USA - One person shot every 5.2 minutes

hey will racist:

Where did you get your statistics because they are bullshit

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n4/v7n4_3price.pdf

(unfortunatly this document doesnt alow copy privlages DAMIT)

Anglo Celtic decent has fallen from 90% in 1947 to 74.5% in 1988 and 70% in 1999 with a prediction of 62.2% in 2025

there is a lovly graph which breaks this down further but the highlights:

69.88 Anglo Celtic
6.88 Northen Eroupe
6.96 Southen Eroupe
4.36 Easten Eroupe
2.46 West Asia and North Africa
1.31 South Asia
2.54 South East Asia
ect

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

of course those are out of date because the study was in 99

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From the Australian Bureau of Statistics, my man. But since you came here with your own:

69.88 Anglo Celtic (white)
6.88 Northern Europe (white)
6.96 Southern Europe (pretty white)
4.36 Eastern Europe (white)
+___________________________

= 88% plus 1% for Jews in that article that you didn't mention = 89%,

Which is 3 percentage points away from my alternate source with the lower limit of 92%. I think the bottom line is clear: the preeminent race in Australia is white European, as is the case with European countries themselves.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Serious question: do you purposefully spell everything wrong?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

notice you say you quote the ABS but dont bother to actually LINK to your claims, what you got to hide Mr Racist?

 

goody.

 

Hi, horses pull carts. There's a clue for you. Clearly Vermont has not felt it necessary to enact stricter gun laws because the populace are law abiding. End of story.

It was a different story in New York, stricter regulations were made, and crime dropped.

You need to get which action follows what, don't you?

 

not exactly.

 

So the problem is the number of racists in the USA, not the races?

I provided two, and I could offer more, like London, Manchester, Birmingham, Coventry, Luton, ....

Hmmm, let's cover off some of your ignorance, the white 'bland' portion of the stats all looks the same to you? The fact that the whites comprise of English, Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish. The Welsh have their own language, road signs are in Welsh, it's like a different country. We are not all the same, despite being 'white'.

Culturally integrated? Wow, you do like to paint in broad strokes. I live here, have direct experience of the place, and I wouldn't say that. You have no experience, and for some reason, think we all skip along in unison. A couple of miles from my house is an Asian enclave, it's like walking down a street on the sub-continent. They have their own community for the large part, mix amongst themselves. The younger generation mix more, granted, but the older members of the families in many cases do not speak English.

You keep saying that, but how did our Asian immigrants manage to integrate so seemlessly (as you seem to be maintaining) when the majority arrived in the 50's and 60's?

Odd, because our other colony, Australia, is in broad agreement with us on many issues. Just why is America full of racists then?

 

So this proves that gun violence has nothing to do with the number of guns or the availability of guns ...it just proves what most gun advocates have been saying for umpty-eleven years - guns don't commit crimes, people do!

So, Phlog, in New York City, or other similar places, instead of enacting new laws restricting gun ownership, why not enact new laws to make people obey the laws like people do in Vermont?

I mean, think about it ...if you think people will suddenly obey your proposed new gun laws, then why wouldn't they obey the new law that says that they should all obey the old laws?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So New Yorkers weren't obeying the existing laws, so the city enacted more laws for the New Yorkers to disobey??? Why not enact laws that make people obey the old laws? ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

How many of those people pulling the trigger are men? Wouldn't it be easier to outlaw men?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hey, Orleander, the REASON most men pull the trigger is BECAUSE of some damned woman!! So .......let's outlaw women!

Oops, wait ...if we were to do that, who'd clean up the cave and keep cold beer on hand?? Oh, damn, see .....we're right back to the same thing!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

Oh, a witty man like yourself would find some cute little fancy pants man to <cough, cough> clean his cave.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Max, what are the gun crime stats for Vermont, wrt the rest of the USA? I think you need some data before you can go making assumptions, ...

 

All I can say is as long as the Kill rate is above the Birth rate you will not go extinct anytime soon.

 

I was just responding to your comment ...having nothing to do with statistics or anything else. Take a moment, read what you wrote, then read what I wrote. Hopefully it'll all make sense to you ....without regard to stats, etc.

Baron Max

 

The appropriate circumstance is a tyrranical government where the politicians use the cops to oppress you.

That you roofuckers can't discuss the gun question without constantly invoking racial slurs like "redneck" illustrates what a nasty, chauvinist culture you possess. But, then, what can you expect from an island full of inbred, alcoholic criminals? I guess that living on an island full of rednecks with faggy accents tends to make you sensitive to other varieties of hick.

Heck, I'm beginning to think it's better that y'all are disarmed, even if you are already confined to an isolated island.

Obviously.

Violence is only a legitimate part of the political process when the government has become tyrranical and is using it against you in the first place.

And as far as that goes, John Wilkes Boothe was and is considered a hero by certain segments of the vanquished South. Lincoln did employ considerable violence against them, after all.

The courts? No, by the time you're using violence, the point is to overthrow the government, not have it legitimate you. If you end up in a court, you expect to be martyred.

 

:bravo:
he usually says yankee, not redneck, so I think he's devolving :shrug:

 

The haughtiness of your tone is undermined by the cheapness of your tactics.

That's great. The vast majority of Americans and Australians consider hunting to be both morally and legally legitimate. Thus, it is held to be both morally and legally legitimate to possess guns for this purpose.

So all these lectures about what a great job Australian gun legislation has done; those were, what? Criticisms?

For less than one generation. Call me back when you've been at it for, say, 200 years. Or when your currency no longer features a portrait of a hereditary European monarch. Either way.

Congratulations on removing the oath of fealty to the Crown from your citizenship pledge, though. Unless Canada does likewise, I'll be moving to Australia if the shit ever really hits the fan in the US.

And plenty that are highly unfree and have even stricter gun laws. And still others that are free and have liberal gun laws.

It's starting to look like the sort of question that can't be definitively answered in a single sentence, no?

Sorry, do you imagine that repetition of your thesis amounts to a compelling argument?

See above.

You seem unaware that playing dumb and talking down to someone are mutually exclusive tactics.

See above.

Not quite that many. So?

I'm beginning to wonder what you think "redneck" means. Bush voter? Republican? Anyone who thinks that people should be legally allowed to own guns for any reason?

And shouldn't I be looking inside gated communities for these rich rednecks? Isn't that where rich people live, in the United States?

Also, it's fairly bizarre how you keep insisting I live in a gated community. What do you imagine this accomplishes?

Apparently not. Honestly I'd thought you'd wise up and stop responding after my previous post, where I explicated my approach, but apparently the conjecture about the ease of controlling you through provocation was sounder than I'd realized.

That's cute.

My mistake: you introduced that particular slur directly, in your own speech.

Exactly. Patting one another on the back for your moral superiority to America - particularly when it comes to guns - is a basic plank of the Anglophile inferiority complex. The tyrant who banished your criminal ancestors to the far end of the world strove mightily to instill such reactionary sentiments into his subjects in the wake of the American Revolution; after all, can't have the peasants identifying with free men who rule themselves. This mental deformity is most evident in Canada, where it necessarily formed the basis of the national identity. But it shows up every place English speakers still lack the sack to become Republics.

Did I say I thought that?

And yet you persist. What sort of example does that set?

Yes on both counts.

Your assessment is hollow, and so I dismiss it. It is of course your prerogative if you don't want to back up your assertions with anything, but where's the credibility in empty bluster?

http://www.slate.com/id/2232563/

Meh, it's basically the same as in Britain and much of Europe. Media outlets are partisan, journalists are political advocates, and this is accepted because its presumed everyone knows the game and there are enough outlets to balance out the story.

And it's easy enough to see this stuff in coverage of international issues that I'm already familiar with.

Right. You have stuff like The Age instead, to cater to your particular chauvinisms (Americans are diseased slaves, rednecks, etc., while Australians are enlightened supermen).

Created and run by an Australian aristocrat. Sure, he got citizenship, but that's only because we don't allow foreigners to own major media outlets here.

And that was the point: you have an Australian aristocrat selling Australian-style political journalism to an unsuspecting American audience, and supporting political causes that you hate. You should be furious at your fellow countryman for undermining you this way.

Not what I said.

They do when they occur as a result of failure to follow safe gun storage laws designed to prevent accidents. Which many of them do; essentially all of them, in Australia.

But more to the point, the term "domestic shooting" connotes a domestic dispute that escalates to the point of gunfire, and not an accidental discharge. Try to be clearer, if you expect to be understood.

Who cares what the "primary cause" is? Do you dispute that the large shared borders have a serious impact on questions of enforcement? If not, that's an awfully weak way of backing down. If so, that's an awfully cheap evasion.

The assumption is that your ego is big enough that you cannot resist responding to provocations, and also brittle enough that such responses will be insubstantive defenses that further debase the exchange. This allows any attentive provocateur to control you, by derailing you into long flails of chauvinism, condescension, slur and other obvious, ugly modes of compensation. Not a precedent I'd want to set, if I were you.

It has nothing to do with me personally, note. I am quite confident that many of my lessers could easily replicate the feat. To the extent I take any pride, it's in explicating the technique pubicly, and effectively enough that it works even when I tell you exactly what I'm doing. The hope is that others will heed this demonstration, and so stymie your bad behavior.

Of course not me personally. The world obviously revolves around the United States of America. It's the only thing anyone talks about on SciForums. But since I get to play avatar for America in your little theater of insecurity, it works out about the same.

Wow. Not even a hint of irony there.

Then stop using dishonest, bad-faith rhetorical techniques. You are going to great pains to avoid addressing serious questions. Who do you think you're fooling? Yourself, apparently?

And there you have it: I tell you, outright, what the scheme is, pratically daring you to ignore me, but your entire focus is on responding with a condescending personal aspersion. As if I cared what you think of me :]

 

Only 5.2 min, that no as bad as I thought it was.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!