Here’s What The World Thinks About The American Response To The Oregon Massacre

a reply to: Kryties
What I am saying is that the government are corrupt and we cannot be disarmed because they are corrupt. Do you understand this concept or are you ignoring this statement? You are favoring a government that hires people to kill their own people. Do you not understand this? Proof is there if you seek it.

People will NOT hand over the their rights because they know the banks and corporations are the ones in control. Do you not understand, that disarming people would give rise to tyranny? Do you not understand what the founding fathers fought for? Liberation from the banks and the catholic church. But it all went to hell the moment Woodrow Wilson signed in the Federal Reserve Bank.

People, who are in favor for Gun Control, clearly have NO prior knowledge to history. Because IF they did, they would not advocate going against what made America great.


Problem is, certain people in power did not allow for america to grow the way it was intended, because the banks retook control.

Until you understand history, you cannot argue this topic because:

1. We who do know history, clearly see you are emotionally manipulated by mainstream media and helping them advance an agenda with no idea on what you are really doing is causing HARM, while your intentions may be noble, your actions are actually being more harmful towards the American people.

2. Understanding history, you understand why the flag is saluted, it is in memory of those who DIED for our freedoms, for our constitution. They died, to save the world from dictatorship, and give humanity a chance for freedom.

Passing these laws would send us back into an age where the catholic church ruled with the crusades. The crusade mind set always ends up in mass murder more horrifying than a single active shooter.

Tell me, what sits better in your conscious, knowing you helped slaughter millions of people by helping pass tyrannical laws that sparked a civil war? Or will you take a good look at history, and see where exactly we went wrong?

Know this, if you really wish to avoid bloodshed, stop promoting the agenda. Because all these things will do is create criminals overnight, and in a place like the U.S? This will be turned into a wild wild west, and an active war, and the states would become divided.


I cant believe people cannot see this! You want a solution to the problem? Stop reacting to lies, and observe how you are being deceived on a grand scale. Personally (and i stated this in another thread), I do not like Guns at all, and i dislike violence, bullies, and weapons of any kind. I am more of a peaceful person and would rather resort to intellect, to solve situations. Because knowledge IS power, and knowing the truth helps you see past deception. However, I understand the need for those to own it, because I see far above normal human perception. (while this may seem like an entitlement, im mostly stating this because of the years of research, and historic studies.)

OP, you don't realize, that by simply making this thread, you are toying with the emotions of the American Spirit, which is that of freedom, morality and above all, common sense.

Personally, I sit and observe the world, and it is truly heartbreaking to see how people fight among themselves instead of arriving at the solution which is the Golden rule. Do unto others as you would unto thyself, and thall shall not trespass unto others. This includes MANS laws that prohibit people from being free.

There is a law far more powerful than mans laws, and that is Natural Law, and guess what, its written in the constitution of the United States. There is a reason why this document is sacred, you could say, it is also based on the gospels of yah shu ah.

But of course, there are those who dislike the constitution because of such.

I write this in an attempt to reach an understanding on a point of view, and I mean no disrespect towards you as a person, but what i stated here are facts. If you are open minded, try researching history for these facts. Ask yourself questions, and don't stick to any belief, weigh in ALL options before making a choice. Or simply be an observer and see what happens.

The problem is people wanting supremacy over others. Or people wanting to reach the top at the expense of others. You see this largely in feminism and narcissistic personalities. When the desire for supremacy ends, then there can be peace.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
and you are copy/pasting straight from a biased news source with skewed data.

See, thats the bit you don't seem to be getting. Just because they present evidence that goes against your beliefs does not make them "biased" or "skewed".

Please present EVIDENCE that these sources are biased and skewed, as I am afraid I am just not going to take your word for it, sorry

How did I jump the gun? YOU posted the copy/paste article for us to read. Seems YOU jumped the gun by posting before researching the article yourself. I responded to YOUR jumping the gun.

See you are changing the meaning of what you meant by that post and hoping nobody notices. Another poster asked a series of questions and, while I was in the process of looking up answers to those questions YOU came in and claimed that:

That would require WAY too much research for the OP to actually dig into and find real stats by government to prove each of these points. It is much easier to regurgitate biased sources that are easy to research by Googling "mass shootings" and copy/pasting their articles.

So YES, you DID jump the gun and you DID make an unwarranted attack on me and I would ask that you refrain from doing so in the future.

It is unrealistic for us to expect Americans to give up their guns and in all honesty no need too either if a sensible approach to ownership is employed, It's time for the long term plan though through education on guns in all schools and psychometric type testing on those wishing to have one inline with their right to bear arms but perhaps as this was proclaimed before all the automatic weapons were invented/available then only certain types of guns can be held away from the gun range, As for the criminals it will take time for them to have them taken from them but common sense measures like only people with gun licences being able to buy ammunition would help remove some of the guns in circulation

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Realtruth

www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Old reply already debunked the Harvard BS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Quoted for ease of read:

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: Onslaught2996

LOL...leave it to the libtards to even skew the actual title to make it sound like they are "firearms experts".

If you follow the links to the actual study it says this:


"Expert firearms researchers were defined as those individuals that 1) publish in peer-reviewed journals and 2) publish specifically about firearms in the public health, public policy, sociology, or criminology literature. Expert researchers were defined as first authors on at least 1 peer-reviewed journal article from 2011 to the present (February 2014). It was felt that including all authors would overweight the public health/medicine area of research since articles there tend to have more authors."

So they are expert firearms researchers....not firearms experts....and from the qualifications to be an expert firearms researcher, I am pretty sure they have no real world experience with firearms other than what they read....

Harvard Source

The author of the OP source and the OP could at least TRY to keep it on the up and up without skewing the titles so much that they have a completely different meaning.

Not too mention that the data I provided on Australia already debunks the link you posted. Less guns does not equal less homicide....it equals MORE homicidal acts with more killed.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

The only "research" you did was read a VOX article, then copy and pasted it saying you took a while to read it. How is that research at all?

You clearly have no idea as to the meaning of the term "research".

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

The only "research" you did was read a VOX article, then copy and pasted it saying you took a while to read it. How is that research at all?

You clearly have no idea as to the meaning of the term "research".

Have you studied criminology? Or are you going by articles?

a reply to: Kryties

Ahem...and you do???

Please DO refute the facts I have posted earlier. You continue to ignore them all while posting more and more of the same skewed and statistically irrelevant data.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Realtruth

www.hsph.harvard.edu...

Again you are missing the entire situation here.

Any wise person can see that if there are more guns, there may be more situations involving guns, but the root of the problem is not guns.

If the majority of society is stable, responsible, and sane you could have 1000's guns per person and nothing would happen, but unfortunately that is not the case.

Reducing guns may would only be a temporary solution to a permanant problem. Our problem is not guns, but the people and society that use them.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

So they are expert firearms researchers....not firearms experts....and from the qualifications to be an expert firearms researcher, I am pretty sure they have no real world experience with firearms other than what they read....

This amounts to no more than an OPINION from the poster whom you are quoting as fact.

Sorry, this is NOT debunked. Not even in the slightest.

a reply to: TechniXcality

just remember that platform from which you crapfling you wouldn't have if it wasn't for the U.S.

On the other hand if other nations were as gung ho with Nukes as the US, we wouldn't be here to have this discussion.

Luckily all parties involved have shown restraint and common sense since Nagasaki. I wish such restraint and common sense would spread to the small arms market, the retailers, and the users.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Breaking news: criminals don't have to drive to another state to obtain a gun.

Well someone has to, before they can be sold on the street. They don't just sprinkle some fairly dust around and make guns magically appear, do they? They obviously originate from somewhere.

I was watching that episode 'ghost guns' on the series 'Underworld inc', where criminals were bragging about how they do just that and exploit every single possible loophole.

They'll drive from cali to Arizona (for example), with a clean cut looking straw buyer, then get them to go to some gun show to buy as much guns as possible. Then they simply drive back to California and sell the guns on the street for a small fortune.

This isn't rocket science, it doesn't take a criminal genius to work out how to get a plentiful supply of guns onto the streets where there most in demand. Not when theirs so many states that have such ridiculously lax gun laws.

Now, if illegal guns are more expensive in states that have strict gun laws, just imagine how expensive they'd be if the same strict gun laws were enacted on a federal level... they'd simply be to expensive for petty crims to get there hands on and would only really be available to organized criminals, who usually just shoot each other and don't tend to rob the houses of innocent bystanders for there tv.

Lax gun laws don't protect anybody, they just put you at more risk of being robbed or home invaded by some broke meth head. Or put your kids at risk of being shot up at school by some suicidal loner who wants to make a name for himself on his way out.

Your paranoid sense of constantly needing to protect yourself with a gun, just creates a self-perpetuating danger... lol, SMH.

originally posted by: luthier


Have you studied criminology? Or are you going by articles?

My wife is currently studying criminology actually. I am siting here staring at several textbooks from her course on the shelf as a matter of fact.

