43 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is there anything wrong with "parodying" Muslims when they're grieving about their slain children? Because the left never seems to get around to mocking them. Nor is mocking blacks, or gays, or women, or trans people. Only whites and Christians. 

 

It's because leftists are cowards. They mock Christians and try to take guns from law abiding citizens because they can do so without fear of reprisal. The do not mock Muslims, and they do not try to take guns from criminals, because they are terrified that they might suffer the consequences of their actions. 

 

Because I oppose the left, I have to support free speech. I am not trying to stop you or anyone from mocking grieving parents. You go ahead on and bring it brother. 

Clutch those pearls brother, clutch them tight.

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Clutch those pearls brother, clutch them tight.

Wow, another strong argument from the high IQ left. 

11 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

I don't hate Christians, I just don't think there is anything wrong with parodying them. Do you not support free speech?

Again, is there anything wrong with "parodying" Muslims when they're grieving about their slain children? Because the left never seems to get around to mocking them. Nor is mocking blacks, or gays, or women, or trans people. Only whites and Christians. 

 

It's because leftists are cowards. They mock Christians and try to take guns from law abiding citizens because they can do so without fear of reprisal. The do not mock Muslims, and they do not try to take guns from criminals, because they are terrified that they might suffer the consequences of their actions. 

 

Because I oppose the left, I have to support free speech. I am not trying to stop you or anyone from mocking grieving parents. You go ahead on and bring it brother. 

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Wow, another strong argument from the high IQ left. 

It's all your reply deserved. You just came out with a load of fake moral outrage and made up nonsense. 

"The left" doesn't parody Muslims. Of course they do.
"The left" doesn't want guns taken off criminals. Of course they do.

And you need to learn the difference between "parody" and "mock". You use them interchangeably when they mean very different things.

A post using a derogatory nickname to belittle or mock individuals with differing political views and a reply has been removed.

On 9/5/2025 at 9:47 AM, josephbloggs said:

It's all your reply deserved. You just came out with a load of fake moral outrage and made up nonsense. 

"The left" doesn't parody Muslims. Of course they do.

Please provide a few examples. 

On 9/5/2025 at 9:47 AM, josephbloggs said:

"The left" doesn't want guns taken off criminals. Of course they do.

Well, you can argue the left "wants" to take all guns, but if they were serios about getting them out of the hands of criminals, leftists would be howling about enforcing existing guns laws, but they are not. Criminals (including parolees) are routinely released back onto the street after being arrested for illegally possessing firearms. 

 

And the focus would not be on restricting "assault rifles", but on restricting handguns, which account for over 90% of gun deaths, 

 

The focus is on "assault rifles" because popular among law abiding gun enthusiasts and the look scary. 

 

 

On 9/5/2025 at 9:47 AM, josephbloggs said:

And you need to learn the difference between "parody" and "mock". You use them interchangeably when they mean very different things.

Sorry, I forgot you were an English teacher, that explains a lot. 

 

In any event, I said and meant mock, to describe the ONLY thing the left is doing about gun violence, which is to MOCK the grieving parents of slain children for praying. 

 

Always classy the left. 

On 9/4/2025 at 7:21 AM, Yellowtail said:

Gun ownership is restricted everywhere in the US. To imply it is not, is just to lie. 

 

Apologies for the delay in replying.

 

Fair enough but it is true that it is easier to legally obtain a firearm in the US compared to the UK and Australia. 

 

Given that there is a strong negative correlation between the ease of obtaining a firearm and the number of deaths/ injuries resulting from firearms, I suggest that stricter firearm licensing legislation is in society's best interests (see previous pages of this thread for data and discussion. I won't repeat it here).

 

On 9/4/2025 at 7:21 AM, Yellowtail said:

So, what are your ideas on how to change gun laws to eliminate or significantly reduce shootings? 

 

See above

 

On 9/4/2025 at 7:21 AM, Yellowtail said:

So, you do not know. 

