Three Indicted on Federal Charges in Call of Duty Swatting Death - MMORPG.com News

MadFrenchie

Frozenyearround said:

MadFrenchie said:

Frozenyearround said:

AnOldFart said:

Not read all the replies here because I'm late to the party.

I have two thoughts here
No 1.
It's a shame someone died, it never should have happened but that being said.

It is NOT the officers fault, he replied to a potentially deadly situation, he acted in a way to preserve his colleages and his own life.
Maybe some of the responsibility has to be on the victim who should have listened very carefully to the instructions but since we don't
 know all the details we cant comment properly on that
Finally the people involved deserve long lengthy sentences, they acted in a way which they knew would get an aggressive police response, they knew armed officers would respond and therefore are fully culpable for the resulting death. Whilst I don't think it's
 murder because they didn't intend for the victim to die, they still deserve the life sentences.


But more importantly

No 2. Ban guns, we don't have them on our side of the pond and we also have less people shot dead by police.

But you have knife attacks, more bomb attacks, more vehicles intentionally running down people and depending on where you are grenade atracks. 

So when is that side of the pond going to ban

knives?

Bombs?

Box trucks?

Tip guns will never be banned in the US it's in our constitution.   

Lmao, the same old tired arguments.

Because America doesn't have knife attacks, vehicle attacks, or bomb attacks.  And since when were bombs legal anywhere for private citizens to keep?

Knives are far less lethal than guns.

Vehicles serve an actual purpose for society aside from killing things.

Jesus Christ, dude, at least try.

Actually 99% of guns owned by law abiding citizens in the US are for protection or hunting.  An American citizen doesn't need to answer to some foreigner whose country has their own problems.  

Thanks for proving my point pal bombs are illegal and yet criminals still find way to use them and acquire them.  Here in the US law abiding Americans will not bow down to fear mongers like you and the actions of criminals. 

If you have a problem with that come and take them.  The last time that side of the pond tried to come and take something  from Americans didn't work too well and won t work this time either.  

I am not from the U.K., nor am I your pal.

Your argument that "well they still get them when they're illegal" is laughable.  What's the point of any law, then?

Also, to make that argument, you have to be COMPLETELY ignorant of how many legally owned guns fall into the hands of criminals.  The more legally-owned guns in the hands of Americans, the more available for criminals to take and do bad things with.

You also have to be completely ignorant of the reality of how few and far between it is a citizen actually ATTEMPTS to protect themselves with their guns, much less SUCCEEDS in doing so, to subscribe to the idea that folks need them for protection.  Hint: the percentage of instances where a victim defends themself with a legally owned gun is minuscule. Like the security at the airport, it's just for the warm fuzzies.

An AR-15 is not owned for hunting.  The majority of handguns are not owned for hunting.  Bump stock mods are not owned for hunting.

EDIT- for clarity

Scorchien

JeroKane said:

Scorchien said:

 To those saying .. ohh hey , lets shoot them in the legs .. really police are not trained that way .. Lets play , say your Mom is out shopping a robbery suspect is fleeing across a parking lot with police in pursuit .. The police manage to corner the Robber and when he raises his weapon , the police shoot him in the leg .. .. He still manages to get off 6 rounds , splattering your moms head across the lot killing her and another innocent and wounding 2 others .. Would you be saying why didnt the police shoot to kill ...?

               

This is exactly where proper police training is needed and more rigorous phycological evaluation on police applicants!

When a subject is clearly showing a gun in his hand, then it's a completely different situation and then lethal response might be necessary.

But! In this swatting case, the victim did not have any weapon in his hand and even when he lowered his hands for whatever reason, it would have been sufficient to shoot him in the legs.

If the victim (aka suspect) then still tries to reach for something, then the police still has enough time to react with a more lethal response!

Let me remind you that there were 6 police officers at the scene, so he was outnumbered 6 to 1 !!

These police officers are professionals, should have adequate training to be able to assess different situations and the ability to respond accordingly!


This police officer clearly should not be in the function he is in! Since he is clearly incapable of assessing situations, while the other 5 colleagues did manage and not fire their gun.

Really so if the house was doused in gas as the Emer Call implied and they shoot him in the leg , he pulls out a lighter a torches the house with victims in it.. .. And then what .. Why didnt they shoot to kill?

 The rest of your post is complete bullshit , you would have shot to or sat on your hands and watched innocnet victims die in that real situation .. Split second decision .. Does he have a gun ,  reported house is doused in Gas .. Does he have as simple as a fucking pack of matches .. And you want an officer to take the time to shoot him in the leg and hope for the best .. There are to many layers of stupid to peel away here ..

   When he raised his hands then decided to drop them and turn away when opfficers were yelling at him to freeze ..All 6 should of shot

 And ill say it again as rotten and harsh as it says .. If it were you wife and kid he was holding hostage in that reportedly Gas doused home .. and the situation unfolded as it did .. He drops his hands and turns away , the police shoot him in the leg .. H manages to  to flick a lighter .. Ignites the home burning your family to Death .. Whats your reaction .. "  Hey guys , nice shot thx for trying "

  Bull fucking shit .. you would be the first screaming .."WHY would you shoot him in the leg !!"

Frozenyearround

MadFrenchie said:

Frozenyearround said:

MadFrenchie said:

Frozenyearround said:

AnOldFart said:

Not read all the replies here because I'm late to the party.

I have two thoughts here
No 1.
It's a shame someone died, it never should have happened but that being said.

It is NOT the officers fault, he replied to a potentially deadly situation, he acted in a way to preserve his colleages and his own life.
Maybe some of the responsibility has to be on the victim who should have listened very carefully to the instructions but since we don't
 know all the details we cant comment properly on that
Finally the people involved deserve long lengthy sentences, they acted in a way which they knew would get an aggressive police response, they knew armed officers would respond and therefore are fully culpable for the resulting death. Whilst I don't think it's
 murder because they didn't intend for the victim to die, they still deserve the life sentences.


But more importantly

No 2. Ban guns, we don't have them on our side of the pond and we also have less people shot dead by police.

But you have knife attacks, more bomb attacks, more vehicles intentionally running down people and depending on where you are grenade atracks. 

So when is that side of the pond going to ban

knives?

Bombs?

Box trucks?

Tip guns will never be banned in the US it's in our constitution.   

Lmao, the same old tired arguments.

Because America doesn't have knife attacks, vehicle attacks, or bomb attacks.  And since when were bombs legal anywhere for private citizens to keep?

Knives are far less lethal than guns.

Vehicles serve an actual purpose for society aside from killing things.

Jesus Christ, dude, at least try.

Actually 99% of guns owned by law abiding citizens in the US are for protection or hunting.  An American citizen doesn't need to answer to some foreigner whose country has their own problems.  

Thanks for proving my point pal bombs are illegal and yet criminals still find way to use them and acquire them.  Here in the US law abiding Americans will not bow down to fear mongers like you and the actions of criminals. 

If you have a problem with that come and take them.  The last time that side of the pond tried to come and take something  from Americans didn't work too well and won t work this time either.  

I am not from the U.K., nor am I your pal.

Your argument that "well they still get them when they're illegal" is laughable.  What's the point of any law, then?

Also, to make that argument, you have to be COMPLETELY ignorant of how many legally owned guns fall into the hands of criminals.  The more legally-owned guns in the hands of Americans, the more available for criminals to take and do bad things with.

You also have to be completely ignorant of the reality of how few and far between it is a citizen actually ATTEMPTS to protect themselves with their guns, much less SUCCEEDS in doing so.  Hint: it's minuscule. Like the security at the airport, it's just for the warm fuzzies.

An AR-15 is not owned for hunting.  The majority of handguns are not owned for hunting.  Bump stock mods are not owned for hunting.

Instead of foaming at the mouth and spewing out name calling and rhetoric I will leave some facts for you.

It's a fact  that no more than 6 % of all murders were committed by someone with a legally purchased gun. 

 This gives you a maximum number around 880 per year, 5^% of murders, counting the 94 by CCW holders. 

You may not hear about it a lot because I'm sure the news you listen to or watch doesn't report it very often but fitting news today.

Last night In Oklahoma a criminal started shooting in a restaurant and a law abiding citizens with a legal gun killed the shooter before the shooter could kill anyone.  Im sure you would have rather that law abiding American with a legal  was not in that restaurant or wasn't allowed to carry the gun hmm?   You would have yourself another story to exploit.  

Now I could type in CAPS and *bold* but facts don't need all that extra garbage you need to throw on the screen to spew your rehtoric.  

I do appreciate the fear mongering and rhetoric those like you spew.  It keeps pushing more people further and further away from extreme ideology.   

MadFrenchie

Frozenyearround said:

Instead of foaming at the mouth and spewing out name calling and rhetoric I will leave some facts for you.

It's a fact  that no more than 6 % of all murders were committed by someone with a legally purchased gun. 

 This gives you a maximum number around 880 per year, 5^% of murders, counting the 94 by CCW holders. 

You may not hear about it a lot because I'm sure the news you listen to or watch doesn't report it very often but fitting news today.

Last night In Oklahoma a criminal started shooting in a restaurant and a law abiding citizens with a legal gun killed the shooter before the shooter could kill anyone.  Im sure you would have rather that law abiding American with a legal  was not in that restaurant or wasn't allowed to carry the gun hmm?   You would have yourself another story to exploit.  

Now I could type in CAPS and *bold* but facts don't need all that extra garbage you need to throw on the screen to spew your rehtoric.  

I do appreciate the fear mongering and rhetoric those like you spew.  It keeps pushing more people further and further away from extreme ideology.   

Lol.

The poster boy for this idea that guns are great for self-defense is Kleck.  Only, he recently pulled a paper down from his website claiming CDC vindicated him after realizing he didn't even understand the data he was citing from the CDC.  A great poster-boy for that side of the research aisle, eh?

You tried to use facts without citation, then felt vindicated because you did so.  Allow me to show you how to properly use facts in your argument.  I'll give you a hint: sites like Wikipedia can be useful, but only if you take the time to actually check that they've cited viable sources and you cite those sources when you use them.  Like this:

Hemenway, Harvard professor of Health Policy, in his 1997 paper analyzing Kleck's work and performing his own study on the issue:

"Two aspects of the K-G survey combine to create severe misestimation. The first is the likelihood of positive social desirability response, sometimes referred to as personal presentation bias. An individual who purchases a gun for self-defense and then uses it successfully to ward off a criminal is displaying the wisdom of his precautions and his capability in protecting himself, his loved ones, and his property. His action is to be commended and admired. Some positive social desirability response bias, by itself, might not lead to serious overestimation. However, combined with a second aspect of the survey-the attempt to estimate a very rare event-it does. The search for a "needle in a haystack" has major methodological dangers, especially where researchers try to extrapolate the findings to society as a whole. Until the K-G study, no one had estimated that even as many as 1% of adult civilians had used a gun in self-defense in the past year. Nevertheless, assume that the actual incidence is 1%. On average, for every 100 individuals asked a 'Yes/No" question about the event, ninety-nine respondents will have a chance to be misclassified as a false positive. In ninety-nine answers there is the possibility of positive social desirability response bias. However, on average only one respondent-the one who actually did use a gun in self defense-could possibly be misclassified as a false negative (e.g., if she forgot about the event). Even if the chance of forgetting is high, as long as there is any possibility of positive response bias, it is very likely that the survey finding will be an overestimate. The fact that the survey is trying to estimate a low probability event also means that a small percentage bias, when extrapolated, can lead to extreme overestimates. Consider a survey finding which contains a 1% overestimate of positive responses. If the true incidence of the event is 60%, estimating it at 61% would not be a problem. But if the true incidence is 1%, measuring it as 2% would be a doubling of the true rate; and if the true incidence is 0.1%, measuring it at 1.1% would be an eleven-fold overestimate. The K-G survey design contains a huge overestimation bias. The authors do little to reduce the bias or to validate their findings by external measures. All checks for external validity of the Kleck-Gertz finding confirm that their estimate is highly exaggerated."


Here's the all-important part when you try to use research facts to support your argument.  It's called the citation!  Here's mine: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=6936&context=jclc



Further support for the idea that DGU (defensive gun use) is abysmally low, this time from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

"In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender (table 11). This amounted to approximately 1% of all nonfatal violent victimizations in the 5-year period. The percentage of nonfatal violent victimizations involving firearm use in self defense remained stable at under 2% from 1993 to 2011 (not shown in table). In 2007-11, about 44% of victims of nonfatal violent crime offered no resistance, 1% attacked or threatened the offender with another type of weapon, 22% attacked or threatened without a weapon (e.g., hit or kicked), and 26% used nonconfrontational methods (e.g., yelling, running, hiding, or arguing)."

Here's the all-important citation: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf



As for my comments about how often legally-purchased guns fall into the hands of criminals, supporting the idea that more legal guns means more illegal guns, again directly from the government bureau responsible for collating this data nationwide:

"BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost almost one- third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts or burglaries from stores or other businesses."

Whoops, over a quarter million legally-owned guns fall into the hands of criminals each year, just from private homes!  He stares down the batter, there's the wind-up, and the citation!

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/HVFSDAFT.PR


Thanks for playing, exit stage left.

YashaX

Lastlaughlol said:

Dakeru said:

I don't like that the policeman who dealt the deadly shot against an unarmed civilian will not face any punishment.

Read the actual article u fk.

Maybe you need to.

I don't see anything in that article that makes shooting an innocent person understandable in that situation. Even the video shows the guy came out of his house with his hands raised. The only justification given was that the POLICE said that some officers thought he had lowered his hands.

They must be pretty competent police to go out and kill some random dude on a prank call, shooting a clearly unarmed guy standing on his porch in confusion surrounded by police yelling at him. Pretty fucking classy coppers u got there.

Frozenyearround

MadFrenchie said:

Frozenyearround said:

Instead of foaming at the mouth and spewing out name calling and rhetoric I will leave some facts for you.

It's a fact  that no more than 6 % of all murders were committed by someone with a legally purchased gun. 

 This gives you a maximum number around 880 per year, 5^% of murders, counting the 94 by CCW holders. 

You may not hear about it a lot because I'm sure the news you listen to or watch doesn't report it very often but fitting news today.

Last night In Oklahoma a criminal started shooting in a restaurant and a law abiding citizens with a legal gun killed the shooter before the shooter could kill anyone.  Im sure you would have rather that law abiding American with a legal  was not in that restaurant or wasn't allowed to carry the gun hmm?   You would have yourself another story to exploit.  

Now I could type in CAPS and *bold* but facts don't need all that extra garbage you need to throw on the screen to spew your rehtoric.  

I do appreciate the fear mongering and rhetoric those like you spew.  It keeps pushing more people further and further away from extreme ideology.   

Lol.

The poster boy for this idea that guns are great for self-defense is Kleck.  Only, he recently pulled a paper down from his website claiming CDC vindicated him after realizing he didn't even understand the data he was citing from the CDC.  A great poster-boy for that side of the research aisle, eh?

You tried to use facts without citation, then felt vindicated because you did so.  Allow me to show you how to properly use facts in your argument.  I'll give you a hint: sites like Wikipedia can be useful, but only if you take the time to actually check that they've cited viable sources and you cite those sources when you use them.  Like this:

Hemenway, Harvard professor of Health Policy, in his 1997 paper analyzing Kleck's work and performing his own study on the issue:

"Two aspects of the K-G survey combine to create severe misestimation. The first is the likelihood of positive social desirability response, sometimes referred to as personal presentation bias. An individual who purchases a gun for self-defense and then uses it successfully to ward off a criminal is displaying the wisdom of his precautions and his capability in protecting himself, his loved ones, and his property. His action is to be commended and admired. Some positive social desirability response bias, by itself, might not lead to serious overestimation. However, combined with a second aspect of the survey-the attempt to estimate a very rare event-it does. The search for a "needle in a haystack" has major methodological dangers, especially where researchers try to extrapolate the findings to society as a whole. Until the K-G study, no one had estimated that even as many as 1% of adult civilians had used a gun in self-defense in the past year. Nevertheless, assume that the actual incidence is 1%. On average, for every 100 individuals asked a 'Yes/No" question about the event, ninety-nine 


Here's the all-important part when you try to use research facts to support your argument.  It's called the citation!  Here's mine: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=6936&context=jclc



Further support for the idea that DGU (defensive gun use) is abysmally low, this time from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

"In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender (table 11). This amounted to approximately 1% of all nonfatal violent victimizations in the 5-year period. The percentage of nonfatal violent victimizations involving firearm use in self defense remained stable at under 2% from 1993 to 2011 (not shown in table). In 2007-11, about 44% of victims of nonfatal violent crime offered no resistance, 1% attacked or threatened the offender with another type of weapon, 22% attacked or threatened without a weapon (e.g., hit or kicked), and 26% used nonconfrontational methods (e.g., yelling, running, hiding, or arguing)."

Here's the all-important citation: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf



As for my comments about how often legally-purchased guns fall into the hands of criminals, supporting the idea that more legal guns means more illegal guns, again directly from the government bureau responsible for collating this data nationwide:

"BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost almost one- third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts or burglaries from stores or other businesses."

Whoops, over a quarter million legally-owned guns fall into the hands of criminals each year, just from private homes!  He stares down the batter, here's the wind-up, and the citation!


https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/HVFSDAFT.PR

Thanks for playing, exit stage left.

Playing? You just proved everything I said.  Criminals will be criminals and  fear mongerers like you posting from bias anti gun websites as sources only helps our case.  So thank you.  

Recap of your desperation. 

Yep legally owned gun owners commit very few of gun crime...check I said that. 

Criminals do acquire guns any means necessary they are criminals.   Check I said that.  

Strict gun laws don't stop criminals look no further than Chicago.


http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/some-states-with-strictest-gun-laws-also-have-most-dangerous-cities

I would rather have a law abiding American in a restaurant with me you would rather sit in a safe space where guns are not allowed.  

 "Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 97.8% of attacks since 1950"

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/05/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

Please don't exit stage left please come back with more your rhetoric and copy/pasting from your alt-left anti gun propaganda sites.  It's so much fun to see how desperate you are getting.  

MadFrenchie

Frozenyearround said:

MadFrenchie said:

Frozenyearround said:

Instead of foaming at the mouth and spewing out name calling and rhetoric I will leave some facts for you.

It's a fact  that no more than 6 % of all murders were committed by someone with a legally purchased gun. 

 This gives you a maximum number around 880 per year, 5^% of murders, counting the 94 by CCW holders. 

You may not hear about it a lot because I'm sure the news you listen to or watch doesn't report it very often but fitting news today.

Last night In Oklahoma a criminal started shooting in a restaurant and a law abiding citizens with a legal gun killed the shooter before the shooter could kill anyone.  Im sure you would have rather that law abiding American with a legal  was not in that restaurant or wasn't allowed to carry the gun hmm?   You would have yourself another story to exploit.  

Now I could type in CAPS and *bold* but facts don't need all that extra garbage you need to throw on the screen to spew your rehtoric.  

I do appreciate the fear mongering and rhetoric those like you spew.  It keeps pushing more people further and further away from extreme ideology.   

Lol.

The poster boy for this idea that guns are great for self-defense is Kleck.  Only, he recently pulled a paper down from his website claiming CDC vindicated him after realizing he didn't even understand the data he was citing from the CDC.  A great poster-boy for that side of the research aisle, eh?

You tried to use facts without citation, then felt vindicated because you did so.  Allow me to show you how to properly use facts in your argument.  I'll give you a hint: sites like Wikipedia can be useful, but only if you take the time to actually check that they've cited viable sources and you cite those sources when you use them.  Like this:

Hemenway, Harvard professor of Health Policy, in his 1997 paper analyzing Kleck's work and performing his own study on the issue:

"Two aspects of the K-G survey combine to create severe misestimation. The first is the likelihood of positive social desirability response, sometimes referred to as personal presentation bias. An individual who purchases a gun for self-defense and then uses it successfully to ward off a criminal is displaying the wisdom of his precautions and his capability in protecting himself, his loved ones, and his property. His action is to be commended and admired. Some positive social desirability response bias, by itself, might not lead to serious overestimation. However, combined with a second aspect of the survey-the attempt to estimate a very rare event-it does. The search for a "needle in a haystack" has major methodological dangers, especially where researchers try to extrapolate the findings to society as a whole. Until the K-G study, no one had estimated that even as many as 1% of adult civilians had used a gun in self-defense in the past year. Nevertheless, assume that the actual incidence is 1%. On average, for every 100 individuals asked a 'Yes/No" question about the event, ninety-nine 


Here's the all-important part when you try to use research facts to support your argument.  It's called the citation!  Here's mine: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=6936&context=jclc



Further support for the idea that DGU (defensive gun use) is abysmally low, this time from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

"In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender (table 11). This amounted to approximately 1% of all nonfatal violent victimizations in the 5-year period. The percentage of nonfatal violent victimizations involving firearm use in self defense remained stable at under 2% from 1993 to 2011 (not shown in table). In 2007-11, about 44% of victims of nonfatal violent crime offered no resistance, 1% attacked or threatened the offender with another type of weapon, 22% attacked or threatened without a weapon (e.g., hit or kicked), and 26% used nonconfrontational methods (e.g., yelling, running, hiding, or arguing)."

Here's the all-important citation: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf



As for my comments about how often legally-purchased guns fall into the hands of criminals, supporting the idea that more legal guns means more illegal guns, again directly from the government bureau responsible for collating this data nationwide:

"BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost almost one- third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts or burglaries from stores or other businesses."

Whoops, over a quarter million legally-owned guns fall into the hands of criminals each year, just from private homes!  He stares down the batter, here's the wind-up, and the citation!


https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/HVFSDAFT.PR

Thanks for playing, exit stage left.

Playing? You just proved everything I said.  Criminals will be criminals and  fear mongerers like you posting from bias anti gun websites as sources only helps our case.  So thank you.  

Recap of your desperation. 

Yep legally owned gun owners commit very few of gun crime...check I said that. 

Criminals do acquire guns any means necessary they are criminals.   Check I said that.  

Strict gun laws don't stop criminals look no further than Chicago.


http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/some-states-with-strictest-gun-laws-also-have-most-dangerous-cities

I would rather have a law abiding American in a restaurant with me you would rather sit in a safe space where guns are not allowed.  

 "Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 97.8% of attacks since 1950"

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/05/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

Please don't exit stage left please come back with more your rhetoric and copy/pasting from your alt-left anti gun propaganda sites.  It's so much fun to see how desperate you are getting.  

Are you dense?  I cited government data for two of the three sources, and a scholarly research article from a Harvard professor.  What alt-left anti gun propaganda site are you even referring to?  The shit you claim my "desperation" proved is literally baseless nonsense.

Yet I'm the one who's fear-mongering here. /Facepalm

EDIT- This internet fad where folks troll specifically about important social issues, like our dear frozen friend here, is a really shitty and dangerous trend.  I'll be glad to see the day it ends.

Frozenyearround

MadFrenchie said:

Frozenyearround said:

MadFrenchie said:

Frozenyearround said:

Instead of foaming at the mouth and spewing out name calling and rhetoric I will leave some facts for you.

It's a fact  that no more than 6 % of all murders were committed by someone with a legally purchased gun. 

 This gives you a maximum number around 880 per year, 5^% of murders, counting the 94 by CCW holders. 

You may not hear about it a lot because I'm sure the news you listen to or watch doesn't report it very often but fitting news today.

Last night In Oklahoma a criminal started shooting in a restaurant and a law abiding citizens with a legal gun killed the shooter before the shooter could kill anyone.  Im sure you would have rather that law abiding American with a legal  was not in that restaurant or wasn't allowed to carry the gun hmm?   You would have yourself another story to exploit.  

Now I could type in CAPS and *bold* but facts don't need all that extra garbage you need to throw on the screen to spew your rehtoric.  

I do appreciate the fear mongering and rhetoric those like you spew.  It keeps pushing more people further and further away from extreme ideology.   

Lol.

The poster boy for this idea that guns are great for self-defense is Kleck.  Only, he recently pulled a paper down from his website claiming CDC vindicated him after realizing he didn't even understand the data he was citing from the CDC.  A great poster-boy for that side of the research aisle, eh?

You tried to use facts without citation, then felt vindicated because you did so.  Allow me to show you how to properly use facts in your argument.  I'll give you a hint: sites like Wikipedia can be useful, but only if you take the time to actually check that they've cited viable sources and you cite those sources when you use them.  Like this:

Hemenway, Harvard professor of Health Policy, in his 1997 paper analyzing Kleck's work and performing his own study on the issue:

"Two aspects of the K-G survey combine to create severe misestimation. The first is the likelihood of positive social desirability response, sometimes referred to as personal presentation bias. An individual who purchases a gun for self-defense and then uses it successfully to ward off a criminal is displaying the wisdom of his precautions and his capability in protecting himself, his loved ones, and his property. His action is to be commended and admired. Some positive social desirability response bias, by itself, might not lead to serious overestimation. However, combined with a second aspect of the survey-the attempt to estimate a very rare event-it does. The search for a "needle in a haystack" has major methodological dangers, especially where researchers try to extrapolate the findings to society as a whole. Until the K-G study, no one had estimated that even as many as 1% of adult civilians had used a gun in self-defense in the past year. Nevertheless, assume that the actual incidence is 1%. On average, for every 100 individuals asked a 'Yes/No" question about the event, ninety-nine 


Here's the all-important part when you try to use research facts to support your argument.  It's called the citation!  Here's mine: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=6936&context=jclc



Further support for the idea that DGU (defensive gun use) is abysmally low, this time from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

"In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender (table 11). This amounted to approximately 1% of all nonfatal violent victimizations in the 5-year period. The percentage of nonfatal violent victimizations involving firearm use in self defense remained stable at under 2% from 1993 to 2011 (not shown in table). In 2007-11, about 44% of victims of nonfatal violent crime offered no resistance, 1% attacked or threatened the offender with another type of weapon, 22% attacked or threatened without a weapon (e.g., hit or kicked), and 26% used nonconfrontational methods (e.g., yelling, running, hiding, or arguing)."

Here's the all-important citation: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf



As for my comments about how often legally-purchased guns fall into the hands of criminals, supporting the idea that more legal guns means more illegal guns, again directly from the government bureau responsible for collating this data nationwide:

"BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost almost one- third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts or burglaries from stores or other businesses."

Whoops, over a quarter million legally-owned guns fall into the hands of criminals each year, just from private homes!  He stares down the batter, here's the wind-up, and the citation!


https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/HVFSDAFT.PR

Thanks for playing, exit stage left.

Playing? You just proved everything I said.  Criminals will be criminals and  fear mongerers like you posting from bias anti gun websites as sources only helps our case.  So thank you.  

Recap of your desperation. 

Yep legally owned gun owners commit very few of gun crime...check I said that. 

Criminals do acquire guns any means necessary they are criminals.   Check I said that.  

Strict gun laws don't stop criminals look no further than Chicago.


http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/some-states-with-strictest-gun-laws-also-have-most-dangerous-cities

I would rather have a law abiding American in a restaurant with me you would rather sit in a safe space where guns are not allowed.  

 "Mass Public Shootings keep occurring in Gun-Free Zones: 97.8% of attacks since 1950"

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/05/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

Please don't exit stage left please come back with more your rhetoric and copy/pasting from your alt-left anti gun propaganda sites.  It's so much fun to see how desperate you are getting.  

Are you dense?  I cited government data for two of the three sources, and a scholarly research article from a Harvard professor.  What alt-left anti gun propaganda site are you even referring to?  The shit you claim my "desperation" proved is literally baseless nonsense.

Yet I'm the one who's fear-mongering here. /Facepalm

EDIT- This internet fad where folks troll specifically about important social issues, like our dear frozen friend here, is a really shitty and dangerous trend.  I'll be glad to see the day it ends.

Haha the alt-left anti gun rhetoric that YOU are pushing on a video game site is the number one internet troll fad.  I agree when those like you who are clueless and just regurgitate what your masters tell  you to stop the world will be a better place. 

Dinasty

zenomex said:

kitarad said:

This is really great news. I am so glad they are finally going to put these  shits in prison.

Yeah because u never did something dumb or cruel when u were a kid. Let's throw away a life for it.

This is WAAAAY beyond "dumb" or "cruel".

I hope they get the death sentence or even better a life sentence so they can get butt pounded for decades. Then when that's said and done, I hope they burn in fucking hell.

Interitus

Just some personal thought.

The caller said the house was doused in gasoline.  While there might be more that the officer could do, with the information on hand they had to make very quick decisions.  While by no means do i support when the police get overzealous and take a life. This is more complicated because the police were running off false information.

This is not a silly prank gone wrong. This should not be dismissed as such. Multiple people took steps to do this swatting.  At any point any of them could have stopped and thought, hey, i shouldn't do this.  To simply try to brush off this behaviour is immature and shows the same lack of thought as the people who did this.  These people deserve the punishment being handed to them.

And lastly a family lost a a husband and father. That is the most important point. It's more important than ego in some game. We can disagree on how it was handled or who should be punished in which manner.  But the most important point is that an innocent man died and that fact shouldn't get lost in arguing.

Tiller

JeroKane said:

l2avism2 said:

kitarad said:

This is really great news. I am so glad they are finally going to put these  shits in prison.

This puts a giant spotlight on police brutality. Why does a confrontation between police and some nerd in a computer chair end with the death of the nerd?
This is why they are coming down hard on it.
They have been trying to desensitize law enforcement to the rights of the individuals they work with on a daily basis so that they won't question the government when the government passes laws that encroach on the rights granted to individuals by the constitution.
If the public becomes upset about police brutality, then the public will demand that the government respect peoples rights.
Most importantly, you have the right to not have the police enter your house without a warrant and shoot you in the head!

This wasn't the death of a Nerd, but an innocent father, who leaves behind a devastated family!

The intended Swatting target used to live on that address, but no longer lived there. Read the darn article.
This could have just easily been you or someone else innocent.

This prick deserves to be put away for life!

PS. I fully agree that police brutality in the US has become pretty scary. It's completely crazy that some lunatic can just call the police and get someone executed this easily. Why hire a professional hitman, when you can just call the police and let them do it for you! Crazy shit. Worse, that this police officer again just gets away with it.

"This is America" -Childish Gambino

Dakeru

Frozenyearround said:

If you have a problem with that come and take them.  The last time that side of the pond tried to come and take something  from Americans didn't work too well and won t work this time either.  

So now we are at the point where the weapon debate is an European war-like attempt to disarm the USA?

You Sir are not an honorable individual.

Grunty

This just in....  or out.  This guy has just been charged with making bomb threats to the FCC last year.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/24/politics/bomb-threat-fcc-december-charge/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+(RSS%253A+CNN+-+Most+Recent)

"Washington (CNN)A man previously charged over a police call that precipitated a deadly shooting has been charged with making a bomb threat to the Federal Communications Commission last year as it voted to repeal net neutrality.

The suspect, Tyler Raj Barriss, drew national attention late last year after police shot a man dead at his own home following a call that falsely claimed a hostage situation at the Wichita, Kansas, residence. Calling law enforcement and falsely claiming an ongoing emergency, such as a hostage situation, is known commonly as "swatting."

The Department of Justice announced Thursday that a federal grand jury in Washington had indicted Barriss, a 25-year-old Los Angeles resident, on two counts for bomb threats last year."

Frozenyearround

Dakeru said:

Frozenyearround said:

If you have a problem with that come and take them.  The last time that side of the pond tried to come and take something  from Americans didn't work too well and won t work this time either.  

So now we are at the point where the weapon debate is an European war-like attempt to disarm the USA?

You Sir are not an honorable individual.

Its Not a gun debate.  Its nice of you to cut my comment from the entire discussion.  But the person I was replying to said guns should be taken away from law abiding Americans.  That's not a debate or an option.  It doesn't matter if you are an American or a foreigner if you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens you will have a fight on your hands.  

Not including what I was replying to shows you are not an honorable individual...sir. 

Since you didn't want to post what I was replying to I'll leave it here for you.


"But more importantly

No 2. Ban guns, we don't have them on our side of the pond and we also have less people shot dead by police."

JeffSpicoli

.........

MadFrenchie

Frozenyearround said:

Dakeru said:

Frozenyearround said:

If you have a problem with that come and take them.  The last time that side of the pond tried to come and take something  from Americans didn't work too well and won t work this time either.  

So now we are at the point where the weapon debate is an European war-like attempt to disarm the USA?

You Sir are not an honorable individual.

Its Not a gun debate.  Its nice of you to cut my comment from the entire discussion.  But the person I was replying to said guns should be taken away from law abiding Americans.  That's not a debate or an option.  It doesn't matter if you are an American or a foreigner if you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens you will have a fight on your hands.  

Not including what I was replying to shows you are not an honorable individual...sir. 

Since you didn't want to post what I was replying to I'll leave it here for you.


"But more importantly

No 2. Ban guns, we don't have them on our side of the pond and we also have less people shot dead by police."

That's not at all what I was saying.  Very few people support the wholesale ban of firearms.

That's just the fear mongering of the NRA.

MrMelGibson

zenomex said:

kitarad said:

This is really great news. I am so glad they are finally going to put these  shits in prison.

Yeah because u never did something dumb or cruel when u were a kid. Let's throw away a life for it.

I rarely say it on this site, but you're a fucking idiot.

MadFrenchie

SedrynTyros said:

MadFrenchie said:

Are you dense?  I cited government data for two of the three sources, and a scholarly research article from a Harvard professor.  What alt-left anti gun propaganda site are you even referring to?  The shit you claim my "desperation" proved is literally baseless nonsense.

Yet I'm the one who's fear-mongering here. /Facepalm

EDIT- This internet fad where folks troll specifically about important social issues, like our dear frozen friend here, is a really shitty and dangerous trend.  I'll be glad to see the day it ends.

We live in a very unsettling time.  Evidence, data, facts ... those used to reliably matter to the public conscience.  Now, too many people disregard empirical information because it contradicts what they believe, even when those beliefs rest on nothing more than feelings and preferences ... or untested ideology .... hell, sometimes it's ideology that is demonstrably misguided.  

If you would have told me twenty years ago that the I'd live to see a day when factual information was dismissed as liberal bias by a significant percentage of the populous, I would have said you were bonkers to think such a thing is possible ... and yet, here we are.

I'm not sure where this road leads but I'll bet it's not to a good place.

It's gotten to the point where Americans are literally more frightened of the supposed Liberal/Conservative Boogeyman than they are of a hostile foreign government attempting to subvert our own government.  That's the scariest part of it.  If ever there was a time to hit us hard as a country, it's now.  It seems these days that half the country would assist Russia or another country in doing so (or at least remain ambivalent about it), because they've been trained to think that the opposite side of the ideological aisle is literally the root cause of all the country's problems (which sounds eerily familiar to a stance taken by a certain infamous leader back in the 40s to rally one group against another in his country).

And, all apologies @SBFord and the gang regarding the delving into politics, but we've gotten to a point now where you can't really separate politics and gaming cleanly anymore.  The bitching about "oh, the SJW in this game!", the Russian investigation involving a pretty well-known studio, lootbox monetization reaching the ears of lawmakers in multiple countries...  The world's becoming more and more interconnected, so it's hard to discuss one without delving into the realm of the other on some of these topics.

Frozenyearround

MadFrenchie said:

Frozenyearround said:

Dakeru said:

Frozenyearround said:

If you have a problem with that come and take them.  The last time that side of the pond tried to come and take something  from Americans didn't work too well and won t work this time either.  

So now we are at the point where the weapon debate is an European war-like attempt to disarm the USA?

You Sir are not an honorable individual.

Its Not a gun debate.  Its nice of you to cut my comment from the entire discussion.  But the person I was replying to said guns should be taken away from law abiding Americans.  That's not a debate or an option.  It doesn't matter if you are an American or a foreigner if you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens you will have a fight on your hands.  

Not including what I was replying to shows you are not an honorable individual...sir. 

Since you didn't want to post what I was replying to I'll leave it here for you.


"But more importantly

No 2. Ban guns, we don't have them on our side of the pond and we also have less people shot dead by police."

That's not at all what I was saying.  Very few people support the wholesale ban of firearms.

That's just the fear mongering of the NRA.

My comment you replied to was directed at the comment I quoted.  I respectfully agree to disagree with you on this topic.  No point in exceeding the character limit with us going back and forth because it's obvious we aren't going to change each others views.   

MadFrenchie

Frozenyearround said:

MadFrenchie said:

Frozenyearround said:

Dakeru said:

Frozenyearround said:

If you have a problem with that come and take them.  The last time that side of the pond tried to come and take something  from Americans didn't work too well and won t work this time either.  

So now we are at the point where the weapon debate is an European war-like attempt to disarm the USA?

You Sir are not an honorable individual.

Its Not a gun debate.  Its nice of you to cut my comment from the entire discussion.  But the person I was replying to said guns should be taken away from law abiding Americans.  That's not a debate or an option.  It doesn't matter if you are an American or a foreigner if you want to take guns away from law abiding citizens you will have a fight on your hands.  

Not including what I was replying to shows you are not an honorable individual...sir. 

Since you didn't want to post what I was replying to I'll leave it here for you.


"But more importantly

No 2. Ban guns, we don't have them on our side of the pond and we also have less people shot dead by police."

That's not at all what I was saying.  Very few people support the wholesale ban of firearms.

That's just the fear mongering of the NRA.

My comment you replied to was directed at the comment I quoted.  I respectfully agree to disagree with you on this topic.  No point in exceeding the character limit with us going back and forth because it's obvious we aren't going to change each others views.   

I can accept that.  We can agree to disagree.  I've seen your posts elsewhere, and I can tell from them that your responses here were merely you responding to something you feel strongly about.  I do, too.

You've engaged in fruitful discussions elsewhere on the site (making some points I agree with and some I don't, but they were all made rationally), so I have no reason to believe you actively sought the argument at this point, but merely that you saw a comment and responded.  I can dig that.  It's why we're here.

Good stuff.


EDIT- you're still wrong, though.

Frozenyearround

MadFrenchie said:

SedrynTyros said:

MadFrenchie said:

Are you dense?  I cited government data for two of the three sources, and a scholarly research article from a Harvard professor.  What alt-left anti gun propaganda site are you even referring to?  The shit you claim my "desperation" proved is literally baseless nonsense.

Yet I'm the one who's fear-mongering here. /Facepalm

EDIT- This internet fad where folks troll specifically about important social issues, like our dear frozen friend here, is a really shitty and dangerous trend.  I'll be glad to see the day it ends.

We live in a very unsettling time.  Evidence, data, facts ... those used to reliably matter to the public conscience.  Now, too many people disregard empirical information because it contradicts what they believe, even when those beliefs rest on nothing more than feelings and preferences ... or untested ideology .... hell, sometimes it's ideology that is demonstrably misguided.  

If you would have told me twenty years ago that the I'd live to see a day when factual information was dismissed as liberal bias by a significant percentage of the populous, I would have said you were bonkers to think such a thing is possible ... and yet, here we are.

I'm not sure where this road leads but I'll bet it's not to a good place.

It's gotten to the point where Americans are literally more frightened of the supposed Liberal/Conservative Boogeyman than they are of a hostile foreign government attempting to subvert our own government.  That's the scariest part of it.  If ever there was a time to hit us hard as a country, it's now.  It seems these days that half the country would assist Russia or another country in doing so (or at least remain ambivalent about it), because they've been trained to think that the opposite side of the ideological aisle is literally the root cause of all the country's problems (which sounds eerily familiar to a stance taken by a certain infamous leader back in the 40s to rally one group against another in his country).

And, all apologies @SBFord and the gang regarding the delving into politics, but we've gotten to a point now where you can't really separate politics and gaming cleanly anymore.  The bitching about "oh, the SJW in this game!", the Russian investigation involving a pretty well-known studio, lootbox monetization reaching the ears of lawmakers in multiple countries...  The world's becoming more and more interconnected, so it's hard to discuss one without delving into the realm of the other on some of these topics.

Oh come on I really was going to let this topic go but did you just compare those who support President Trump to Hitler and Nazis? 
And you are complaining about "being trained to think the opposite side of the aisle is the root cause of the countries problems." 

 The "Russian investigation " to date has zero evidence the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign "colluded " or conspired with the Russians.  What we are learning from the "Russian investigation " is there appears to be an effort by the previous administration to spy on an opposing Presidential Campaign.  The entire "Russian investigation " appears to have been started by a fictitious dossier that the DOJ, FBI knew was fake and paid for by the Clinton campaign.   This information was never relayed to the Fisa judge which by law should have been on all three fisa warrant request.  Now I'm going to guess you are perfectly fine with all of that because that's what your side "has trained you to believe".  

Those are the facts.  

MrMelGibson

I feel very sorry for the family, I hope justice will be served to their satisfaction.  

MrMelGibson

Frozenyearround said:

MadFrenchie said:

SedrynTyros said:

MadFrenchie said:

Are you dense?  I cited government data for two of the three sources, and a scholarly research article from a Harvard professor.  What alt-left anti gun propaganda site are you even referring to?  The shit you claim my "desperation" proved is literally baseless nonsense.

Yet I'm the one who's fear-mongering here. /Facepalm

EDIT- This internet fad where folks troll specifically about important social issues, like our dear frozen friend here, is a really shitty and dangerous trend.  I'll be glad to see the day it ends.

We live in a very unsettling time.  Evidence, data, facts ... those used to reliably matter to the public conscience.  Now, too many people disregard empirical information because it contradicts what they believe, even when those beliefs rest on nothing more than feelings and preferences ... or untested ideology .... hell, sometimes it's ideology that is demonstrably misguided.  

If you would have told me twenty years ago that the I'd live to see a day when factual information was dismissed as liberal bias by a significant percentage of the populous, I would have said you were bonkers to think such a thing is possible ... and yet, here we are.

I'm not sure where this road leads but I'll bet it's not to a good place.

It's gotten to the point where Americans are literally more frightened of the supposed Liberal/Conservative Boogeyman than they are of a hostile foreign government attempting to subvert our own government.  That's the scariest part of it.  If ever there was a time to hit us hard as a country, it's now.  It seems these days that half the country would assist Russia or another country in doing so (or at least remain ambivalent about it), because they've been trained to think that the opposite side of the ideological aisle is literally the root cause of all the country's problems (which sounds eerily familiar to a stance taken by a certain infamous leader back in the 40s to rally one group against another in his country).

And, all apologies @SBFord and the gang regarding the delving into politics, but we've gotten to a point now where you can't really separate politics and gaming cleanly anymore.  The bitching about "oh, the SJW in this game!", the Russian investigation involving a pretty well-known studio, lootbox monetization reaching the ears of lawmakers in multiple countries...  The world's becoming more and more interconnected, so it's hard to discuss one without delving into the realm of the other on some of these topics.

Oh come on I really was going to let this topic go but did you just compare those who support President Trump to Hitler and Nazis? 
And you are complaining about "being trained to think the opposite side of the aisle is the root cause of the countries problems." 

 The "Russian investigation " to date has zero evidence the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign "colluded " or conspired with the Russians.  What we are learning from the "Russian investigation " is there appears to be an effort by the previous administration to spy on an opposing Presidential Campaign.  The entire "Russian investigation " appears to have been started by a fictitious dossier that the DOJ, FBI knew was fake and paid for by the Clinton campaign.   This information was never relayed to the Fisa judge which by law should have been on all three fisa warrant request.  Now I'm going to guess you are perfectly fine with all of that because that's what your side "has trained you to believe".  

Those are the facts.  

Zero evidence Lol?  I guess all those indictments are just fake news.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury


You really should take your head out if the sand.

MadFrenchie

Frozenyearround said:

MadFrenchie said:

SedrynTyros said:

MadFrenchie said:

Are you dense?  I cited government data for two of the three sources, and a scholarly research article from a Harvard professor.  What alt-left anti gun propaganda site are you even referring to?  The shit you claim my "desperation" proved is literally baseless nonsense.

Yet I'm the one who's fear-mongering here. /Facepalm

EDIT- This internet fad where folks troll specifically about important social issues, like our dear frozen friend here, is a really shitty and dangerous trend.  I'll be glad to see the day it ends.

We live in a very unsettling time.  Evidence, data, facts ... those used to reliably matter to the public conscience.  Now, too many people disregard empirical information because it contradicts what they believe, even when those beliefs rest on nothing more than feelings and preferences ... or untested ideology .... hell, sometimes it's ideology that is demonstrably misguided.  

If you would have told me twenty years ago that the I'd live to see a day when factual information was dismissed as liberal bias by a significant percentage of the populous, I would have said you were bonkers to think such a thing is possible ... and yet, here we are.

I'm not sure where this road leads but I'll bet it's not to a good place.

It's gotten to the point where Americans are literally more frightened of the supposed Liberal/Conservative Boogeyman than they are of a hostile foreign government attempting to subvert our own government.  That's the scariest part of it.  If ever there was a time to hit us hard as a country, it's now.  It seems these days that half the country would assist Russia or another country in doing so (or at least remain ambivalent about it), because they've been trained to think that the opposite side of the ideological aisle is literally the root cause of all the country's problems (which sounds eerily familiar to a stance taken by a certain infamous leader back in the 40s to rally one group against another in his country).

And, all apologies @SBFord and the gang regarding the delving into politics, but we've gotten to a point now where you can't really separate politics and gaming cleanly anymore.  The bitching about "oh, the SJW in this game!", the Russian investigation involving a pretty well-known studio, lootbox monetization reaching the ears of lawmakers in multiple countries...  The world's becoming more and more interconnected, so it's hard to discuss one without delving into the realm of the other on some of these topics.

Oh come on I really was going to let this topic go but did you just compare those who support President Trump to Hitler and Nazis? 
And you are complaining about "being trained to think the opposite side of the aisle is the root cause of the countries problems." 

 The "Russian investigation " to date has zero evidence the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign "colluded " or conspired with the Russians.  What we are learning from the "Russian investigation " is there appears to be an effort by the previous administration to spy on an opposing Presidential Campaign.  The entire "Russian investigation " appears to have been started by a fictitious dossier that the DOJ, FBI knew was fake and paid for by the Clinton campaign.   This information was never relayed to the Fisa judge which by law should have been on all three fisa warrant request.  Now I'm going to guess you are perfectly fine with all of that because that's what your side "has trained you to believe".  

Those are the facts.  

The fact is, before Clinton campaign paid for anything, the Republicans paid for it.  Clinton campaign merely continued it once Trump won the primary and the Republican party no longer had use of it.

The dossier was not "faked," there are items in the dossier that have already proven true.  There are other items that have not been proven true.  They may not ever, but you're being disingenuous to say it was faked.

This idea that a previous administration planted someone in Trump's campaign for political gain is also facetious.  Really, the only person giving that route any cred at this point is Trump and whoever takes his Twitter account for gospel.

EDIT- Additional, the FISA warrants were filed correctly.  The Republican party released a statement trying to claim it wasn't, but once the Democratic forced the DOJ to reveal more (because they saw the full docs just as the Repubs did and knew the Republicans were cherry-picking), it became apparent that the judge was, in fact, made aware of where the information came from and who paid for the investigation that yielded that info.

But, according to our President, his own DOJ is plotting against him.  Paranoia is a dangerous thing.

Frozenyearround

MrMelGibson said:

Frozenyearround said:

MadFrenchie said:

SedrynTyros said:

MadFrenchie said:

Are you dense?  I cited government data for two of the three sources, and a scholarly research article from a Harvard professor.  What alt-left anti gun propaganda site are you even referring to?  The shit you claim my "desperation" proved is literally baseless nonsense.

Yet I'm the one who's fear-mongering here. /Facepalm

EDIT- This internet fad where folks troll specifically about important social issues, like our dear frozen friend here, is a really shitty and dangerous trend.  I'll be glad to see the day it ends.

We live in a very unsettling time.  Evidence, data, facts ... those used to reliably matter to the public conscience.  Now, too many people disregard empirical information because it contradicts what they believe, even when those beliefs rest on nothing more than feelings and preferences ... or untested ideology .... hell, sometimes it's ideology that is demonstrably misguided.  

If you would have told me twenty years ago that the I'd live to see a day when factual information was dismissed as liberal bias by a significant percentage of the populous, I would have said you were bonkers to think such a thing is possible ... and yet, here we are.

I'm not sure where this road leads but I'll bet it's not to a good place.

It's gotten to the point where Americans are literally more frightened of the supposed Liberal/Conservative Boogeyman than they are of a hostile foreign government attempting to subvert our own government.  That's the scariest part of it.  If ever there was a time to hit us hard as a country, it's now.  It seems these days that half the country would assist Russia or another country in doing so (or at least remain ambivalent about it), because they've been trained to think that the opposite side of the ideological aisle is literally the root cause of all the country's problems (which sounds eerily familiar to a stance taken by a certain infamous leader back in the 40s to rally one group against another in his country).

And, all apologies @SBFord and the gang regarding the delving into politics, but we've gotten to a point now where you can't really separate politics and gaming cleanly anymore.  The bitching about "oh, the SJW in this game!", the Russian investigation involving a pretty well-known studio, lootbox monetization reaching the ears of lawmakers in multiple countries...  The world's becoming more and more interconnected, so it's hard to discuss one without delving into the realm of the other on some of these topics.

Oh come on I really was going to let this topic go but did you just compare those who support President Trump to Hitler and Nazis? 
And you are complaining about "being trained to think the opposite side of the aisle is the root cause of the countries problems." 

 The "Russian investigation " to date has zero evidence the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign "colluded " or conspired with the Russians.  What we are learning from the "Russian investigation " is there appears to be an effort by the previous administration to spy on an opposing Presidential Campaign.  The entire "Russian investigation " appears to have been started by a fictitious dossier that the DOJ, FBI knew was fake and paid for by the Clinton campaign.   This information was never relayed to the Fisa judge which by law should have been on all three fisa warrant request.  Now I'm going to guess you are perfectly fine with all of that because that's what your side "has trained you to believe".  

Those are the facts.  

Zero evidence Lol?  I guess all those indictments are just fake news.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury


You really should take your head out if the sand.

Did you read the article or just click on the first far left website you found.  

Third paragraph of the article states:

"None of the charges against Americans or Trump advisers so far have directly alleged that they worked with Russia to interfere with the campaign."

The Trump advisors charges date back to pre campaign in some cases by ten years.  

Yeah clearly I'm not the one who needs to take his head out.