stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't wish to go through the pdf again. I posted an example of an inaccurate statement and then provided proof on why the statement was inaccurate. 2 dead and 5 injured via hand gun fire constitutes a mass shooting to me. Your source only regards mass shootings as those when 5 or more deaths occurred. A lot of their data is constricted.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't wish to go through the pdf again. I posted an example of an inaccurate statement and then provided proof on why the statement was inaccurate. 2 dead and 5 injured via hand gun fire constitutes a mass shooting to me. Your source only regards mass shootings as those when 5 or more deaths occurred. A lot of their data is constricted.

Weak sauce. Don't make me go digging for US statistics for firearm killings that included at least 2 killed and 5 injured. Just from 2006-2010 alone, USA TODAY identified 156 murders that met the FBI definitions of mass killings, where four or more people were killed. All told, the attacks killed 774 people, including at least 161 young children. I'd hate to see what less restrictive rules on what constitutes a mass killing does for our figures.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think it is perfectly reasonable to proclaim that in absence of high powered guns that some disturbed individuals who would commit a mass shooting would turn to other means outside of guns to do as much damage as possible. Bombs were what came readily to mind. Do you not agree? If so, then why not? Why is my statement so unreasonable?

It's what you accused me of earlier. An inherently flawed what-if argument.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Weak sauce. Don't make me go digging for US statistics for firearm killings that included at least 2 killed and 5 injured. Just from 2006-2010 alone, USA TODAY identified 156 murders that met the FBI definitions of mass killings, where four or more people were killed. All told, the attacks killed 774 people, including at least 161 young children. I'd hate to see what less restrictive rules on what constitutes a mass killing does for our figures.

Sorry to disappoint, but this conversation is becoming old for me as all I am doing is moderating and not even arguing my opinions on the matter. I am much more interested on discerning what pick-up lines have the highest probability of success on targeted female audiences.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's what you accused me of earlier. An inherently flawed what-if argument.

Not quite. Mine was an extrapolation on the mentality of a psychopath given certain constraints. It is also observed often and can be noted by the saying "there is more than one way to skin a cat." Your argument was changing the past of a very specific instance and using the difference between the divined results and the actual results as the basis for your argument. Do you see the difference?

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not quite. Mine was an extrapolation on the mentality of a psychopath given certain constraints. It is also observed often and can be noted by the saying "there is more than one way to skin a cat." Your argument was changing the past of a very specific instance and using the difference between the divined results and the actual results as the basis for your argument. Do you see the difference?

I didn't change the past of the Monash shooting. It wasn't a mass murder. It was an attempted mass-murder that was stopped because the shooter had to reload. Something he wouldn't have needed to do with assault style weapons.

If you're then saying that the Childers fire was an example of "more than one way to skin a cat", you don't understand the crime or the motivation. The idiot didn't even intend on killing anyone.

Justice Peter Dutney, who sentenced Long at Brisbane's Supreme Court, said it was the worst case of arson in Queensland history.

He said: "I'm happy to concede you had no intent to kill but death was such an inevitability in the circumstances that to light those fires displays callousness and cruelty that is hard to imagine."