Sign in to follow this  
Plenipotentiary Tom

Bloomberg'$ $peech

Recommended Posts

Bloomberg plans $50 million challenge to NRA

 

 

“They say, ‘We don’t care. We’re going to go after you,’ ” he said of the N.R.A. “ ‘If you don’t vote with us we’re going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great-grandkids. And we’re never going to stop.’ ”

He added: “We’ve got to make them afraid of us.”

...

What is more, for many gun owners, the issue is a deeply personal one that energizes them politically, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who dismissed the mayor’s plans.

“He’s got the money to waste,” Mr. Pratt said. “So I guess he’s free to do so. But frankly, I think he’s going to find out why his side keeps losing.”

The N.R.A. had no comment.

...

The $50 million could be significant: In recent years, the N.R.A. has spent only $20 million annually on political activities. The political groups affiliated with the billionaire Koch brothers, who are seeking to help Republicans take over the Senate, have spent about $30 million in the last six months.

...

 

His financial commitment to reducing gun violence could grow. When asked how much he was willing to spend, he tossed out the $50 million figure out as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.

“I put $50 million this year, last year into coal, $53 million into oceans,” he said with a shrug, describing his clean energy and sustainable fishing initiatives. “Certainly a number like that, $50 million. Let’s see what happens.”

 

 

$153 million is quite a bit compared to those piker Koch guys who only spent $30 million.

I look forward to seeing all future complaints about buying elections punctuated by a reference to Bloomberg instead of the Koch brothers or the gun lobby.

Actually, I look forward to pointing out that the Koch brothers are pikers compared to Bloomie every time they are mentioned. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Koch Bros give a rats fart about the second amendment. So long as they can protect their 470 billion in corporate welfare, they will continue to purchase the Republican party, one Congress Critter at a time....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Koch Bros give a rats fart about the second amendment. So long as they can protect their 470 billion in corporate welfare, they will continue to purchase the Republican party, one Congress Critter at a time....

 

They've been outbid. It's over!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think 50 million is gonna be enough for him to sway the wannabee gangstas, the absent fathers, tthe mentally nuts, Hollywood and the video game makers from continuing to choose and promote violent life styles, but hey, it's a start. Though his first move should be donating $10 million to the NRA. Like today.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg plans $50 million challenge to NRA

 

 

 

“They say, ‘We don’t care. We’re going to go after you,’ ” he said of the N.R.A. “ ‘If you don’t vote with us we’re going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great-grandkids. And we’re never going to stop.’ ”

 

He added: “We’ve got to make them afraid of us.”

 

...

 

What is more, for many gun owners, the issue is a deeply personal one that energizes them politically, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who dismissed the mayor’s plans.

 

“He’s got the money to waste,” Mr. Pratt said. “So I guess he’s free to do so. But frankly, I think he’s going to find out why his side keeps losing.”

 

The N.R.A. had no comment.

 

...

 

The $50 million could be significant: In recent years, the N.R.A. has spent only $20 million annually on political activities. The political groups affiliated with the billionaire Koch brothers, who are seeking to help Republicans take over the Senate, have spent about $30 million in the last six months.

 

...

 

His financial commitment to reducing gun violence could grow. When asked how much he was willing to spend, he tossed out the $50 million figure out as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.

 

“I put $50 million this year, last year into coal, $53 million into oceans,” he said with a shrug, describing his clean energy and sustainable fishing initiatives. “Certainly a number like that, $50 million. Let’s see what happens.”

 

 

$153 million is quite a bit compared to those piker Koch guys who only spent $30 million.

 

I look forward to seeing all future complaints about buying elections punctuated by a reference to Bloomberg instead of the Koch brothers or the gun lobby.

 

Actually, I look forward to pointing out that the Koch brothers are pikers compared to Bloomie every time they are mentioned. ;)

I am opposed to Bloomberg "speech" as much as I am to Koch "speech."

 

I do feel compelled to point out to you that you are blending amounts spent in "this year, last year" with "in the last 6 months."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Koch Bros give a rats fart about the second amendment. So long as they can protect their 470 billion in corporate welfare, they will continue to purchase the Republican party, one Congress Critter at a time....

 

jackass alert code red...giggle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bloomberg plans $50 million challenge to NRA

 

 

 

“They say, ‘We don’t care. We’re going to go after you,’ ” he said of the N.R.A. “ ‘If you don’t vote with us we’re going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great-grandkids. And we’re never going to stop.’ ”

 

He added: “We’ve got to make them afraid of us.”

 

...

 

What is more, for many gun owners, the issue is a deeply personal one that energizes them politically, said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who dismissed the mayor’s plans.

 

“He’s got the money to waste,” Mr. Pratt said. “So I guess he’s free to do so. But frankly, I think he’s going to find out why his side keeps losing.”

 

The N.R.A. had no comment.

 

...

 

The $50 million could be significant: In recent years, the N.R.A. has spent only $20 million annually on political activities. The political groups affiliated with the billionaire Koch brothers, who are seeking to help Republicans take over the Senate, have spent about $30 million in the last six months.

 

...

 

His financial commitment to reducing gun violence could grow. When asked how much he was willing to spend, he tossed out the $50 million figure out as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.

 

“I put $50 million this year, last year into coal, $53 million into oceans,” he said with a shrug, describing his clean energy and sustainable fishing initiatives. “Certainly a number like that, $50 million. Let’s see what happens.”

 

 

$153 million is quite a bit compared to those piker Koch guys who only spent $30 million.

 

I look forward to seeing all future complaints about buying elections punctuated by a reference to Bloomberg instead of the Koch brothers or the gun lobby.

 

Actually, I look forward to pointing out that the Koch brothers are pikers compared to Bloomie every time they are mentioned. ;)

I am opposed to Bloomberg "speech" as much as I am to Koch "speech."

 

I do feel compelled to point out to you that you are blending amounts spent in "this year, last year" with "in the last 6 months."

 

Yeah, sorry, I did not notice that the NY Times blended them.

 

I support their right to free speech no matter what point they wish to make. I'd buy boats with the money. Some people are less self-centered or more control-freaky and want to spend money influencing others instead of buying boats. Some of them have a lot of money. Good for them.

 

I don't think the world would be a better place if Bloomberg or the Koch bros were somehow muzzled and prevented from spending their money to promote their opinions. I think it's wrong to put limits on expression. They should decide when they have expressed themselves enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When I think of something that resonates with Everytown, USA it's a New York City billionaire telling me what to do.

 

 

Remember my old saying? The scariest thing in the world is a politician that you've never met.....but is convinced that he knows what's best for you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg shares the same delusion that the Koch brothers have. The both believe that spending lots of money will solve society's problems. Basically the money they spend is preaching to the choir. They need a real, logical argument for non-believers to get behind their ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody. We meet again.


@ Sean, Spatial, and Flasher, you do good work. Carry on, bros.



Several leading gun violence researchers and authors (Tom Diaz particularly, but also Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Dr. Daniel Webster, Dr. David Hemenway IIRC), in their overviews, conclude that the gun foolishness is challengeable, but point out that no cohesive organization has ever come forward to offset the destructive, even evil, effects of the NRA/SAF/gun lobby.



Bloomberg could, and probably will IMO, make a difference here, especially combined with the average concerns of the typical mother and housewife. (Historically, the latter have been quite effective against gun proliferation: according to the History Channel, the nurture and outlook of the average female tamed the Wild West, not Samuel Colt.)



So go ahead and dismiss Bloomberg (as many of you have, and will). Please proceed to belittle and underestimate him, and the Demanding Mothers, too. But here we probably have a missing link towards solving this problem.



Which problem? Our U.S. gun violence problem. One which is 19.5X worse than other high-income countries. Unfortunately many in the pro-rights side think that having it settle at the present horrific rate is acceptable. WTF? With 110,000 human bullet perforations in the U.S. per year, a figure which is growing when one accounts for gun incident survivors, the damage should not be considered negligible IMO. The guns are bringing about their own demise: natural selection.



Somehow we have to roll back the pattern of the gun violence, and the cultural deterioration brought by the many who are promoting vigilante-based law and order.



My take: Bloomberg is committing to a key role here. Good on him.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The missing link to solving our "gun violence" problem is a rebranding of a failing GC propaganda group. Sure, ok.

 

I am not sure that it is a good idea to get your history from the same people that bring you "swamp people" and "pawn stars", but that just may be me. If you can confirm whatever the History Channel tells you by checking on Facebook, you are probably good to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad he won't spend the 50 million on schizophrenia research.

 

Might actually do something meaningful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi everybody. We meet again.

@ Sean, Spatial, and Flasher, you do good work. Carry on, bros.

Several leading gun violence researchers and authors (Tom Diaz particularly, but also Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Dr. Daniel Webster, Dr. David Hemenway IIRC), in their overviews, conclude that the gun foolishness is challengeable, but point out that no cohesive organization has ever come forward to offset the destructive, even evil, effects of the NRA/SAF/gun lobby.

Bloomberg could, and probably will IMO, make a difference here, especially combined with the average concerns of the typical mother and housewife. (Historically, the latter have been quite effective against gun proliferation: according to the History Channel, the nurture and outlook of the average female tamed the Wild West, not Samuel Colt.)

So go ahead and dismiss Bloomberg (as many of you have, and will). Please proceed to belittle and underestimate him, and the Demanding Mothers, too. But here we probably have a missing link towards solving this problem.

Which problem? Our U.S. gun violence problem. One which is 19.5X worse than other high-income countries. Unfortunately many in the pro-rights side think that having it settle at the present horrific rate is acceptable. WTF? With 110,000 human bullet perforations in the U.S. per year, a figure which is growing when one accounts for gun incident survivors, the damage should not be considered negligible IMO. The guns are bringing about their own demise: natural selection.

Somehow we have to roll back the pattern of the gun violence, and the cultural deterioration brought by the many who are promoting vigilante-based law and order.

My take: Bloomberg is committing to a key role here. Good on him.

 

Welcome back jocal..... although I doubt you will stick around long enough to actually engage in a discussion and instead prefer to conduct drive by shootings.

 

But hope springs eternal...... so since you brought up mothers likely being the key to the gun violence debate - tell me what avenue did that other group of Mothers use to change the scourge of the drunken driving epidemic? Did they:

 

a ) blame the booze itself as well as go after the people who made the booze, sold the booze, and drank the booze responsibly and without any negative societal effect? Or....

 

b ) Did they seek to change behavior of those who used booze irresponsibly, illegally sold booze to minors, sold booze to known drunks with keys in their hands, increase awareness of irresponsible booze use and encourgage people to report abusers to the police or take their keys away ebfore they could get behind the wheel?

 

a or b, Jocal. Simple and direct question. I'll be waiting for your answer paitiently. Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, another potentially good thread ruined because JBSF decided he can make sense of Jocal.

