Thoughts and prayers.

[MiSledder]

7 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

OT, you can lock this one down.  OP's last post pretty much says it all.  WTF  

Im suprised he isnt advocating a government official chaperone hunters and approve the shot they want to take, hand the hunter a bullet when hes ready to shoot

Edited November 16, 2017 by MiSledder

[DriftBusta]

9 minutes ago, MiSledder said:

Im suprised he isnt advocating a government official chaperone hunters and approve the shot they want to take, hand the hunter a bullet when hes ready to shoot

Talk about engaging in "flights of fancy".  Now you're stupid if you even own a gun.  Love to know what kind of milquetoast household he grew up in  

[Zambroski]

13 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

Talk about engaging in "flights of fancy".  Now you're stupid if you even own a gun.  Love to know what kind of milquetoast household he grew up in  

The man is in his 50's.  50's!!!  FIFTIES!!!!!!!!!   I swear...I almost feel bad for him.  I thought for sure we were all berating and whomping on some hippy little 20 year old cunt.  JESUS!!!  

He's little MC. 

 

[Skidooski]

30 minutes ago, MiSledder said:

Im suprised he isnt advocating a government official chaperone hunters and approve the shot they want to take, hand the hunter a bullet when hes ready to shoot

He's just flat out scared shit-less when it comes to guns. And many other things also I suspect. 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

2 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

 IMO none. You collectively have proven too stupid. But realistically you should be allowed hunting rifles that a reasonable sportsman would use. Nothing that could be converted to semi automatic. Seems radical but maybe hunters should have to be able to aim.  

No handguns for civilians. Unless they are for shooting ranges and they must be kept at the range which will take full responsibility for their use.  Full insurance etc. 

See, you just don’t get how to frame your response. I understand that’s past your education level, but let me help you. You keep having the guns are dangerous discussion. That isn’t relevant. To a low information voter, it may be, but I am going to challenge you to use some of you common sense here.

You have two options here. Freedom to make choices and absolute safety. Freedom to own a weapon can be upheld with proper gun control, but mostly it requires proper enforcement. Regulation that doesn’t infringe on right to freedom. Absolute safety is saying your right to freedom is less than a preconceived notion of safety. Unfortunately I am about to fuck that whole arguement with two fists... 

Our two countries percentage of the population are within 7 hundredths of a percent in terms of people who die every year as a percentage of the population. This includes all types of deaths. What does that mean? It means gun violence is so nominal that it has truly zero outcome on your life. So what does that mean about absolute safety? It means your argument is shit. It does not correlate to reducing deaths in the macro view. Freedom > Safety as safety is nominal in a gun based debate. 

There, science and math just proved you as an emotional decision maker. Really too bad that my degree in statistics from the liberal bastion of University of Wisconsin -Madison had to shit on your liberal narrative. Now run along...

[Cold War]

What a beat down.   

[revkevsdi]

11 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

See, you just don’t get how to frame your response. I understand that’s past your education level, but let me help you. You keep having the guns are dangerous discussion. That isn’t relevant. To a low information voter, it may be, but I am going to challenge you to use some of you common sense here.

You have two options here. Freedom to make choices and absolute safety. Freedom to own a weapon can be upheld with proper gun control, but mostly it requires proper enforcement. Regulation that doesn’t infringe on right to freedom. Absolute safety is saying your right to freedom is less than a preconceived notion of safety. Unfortunately I am about to fuck that whole arguement with two fists... 

Our two countries percentage of the population are within 7 hundredths of a percent in terms of people who die every year as a percentage of the population. This includes all types of deaths. What does that mean? It means gun violence is so nominal that it has truly zero outcome on your life. So what does that mean about absolute safety? It means your argument is shit. It does not correlate to reducing deaths in the macro view. Freedom > Safety as safety is nominal in a gun based debate. 

There, science and math just proved you as an emotional decision maker. Really too bad that my degree in statistics from the liberal bastion of University of Wisconsin -Madison had to shit on your liberal narrative. Now run along...

You are a special kind of stupid. 100% of us are going to die.  We are all going to die at the same rate, however your murder rate is 2-1/2  times higher. The difference between dying at 40 from murder and dying of old age is that someone stole half your life.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime

Here are the crime stats.  Check it all out. Your guns aren't keeping you safe.  IF they really were your rape rate would be lower because women (the physically weaker sex) would be able to protect themselves.  

You dumb fuckers want freedom.  Freedom to tell women what to do, freedom to own guns that can kill masses of people, freedom to force your religion on others, freedom to fuck up other countries. 

