How am I supposed to check them if you don't provide them? Your pic citing the UNODC is the first one in your post, I need to go read the study it's citing in order to know if it's right or wrong. You presented it as evidence so it's on you to provide a link directly to that data.No I'm not going to do anything of the sort until you can prove my links are wrong?
And i can tell ya that no one here will ever accept anything Wiki or The Guardian has to say. Anyone can edit Wiki, and the Guardian has, shall we say, a less than credible history when it comes to reporting facts.No I'm not going to do anything of the sort until you can prove my links are wrong?
How am I supposed to check them if you don't provide them? Your pic citing the UNODC is the first one in your post, I need to go read the study it's citing in order to know if it's right or wrong. You presented it as evidence so it's on you to provide a link directly to that data.
You like the idea of killing. There is nothing I can post that could possibly assuage that ..... and I could keep posting links ad infinitum all of which still wouldnt make the slightest difference
You won't be denied your opportunity to shoot a baddie .... full stop :roll:
It's hardly a credible measure of safety.
You like the idea of killing. There is nothing I can post that could possibly assuage that ..... and I could keep posting links ad infinitum all of which still wouldnt make the slightest difference
You won't be denied your opportunity to shoot a baddie .... full stop :roll:
You can keep writing this, but it doesn't make it true.
Of course it is. You like the idea of killing easily via firearm and that is your obsession sadly. You just cant wait for the opportunity
Not true, but keep flogging the theory.
Not true, but keep flogging the theory.
No I'm not going to do anything of the sort until you can prove my links are wrong?
You provided 5 sources.
You refuse to link to the first, so that's discarded.
Your second use a biased source, so that's discarded.
Your third is an opinion piece, not a credible data collection entity, so that's discarded.
Your fouth is a discredited tabloid publisher, so that's discarded.
Your fifth is a site literally anyone can edit; Wiki itself even tells you not to use them as a source because they can't verify everything. So that's discarded.
You have no argument.
You find a personal distaste for firearms and the concept of self-defense, hunting, or both, and wish to project that distaste into a uniform compulsory standard for all so that you can "change the world" in a way that is suitable to your personal tastes.A simple .... No I can't would have sufficed :wink:
You are clearly a dangerous gun nut. Thankfully I live nowhere near you
A simple .... No I can't would have sufficed :wink:
You are clearly a dangerous gun nut. Thankfully I live nowhere near you
You provided 5 sources.
You refuse to link to the first, so that's discarded.
Your second used a biased source*, so that's discarded.
Your third is an opinion piece, not a credible data collection entity, so that's discarded.
Your fouth is a discredited tabloid publisher, so that's discarded.
Your fifth is a site literally anyone can edit; Wiki itself even tells you not to use them as a source because they can't verify everything. So that's discarded.
*Your second source, the BBC, cited info collected from Mass Shooting Tracker, who admit they support gun control. They bend data to suit their narrative. For example, in their most recent incident, they record 4 people shot even though 3 of those people were merely grazed and didn't even need medical attention. MST, the BBC, and yourself, tried to peraid those 3 people who didn't even need a bandaid as if they were shot center-mass and nearly died.
Pellet guns are not firearms. Including pelet gun incidents in their reporting is a perfect example of bending the data to suit their agenda. Thank you for proving MST is pure bull****.The MST:
May 6, 2013:
A pair of township boys are accused of shooting four others with a pellet gun, police said.
Nobody was seriously hurt by the 11- and 12-year-old boys who shot the pellet gun at them on April 25 in the Twinbrook Village apartment complex, Detective Lt. Kevin Faller said in a statement.
Want another one? February 20, 2014:
St. Petersburg, Florida –Three people have been arrested and charged after police say they shot multiple people with a pellet gun in St. Petersburg.
[…]
At least12 people reported being struck by pellets.
People reported being hit in their legs, hands and back, but police say none of the injuries were serious.
Seriously tho your source is including pellet guns. Pellet guns are toys. Literally, toys. Like Legos (ever step on one?) You may as well include Nerf shootings while you're at it.
Pellet guns are not firearms. Including pelet gun incidents in their reporting is a perfect example of bending the data to suit their agenda. Thank you for proving MST is pure bull****.
Seriously tho your source is including pellet guns. Pellet guns are toys. Literally, toys. Like Legos (ever step on one?) You may as well include Nerf shootings while you're at it.
Even in the UK you can buy fully automatic pellet guns AND silencers AND unlimited ammunition. Because they're toys, not weapons.
You're a ****ing joke mate. A real wanker.
Fair point. So, where's Flogger to confirm that air-gun incidents reported by MST only involved these high-powered air guns, and not simply toy-grade guns Americans find at any Wal-Mart?yes and no-I am an airgun fan and in England, airguns above a certain energy level need a gun permit to own. some airguns are powerful enough to kill boars and deer with. those are often PCPs with large caliber bullets. my son has a Swedish FX PCP in 22 caliber that shoots at over 1200 FPS. He has killed a decent sized coyote with it-head shot at 40 meters, and dozens of crows at ranges up to 90M. Not a toy-it cost over 1800 with the scope
In America, air-guns are toys and I'm sure there is plenty of toy-related injuries nation wide. Ever step on a Lego? Also, our gun control laws do not regulate air-guns. Our gun control laws only regulate firearms.So how many air gun fatalities vs real firearm are we talking about here?
In America, air-guns are toys. Also, our gun control laws do not regulate air-guns. Our gun control laws only regulate firearms.
So when you post a cute little pic trying to argue that oh so many people are victims of firearms mass-shootings, and it's discovered that your source is including non-injury toy shootings, it's all over for you here. You're done. No one will ever take you seriously on this forum ever again.
My question still stands so why not just answer it ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?