INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Yuri Bezmenov on July 25, 2016, 03:57:34 PM
-
They obviously need knife control now. ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-least-15-dead-many-injured-in-knife-attack-outside-tokyo/ar-BBuQVrO?ocid=spartandhp
-
The article said the police were called at 2:30 a.m. Evidently he attacked the people as they slept.
The PR will be upset about this and I'll have to do a lot of hugging and reassuring. She's not sold on going to "day care" as it is.
-
They obviously need knife control now. ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-least-15-dead-many-injured-in-knife-attack-outside-tokyo/ar-BBuQVrO?ocid=spartandhp
They already have some of that
A revision to Japan's Swords and Firearms Control Law was introduced in 2009 in the wake of that attack, banning the possession of double-edged knives and further tightening gun-ownership rules.
Link (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-attack-idUSKCN1052D0)
Another 25 people were wounded too he was very busy apparently :zombiefuck:
-
They obviously need knife control now. ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-least-15-dead-many-injured-in-knife-attack-outside-tokyo/ar-BBuQVrO?ocid=spartandhp
What's your point? That "control" equals "no violence"?
-
They obviously need knife control now. ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-least-15-dead-many-injured-in-knife-attack-outside-tokyo/ar-BBuQVrO?ocid=spartandhp
I don't know if you are an idiot, but the statement you made is certainly idiotic. No one has ever said that gun control ceases all violence. What it does is SIGNIFICANTLY lower the murder rates, as can be demonstrated to anyone with an IQ over 20 via easily available statistics.
This is a self evident truth to every sane person in every country around the world (except yours).
I'm not sure how much simpler I can put this without using hand puppets.
-
They obviously need knife control now. ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-least-15-dead-many-injured-in-knife-attack-outside-tokyo/ar-BBuQVrO?ocid=spartandhp
What's your point? That "control" equals "no violence"?
No, that's your position.
BTW, you never addressed my point that if you got rid of all black people in the US, the murder rate would drop in half.
Why shouldn't the US ban "assault niggers"??
-
No one has ever said that gun control ceases all violence. What it does is SIGNIFICANTLY lower the murder rates, as can be demonstrated to anyone with an IQ over 20 via easily available statistics.
And yet you've failed to do this yourself. Along with other so called "experts" you can't link the availability of guns to murder rates. There's simply no consistent correlation worldwide and even if you could establish correlation, correlation doesn't equal causation BEEOTCH!!
-
They obviously need knife control now. ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-least-15-dead-many-injured-in-knife-attack-outside-tokyo/ar-BBuQVrO?ocid=spartandhp
What's your point? That "control" equals "no violence"?
No, that's your position.
Really? I don't believe I've suggested such a thing. Control would bring down the numbers, though.
I think you might actually need those hand puppets.
-
They obviously need knife control now. ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-least-15-dead-many-injured-in-knife-attack-outside-tokyo/ar-BBuQVrO?ocid=spartandhp
What's your point? That "control" equals "no violence"?
No, that's your position.
Really? I don't believe I've suggested such a thing. Control would bring down the numbers, though.
I think you might actually need those hand puppets.
No it wouldn't. Getting rid of black people in the US would cut the murder rate in half, that's indisputable.
Why don't you support a ban on "assault niggers"??
-
correlation doesn't equal causation
Sometimes it does.
And yet you've failed to do this yourself.
That's correct.
-
correlation doesn't equal causation
Sometimes it does.
Only when there's evidence linking the two.
-
They obviously need knife control now. ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-least-15-dead-many-injured-in-knife-attack-outside-tokyo/ar-BBuQVrO?ocid=spartandhp
What's your point? That "control" equals "no violence"?
No, that's your position.
Really? I don't believe I've suggested such a thing. Control would bring down the numbers, though.
I think you might actually need those hand puppets.
No it wouldn't. Getting rid of black people in the US would cut the murder rate in half, that's indisputable.
Why don't you support a ban on "assault niggers"??
Supporting a ban on morons would most likely be more effective.
-
They obviously need knife control now. ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-least-15-dead-many-injured-in-knife-attack-outside-tokyo/ar-BBuQVrO?ocid=spartandhp
What's your point? That "control" equals "no violence"?
