Funny How Advice Works

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

We are advised by many not to judge the actions od ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.

[homersapien 11,353]

We are advised by many not to judge the actions od ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.

What's funny is your absurd premise.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

We are advised by many not to judge the actions od ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.

What's funny is your absurd premise.

No it's people like you who are often absurd. You can't refute the premise so you try to pooh pooh it and hijack the thread with curt remarks.

[homersapien 11,353]

We are advised by many not to judge the actions od ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.

What's funny is your absurd premise.

No it's people like you who are often absurd.

Absurdity is what absurdity does. Your OP is a good example.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

You are not worth my time to get into a meaningless discussion so have fun talking to your self.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

We are advised by many not to judge the actions od ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.

Any examples of this happening?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

We are advised by many not to judge the actions od ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.

Any examples of this happening?

Not specific but surely you hear it in various media.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

We are advised by many not to judge the actions od ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics. But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.

Any examples of this happening?

Not specific but surely you hear it in various media.

I've heard people criticize our gun laws or lack thereof. But I don't recall anyone judging all gun owners by the actions of sociopaths like the Oregon shooter.

[Grumps 3,693]

I am quite sure that I have heard the POTUS say after an undesirable action by a muslim that we should not rush to judgment or should not assume that all (or other) muslims share similar views as the extremist. I am also quite sure that the POTUS has discussed restricting guns from all U.S. citizens after a mentally ill person shoots multiple people. So I don't see how the original post is not pretty accurate.

[AURaptor 1,121]

The highest body count by gunman is in the area with the most strict gun laws.

More blanket gun laws and restrictions of the Second Amendment are not the answer.

[homersapien 11,353]

I am quite sure that I have heard the POTUS say after an undesirable action by a muslim that we should not rush to judgment or should not assume that all (or other) muslims share similar views as the extremist. I am also quite sure that the POTUS has discussed restricting guns from all U.S. citizens after a mentally ill person shoots multiple people. So I don't see how the original post is not pretty accurate.

Oh good grief. He's obviously talking about restricting guns to people who shouldn't have them.

You are better than this Grumps.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I am quite sure that I have heard the POTUS say after an undesirable action by a muslim that we should not rush to judgment or should not assume that all (or other) muslims share similar views as the extremist. I am also quite sure that the POTUS has discussed restricting guns from all U.S. citizens after a mentally ill person shoots multiple people. So I don't see how the original post is not pretty accurate.

I have heard the former. I have yet to hear the latter. And I'd think if you're sure, as is the OP, then producing a link to that effect should be cake.

The highest body count by gunman is in the area with the most strict gun laws.

More blanket gun laws and restrictions of the Second Amendment are not the answer.

Was this meant for another thread?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I am quite sure that I have heard the POTUS say after an undesirable action by a muslim that we should not rush to judgment or should not assume that all (or other) muslims share similar views as the extremist. I am also quite sure that the POTUS has discussed restricting guns from all U.S. citizens after a mentally ill person shoots multiple people. So I don't see how the original post is not pretty accurate.

I have heard the former. I have yet to hear the latter. And I'd think if you're sure, as is the OP, then producing a link to that effect should be cake.

The highest body count by gunman is in the area with the most strict gun laws.

More blanket gun laws and restrictions of the Second Amendment are not the answer.

Was this meant for another thread?

It's his mandatory Chicago post that he has to do in every thread lol.

Let's also remember that major gun fans said loosening the laws and bringing in concealed carry was going to fix all that also. Which it didn't.

It said nearly 60 percent of recovered guns used to commit crimes in Chicago from 2009 through 2013 were first sold in states with more lax gun laws.

Just days ago, a Chicago man was sentenced to nearly three years in prison after pleading guilty to helping purchase 43 firearms from gun shows and individuals in Indiana to sell on Chicago's South Side.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/10/06/fact-check-gop-candidates-take-aim-at-chicago-gun-laws

Like the incident in LA at the movie theater (bought his gun in Phoenix City despite obvious mental health issues). Individuals are purchasing weapons outside the state of Illinois and bringing them into the state and selling them.

[Grumps 3,693]

I am quite sure that I have heard the POTUS say after an undesirable action by a muslim that we should not rush to judgment or should not assume that all (or other) muslims share similar views as the extremist. I am also quite sure that the POTUS has discussed restricting guns from all U.S. citizens after a mentally ill person shoots multiple people. So I don't see how the original post is not pretty accurate.

I have heard the former. I have yet to hear the latter. And I'd think if you're sure, as is the OP, then producing a link to that effect should be cake.

I am not where I can look for a link at the moment, but if I produce a link where the government wants to restrict certain currently legal guns/magazines/ammo from all citizens, then would that suffice?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I am quite sure that I have heard the POTUS say after an undesirable action by a muslim that we should not rush to judgment or should not assume that all (or other) muslims share similar views as the extremist. I am also quite sure that the POTUS has discussed restricting guns from all U.S. citizens after a mentally ill person shoots multiple people. So I don't see how the original post is not pretty accurate.

I have heard the former. I have yet to hear the latter. And I'd think if you're sure, as is the OP, then producing a link to that effect should be cake.

I am not where I can look for a link at the moment, but if I produce a link where the government wants to restrict certain currently legal guns/magazines/ammo from all citizens, then would that suffice?

Here's the statement:

"But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics."

I'm not sure you can shoehorn "making certain kinds of high powered (i.e. more deadly) guns/ammo harder to get or taking it off the market" means they are judging all gun owners. It's just a recognition that you can't just make some things available only to the good guys. It's like the stance Apple has about not giving law enforcement a "back door" to defeat encryption on its devices. There's no such thing as a back door in software that only the good guys can use. It it's there for the good guys, then the bad guys can get in that way too and all of our information is never safe.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I am quite sure that I have heard the POTUS say after an undesirable action by a muslim that we should not rush to judgment or should not assume that all (or other) muslims share similar views as the extremist. I am also quite sure that the POTUS has discussed restricting guns from all U.S. citizens after a mentally ill person shoots multiple people. So I don't see how the original post is not pretty accurate.

I have heard the former. I have yet to hear the latter. And I'd think if you're sure, as is the OP, then producing a link to that effect should be cake.

I am not where I can look for a link at the moment, but if I produce a link where the government wants to restrict certain currently legal guns/magazines/ammo from all citizens, then would that suffice?

Here's the statement:

"But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics."

I'm not sure you can shoehorn "making certain kinds of high powered (i.e. more deadly) guns/ammo harder to get or taking it off the market" means they are judging all gun owners. It's just a recognition that you can't just make some things available only to the good guys. It's like the stance Apple has about not giving law enforcement a "back door" to defeat encryption on its devices. There's no such thing as a back door in software that only the good guys can use. It it's there for the good guys, then the bad guys can get in that way too and all of our information is never safe.

So you don't think Obama's passionate speech saying he was going to do everything possible to make it harder for people to own guns was "judging" ALL of us by the action of the Oregon lunatic?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I am quite sure that I have heard the POTUS say after an undesirable action by a muslim that we should not rush to judgment or should not assume that all (or other) muslims share similar views as the extremist. I am also quite sure that the POTUS has discussed restricting guns from all U.S. citizens after a mentally ill person shoots multiple people. So I don't see how the original post is not pretty accurate.

I have heard the former. I have yet to hear the latter. And I'd think if you're sure, as is the OP, then producing a link to that effect should be cake.

I am not where I can look for a link at the moment, but if I produce a link where the government wants to restrict certain currently legal guns/magazines/ammo from all citizens, then would that suffice?

Here's the statement:

"But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics."

I'm not sure you can shoehorn "making certain kinds of high powered (i.e. more deadly) guns/ammo harder to get or taking it off the market" means they are judging all gun owners. It's just a recognition that you can't just make some things available only to the good guys. It's like the stance Apple has about not giving law enforcement a "back door" to defeat encryption on its devices. There's no such thing as a back door in software that only the good guys can use. It it's there for the good guys, then the bad guys can get in that way too and all of our information is never safe.

So you don't think Obama's passionate speech saying he was going to do everything possible to make it harder for people to own guns was "judging" ALL of us by the action of the Oregon lunatic?

Let's take a look at the actual quote before deciding. Can you show the quote you're referring to?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I am quite sure that I have heard the POTUS say after an undesirable action by a muslim that we should not rush to judgment or should not assume that all (or other) muslims share similar views as the extremist. I am also quite sure that the POTUS has discussed restricting guns from all U.S. citizens after a mentally ill person shoots multiple people. So I don't see how the original post is not pretty accurate.

I have heard the former. I have yet to hear the latter. And I'd think if you're sure, as is the OP, then producing a link to that effect should be cake.

I am not where I can look for a link at the moment, but if I produce a link where the government wants to restrict certain currently legal guns/magazines/ammo from all citizens, then would that suffice?

