Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Forced gun confiscation one day


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

T is a bitch who couldn't handle a differing opinion to the point that he abused the tiny amount of authority vested in him. I seem to remember him trying to rally some nerds from some website called evil conservatives to fight the liberal scourge on the browns board, getting himself banned from both sites in the process. Too seriously? I'm pretty sure he's the only one that took it THAT seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T is a bitch who couldn't handle a differing opinion to the point that he abused the tiny amount of authority vested in him. I seem to remember him trying to rally some nerds from some website called evil conservatives to fight the liberal scourge on the browns board, getting himself banned from both sites in the process. Too seriously? I'm pretty sure he's the only one that took it THAT seriously.

 

He actually laughs about it dude, he did it on purpose, just sick of it. Listen to yourself. This is a flipping forum, not LIFE. He is a good dude, as I am sure you are outside of a flipping FORUM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it's funny Cal is painting him as the victim lol. I read through some of my PMs on here. Pretty great stuff haha.

 

I may think some of you are dumbasses, but you are probably all good people in real life. I'm not questioning that. The only person I think is an actual bad person is/was Bunker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it's funny Cal is painting him as the victim lol. I read through some of my PMs on here. Pretty great stuff haha.

 

I may think some of you are dumbasses, but you are probably all good people in real life. I'm not questioning that. The only person I think is an actual bad person is/was Bunker.

I think it would be a hell of a time if we all met up some day. Never met Bunker, but I'd venture WW being an asshole in real life as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, we could all sit around a bonfire, drink our drinks, have some burgers,

have a blast....watching

 

woody try to catch nightcrawlers with his teeth on a dare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He actually laughs about it dude, he did it on purpose, just sick of it. Listen to yourself. This is a flipping forum, not LIFE. He is a good dude, as I am sure you are outside of a flipping FORUM.

I don't think anybody would spend the amount of time and effort to fuck with everybody is someone who doesn't care. But yes, it is a forum. A forum designed for guys to shoot the shit and have a little fun. When somebody goes well out of his way to ensure that no one has any fun then he's fucked up.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there's this excellent opinion by a guy who DOES know what he's talking about,

and supports the 2nd Amendment bigtime.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/i-used-to-come-for-your-guns-now-i-support-your-right-to-defend-yourself/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris admitted a total ban wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

Nobody here has the power to do anything.

 

Stop your bitching about everything except the content of posts.

 

Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch.

 

It's an opinion piece by a NY officer who changed his perception on gun control.

From gun confiscation, to supporting the opposite.

 

Food for thought. Sorry, you can't think. But try to STFU and let others comment

on what he explained in the article, you freaking cowardly little johnny woodypeckerhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean unlike the rest of us???

;)

WSS

The rest of us - you, me, logic, vapor, etc have conversations where points of view are exchanged, policies come up with, debated, shot down, help up, and try to reach a consensus if we can.

 

Cal and woody just bitch at each other and it's getting a little tiresome. Cal posts 15 different articles from the blaze, daily caller, and ilovemygunsandmycountryandanyonewhodoesntisahippymarxistloserandprobablyandimmigrantandfat.com (see: gish galloping) which are either irrelevant, misleading or just plain factually inaccurate.

 

Woody criticises the source, ignores the article and the insults start flying between them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rest of us - you, me, logic, vapor, etc have conversations where points of view are exchanged, policies come up with, debated, shot down, help up, and try to reach a consensus if we can.

 

Cal and woody just bitch at each other and it's getting a little tiresome. Cal posts 15 different articles from the blaze, daily caller, and ilovemygunsandmycountryandanyonewhodoesntisahippymarxistloserandprobablyandimmigrantandfat.com (see: gish galloping) which are either irrelevant, misleading or just plain factually inaccurate.

 

Woody criticises the source, ignores the article and the insults start flying between them.

Nah I mean the basic premise that no matter how civil we are with each other we all, each of us, realize everybody else is full of shit!

 

:D

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rest of us - you, me, logic, vapor, etc have conversations where points of view are exchanged, policies come up with, debated, shot down, help up, and try to reach a consensus if we can.

 

Cal and woody just bitch at each other and it's getting a little tiresome. Cal posts 15 different articles from the blaze, daily caller, and ilovemygunsandmycountryandanyonewhodoesntisahippymarxistloserandprobablyandimmigrantandfat.com (see: gish galloping) which are either irrelevant, misleading or just plain factually inaccurate.

