An FYI. Terror from the Right

NightHawkeye · Dec 21, 2015

GoldenBoy89 said:
Such as?

The Clintons and Their Royal Saudi Friends: More Dubious Donations to the Family’s Foundation | National Review

Questions about foreign-government donations to the Clinton Foundation have dogged 2016 Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton for months. The Wall Street Journal reported in February that the foundation had accepted such donations throughout Clinton’s tenure as the nation’s top diplomat; the scandal expanded with the publication of Peter Schweizer’s book, Clinton Cash, which chronicles a pattern in which governments and private entities with business before the State Department donated heavily to the foundation and then received favorable treatment.

GoldenBoy89 · Dec 21, 2015

NightHawkeye said:
The Clintons and Their Royal Saudi Friends: More Dubious Donations to the Family’s Foundation | National Review

Questions about foreign-government donations to the Clinton Foundation have dogged 2016 Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton for months. The Wall Street Journal reported in February that the foundation had accepted such donations throughout Clinton’s tenure as the nation’s top diplomat; the scandal expanded with the publication of Peter Schweizer’s book, Clinton Cash, which chronicles a pattern in which governments and private entities with business before the State Department donated heavily to the foundation and then received favorable treatment.

Good thing I'm not a Clinton supporter.

ThatRobGuy · Dec 21, 2015

JustOneWay said:
This has happened here since this forum started. I rarely see you criticizing members on the right. Why is this? It seems that you believe you are a moderate but you certainly don't post like one....

Then you haven't seen me in threads pertaining to same sex marriage, drug legalization, abortion, evolution, or theology in general...

It's probably due to fact that when our paths cross, it always seems to be in threads regarding guns, economics (and as of late, the threads specifically regarding Islam and how it compares to other ideologies).

Always in His Presence · Dec 21, 2015

GoldenBoy89 said:
Good thing I'm not a Clinton supporter.

Same here. They lost me when the Mrs. Used Marines as waiters.

Black Dog · Dec 21, 2015

NightHawkeye said:
The Clintons and Their Royal Saudi Friends: More Dubious Donations to the Family’s Foundation | National Review

Questions about foreign-government donations to the Clinton Foundation have dogged 2016 Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton for months. The Wall Street Journal reported in February that the foundation had accepted such donations throughout Clinton’s tenure as the nation’s top diplomat; the scandal expanded with the publication of Peter Schweizer’s book, Clinton Cash, which chronicles a pattern in which governments and private entities with business before the State Department donated heavily to the foundation and then received favorable treatment.

I think you will find that the Bushes (of POTUS fame) are much much more in bed with the Saudis than the Clintons.

ThatRobGuy · Dec 21, 2015

ecco said:
I'm advocating an all out gun ban.

See above.

Okay, so as soon as you can lay out a plan that would involve getting 300 million guns out of circulation + taking them away from law enforcement as well. With the all of the scrutiny police have been under by the left (pertaining to how pervasive a problem abuse of power really is), certainly you wouldn't want them to be the only ones armed I would assume.

...and coming up with a way that stops guns from coming in from other places that we don't control (like Mexico), let me know. We can't stop thousands of shipments of drugs from coming across the borders, how easy would it be for the cartels to slip a dozen Glocks in the crates next to the blow?

As it pertains to your "see above", I did see above, that's why I commented on it.

Your post was pertaining to suicides, and in particular, how the gun suicides were cut in half after the gun restrictions.

https://www.lifeline.org.au/About-L...de-Statistics-in-Australia/Suicide-Statistics

Sure, the gun related suicides went down...but every other suicide type went up to fill in the gap, thus the reason why in Australia Deaths by suicide have reached a 10-year peak.

I did a similar exercise for a similar conversation pertaining to the UK

2 years prior to the restrictions, 7.4...with guns being the #1 the method used in (~50% of cases)
2 years after the restrictions, 7.5...with "Hanging and suffocation" now sitting atop the list.

As far as the link you provided, it doesn't work

I've posted this stat in numerous other threads, but the UK's murder rate is the same today that it was in the late 70's, decades before their gun control measures were implemented.

Same with Australia:
From their own government crime data website -

The number of murder victims fluctuated slightly from 1993 to 2007, whereas manslaughter remained relatively stable.