 

There are many things which I do not know. Which particular gap in my knowledge are you referring to, and how is it relevant to this discussion?

 

(I'm well aware that my admission leaves me open to a cheap shot (no pun intended). If you - or any other gun lovers - want to take that shot, be my guest.

 

On 9/4/2025 at 7:21 AM, Yellowtail said:

So, in Australia and UK, if the powers that be favor you, you get a gun, and if they do not favor you, you do not get a gun. 

 

(I will limit my reply to the UK)

 

No, that is not the case as the data shows.

 

+/-6,500 new applications for firearm licenses were made in the UK in 2022/23 of which 97% were granted.

 

The low number of applications suggests that 1) most UK citizens have no desire to own a firearm and/or 2) that due to the strict criteria which need to be met, they know that their application is likely to be rejected. That almost 100% of applications are successful shoes that those who do apply are obviously certain that they can meet the criteria.

 

On 9/4/2025 at 7:21 AM, Yellowtail said:

As they should.

 

Disagree. Gun ownership is a privilege not a right.

 

On 9/4/2025 at 7:21 AM, Yellowtail said:

No one has proposed unrestricted gun ownership. Please stop regurgitating that lie. 

 

See first paragraph.

 

On 9/4/2025 at 7:21 AM, Yellowtail said:

I think ammo.com gun research is just as credible as planned parenthood abortion research might be.

 

You may be right. I now know nothing about planned parenthood abortion research and, therefore, don't have an opinion. I also have no great desire to learn more about it. Does that make a bad person?

 

On 9/4/2025 at 7:21 AM, Yellowtail said:

A lot of people, I think you included, assume research from anti-gun sources is credible, while research from pro-gun sources is not credible. Is that correct?

 

No. Your assumption is incorrect.

 

On 9/4/2025 at 7:21 AM, Yellowtail said:

In any event, what portion of the research do you think is incorrect? 

 

 

I think that the article is disjointed and confused. 

 

I will repeat my first objection, namely that the lack of agreed definitions and terminology e.g. what constitutes 'defensive gun use' causes problems when aggregating the data and (may) compromise the integrity and quality of the data and conclusions (We cannot tell as the author does not show her methodological approach). 

 

Notwithstanding this objection, I do not see how the author can draw the conclusions contained in the final section from what precedes it. 

 

Indeed, if one takes a closer look at the sources referenced by the author, there is evidence to support the proposition that there should be stricter regulation of firearms in the US. For example, the fact that public support for such a measure has almost continuously been above 50% over the past 30 + years (Source 9) and that adoption of SYG laws across the US was associated with increases in violent deaths, deaths that could potentially have been avoided (Sources 2 & 3)

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

Given that there is a strong negative correlation between the ease of obtaining a firearm and the number of deaths/ injuries resulting from firearms, I suggest that stricter firearm licensing legislation is in society's best interests (see previous pages of this thread for data and discussion. I won't repeat it here).

 

A negative correlation, or inverse relationship, is when two variables move in opposite directions: as one increases, the other decreases. For example, a decrease in hours spent studying often correlates with a decrease in exam scores, while an increase in driving speed decreases travel time. On a scatter plot, data points would generally trend downwards from left to right, and mathematically, a negative correlation is represented by a negative correlation coefficient (r-value), where a value closer to -1 indicates a stronger relationship

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

Disagree. Gun ownership is a privilege not a right.

In the USA gun ownership is a right.  

On 9/4/2025 at 10:17 PM, josephbloggs said:

Clutch those pearls brother, clutch them tight.

Im going to mill another AR15 lower in your honor. 

1 minute ago, Mike_Hunt said:

In the USA gun ownership is a right.  

 

In the UK it's not.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

In the UK it's not.

I feel sorry for you.