No, that's your position.
Really? I don't believe I've suggested such a thing. Control would bring down the numbers, though.
I think you might actually need those hand puppets.
No it wouldn't. Getting rid of black people in the US would cut the murder rate in half, that's indisputable.
Why don't you support a ban on "assault niggers"??
Supporting a ban on morons would most likely be more effective.
There you go again, denying reality because it's politically incorrect.
The reason the US has such a high murder rate is because of black on black violence, not because of Jim-Bob on his front porch with his .30-06
-
No one has ever said that gun control ceases all violence. What it does is SIGNIFICANTLY lower the murder rates, as can be demonstrated to anyone with an IQ over 20 via easily available statistics.
And yet you've failed to do this yourself. Along with other so called "experts" you can't link the availability of guns to murder rates. There's simply no consistent correlation worldwide and even if you could establish correlation, correlation doesn't equal causation BEEOTCH!!
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
But what do they know? "Harvard"? Is there even such a place?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
This is a government institution so they must be lying, right?
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.
-
They obviously need knife control now. ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-least-15-dead-many-injured-in-knife-attack-outside-tokyo/ar-BBuQVrO?ocid=spartandhp
What's your point? That "control" equals "no violence"?
No, that's your position.
Really? I don't believe I've suggested such a thing. Control would bring down the numbers, though.
I think you might actually need those hand puppets.
No it wouldn't. Getting rid of black people in the US would cut the murder rate in half, that's indisputable.
Why don't you support a ban on "assault niggers"??
Supporting a ban on morons would most likely be more effective.
There you go again, denying reality because it's politically incorrect.
The reason the US has such a high murder rate is because of black on black violence, not because of Jim-Bob on his front porch with his .30-06
Er, no, it's not that simple. While the homicide rate is certainly significantly higher among "blacks", "whites" do their share, according to the FBI (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls).
According to the FBI, 69% of the homicides involved firearms. A reasonable assumption is that controlling them would help bring down the numbers for both.
-
They obviously need knife control now. ::)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/at-least-15-dead-many-injured-in-knife-attack-outside-tokyo/ar-BBuQVrO?ocid=spartandhp
What's your point? That "control" equals "no violence"?
No, that's your position.
Really? I don't believe I've suggested such a thing. Control would bring down the numbers, though.
I think you might actually need those hand puppets.
No it wouldn't. Getting rid of black people in the US would cut the murder rate in half, that's indisputable.
Why don't you support a ban on "assault niggers"??
Supporting a ban on morons would most likely be more effective.
There you go again, denying reality because it's politically incorrect.
The reason the US has such a high murder rate is because of black on black violence, not because of Jim-Bob on his front porch with his .30-06
Er, no, it's not that simple. While the homicide rate is certainly significantly higher among "blacks", "whites" do their share, according to the FBI (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls).
According to the FBI, 69% of the homicides involved firearms. A reasonable assumption is that controlling them would help bring down the numbers for both.
Outlaw guns tomorrow in the US, and enact a government driven, forced gun round up and you will see a bit of gun violence.
-
How about handing out gold stars to anyone who promises to behave? Or better yet, ban blacks?
Any other obvious, irrelevant and impossible statements you wish to share with the class, Al?
-
How about handing out gold stars to anyone who promises to behave? Or better yet, ban blacks?
Any other obvious, irrelevant and impossible statements you wish to share with the class, Al?
How about doing neither?
I gotta say for someone who critiques my statements as irrelevant and impossible, you display great levels of hypocrisy.
-
No one has ever said that gun control ceases all violence. What it does is SIGNIFICANTLY lower the murder rates, as can be demonstrated to anyone with an IQ over 20 via easily available statistics.
And yet you've failed to do this yourself. Along with other so called "experts" you can't link the availability of guns to murder rates. There's simply no consistent correlation worldwide and even if you could establish correlation, correlation doesn't equal causation BEEOTCH!!
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
But what do they know? "Harvard"? Is there even such a place?