Not that it matters in the great scheme of this debate, but my wife has been reading everything here and based on her experience LEARNING about criminology she agrees with everything I have said - and believe me if she didn't I would know, she doesn't hold back.

You just won't do it will you? You just refuse to respond to the facts I have posted.

In just a single post I refuted every single thing you have posted in (16) pages...and you refuse to respond. Why? Is it because you know you have no response? Because you know it illustrates all you have posted as nothing more than propaganda driven nonsense with no basis in fact? Or...is it because you would have to admit you are WRONG?

edit...btw, the post to which I refer is on page 9 (in case you missed it...which I'm quite certain you did not).

a reply to: Kryties
Judging others is always easier than judging yourself. How about the hundreds of thousands of refugees and economic migrants entering your countries. I believe it's an old English saying "make sure your own house is in order".

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You quoted a blog post as fact mate. I am having a hard time getting over that fact - particularly when i was attacked for doing the very same thing.

But for the sake of argument I am actually looking at it right now, so calm the hell down and knock off the unwarranted attacks please.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I agree with your earlier comments about alcohol, and the number of deaths it causes through aggravated assaults and drink driving etc. Not to mention all those lads who like to get liquored up then go home and push the missus around. It's much more dangerous than guns but here in Australia if they tried prohibition on alcohol there would be a violent and successful coup, not just passive bootlegging, as seen previously in other countries. This coup would be lead by the military, especially the army and navy, not so much the airforce but they'd go along with it cause the pongo's and pussers would flog em if they didn't.
Well to be honest they tried prohibition once in the ACT which is our smallest 'state' but it didn't work. They're trying it now in indigenous areas in the Northern Territory and it's not working either (and is blatantly racist).
About 30 people die daily from drink driving in the USA. In Australia its about one a day which is mild proof that we can hold our liquor better or have had more experience drink driving.
I can tell by your posts you understand drinking is a cultural part of Australia much similar to how I perceive gun ownership is a cultural part of the American psyche, not to mention it's obvious ties to the 2nd amendment etc. Through regulation and controls (random breath tests, pub lock outs/ins) the number of road deaths has decreased but it's still a massive problem. But everytime a child is killed or maimed in an alcohol related accident it doesn't get splashed across the front pages of every newspaper across the country and doesn't inspire the same rage which shootings do over here and I think that's a crime in itself. Bloggers worldwide get whipped into a frenzy about gun violence mainly by the msm. Many more lives could be saved if the msm reserved some of it's hyperbole and drama for more mundane crimes that take more lives such as drink driving. But it wont happen because it doesn't sell papers. All the grandstanding annoys the sh@t out of me.
Anyway, I think you made a fine point with the alcohol thing, I probably should of done a rant but I gotta catch a plane in the morning and it already is morning. That's cool though, I'll have a few bourbons once I'm in the air and I'll be sweet...

originally posted by: tinyDAWK
a reply to: Kryties
Judging others is always easier than judging yourself. How about the hundreds of thousands of refugees and economic migrants entering your countries. I believe it's anot old English saying "make sure your own house is in order".

What on Earth has that got to do with Mass shootings and the worlds reaction to Americas response to the Oregon shooting?

PLEASE stay on topic.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
You just won't do it will you? You just refuse to respond to the facts I have posted.

In just a single post I refuted every single thing you have posted in (16) pages...and you refuse to respond. Why? Is it because you know you have no response? Because you know it illustrates all you have posted as nothing more than propaganda driven nonsense with no basis in fact? Or...is it because you would have to admit you are WRONG?

edit...btw, the post to which I refer is on page 9 (in case you missed it...which I'm quite certain you did not).

KNOCK IT OFF. I already said I was looking at your post, something I guarantee you did not do with the article I posted several pages back. I would like to see your in-depth analysis of that entire article please. If you expect me to respond to your article I expect you to do the same for mine.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You quoted a blog post as fact mate. I am having a hard time getting over that fact - particularly when i was attacked for doing the very same thing.

But for the sake of argument I am actually looking at it right now, so calm the hell down and knock off the unwarranted attacks please.

HA! Seriously? You just posted a long link of blog posts as fact....this thread is going downhill so fast it is making my head spin. If you are going to do it, then why are others in your thread not allowed?

I am currently typing up a long post of actual facts that were cherry picked by the biased sources you copy/pasted in order to show you just how biased they were. Unfortunately some are in actual research databases that con only be linked to the database and not directly to an article, but nonetheless I will link them for you to check out should you desire.

a reply to: Kryties

What are you talking about? I didn't post again after that...it's the same post!