Do you think Colonel Peters is correct?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by WTF

While you might not think it should be your responsibility , in Texas that is exactly who it rest with.
http://dps.texas.gov/RSD/CHL/faqs/index.htm

36. Do private property/business owners have the right to exclude license holders from their property?
Yes. Private property owners may exclude license holders from carrying concealed handguns on their property by providing notice as provided in Section 30.06, Texas Penal Code. If you wish to prohibit license holders from carrying concealed handguns on your property, §30.06, Texas Penal Code requires you to post specific signage. The sign must be in both English and Spanish, must include the specific language described by law, must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height and be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Yup. I understand that requirement fully. And I humbly disagree with it FWIW, which I also understand is nothing. I can also orally tell people coming into my home that handguns are not permitted and that too is legally binding.

However, about a month ago the writer of that text admitted that it was burdensome and suggested changes to it. Throughout the world there is a universally understood sign, in this case it would be a picture of a handgun with a diagonal line through it. I've seen them numerous times in Texas. Does not meet the legal requirement but it is very easy to understand its intent.

My argument has never been based on a legal requirement but rather on a simple courtesy that should be given to others whose opinions you respect.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Every survey takes time from end of survey to publishing of results. The one you cited is no different. No matter how you look at it, the survey I cited came at a later date than the one you cited. To me it makes little difference. No matter which survey is used, it still shows the majority of households do not have handguns -- somewhere between 35% and 48%.

Here's the result of a Pew Research Center study from July, 2014.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ng-households/

"Overall, about a third of all Americans with children under 18 at home have a gun in their household, including 34% of families with children younger than 12. That’s nearly identical to the share of childless adults or those with older children who have a firearm at home."

So this study puts the percent of households with handguns in the mid-30s.

And once again you are showing your ignorance in your second paragraph. You continually bring into discussions points that are not being discussed and then you say "See, you're wrong". My statements did not discuss government census taking. That is not a poll for one thing. It may have been discussed by you but not by me and somehow you responded to my post with reference to it. Totally irrelevant.

No, speedy, that is not what it says, and you are lying when you say otherwise. You are purposefully misrepresenting what it does say, speedy. The qualifier "with children under 18" means that gun owners w/o children under 18 were not factored into their study.

You are being disingenuous, speedy. It was YOU who cited a lib-retard article that was in part predicated on Census data you so readily dismiss, speedy. So it must be your source document -- that is the foundation for your pretentious and ignorant POV in this thread -- that you must be dismissing as "totally irrelevant", speedy. You continuously, and very ignorantly, miss the points made in the articles YOU cite, speedy.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No, speedy, that is not what it says, and you are lying when you say otherwise. You are purposefully misrepresenting what it does say, speedy. The qualifier "with children under 18" means that gun owners w/o children under 18 were not factored into their study.

You are being disingenuous, speedy. It was YOU who cited a lib-retard article that was in part predicated on Census data you so readily dismiss, speedy. So it must be your source document -- that is the foundation for your pretentious and ignorant POV in this thread -- that you must be dismissing as "totally irrelevant", speedy. You continuously, and very ignorantly, miss the points made in the articles YOU cite, speedy.

Read the second sentence you idiot.

"That’s nearly identical to the share of childless adults or those with older children who have a firearm at home."

Once a child hits 18 they are no longer considered children.

And I repeat, I NEVER mentioned any census data, you idiot. Census data is totally irrelevant in gun control polls. Unless during the census questioning they ask questions on whether or not there is a gun in the home. Further, every poll whether cited by you or me, shows gun ownership in households at under 50%.

And congratulations once again on your 2nd place finish in the DOTY of the year voting. I am not alone in considering you the dumbest person on this forum.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Read the second sentence you idiot.

"That’s nearly identical to the share of childless adults or those with older children who have a firearm at home."

Once a child hits 18 they are no longer considered children.

And I repeat, I NEVER mentioned any census data, you idiot. Census data is totally irrelevant in gun control polls. Unless during the census questioning they ask questions on whether or not there is a gun in the home. Further, every poll whether cited by you or me, shows gun ownership in households at under 50%.

And congratulations once again on your 2nd place finish in the DOTY of the year voting. I am not alone in considering you the dumbest person on this forum.

