
The wackos that would follow a person like Jones are the one who would commit massacres or do something stupid and illegal. That's why we need good people with weapons to stop them.