This is the second-in-command of the United States and he believes, incorrectly, that the AR-15 is an assault weapon.
One of the more amusing memes put forth by the gun lobby and random white men on the internet is the very serious explanation that "the AR-15 is not an assault weapon".
Clearly, this is a gun that is marketed for personal defense. Because nothing says "personal defense" like a tripod, drum magazine and high-powered scope.
Well, and whaddayaknow, they happen at a lower rate in the US than in many European countries.
Sadly, no. They happen with much greater frequency in the US than in any European country. What you're referring to are spurious statistics from John Lott's NRA-funded website "crimeresearch.org", which show that more people per 100,000 die in Norway and Finland, but that's only because of two large mass shootings by right-wing nutjobs that killed a lot of people in a country with small populations.
If you look at the total number of mass shootings, you will see that they happen with much greater, and I mean MUCH greater frequency in the United States.
If you'd like, I can post citations to back up my claim that John Lott's statistics are completely bogus.
The Second Amendment was to protect us Citizens against the GOVERNMENT, and so far, it has (kinda) worked.
You are delusional, Mr Cook. In what way has the Second Amendment protected "us citizens" against the GOVERNMENT? The last time a Second Amendment solution was used against the government was the 1860s, and the South got all shot to shit for their trouble and Atlanta was burned to the ground.
Are you talking about the Bundy Ranch? Those guys had a Second Amendment solution and they're in prison now.
But that didn't stop you from giving your expert opinion on the matter, did it?
"There are only two guards, but it's common for people to be armed. I probably won't get very far even if I take out the guards first."
So, people at a heavy metal concert or in a club should be blamed for their own murders because they didn't have guns? Way to blame the victims you piece of shit.
Your argument is invalid. There is no linkage between email and guns in the US.
The important linkage is the one between guns and shootings. We have a lot of guns, so we have a lot of shootings.
Violence is down because we've taken so much lead out of the environment. The gun lobby is doing their best to put it all back.
I invite you to read the book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy which explores why different countries have different amounts of violence. Spoiler: it's more cultural factors than anything else.
So, what you're saying is that the United States has a uniquely violent and fucked up culture, and that's why we have more gun massacres than other cultures? Isn't that a good reason to interdict in gun culture? If you knew someone (US culture) that was violent and fucked up, would you think the best approach would be to give them more guns?
I'm not going to go back and dig up what you wrote before, but I'm pretty sure you claimed there were more Democrats much farther back than "over a decade".
I did. But I only could find hard data going back a decade.
And finally, it really doesn't matter what people claim to be; all that matters is how they vote.
That's right, and more Americans vote for Democratic candidates for Congress each election than for Republican candidates for Congress. And since 2000, there were more Democratic votes for President in 3 out of 4 elections (including the first Bush term).
I'm not saying there are more Republicans. Did you not actually read what I wrote? I said there were roughly equal numbers
Did you look at the data? There are not "roughly equal numbers" unless you're willing to round Republicans up and Democrats down in every single year for the past 10. Hell, if you're willing to round numbers far enough, the Chicago Bears have won as many games as the New England Patriots for the past 25 years.
If you want to believe there really are more Dems, go ahead.
It's not a belief if I have data. Would you like even more citations to the data? I can keep giving them. I've already given Gallup, so here's Pew:
Your allegation is that there's a significantly larger number of Democrat voters than Republican voters. I'm disproving it by pointing to the Presidential elections.
It is not my allegation. The data, going back over a decade and right up until last week, shows this. Go down the list and count how many months more people claimed to be Republican than Democratic. Compare that to the number of months that showed there were more Democrats. Now look to the right at the numbers for people who "lean" one way or the other. The difference is either more striking.
Because I'm a decent guy, I'll give you a talking point on the house: You can say that really there are more Republicans, but a significant number of them are too ashamed to admit it. That could work. You could also say that Gallup is rigged against Republicans. That's always a good look and goes to the "it was rigged" excuse that Donald Trump and his supporters will definitely be using come November.
But really, there is a structural advantage that the Dems have. There are simply more of them.
George W Bush won two terms in a row. Where did all those votes come from?
I thought we were talking about control of Congress.
Anyway, in 2000, more Americans voted for Al Gore than George Bush anyway. Over half a million more, in fact. But you already knew that and are just playing stupid. Very convincingly, I might add.
Gerrymandering is something every party does when they're in power, to hold onto that power. The incumbents get to draw the district lines, so of course they do it to benefit themselves. Republicans are not magically far better at it than Democrats.
More and more big Democratic states are going to a "fair" map that is NOT drawn by legislators, but are drawn by an independent, bipartisan commission. New Jersey and Washington are two such states.
If you look at the top 10 most heavily-gerrymandered districts in the US, you'll see that 7 of them are in Republican states (mostly swing states like Florida and North Carolina).
Gerrymandering is a real thing. It's been going on since James Madison was president. The states that still allow it (Republican states for the most part) have really gotten good at it.
Read this next line carefully: In the past few Congressional elections, more votes were cast for Democratic candidates than for Republican candidates. Let me repeat that: More Americans voted for Democratic congress people than Republican congress people. Yet, the Republican controlled the House.
There's way too many niggers and queers. There's way too many Mexicans stealing our jobs and fucking up every border town. We don't need bi-lingual anything, we need LEARN FUCKIN ENGLISH and if you don't like that, GO BACK TO MEXICO. Send the niggers back to Africa. Send the queers back to San Francisco. That's what I want. That's what every red-blooded American wants.
There's been about a ten point lead in the number of Democrats/Lean Democratic for the past few decades. There have been more Democrats than Republicans since WWII.
If this were true, then the Democrats would control Congress. And if you're going to pull the silly "gerrymandering!" card, you need to go study how Senatorial elections work.
First, there are two houses to Congress. In the past several House elections, there were more votes cast for Democratic candidates than for Republican candidates. Yet, Republicans control the House. If you have an explanation besides gerrymandering, I'd like to hear it. (Hint: the explanation is gerrymandering).
Republicans took back the Senate thanks to the cyclical nature of six year terms and elections every 2 years. Last time, there were a lot of Democrats in Republican-leaning states that had to defend their seats. This year, there are 24 Republican senators (many in Democratic states) that will have to defend their seats in a year with a guy with 70% disapproval ratings leading the party. The Democrats only have to pick up 4 seats to take back the Senate. Next January, there will be a Democratic president and a Democratic senate being sworn in. Why do you think there are so many Republicans, conservative ones at that that are puckering up their asses about having Trump as the candidate?
College bookstores don't make that much in textbook profits, which is why half the floor space is for sweaters, knickknacks and other items that have better profit margins.
The big foam index finger with the team's logo is my favorite. I simply cannot go into a college bookstore without buying one. Also, the sippy mug that can't be tipped over. I mean, how do they even make such a magical thing? Probably some kind of nano technology.
In her book, Trump's second wife talks about a failed scalp flap procedure that he had done, causing him to fly into a rapey rage. But this certainly looks like a weave:
If that is so, shouldn't the polls [realclearpolitics.com] show a much wider spread?
As we've learned from statistician Nate Silver, not all polls are created equal, so a simple average like the one Real Clear Politics does is always going to lag trends, which turn out to be crucially important.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the more amusing memes put forth by the gun lobby and random white men on the internet is the very serious explanation that "the AR-15 is not an assault weapon".
Here is an AR-15:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/mgm-c...
and here:
http://crooksandliars.com/file...
Clearly, this is a gun that is marketed for personal defense. Because nothing says "personal defense" like a tripod, drum magazine and high-powered scope.
Sadly, no. They happen with much greater frequency in the US than in any European country. What you're referring to are spurious statistics from John Lott's NRA-funded website "crimeresearch.org", which show that more people per 100,000 die in Norway and Finland, but that's only because of two large mass shootings by right-wing nutjobs that killed a lot of people in a country with small populations.
If you look at the total number of mass shootings, you will see that they happen with much greater, and I mean MUCH greater frequency in the United States.
If you'd like, I can post citations to back up my claim that John Lott's statistics are completely bogus.
You are delusional, Mr Cook. In what way has the Second Amendment protected "us citizens" against the GOVERNMENT? The last time a Second Amendment solution was used against the government was the 1860s, and the South got all shot to shit for their trouble and Atlanta was burned to the ground.
Are you talking about the Bundy Ranch? Those guys had a Second Amendment solution and they're in prison now.
Mass shootings in the US are a white phenomenon, statistically.
Neither has the Second Amendment.
When people get upset because they may lose access to their cartoon emoji gun, then there's a bigger problem.
Since you seem to be one of those people, can you give me an example of when you'd use an emoji rifle? I mean, what's the context? I'm dying to know.
But that didn't stop you from giving your expert opinion on the matter, did it?
So, people at a heavy metal concert or in a club should be blamed for their own murders because they didn't have guns? Way to blame the victims you piece of shit.
But still more than other developed countries by a lot. I mean a WHOLE lot.
And mass shootings in the US are at an all-time high. No matter how you cut it, we are one violent and fucked up culture that loves guns.
https://docs.google.com/spread...
The important linkage is the one between guns and shootings. We have a lot of guns, so we have a lot of shootings.
Violence is down because we've taken so much lead out of the environment. The gun lobby is doing their best to put it all back.
So, what you're saying is that the United States has a uniquely violent and fucked up culture, and that's why we have more gun massacres than other cultures? Isn't that a good reason to interdict in gun culture? If you knew someone (US culture) that was violent and fucked up, would you think the best approach would be to give them more guns?
No, Mr Cook, I'm being serious. Ever since the iWristwatch, Apple has had the stink of desperation on it.
I have the same problem with condoms.
Are talking about the same company that brought lawsuits over a rectangle with rounded corners?
Apple's chickens may be coming home to roost.
Isn't a more interesting question, "How far has Apple fallen that they now have to copy Chinese designs?"
I did. But I only could find hard data going back a decade.
That's right, and more Americans vote for Democratic candidates for Congress each election than for Republican candidates for Congress. And since 2000, there were more Democratic votes for President in 3 out of 4 elections (including the first Bush term).
Did you look at the data? There are not "roughly equal numbers" unless you're willing to round Republicans up and Democrats down in every single year for the past 10. Hell, if you're willing to round numbers far enough, the Chicago Bears have won as many games as the New England Patriots for the past 25 years.
It's not a belief if I have data. Would you like even more citations to the data? I can keep giving them. I've already given Gallup, so here's Pew:
http://www.people-press.org/to...
There are more if you'd like. You keep saying that these are allegations I'm making, and I show you data and you keep saying, "but there's no data".
Prior Art:
https://youtu.be/u1z4vkPWkLQ
It is not my allegation. The data, going back over a decade and right up until last week, shows this. Go down the list and count how many months more people claimed to be Republican than Democratic. Compare that to the number of months that showed there were more Democrats. Now look to the right at the numbers for people who "lean" one way or the other. The difference is either more striking.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153...
Because I'm a decent guy, I'll give you a talking point on the house: You can say that really there are more Republicans, but a significant number of them are too ashamed to admit it. That could work. You could also say that Gallup is rigged against Republicans. That's always a good look and goes to the "it was rigged" excuse that Donald Trump and his supporters will definitely be using come November.
But really, there is a structural advantage that the Dems have. There are simply more of them.
I thought we were talking about control of Congress.
Anyway, in 2000, more Americans voted for Al Gore than George Bush anyway. Over half a million more, in fact. But you already knew that and are just playing stupid. Very convincingly, I might add.
More and more big Democratic states are going to a "fair" map that is NOT drawn by legislators, but are drawn by an independent, bipartisan commission. New Jersey and Washington are two such states.
If you look at the top 10 most heavily-gerrymandered districts in the US, you'll see that 7 of them are in Republican states (mostly swing states like Florida and North Carolina).
Gerrymandering is a real thing. It's been going on since James Madison was president. The states that still allow it (Republican states for the most part) have really gotten good at it.
Read this next line carefully: In the past few Congressional elections, more votes were cast for Democratic candidates than for Republican candidates. Let me repeat that: More Americans voted for Democratic congress people than Republican congress people. Yet, the Republican controlled the House.
I'm Donald Trump, and I approved this message.
There's been about a ten point lead in the number of Democrats/Lean Democratic for the past few decades. There have been more Democrats than Republicans since WWII.
http://www.people-press.org/20...
First, there are two houses to Congress. In the past several House elections, there were more votes cast for Democratic candidates than for Republican candidates. Yet, Republicans control the House. If you have an explanation besides gerrymandering, I'd like to hear it. (Hint: the explanation is gerrymandering).
Republicans took back the Senate thanks to the cyclical nature of six year terms and elections every 2 years. Last time, there were a lot of Democrats in Republican-leaning states that had to defend their seats. This year, there are 24 Republican senators (many in Democratic states) that will have to defend their seats in a year with a guy with 70% disapproval ratings leading the party. The Democrats only have to pick up 4 seats to take back the Senate. Next January, there will be a Democratic president and a Democratic senate being sworn in. Why do you think there are so many Republicans, conservative ones at that that are puckering up their asses about having Trump as the candidate?
The big foam index finger with the team's logo is my favorite. I simply cannot go into a college bookstore without buying one. Also, the sippy mug that can't be tipped over. I mean, how do they even make such a magical thing? Probably some kind of nano technology.
That's his Secret Service nickname.
In her book, Trump's second wife talks about a failed scalp flap procedure that he had done, causing him to fly into a rapey rage. But this certainly looks like a weave:
http://www.eonline.com/eol_ima...
Either way, it's one of the Eight Great Mysteries of the Modern World.
Unlike coal mining and petroleum drilling and fracking, which are 100% clean and beneficial to the environment.
Ever visited West Virginia? Kentucky?
As we've learned from statistician Nate Silver, not all polls are created equal, so a simple average like the one Real Clear Politics does is always going to lag trends, which turn out to be crucially important.
Of course there is. We know exactly how many votes were cast. Here's a handy spread sheet.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...