[hwytohell]

 Michigan firearm deer season opened on Nov. 15th at dawn  ,  bullets  , blood and beer cans will be everywhere , as bad as  dem run into the ground Chicago  .  

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Omg... If gun deaths were more than nominal statistics, they would show a disproportionate effect on average deaths a year. They don’t. Because they are nominal. You are too fucking stupid to understand the most basic statistical data. If they were actually effecting life, the US would have a higher number of deaths. A measurable number. The fact that all deaths are included is absolutely necessary. It is fucking critical to show relevance. Did you even graduate high school? Do I need to get out a box of crayons? You are making an emotional fear based arguement. Point and case your last little paragraph. You sound like a spoon fed fucking moron. Maybe go find someone to give you your opinion for you because you are too stupid to use data properly... 

[DriftBusta]

34 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

You dumb fuckers want freedom.  Freedom to tell women what to do, freedom to own guns that can kill masses of people, freedom to force your religion on others, freedom to fuck up other countries. 

Whew.  To paraphrase an old expression...."you are shot dude".

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

8 minutes ago, DriftBusta said:

Whew.  To paraphrase an old expression...."you are shot dude".

He came back, read my response, and left to find someone with a clue to tell him what to say next. I fucking despise emotional reactionaries. He is the epitome of one. Fine if you don’t like guns, but you sure as shit better come locked and loaded with actual arguements. 

[f7ben]

1 minute ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

He came back, read my response, and left to find someone with a clue to tell him what to say next. I fucking despise emotional reactionaries. He is the epitome of one. Fine if you don’t like guns, but you sure as shit better come locked and loaded with actual arguements. 

*arguments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

7 minutes ago, f7ben said:

*arguments 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have made some pretty long posts via iPhone today. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

[f7ben]

2 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

I have made some pretty long posts via iPhone today. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

If you ever see me posting one word responses and not really acting right its because I am on my phone  fuck typing shit on a phone

[revkevsdi]

1 hour ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Omg... If gun deaths were more than nominal statistics, they would show a disproportionate effect on average deaths a year. They don’t. Because they are nominal. You are too fucking stupid to understand the most basic statistical data. If they were actually effecting life, the US would have a higher number of deaths. A measurable number. The fact that all deaths are included is absolutely necessary. It is fucking critical to show relevance. Did you even graduate high school? Do I need to get out a box of crayons? You are making an emotional fear based arguement. Point and case your last little paragraph. You sound like a spoon fed fucking moron. Maybe go find someone to give you your opinion for you because you are too stupid to use data properly... 

Holy fuck you are dumb. We all die. 

Car crashes, cancer, heart attacks.  But if you check the link you may figure something out. 

I doubt it, but you might.

 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

9 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Holy fuck you are dumb. We all die. 

Car crashes, cancer, heart attacks.  But if you check the link you may figure something out. 

I doubt it, but you might.

 

No shit Sherlock... What’s your experience with statistical analysis? Real question. You are missing a huge point here. The one that is this whole argument: Are we better off as a country? That is simple. To find that out you need to know where the two compared countries stand. Total population/total deaths as a ratio. They are the same in both countries. That is your relevance... Since they are the same, gun deaths in the macro scheme are therefore proven irrelevant. They don’t decrease the amount of people dying a year. Why do increased gun deaths in the US not matter? And here is the point you are missing, because they are nominal. They could go up 10 fold and that does little to effect likelihood of actually being involved in gun violence. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOMINAL! If they are nominal, the only way to make the arguement against guns is due to fear and poor logic. If gun violence was eliminated, the resultant decrease In deaths per year would barely register a blip. 

Im bored of this. You are too fucking stupid and emotional to see where your logic is flawed. 

[revkevsdi]

23 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

No shit Sherlock... What’s your experience with statistical analysis? Real question. You are missing a huge point here. The one that is this whole argument: Are we better off as a country? That is simple. To find that out you need to know where the two compared countries stand. Total population/total deaths as a ratio. They are the same in both countries. That is your relevance... Since they are the same, gun deaths in the macro scheme are therefore proven irrelevant. They don’t decrease the amount of people dying a year. Why do increased gun deaths in the US not matter? And here is the point you are missing, because they are nominal. They could go up 10 fold and that does little to effect likelihood of actually being involved in gun violence. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOMINAL! If they are nominal, the only way to make the arguement against guns is due to fear and poor logic. If gun violence was eliminated, the resultant decrease In deaths per year would barely register a blip. 

Im bored of this. You are too fucking stupid and emotional to see where your logic is flawed. 

I'm sorry you stupid fuck. You obviously have way more experience with statistics. 

So good old USA who are keeping themselves safer while buying as many guns and they can have:

43% more crime than Canada.

