Father slain in front of daughter after dog sniffs man's leg

[slim 1,525]

mine only hold 11, but i rarely load them up with that much - trying to save the springs. what .40 has a 16 round mag?

personally, i think this is making a mountain out of a molehill, as people back then could shoot better.

Doesn't the new XD(M) have 16rd. capacity in .40?

And yes, when you only have one shot, you tend to make it count. If the gents back then had rifling, semi-autos and higher capacity, the war wouldn't have been won any quicker. It's not like the technology is what won them the war.

[Heracles 417]

I'm happy. I supported my position well. What do think of the evidence posted by all parties?

UN, INTERPOL and the Australian Federal Bureau of Statistics VS gunowners.org or nrawinningteam.org

That is a tough one..

Edited November 28, 2009 by Booyah!

[Heracles 417]

mine only hold 11, but i rarely load them up with that much - trying to save the springs. what .40 has a 16 round mag?

personally, i think this is making a mountain out of a molehill, as people back then could shoot better.

Doesn't the new XD(M) have 16rd. capacity in .40?

And yes, when you only have one shot, you tend to make it count. If the gents back then had rifling, semi-autos and higher capacity, the war wouldn't have been won any quicker. It's not like the technology is what won them the war.

You guys are right. My FNH .40 holds 14 rounds.

The law should reflect the gun of the time. Otherwise what's wrong with a surface to air launcher. Technically that is an arms.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Booyah!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Funny, you're number three on the list with 81 baiting, non relevant posts. Just like this thread. It says a lot about you. And your superior intelligence.

Quite relevant actually. First off, A.J never starts a thread without an ulterior motive. Had anyone else created the thread, excluding those mentioned above, I would have been positive.

Or should I just sit there and watch you five geniuses state 'I am thankful for the sky', since apparently no other country has access to a sky.

You would have nothing positive to say no matter who started the thread. And you posted 81 times and complained about the same people posting over and over. You definitely have issues. You live in the US. Fact. You are not moving to Aus. at least not with your current spouse. Fact. You are prejudiced against non whites, fact. You have no friends, fact. You have problems at work, fact. You are anti gun, but you own guns(supposedly). Now the only important question is, are you a troll having fun at this, or are you a moron?

[SuperDuper! 230]

I was hoping for a happy ending here, fellas...

I'm happy. I supported my position well. What do think of the evidence posted by all parties?

You cant expect me to vote for whom I think is the winner. If you ever saw Bowling for Columbine, and how MM compared the US and Canada in terms of gun violence, given their geographical proximity, his explanation says much more, based on the "wild west"revolutionary history of the US and a long tradition of gun ownership.

Comparing Australia to US and their wildly different cultures and histories, while being at opposite ends of the earth, is an Apple vs Oranges argument. *ducks*

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I was hoping for a happy ending here, fellas...

I'm happy. I supported my position well. What do think of the evidence posted by all parties?

You cant expect me to vote for whom I think is the winner. If you ever saw Bowling for Columbine, and how MM compared the US and Canada in terms of gun violence, given their geographical proximity, his explanation says much more, based on the "wild west"revolutionary history of the US and a long tradition of gun ownership.

Comparing Australia to US and their wildly different cultures and histories, while being at opposite ends of the earth, is an Apple vs Oranges argument. *ducks*

You don't have to pick a winner. What's your opinion?

[slim 1,525]

I'll use the AUS govt.'s site - There is NO 33% reduction in homicide since the gun ban. NONE. It does not exist, you fabricated it.

There has been about a .2/100,000 reduction in homicides. That's about 14%, at best. Going down that path has now resulted in giving the police the authority to strip-search anyone without probable cause because people are still getting killed with knives. What's next, everyone must walk around naked?

[SuperDuper! 230]

I was hoping for a happy ending here, fellas...

I'm happy. I supported my position well. What do think of the evidence posted by all parties?

You cant expect me to vote for whom I think is the winner. If you ever saw Bowling for Columbine, and how MM compared the US and Canada in terms of gun violence, given their geographical proximity, his explanation says much more, based on the "wild west"revolutionary history of the US and a long tradition of gun ownership.

Comparing Australia to US and their wildly different cultures and histories, while being at opposite ends of the earth, is an Apple vs Oranges argument. *ducks*

You don't have to pick a winner. What's your opinion?

I just gave it. (over and out).

[Heracles 417]

You would have nothing positive to say no matter who started the thread. And you posted 81 times and complained about the same people posting over and over. You definitely have issues. You live in the US. Fact. You are not moving to Aus. at least not with your current spouse. Fact. You are prejudiced against non whites, fact. You have no friends, fact. You have problems at work, fact. You are anti gun, but you own guns(supposedly). Now the only important question is, are you a troll having fun at this, or are you a moron?

Fact? Excluding the obvious, your buttocks, where are these so-called facts coming from? E for effort though but F for accuracy.

The only thing I am "prejudiced against" is idiots. Hence why we fail to get alone.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'll use the AUS govt.'s site - There is NO 33% reduction in homicide since the gun ban. NONE. It does not exist, you fabricated it.

There has been about a .2/100,000 reduction in homicides. That's about 14%, at best. Going down that path has now resulted in giving the police the authority to strip-search anyone without probable cause because people are still getting killed with knives. What's next, everyone must walk around naked?

Do the math, .2 per 100k is about 40 homicides per year. Of course, BY probably has a different method of multiplying two numbers. 650K+ firearms removed, 40 less deaths. Is it that hard to understand?

You would have nothing positive to say no matter who started the thread. And you posted 81 times and complained about the same people posting over and over. You definitely have issues. You live in the US. Fact. You are not moving to Aus. at least not with your current spouse. Fact. You are prejudiced against non whites, fact. You have no friends, fact. You have problems at work, fact. You are anti gun, but you own guns(supposedly). Now the only important question is, are you a troll having fun at this, or are you a moron?

Fact? Excluding the obvious, your buttocks, where are these so-called facts coming from? E for effort though but F for accuracy.

The only thing I am "prejudiced against" is idiots. Hence why we fail to get alone.

Then try not to be an idiot.

The facts come from your sources.

[Heracles 417]

I'll use the AUS govt.'s site - There is NO 33% reduction in homicide since the gun ban. NONE. It does not exist, you fabricated it.

There has been about a .2/100,000 reduction in homicides. That's about 14%, at best. Going down that path has now resulted in giving the police the authority to strip-search anyone without probable cause because people are still getting killed with knives. What's next, everyone must walk around naked?

What was the rate for 1995? What is the rate for 2008? Averaging 1996 to 1999 or 1999 to 2008, or whatever you did does not give you a stat.

Australia is one example. How about these?

Murders with firearms

# 1 South Africa: 31,918 - 49 million population

# 2 Colombia: 21,898 - 44 million population

# 3 Thailand: 20,032 - 63 million population

# 4 United States: 9,369 - 303 million population

Murders with firearms (Per Capita)

# 1 South Africa: 71.9782 per 100,000 people

# 2 Colombia: 50.9801 per 100,000 people

# 3 Thailand: 31.2093 per 100,000 people

# 4 Zimbabwe: 4.91736 per 100,000 people

# 5 Mexico: 3.37938 per 100,000 people

# 6 Belarus: 3.21359 per 100,000 people

# 7 Costa Rica: 3.13745 per 100,000 people

# 8 United States: 2.79271 per 100,000 people

# 20 Canada: 0.502972 per 100,000 people

# 27 Australia: 0.293678 per 100,000 people

# 31 New Zealand: 0.173482 per 100,000 people

# 32 United Kingdom: 0.102579 per 100,000 people

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I'll use the AUS govt.'s site - There is NO 33% reduction in homicide since the gun ban. NONE. It does not exist, you fabricated it.

There has been about a .2/100,000 reduction in homicides. That's about 14%, at best. Going down that path has now resulted in giving the police the authority to strip-search anyone without probable cause because people are still getting killed with knives. What's next, everyone must walk around naked?

What was the rate for 1995? What is the rate for 2008? Averaging 1996 to 1999 or 1999 to 2008, or whatever you did does not give you a stat.

Australia is one example. How about these?

Murders with firearms

# 1 South Africa: 31,918 - 49 million population

# 2 Colombia: 21,898 - 44 million population

# 3 Thailand: 20,032 - 63 million population

# 4 United States: 9,369 - 303 million population

Murders with firearms (Per Capita)

# 1 South Africa: 71.9782 per 100,000 people

# 2 Colombia: 50.9801 per 100,000 people

# 3 Thailand: 31.2093 per 100,000 people

# 4 Zimbabwe: 4.91736 per 100,000 people

# 5 Mexico: 3.37938 per 100,000 people

# 6 Belarus: 3.21359 per 100,000 people

# 7 Costa Rica: 3.13745 per 100,000 people

# 8 United States: 2.79271 per 100,000 people

# 20 Canada: 0.502972 per 100,000 people

# 27 Australia: 0.293678 per 100,000 people

# 31 New Zealand: 0.173482 per 100,000 people

# 32 United Kingdom: 0.102579 per 100,000 people

Changing the subject again=you fail. I hope you're better at your real job.

[slim 1,525]

What was the rate for 1995? What is the rate for 2008? Averaging 1996 to 1999 or 1999 to 2008, or whatever you did does not give you a stat.

Actually, an AVERAGE is a statistically-based number that takes into account ALL data available. When you only choose two of your given amounts of data when there are numerous available, you can skew the numbers to represent whichever point you'd like to make. We've done that already (95, 08 or 95, 99) and you skewed to 33% decrease. I skewed to 45% increase. Since I don't think that's fair, and I like to argue fairly using all available data, I suggest we use the AVERAGE. (It also helps your point, so I'd take me up on it if I were you!)

[spookyturtle 9,466]

[Heracles 417]

You get more ridiculous by post.