The number of murder victims peaked in 1999, at 344; the number of manslaughter victims peaked in 2002, at 48.

...but with all that being said, the gun conversation is a serious sidebar to the threads purpose I would think. So if you'd like to discuss it in another thread, I'd be more than happy to participate.
(unless StamperBen is okay with you turning it into a gun conversation back in post #24)

stamperben · Dec 21, 2015

This isn't my thread, it belongs to CF. They enforce rules like topics and stuff.

stamperben · Dec 21, 2015

PS, I could report posts as off topic, as could anyone, or ask to have the thread closed, but I think to keep it open and keep it on the topic is still beneficial.

NightHawkeye · Dec 21, 2015

Black Dog said:
I think you will find that the Bushes (of POTUS fame) are much much more in bed with the Saudis than the Clintons.

When the Clintons are compared with anyone, it's really not possible to be "more in bed". Beds are the Clinton specialty.

But I agree that the Bushes were in bed with the Saudis as well.

Always in His Presence · Dec 21, 2015

https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/679

MrSpikey · Dec 21, 2015

miniverchivi said:
I've posted this stat in numerous other threads, but the UK's murder rate is the same today that it was in the late 70's, decades before their gun control measures were implemented.

It would be inaccurate to call the 1988 or 1997 firearm acts our "gun control measures". We've had gun control measures dating back to the start of the last century. There was no general right to own a firearm in the 70s, individuals could apply for certain categories of gun, but this required showing a reason to need one as well as a suitable character to do so safely. The measures after Dunblane and Hungerford tightened the level of these restrictions, but general gun prohibition was in place long before either of these.

rambot · Dec 21, 2015

miniverchivi said:
Okay, so as soon as you can lay out a plan that would involve getting 300 million guns out of circulation + taking them away from law enforcement as well. With the all of the scrutiny police have been under by the left (pertaining to how pervasive a problem abuse of power really is), certainly you wouldn't want them to be the only ones armed I would assume.

...and coming up with a way that stops guns from coming in from other places that we don't control (like Mexico), let me know. We can't stop thousands of shipments of drugs from coming across the borders, how easy would it be for the cartels to slip a dozen Glocks in the crates next to the blow?

As it pertains to your "see above", I did see above, that's why I commented on it.

Your post was pertaining to suicides, and in particular, how the gun suicides were cut in half after the gun restrictions.

https://www.lifeline.org.au/About-L...de-Statistics-in-Australia/Suicide-Statistics

Sure, the gun related suicides went down...but every other suicide type went up to fill in the gap, thus the reason why in Australia Deaths by suicide have reached a 10-year peak.

I did a similar exercise for a similar conversation pertaining to the UK

2 years prior to the restrictions, 7.4...with guns being the #1 the method used in (~50% of cases)
2 years after the restrictions, 7.5...with "Hanging and suffocation" now sitting atop the list.

As far as the link you provided, it doesn't work
View attachment 167646

I've posted this stat in numerous other threads, but the UK's murder rate is the same today that it was in the late 70's, decades before their gun control measures were implemented.

Same with Australia:
From their own government crime data website -

The number of murder victims fluctuated slightly from 1993 to 2007, whereas manslaughter remained relatively stable.

The number of murder victims peaked in 1999, at 344; the number of manslaughter victims peaked in 2002, at 48.

...but with all that being said, the gun conversation is a serious sidebar to the threads purpose I would think. So if you'd like to discuss it in another thread, I'd be more than happy to participate.
(unless StamperBen is okay with you turning it into a gun conversation back in post #24)

Is there a reason you didn't use a gun homocide rate per capita ?

stamperben · Dec 22, 2015

So are you all discussing gun control as a way to stop terrorism?

ThatRobGuy · Dec 22, 2015

rambot said:
Is there a reason you didn't use a gun homocide rate per capita ?

The other poster specifically brought up suicide so that's why I addressed that point

In terms of the per capita murder rate, while it's true that we are much higher than the UK, the same was true 25 years ago when they had access to the same kinds of firearms we did. Their murder rate has been relatively static since the late 70's. (their gun control measures weren't passed until 1996).

As I've discussed in other threads, there's really no correlation between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate (on either sides favor) unless they're cherry picking. So when Piers Morgan use to compare us to England to make his point, he was cherry picking...when Ted Nugent was comparing Switzerland to Mexico, he was cherry picking.

To get a better view of what I'm talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

If you sort by the "Gun ownership rate" column, you'll see the data is pretty much a random scatter plot (if it were to be graphed out)

ThatRobGuy · Dec 22, 2015

stamperben said:
So are you all discussing gun control as a way to stop terrorism?

It got started by the other poster back on post #24....

They were presenting the theory that right wing support of the concept of gun rights could be equated to terror...so that's what started the offshoot conversation about guns.

rambot · Dec 22, 2015

miniverchivi said:
The other poster specifically brought up suicide so that's why I addressed that point

In terms of the per capita murder rate, while it's true that we are much higher than the UK, the same was true 25 years ago when they had access to the same kinds of firearms we did. Their murder rate has been relatively static since the late 70's. (their gun control measures weren't passed until 1996).

As I've discussed in other threads, there's really no correlation between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate (on either sides favor) unless they're cherry picking. So when Piers Morgan use to compare us to England to make his point, he was cherry picking...when Ted Nugent was comparing Switzerland to Mexico, he was cherry picking.

To get a better view of what I'm talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

If you sort by the "Gun ownership rate" column, you'll see the data is pretty much a random scatter plot (if it were to be graphed out)

Yeah sorry. I was on my tablet, it was late and I was frustrated.
I meant to ask why you didn't use per capita stats for Australia. Because, while you quote actual numbers after the big gun change in australia, the per capita homocide rate fell. So that seems like a disingenuous use of statistics.

ecco · Dec 22, 2015

miniverchivi said:
Okay, so as soon as you can lay out a plan that would involve getting 300 million guns out of circulation + taking them away from law enforcement as well.

I stopped after reading this much of your post. Instead, I'll just repost what I said earlier.

I am also a realist and know that nothing like this would/could ever happen. Instead we'll just continue killing 10,000 of ourselves every year while we focus on the 10 or 20 that the MUSLIM TERRORISTS kill and spend Millions of dollars and continue to erode our liberties trying to stop THEM.

ecco · Dec 22, 2015

stamperben said:
So are you all discussing gun control as a way to stop terrorism?

Domestic Terrorism (even if we don't want to call it that) that kills 10,000 Americans every year.

ThatRobGuy · Dec 22, 2015

rambot said:
Yeah sorry. I was on my tablet, it was late and I was frustrated.
I meant to ask why you didn't use per capita stats for Australia. Because, while you quote actual numbers after the big gun change in australia, the per capita homocide rate fell. So that seems like a disingenuous use of statistics.

Well, the historical per capita rates aren't readily available from Australia's crime data website so I posted what figures they did have.

But given that they haven't really experienced a sharp population increase over that time period covered in the graph I posted earlier. (18.6 million to 20.8 million), that would still indicate that the change in percentages were very slight.

...and really not that far off from the percentage reductions the US has seen over that same time period.

...but even then, simply looking at just the US, or UK, or Australia still isn't taking into account the total picture. There's countries that exist that shatter both side's narratives when it comes to the perceived correlative relationship between gun ownership and crime rates.

MrSpikey · Dec 22, 2015

miniverchivi said:
In terms of the per capita murder rate, while it's true that we are much higher than the UK, the same was true 25 years ago when they had access to the same kinds of firearms we did. Their murder rate has been relatively static since the late 70's. (their gun control measures weren't passed until 1996).

As I posted above, this is incorrect.

The 1920 firearms act required firearms owners to have a certificate from the police, and made the presumptive right to own firearms conditional on both the police and Home Secretary.

In 1937, self defence was removed as a possible reason for owning firearms by the Home Secretary.

Subsequent acts have tightened restrictions on which firearms may be held under license and strengthened requirements on licensed owners in regards to storage/safety/suitability/etc.

We haven't had "access to the same kinds of firearms we did" in the way you did for the best part of a century.

An FYI. Terror from the Right

Work-in-progress

We're Still Here

Part of the IT crowd

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

It's an old family tradition

It's an old family tradition

Work-in-progress

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

It's an old family tradition

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

Senior Member

Poster

Poster

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency