scratch-mark

Physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson Derails My Post About Barry Obama the Trojan Horse

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 4.05.30 PM

It’s true. I have a post in draft about how our president is an unwitting Trojan Horse. Now, you’ll have to wait for my astute insight into that meta-meme I’m going to float.

This got my boxers in a bunch: Instead of arguing about guns on Twitter, Neil deGrasse Tyson just laid out the numbers.

As a world-famous scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson is known for his dispassionate embrace of cold, hard facts…

…which makes him the right person to address a controversial topic: the abnormally high number of Americans who die from gun violence.

Yesterday afternoon, he composed three tweets where he laid out the numbers.

And they’re sobering.

Oh, they’re sobering, alright.

1.4 Million: Americans who died in all Wars fought since 1776.

1.4 Million: Americans who died via household Guns since 1968

400,000: Americans who died fighting in World War II.

400,000: Americans who died by household Firearms since 2001

3,400: Americans who died by Terrorism since 2001

3,400: Americans who died by household Firearms since five weeks ago.

I’m not going to quibble with the numbers as presented. Because it doesn’t matter. It’s a scale thing, because Neil left off a statistic, see. He cherry picked the data in order to advance the narrative he wanted to advance. I guess it was his day off as a scientist.

Between 1900 and 2000, 262,000,000, that’s 262 Million—dwarfing his highest statistic by a factor of 187 (see why I didn’t quibble with his numbers?)—non-combatants, died at the hands of governments on planet earth. It’s all documented by Professor R.J. Rummel, University of Hawaii, as a sort of life’s work I’ve followed for years.

Coincidentally, all of those governments exercised strong gun control for citizens and most typically, outright bans.

I am not going to excuse Neil deGrasse Tyson, and neither should you. Here’s how I put it on Facebook.

Hey Neil deGrasse Tyson, you cocksucker establishment pawn, now. You forgot a statistic. 0 of the 262,000,000 non-combatants killed in government genocide, cleansing, and social “justice” between 1900 and 2000 were Americans on American soil.

Care to proffer one cogent variable as to why that might be, you stupid moron, so locked in your own politicized narrative that your high learning has become a force for evil, which is to endarken, rather than enlighten people?

Stick to the telespope, fucker. Or, fetch my mail. Either one is fine.

…Well, he could also take out my trash…

I mean it. It is inexcusable on two levels. Either he’s not a decent scientist, which is bad, or he’s an establishment pawn using his prestige to advance political agendas with a veil of “science,” which is not only bad, but darkly evil, as it corrupts science.

He should be roundly taken to account for this.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

79 Comments

  1. Steven Richards on December 8, 2015 at 16:53

    When’s the last time you or RJ Rummel spoke with this ‘governments’ fella/lady?

    • Richard Nikoley on December 8, 2015 at 17:12

      Pertinence?



    • Steven Richards on December 9, 2015 at 08:34

      If you’re accusing him or her of killing, do you think it’s pertinent to discuss the matter with him or her?



    • Richard Nikoley on December 9, 2015 at 08:47

      Now you’re being obtuse and needlessly flippant, which I suspect you know.

      There are solid contexts in which to make a distinction between the acts of organizations and the acts of individualts operating within such organizations.

      This isn’t one of them.



    • Steven Richards on December 9, 2015 at 12:46

      If by ‘you’, you’re referring to me, what makes you think I ‘know’ anything? 😉

      How’s the not ‘making’ a so called distinction in this so called context, thing working for you, brother?



    • Richard Nikoley on December 9, 2015 at 13:03

      I’m not playing word games with you.



  2. Another John on December 8, 2015 at 20:02

    Bad ass post Richard. This dude is a known shill for the latest media meme, every time I see his name its some sort of propaganda.

    Its amazing how little those tragic slaughters by government are ever taught or spoken about in the context of history, other than the Nazis everyone’s favorite punching bag. Awesome site that is going on my favorites.

  3. Steven on December 8, 2015 at 20:21

    Bill Nye is another scum bag.

    I gave up on this POS years ago when he started getting political. I knew from his first utterances that he was a ridged unthinking “thinker”.

    The funniest thing is… with out the threat of a gun from our government overlords most of his research would never have happened. He is a giant welfare whore at our expense.

    • John on December 9, 2015 at 13:34

      “Bow Tie wearing elementary science teacher now expert on all things political.”

      I wonder if Mr. Wizard would rip him a new one?

      It must be that Nye has instant credibility with people who think “I loved that guy when I was 5 he is so spot on this current issue!”



  4. David Seng on December 9, 2015 at 05:11

    I wanted to listen to his podcast last year — I had to stop after three or four. It is poisoned with so much ‘looter speak’ especially by ‘Bill Nye the Socialist Guy’. In one of the few I listened to Tyson actually called Nye a communist and they all just laughed. A “Stadler’s Den” if you ask me…. (I am just finishing my first reading of Atlas Shrugged, the parallels with these days are astonishing, and why this comment is littered with references to it.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_Shrugged_characters#Dr._Robert_Stadler

  5. Skateman on December 9, 2015 at 05:25

    You’re a moron if you think your puny guns are going to stop a modern government with modern weapons.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 9, 2015 at 08:22

      I’ll leave it for others to characterize the mental state of someone who apparently unsterstands neither what the argument is, nor what deterrence means and how it works.



    • Skateman on December 9, 2015 at 09:54

      Neither they nor their drones will be deterred by your AR-15.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 9, 2015 at 10:05

      Still don’t undersand the nature of deterrance.

      OK then. I’m not your daddy.



    • Steven on December 9, 2015 at 09:15

      Are you one of those “pee your pants to stop a rapist” types?

      I look at those crazies in the Middle East with there old guns, lack of training and lack of tactical war knowledge. Somehow they manage to fend off the likes of the US an Russia.

      Meh, my guess your a coward. Plain and simple.



    • Skateman on December 9, 2015 at 10:01

      Are you one of those, “I need a gun to stop people from raping me while I pee my pants” types? That’s surprising given how tough you are on the Internet.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 9, 2015 at 13:42

      “That’s surprising given how tough you are”

      Who are you talking to, fool?



    • Steven on December 9, 2015 at 13:17

      Ah yes, dodge away.

      You never even bothered to try and explain away what those crazy Arabs with sticks, stones and old guns are capable of doing.

      Guess you lost the internet today. You went straight in to derp territory.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 9, 2015 at 14:19

      That’s right, Steven.

      You will always find this with those who come in with their cocksure narrative, a few cherry-picked stats in a few memes they saw, but they never put it to the test.

      The giveaway is how they almost always post in 1-2 sentence jabs.

      What they are actually doing is exposing the fact that they just got a little grain of doubt about all that cock-assuredness, gif-meme, and the echo chamber they’re used to.

      Props to you for not bothering to elaborate. He doesn’t deserve it and you want to keep your pearls for those who do.



  6. Skateman on December 9, 2015 at 11:24

    The question of gun vs. no-gun is a red herring. What we’re debating here is the level of weaponry that strikes a balance between societal safety and someone’s right to defend themselves from others and, hypothetically, their government, though I argue this latter point is less relevant in modern developed democracies due to their political stability and the fact that govt. weaponry is so much more powerful than it has been in the past.

    We can all agree that a knife isn’t particularly dangerous for society as a whole. On the other hand, I suspect we can also all agree that it’s not a good idea for howitzers to be sold at Wal-Mart. Figuring out an acceptable level of weaponry between those two points is really where this debate lies.

    I’m not anti-gun. But I also don’t think it’s a good idea for people to have access to a weapon that can wipe out a room full of people in a matter of seconds. I think that from a risk standpoint, my likelihood of being killed by a criminal or crazy person with a gun – in the modern U.S.A. – is far greater than from the rise of a totalitarian government. Accordingly, I’d like to see a ban on semi-automatic rifles/handguns and very, very strict regulations (full background checks) on guns that can be easily hidden like revolvers.

    • Richard Nikoley on December 9, 2015 at 12:57

      “But I also don’t think it’s a good idea for people to have access to a weapon that can wipe out a room full of people in a matter of seconds.”

      Who gives a shit what you don’t think?

      We were well aware of that already.



    • Steven on December 9, 2015 at 13:19

      How about lets not be more like Europe and all of the gun free zones. Those places are dangerous…

      http://hypeline.org/mass-shootings/

      Imagine that the USofA has fewer mass attacks than half of Europe….

      derp-a-derp-a-derp-a-derp….



    • Skateman on December 10, 2015 at 07:37

      If you don’t care what people think you shouldn’t have a comment section. Perhaps you only care what people think so long as they agree with you? Congrats. You’ll have (and already basically have) a monolithic site full of people making the same asinine comments as those at Breitbart, redstate, etc. Is your purpose to continue to learn new things based on new information/ideas or to just be a loud/foul mouthed know-it-all blogger with a bunch of sycophantic commenters?

      Your nutritional analyses are actually interesting. Your political screeds, however, are just barely above the level of a Fox News zombie at Thanksgiving dinner and are frankly boring.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 08:55

      “If you don’t care what people think you shouldn’t have a comment section.”

      To give others the opportunity to laf at you and make you look like a fool, of course.

      And, of course, just like any typical leftist, always telling people what to do. Always exposing their insecurity; that others can actually dismiss or reject their wonderful ideas and still get along just fine. Leftists hate that.

      “Your nutritional analyses are actually interesting. Your political screeds, however, are just barely above the level of a Fox News zombie at Thanksgiving dinner and are frankly boring.”

      Which is your problem. Rather than do the smart thing and figure out why you tend to embrace one, while reflexively getting your nickers in a bunch over the other, you automatically conclude it’s my problem of inconsistency rather than the fact that so far, you only think in compartments, rational in some, irrational and cognitively dissonant in others.



    • Skateman on December 10, 2015 at 10:57

      I don’t think you’re inconsistent. I think you’re

      1) Correct on the iron hypothesis
      2) Correct on your analysis of the death cult that the Muslim religion has morphed into.

      But I don’t think you present as compelling a case on grains or guns. On guns, I simply disagree that an armed populace would deter a modern government with modern weapons from totalitarianism. The examples you site – Germany, Cambodia, China, etc., all occurred in the days before drones, robotics, thermal imaging, etc (and in countries lacking America’s long history of democracy and freedom). The equation has now changed. So if that’s your justification I don’t find it particularly compelling. Moreover, you haven’t addressed the question of the level of weaponry. When the Constitution was written semi-automatic weapons didn’t exist. Guns didn’t have nearly the destructive capacity that they do today. Does this have no bearing on the matter? What if guns continue to technologically evolve to the point where they become as powerful as modern artillery? Should everyone still have easy access to such weapons?

      In my job people disagree with me all day long. I’m used to it. However, there’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and pointing to evidence as bolstering their case vs. simply telling people who disagree with you that you don’t care what they think, they’re a fucktard, a cunt, they’re stupid, whatever. Obviously, you have every right to do that. I just wonder what the point of even having a comment section is if that’s going to be your approach.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 11:07

      You don’t understand.

      I don’t give a runny shit what you think because you aren’t worth my time, and the only reason I’m even bothering now is object lesson for others.

      For example, you’re just a dismissible Piers Moron, once again:

      https://www.facebook.com/richard.nikoley/posts/205412329791175

      I don’t have time to fix your defects, and I don’t give a shit. Keep posting. It’s useful for all the others.



    • Skateman on December 10, 2015 at 11:25

      So eventually we’re all going to be carrying around modern artillery in our pockets. Sounds like a great plan, Richard.



    • John on December 10, 2015 at 08:43

      Skateman,

      After 2.5 paragraphs of baseless theorizing, you talk about your “thoughts” on risk and the measures you’d like to take against the interest of others, to “fix” the problems you developed in your mind.

      This new comment, again, contributes nothing meaningful, except to reveal that you are still not thinking critically.

      This issue is particularly interesting, because ignoring the constitutional issue and what it represents regarding freedom, the evidence is overwhelmingly against gun regulation being beneficial. This may be why the comments are full of “sycophants” linking studies and analyses, and the gun control advocates bringing rhetoric.



    • Skateman on December 10, 2015 at 11:16

      There used to be plenty of people who disagreed with Richard. But call enough people stupid, fucktards, and cunts, and, ironically, that’s all you’re left with.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 11:34

      “But call enough people stupid, fucktards, and cunts, and, ironically, that’s all you’re left with.”

      With you as singular dispensation.

      Oh, how tough everyone has it here. If ONLY they had your enlightenment, saw the error of their ways.

      Leftist handbook.



    • Skateman on December 10, 2015 at 11:37

      Everyone who disagrees with you isn’t a leftist.

      “If ONLY they had your enlightenment, saw the error of their ways.”

      Project much?



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 11:41

      “Everyone who disagrees with you isn’t a leftist.”

      And more leftist handbook. 100% rhetorical, painting with broad strokes, pretending like you’re making distinctions by making classifications and categories, instead of actually bringing any real argument to the table.



    • Skateman on December 10, 2015 at 11:47

      You’ve made zero argument in these comments. You merely attack the messenger. In the body of your post, your entire argument can be boiled down to “guns deter totalitarian governments.” This is neither a new nor original idea. I question whether that argument is relevant in the modern USA. You have no interest in exploring this issue because the conclusions might run counter to your ideology.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 11:52

      “You’ve made zero argument in these comments.”

      I do not tolerate liars in my living room. Above is the last comment you will ever post here, unless you come to me groveling and I get weak and decide to issue a temporary dispensation.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 11:36

      “So eventually we’re all going to be carrying around modern artillery in our pockets. Sounds like a great plan, Richard.”

      Purposefully obtuse, hyperbolic, explicitly avoids, evades, and exposes his inability to deal with the actual truth of the matter.

      Leftist handbook.



    • John on December 10, 2015 at 12:15

      Man he ignored my comment and it was the rare time I was able to display how someone is being an idiot in less than 1000 words!

      But that was part of the point I was making so . . .



    • John on December 10, 2015 at 13:04

      “The question of alcohol vs. no-alcohol is a red herring. What we’re debating here is the level of alcohol that strikes a balance between societal safety and someone’s right to drink, though I argue this latter point is less relevant in modern developed democracies due to their political stability and the fact that alcohol is so much more powerful than it has been in the past.

      We can all agree that a beer isn’t particularly dangerous for society as a whole. On the other hand, I suspect we can also all agree that it’s not a good idea for moonshine to be sold at Wal-Mart. Figuring out an acceptable level of alcohol between those two points is really where this debate lies.

      I’m not anti-alcohol. But I also don’t think it’s a good idea for people to have access to a alcohol that can wipe out a room full of people in a matter of seconds. I think that from a risk standpoint, my likelihood of being killed by a criminal or crazy person drunk – in the modern U.S.A. – is far greater than from the rise of a totalitarian government. Accordingly, I’d like to see a ban on 80+ proof spirits and very, very strict regulations (full background checks) on containers that can be easily hidden like flasks.”

      Look at how strong my pro-prohibition arguments are!

      I barely brushed on how ANYONE can just walk into a store with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS!!! and buy enough alcohol to ensure they have no memory of the drive home to beat their spouse to death! Common sense prohibition plz!

      https://mises.org/library/gun-control-fashionable-prohibition-modern-lawmakers



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 13:26

      “Man he ignored my comment and it was the rare time I was able to display how someone is being an idiot in less than 1000 words!”

      It’s quite common with leftists. They generally don’t know how to engage in an argument that diverges from the talking points and what they expect to hear from the robotic right.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 14:03

      “Look at how strong my pro-prohibition arguments are!”

      Oh my.



    • Eric on December 10, 2015 at 19:14

      “I also don’t think it’s a good idea for people to have access to a alcohol that can wipe out a room full of people in a matter of seconds.”

      John, I assume you realize how ridiculous it is to substitute one noun for another and call it a day, as if the characteristics of the first noun just carry over.



    • John on December 10, 2015 at 19:18

      Eric,

      Holy fucking shit.

      -John



    • Eric on December 10, 2015 at 19:37

      John- I actually agree with you, but that doesn’t make your specific argument here any less shitty. And I’m loathe to let a shitty argument stand, especially when you thought you were preaching to the choir and could get away with it.



    • John on December 10, 2015 at 20:32

      Yes after I link articles, data, and analysis throughout this comment thread, rip arguments up, and finish the destruction by swapping words in someone’s bullshit to reveal how ridiculous it is, you come in to call my argument shitty because of one sentence, and accuse me of subbing nouns and calling it a day.

      And the sentence makes sense for the intended purpose.

      So, again, holy fucking shit.



    • Eric on December 10, 2015 at 21:05

      I said your *specific* argument was shitty. And no, it didn’t make sense. That’s what made it shitty. Jesus Christ.



    • John on December 10, 2015 at 21:39

      Ok look,

      Alcohol is intoxicating. Potentially dangerous and contributes to lots of deaths. You can buy it in mass quantities and if you bring it in a room and everyone drinks it in mass quantities, they could be “wiped out.” Everyone who reads the sentence “the room of people drank so much they were all wiped out” would know exactly what was meant.

      That is one way to read it.

      Another way to read it is that it seems like a ridiculous basis for “alcohol control” though it is plausible that this could lead to harm.

      And frankly, that is my favorite sentence because of the play on words.



  7. Nathan on December 9, 2015 at 11:46

    Yes, he’s just another who has totally torched his credibility with his patently political nonsense dressed up as “science.” (see also: global warming/climate change or whatever they’re using lately to fear monger and maneuver for more govt power). Despicable.

  8. Amy on December 9, 2015 at 13:36

    I actually kind of like it when Obummer starts talking about gun control because that just provokes people into buying more of ’em.

    However, what we keep forgetting to gnaw on, hard and often, is that these goons are effecting a lot of backdoor gun control by having the gubmint buy up all the available ammo. It’s a lot harder and more expensive to get ammo now than it was eight years ago. Usually the shelves are picked clean at my local Walmart, every time I walk by the ammo case. Without bullets my rifle is just a pretty’d up baseball bat.

    I think they keep talking about banning actual guns to keep us distracted from the fact that there isn’t a lot of ammo available with which to make the guns effective, and the price keeps going up on what is available.

    Anyway, beautiful little FB rant to NDT, Richard. 🙂

    • John on December 9, 2015 at 13:42

      freedommunitions.com

      Typically the lowest price anywhere for new ammo (they sell new and reman), shipped to your door. Free shipping on your first order. 5-10% off all the time on various calibers.



    • John on December 9, 2015 at 13:52

      Also, here you can compare prices

      http://ammoseek.com/

      And here you can see what is in stock at Wal-Mart



    • Amy on December 9, 2015 at 15:06

      Thanks, John, I’ll check it out!



    • David Seng on December 9, 2015 at 14:04

      I like it… the “Streisand Effect”… as applied to guns.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 9, 2015 at 14:42

      Ha ha. I hadn’t thought about the Streisand Effect in forever.

      So, just for fun.

      https://www.facebook.com/richard.nikoley/posts/205553286443746



    • Richard Nikoley on December 9, 2015 at 14:28

      “I actually kind of like it when Obummer starts talking about gun control because that just provokes people into buying more of ’em.”

      I think it’s universally true that Obama is now the top gun salesman of all time. Saw a stat the other day that Black Friday brought 185,000 background checks for new purchases. A big record.

      Anyway, I did lots of rants on FB this morning, but this one:

      https://www.facebook.com/richard.nikoley/posts/205501723115569?pnref=story

      Led me to do a little gun safety course for revolvers on video:

      https://youtu.be/G9Ny9zDeQXU



  9. Beans McGrady on December 9, 2015 at 14:09

    Did you misspell his name in the title intentionally?

    • Richard Nikoley on December 9, 2015 at 15:53

      Given the misspelling, I sure wish I could claim that I had.



    • Beans McGrady on December 9, 2015 at 19:03

      That is why I asked, could have gone either way.



  10. CTH on December 9, 2015 at 14:31

    “I’m not going to quibble with the numbers as presented”
    Probably because they are correct… What I am going to do is come with another number which is completely unrelated to what was being discussed (gun violence in America).

    • Rob Turner on December 9, 2015 at 15:14

      It’s called the straw man argument.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 9, 2015 at 15:50

      Bullshit, both of you.

      You know very well the relationship.

      Now, you both fuck off this instant, or I will have done with both of you forever.

      Do not be dishonest with me like that. You know very well what you did there, and I will not have that kind of excrement in my house for a second.



    • Steven on December 9, 2015 at 18:08

      All Neil did was take a slice of a much larger pie and serve it with ice cream…

      You chose to look at the plate in front of not bothering to understand how the pie was made and how it was cut apart before being served.

      Part of what Richard has done over the years is not only question himself but the very zeitgeist that got him to his currently held conclusions. You all come here for his patent honesty and his willingness to dissect his own thoughts. To always push the thought process and never settle for that evil guy Status Quo.

      If you can’t be at least honest to him in your replies with your thoughts on current situations then all you do is prove your inability to look at a larger picture. Or you are a liar.

      So either you are stupid or can’t tell the truth.

      Which is it?



    • MAU on December 10, 2015 at 16:21

      His gun numbers include suicides.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 16:58

      Yea, probably do, and that’s GLARING dishonesty right there.



  11. Bob on December 10, 2015 at 03:53

    Interesting way to present it. Should the US increase their gun control, the world would be a more deadly place for non-combatants.

    • jon w on December 10, 2015 at 06:28

      Not quite. On the off chance you’re not deliberately playing dumb I’ll fix that for you:
      Should the US increase gun control, American soil would be a more dangerous place for Americans.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 06:53

      Yea, people might start shooting up lots of places in Texas, instead of “gun free zones.”



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 06:53

      …or both.



  12. Waltermcc on December 10, 2015 at 06:56

    Tyson, the television physicist, is the secular Benny Hinn.

    Are any details ever given besides background checks and automatic weapons? Alcohol reduces the population by about 15,000 per year. I think we should ban alcohol and see how that works. There is no way that a black market, underground economy is going to provide for the demand. Not going to happen.

    Gun control reminds me of Catholic “social justice”. No details are ever given, and I have heard hundreds of homilies over the years (Catholic wife).

    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 07:21

      It’s hilarious how people are always so susceptible to strict control and bans for stuff that people want, thinking it’s going to work.

      Look at the mess that is mainland Mexico, where both drugs and guns are largely illegal (one can have a gun in Mexico, but requirements are so onerous that most people don’t bother with legal channels).

      People talk about Europe and how it supposedly “works.” Well, first of all they don’t have a culture where guns are a big part of it like we do, and with an undeestanding of what they are fundamentally for (deterrence of state tyranny…not overthrow the state as leftists jabber on about…i.e., guns means LOTS more people die on both sides, this is deterrence). Second, when you look at murders from all causes, not so clear. Third, unintended consequences like “hot breakins” (when people are home) go way up.

      And on and on. In other words, that’s the message of this. The left cherry pics statistics all the time like this to prop up their narrative and there’s nothing worse than narratives that don’t at least make every effort to integrate every relevant fact possible.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 07:24

      This is the best takedown of globalgun murder stats I’ve seen.

      http://youtu.be/pELwCqz2JfE



    • John on December 10, 2015 at 07:51

      That is definitely the best

      This is good http://hypeline.org/mass-shootings/

      This is good https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

      A Facebook friend posted some chart showing “gun ownership per 100 people” and “gun homicide per 100,000” for the top 25 countries on the “human development index.” He added the typical smug commentary and dismissed a few criticisms with “hard numbers.” It looks so scary because 5 gun homicides per 100,000 is way bigger than all the others when displayed with bars thus guns = US gun obsessed war zone.

      I plugged the numbers on the bar chart he posted into a scatter graph, and even with “gun homicide” the points were all over the place with no apparent trend. That was before I did it again with all homicide.

      As if it wasn’t plain from his chart that Iceland had 0 gun homicides and over 30 guns per 100 people, thus more guns and less deaths than most of the countries on his chart. This type of discrepancy was rampant on his chart.

      This is worse than cherry picking. This is believing that data which contradicts your position supports it! And this is an educated, highly intelligent person. People against mass Muslim immigration where data shows huge numbers not only love Sharia but SUPPORT ISIS are “afraid” of Muslims, but anti-gunners are thinking rationally about banning guns where 300,000,000 guns as part of a fundamental American ideology contribute to 5 per 100,000 “gun homicides” per year?



    • John on December 10, 2015 at 07:56

      This is the chart he posted. If you look past the shiny bars at the numbers it is pretty obvious the numbers are all over the place. On a scatter graph, shit is just everywhere except for the US, which as demonstrated in the Bill Whittle video, is because of things like shit hole democrat cities with the strictest gun rules.

      http://i.imgur.com/zaP2vMe.jpg



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 08:40

      “things like shit hole democrat cities with the strictest gun rules”

      Which, to the non-indocrtimated rare person who thinks for themselves, this is America’s strict gun control incubator right there.

      It’s already failed. Leftists are too fucking stupid to even realize it.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 08:49

      “This is worse than cherry picking. This is believing that data which contradicts your position supports it! And this is an educated, highly intelligent person.”

      The two go together all the time.

      How many times have we all been down the dietary paths where the exact same thing happens?

      It’s people using their influence, prestige, and intelligence to first secure, then protect political policy that for whatever reasons, are the policies. It of course happens on the other side as well.

      But anyone who’d been around here for a while knows I don’t shy away from lambasting the other spokes on the wheel of public policy, either. But in each instance, I always get people who pretend as though I don’t.



    • Steven on December 10, 2015 at 17:48

      One messed up aspect of gun violence in Europe is the way incidences are tracked and reported.

      For example in England, when a person is shot it is recorded as a single murder/incidence. As it should be. When 2 or more people are shot the incidence is recorded as a “single” incidence because it is one crime scene. The number always cited is the incidences not actually how many people were shot at the incidence.

      Ah yes, government stats are always so easy to follow and representative of truth.

      Guess it depends on what someone is looking for with truth.



  13. Rob on December 10, 2015 at 11:11

    Figures don’t lie, but figurers do.

  14. Mike Wismer on December 10, 2015 at 16:32

    Good on you for bringing up the democide statistic – it is one I use often, as not enough people have heard it.

    • Hap on December 10, 2015 at 17:05

      It was very interesting to see and hear the female chief of police in DC declare in a televised interview…”to not depend on the police to save you, take matters into your own hands before it’s too late”….or something pretty close to that. This…is ground zerio of US gun control.

      I am surprised she has not been forced to resign.



    • Richard Nikoley on December 10, 2015 at 17:07

      When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.



  15. SDR on January 11, 2017 at 18:33

    Hilarious vacuity.

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780