4 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

 

A negative correlation, or inverse relationship, is when two variables move in opposite directions: as one increases, the other decreases. For example, a decrease in hours spent studying often correlates with a decrease in exam scores, while an increase in driving speed decreases travel time. On a scatter plot, data points would generally trend downwards from left to right, and mathematically, a negative correlation is represented by a negative correlation coefficient (r-value), where a value closer to -1 indicates a stronger relationship

 

I agree (and I thought that was what I explained? Obviously, I wasn't clear enough).

 

The looser the restrictions on gun ownership, the higher the incident of gun deaths and injuries.

 

Just now, Mike_Hunt said:

I feel sorry for you.

 

Isn't that a coincidence. I feel the same for you.

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

Isn't that a coincidence. I feel the same for you.

I like our Bill of Rights,  Which you people lack. 

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I agree (and I thought that was what I explained? Obviously, I wasn't clear enough).

 

The looser the restrictions on gun ownership, the higher the incident of gun deaths and injuries.

 

 

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I agree (and I thought that was what I explained? Obviously, I wasn't clear enough).

 

The looser the restrictions on gun ownership, the higher the incident of gun deaths and injuries.

 

What is the R^2 value? 

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Isn't that a coincidence. I feel the same for you.

Why are you Brit’s so worried about the USA.   Maybe you worry about your lack of freedom of speech. 

17 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

I like our Bill of Rights,  Which you people lack. 

 

And yet, somehow we've managed to get by without one for +/-700 years.

 

However, I'm pleased for you that you like yours.

20 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

Why are you Brit’s so worried about the USA.   Maybe you worry about your lack of freedom of speech. 

 

It might be because you are still - for the time being at least - the major influence on the world stage, and we have no idea what your current maverick President will decide to do next to destabilise the world. 

 

I have little interest in US domestic affairs. If you want to re-enact 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' with an enlarged cast of millions, you crack on with it. 

 

We have Freedom of Speech. What we don't have is your freedom to incite rioting, violence, etc. 

32 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

 

What is the R^2 value? 

 

No idea and I am not going to the trouble of looking for a study(ies) which shows it. I am certainly not going to collect, collate and run a regression analysis on any data myself.

 

If you look at the preceding pages of this thread you will find data relating to such things as the (annual) number of gun deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in various countries. You will see that in countries such as Australia and the UK where there are tighter restrictions on gun ownership, there are fewer deaths and injuries than in countries such as the US where the restrictions are looser.

 

Whether you dismiss this intuitively obvious correlation as simply coincidence is entirely up to you.

30 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

No idea and I am not going to the trouble of looking for a study(ies) which shows it. I am certainly not going to collect, collate and run a regression analysis on any data myself.

 

If you look at the preceding pages of this thread you will find data relating to such things as the (annual) number of gun deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in various countries. You will see that in countries such as Australia and the UK where there are tighter restrictions on gun ownership, there are fewer deaths and injuries than in countries such as the US where the restrictions are looser.

 

Whether you dismiss this intuitively obvious correlation as simply coincidence is entirely up to you.

You’re lazy. 

45 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

It might be because you are still - for the time being at least - the major influence on the world stage, and we have no idea what your current maverick President will decide to do next to destabilise the world. 

 

I have little interest in US domestic affairs. If you want to re-enact 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' with an enlarged cast of millions, you crack on with it. 

 

We have Freedom of Speech. What we don't have is your freedom to incite rioting, violence, etc. 

You get arrested for mean tweets.  THat’s not freedom.   You should worry about your dying country.   

On 9/4/2025 at 12:21 PM, Yellowtail said:

Gun ownership is restricted everywhere in the US. To imply it is not, is just to lie. 

 

So, what are your ideas on how to change gun laws to eliminate or significantly reduce shootings? 

So, you do not know. 

So, in Australia and UK, if the powers that be favor you, you get a gun, and if they do not favor you, you do not get a gun. 

As they should.

No one has proposed unrestricted gun ownership. Please stop regurgitating that lie. 

 

I think ammo.com gun research is just as credible as planned parenthood abortion research might be.