A murder rate of 2.05 per 100,000 vs 5.  That means you are 2-1/2 times as likely to be murdered. Why aren't those guns keeping you safe buttercup?

7 times more likely to be murdered with a firearm. Remember when I mentioned that the availability of firearms makes it more likely and you stupid bitches argued against it? Yeah, well suck it.

You have 27% more police officers per capita but even that doesn't protect you from your dumbass gun wielding population. 

Probably because the cops are just as stupid as people like you. 

Rape rate. 1.7 per 100,000 vs 27.3   16 times you dumb cunt.  Think for a second. In a country with all those firearms and they can't even keep your daughters safe.  What fucking good are they? 

5 times the amount of total crimes.    But but but with all your guns to keep you safe, why does this keep happening?

I skipped a few because it's starting to bore me. But hey read on with that link and see if your incredible ability to understand statistical analysis can work out how stupid you are. 

 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

8 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

I'm sorry you stupid fuck. You obviously have way more experience with statistics. 

So good old USA who are keeping themselves safer while buying as many guns and they can have:

43% more crime than Canada.

A murder rate of 2.05 per 100,000 vs 5.  That means you are 2-1/2 times as likely to be murdered. Why aren't those guns keeping you safe buttercup?

7 times more likely to be murdered with a firearm. Remember when I mentioned that the availability of firearms makes it more likely and you stupid bitches argued against it? Yeah, well suck it.

You have 27% more police officers per capita but even that doesn't protect you from your dumbass gun wielding population. 

Probably because the cops are just as stupid as people like you. 

Rape rate. 1.7 per 100,000 vs 27.3   16 times you dumb cunt.  Think for a second. In a country with all those firearms and they can't even keep your daughters safe.  What fucking good are they? 

5 times the amount of total crimes.    But but but with all your guns to keep you safe, why does this keep happening?

I skipped a few because it's starting to bore me. But hey read on with that link and see if your incredible ability to understand statistical analysis can work out how stupid you are. 

 

2 in 100000 and 5 in 100000... Those numbers are .00002 and .00005 or your likelihood of it happening. What are those numbers???? OH YEAH, NOMINAL!! If it were 500 or 5000 in 100000, that would be worthy of consideration. Because then it would finally be half a percent or 5% for those numbers. But .00005 is 5 thousandths of a percent. Five thousandths of a percent likelihood of it happening. You’re right Canada is much better though. You guys only have 2 thousandths of a percent chance of it happening. Really way more safe lolololol. You dunce. See what happens when you frame things correctly? You really don’t understand stats at all do you? Like, zero understanding. 

[Kivalo]

Sweet Christ, RevFag must be the dumbest faggot on FS. 

 

[revkevsdi]

9 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

2 in 100000 and 5 in 100000... Those numbers are .00002 and .00005 or your likelihood of it happening. What are those numbers???? OH YEAH, NOMINAL!! If it were 500 or 5000 in 100000, that would be worthy of consideration. Because then it would finally be half a percent or 5% for those numbers. But .00005 is 5 thousandths of a percent. Five thousandths of a percent likelihood of it happening. You’re right Canada is much better though. You guys only have 2 thousandths of a percent chance of it happening. Really way more safe lolololol. You dunce. See what happens when you frame things correctly? You really don’t understand stats at all do you? Like, zero understanding. 

So when does it become an issue? 

[Angry ginger]

27 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

So when does it become an issue? 

when it is statistically significant

 

but that said 9/11 wasn't really statistically significant though and the right wing likes to use that to excuse taking our rights as a citizen daily and banning foreigners.  FTR I'm good with banning foreigners we don't owe them anything but taking the rights of average citizens away is a slippery slope whether that be with guns or searches with no probable cause at the airport

 

 

[Ez ryder]

16 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

You are a special kind of stupid. 100% of us are going to die.  We are all going to die at the same rate, however your murder rate is 2-1/2  times higher. The difference between dying at 40 from murder and dying of old age is that someone stole half your life.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime

Here are the crime stats.  Check it all out. Your guns aren't keeping you safe.  IF they really were your rape rate would be lower because women (the physically weaker sex) would be able to protect themselves.  

You dumb fuckers want freedom.  Freedom to tell women what to do, freedom to own guns that can kill masses of people, freedom to force your religion on others, freedom to fuck up other countries. 

any one smell rotten fish? 

so is it your worthless health care system creating the higher percentage,of death up there ? 

 

[The Rocket]

On 2017-11-16 at 10:44 AM, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

See, you just don’t get how to frame your response. I understand that’s past your education level, but let me help you. You keep having the guns are dangerous discussion. That isn’t relevant. To a low information voter, it may be, but I am going to challenge you to use some of you common sense here.

You have two options here. Freedom to make choices and absolute safety. Freedom to own a weapon can be upheld with proper gun control, but mostly it requires proper enforcement. Regulation that doesn’t infringe on right to freedom. Absolute safety is saying your right to freedom is less than a preconceived notion of safety. Unfortunately I am about to fuck that whole arguement with two fists... 

Our two countries percentage of the population are within 7 hundredths of a percent in terms of people who die every year as a percentage of the population. This includes all types of deaths. What does that mean? It means gun violence is so nominal that it has truly zero outcome on your life. So what does that mean about absolute safety? It means your argument is shit. It does not correlate to reducing deaths in the macro view. Freedom > Safety as safety is nominal in a gun based debate. 

There, science and math just proved you as an emotional decision maker. Really too bad that my degree in statistics from the liberal bastion of University of Wisconsin -Madison had to shit on your liberal narrative. Now run along...

 

16 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Omg... If gun deaths were more than nominal statistics, they would show a disproportionate effect on average deaths a year. They don’t. Because they are nominal. You are too fucking stupid to understand the most basic statistical data. If they were actually effecting life, the US would have a higher number of deaths. A measurable number. The fact that all deaths are included is absolutely necessary. It is fucking critical to show relevance. Did you even graduate high school? Do I need to get out a box of crayons? You are making an emotional fear based arguement. Point and case your last little paragraph. You sound like a spoon fed fucking moron. Maybe go find someone to give you your opinion for you because you are too stupid to use data properly... 

Ok - I’ve taken my share of stats classes. Your numbers must include deaths from natural causes (getting old etc). Which is either stupid or disingenuous on your part. I’m hoping it’s a mistake. 

Im fine if you yanks are ok with your gun culture and don’t desire to try and change it. Just say that and stop the fake outrage at thoughtless gun crime. 

[revkevsdi]

20 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

2 in 100000 and 5 in 100000... Those numbers are .00002 and .00005 or your likelihood of it happening. What are those numbers???? OH YEAH, NOMINAL!! If it were 500 or 5000 in 100000, that would be worthy of consideration. Because then it would finally be half a percent or 5% for those numbers. But .00005 is 5 thousandths of a percent. Five thousandths of a percent likelihood of it happening. You’re right Canada is much better though. You guys only have 2 thousandths of a percent chance of it happening. Really way more safe lolololol. You dunce. See what happens when you frame things correctly? You really don’t understand stats at all do you? Like, zero understanding. 

 

19 hours ago, Kivalo said:

Sweet Christ, RevFag must be the dumbest faggot on FS. 

 

Do you two dumb fuckers realize what that equates to in a lifetime?

If you dumb shits south of the border managed to drop your murder rate to something in line with Canada a lot of lives would be save.

I'll walk you stupid fuckers through the math.

3 more people per 100,000 are murdered in the US.     320,000,000 million population /100,000 =3,200 x 3 = 9,600 per year (3 9/11's per year). x average life expectancy 76 = 729,600 American lives. 

So you selfish cowardly cunts think you are keeping America safe but you are allowing almost 3/4 of a million Americans in your lifetime because you are scared to live without guns.

Now if you decided to adopt the same rules as Japan or Australia you could save another 3,200 per year. 

But yeah, nominal, you stupid stupid fuckheads.

Edited November 18, 2017 by revkevsdi

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

10 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

 

Do you two dumb fuckers realize what that equates to in a lifetime?

If you dumb shits south of the border managed to drop your murder rate to something in line with Canada a lot of lives would be save.

I'll walk you stupid fuckers through the math.

3 more people per 100,000 are murdered in the US.     320,000,000 million population /100,000 =3,200 x 3 = 9,600 per year (3 9/11's per year). x average life expectancy 76 = 729,600 American lives. 

So you selfish cowardly cunts think you are keeping America safe but you are allowing almost 3/4 of a million Americans in your lifetime because you are scared to live without guns.

Now if you decided to adopt the same rules as Japan or Australia you could save another 3,200 per year. 

But yeah, nominal, you stupid stupid fuckheads.

Wahhhhh. Good thing we don’t give a fuck what Japan, Australia, or uneducated libtard nooks think, eh? And yes, nominal. Those rights are more important. You don’t get it, and you never will. I’m ok with that. Some 50 year old, uneducated, kayaking, granola eating, submissive little twat doesn’t even register a fuck given by us. We just like shitting on you as you talk about our rights as if you understand the why. It’s not about owning the gun...