 

This one is about money and the first amendment, not guns and the second amendment, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hi everybody. We meet again.

@ Sean, Spatial, and Flasher, you do good work. Carry on, bros.

Several leading gun violence researchers and authors (Tom Diaz particularly, but also Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Dr. Daniel Webster, Dr. David Hemenway IIRC), in their overviews, conclude that the gun foolishness is challengeable, but point out that no cohesive organization has ever come forward to offset the destructive, even evil, effects of the NRA/SAF/gun lobby.

Bloomberg could, and probably will IMO, make a difference here, especially combined with the average concerns of the typical mother and housewife. (Historically, the latter have been quite effective against gun proliferation: according to the History Channel, the nurture and outlook of the average female tamed the Wild West, not Samuel Colt.)

So go ahead and dismiss Bloomberg (as many of you have, and will). Please proceed to belittle and underestimate him, and the Demanding Mothers, too. But here we probably have a missing link towards solving this problem.

Which problem? Our U.S. gun violence problem. One which is 19.5X worse than other high-income countries. Unfortunately many in the pro-rights side think that having it settle at the present horrific rate is acceptable. WTF? With 110,000 human bullet perforations in the U.S. per year, a figure which is growing when one accounts for gun incident survivors, the damage should not be considered negligible IMO. The guns are bringing about their own demise: natural selection.

Somehow we have to roll back the pattern of the gun violence, and the cultural deterioration brought by the many who are promoting vigilante-based law and order.

My take: Bloomberg is committing to a key role here. Good on him.

 

Welcome back jocal..... although I doubt you will stick around long enough to actually engage in a discussion and instead prefer to conduct drive by shootings.

 

But hope springs eternal...... so since you brought up mothers likely being the key to the gun violence debate - tell me what avenue did that other group of Mothers use to change the scourge of the drunken driving epidemic? Did they:

 

a ) blame the booze itself as well as go after the people who made the booze, sold the booze, and drank the booze responsibly and without any negative societal effect? Or....

 

b ) Did they seek to change behavior of those who used booze irresponsibly, illegally sold booze to minors, sold booze to known drunks with keys in their hands, increase awareness of irresponsible booze use and encourgage people to report abusers to the police or take their keys away ebfore they could get behind the wheel?

 

a or b, Jocal. Simple and direct question. I'll be waiting for your answer paitiently. Thanks in advance.

 

I'll be direct when I want to, Jeff. And I'll be indirect when I want to. So hey, if you want discourse then take it easy with any mindless abuse. After reading any I may use drive-by shooting approaches (sniper tactics), when not reading edifying (as opposed to mindless) material elsewhere. Please consider the quality-of-life issues in play

 

You taught me a lot, Jeff: the rationale of the modern gunslinger. Seriously, thanks, because (here I repeat myself) the subject of guns in the U.S. fascinates me.

 

I once adored guns as a kid, they soon taught me how to be trustworthy, so I could have the honor of owning a single-shot .22 at age ten. Now, I find that the gun culture which is emerging from the modern NRA is not trustworthy whatsoever. Their logic is slimy, their results irresponsible, and they are giving recreational weapons, and even battlefield weapons, a bad name,

 

Yeah, I've got general concerns with your local elk, Jeff. Let's review some.

 

--In 2012 you sold me that the pro-rights dudes (and their buddy Anton Scalia, a passionate turkey hunter) were balancing the true beauty and inter-related wisdom within the Bill of Rights. Correct? Then...

 

--Yikes, your supporters in the core of the SA Gun Club were uhmm entirely silent about the ignorance factor of stifling gun violence study in the present situation. Dudes, that's a game I have no time to participate in. For any who wishes to support these docs on THIS thread, I will retract my statement wrt to each. Chime in, boys.

 

--Prior to that dumbassery, in the calendar year 2012, you, Mariachi, and Tom Ray had each argued or stated there was no gun problem (Tom: "A non-solution to a non-problem sounds good to me." I will not cite these revolting, detestable views, but it was the days of the 12-month thread So You Support Gun Proliferation, eh?)

 

--That thread ended Dec. 14, the day of Sandy Hook, because it just broke my heart to be so correct about the U.S. gun problem...as demonstrated so horrifically by the little shit with the assault weapon in a grade school. Though I had taken a gentle, openly pacifist position, my prescience about the possible use of an AW made me feel like quite a ghoul when it happened. It was painful, Jeff, for me to be right about present gun policy in the U.S.

 

--The claims by the three of you jokers that there was no gun problem also ended that day. Your tone was different for three days, too. This moment of progress brought to you by Adam Fucking Lanza and the consumer product he carried.

 

--Before those kids were in the ground, on the Wednesday after a Friday shooting, IIRC, Boothy was crowing about a 35% surge of worth to his gun arsenal generated by this heinous, predictable occurrence. BIG Wow.

 

--I had an open mind and was still considering your lofty support for "freedom" when two interactions happened in 2013: you exposed your actual Second Amendment principles, as opposed to what you presented in your broader philosophical context. When I repeatedly inquired about the NRA's concerted efforts to silence doctors, no First Amendment balance for these sworn medical professionals was supported by your elk. Zilch. Okay...

 

The second bit happened in December: the SA Gun Club accepted (and you, Jeff, defended by some obtuse legal mumbo-jumbo) the silencing of Dick Metcalf's discussion of "restrictions" of "rights" on Guns & Ammo, and his termination ten days before Christmas. Yep, both the SA Gun Club and the entire Gun Club Choir went all crickets about this obvious imbalance of the Bill of Rights--something you had taught me to respect not long ago. Hmm, no BoR balance involved with these "patriots", eh?

 

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

 

Now I'll address your question, Jeff, because you are really stuck on this.

 

MADD discouraged boozy behavior when combined with driving. They did it in a many-faceted way--you just listed many of their successful approaches. It worked when they caught the popular consciousness, laying out the destruction of drunk drivers outlined in available stats), and when the courts then backed them up. Booze + cars, and DUI's, began to be openly discouraged. Post-MADD, such drinkers acquired consequences...and court-ordered training, counselling, and support, too.

 

You seem to be hurting because gun use and ownership are now being openly (and as much as possible, legally) discouraged. In a way not unlike MADD's work, I communicate: I discourage and question gun acceptance in general.

 

Your direct analogy to MADD breaks down a bit because first off, MADD had un-molested data to work with. Secondly, their focal precipitator of auto mayhem (alcohol) is singular. When transferred to the catylists of gun mayhem, the dangerous precipitators of gun mis-use (randomly stated and in no particular order) might be anger, jealousy, greed, typical domestic disputes, bad driving, street gang power issues, territorial issues, depression, envy, etc--any number of human behaviors. Criminologists, social scientists, doctors, mothers (and even many gunowners such as myself) will not be expecting these collective behaviors to change any time soon. We ARE NOT AWAITING IMMINENT PROGRESS on the behavior-mod level to approach gun mis-use (nor should we). Can you get beyond that, please?

 

The third part of your false equivalency is that MADD did not have to deal with a lobby comparable to the NRA, or to an amendment whish has been distorted on its face by the SCOTUS--which is a personal disappointment and a national embarassment.

 

Are you (and particularly the Chesapeake Guy) expecting the Seven Deadly Sins to change before solving U.S. gun violence? How quaint, whatever, but it won't stop the learned from acting in multiple ways to stem the present gun violence hemorrhage...which is a real mess you seem to be not copping to.

 

The scientific community sees each gun as an agent in each problem, and Jeffie it is that. If I am correct, you disagree with this last bit, but by definition the presence of the gun itself figures into behavior, occurrences, and outcomes. Sorry, but your tiny, tiny fraction of gun perps is leaving a huge, unacceptable, unsustainable, evil footprint...while the collective denial of the modern gun culture (and your SA Gun Club) enables: yep, it contributes to the prob.

 

 

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

 

Jeff, I am not motivated so much about winning arguments (with gun wankers or anybody else) as much as into sometimes presenting my P.O.V. (however unique it may or may not be) while viewing the wonders of a continually surprising universe.

You and Tom are wonderful (if misdirected, IMO) parts of that universe.

 

I will check back for your reply, and will respond to it on my own terms, or not.

You can make it worth my while, or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Take it to a gun thread. We have plenty. This one is about $peech and I'm here to defend Mr. Bloomberg's rights in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back jocal..... although I doubt you will stick around long enough to actually engage in a discussion and instead prefer to conduct drive by shootings.

 

But hope springs eternal...... so since you brought up mothers likely being the key to the gun violence debate - tell me what avenue did that other group of Mothers use to change the scourge of the drunken driving epidemic? Did they:

 

a ) blame the booze itself as well as go after the people who made the booze, sold the booze, and drank the booze responsibly and without any negative societal effect? Or....

 

b ) Did they seek to change behavior of those who used booze irresponsibly, illegally sold booze to minors, sold booze to known drunks with keys in their hands, increase awareness of irresponsible booze use and encourgage people to report abusers to the police or take their keys away ebfore they could get behind the wheel?

 

a or b, Jocal. Simple and direct question. I'll be waiting for your answer paitiently. Thanks in advance.

 

Nothing but crickets from Jeff. Nothing but more unwarranted druggie slander from Boothy. Hmmm.

Jeffie, your much-repeated desire for a strictly MADD-type approach to gun control is quite limited in scope. As we speak, public health professionals are wondering WHICH guns are doing the social damage. They will seek to limit these guns; such restrictions are in accord with the actual words of Heller.

State Courts, not MADD, will rule the day. Like the California SC, which gave broad pro-gun-control interpretations of the NRA's pre-emption limits in the 1990's (Source: Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America, By Kristin A. Goss.)

Since this is a thread about Bloomberg, let's take the New York SC, which set limits on your scary black weapons yesterday.

Gun sanity may follow such logic. Registration of such weapons presently existing in NY has been ordered by lawful courts--whose words explain the rationale better than I can. Enjoy.

Like the Heller II court, which applied intermediate scrutiny to firearm restrictions

similar to those at issue here, this Court finds that the burden here is akin to a time, place,

and manner restriction. As described by the Heller II court, “[R]estrictions that impose

severe burdens (because they don't leave open ample alternative channels) must be

judged under strict scrutiny, but restrictions that impose only modest burdens (because

The Second Circuit has expressed reservations about “import[ing] substantive First Amendment 13

principles wholesale into Second Amendment jurisprudence.” Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 92 (emphasis in

original).

But that admonishment is not applicable here. This Court is not applying “substantive principles”;

rather, as the Second Circuit has explicitly held, when deciding whether a law substantially burdens a

Second Amendment right, or, in deciding what level of scrutiny to apply, “it is [] appropriate to consult

principles from other areas of constitutional law, including the First Amendment.”