Here's the statement:

"But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics."

I'm not sure you can shoehorn "making certain kinds of high powered (i.e. more deadly) guns/ammo harder to get or taking it off the market" means they are judging all gun owners. It's just a recognition that you can't just make some things available only to the good guys. It's like the stance Apple has about not giving law enforcement a "back door" to defeat encryption on its devices. There's no such thing as a back door in software that only the good guys can use. It it's there for the good guys, then the bad guys can get in that way too and all of our information is never safe.

So you don't think Obama's passionate speech saying he was going to do everything possible to make it harder for people to own guns was "judging" ALL of us by the action of the Oregon lunatic?

If you are going to make this argument, I believe you should quote his exact words. It would be more effective.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I am quite sure that I have heard the POTUS say after an undesirable action by a muslim that we should not rush to judgment or should not assume that all (or other) muslims share similar views as the extremist. I am also quite sure that the POTUS has discussed restricting guns from all U.S. citizens after a mentally ill person shoots multiple people. So I don't see how the original post is not pretty accurate.

I have heard the former. I have yet to hear the latter. And I'd think if you're sure, as is the OP, then producing a link to that effect should be cake.

I am not where I can look for a link at the moment, but if I produce a link where the government wants to restrict certain currently legal guns/magazines/ammo from all citizens, then would that suffice?

Here's the statement:

"But the same folks advise us to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics."

I'm not sure you can shoehorn "making certain kinds of high powered (i.e. more deadly) guns/ammo harder to get or taking it off the market" means they are judging all gun owners. It's just a recognition that you can't just make some things available only to the good guys. It's like the stance Apple has about not giving law enforcement a "back door" to defeat encryption on its devices. There's no such thing as a back door in software that only the good guys can use. It it's there for the good guys, then the bad guys can get in that way too and all of our information is never safe.

So you don't think Obama's passionate speech saying he was going to do everything possible to make it harder for people to own guns was "judging" ALL of us by the action of the Oregon lunatic?

Let's take a look at the actual quote before deciding. Can you show the quote you're referring to?

I refer to Obama's speech following the Oregon shooting.......not a single statement but the whole context of the speech.

If you can listen to this whole speech and not see he wants to make gun ownership harder for ALL of us. He even makes false statements he is so determined to do so. Maybe you see it different and we just disagree. But I stand by my comment.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

The statement below is pulled directly from his speech. By referring to GB & Australia and their gun laws (which means citizens can't own guns)...it doesn't directly support the original post but if you think about it...it kind of does...meaning that if we didn't allow citizens to have guns then we wouldn't have these mass shootings and to infer a little more gun owners can't be trusted so we should ban them without coming out and saying that....

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The statement below is pulled directly from his speech. By referring to GB & Australia and their gun laws (which means citizens can't own guns)...it doesn't directly support the original post but if you think about it...it kind of does...meaning that if we didn't allow citizens to have guns then we wouldn't have these mass shootings and to infer a little more gun owners can't be trusted so we should ban them without coming out and saying that....

We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

Yeah he didn't do his homework on Australia for sure.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I'd say someone didn't check their homework very well. Not saying I would go along with all of Australia's laws, but to say what they did wasn't effective is just nonsense:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I'd say someone didn't check their homework very well. Not saying I would go along with all of Australia's laws, but to say what they did wasn't effective is just nonsense:

http://www.slate.com..._provide_a.html

I'd say someone didn't check their homework very well. Not saying I would go along with all of Australia's laws, but to say what they did wasn't effective is just nonsense:

http://www.slate.com..._provide_a.html

I guess it depends on your point of view and whose nonsense you want to believe.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425021/australia-gun-control-obama-america

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Well, given that the studies that attribute the reductions to trends already underway before the gun laws kicked in have been peer reviewed and the methodology discredited, I'd say right now I'll believe that it actually had the intended effect of reducing gun violence noticeably:

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Well, given that the studies that attribute the reductions to trends already underway before the gun laws kicked in have been peer reviewed and the methodology discredited, I'd say right now I'll believe that it actually had the intended effect of reducing gun violence noticeably:

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

I guess it's like the old adage....."there are two sides to every story and then there is the truth." I am certainly no expert on Australian laws so I won't argue their effectiveness. I just happened to see an article saying they hadn't worked.

But forget Australia, I will go with TJ who said "Only a gov't that is afraid of it's people tries to control them."