 

Woody criticises the source, ignores the article and the insults start flying between them.

Hey now, I do my best to respond to them. I'm saying what everyone else is thinking (maybe more bluntly). You know that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice try, Chris -

 

but you mentioned the guys who agree with you, or least

are open to buying your liberal stuff.

 

It's really interesting how you say "debate on mmgw is OVER"...

 

then you whine because I won't discuss things with you.

 

We've been through this before.

 

You bitch about the Blaze, etc. Then you post from the Huffington Post.

 

Really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris admitted a total ban wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

Nobody here has the power to do anything.

 

Stop your bitching about everything except the content of posts.

 

Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch.

 

It's an opinion piece by a NY officer who changed his perception on gun control.

From gun confiscation, to supporting the opposite.

 

Food for thought. Sorry, you can't think. But try to STFU and let others comment

on what he explained in the article, you freaking cowardly little johnny woodypeckerhead.

So what if I found someone that was a climate change denier but changed his mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you have a FREAKIN DEBATE !!!!!

 

Which, we have you deniers of there being a debate at all,

because you want to be right so much about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a debate. This is a scientific issue though. The debate isn't who can talk the smoothest or yell the loudest. The debate is in the numbers. In the science. Each side presented what they had and there is a clear winner.

 

My example was more so in you acting like this was the definitive argument against gun reform, just because he changed his mind. I was wondering then, if that works for other situations.

 

 

(FYI, yelling about how it is all a conspiracy for scientists to get money, throwing out dozens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cherry picked numbers are never going to win your liberal weinie side.

 

The political pendulum will swing the other way, and that will be that.

 

For a while...

 

there are numbers all over the place, both sides of the issue:

 

************************

Quote:
1.5 to 3 million crimes are prevented each year by private citizens with guns.

I've read this estimate cited many times and it is one of the strongest arguments for the defensive use of firearms by citizens. Does anyone know what studies were used to support this estimate?

One study that supports that estimate was don by two anti-gun researchers, Phillip Cook and Jens Ludwig for the National Institute for Justice. The study might still be found online. Look for NCJ-165476 under the the Department of Justice publications.

http://home.flash.net/~csmkersh/Pics/NCJ-165476.jpg
Exhibit 7, page 8, NCJ-165476

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your link doesn't work



This Personal Web Pages (PWP) site has been discontinued.

As part of the ongoing evolution and consolidation of our Internet services, AT&T will no longer support the Prodigy Personal Web Pages (PWP) feature as of June 1, 2011.


We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience. Archived versions of these pages may be found at the Internet Archive.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf

 

 

Some Troubling Implications
One check on the credibility of these DGU estimates is made possible by the
detailed follow-up questions included in both these surveys. In the NSPOF,
respondents were asked whether they fired their guns, and if so, whether they
managed to hit the mark. The responses to this item from our 19 "genuine"
defensive gun users, multiplied by our sampling weights, imply that approxi-
mately 132,000 perpetrators were either wounded or killed at the hands of
armed civilians in 1994. That number, it turns out, is just about the same as
the total of all people who were shot and killed or received treatment for
nonfatal gunshot wounds in an emergency room that year-yet we know that
almost all of those are there as a result of criminal assault, suicide attempt, or
ac~ident.~There is no trace in these official statistics of the wounded assailants.
Respondents are also asked to report the circumstances under which they
were provoked into using their gun. From the NSPOF, we estimate that 322,000
used a gun to defend against a would-be rapist. But that is more than the total
number of rapes and attempted rapes estimated from the best available source,
the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)!6
Similar puzzles are found in Kleck and Gertz's findings [Hemenway, 19961.
Our closer examination of the DGU reports in the NSPOF suggests that almost
half of the incidents appear to contain some internal inconsistency, or other-
wise do not make sense. We are persuaded that surveys of this sort generate
estimates that grossly exaggerate the true number of DGUs. The most likely
explanation provides an important insight about the limitations of the sur-
vey method.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this word "denier". stop. just strop.

 

the liberal ideology denies basic math, history, human motivation and even science.

 

just stop the shaming tactic, it makes you look like an emotional woman. (see what i did there?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...