The article YOUR DUMB ASS cited was predicated on Census info, speedy. That's the same article YOUR DUMB ASS is using to support your POV, speedy; which, btw, is the statistical basis for your POV that YOUR DUMB ASS is now deeming "irrelevant", speedy. The article YOUR DUMB ASS cited mentions -- but noticeably does not elucidate on -- the Gallup poll you wish would go away, speedy.

And your opinion of who ranked second in the DOTY poll is as fucked up as your argument that gun ownership is on the decline, speedy. By your fucked up rationale, speedy, you are arguing that you and all of your Kool Aid sotted dim-retard compatriots would have considered McCann and Palin as your second choice if Odumbo hadn't been in the race.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The article YOUR DUMB ASS cited was predicated on Census info, speedy. That's the same article YOUR DUMB ASS is using to support your POV, speedy; which, btw, is the statistical basis for your POV that YOUR DUMB ASS is now deeming "irrelevant", speedy. The article YOUR DUMB ASS cited mentions -- but noticeably does not elucidate on -- the Gallup poll you wish would go away, speedy.

And your opinion of who ranked second in the DOTY poll is as fucked up as your argument that gun ownership is on the decline, speedy. By your fucked up rationale, speedy, you are arguing that you and all of your Kool Aid sotted dim-retard compatriots would have considered McCann and Palin as your second choice if Odumbo hadn't been in the race.

I just proved you 100% wrong on the latest poll not including 100% of the population.

"Overall, about a third of all Americans with children under 18 at home have a gun in their household, including 34% of families with children younger than 12. That’s nearly identical to the share of childless adults or those with older children who have a firearm at home."

Your statement:

The qualifier "with children under 18" means that gun owners w/o children under 18 were not factored into their study.

"Childless adults" = "gun owners without children". You continue to show how stupid you are.

Please show me the article I cited that was in any way related to a census. As usual, you are an idiot who is totally clueless. And i mentioned the Gallup poll which states 47% of the households have guns in their home. Here is my statement:

No matter which survey is used, it still shows the majority of households do not have handguns -- somewhere between 35% and 48%.

So please tell me how I am disregarding the Gallup poll.

You finished 2nd out of 15 candidates in the DOTY voting. A little different than finishing 2nd out of 2 or 3.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I just proved you 100% wrong on the latest poll not including 100% of the population.

"Overall, about a third of all Americans with children under 18 at home have a gun in their household, including 34% of families with children younger than 12. That’s nearly identical to the share of childless adults or those with older children who have a firearm at home."

Your statement:

The qualifier "with children under 18" means that gun owners w/o children under 18 were not factored into their study.

"Childless adults" = "gun owners without children". You continue to show how stupid you are.

Please show me the article I cited that was in any way related to a census. As usual, you are an idiot who is totally clueless. And i mentioned the Gallup poll which states 47% of the households have guns in their home. Here is my statement:

No matter which survey is used, it still shows the majority of households do not have handguns -- somewhere between 35% and 48%.

So please tell me how I am disregarding the Gallup poll.

You finished 2nd out of 15 candidates in the DOTY voting. A little different than finishing 2nd out of 2 or 3.

What you are quoting now from that poll wasn't what you quoted and posted earlier, speedy; so, you misrepresent what you actually posted earlier, speedy. The Gallup poll contradicts your POV, speedy. Statistics on gun sales and NICS checks contradicts your POV, speedy.

The Congressional Research Service put the number of civilian firearms ownership in the United States at 310 million back in 2009: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns. Although we won’t get the official domestic production figures for 2013 from the BATFE until January 2015, you can see from the manufacturing and import figures above that another 45 – 47 million guns have been added since then (2010 through 2013).(source)

There is a myth circulating among anti-gun people that the number of gun owners is rapidly decreasing, and that the increase in firearms is solely attributed to existing owners stocking up. This is based on a small, outdated survey of cold-calls to land lines. As one writer asked, “How would you feel if you received a call from a random stranger claiming to be from a polling agency and asking how much jewelry you have in your home? Or how much cash you carry around? Or if you leave your back door unlocked at night? This is especially frightening if you realize that land-line phone numbers all have an address associated with them. Is it really a polling agency calling or a burglar doing some recon work before stealing all your stuff? How can you tell the difference?” And how many people use land lines anymore? (source)

And your insistent harping on the DOTY poll is the same as you admitting you would have voted for McCann and Palin if Odumbo hadn't been in the race, speedy, because, the difference isn't dependent on the number of candidates, speedy. It's dependent on the point of view in regards to the issues, speedy.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What you are quoting now from that poll wasn't what you quoted and posted earlier, speedy; so, you misrepresent what you actually posted earlier, speedy. The Gallup poll contradicts your POV, speedy. Statistics on gun sales and NICS checks contradicts your POV, speedy.

Are you opening up your campaign for 2015's DOTY already? Don't worry. I'm sure you will successfully defend your runner-up finish.

I originally stated in post #274 "Estimates range from 33% to 45%." You pointed out a Gallup poll that stated 47% of the respondents had a gun in their home. So I raised the number from 45% to 47%. If anyone can find a reliable source of information that would lower the 33% or raise the 45% I'll be happy to alter the numbers again. As it stands, EVERY poll, including the Gallup poll, shows gun ownership in the minority of homes.

Statistics on gun sales are irrelevant. There is no way to prove whether or not they were purchased by gun owners or non gun owners. The first article I read on the increase in gun sales in 2012 stated the reason was that Obama was re-elected and since he didn't have to worry about another re-election, he would try to push through new gun control legislation. So far unfounded BTW. Anyway, gun owners rushed out to buy guns with the possibility of re-selling them if the possible new legislation was passed.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-te...on-4065602.php

http://lubbockonline.com/crime-and-c...e#.VMEsjHv09Ag

And NICS are irrelevant since again there is absolutely no way to state with any accuracy whether or not such a request led to a homeowner owning a gun in their home who previously did not have one.

BTW. have you backed off your accusation that I brought census data into the discussion?

From your post #292. First time in the discussion the Census Bureau was mentioned:

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the U.S. Census Bureau ARE government entities,

And in #323:

I did bring up the subject of how and why people refuse to give information to government pollsters

My response to that post in #326:

My statements did not discuss government census taking. That is not a poll for one thing.

And in #332 here comes the accusation:

It was YOU who cited a lib-retard article that was in part predicated on Census data you so readily dismiss, speedy.

So please enlighten us. Did I miss something in another post or are you simply an idiot? Obviously that was a rhetorical question. Not one post I made mentioned census data other than to disregard it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So please enlighten us. Did I miss something in another post or are you simply an idiot? Obviously that was a rhetorical question. Not one post I made mentioned census data other than to disregard it.

You missed every point, speedy, like you always do.

There is no definitive data source from the government or elsewhere on how many Americans own guns or how gun ownership rates have changed over time. Also, public opinion surveys provide conflicting results: Some show a decline in the number of households with guns, but another does not.(source)

And here's one of the reasons why there is no definitive data source from the government or elsewhere on how many Americans own guns or how gun ownership rates have changed over time, speedy:

There is a myth circulating among anti-gun people that the number of gun owners is rapidly decreasing, and that the increase in firearms is solely attributed to existing owners stocking up. This is based on a small, outdated survey of cold-calls to land lines. As one writer asked, “How would you feel if you received a call from a random stranger claiming to be from a polling agency and asking how much jewelry you have in your home? Or how much cash you carry around? Or if you leave your back door unlocked at night? This is especially frightening if you realize that land-line phone numbers all have an address associated with them. Is it really a polling agency calling or a burglar doing some recon work before stealing all your stuff? How can you tell the difference?” (source)

How many Chicago thugs with a criminal record admitted they had a gun, speedy? WTF answer do you think they gave to a pollster on a cold call, speedy?

BTW, you ignorant jackass, the article YOU cited DID discuss and include data collected by government agencies, speedy. On the one hand you expect everyone to read what the fuck you predicate your opinion on and what you believe gives your opinion any credibility, and then, on the other hand, you disingenuously want to pretend that you can distance yourself from the article YOU cited says, speedy. So go screw yourself, you obnoxious little prick.

You have a serious case of Cranial Rectumitis, speedy, and you can just keep belching farts up your ass if you really imagine that the annual sale of guns exceeding twelve million and fifteen plus million NICS checks annually are "irrelevant".

[SpeedRacerXXX]

From IBanIDIOT:

"BTW, you ignorant jackass, the article YOU cited DID discuss and include data collected by government agencies, speedy. On the one hand you expect everyone to read what the fuck you predicate your opinion on and what you believe gives your opinion any credibility, and then, on the other hand, you disingenuously want to pretend that you can distance yourself from the article YOU cited says, speedy. So go screw yourself, you obnoxious little prick."

Please tell me the post # in which I cited an article including data collected by government agencies. Simple enough request? Even for an idiot like you.

You have a serious case of Cranial Rectumitis, speedy, and you can just keep belching farts up your ass if you really imagine that the annual sale of guns exceeding twelve million and fifteen plus million NICS checks annually are "irrelevant".

The data is irrelevant until you can find ANYTHING correlating an increase in sales of handguns and NICS checks to homes with handguns. As even an idiot like you mentioned, many more, such as Boy Scouts earning merit badges, are purchasing shotguns for sport. This would not be included when asking homeowners if they have guns in the house for protection. So the burden of proof, if you want anyone to believe you, is to find a better source of information than surveys to determine homes with gun ownership.

BTW, I love your little tantrum with the name-calling. With you it always degenerates into that.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Please tell me the post # in which I cited an article including data collected by government agencies. Simple enough request? Even for an idiot like you.
Of course that is a simple--and reasonable--request, but I would wage one of two things will happen:
--He will completely ignore your question and say "I already answered that"
or
--He will reference something, but when you look at it you will not find that you said anything remotely like what he claims. NO ONE is better at "creative intentional misinterpretation" of other people's words as IB.

BTW, I love your little tantrum with the name-calling. With you it always degenerates into that.

Of course he degenerates into name calling. It's IB you are talking about.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

From IBanIDIOT:

Please tell me the post # in which I cited an article including data collected by government agencies. Simple enough request? Even for an idiot like you.

You have a serious case of Cranial Rectumitis, speedy, and you can just keep belching farts up your ass if you really imagine that the annual sale of guns exceeding twelve million and fifteen plus million NICS checks annually are "irrelevant".

The data is irrelevant until you can find ANYTHING correlating an increase in sales of handguns and NICS checks to homes with handguns. As even an idiot like you mentioned, many more, such as Boy Scouts earning merit badges, are purchasing shotguns for sport. This would not be included when asking homeowners if they have guns in the house for protection. So the burden of proof, if you want anyone to believe you, is to find a better source of information than surveys to determine homes with gun ownership.

BTW, I love your little tantrum with the name-calling. With you it always degenerates into that.

Evidently your hypocritical dumb-ass forgets what the "D" in the "DOTY" epithet you keep hurling means, speedy. So take your pretentious holier-than-thou attitude and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, speedy. And yes U R an Idiot, speedy, because you're too stupid to understand that your CNN article explicitly states that it used data from the U.S. Census bureau and the U.N. to support its lib-retard view point.

Originally Posted by Old-T

Of course he degenerates into name calling. It's IB you are talking about.

Once again you are advertising your trollishly diminished reading and comprehension skills, Old-THUMPER. Speedy was also hurling invectives, jackass.

[Old-T]

After posting THIS:

Originally Posted by Old-T

Of course he degenerates into name calling. It's IB you are talking about.

IB remains true to form and posts THIS:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Evidently your hypocritical dumb-ass forgets what the "D" in the "DOTY" epithet you keep hurling means, speedy. So take your pretentious holier-than-thou attitude and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, speedy. And yes U R an Idiot, speedy, because you're too stupid to understand that your CNN article explicitly states that it used data from the U.S. Census bureau and the U.N. to support its lib-retard view point.


Once again you are advertising your trollishly diminished reading and comprehension skills, Old-THUMPER. Speedy was also hurling invectives, jackass.

Looks like I nailed that prediction!!!!

Even when I post a huge warning sign for him, IB really can't help himself, can he?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

After posting THIS:
IB remains true to form and posts THIS:

Looks like I nailed that prediction!!!!

Even when I post a huge warning sign for him, IB really can't help himself, can he?

Old-THUMPER remains true to his trollish form: a bottle of 80 proof something stuck in his mouth and his keyboard at hand.

[Old-T]

Are you now saying those words I highlighted in red--but neither changed no took out of context--are NOT yours? Or in your mind are they not insults and name calling? Which is it?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Are you now saying those words I highlighted in red--but neither changed no took out of context--are NOT yours? Or in your mind are they not insults and name calling? Which is it?

Your drunken little troll bit is quite stagnant, Old-THUMPER.