 

A lot of people, I think you included, assume research from anti-gun sources is credible, while research from pro-gun sources is not credible. Is that correct?

 

In any event, what portion of the research do you think is incorrect? 

 

 

 

 

 

The most significant info is that which reflects on whether or not an individual decides to have a firearm in their home.

 

Clearly, like mommy and daddy verifying there is no monster under the bed, having firearm makes some people "feel safer". So for many gun owners it's all about the feels.

 

Who gets shot by guns in private hands?

 

Most likely is the gun owner himself. 

I'm guessing that very few people say "I'm buying this weapon so I can kill myself with it ten years from now". But they do kill themselves in significant numbers.

 

Yeah but...

No doubt those of you who are inveterate arguers will have objections.

Even still...

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 8/27/2025 at 2:00 PM, candide said:

Complete B.S., as usual!

 

Ridiculous LGBT hater!

 

There are around 300 school shootings per year in the US.....

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-17/us-school-shootings-2024-in-numbers/104734714

Shootings at school...safe for the shooter, no one else will be armed.   

On 8/28/2025 at 5:32 AM, Slowhand225 said:

Its a RIGHT spelled out in our founding documents, no need to explain anything. Its not up for debate.

Surely it depends on how you translate those ancient foundling docs.

Go back to what are supposed to be your fantastic American schools and learn to decyther the interpretation of those constitutional rights(which also gives you the right to free speech.)When did you lot ever have free speech in the true sense?

 

7 hours ago, Mike_Hunt said:

You get arrested for mean tweets.  THat’s not freedom.   You should worry about your dying country.   

 

There have been recent instances of over-zaalous policing in the UK, however, that doesn't mean that there should be absolute freedom of speech. For example, if some nutter were to shoot the President after hearing a call to do from another lunatic, would you simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, never mind, that's a price worth paying for absolute freedom of speech"?

 

I do worry about the UK. We have been in decline for +/-120 years (since the US overtook it as the world's leading power). A similar thing is happening to the US. It is also in decline. At some point it will be replaced by China as the world's leading power. You also should worry about your own declining country.

17 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

There have been recent instances of over-zaalous policing in the UK, however, that doesn't mean that there should be absolute freedom of speech. For example, if some nutter were to shoot the President after hearing a call to do from another lunatic, would you simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, never mind, that's a price worth paying for absolute freedom of speech"?

 

I do worry about the UK. We have been in decline for +/-120 years (since the US overtook it as the world's leading power). A similar thing is happening to the US. It is also in decline. At some point it will be replaced by China as the world's leading power. You also should worry about your own declining country.

Well, it's not so much that they are declining. It's rather that other countries are developing faster, which is not surprising from developing or emerging economies.

 

Assuming that GDP/capita of other countries will converge over time towards Western economies' level, the main factor of power will be the population's size.

4 hours ago, RayC said:

 

There have been recent instances of over-zaalous policing in the UK, however, that doesn't mean that there should be absolute freedom of speech. For example, if some nutter were to shoot the President after hearing a call to do from another lunatic, would you simply shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, never mind, that's a price worth paying for absolute freedom of speech"?

 

I do worry about the UK. We have been in decline for +/-120 years (since the US overtook it as the world's leading power). A similar thing is happening to the US. It is also in decline. At some point it will be replaced by China as the world's leading power. You also should worry about your own declining country.

Freedom of speech should be absolute.  

1 hour ago, Mike_Hunt said:

Freedom of speech should be absolute.  

 

So an individual instructing and advising others how to kill and maim others just needs to play the "I was merely exercising my right to absolute freedom of speech" card to avoid bearing any responsibility or accountability when others act on that advice. 

 

Maybe you need to reconsider your priorities.

On 8/27/2025 at 4:26 PM, TedG said:

I’ve always wanted an M1 Carbine. 

I had one, blew off a $20 box of amo in seconds. Got rid of it over 30 years ago.