Guns don't kill people ... Colleges in Oregon do

They aren't facts... have you ever stopped to consider why you don't believe anything I say but the fag jokes? Nothing I say is a fact, except the shit I say to shock you fucking idiots. Is it maybe because you want me to be gay, like you? You need explore your innermost feelings and find that scared little faggot inside who is dying to get out with every post you make. It's ok, we won't judge you. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Wow this sounds so much like Wellendowed's lie about the lawyer, he was setting everyone up like WE.

Speedy "be scared, be very scared"...

AUSTIN, TX – -(Ammoland.com)- The media is downright giddy to report that a University of Texas professor plans to resign over the state’s new “campus carry” law; however, none of that reporting has yet to ask how this professor so quickly lined up a new job at the University of Sydney in Australia?

Or why a professor who teaches only first-semester freshmen is concerned about a law affecting licensed individuals over the age of 21.

Economics professor emeritus Daniel Hamermesh officially retired in 2014, but for the past two years he has continued teaching one class each fall semester. He says he had planned to keep teaching this class for the next two falls, until the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 11, which allows concealed handgun license holders to carry handguns on the campuses of Texas colleges.



Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2015/10/ut-p...#ixzz3o7mWZyTY
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Why didn't the media wet there panties over this mass shooting, 0zombies?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ting/73625614/




I know because it would be "RACISM"

Of course I understand per capita, but the reality is this is all bullshit from both side of the fence. Nothing can be legislated that will stop mass shootings. If you think Background checks will show me how. I don't understand why you on the left don't just own up to what it is your want BANS. At least then you would be being honest about your goals, anything short of that is just more lying.

As for that fat faggot Big Tex. Your act is stale Your bullshit about wagers and all your other retarded crap is just old. But what can you expect from someone who jacks off to Clinton posters and then licks them dry. Your worship of that lying piece of crap shows your credibility to be lower than that of JD's, So just want is the definition of is. By the way you fat fuck, your kids aren't yours, your wife has been screwing the neighbor for years, off the subject though, dude your daughter is one ugly ass bitch. Originally Posted by dirty dog

+1

Speedy "be scared, be very scared"...




Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Yes, it was publicized quite heavily here. Interesting comments from the Professor. His statements echo those of the people who fought against the new law. Many other UT-Austin professors have come out against the law and have gone as far as to say they will NOT allow anyone with handguns into their classrooms. Several open forums have been conducted recently to get everyone's thoughts on the new law. Sentiments from all are running heavily against the law. I expect UT-Austin to ask the state to be exempt from the law in most locations on campus.

My opinion is similar to my opinion on guns elsewhere. Colleges should be given the OPTION of allowing or not allowing guns on campus. Hopefully they would make a decision that is in the best interests of all concerned parties.

Of course I understand per capita, but the reality is this is all bullshit from both side of the fence. Nothing can be legislated that will stop mass shootings. If you think Background checks will show me how. I don't understand why you on the left don't just own up to what it is your want BANS. At least then you would be being honest about your goals, anything short of that is just more lying.
Originally Posted by dirty dog

In another thread, JD mentioned Switzerland as an example of a country with very high concentration of guns and low homicide rates. Very true. However, Switzerland has MUCH tougher gun laws than the U.S. A person must have a permit to purchase a weapon. A written contract must be executed between the seller and buyer of each weapon. Purchasing ammunition must follow the same procedures. To carry a loaded firearm in public a person must have a gun carrying permit, which is usually only issued to those working in the security industry.

How would you like such rules in the U.S.?

So, dd, if as you say, there's nothing that can be done to prevent mass shootings, then why do we have so many here while other countries don't? Just lucky?

Why do "you and the right" as you tend to want to label people, oppose any effort to reduce tge occurrence of mass shootings?

This ridiculous rhetoric is killing people, dude.

In another thread, JD mentioned Switzerland as an example of a country with very high concentration of guns and low homicide rates. Very true. However, Switzerland has MUCH tougher gun laws than the U.S. A person must have a permit to purchase a weapon. A written contract must be executed between the seller and buyer of each weapon. Purchasing ammunition must follow the same procedures. To carry a loaded firearm in public a person must have a gun carrying permit, which is usually only issued to those working in the security industry.

How would you like such rules in the U.S.? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

What does a person have to do in order to acquire such a permit?

Go to Academy, try to buy a gun and fill out the paperwork and present your id. Try not to lie on the form. Then wait 30 minutes or so to get approval. Try to buy ammo at the Academy counter and if they don't think you are the minimum age, they won't sell it to you. After you buy the gun, they'll encourage you to fill out the gun warranty card from the manufacturer and mail it in. You'll get a NRA membership out of it. Then they will walk you to the door and hand you the gun.

My guess is that the majority of guns are bought in this manner in TX.

The whole anybody can legally buy any gun at any time meme is a Dim ruse.

"Try not to lie on the form..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Nothing I say is a fact, except the shit I say to shock you fucking idiots.. Originally Posted by WombRaider

OK - can you label it beforehand so we can see when you are backpedalling or just joking?

Of course I understand per capita, but the reality is this is all bullshit from both side of the fence. Nothing can be legislated that will stop mass shootings. If you think Background checks will show me how. I don't understand why you on the left don't just own up to what it is your want BANS. At least then you would be being honest about your goals, anything short of that is just more lying.

As for that fat faggot Big Tex. Your act is stale Your bullshit about wagers and all your other retarded crap is just old. But what can you expect from someone who jacks off to Clinton posters and then licks them dry. Your worship of that lying piece of crap shows your credibility to be lower than that of JD's, So just want is the definition of is. By the way you fat fuck, your kids aren't yours, your wife has been screwing the neighbor for years, off the subject though, dude your daughter is one ugly ass bitch. Originally Posted by dirty dog

I thought that your post was a particularly good summation of the inadequacies of BigTurd, and should be a post others refer to when they think to themselves, "Why do I not like this stupid asshole BigTurd, or his twin Ekim008...?"

So, dd, if as you say, there's nothing that can be done to prevent mass shootings, then why do we have so many here while other countries don't? Just lucky?

Why do "you and the right" as you tend to want to label people, oppose any effort to reduce tge occurrence of mass shootings?

This ridiculous rhetoric is killing people, dude. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I am in the middle, but since I don't agree with your position I am must be on the right, I have asked you several times what you would do but like a puppet with a hand up his ass all your do is jump up scream something must be done and then disappear. As for gun violence in this nation, you can't compare it to others simply because there are far to many variables. England does not have the same issue we have in this country with regards to gang violence and their participation in the .... trade for example, not that they don't have a illegal activity such as that it is just nearly at the same level as here. But the reality is England is England and the USA is the USA, we have a different mentality in this country, we also have a different set of founding principles. But to answer your question on Mass killings, I would support an effort if it will work. But you tell me what that is, I have asked before and you refused to answer. Is it a universal background check, are all of these mass shootings the result of people buying weapons from the gunshows? The statistics will show that most of them were legally purchased so how would this universal back ground check of changed things? Should we include mental health evaluations in the background check. You on the gun control/ban side of things should be angry because its not the gun rights side stopping this, its the Dems and the ACLU. Even if mental health evaluations were required the majority of the shooters involved in this sudden rash of shootings over the past 8 years would have passed the back ground check. I am all for reducing these crimes but I want the efforts to work and not just be a feel good band aid. What I mean by that and what I am asking you is what laws should we pass that will prevent mass shootings, your side wants these:

Universal Back ground checks : the reality is the majority of these shooters passed a back groud check.

Ban on assault weapons: This has nothing to do with mass shootings. Assault weapons are used in less than 1% of all crimes and are used even less in mass shootings.

Magazine Capasity : Magazines with over 10 round capacity have been used in very few actual shootings. In many cases the shooter had multiple magazines.

Limit on amount of ammo each person is allowed: I believe 54 rounds is the highest
amount of shots fired in these mass shootings. 50 rounds is one box of ammo.

That being said, even if all of this was enacted, it would not stop a mass shooting. So rider just be honest you want gun elimination. I am sorry though, I don't care how many of these occur I am not going to support that, sorry if that pops your cocopuffs.

In another thread, JD mentioned Switzerland as an example of a country with very high concentration of guns and low homicide rates. Very true. However, Switzerland has MUCH tougher gun laws than the U.S. A person must have a permit to purchase a weapon. which is the law here, you cannot go into any gun shop and purchase a gun with out a back ground check and the completion and passing of the back ground check is the permit to purchase the weapon. If your referring to gun show purchases, which by the may ever dealer at a gun show must do a back ground check by law, you are more than likely talking about person to person sales, the ATF and the FBI have indicated that guns sold in private person transactions are used in low percentages of crime A written contract must be executed between the seller and buyer of each weapon. This is required for all sales from dealers in the USA already, in a private person transaction the law requires a bill of sale to include all pertinent information. Purchasing ammunition must follow the same procedures. Having to use a drivers license to buy ammo has been in fact used before as part of the gun control act of 1964 and remained in place until the mid 80'. While this law was in effect the crime rate rose. After it dropped it went down. Now I am not saying that the law caused it, rather the law had zero effect on crime then and will not now. To carry a loaded firearm in public a person must have a gun carrying permit, which is usually only issued to those working in the security industry. With the exception of a few states, the concealed carrying of a firearm does require a permit. In addition CCW permit holders have been involved in illegal activity at a very very low percentage. As for open carry, you have been allowed to open carry in this country for almost its whole existence, why is it now only perceived as a problem. The crime rate has gone up and down so again it effect on the crime rate is a non factor.

How would you like such rules in the U.S.? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

How would I like these rules, well most of them are already in place here and some have been tried before to no effect either way and non of them will change or stop a mass shooting. Maybe and I am going to use an old line here, we need to look at the shooter and the tool used to shoot people. Is it time that we instill a sense of personal responsibility back into our society, maybe we as a society should move away from the violence we admire, from our movies to our music we promote violence. Maybe we should teach our children that being disrespected isn't a death penalty crime, and does require a retaliation, which is what they believe now, maybe we should look at the difference in our societies rather than the tools we use to express them.

The reason I did not quote anything from Mother Jones on my last post is for that very reason. I google articles to support my position. I honestly did not realize that Mother Jones had such a negative reaction among certain individuals and is considered a very biased source.

In a very few minutes of research I completely destroyed John Lott's statement that James Holmes selected the site of his killings because it was a gun free zone. In this case, Lott has no proof to support his statements other than his opinion. I can certainly go back and find the articles in which others have criticized Lott's research.
Here is what I found in a matter of minutes to support my opinion.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...hn-lott/191885

From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...t-Credibility#

Lott held prestigious positions at Yale and the University of Chicago, where he published his groundbreaking book, “More Guns, Less Crime.” In the early 2000s, his work fell into controversy for employing what some academic critics termed “junk science” and for various apparently fatal methodological flaws. Later, he was unable to prove the existence of a study central to his thesis. He was also caught using a fake “sockpuppet” persona to defend his work and attack his critics online. “In most circles, this goes down as fraud,” Donald Kennedy, the then-editor of the prestigious journal Science wrote in an editorial. Even Michelle Malkin said Lott had shown an “extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work.”

And from the same article:

Stanford Law Review: Lott's Central Hypothesis Is "Without Credible Statistical Support." In a Stanford Law Review report titled "The Latest Misfires in Support of the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis," Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III studied how coding errors in data undermine Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis. The authors explain:

PW [Lott's co-authors Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley] seriously miscoded their new county dataset in ways that irretrievably undermine every original regression result that they present in their response. As a result, the new PW regressions must simply be disregarded. Correcting PW's empirical mistakes once again shows that the more guns, less crime hypothesis is without credible statistical support. [Stanford Law Review, accessed 12/3/12 via Deltoid]


Computer Scientist Tim Lambert On Lott's Data Errors: "If Anything, Concealed Carry Laws Lead To More Crime." In an April 2003 blog post on ScienceBlogs.com, computer scientist Tim Lambert discussed Ayres and Donohue's Stanford Law Review findings, noting "Ian Ayres and John Donohue wrote a paper that found that, if anything, concealed carry laws lead to more crime." Noting that "Lott, (along with Florenz Plassmann and John Whitley) wrote a reply where they argued that using data up to 2000 confirmed the "more guns, less crime" hypothesis," Lambert summarized Ayres' and Donohue's response to Lott's defense of the data:


In Ayres and Donohue's response to that paper, they found that Lott's data contained numerous coding errors that, when corrected, reversed the results. Furthermore, this was the second time these sorts of errors had been found in Lott's data. Lott had presented to the NAS [National Academy of Science] panel figures showing sharp declines in crime following carry laws. Declines which disappeared when the coding errors were corrected. Finally, when Lott saw Ayres and Donohue's response he had his name removed from the final paper. [Deltoid, 4/25/03] Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Did you point out at any time that Lott was against gun ownership until he completed his research and he couldn't argue with the stats. Now he has a bullseye on his back with every anti gun gun slinger (Ironic isn't it) out there. You came up with a couple of sources....what do you think? If I researched your sources, do you think I could impeach them or find someone who supports Lott? Wanna try for that?

I am in the middle, but since I don't agree with your position I am must be on the right, I have asked you several times what you would do but like a puppet with a hand up his ass all your do is jump up scream something must be done and then disappear. As for gun violence in this nation, you can't compare it to others simply because there are far to many variables. England does not have the same issue we have in this country with regards to gang violence and their participation in the .... trade for example, not that they don't have a illegal activity such as that it is just nearly at the same level as here. But the reality is England is England and the USA is the USA, we have a different mentality in this country, we also have a different set of founding principles. But to answer your question on Mass killings, I would support an effort if it will work. But you tell me what that is, I have asked before and you refused to answer. Is it a universal background check, are all of these mass shootings the result of people buying weapons from the gunshows? The statistics will show that most of them were legally purchased so how would this universal back ground check of changed things? Should we include mental health evaluations in the background check. You on the gun control/ban side of things should be angry because its not the gun rights side stopping this, its the Dems and the ACLU. Even if mental health evaluations were required the majority of the shooters involved in this sudden rash of shootings over the past 8 years would have passed the back ground check. I am all for reducing these crimes but I want the efforts to work and not just be a feel good band aid. What I mean by that and what I am asking you is what laws should we pass that will prevent mass shootings, your side wants these:

Universal Back ground checks : the reality is the majority of these shooters passed a back groud check.

Ban on assault weapons: This has nothing to do with mass shootings. Assault weapons are used in less than 1% of all crimes and are used even less in mass shootings.

Magazine Capasity : Magazines with over 10 round capacity have been used in very few actual shootings. In many cases the shooter had multiple magazines.

Limit on amount of ammo each person is allowed: I believe 54 rounds is the highest
amount of shots fired in these mass shootings. 50 rounds is one box of ammo.

That being said, even if all of this was enacted, it would not stop a mass shooting. So rider just be honest you want gun elimination. I am sorry though, I don't care how many of these occur I am not going to support that, sorry if that pops your cocopuffs. Originally Posted by dirty dog

You just put your finger on what I was leading up to. There are other reasons than gun ownership for the violence. Unlike the other countries that have been named (with the exception of Israel) they have a very low immigrant population. They have enforced immigration laws, they have borders, and they have national langauges. Sometimes more than one but then they don't kowtow to every single dialect on the planet. Switzerland even has a list of countries that anyone originating from can't buy or possess a weapon.

How about culture? Many European countries have customs dating back centuries about weapons possession. At one time it was a capital crime for someone other than a soldier or noble to possess a sword. Spear, OK, pike, OK, dagger, OK, longsword....not going to happen. Unlike the US, possessing a gun was not an individual right but something for the military. The US is not that backwards to the people.