Stupid questions
France has strict gun laws. Why didn’t that save Charlie Hebdo victims?
Of course, the solution is more gun control!
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
January 10th, 2015 at 1:51 pm
If Muslim jihadists perp a mass murderer in yet another gun free zone here, the ruling elite reactionaries will immediately attack gun owners and the Bill of Rights–while they will remain well protected by hired guns.
January 10th, 2015 at 4:39 pm
For added iorny, they’ll go on and on about how there must not be a “Muslim backlash” all while demanding that Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.
Oh sure they won’t say it *that* way, but the end result will be less firearms rights for Muslims.
I mean it’s not like any proposed gun control law would have an exemption if you can prove you’re living the Five Pillars.
January 10th, 2015 at 7:30 pm
Oh, they’d expand gun rights for diaperheads if they could without expanding them for Christians (you know, the real terrorists). That would counter the “unreasonable” reaction against diaperheads when they accidentally do silly things like terrorist attacks.
January 10th, 2015 at 9:15 pm
Did you say exemption”, The Jack? With current or proposed gun laws, the ruling elite class always exempts themselves–taking from others what they keep for themselves. Disarming us for evil mass murderers makes them just as evil!
January 10th, 2015 at 9:47 pm
Gun free zone worked again (for the bad guys)…
January 10th, 2015 at 11:21 pm
EU will let ‘party’ members have guns if it gets worse.
But only if you are a important ‘party’ member.
Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
And the ‘party’ must keep control of the masses. Gun control is the best way to keep that control. Just ask Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, etc… they were, and are, the masters of control.
January 11th, 2015 at 10:17 am
That’s why they have them Old NFO.
January 11th, 2015 at 10:20 am
I’m sure many of us are “following the issue.” The lib take at the moment appears to be that a bodyguard and the gendarmes were armed, and got shot anyway, ergo guns will not prevent terrorism. Not exactly a Q.E.D there, but, hey, Q.E.D.-ish.
January 11th, 2015 at 3:13 pm
From the article:
“For example, statistics from Gun Policy show that the number of deaths from firearms was about 0.2 per 100,000 people in 2010 and hovered around that for the previous few years. In America, it was a little over 2.8 per 100,000.”
Very slick. But how does the overall death rate between the two countries compare?
January 11th, 2015 at 10:10 pm
Following rickn8or
Per capita statistics is a very crude metric.
Using per capita for overall death rates, life expectancy, disease, literacy, etc. between different countries/cultures is fairly reasonable as presumably inadvertent biases wash out.
However, try doing that with ‘deaths by drowning’ per capita for Florida vs Utah you might that Florida has a problem (I don’t know actual stats but given that it seems like you can’t go off the road in Florida without going into a water filled ditch may skew the numbers).
Likewise ‘English literature proficiency’ per capita of England vs. Mongolia would be ludicrous.
As some like to compare automobiles with guns for many reasons, ‘auto fatalities’ per capita has long been recognized as crude. Autos in private ownership is more precise, registered autos (as they are actually intended to be on the street) even more precise. Actually used are fatalities per hundred million miles – how much autos are actually used.
Taking this to guns, the most rational metric would be how many fatalities per million privately purchased rounds of ammo (sure, some stockpile, but they all eventually end cycled to the front for the net trip to the range or liquor store, etc.)
January 12th, 2015 at 3:53 pm
So, Burnt Toast, you can make statistics mean whatever you want ’em to, whenever you want ’em to, in order to further your political agenda.
All I know is that three people running around with AK’s OWNED that town.
Then again, French is a hard language to learn, (irregular verbs and such) that the shooters simply didn’t know they weren’t allowed to run around with guns and shoot people…
January 12th, 2015 at 4:59 pm
Yeah, if we take the guns away from the people who don’t do bad things with them harder, the ones who do do bad things with them won’t, uuuhh, will, um. Something. How the fuck does this make any sense to even the most dain bramaged leftard idiot? These people truly must live in a different reality totally at odds with the one I wake up to every day. How can someone that oblivious remember to breathe? Seriously. How?
January 12th, 2015 at 5:34 pm
In England, a “death” isn’t a “homicide” until somebody goes convicted and goes to jail, so no matter if dead Sumdood had 14 stab wounds in the back and no wallet, they only get written up as “suspicious death”.
I wonder if this writer is using the same form of “statistics”.
January 12th, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Andrew,
And I’m sure they all feel better if someone is stabbed or beaten to death so that it’s not “gun violence”. Plus it’s illegal there to use a gun to defend yourself which makes the defender the had person rather than the assailant. England is descending into barbarism and sharia.