Decastro, 682 F.3d at 167–68 (citing Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 89 & n.4).

Case 1:13-cv-00291-WMS Document 140 Filed 12/31/13 Page 29 of 57

("...They do leave open ample alternative channels) are judged under a mild form of

intermediate scrutiny.” 670 F.3d at 1262 (quoting Volokh, supra, at 1471) (parentheses in

original).

The court concluded that because “the prohibition of semiautomatic rifles and

large-capacity magazines does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their

ability to defend themselves” — because, in other words, alternative channels for the

possession of substitute firearms exist — the restrictions should be judged under

intermediate scrutiny. Id.

Calling the SAFE Act’s restrictions “a ban on an entire class of firearms,” Plaintiffs

liken the SAFE Act to the ban struck down by the Supreme Court in Heller. But unlike the

handgun ban, the SAFE Act applies only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New

York State has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense;

it does not totally disarm New York’s citizens; and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their

right to self-defense…

Current owners of the now-regulated weapons may lawfully possess

them so long as they register the weapons with the State.

...But Plaintiffs later argue that the banned features increase the utility for self-defense

— which is just another way of saying that the features increase their lethality.

...There thus can be no serious dispute that the very features that increase a

weapon’s utility for self-defense also increase its dangerousness to the public at large.

Here, New York has met that burden; substantial evidence supports its judgment that the

banned features are unusually dangerous, commonly associated with military combat

situations, and are commonly found on weapons used in mass shootings.

this is only one incident. But it is nonetheless illustrative. Studies and

data support New York’s view that assault weapons are often used to devastating effect

in mass shootings. (See Koper Decl., ¶¶ 11–14; Zimring Decl. ¶¶ 15–22; Docket

P33...

In all, the study found that assault weapons, high-capacity magazines,

or both were used in over half of all mass shootings.

The State points to other evidence as well. It suggests that it should come as no

surprise that assault weapons produced carnage in Aurora and Newtown, as The Bureau

of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms found that these weapons “were designed for rapid fire,

close quarter shooting at human beings” — or, as the report called it, “mass produced

mayhem.”

Here, New York has met that burden; substantial evidence supports its judgment that the

banned features are unusually dangerous, commonly associated with military combat

situations, and are commonly found on weapons used in mass shootings.

The Supreme Court has previously described the AR–15 as “the civilian version of the military's M–16

rifle.” Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 603, 114 S. Ct. 1793, 128 L. Ed. 2d 608

(1994). Indeed, there is no dispute that the AR-15 type rifle derives from a weapon

designed for fully-automatic military use on the battlefield. As Brain Siebel testified, the

military features of semiautomatic assault weapons “serve specific, combat-functional

ends” and are “designed to enhance the capacity to shoot multiple human targets rapidly.”

Bruen Decl. ¶¶ 13-26; Docket No. 66.)

The Chief of Police for the Rochester Police Department expresses similar sentiments, stating that assault weapons “are designed for one purpose — to efficiently kill numerous people.” (Shepard Decl., ¶ 14; Docket No. 72).

In other words, evidence suggests that the banned features make a deadly weapon deadlier.

And while there is not (and cannot be) a dispute that the outlawed features make

semiautomatic weapons easier to use, New York identifies purposes of these features that

are particularly unnecessary for lawful use. Of course, several of the banned features, like

a grenade launcher, bayonet mount, or a silencer, require no explanation. Indeed, Plaintiffs

do not explicitly argue that the Act’s regulation of firearms with these features violates the

Second Amendment.

 

Incredibly, the court quoted Gary Kleck, whose DGU conclusions are a rallying point for many: research anomalies curiously (and consistently) at odds with the broader public health community's findings.

 

 

And New York further points to evidence that AR-15 type rifles are “not generally

recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes,” nor used
frequently for self-defense. See Dep't of Treasury, Study on the Sporting Suitability of
Modified Semi-automatic Assault Rifles, 38 (1998); Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz...

 

Yes, Tom, the seven-round limit was not approved. That part of the ruling is being appealed.

 

The NY ruling is a refreshing state model for jurisdictions which don't want to follow Georgia or Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^That's^ gotta be the most ridiculously stupid legal arguement I've ever f'ng heard. There's so much bs and misinformation in that ruling that they're giving Bagdad Bob a run for the money in the Liars Cup......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you could always move again (hopefully to a property with running water this time) and run for the Supreme Court in New York.

 

By the way, the NYSC quoted Mother Jones investigative reports on the extremely high percentage of AW's use in mass killings.

And the haters be hatin'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is comedy?

 

No, but it does seem to be stupid and pointless. Aside from trying to generate negative emotions towards firearms, I can not find any purpose to the ad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hi everybody. We meet again.

@ Sean, Spatial, and Flasher, you do good work. Carry on, bros.

Several leading gun violence researchers and authors (Tom Diaz particularly, but also Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Dr. Daniel Webster, Dr. David Hemenway IIRC), in their overviews, conclude that the gun foolishness is challengeable, but point out that no cohesive organization has ever come forward to offset the destructive, even evil, effects of the NRA/SAF/gun lobby.

Bloomberg could, and probably will IMO, make a difference here, especially combined with the average concerns of the typical mother and housewife. (Historically, the latter have been quite effective against gun proliferation: according to the History Channel, the nurture and outlook of the average female tamed the Wild West, not Samuel Colt.)

So go ahead and dismiss Bloomberg (as many of you have, and will). Please proceed to belittle and underestimate him, and the Demanding Mothers, too. But here we probably have a missing link towards solving this problem.

Which problem? Our U.S. gun violence problem. One which is 19.5X worse than other high-income countries. Unfortunately many in the pro-rights side think that having it settle at the present horrific rate is acceptable. WTF? With 110,000 human bullet perforations in the U.S. per year, a figure which is growing when one accounts for gun incident survivors, the damage should not be considered negligible IMO. The guns are bringing about their own demise: natural selection.

Somehow we have to roll back the pattern of the gun violence, and the cultural deterioration brought by the many who are promoting vigilante-based law and order.

My take: Bloomberg is committing to a key role here. Good on him.

 

Welcome back jocal..... although I doubt you will stick around long enough to actually engage in a discussion and instead prefer to conduct drive by shootings.

 

But hope springs eternal...... so since you brought up mothers likely being the key to the gun violence debate - tell me what avenue did that other group of Mothers use to change the scourge of the drunken driving epidemic? Did they:

 

a ) blame the booze itself as well as go after the people who made the booze, sold the booze, and drank the booze responsibly and without any negative societal effect? Or....

 

b ) Did they seek to change behavior of those who used booze irresponsibly, illegally sold booze to minors, sold booze to known drunks with keys in their hands, increase awareness of irresponsible booze use and encourgage people to report abusers to the police or take their keys away ebfore they could get behind the wheel?

 

a or b, Jocal. Simple and direct question. I'll be waiting for your answer paitiently. Thanks in advance.

 

Asked and answered, Jeff. See above.

 

Ar least your response was not douchebag, cunt, yoo hoo, blah blah blah, or other abusive bits.

It was no response after your polite request for engagement. Your vacation may have played into it.

 

I find it amusing and myopic (as well as convenient) that you think MADD's approach is a sole, one-size-fits-all paradigm for the problem of gun safety in the USA.

 

The approach and reasoning of public health officials, and the outline for their future actions, was posted on these forums by myself in a breakdown of the 2013 CDC overview. It took me ten hours to sort it for y'all--I did it carefully, with your supposed intellectual curiosity and your obsession with MADD particularly in mind.

 

Here it is again. See page 2.

FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE AS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE

The public health field focuses on problems that are associated with significant levels of morbidity and mortality. The complexity and frequency of firearm-related violence combined with its impact on the health and safety of the nation’s residents make it a topic of considerable public health importance and suggest that a public health approach should be incorporated into the strategies used to prevent future harm and injuries. A public health approach involves three elements: (1) a focus on prevention, (2) a focus on scientific methodology to identify risk and patterns, and (3) multidisciplinary collaboration to address the issue.

 

Public health strategies are designed to interrupt the connection between three essential elements: (1) the “agent” (the source of injury [weapon or perpetrator]), (2) the “host” (the injured person), and (3) the “environment” (the conditions under which the injury occurred). This public health approach has produced successes in reduction of tobacco use, unintentional poisoning, and motor vehicle fatalities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have 20,000-plus rules, regs and laws for firearms, tens of housands of firearm related training courses, thousands of firearm websites and forums and magazines and books, hefty fines and imprisonment guidelines for those caught fuking up and some of the largest private organizations promoting both safety and 2A rights......and you think we need even more intervention? Jfc, get over yourself. And get rid of your own gun whilst you're at it. Youre a fuking idiotic embarrassment to this country and what makes it great.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of this is a good post, showing some thought, Rick. Thanks. I have long suspected that you have a fine mind, and a caring heart. In fact, I heard it from an anarchist who has met you, but I was virulently, repeatedly called a liar when I passed on the compliment. Let's talk.

 

Until the enormous U.S. gun violence problem is significantly diminished, gun safety legislation will continue. Laws are symbols of the desired direction of the future; they speak to a philosophy which guides the judges of our courts. The NRA is a maestro of that concept, and is being challenged for very good reasons.

 

I kept my gun because I didn't want to hear your braying and alpha dominance BS in the aftermath of giving it up.

Secondly, because I have loved and have enjoyed guns, and even became a decent shooter at one point.

Thirdly, because on the day of a Seattle gun buyback, in the very act of loading my gun into my ride, I reacted to the sustained attack of an empty bully. That bully, of course, was yourself.

 

I hear braying, and lots of huffing and puffing. It seems my gun ownership is quite an annoyance to you. Please lay out the "hypocrisy" you mention (repeatedly). I have never proposed that all humans turn over all guns (beyond repeating another poster's amusing image of a helicopter dangling an electromagnet to magically make the problem go away). I want battle weaponry and gun ownership to be pretty tightly regulated, however, because human behavior on a global level is evidently requiring that.

 

The second amendment hooey in the USA is another matter. The machine which generated the imaginary problem (and solution) will eventually have to answer for it in the public mind. (It is foolish enough on its face that that day will come, IMO.) Did you know the SAF was founded in 1973, four years before certain "patriots" re-charted the NRA into this bogus philosophy? FYI Richard Booth, the SAF founder and many others have become quite rich manipulating your fears, WHILE DESTROYING LIVES, AMIGO.

 

You have a beef that I am a lifelong gunowner? That I love guns in my own way? Well, too bad. What I see is that gun owners such as myself have been the problem, in that we remained silent too long in not criticizing the extreme elements of the "guns for everyone, everywhere" era of the NRA. (Of course, you and other sailors present fit this latter category.) You see, many studies show, well, that such gun enthusiasts represent a dangerous, extremist fringe element within the broader gun-owning demographic. Further, that you extremists are materially mucking things up.

 

The situation has the makings of good discussion. Carry on, big guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey jocal.... congrats. I just joined the NRA today. Seriously, I paid for a 3 year membership based almost entirely on a backlash to people like you. Best $75 I've ever spent. I really never had much love for the NRA, but honestly - and I AM NOT being sarcastic - you made me see the climate this country has become. And I will be damned if assnuts like you are going to take my rights away.

 

You seriously call ME the problem when I am the model gunowner you should be holding up as an example of what to do right. I am avid about safety, about responsibility, about logical and sane discourse, about compromise on some gun legislation, etc. And you STILL want to label ME as the problem??? Well, go fuck yourself. My gun ownership and my views DO NOT have any bearing or impact on the urban youth you pick up a gun everyday and shoot their rival drug dealer. My gun ownership and views do NOT have any bearing on the 18 year old loser sociopath who plays violent video games all fucking day long and while drugged out on Ativan, Paxil or Xanax and decides to go shoot a Congresswoman in the face.

 

And the fact that you think the NRA has anything to do with those urban youth picking up guns everyday and gunning down their rival drug dealers and gangmembers over turf is fucking comical. Who do you think they are being influenced by more.....a middle-aged white cracker like me and the NRA or Snooop Dog and Jay-Z?

 

So anyway jojo..... Wayne LaPierre thanks you for the donation. You should feel good about that. I was resisting giving them money for a long time. But seriously, you pushed me over the edge with your fucked up concepts of crime and justice. It became clear to me that LenP was correct. This fucked thinking needs to be vigorously opposed at every turn. There will be no more talk of compromise and common sense when the other side of the argument has zero interest in that. So again... congrats. You made me a convert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey jocal.... congrats. I just joined the NRA today. Seriously, I paid for a 3 year membership based almost entirely on a backlash to people like you. Best $75 I've ever spent. I really never had much love for the NRA, but honestly - and I AM NOT being sarcastic - you made me see the climate this country has become. And I will be damned if assnuts like you are going to take my rights away.

 

You seriously call ME the problem when I am the model gunowner you should be holding up as an example of what to do right. I am avid about safety, about responsibility, about logical and sane discourse, about compromise on some gun legislation, etc. And you STILL want to label ME as the problem??? Well, go fuck yourself. My gun ownership and my views DO NOT have any bearing or impact on the urban youth you pick up a gun everyday and shoot their rival drug dealer.

 

And the fact that you think the NRA has anything to do with those urban youth picking up guns everyday and gunning down their rival drug dealers and gangmembers over turf is fucking comical. Who do you think they are being influenced by more.....a middle-aged white cracker like me and the NRA or Snooop Dog and Jay-Z?

 

So anyway jojo..... Wayne LaPierre thanks you for the donation. You should feel good about that. I was resisting giving them money for a long time. But seriously, you pushed me over the edge with your fucked up concepts of crime and justice. It became clear to me that LenP was correct. This fucked thinking needs to be vigorously opposed at every turn. There will be no more talk of compromise and common sense when the other side of the argument has zero interest in that. So again... congrats. You made me a convert.

Slow down, calm down, buddy. Somehow I am not sensing calm brain waves, I may have missed your post-vacation peacefulness. But Jeff, I can relate to the anger part.

 

(From our last chapter in this thread, you owe me an advancement on your understanding for the reasons why Everytown will not emulate MADD.

BTW, I spent several hours researching the eloquence and reasoning of public health experts and the superior courts for ya. But we can get back to that later.)

 

the urban youth you pick up a gun everyday and shoot their rival drug dealer,,,

shooting... gangmembers over turf

 

You bring up your concern about black street gangs A LOT. This post mentions them multiple times. It speaks to Spatial's premise that you lack equanimity wrt race relations.

Please remember I lived among black street gangs and patrolled their territories at night for seven years, unarmed, between 1970-'78, all over North America.

I guess I need to remind you that the guns in U.S. houses, used between persons who know each other, do more damage than black drug dealers.

 

Jeff, you may be neither "the model gunowner", nor the "reasonable" person you think you are.

Just as one example, you support the open sale of fifty caliber battle weapons.

And you compete with a sniper rifle at a distance of 5/8 of a mile.

For a third example, I found the post where you claimed your AW was once kept under your bed (and I can cite it) which you denied later.

Lastly, you propose an AW as a beneficial weapon for home self-defense, and name it as your personal preference based on skillset.

 

You can't have it both ways. You may be believing that you and your extreme element of the gun mentality is the new normal. It isn't.

 

And your post shows polarization and antagonism, neither of which are workable, meaningful or logical approaches. Your post includes offensive namecalling and insults, supporting Wofsey's general observations of your particular behavior when trapped.

 

But let's talk anyway. I have felt anger and been a jerk here, too, at times. my friend.

 

Remember when you advised me that I was entirely out of my element discussing gun safety? Those days are gone.

Remember when Tom Ray gave be the double "BEGONE" and thought it would do the trick? It didn't.

Remember when I thought the world had crashed because of the flimsy, devastating reversal included in Heller? Among other, finer minds, I have found a dozen ways to proceed effectively within the present interpretation of the second amendment.

I am more or less prepared to present a workable middle ground, and we need one. It involves a national overview of emerging firearms law and policy, and being based on reality: it is all about practical compromise. So yeah, calm down.

 

Mr. Jeff, congrats on your conduit to the NRA. BTW Tom Diaz, perhaps the most virulent fighter of gunslingers in the USA, advised ALL gun safety advocates to join the NRA. I would have already, except that many sailors here lay out such reasoning and emotion for me. Plus, Boothy turned me on to Thetruthaboutguns.com, and Figaro is a click above our very unique Tom Ray. Dude, I am working hard to understand your elk.

 

And I care for you all, as well as for the reasonable possession of firearms in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx for that post, Jokey. And I'm sure the NRA appreciates it as well. 'Cuz just as soon as escrow closes on my new 1700 sq. ft. gun storage locker house, I'm gonna follow Jeff's lead and buy La Familia Mariachi a lifetime membership as well. So please keep up the good work. Idiot.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jokeawf, do you even have one iota of clue yet how utterly ridiculous your anti-gunnery posts are? Really, taking advice from you about firearms is comically on par with people taking advice from Al Gore on how to live inside the smallest carbin footprint that you can. You & DT have are in a head long tie for being Sailing Anarchy's longest running joke.

 

Congrats, you may actually finally succeed in something if you play your cards right.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I need to remind you that the guns in U.S. houses, used between persons who know each other, do more damage than black drug dealers.

 

Then I will apparently need to remind you that you are full of shit...

 

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx#note5

 

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!! You are entitled to your own opinions. But not your own facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I originally was going to respond en masse to all your stuff at once, but thought I might have a better chance of you actually addressing my points if I break it up into easier to digest posts. I'm not holding my breath......

 

 



You seriously call ME the problem when I am the model gunowner you should be holding up as an example of what to do right. I am avid about safety, about responsibility, about logical and sane discourse, about compromise on some gun legislation, etc. And you STILL want to label ME as the problem??? Well, go fuck yourself. My gun ownership and my views DO NOT have any bearing or impact on the urban youth you pick up a gun everyday and shoot their rival drug dealer.


Jeff, you may be neither "the model gunowner", nor the "reasonable" person you think you are.
Just as one example, you support the open sale of fifty caliber battle weapons.

 

Yeah, so? How many .50 cal rifles have been used in the commission of a crime in the US? Why do you have such a hard-on for .50 Barrett rifles? I've asked you this question MANY times and not once have you answered me. I don't really expect this time to be any different. Are they just too scary looking for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jocal505, on 18 May 2014 - 19:52, said:

And you compete with a sniper rifle at a distance of 5/8 of a mile.

Again, so what? Does my long range shooting escapades and adventures have an impact on what a gang-banger does in Chicago or a domestic abuser in Bakersfield do? Do you think Jamal in Oakland or De'Shane in Chicago is avidly following JBSF on sailing anarchy and anxiously waiting for the next pic of my rifle or me posing next to a steel plate with splatters of copper and lead after a day at the range? And then that suddenly inspires them to pic up their Tec-9 and go sun down the drug dealer encroaching on their street corner business? Really?

 

And btw - I don't own a "sniper rifle". A sniper rifle is a military spec rifle used by military or LE trained "snipers". My rifle is MORE accurate than a mil-spec sniper rifle (which only has to be 1 MOA accurate) and there is FAR more to being a sniper than just shooting @ long ranges. I do not possess that training. I am simply a long range precision rifle shooter. But I guess that doesn't sound as scary as "sniper".

 

BTW2 - I often shoot further than 5/8th of a mile.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jocal505, on 18 May 2014 - 19:52, said:

For a third example, I found the post where you claimed your AW was once kept under your bed (and I can cite it) which you denied later.

yeah So? I didn't have kids in the house and it went back in the safe before I went to work in the morning. And I didn't actually keep it "under the bed". I have a German Shepard and there is far too much dog hair under the bed to lay a rifle down on the carpet under the bed. I stood it up in the corner near the bed. Is there some problem with having a gun out of the safe and accessible while home?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jocal505, on 18 May 2014 - 19:52, said:

Lastly, you propose an AW as a beneficial weapon for home self-defense, and name it as your personal preference based on skillset.

Again, so? Small caliber, short, lightweight carbines like the AR-15 are actually far better suited for home defense than even a pistol, shotgun or baseball bat. I've detailed why that is in numerous posts and most home defense experts and LE agree with that assessment. Are you saying that LE is wrong in the weapons they choose for selected tasks? If you don't believe me, go look it up.

 

And again, that decision is not based entirely on "skillset". Its a combo of skillset, preference, comfort with the weapon, safety, and utility. If it was strictly based on "skillset", I would use my bolt action "sniper rifle". But that would be hugely unsuitable for the home defense environment. Unless I suddenly found myself living in a 5/8th of a mile long house..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump for jocal. I didn't want you to miss these......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Anonymous contributions are bad. Except when they're not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's bad. This anonymous person obviously feels strongly about this issue. There are other fun things to do with a six figure sum of money. I'd probably buy boats and maybe aircraft. This person decided to try to change some laws instead. I don't support the changes he or she wants to see, but I support the right of people to participate in the political process anonymously. Don't you, Sean uhh... what was that last name again? ;)

 

Sincerely,

Publius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Publius, I think you're conflating anonymity because of the fear you might hang for speaking out against the King with spending money to support a political cause. Given we have laws that enshrine your right to free speech as a direct result of that previous fear - I think the need for anonymity is less of a concern. If you're concerned that your political views might harm your business then tough shit - I think that goes with the territory.

 

What I think the problem with anonymous $$ is that that money buys direct access to politicians that you and I don't get. A rich guy with a big checkbook gets a seat at ______ Senator/Congressman's/Presidents table and allows him to whisper directly in his or her ear. If that's happening, then I, as WE THE PEOPLE, want to know exactly who is influencing that process and WHY so I can determine through my future votes for that person if I agree with it or not. The WHY is often tied directly to the WHO. If we don't know the WHO its very hard to determine if its a good thing for the country or not.

 

Now if you want to anonymously want to buy a bunch of TV ads, billboards, mailers, etc because you believe in a cause - then have a nut. But the moment that money buys you a seat at the table - I FUCKING WANT TO KNOW WHO'S SITTING THERE influencing policy.

 

See the distinction, Publius?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

jocal505, on 18 May 2014 - 19:52, said:

For a third example, I found the post where you claimed your AW was once kept under your bed (and I can cite it) which you denied later.

yeah So? I didn't have kids in the house and it went back in the safe before I went to work in the morning. And I didn't actually keep it "under the bed". I have a German Shepard and there is far too much dog hair under the bed to lay a rifle down on the carpet under the bed. I stood it up in the corner near the bed. Is there some problem with having a gun out of the safe and accessible while home?

 

 

Man up. A studly male specimen such as yourself should work in a few Barrett .50 cals into that home regimen.

 

At one point, back in the day, you offered that your battlefield-engineered weapon was under your bed. That's a little creepy IMO. So is the ritual of carrying it to and from the gun safe. So is having an AW leazning against the wall, IMO. Same for " having a gun out of the safe and accessible while home". I suppose the upside is that it gives you much joy, besides all that "security".

 

Creepy, creepy, and creepy in your own domicile, NTTAWWT.

And... that's not enough. Tom and others are pressing for such creepiness to be extended into public spaces.

 

Sorry. This whole degenerate/barbarian bit just doesn't seem too healthy, in several ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I originally was going to respond en masse to all your stuff at once, but thought I might have a better chance of you actually addressing my points if I break it up into easier to digest posts. I'm not holding my breath......

 

 

 

 

You seriously call ME the problem when I am the model gunowner you should be holding up as an example of what to do right. I am avid about safety, about responsibility, about logical and sane discourse, about compromise on some gun legislation, etc. And you STILL want to label ME as the problem??? Well, go fuck yourself. My gun ownership and my views DO NOT have any bearing or impact on the urban youth you pick up a gun everyday and shoot their rival drug dealer.

 

 

Jeff, you may be neither "the model gunowner", nor the "reasonable" person you think you are.

Just as one example, you support the open sale of fifty caliber battle weapons.

 

Yeah, so? How many .50 cal rifles have been used in the commission of a crime in the US? Why do you have such a hard-on for .50 Barrett rifles? I've asked you this question MANY times and not once have you answered me. I don't really expect this time to be any different. Are they just too scary looking for you?

 

"Model gunowner"? Baloney. Obviously, there are too many kooks out there, yet you want AW's and .50 cals circulating to empower their lethal whims.

 

We had a misfit shoot up a college not far from the Ballard locks yesterday, Jeff. He was subdued by pepper spray, while reloading a shotgun, after about five shots. One fatality, two in intensive care. His low-capacity ammo feeder made a significant difference.

 

Here's a look at our local gun mess, for which you are crusading to make worse, bud:

 

 

Previous mass shootings in Washington state

June 5, 2014 at 6:06 PM

Previous mass shootings in Washington state:

May 30, 2012: Ian Stawicki, 40, shot five people at Cafe Racer in Northeast Seattle, killing four and wounding one, and then drove downtown and killed a woman near Town Hall. He fatally shot himself on a West Seattle sidewalk

Nov. 29, 2009: Four Lakewood police officers were gunned down in a coffee shop south of Tacoma by Maurice Clemmons, who is later shot and killed by a Seattle police officer.

April 4, 2009: James Harrison fatally shot all five of his kids, ages 7 through 16, in Graham and then drove to Auburn and killed himself.

Sept. 2, 2008: Six people were shot and killed by Isaac Zamora, 29, and four others were injured in a rampage that started in Alger, Skagit County, and continued down Interstate 5 during a high-speed chase that ended when he gave up in Mount Vernon.

Dec. 24, 2007: Six members of the same family were fatally shot in a Carnation home. Michele Anderson and her former boyfriend, Joseph McEnroe, are each charged with six counts of aggravated murder in the fatal shootings of her parents, her brother and his wife, and the couple’s two children. Anderson and McEnroe may face the death penalty.

July 26, 2006: Naveed Haq attacked the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, making anti-Semitic statements before killing one woman and wounding five. He was sentenced to life in prison.

March 25, 2006: Kyle Huff, 28, shot and killed six people and wounded two others in a house in Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood before fatally shooting himself.

Nov. 20, 2005: Dominick Maldonado wounded seven in a Tacoma Mall shooting rampage. He was sentenced to more than 163 years in prison.

July 5, 1998: Five young men walked into the Trang Dai restaurant in Tacoma and fired nearly 60 bullets, killing five people and injuring five more in what were described as gang-related killings. Of the nine men charged in the case, two committed suicide, another was killed before trial, four pleaded guilty and two were convicted at trial.

Feb. 2, 1996: At Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, two students and one teacher were killed and another student was wounded when 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis opened fire on his algebra class. He is serving a life sentence.

June 20, 1994: Airman Dean Mellberg, who had been discharged from the military for mental-health reasons, opened fire with a semiautomatic assault rifle at Spokane’s Fairchild Air Force Base hospital. Four people were killed and 22 were injured before Mellberg was shot and killed by a base security officer.

Feb. 19, 1983: 13 people were slain during a robbery at the Wah Mee gambling parlor in Seattle’s Chinatown International District. Two men, Kwan Fai “Willie” Mak and Benjamin Ng, are serving life sentences for the Wah Mee killings. A third man, Tony Ng (no relation to Benjamin), was paroled this year and deported to Hong Kong.

Pasted from <http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2014/06/previous-mass-shootings-in-washington-state/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a whole whopping 57 'mass' murders in 31 years, in a state with fairly relaxed gun laws.. Or basically about the same as any two given weekends in Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in America. Thanx again, idiot, for another klassic JokeAwf Fail. You never cease to amaze us with your stupidity......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess I need to remind you that the guns in U.S. houses, used between persons who know each other, do more damage than black drug dealers.

 

Then I will apparently need to remind you that you are full of shit...

 

>Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx#note5

 

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!! You are entitled to your own opinions. But not your own facts.

 

Your quote does not indicate what you say it does. And the 95% vs 70% contrast is 20 years old, at the 1993 peak of crime.

 

I'll look for a good link, but among econometrics professorss, it's a basic that our U.S. guns stats are out-of-whack not with crime, as the NRA would tell it, but with interpersonal mishaps among familiar parties.

 

This includes the black community. Since we're discussing gun violence among blacks, figure this in:

 

MOST COMMON WEAPONS

For homicides in which the weapon used could be identified, 82 percent of black victims (4,949 out of 6,022) were shot
and killed with guns. Of these, 77 percent (3,824 victims) were killed with handguns. There were 644 victims killed
with knives or other cutting instruments, 221 victims killed by bodily force, and 130 victims killed by a blunt object. In
comparison, 63 percent of white victims and 73 percent of victims of all races were killed with guns.
VICTIM/OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP
For homicides in which the victim to offender relationship could be identified, 73 percent of black victims (2,138 out of
2,928) were murdered by someone they knew. Seven hundred ninety victims were killed by strangers.
CIRCUMSTANCE
For homicides in which the circumstances could be identified, 70 percent (2,540 out of 3,652) were not related to the
commission of any other felony. Of these, 58 percent (1,475 homicides) involved arguments between the victim and
the offender.
Eleven percent (282 homicides) were reported to be gang-related. Forty-one percent of gang-related homicides (115
homicides) were in California, which may be in part due to more comprehensive reporting. In California, 51 percent of
non-felony related homicides were reported to be gang-related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a whole whopping 57 'mass' murders in 31 years, in a state with fairly relaxed gun laws.. Or basically about the same as any two given weekends in Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in America. Thanx again, idiot, for another klassic JokeAwf Fail. You never cease to amaze us with your stupidity......

Shirley you are not trying to say a dozen mass shootings in Seattle is AOK.

It's too many killings Rick. Even for you, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's a whole whopping 57 'mass' murders in 31 years, in a state with fairly relaxed gun laws.. Or basically about the same as any two given weekends in Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in America. Thanx again, idiot, for another klassic JokeAwf Fail. You never cease to amaze us with your stupidity......

It's too many killings Rick. Even for you, my friend.

 

 

No its not, fuk-apple. Of all the ways to die in Washington state, being mass murdered is right tgere at thebbottom of the list. After fugu poisoning, being struck by a golf ball or getting smashed by a falling piano. Fifty seven ' mass murder' victims in 31 years is amost zero, percentage wise up there. And you know it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's a whole whopping 57 'mass' murders in 31 years, in a state with fairly relaxed gun laws.. Or basically about the same as any two given weekends in Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in America. Thanx again, idiot, for another klassic JokeAwf Fail. You never cease to amaze us with your stupidity......

It's too many killings Rick. Even for you, my friend.

 

 

No its not, fuk-apple. Of all the ways to die in Washington state, being mass murdered is right tgere at thebbottom of the list. After fugu poisoning, being struck by a golf ball or getting smashed by a falling piano. Fifty seven ' mass murder' victims in 31 years is amost zero, percentage wise up there. And you know it.....

 

What I know here is that you are a very de-sensitized individual who loves guns.

There may be a connection between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a whole whopping 57 'mass' murders in 31 years, in a state with fairly relaxed gun laws.. Or basically about the same as any two given weekends in Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in America. Thanx again, idiot, for another klassic JokeAwf Fail. You never cease to amaze us with your stupidity......

 

It's too many killings Rick. Even for you, my friend.

No its not, fuk-apple. Of all the ways to die in Washington state, being mass murdered is right tgere at thebbottom of the list. After fugu poisoning, being struck by a golf ball or getting smashed by a falling piano. Fifty seven ' mass murder' victims in 31 years is amost zero, percentage wise up there. And you know it.....

What I know here is that you are a very de-sensitized individual who loves guns.

There may be a connection between the two.

I've had four*in cade you've asleep here for a while) good friends killed by gun fire over the years. And after 35 years, I still hold no ill will to the guns----but the fuckers who killed my friends. So fuk you and your mindless arguements.......

Iv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg is going to spend more in a year than the NRA spends in a decade.

 

Money in politics is bad....sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg is going to spend more in a year than the NRA spends in a decade.

 

Money in politics is bad....sometimes.

It's not politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bloomberg is going to spend more in a year than the NRA spends in a decade.

 

Money in politics is bad....sometimes.

It's not politics.

 

Really? What is it then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's public safety, RD. Just trying to negotiate around shit like this:

 

A 7-year-old girl and a 22-year-old man were wounded in a drive-by shooting in Cleveland, Ohio, Monday night. Police said the victims were at a gas station when Xavier Collins, 22, got into an argument with another man. Collins and the girl, who is his girlfriend’s daughter, drove away from the gas station, but the suspect followed him and opened fire. Also that night, a 26-year-old man was shot and killed during an argument with a roommate. The suspect, 28-year-old Joshua Carter, was arrested. All three lived together.

Fox 8, News Net 5

Five people were shot, one fatally, in the Sweet Auburn neighborhood of Atlanta, Ga., early Tuesday. The shooting stemmed from an argument over gambling. The dead man was identified as Selemon Belai, 27.

myfoxatlanta.com

A 13-year-old boy was accidentally shot in the head outside a mobile home in Bluffton, Ind., Tuesday morning. Police said the victim was with a group of minors, one of whom had a gun that accidentally discharged.

INC Now, WISH TV

Shaquez Brunner, 13, was shot and killed while playing with a gun in southwest Columbus, Ohio, Tuesday afternoon, and his 16-year-old friend was arrested. Police said Jakairion Spikes, 16, and some friends were inside his apartment when the shooting occurred. “I just hate that this happened to his family and I send my prayers to his family,” Spikes’s mother said. The boys were reportedly best friends.

WBNS-10TV

A 15-year-old boy who was shot in downtown Lodi, Calif., Saturday night died of his injuries Monday. His family has agreed to donate his organs.

Lodi News-Sentinel

Laquan Nelson, 16, was shot in the torso and killed while walking the grounds of a public housing complex in the Clinton Hill section ofBrooklyn, N.Y., Monday evening. Police have not identified any suspects.

NY1

A 17-year-old girl was shot in the shoulder outside Arsenal Tech High School in Indianapolis Tuesday afternoon, and police arrested her ex-boyfriend, 19-year-old William Alvies. Police said the two were arguing in a school parking lot across the street from the campus, and the victim started screaming and ran back to school. Alvies allegedly chased her and opened fire from the middle of the street. According to court documents, Alvies had physically assaulted the girl before. That night in a separate incident, a man was shot on the city’s northeast side.

Indy Star, RTV 6

A man was killed in a drive-by shooting in front of a home on the west side of Detroit early Tuesday. That night, two men and a woman were wounded in a drive-by shooting on the west side ofDetroit.

Detroit Free Press, WXYZ

A 34-year-old woman and a 41-year-old man were found shot to death in a motel room in northwest Houston, Tex., Tuesday afternoon. Police believe the man shot the woman in the head and then shot himself.

Chron

Edroy James Ballard, Jr., 29, was found shot to death in front of a home in Horn Lake, Miss., Tuesday afternoon. Neighbors said the shooter was working on a parked car when he started arguing with the victim. The suspect fled before police arrived. “Receive my son, father, into your kingdom,” the victim’s mother shouted as her son’s body was taken away.

WREG

James Anthony Chancellor, 30, was found shot in an alley inDayton, Ohio, Tuesday night and later died at a hospital. After he was shot, the victim called his girlfriend and asked her to send for police. Police have not released any suspect information.

WHIO

Bobby Ervin, 20, was shot to death during an argument with three others outside a south Dallas, Tex., convenience store Monday night. The victim ran from the scene before collapsing. Detectives are following up on several leads.

The Dallas Morning News

A man shot himself near a Toyota plant in Georgetown, Ky., Monday night. The victim was an employee at the plant. He told police that he was approached by someone with a gun while coming back from his lunch break, but after police questioning he admitted the wound was self-inflicted.

WKYT

A man was shot in the leg during a fight with more than a dozen people near the Beauty Bar in the Mission District of San Francisco early Tuesday. Police do not think the melee was gang-related. No one has been arrested.

Mission Local

A 50-year-old man is clinging to life after he was shot in the chest in the parking lot of the Lone Star Market in Corpus Christi, Tex., Tuesday evening. Police have detained a 53-year-old man. Authorities have not revealed whether the incident was gang-related.

KIII TV

Catina Cortes, 25, was found shot to death at a Ramada hotel inLanham, Md., Tuesday afternoon. Detectives are interviewing staff and guests.

CBS DC

George Moore, 37, was shot and killed at a home in Edgewood, Md., Monday evening. Tanasha Siena, 35, called 911 and told dispatchers she shot her boyfriend. She said Moore assaulted her before the shooting. She was charged with murder.

CBS Baltimore

Sean Zoccoillo, 23, was shot in the stomach while fleeing a drug deal gone bad in Syracuse, N.Y., Tuesday night. The victim and 23-year-old William Abt were in a car in a parking lot, where they were trying to buy drugs. The dealer and another man tried to rob the pair, and as Abt sped away, one of the men fired a round. Anyone with information about the shooting is asked to contact police.

Syracuse.com

A man was shot and critically injured during an attempted robbery in Richmond, Calif., Tuesday afternoon. The suspected shooter approached the victim in the garage of a home, and after they exchanged words, gunfire ensued. Police are looking for a man in his 20s or 30s.

Contra Costa Times

A 22-year-old man was found shot in the foot outside an apartment complex in Kalamazoo, Mich., early Tuesday. Authorities do not have information about a suspect.

WOOD TV

A man was shot in the stomach during an argument in Mobile, Ala., early Tuesday. The suspect, Michael Antonio Russell, 44, was later located at a motel.

AL.com

Kenneth Soles, 47, was shot twice during an argument inTrotwood, Ohio, Tuesday night. Police believe the victim and the suspect, D’Aaron Williams, 24, were arguing over Williams’s loose dog. Williams was located at his probation officer’s office.

WHIO

A man was found shot to death in an alley in Kansas City, Mo., early Tuesday. In separate incidents that afternoon, a man in his late teens was shot by someone in a passing car and another person was shot and wounded less than an hour later.

KCTV 5, The Kansas City Star

Daniel Alaniz, 33, was killed in a gang-related shooting in the Pacoima area of Los Angeles Monday night. Two men are being sought.

Los Angeles Daily News

A 21-year-old man suffering from a gunshot wound to his upper body was dropped off at a hospital on the northeast side ofRochester, N.Y., late Monday.

WHEC

A man was dropped off at a hospital with a gunshot wound to the chest in Crestview, Fla., Tuesday afternoon. Police said the shooting may have been drug-related.

nfwdailynews.com

A man was shot in the head at a west Tulsa, Okla., apartment complex early Tuesday. The victim was discovered lying on a patio. Police do not have a description of the shooter.

NewsOn6.com

Anthony Hunt was shot multiple times while riding in a car driven by his mother in west Toledo, Ohio, Tuesday afternoon. The victim told police he saw a small black vehicle speeding from the scene.

NBC 24

A 32-year-old man was shot several times and killed while driving away from an argument involving a group of people in east San Antonio, Tex., late Monday. Police said the bullet entered the victim’s shoulder and exited through his chest. By the time police arrived, everyone involved in the argument was gone.

KSAT

A 19-year-old man was shot and killed in north Stockton, Calif., Tuesday afternoon. Emergency responders found the victim lying in the street. Distraught citizens gathered near the crime scene.

Recordnet.com

A man in his 30s or 40s was shot to death behind an apartment complex in the Old Louisville neighborhood of Louisville, Ky., Tuesday night. There are no suspects.

WLKY

Two people were wounded in a shooting at an intersection inTallahassee, Fla., Tuesday night. Police are interviewing witnesses.

WCTV

Eddie George, 59, was shot four times while trying to evade a robber outside a convenience store in Shreveport, La., Tuesday afternoon. The would-be robber chased the victim around his truck, and got fed up and opened fire. “I hope the old man is all right,” said a man who witnessed the shooting. “It was a bloody mess.”

Shreveport Times

A man was shot while walking past a home in Watsonville, Calif., Tuesday morning. Police believe the shooting is gang-motivated. Schools near the scene were temporarily locked down.

KION 46

A 22-year-old man was critically wounded during a shooting inAntioch, Calif., Tuesday afternoon. A man with a handgun was arrested near the scene.

KTVU

A 20-year-old man was shot in the stomach at an apartment complex in Kingston, N.Y., early Tuesday. Stray bullets pierced an apartment wall nearby. Detectives recovered a 9mm rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a substantial amount of ammunition at the scene. Eric S. Harris, 24, was arrested.

Daily Freeman

Nathan Newman, 58, was shot in the arm in Pottstown, Pa., Tuesday afternoon. He was holding his right arm, which was bleeding, as he walked to an ambulance. A large group of people stood in the intersection, some of whom were screaming. Police believe the shooting was targeted.

The Mercury

David M. Hernandez, 25, who was shot in the Bridgeport neighborhood of Chicago Sunday night, died of his injuries Monday. Police said a blue vehicle drove up and someone got out and opened fire. The victim was a documented gang member.

Chicago Sun-Times

Two men were shot and wounded at a home in Dodd City, Tex., Tuesday afternoon. Police have not revealed the circumstances of the shooting.

KXII

Antonio Soto, 33, was found shot to death in the driver’s seat of a car in the North Ward of Newark, N.J., early Tuesday. In a separate incident, Latesha Townes, 31, who was shot Saturday morning, died of her injuries Monday afternoon. Townes was found shot at the scene of a three-car collision.

NJ.com

Daylynn Smith, 21, was found lying shot to death in the street in the Hall Manor section of Harrisburg, Pa., late Tuesday. Authorities have not announced arrests or suspects.

WHTM

Frankie Trammell, 24, was shot in the chest and killed in the Hill District of Pittsburgh, Pa., Tuesday evening. Police are asking anyone with information to come forward.

WTAE

According to the Gun Violence Archive, 7,968 people have been injured by gun violence in America and 4,534 have been killed since Jan. 1, 2014. That number includes 16 police officers killed, 507children injured or killed and 380 instances of defensive gun use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've had four*in cade you've asleep here for a while) good friends killed by gun fire over the years. And after 35 years, I still hold no ill will to the guns----but the fuckers who killed my friends. So fuk you and your mindless arguements.......

Iv

 

Don't go away all butt-hurt Rick. Stick around. Because no man on this website can lead with his chin like El Mariachi.

 

BTW, in your childrens' firearms classes to do you teach that twelve mass shootings in Seattle, with 57 dead in 31 years, is about right?

Do you present guns as nifty "tools" for young "suiciders"?

 

Here's researcher Hemenway, a respectful supporter of the Second Amendment:

 

We compared the United States to the other First World countries. We looked at both genders and all ages, but here are the statistics for 5- to 14-year-olds. A child in the United States compared to a child in Finland or France or New Zealand is not 20 percent more likely to be killed in a gun homicide, or 50 percent more likely, or twice as likely, or five times as likely. It’s 13 times higher.

Our gun suicide rate for these children is eight times higher. Our non-gun suicide rate is average. For unintentional gun deaths, we have 10 times the likelihood of death [compared with other developed countries]. These children are at risk. When you do surveys across states or cities or regions, you find that where there are more guns and more permissive gun laws, people are dying.

We can do so much better. Other countries have done so much better.[...]

 

In a 2001 study, for example, small groups of boys from 8 to 12 years old spent 15 minutes in a room where a handgun was hidden in a drawer. More than two-thirds discovered the gun, more than half the groups handled it, and in more than a third of the groups someone pulled the trigger—despite the fact that more than 90 percent of the boys in the latter groups had received gun-safety instruction.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/09/death-by-the-barrel.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg is going to spend more in a year than the NRA spends in a decade.

 

Money in politics is bad....sometimes.

 

Good, I hope he goes broke throwing himself at the castle walls....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the article I linked is about an anonymous contribution in support of a law, not a person.

 

No, I get that. And it depends (to me) on how that money is used to "support" that law. If the money is used to buy speech in the form of TV ads, billboards, organizing rallies, Newspaper ads, etc in order to inform and educate or to persuade the public to tell their representatives what they would like "we the people" to do - than again he can have a nut.

 

If that money is being used to buy direct and personal access to the politicians (either for themselves or for lobbyists who represent them) who will vote on that law in order to sway their votes, or that money is being used to "buy" politicians by getting them re-elected to keep them in the rich guys' pocket - then I have a very serious problem with that. "WE THE PEOPLE" do not have that kind of access to our representatives, so I do not think that the rich anonymous guy should either. WE THE PEOPLE cannot call up the congress critters staff and say they want to come over and have lunch with the congressman. The rich guy can. WE THE PEOPLE do not get to actually write and edit the bills that go before congress to eventually become law. The rich guy can.

 

I do NOT want some anonymous person or corporation being able to directly influence our laws like that. If they want to spend all the money they want to indirectly influence a politician about an issue anonymously - fine. But IF they are actually sitting at the table in the room and whispering in the pols ear - then I fucking want to know who it is so I can make up my own mind if that is a good thing or not. I voted for the guy or gal - so he should be working for ME. Not some anonymous shadow entity who has more money than I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I originally was going to respond en masse to all your stuff at once, but thought I might have a better chance of you actually addressing my points if I break it up into easier to digest posts. I'm not holding my breath......

 

 

 

 

You seriously call ME the problem when I am the model gunowner you should be holding up as an example of what to do right. I am avid about safety, about responsibility, about logical and sane discourse, about compromise on some gun legislation, etc. And you STILL want to label ME as the problem??? Well, go fuck yourself. My gun ownership and my views DO NOT have any bearing or impact on the urban youth you pick up a gun everyday and shoot their rival drug dealer.

 

 

Jeff, you may be neither "the model gunowner", nor the "reasonable" person you think you are.

Just as one example, you support the open sale of fifty caliber battle weapons.

 

Yeah, so? How many .50 cal rifles have been used in the commission of a crime in the US? Why do you have such a hard-on for .50 Barrett rifles? I've asked you this question MANY times and not once have you answered me. I don't really expect this time to be any different. Are they just too scary looking for you?

 

"Model gunowner"? Baloney. Obviously, there are too many kooks out there, yet you want AW's and .50 cals circulating to empower their lethal whims.

 

Nah, .50 cal Barretts are too big and heavy for home defense.

 

And BTW - jojo, this is a perfect example of why I don't bother to engage with you any more..... I ask you a direct question above and its like you just ignore it to move right on to your usual cut-n-paste sermonizing. You can have a one way conversation with yourself. You've been doing it for years. Its like you have a standard playbook of answers and if someone actually asks you something that you have to think about and give an intelligent answer that's not in the playbook, you shut down. And then you attempt to distract by pasting something from another area of the playbook.

 

No one wants to have a conversation with pages of cunt and paste drivel. We've seen it all before. We can do the same too - there is plenty of stories and data on the other side too. If I wanted to do that, I would just ignore a "discussion" and only read articles. But I want you to defend yourself and your position in your own words. And then respond to direct questions or counter-arguments IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Not interested in volumes of cuntnpaste crao that is irrelevant to the posed question.

 

Enjoy your conversation by yourself. I suspect that is probably the norm for you in real life as well.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bloomberg is going to spend more in a year than the NRA spends in a decade.

 

Money in politics is bad....sometimes.

It's not politics.

 

 

 

Everytown is a movement of Americans working together to end gun violence and build safer communities. Gun violence touches every town in America. For too long, change has been thwarted by the Washington gun lobby and by leaders who refuse to take common-sense steps that will save lives.

 

Glad to know that none of their "steps" will involve laws. Odd that they should mention lobbyists and "leaders" in the same sentence, since they are unrelated to "steps" that don't involve laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Koch Bros give a rats fart about the second amendment. So long as they can protect their 470 billion in corporate welfare, they will continue to purchase the Republican party, one Congress Critter at a time....

 

Bloomberg got his money operating non-profits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess I need to remind you that the guns in U.S. houses, used between persons who know each other, do more damage than black drug dealers.

 

Then I will apparently need to remind you that you are full of shit...

 

/>

>Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx#note5

 

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!! You are entitled to your own opinions. But not your own facts.

 

 

Jeff, you are dead wrong. This is VERY BASIC info on the subject of gun violence in the USA.

The sad fact is that you have typed away for the past 30 months without having a clue about something very important.

Show some class here, and do some open-minded homework for a change.

 

And Dude you are name-calling again, based on your opinionated, dead-wrong, misinformation.

I stand by my statement, and request an apology.

You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts III.

 

 

Based on data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), among homicides in which the victim-offender relationship could be determined, strangers committed between 21 percent and 27 percent of homicides from 1993 to 2008, compared to between 73 percent and 79 percent of homicides committed by offenders known to the victims.

Pasted from <http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/vvcs9310pr.cfm>

 

You are much more likely to be murdered by a partner, family member, friend or acquaintance. In 2004-05 only 2 percent of female and 25 percent of male victims were killed by a stranger. These percentages do not change very much over time.

murdersbystrangersgraph_zpsdb9cccc3.jpg

Pasted from <http://malini.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=1177>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, instead of just typing in ad hominems, you might read the information provided. It would prevent you from being so ignorant.

Are you man enough to face the facts?

 

Two gun violence researchers, Kellerman and Webster IIRC, were MD's who noticed quite a few homeowners in ER's with bullet wounds, but very few perps. Curious, they independently set out to do studies on the subject for twenty years, and the figures solidly confirmetd their impression in the ER. I've mentioned this before, Jeff.

 

Violent Victimization Committed By Strangers, 1993-2010

Erika Harrell, Ph.D.

December 11, 2012 NCJ 239424

Presents findings on the rates and levels of violent victimization committed by offenders who were strangers to the victims, including homicide, rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. The report presents annual trends and compares changes across three 6-year periods in the incidence and type of violence committed by strangers from 1993 through 2010. It describes the characteristics of victims and circumstances of the violent crime. The nonfatal violent victimization estimates were developed from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. The homicide data are from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) for 1993 through 2008.

Highlights:

  • In 2010, strangers committed about 38% of nonfatal violent crimes, including rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
  • In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.
  • From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims.

About the Source Data

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Pasted from <http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4557>

 

 

The Top 5 Murders by Relationship to the Victim in the United States

Relationship

(victim)

Number of Murders

(2011)

Percentage of Total Murders

1

Acquaintence

2,700

21.3%

2

Wife

552

4.3%

3

Girlfriend

474

3.7%

4

Friend

377

2.97%

5

Other family

279

2.2%

Sources: FBI Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States, 2011.

List Notes: Data is relationship of victim to offender (according to the data killers kill acquaintances far more than they kill fellow co-workers for example). Data is latest available data for the year 2012. Figures are based on 12,664 murders in the United States in 2011 for whom supplemental homicide data was received. Murder as defined here includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. The relationship categories of husband and wife include both common-law and ex-spouses.

inShare

  1. Out of 13,636 murders studied in the United States, 30.2% of the victims were murdered by persons known to them (4,119 victims), 13.6% were murdered by family members (1,855 victims), 12.3% were murdered by strangers (1,676 victims) and 43.9% of the relationships were unknown (investigators were not able to establish any relationship).
  2. Murders were the least frequent violent victimization of all categories -- about 5 murder victims per 100,000 persons in 2009.
  1. The number of homicides where the victim/offender relationship was undetermined has been increasing since 1999 but has not reached the levels experienced in the early 1990s. Between the years 1976 and 2005 the following facts were found: about one-third of the victims were acquaintances of the assailant, 14% of all murders, the victim and the offender were strangers, and spouses and family members made up about 15% of all victims.

 

 

WHEN MURDERS ARE NOT COMMITTED BY STRANGERS

Which is most of the time March 27, 2011

(NATIONAL) -- It might surprise many of us to know that only 15% of all murders are committed at random by a stranger; someone who does not know the victim.

And even then, the two people usually have mutual friends and acquaintances, which explains why the killer and the victim are in the same place at the same time.

Yet many assume that most murders are committed by strangers and view the discovery that a murder is not random as news.

And why would that be?

Well, it turns out, writes Christopher Beam in a new piece on Slate about the recent killing of Jayna Murray at the Lululemon Athletica store in Bethesda, Md., the FBI is partly to blame. In the early 1990s, the bureau released a report claiming that half of all homicides were committed by strangers.

But unfortunately that report was flawed.

The media is partly to blame as well. Murders don't typically make big news unless there's something unusual about them. And by covering random crime, in an often sensational way, news outfits help to create the impression that most crime is random.

Beam’s piece can be read HERE

Pasted from <http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/WHEN-MURDERS-ARE-NOT-COMMITTED-BY-STRANGERS-br-Which-is-most-of-the-time-625525>

The FBI Uniform Crime Report will give you an answer of a sort, but only two out of three homicides are ‘solved by arrest.’

If you click on the link immediately above you will find there were 12,996 murder victims but the relationship between the murderer and victim were “unknown” in 4,656 of those. That does not mean that the victim was killed by a stranger, only that the killer is “unknown to the police.” So there is really not enough data to provide a defensible answer to the question.

That said, statistical analysis pegs the most likely number between 1800 (14%) to 2200 (17%) a year.

Stranger

Pasted from <http://extranosalley.com/?p=25008>

 

Percentage of murders are convicted by a stranger?

In probably upwards of 80 or 90-percent of homicides, there is some sort of relationship.

Pasted from <http://www.chacha.com/question/what-percentage-of-murders-are-convicted-by-a-stranger>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

jocal505, on 15 Jun 2014 - 20:23, said:

JBSF, on 19 May 2014 - 12:10, said:

Then I will apparently need to remind you that you are full of shit...

 

 

 

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx#not

Jeff, you are dead wrong. This is VERY BASIC info on the subject of gun violence in the USA.

The sad fact is that you have typed away for the past 30 months without having a clue about something very important.

Show some class here, and do some open-minded homework for a change.

 

And Dude you are name-calling again, based on your opinionated, dead-wrong, misinformation.

I stand by my statement, and request an apology.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts III.

First of all - I didn't call you a single name in that post. So not sure what you have your panties in a wad about.

 

2nd of all - if you have a problem with my FACTS - then you need to take it up with the Department of Justice. THEY published that report. I simply quoted it.

 

3rd - just because gang members "know" each other when they get into shootouts and kill each other - does NOT mean they are intimate partners and live together in the same house. That is what you are trying to assert - and you are just simply wrong. The DOJ says you're wrong.

 

Hell, even YOUR own stats disagree with you. In once source above, its says 73-79% of homicides are by attackers "know to the victim". right? But then go to your next state of top 5 murders by relationship - THE BIGGEST category at number 1 is by "acquaintance" (21%). Acquaintances don't typically live in your home. They are the neighbor you get into a fight over drugs. They are the dealer on the next corner. They are the rival gang banger you know in HS.

 

If you add up all the rest of the family members who kill - they all added together still only total 13%. NOT a huge number of killers living in your home - is there?

 

Again though - if you have a problem with the stat that most murders are gang-related and NOT domestic arguments - take your bitch up with Eric Holder. Its HIS facts, not mine. He's a black man, so it should be ok, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Jocal - this is a REALLY serious question for you..... You still own your handgun, right? What makes you so sure you won't pull it out and kill your wife with it the next time you get into an argument? What makes YOU immune when you accuse others of needing to get rid of their guns for our own safety?

 

You go on and on about how the presence of a gun in the home results in a huge increase in the chance of an accident, suicide or murder. Yet you think you're different that us. Are you special? What makes you think that your wife won't get the gun and kill you during your next argument. Or commit suicide with it?

 

I'm HONESTLY not trying to bait you or troll you. I really want to know why you feel you are immune from these issues when you accuse everyone else of being at risk. If your stats about 70-80% of murders happen between family members or members of your household are true - I'd say your chances of becoming a murderer or victim by your gun is pretty high. Why do you risk it then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the acceptable tone, Jeff. Good question.

 

But for one thing, I haven't had a handgun since I was 13 (at which time I had three). As mentioned several other times, my gun is a $27 NM pawnshop special semi-auto Marlin .22 rifle, fitted with a scope.

 

I keep it for nostalgic reasons (guns taught me to gain the trust of my father). And I keep it because I have a right to, and because of demands of a mindless bully on SA PA, and...because I feel gunowners are the whole problem in this matter, and I am one of them: I am a lifetime gunowner.

 

The gun is kept 23 paces into my shop building, which is 70 paces away. Like Wofsey, the ammo is kept elsewhere.

 

 

Actually, my wife and I disagree on very little. Plus I guess we have a natural pattern of being mutually respectful. Seriously, I can't even remember our last argument--but in any flares of temper at whatever, the track record is that we stay out of each other's face, and are, well, simply, mutually helpful moments later.

 

Furthermore, I have little or no interest in using it, even in our present rural setting, because of the obnoxious noise and its effect on neighbors. Being a committed, disciplined pacifist, violence and temper problems are not so much in my nature, or in my track record, either. But yes, there's a risk having any gun around.

 

Please note that I am not encouraging general use of firearms on the public at this point. Guns have become a cultural problem.

 

That said, if I am "batshit crazy" and "clinically insane" (as diagnosed by a certain choirboy), some mechanism should be in place to recover that damn gun, IMO. Hell, I'd even volunteer to take such a test, and would simply hand it over if I failed any strident gun-suitability examination.

 

Which is easy for me to say: things have changed for me and I find that thing offensive.

 

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

 

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE is name-calling, Jeffie. And you still need to back it up, Pal.

 

Jeff, you provided NO stats on most homicides being gang-related. Zip. Here's what Eric Holder said in your link:

 

In 1980 70% of argument fatalities were gun-related.

By 1993 that percentage remained constant.

In 1980 70% of gang homicide were caused by firearms.

In 1993 95% of gang related homicides involved guns.

In 2008 92% of gang-related homicides involved guns .

In 1980 60% of homicides during the commission of a felony were caused by firearms

In 2005 74% of homicides during the commission of a felony were caused by firearms

 

The stats in your source ALL related to the percentage of gun homicides which occurred within three different groups: NONE presented the number of total gang homicides within the number of total national homicides. I am weary of pointing this out. OTOH, for the third time, here's a credible 9-year average:

 

  • From 2007 through 2011, a sizeable majority (more than 80 percent) of respondents provided data on gang-related homicides in their jurisdictions.
  • The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged more than 1,900 annually from 2007 to 2011. During the same time period, the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 12 percent of all homicides annually.

 

To refute the NRA-driven your-guns-vs-crime bullshit, I provided five sources which indicate stranger danger is not the problem with guns, dammit. Here's the one (again) which averages 27 years of figures based of FBI data. I'm hoping we can move forward, bro.

Based on data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), among homicides in which the victim-offender relationship could be determined, strangers committed between 21 percent and 27 percent of homicides from 1993 to 2008, compared to between 73 percent and 79 percent of homicides committed by offenders known to the victims.

Pasted from <http://www.bjs.gov/c.../vvcs9310pr.cfm>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate your answer, jocal. But I call Bullshit on it. You or your wife can snap at any moment and pick up that gun and murder each other.... pacifist or not. People who snap and murder their husbands likely didn't think they could do it either. Until they pull the trigger, that is. Sorry, but you are a hypocrite and are EXACTLY what you rail against. I'll bet a lot of husbands who shoot their wives didn't have a track record of it either. Just sayin.......

 

As for my lack of stats: LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE. Again. I absolutely provided stats - you just chose to ignore them. GO back up a couple of posts and see my red highlights. Those numbers and %'s in there...... hint..... those are "stats".

 

If you really don't want to end up murdering or injuring your wife during your next argument, PLEASE get rid of your gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I choose to have a gun, it is my freedom to do so.

If I want to caution the world about the danger of having them around, free speech allows this.

My "cut and paste drivel" contains the facts which you say I don't have.

Your STFU from two days ago is toothless: it's a violation of the very Bill of Rights you say you are all about.

"Hypocrite" is also name-calling, a further ad hominem (needed because your argument lacks substance, and has been exposed several times).

 

 

Simple Jeff, no hard figures are included in or around your red ink. Zip. Just two unsubstantiated declarative sentences, in a source which appears to be on a different topic: guns causing generally increasing homicides within different groups, gangs included.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts IV.

 

I provided hard sources. Enough for an honest person to understand that gangs ARE NOT the cause of the "vast majority" (your words) of U.S. homicides. Rather, acquaintances, not gangs or strangers, cause most of the U.S. gun homicides.

 

You are not discussing in good faith, after requesting direct engagement.

I guess you are a just gun wanker. And your "bitch slap" turns out to be an evasive "swing and a miss".

It's what I expected, though. You have wasted my time, you simple, evasive, dishonest fellow.

 

Speaking of evasion, from earlier in this thread (also in response to your challenge for direct engagement), you have simply not addressed the reasons why epidememiologists (those who study and cure epidemics), not MADD, will set the standards for Everytown for Gun Safety.

 

Jeff, you could be part of the solution here, IMO. But you need to step it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does your wife read the shit you post here, JokeAwf? I'm almost positive that the answer is No. Otherwise shed of already call the authorities to your house to confiscate your gun and to 5150 you for some psychiatric observation. You truly are the craziest fuker on Sailing Anarchy. Ever. Please do us all a favor and seek proffesional help----before you hurt someone....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I choose to have a gun, it is my freedom to do so.

If I want to caution the world about the danger of having them around, free speech allows this.

 

Speech is responsible for far more deaths than guns. With that in mind, do you think we need more control on speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple Jeff, no hard figures are included in or around your red ink. Zip. Just two unsubstantiated declarative sentences, in a source which appears to be on a different topic: guns causing generally increasing homicides within different groups, gangs included.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts IV.

 

Sigh..... Hey jocal, I'll post this again. But this time I will highlight the actual numbers. I realize you don't read at grade level well and easily miss things. That's ok, we all have our blind spots.....

 

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

http://www.nij.gov/t...elcome.aspx#not

 

Does that help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, of course not. For reasons explained three or four other times.

 

Because no total figure of U.S. gun homicides, in any year, is presented in your link.

Nor is any total number of gang homicides, in any year, quoted. Go to work. Try the search function.

Once a person has the two numbers, basic mathematical division can answer our question.

 

I will grant you that your source is written in a confusing way, but it does not indicate what you say it does.

Here is a clearer summary of your figures,(now in red, above). If I am summarizing your figures inaccurately, let me know. But the info seems to say:

In 1980 70% of argument fatalities were gun-related. (It doesn't say if these arguments were with strangers or otherwise. Poor info, Jeff.)

By 1993 that percentage remained constant.

In 1980 70% of gang homicide were caused by firearms.

In 1993 95% of gang related homicides involved guns.

In 2008 92% of gang-related homicides involved guns .

In 1980 60% of homicides during the commission of a felony were caused by firearms

In 2005 74% of homicides during the commission of a felony were caused by firearms

 

 

To explain it differently (as if you were a third grader or something), you are repeatedly claiming a "vast majority" of U.S. homicides are gang related, or are criminals randomly killing strangers. Therefore you need to find a gang or random criminal murder figure for a "vast majority", say 70%, of 12,000 annual homicides. That's 8400 annual gun murders related to gangs (or random perps). You cannot do that. A simple majority would be 51% of 12,000, or 6120. You can't do that either. The best info I have is that the actual gang gun homicide figure is around 1,900 annually from 2007 to 2011.

 

Unless you are much denser upstairs than I thought, this direct discussion, requested by yourself, is a farce because of how you have handled it, IMHO.

 

The point we are facing here is KEY. It is very important. We are discussing that misunderstandings with loved ones and associates, in the presence of our many guns, are doing the horrific gun damage in the USA. Not "bad guys with guns", as presented by the fear-mongering gun lobby.

 

Take care, big guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone looking for a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites