Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-12-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 03:39 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 03:12 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik carried out their jihad in a state with expanded background checks, registration requirements for “assault weapons,” and an “A” rating from the Brady Campaign.

Shit doesn't work.

You just made a great argument for why assault-style weapons should be banned. Thumbsup

btw you never gave me an answer to what you would consider a reasonable gun control law...still waiting. Drinking Beverage
Please define "assault weapon"....
.....

As far as I'm concerned - if somebody's pointing a single shot .410 at me, I'm being assaulted......

Let's see how far you go......

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 07:29 PM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 07:27 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Please define "assault weapon"....

An American with a gun.

Too easy. Tongue

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 07:30 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2015 07:34 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 07:27 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 03:39 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  You just made a great argument for why assault-style weapons should be banned. Thumbsup

btw you never gave me an answer to what you would consider a reasonable gun control law...still waiting. Drinking Beverage
Please define "assault weapon"....
.....

As far as I'm concerned - if somebody's pointing a single shot .410 at me, I'm being assaulted......

Let's see how far you go......

Why don’t you ask LDH? He’s the one that brought it up. Drinking Beverage

Edit: Here ya go in case your computer search engine is down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As...eapons_Ban

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 09:03 PM (This post was last modified: 08-12-2015 09:14 PM by Chas.)
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 07:30 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 07:27 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Please define "assault weapon"....
.....

As far as I'm concerned - if somebody's pointing a single shot .410 at me, I'm being assaulted......

Let's see how far you go......

Why don’t you ask LDH? He’s the one that brought it up. Drinking Beverage

Edit: Here ya go in case your computer search engine is down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As...eapons_Ban

If you look at the definition, you will see that it is arbitrary, even ridiculous.

[Image: 1Evil1Not.jpg]

The first is not an assault weapon, the second is.
They are both semi-automatic, have a detachable box magazine, and fire the same ammunition.

Neither is an assault rifle.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-12-2015, 09:27 PM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
One liner answer is hungr for power started with Afghanistan n end with Iran.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2015, 11:14 PM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 09:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 07:30 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Why don’t you ask LDH? He’s the one that brought it up. Drinking Beverage

Edit: Here ya go in case your computer search engine is down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As...eapons_Ban

If you look at the definition, you will see that it is arbitrary, even ridiculous.

[Image: 1Evil1Not.jpg]

The first is not an assault weapon, the second is.
They are both semi-automatic, have a detachable box magazine, and fire the same ammunition.

Neither is an assault rifle.

I read enough of these threads to know that they eventually degenerate into semantics and minutia. So, instead of getting all hot and bothered over which killing tool is called what lets break it down to the essence of the issue.

How do we keep guns, especially the most effective and lethal ones, out of the hands of religious fanatics and the mentally disturbed? That’s it in a nutshell.

How do we as a nation balance the right to bear arms with safety and security? What should we do to keep our families safe? What steps are we willing to take to avoid another San Bernardino, Sandy Hook or Columbine? In my opinion acquiring (and maintaining) a firearm should be more difficult than walking into a gun show or Wal Mart and slapping down some money or breaking into a house and stealing one.

The two biggest hurdles that I see are that some people don’t see a problem to begin with and others are so paranoid that they vehemently oppose any law or bill that ammends or restricts the current gun ownership laws in any way, no matter how sensible.

I don’t have the answers on how to fix what I see as a priority one problem, but what is painfully apparent to me is that existing laws on gun ownership cannot remain in stasis while expecting that the mass killings will become less frequent.

So which firearms should be more stringently controlled? I think it takes people who know firearms to answer this question and then act on it. As I look over the landscape I am not seeing the political willpower to change the status quo.

There will continue to be mass killings, active shooter scenarios and large body counts until we decide enough is enough and adopt something similar to the Australian model. Next month we’ll be talking about another one of these, and the month after that, and the month after that and the same people who today rail against adopting stricter gun controls will be railing then too with the same non-answers.

And nothing will change and the slaughters will continue.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
09-12-2015, 05:11 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(08-12-2015 05:51 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 11:49 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  In fact my math is embarrassingly wrong too Facepalm

Should be (49-41) / (49/100) actually 16.3% relative difference.

pssssst.... I think you want 100*(49-41)/41 = 19.5% .... p.s. please don't hunt me down and kill me.

You must be correct Girly, I was never that good at math really.

But isn`t that just a difference from where you calculate it? I was treating 49 as a 100% .

I mean from 49 to 41 it`s a decrease of 16.3% or to put in the way you did it would be 100* (49-41)/49 ( which is the number we were looking for in the context of this argument ) , but from 41 to 49 it would be a 19,5% increase?

Is that right? Please correct me if that`s wrong.

P.s. I might just hunt you down and...give you a hug.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2015, 08:18 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(09-12-2015 05:11 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(08-12-2015 05:51 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  pssssst.... I think you want 100*(49-41)/41 = 19.5% .... p.s. please don't hunt me down and kill me.

You must be correct Girly, I was never that good at math really.

But isn`t that just a difference from where you calculate it? I was treating 49 as a 100% .

I mean from 49 to 41 it`s a decrease of 16.3% or to put in the way you did it would be 100* (49-41)/49 ( which is the number we were looking for in the context of this argument ) , but from 41 to 49 it would be a 19,5% increase?

Is that right? Please correct me if that`s wrong.

P.s. I might just hunt you down and...give you a hug.

Girly's math credentials definitely beat mine, but percent change is always based on the original number. If it changed from 49 to 41, the percent change is 100*(41-49)/49 = -16.3% (yes, it's negative, because there was a decrease). If it changed from 41 to 49, then the percent change is 100*(49-41)/41 = 19.5% (positive because it's an increase). The general formula is 100*(new number - original number)/original number.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
09-12-2015, 08:36 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
(09-12-2015 08:18 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(09-12-2015 05:11 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  You must be correct Girly, I was never that good at math really.

But isn`t that just a difference from where you calculate it? I was treating 49 as a 100% .

I mean from 49 to 41 it`s a decrease of 16.3% or to put in the way you did it would be 100* (49-41)/49 ( which is the number we were looking for in the context of this argument ) , but from 41 to 49 it would be a 19,5% increase?

Is that right? Please correct me if that`s wrong.

P.s. I might just hunt you down and...give you a hug.

Girly's math credentials definitely beat mine, but percent change is always based on the original number. If it changed from 49 to 41, the percent change is 100*(41-49)/49 = -16.3% (yes, it's negative, because there was a decrease). If it changed from 41 to 49, then the percent change is 100*(49-41)/41 = 19.5% (positive because it's an increase). The general formula is 100*(new number - original number)/original number.
Yeah, I was using a 49 as a original number because of the context ( decreasing number of households owning guns ) .

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2015, 08:39 AM
RE: Root Causes: San Bernardino, California shooting
I think we need a "guns 'n' math" thread.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: