because it ruffles his sissy pink tailfeathers ?

The truth shall set you free, woodypeckerhead,

or, make you molt.

One or the other, I think.

At this point I just blame myself. I should know it's just a massive waste of time to engage you in any way.

The article Ag posted in the other thread defines your mindset perfectly. You're predesposed to believe fake news nonsense and religious nonsense. You lack those critical thinking skills. It's just how your brain works. I'm never going to get through. 

blech.

you just can't reason with a woodpecker. They just mindlessly peck. All woodpecker can do is be completely out of any discussion,

and just personally attack any poster or author he disagrees with....for no good reason. Everytime he eyes a chance to be a birdbrain smartass, his eyes bulge at the opportunity. Sad stuff.

@mld-woody said:

Cal, I didn't lie. The main point was the mass shooting rate. Anything from the CPRC is trash for all of the reasons I just explained.

If the FBI says knives and cutting objects kill more than rifles then so be it. It has been explained to death on here why guns aren't knives, cars aren't knives, etc. If this has to be done every time then why bother. I'm actually a little frustrated in myself that I took the bait and responded to your nonsense. It's a waste of time to argue with with a blnded, biased donkey and yet here I am trying to do it again. 

Stuart

LOL, If only Woodley could see my post debunking those reasons of his...the little sissy has me on ignore.

Then there is this:

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/03/17/snopes-blows-fact-checking-crime-prevention-research-center/

@westside-steve said:

These days everybody leans left to right, at least almost everybody. It doesn't make either side right or wrong. I think you would have a hard time finding an organization or a reporter who was pure and unvarnished in their reporting.

WSS

Stuart

These days everybody leans right to wrong.

@mld-woody said:

Sigh

The conclusion in that article comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center, which, like every other one of these you reference, is a right wing organization parading around as an academic one. 

The founder, John Lott, is a economist and right wing persona that champions the pro gun movement. He's written pro gun books, is a columnist on Fox, and has been accused of taking funding from the NRA. He admitted to posing as one of his past students online to defend his own work and praise himself as a professor. Many have claimed he faked a survey to produce hus favorable data, a survey he can no longer produce the data from. He's claimed the CPRC had an article published in a perr reviewed journal that was in fact rejected. His own data disproves his claim Europe and the US have the same mass shooting rate. Actual experts in the field come up with numbers that show the US is much worse. There are disagreements for what he does and doesn't count as a mass shooting, which he defines carefully to get the best results. Etc etc etc

So a right wing group, led by afake expert, that is repeatedly proven wrong by the actual academics and experts in the field. 

Like I said, basically par for the course. 

These days everybody leans left to right, at least almost everybody. It doesn't make either side right or wrong. I think you would have a hard time finding an organization or a reporter who was pure and unvarnished in their reporting.

WSS

If the FBI says knives and cutting objects kill more than rifles then so be it. It has been explained to death on here why guns aren't knives, cars aren't knives, etc. If this has to be done every time then why bother. I'm actually a little frustrated in myself that I took the bait and responded to your nonsense. It's a waste of time to argue with with a blnded, biased donkey and yet here I am trying to do it again. 

@mld-woody said:

Sigh

The conclusion in that article comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center, which, like every other one of these you reference, is a right wing organization parading around as an academic one. 

The founder, John Lott, is a economist and right wing persona that champions the pro gun movement. He's written pro gun books, is a columnist on Fox, and has been accused of taking funding from the NRA. He admitted to posing as one of his past students online to defend his own work and praise himself as a professor. Many have claimed he faked a survey to produce hus favorable data, a survey he can no longer produce the data from. He's claimed the CPRC had an article published in a perr reviewed journal that was in fact rejected. His own data disproves his claim Europe and the US have the same mass shooting rate. Actual experts in the field come up with numbers that show the US is much worse. There are disagreements for what he does and doesn't count as a mass shooting, which he defines carefully to get the best results. Etc etc etc

So a right wing group, led by afake expert, that is repeatedly proven wrong by the actual academics and experts in the field. 

Like I said, basically par for the course. 

Stuart

Sigh.

Let me guess...Think Progress.

You got that shitt straight out of Think Progress right Woodley?

Defamation suit

On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit^[48] for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book Freakonomics and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott's research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.^[49]

A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.^[50]

Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate.^[51][52] The Chronicle of Higher Education characterized Levitt's letter as offering "a doozy of a concession."^[53][/B]

The dismissal of the first half of Lott's suit was unanimously upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.^[54]

Charges that gun makers or the NRA have paid for Lott's research

In 1996 when Lott's research first received media attention, Charles Schumer wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "The Associated Press reports that Prof. Lott's fellowship at the University of Chicago is funded by the Olin Foundation, which is 'associated with the Olin Corporation,' one of the nation's largest gun manufacturers. Maybe that's a coincidence, too. But it's also a fact."^[55]Olin Foundation head William E. Simon strongly denied Schumer's claims in a reply letter in which he stated that: Olin Foundation was funded by the personal estate of the late John M. Olin independently of Olin Corp. Like all candidates, Lott was selected to receive his Olin Fellowship by the faculty of the university, not by Olin Foundation and certainly not by Olin Corp.^[56][57]

In a debate on Piers Morgan Tonight on July 23, 2012, Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz claimed: "This is junk science at its worst. Paid for and financed by the National Rifle Association." Lott countered: "The NRA hasn't paid for my research." Dershowitz continued: "Your conclusions are paid for and financed—The National Rifle Association—only funds research that will lead to these conclusions."^[58][59] Separately both Lott and the NRA have denied NRA funding of Lott's research

So Woodley, Lotts research paid for by the NRA just because Think Progress and Dershowitz says so?...

@mld-woody said:

Am I supposed to acknowledge something from 1764 as having any relevance today?

Stuart

As with everything else, it depends on whether or not it fits your liberal agenda.

You use the Crusades to defend modern day acts of Islamic terrorism, right?

@calfoxwc said:

not to me - the one shooting...Columbine? got insane coverage all over our country.

More likely - the msm is hand in hand, happily, with the left anti-Constitution, especially anti-2nd Amendment,

because it's a political fight that would key their dominance and power/control over America.

school murders have been happening since...1764.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Enoch Brown school massacre: Perhaps the earliest shooting to happen on school or college property, in what would become the United States, was the notorious Enoch Brown school massacre during the Pontiac's War. Four Delaware (Lenape) American Indians entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, and shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown and nine children (reports vary). Only two children survived. However, this incident may only incidentally be considered a school "shooting" because only the teacher was shot, while the other nine victims were killed with melee weapons. ^[1][2]

^{NOTE: "melee weapons".....}https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melee_weapon

@mld-woody said:

Sigh

The conclusion in that article comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center, which, like every other one of these you reference, is a right wing organization parading around as an academic one. 

The founder, John Lott, is a economist and right wing persona that champions the pro gun movement. He's written pro gun books, is a columnist on Fox, and has been accused of taking funding from the NRA. He admitted to posing as one of his past students online to defend his own work and praise himself as a professor. Many have claimed he faked a survey to produce hus favorable data, a survey he can no longer produce the data from. He's claimed the CPRC had an article published in a perr reviewed journal that was in fact rejected. His own data disproves his claim Europe and the US have the same mass shooting rate. Actual experts in the field come up with numbers that show the US is much worse. There are disagreements for what he does and doesn't count as a mass shooting, which he defines carefully to get the best results. Etc etc etc

So a right wing group, led by afake expert, that is repeatedly proven wrong by the actual academics and experts in the field. 

Like I said, basically par for the course. 

liar. right from the article:

Yet, some today propose banning rifles, in particular AR-15s, because they've been used in a number of mass killings. It's important to note however that, according to FBI crime data cited this week by the Daily Caller, deaths by knives in the U.S. outnumber deaths by rifles by five to 1: In 2016, 1,604 people were killed by knives and other cutting instruments, while 374 were killed by rifles.

According to the FBI, 1,604 people were killed by “knives and cutting instruments” and 374 were killed by “rifles” in 2016.

************************************

right from the article/via the link:

Yet, some today propose banning rifles, in particular AR-15s, because they've been used in a number of mass killings. It's important to note however that, according to FBI crime data cited this week by the Daily Caller, deaths by knives in the U.S. outnumber deaths by rifles by five to 1: In 2016, 1,604 people were killed by knives and other cutting instruments, while 374 were killed by rifles.

The conclusion in that article comes from the Crime Prevention Research Center, which, like every other one of these you reference, is a right wing organization parading around as an academic one. 

The founder, John Lott, is a economist and right wing persona that champions the pro gun movement. He's written pro gun books, is a columnist on Fox, and has been accused of taking funding from the NRA. He admitted to posing as one of his past students online to defend his own work and praise himself as a professor. Many have claimed he faked a survey to produce hus favorable data, a survey he can no longer produce the data from. He's claimed the CPRC had an article published in a perr reviewed journal that was in fact rejected. His own data disproves his claim Europe and the US have the same mass shooting rate. Actual experts in the field come up with numbers that show the US is much worse. There are disagreements for what he does and doesn't count as a mass shooting, which he defines carefully to get the best results. Etc etc etc

So a right wing group, led by afake expert, that is repeatedly proven wrong by the actual academics and experts in the field. 

Like I said, basically par for the course. 

@westside-steve said:

"Woodpecker nonsense" is that a thing?

WSS

Aug 12, 2008 - The Great spotted woodpecker shown here yesterday was, I think, an unusual individual, and thanks to everyone who had a go at explaining ...

@mld-woody said:

Oh Shmuck of with that "read it for once" cowpoop Cal. Whenever I read your Sheet and pick it apart you respond with woodpecker nonsense. Why should I wastey time with a thoughtful rebuttal when I'm not going to get anything close in return? Not to mention you just Google phrases that support your argument and vomit the links back in here.

you are such a COWARD. LOL. Yellowbellied sapsucking woodpecker ?

you didn't read it. and you nearly? NEVER respond with any kind of "thoughtful rebuttal".

It isn't about rebuttal, asswhole woodypeckerhead - it's about an issue, and everyone else on the board knows how to discuss them intelligently in one manner or another.

You just smart off. Just will never learn, will never admit you don't know your tailfeathers from your beak. Not good.

Go watch Fox News, and your dirty little obamao-ites are being exposed as being MORe corrupt than I have been saying for a long time now.

   The few times you didn't make an butt of your cowardly self, I gave you "woody" and replied like I would to other people.

but you are a woodpecker butt - too bad. Why are you even here? All you do is show off your ignorance of every single issue ever brought up.

    Have a nice birdpoop in your eye day, fool.

WSS

@mld-woody said:

Am I supposed to acknowledge something from 1764 as having any relevance today?

Are you saying "liberals" are happy there was a school shooting? Though I guess you already made a similar insane claim in another thread that no one here would even back you up on.

 Well, I think you are, but it never works, so...

   That site references many school shootings of one form or another, from way, way back. The question is, why?

because there are defenseless possible future victims there. That is why. And they used weapons other than guns back then.

Other than guns happens today too. So, another question is, why? It isn't guns.

Here is a great read. Read it, for once, woody.

*********************************************************

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-despite-gun-control-advocates-claims-u-s-isnt-the-worst-country-for-mass-shootings/

"("But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany's and five times the U.K.'s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher."

Yes, the U.S. rate is still high, and nothing to be proud of. But it's not the highest in the developed world. Not by a long shot.

Yet, some today propose banning rifles, in particular AR-15s, because they've been used in a number of mass killings. It's important to note however that, according to FBI crime data cited this week by the Daily Caller, deaths by knives in the U.S. outnumber deaths by rifles by five to 1: In 2016, 1,604 people were killed by knives and other cutting instruments, while 374 were killed by rifles.

So is it not fair to ask: If we're banning rifles, why not knives, too?

The point is, guns aren't the problem; deranged killers that grow up in broken families often without positive male role models in their lives are the problem. So are political and religious extremists, in particular Islamists. If these people didn't have guns, they would find some other means to do the job.

Bombs are illegal in both the U.S. and Europe. Yet Europe loses far more people to bombings than the U.S. Doesn't that make them more violent?)"

@westside-steve said:

Happy about it? Probably not exactly but at least encouraged by more violence because it gives them Steam with which to pursue their dream of a gun-free America. And I would imagine they are at least somewhat disappointed it wasn't an AR-15.

WSS

Hmm, I see. But still not going far enough out there to defend Cal's view

@mld-woody said:

Am I supposed to acknowledge something from 1764 as having any relevance today?

Are you saying "liberals" are happy there was a school shooting? Though I guess you already made a similar insane claim in another thread that no one here would even back you up on.

Happy about it? Probably not exactly but at least encouraged by more violence because it gives them Steam with which to pursue their dream of a gun-free America. And I would imagine they are at least somewhat disappointed it wasn't an AR-15.

WSS

Are you saying "liberals" are happy there was a school shooting? Though I guess you already made a similar insane claim in another thread that no one here would even back you up on.

Seems that social media is a gigantic immediate "fame" effect on mentially disturbed murderers, and the msm

is the icing on the cake.

Of course, I suppose social media makes some mentally ill feel like the whole world is their enemy. or something like that.