These studies have been largely discredited due to the fact that it's research done by doctors, in the field of criminology. Would you go to a psychologist for brain surgery? Of course not, because it's not their field of specialty. Why would you accept research in the field of criminology, done by non-criminologists?? Doctors have an obvious bias, since they only deal with the negative consequences of gun ownership.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
This is a government institution so they must be lying, right?
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.
Yeah, even they admit they can't determine a cause and effect.
-
How about handing out gold stars to anyone who promises to behave? Or better yet, ban blacks?
Any other obvious, irrelevant and impossible statements you wish to share with the class, Al?
How about doing neither?
I gotta say for someone who critiques my statements as irrelevant and impossible, you display great levels of hypocrisy.
Oh, I see. You think I mean it.
:hahaha:
-
No one has ever said that gun control ceases all violence. What it does is SIGNIFICANTLY lower the murder rates, as can be demonstrated to anyone with an IQ over 20 via easily available statistics.
And yet you've failed to do this yourself. Along with other so called "experts" you can't link the availability of guns to murder rates. There's simply no consistent correlation worldwide and even if you could establish correlation, correlation doesn't equal causation BEEOTCH!!
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
But what do they know? "Harvard"? Is there even such a place?
These studies have been largely discredited due to the fact that it's research done by doctors, in the field of criminology. Would you go to a psychologist for brain surgery? Of course not, because it's not their field of specialty. Why would you accept research in the field of criminology, done by non-criminologists?? Doctors have an obvious bias, since they only deal with the negative consequences of gun ownership.
Ah, yes. Since they study the negative consequences, they must be biased. :LMAO:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
This is a government institution so they must be lying, right?
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.
Yeah, even they admit they can't determine a cause and effect.
But they did find that "states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths". I'm sure it's a coincidence.
I love the NRA approach. You are just as much fun as Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine. You should talk to Mike.
-
No one has ever said that gun control ceases all violence. What it does is SIGNIFICANTLY lower the murder rates, as can be demonstrated to anyone with an IQ over 20 via easily available statistics.
And yet you've failed to do this yourself. Along with other so called "experts" you can't link the availability of guns to murder rates. There's simply no consistent correlation worldwide and even if you could establish correlation, correlation doesn't equal causation BEEOTCH!!
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
But what do they know? "Harvard"? Is there even such a place?
These studies have been largely discredited due to the fact that it's research done by doctors, in the field of criminology. Would you go to a psychologist for brain surgery? Of course not, because it's not their field of specialty. Why would you accept research in the field of criminology, done by non-criminologists?? Doctors have an obvious bias, since they only deal with the negative consequences of gun ownership.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
This is a government institution so they must be lying, right?
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.
Yeah, even they admit they can't determine a cause and effect.
:tinfoil:
-
How about handing out gold stars to anyone who promises to behave?
I promise to behave. :zoinks:
-
Liar. >:D
-
How about handing out gold stars to anyone who promises to behave? Or better yet, ban blacks?
Any other obvious, irrelevant and impossible statements you wish to share with the class, Al?
How about doing neither?
I gotta say for someone who critiques my statements as irrelevant and impossible, you display great levels of hypocrisy.
Oh, I see. You think I mean it.
:hahaha:
I think you have said a LOT of dumb shit in the last six months. I do not care your reasons for saying dumb shit. I just point out that you are being an idiot. You can say "Haha, fool you, I was only pretending to be an idiot this time" But that does not justify every other thing I have countered for the last 6 months. Not even close. Its a drop in the ocean.
-
How about handing out gold stars to anyone who promises to behave?
I promise to behave. :zoinks:
You always do. :P
-
How about handing out gold stars to anyone who promises to behave? Or better yet, ban blacks?
Any other obvious, irrelevant and impossible statements you wish to share with the class, Al?
How about doing neither?
I gotta say for someone who critiques my statements as irrelevant and impossible, you display great levels of hypocrisy.
Oh, I see. You think I mean it.
:hahaha:
I think you have said a LOT of dumb shit in the last six months. I do not care your reasons for saying dumb shit. I just point out that you are being an idiot. You can say "Haha, fool you, I was only pretending to be an idiot this time" But that does not justify every other thing I have countered for the last 6 months. Not even close. Its a drop in the ocean.
Says the man who consistently responded to members with ninja cat memes.
-
How about handing out gold stars to anyone who promises to behave? Or better yet, ban blacks?
Any other obvious, irrelevant and impossible statements you wish to share with the class, Al?
How about doing neither?
I gotta say for someone who critiques my statements as irrelevant and impossible, you display great levels of hypocrisy.
Oh, I see. You think I mean it.
:hahaha:
I think you have said a LOT of dumb shit in the last six months. I do not care your reasons for saying dumb shit. I just point out that you are being an idiot. You can say "Haha, fool you, I was only pretending to be an idiot this time" But that does not justify every other thing I have countered for the last 6 months. Not even close. Its a drop in the ocean.
Says the man who consistently responded to members with ninja cat memes.
Indeed. I responded to Zegh that way. It was fun. Your point?
Maybe this is something to consider. The posting of ninja cats unto itself was obviously not making any point. You however have made big claims you have not been able to back and have doubled down and lied and tried to bait and switch. You say one post was not to be taken seriously? I say that most of what you have said over the last six months has been either dishonest or ridiculous.
So you can point to one post of your's and tell me you were trying to be an idiot on that one. You can point to my ninja cat pictures to Zegh 3 months ago and say "You used to send Zegh ninja cat pics to stir him up" but you know that I was being blatant about how each of those pictures was not an argument or a lead in to a discussion or making a point.
No I say most of what you have been saying to me in the last six months fits the criteria of being ridiculous and therefore all of what you say ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
-
The article said the police were called at 2:30 a.m. Evidently he attacked the people as they slept.
The PR will be upset about this and I'll have to do a lot of hugging and reassuring. She's not sold on going to "day care" as it is.
Hug for the PR.
This seems to be the most sensible post in this thread.
-
How about handing out gold stars to anyone who promises to behave? Or better yet, ban blacks?
Any other obvious, irrelevant and impossible statements you wish to share with the class, Al?
How about doing neither?
I gotta say for someone who critiques my statements as irrelevant and impossible, you display great levels of hypocrisy.
Oh, I see. You think I mean it.
:hahaha:
I think you have said a LOT of dumb shit in the last six months. I do not care your reasons for saying dumb shit. I just point out that you are being an idiot. You can say "Haha, fool you, I was only pretending to be an idiot this time" But that does not justify every other thing I have countered for the last 6 months. Not even close. Its a drop in the ocean.
Says the man who consistently responded to members with ninja cat memes.
Indeed. I responded to Zegh that way. It was fun. Your point?
Maybe this is something to consider. The posting of ninja cats unto itself was obviously not making any point. You however have made big claims you have not been able to back and have doubled down and lied and tried to bait and switch. You say one post was not to be taken seriously? I say that most of what you have said over the last six months has been either dishonest or ridiculous.
So you can point to one post of your's and tell me you were trying to be an idiot on that one. You can point to my ninja cat pictures to Zegh 3 months ago and say "You used to send Zegh ninja cat pics to stir him up" but you know that I was being blatant about how each of those pictures was not an argument or a lead in to a discussion or making a point.
No I say most of what you have been saying to me in the last six months fits the criteria of being ridiculous and therefore all of what you say ought to be taken with a grain of salt.
Yes, you were trying to be an idiot with Zegh. It's how you did the intellectual dishonesty thing, so I'd say it went beyond expectations. Then you moved onto bigotry, lied for a bit, and here we are. It's been a while since I took anything you say seriously, and I don't expect to start again anytime soon.
But it's really up to you.
-
The article said the police were called at 2:30 a.m. Evidently he attacked the people as they slept.
The PR will be upset about this and I'll have to do a lot of hugging and reassuring. She's not sold on going to "day care" as it is.
Hug for the PR.
This seems to be the most sensible post in this thread.
Yep, now any unusual noise seems to slightly startle her. There have been a LOT of hugs given out the past few days at the Palace.
-
:(
-
Liar. >:D
I didn't say exactly what I will behave like. :zoinks: