Sign in to follow this  
Contumacious Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

 

Maybe MLK was probably considered a slave that wanted a gun.

 

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/black_panthers_and_gun_control_the_nras_flip_flop.html

 

"Posted: Jan. 23 2013 12:21 AM

(The Root) -- It may seem hard to believe, but the modern-day gun-rights debate was born from the civil rights era and inspired by the Black Panthers....

 

 

I think the debate was born from emancipation. The Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, lots of it predated the original Black Panthers deciding to watch the legislature while armed.

 

The new Black Panthers want to arm black men in their neighborhoods. Not sure why they don't want to arm the chicks, who are often better shots. But the distrust in our political/justice system that leads people to want to take responsibility for their own defense back from the government is very old. In that sense, you're right about MLK being a slave that wanted a gun.

 

You can see from post 78 that modern gun control fans react in the same old way: their desire to arm themselves is a provocation that will justify new laws. I think there's a difference between acquiring guns and sending armed parties to legislatures, but if the gun owner doesn't have a badge of some kind, some will always see it as a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

What question is that? I recall your title of this thread as being thoroughly debunked. A gun would not have saved him. Death is a common fate for all peace-makers, Gandhi, Rabin, Sadat, Lincoln, King, Malcolm X....

 

Please get a fucking grip on this gun shit. The lot of ya. Stupid people running around talking like you, acting as if any specious, if not outright ridiculous argument you can imagine is pure brilliance is frightening. Get some spokesmen that aren't open racists and get rid of the ones that are. Your idea of countering that by suggesting only racists are against guns in the light of the current reality of the gun rights movement is fucking silly and you know it. Nutcases are a risk to the the right for sane people to have them.

 

 

I'm not sure how "This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed" is "debunked" by a list of non-violent activists who have been killed.

 

Maybe you've confused the meaning of "debunked" with "confirmed" or something? They don't look as similar as prospective and perspective, but that's the only explanation I can think up.

 

I'm not black and don't know firsthand, so I lean on established black corporations like the NAACP to learn what is important to black people. They seem mighty concerned about "stop and frisk" and its racist application.

 

Yet I've seen no calls from you for the anti-gun movement to get rid of the spokesman who personifies "stop and frisk" more than anyone else: Bloomberg, who recently said this:

 

 

Hah! The Aspen Institute and Gra$$root$ TV might not broadcast Bloomberg's comments, but bloggers in pajamas will find the audio and post it.

 

 

“We did a calculation on how many people who would have been dead if we hadn’t brought down the murder rate and gotten guns off the streets,” Bloomberg said. “And the way to get guns out of kids' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them.”

 

Plenty of cities have brought down crime rates without strict gun control laws and without searching random pedestrians.

 

Clearly continuing to advocate the racist policy he had while in office. I don't think the bolded bit is how you treat citizens or even humans. It's how you treat animals if you don't know how to deal with them properly.

 

No problems with his subhuman rhetoric? Shouldn't he be removed before we can take gungrabbers seriously?

 

 

 

How would a concealed handgun deter a sniper with a rifle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

What question is that? I recall your title of this thread as being thoroughly debunked. A gun would not have saved him. Death is a common fate for all peace-makers, Gandhi, Rabin, Sadat, Lincoln, King, Malcolm X....

 

Please get a fucking grip on this gun shit. The lot of ya. Stupid people running around talking like you, acting as if any specious, if not outright ridiculous argument you can imagine is pure brilliance is frightening. Get some spokesmen that aren't open racists and get rid of the ones that are. Your idea of countering that by suggesting only racists are against guns in the light of the current reality of the gun rights movement is fucking silly and you know it. Nutcases are a risk to the the right for sane people to have them.

 

 

I'm not sure how "This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed" is "debunked" by a list of non-violent activists who have been killed.

 

Maybe you've confused the meaning of "debunked" with "confirmed" or something?

...

 

 

 

How would a concealed handgun deter a sniper with a rifle?

 

 

I don't know. Maybe you should ask someone who claimed that a concealed handgun would deter a sniper with a rifle. If you can find such a person. It would probably be a good deflection from talking about Bloomberg and his racist "throw 'em against the wall" policy that NAACP Inc hates so much. So good luck finding such a person. Maybe he can tell you the difference between debunked and confirmed if you find him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't know. Maybe you should ask someone who claimed that a concealed handgun would deter a sniper with a rifle. If you can find such a person. It would probably be a good deflection from talking about Bloomberg and his racist "throw 'em against the wall" policy that NAACP Inc hates so much. So good luck finding such a person. Maybe he can tell you the difference between debunked and confirmed if you find him.

 

 

Stick to the point, Wanker. You are avoiding thread content, and the heart of the matter.

Frenchy is not the person continually bringing this subject up.

To break a gun law is not "civil disobedience" (thus putting yourself on the level of MLK). It's just lawbreaking.

You are a pathetic sort. You promote decadence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... if the gun owner doesn't have a badge of some kind, some will always see it as a problem.

 

 

Yes. Because it becomes a problem. People like you,who listen to your cheap point of view, get carried away.

These true believers show no common sense, while insisting on flaunting lethal weapons.

The foolishness, supported by mistruths, leads to carnage.

 

Olympia%20gun%20nuts%20post%20I-594_zpsq

 

This Dec. 15, 2014 photo shows protesters of WA's new background check law.

They would read Tom Ray like he was a prophet.

They met in Olympia the day after Sandy Hook, to "transfer" their guns to one another.

They called it an act of civil disobedience, and they decided to visit the state senate gallery, with their anti-tyranny tools.

Within weeks, both houses of our state legislature had banned guns in the state senate viewing gallery.

 

There is a big market for Tomspeak, Tomstats, and Tomfacts. Enjoy.

 

"Brady's Best" Post #359 Myths of Self-Defense Thread

TOMSTAT COLLECTION

Dishonest Tomstats I, (featured on the day after Sandy Hook).

Responding to Pinoccio, Tom pretends to find a related link, and pulls the Brady Best trick: violence comps to gun homicides, state-by-state.

While trying to disuade the 800% gun violence stat, Mr. Ray avoids the same stat in his own source.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&p=3974848

Dishonest Tomstats II: The familiar "Brady Best" State Comps:

Used frequently for a few years; were busted by random: unsourced, no definitions of terms, not gun-related stats.

Tom uses non-gun violence stats to directly relate to gun violence stats.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163210&p=4826155

Dishonest Tomstats III

One month after random's respectful reprimand, Tom introduced Missouri's general murder rate stats to compare with the increased gun homicides caused by background check repeals.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=164214&p=4886950

TomfactsA: dishonest denial of the NRA blockage of gun violence research:HUBRIS%20and%20missing%20gun%20research_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

What question is that? I recall your title of this thread as being thoroughly debunked. A gun would not have saved him. Death is a common fate for all peace-makers, Gandhi, Rabin, Sadat, Lincoln, King, Malcolm X....

 

Please get a fucking grip on this gun shit. The lot of ya. Stupid people running around talking like you, acting as if any specious, if not outright ridiculous argument you can imagine is pure brilliance is frightening. Get some spokesmen that aren't open racists and get rid of the ones that are. Your idea of countering that by suggesting only racists are against guns in the light of the current reality of the gun rights movement is fucking silly and you know it. Nutcases are a risk to the the right for sane people to have them.

 

 

I'm not sure how "This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed" is "debunked" by a list of non-violent activists who have been killed.

 

Maybe you've confused the meaning of "debunked" with "confirmed" or something?

...

 

 

 

How would a concealed handgun deter a sniper with a rifle?

 

 

I don't know. Maybe you should ask someone who claimed that a concealed handgun would deter a sniper with a rifle. If you can find such a person. It would probably be a good deflection from talking about Bloomberg and his racist "throw 'em against the wall" policy that NAACP Inc hates so much. So good luck finding such a person. Maybe he can tell you the difference between debunked and confirmed if you find him.

 

 

I just can't figure out how famous people being assassinated by sniper rifles is a gun-rights issue, unless you want to restrict fire arms, which is exactly why the gun-grabbers keep mentioning it and in fact a great many gun-grabbing laws (see R. Reagan/Brady Bill) come about.

 

May be on the wrong tack here, skip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just can't figure out how famous people being assassinated by sniper rifles is a gun-rights issue,

 

 

Can't help you with that one either. Maybe go find a thread on that subject and ask the person who started it?

 

Not all non-violent people are famous, but the non-famous can still put themselves at risk. Sniper rifles are not the only risk. So the non-violent protest movement of which MLK was a part was filled with armed people. Armed because they rightly distrusted government to provide for their security.

 

It's true that a very tiny fraction of those people are famous and an even smaller fraction were ultimately killed by snipers with rifles, but the issue of self-defense for non-violent protestors goes far beyond those people.

 

But hey, maybe you can find someone who says the kinds of things you want to argue against. With any luck, that person will be able to broaden your prospective. Uh, perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seemed like the thread about MLK's assassination and the silly assertion it was because he was denied a CW is the right place to me.

When gun-rights people think making the assassination of famous people a case for looser gun laws then they've lost perspective. Woudn't be shocked if they had strident racists on the board of directors of the NRA trying to scare people about the scary black man is out to assassinate them and maybe encourage some crazy person to shoot him first.

 

Yeah, that will lead to looser gun laws...yeah...that's the ticket...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Seemed like the thread about MLK's assassination and the silly assertion it was because he was denied a CW is the right place to me.

When gun-rights people think making the assassination of famous people a case for looser gun laws then they've lost perspective. Woudn't be shocked if they had strident racists on the board of directors of the NRA trying to scare people about the scary black man is out to assassinate them and maybe encourage some crazy person to shoot him first.

 

Yeah, that will lead to looser gun laws...yeah...that's the ticket...

 

Thanks for laying out the prolonged racial lie so clearly, Mark.

"When gun-rights people think making the assassination of famous people a case for looser gun laws then they've lost perspective."

But they never had perspective in the first place.

 

I get the feeling Tom wasn't alive during the civil rights era. Eight major riots, in eight major cities.

The whiteys were aghast, many had no clue there was a problem.

A wide selection of Black groups proliferated, each with varying degrees of violence in mind.

Only the SNCC (from the original post) and MLK offered a somewhat peaceful POV.

Then MLK, like JFK and RFK, was shot by a lowlife guy with a cheap gun.

 

It was a nearly complete social breakdown, Tom. We sorted it, somewhat for the better, without guns...because of MLK.

While he was a godsend you are just a spokesman for white trash.

 

Based on values, is quite intellectually dishonest for any gun crybaby to use Dr. King to promote guns, in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seemed like the thread about MLK's assassination and the silly assertion it was because he was denied a CW is the right place to me.

 

You've gotten lost again and found your way to this thread instead.

 

In this one, you can't quote anyone making that silly assertion except yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seemed like the thread about MLK's assassination and the silly assertion it was because he was denied a CW is the right place to me.

 

You've gotten lost again and found your way to this thread instead.

 

In this one, you can't quote anyone making that silly assertion except yourself.

 

 

You think you are cute, I gather. But here you are having to dodge in your own thread.

If you had content, Tom, you could just reply with direct answers, instead of evading what you need to learn.

Mark has raised a great point. When leaders get shot with easily available guns, it doesn't suggest opening the laws to more guns on the streets...unless twisted.

Killing effective leaders suggests restricting guns. Thus the GCA '68... which rarefied constitutional absolutism is opposing.

 

Dr.King and civil rights leaders were in a unique situation. You want to capitalize on that, to justify guns, but our living situation is quite unlike MLK's.

 

I suggest you flip the thread to Mark's take on Bengazi, or to his views of F & F.

Or to The Great Florida Stat Warpage of 1999.

 

ManondikeTomscredibility_zps39935104.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Maybe MLK was probably considered a slave that wanted a gun.

 

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/black_panthers_and_gun_control_the_nras_flip_flop.html

 

"Posted: Jan. 23 2013 12:21 AM

(The Root) -- It may seem hard to believe, but the modern-day gun-rights debate was born from the civil rights era and inspired by the Black Panthers....

 

 

I think the debate was born from emancipation. The Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, lots of it predated the original Black Panthers deciding to watch the legislature while armed.

 

The new Black Panthers want to arm black men in their neighborhoods. Not sure why they don't want to arm the chicks, who are often better shots. But the distrust in our political/justice system that leads people to want to take responsibility for their own defense back from the government is very old. In that sense, you're right about MLK being a slave that wanted a gun.

 

You can see from post 78 that modern gun control fans react in the same old way: their desire to arm themselves is a provocation that will justify new laws. I think there's a difference between acquiring guns and sending armed parties to legislatures, but if the gun owner doesn't have a badge of some kind, some will always see it as a problem.

 

 

Nice, so in the middle of blacks demanding basic civil rights, a black guy wants a gun. No mystery as to why he didn't get it.

 

So my post was citing that the NRA initially was active in framing gun laws to restrict ex-slaves from getting guns. Now they just want to sell more ... to anyone, even making pink ones for little girls.

 

hello-kitty-pistol.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MLK was a slave? Jfc but you've passed idiotness and have gone straight to insane.

 

Wfd, Diego....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Booze, they are about to revolt, get revenge for being plucked out of Africa. Keep polishing your barrel. Use the pull-through again, just in case you left too much lube in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

,,,

When gun-rights people think making the assassination of famous people a case for looser gun laws,,,

,,,

Cite, please.

 

Woudn't be shocked if they had strident racists on the board of directors of the NRA trying to scare people about the scary black man ,,,

:rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

So my post was citing that the NRA initially was active in framing gun laws to restrict ex-slaves from getting guns.

 

Show me.

 

http://home.nra.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

,,,

When gun-rights people think making the assassination of famous people a case for looser gun laws,,,

,,,

Cite, please.

 

 

See thread title.

 

Woudn't be shocked if they had strident racists on the board of directors of the NRA trying to scare people about the scary black man ,,,

:rolleyes:

 

Google "Ted Nugent". re: "Dead or in jail" "Subhuman mongrel" ect .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So my post was citing that the NRA initially was active in framing gun laws to restrict ex-slaves from getting guns.

 

Show me.

 

http://home.nra.org/

 

 

 

(The Root) -- It may seem hard to believe, but the modern-day gun-rights debate was born from the civil rights era and inspired by the Black Panthers. Equally surprising is that the National Rifle Association -- now an aggressive lobbying arm for gun manufacturers -- actually once supported, and helped write, federal gun-control laws."

 

UCLA law professor Adam Winkler explores this history in his 2011 book, Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "Like many young African Americans, Newton and Seale were frustrated with the failed promise of the civil-rights movement," Winkler writes. In their opinion, "the only tangible outcome of the civil-rights movement had been more violence and oppression, much of it committed by the very entity meant to protect the public: the police." Winkler goes on to say, "Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms." Guns became central to the Panthers' identity, as they taught their early recruits that "the gun is the only thing that will free us -- gain us our liberation."

The Panthers responded to racial violence by patrolling black neighborhoods brandishing guns -- in an effort to police the police. The fear of black people with firearms sent shockwaves across white communities, and conservative lawmakers immediately responded with gun-control legislation."

 

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/black_panthers_and_gun_control_the_nras_flip_flop.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edward Wackoff Williams? Really? Al gore's intern?

 

Got anything with just a little bit of credibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Maybe MLK was probably considered a slave that wanted a gun.

 

http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/black_panthers_and_gun_control_the_nras_flip_flop.html

 

"Posted: Jan. 23 2013 12:21 AM

(The Root) -- It may seem hard to believe, but the modern-day gun-rights debate was born from the civil rights era and inspired by the Black Panthers....

 

 

I think the debate was born from emancipation. The Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, lots of it predated the original Black Panthers deciding to watch the legislature while armed.

 

The new Black Panthers want to arm black men in their neighborhoods. Not sure why they don't want to arm the chicks, who are often better shots. But the distrust in our political/justice system that leads people to want to take responsibility for their own defense back from the government is very old. In that sense, you're right about MLK being a slave that wanted a gun.

 

You can see from post 78 that modern gun control fans react in the same old way: their desire to arm themselves is a provocation that will justify new laws. I think there's a difference between acquiring guns and sending armed parties to legislatures, but if the gun owner doesn't have a badge of some kind, some will always see it as a problem.

 

 

Nice, so in the middle of blacks demanding basic civil rights, a black guy wants a gun. No mystery as to why he didn't get it.

 

So my post was citing that the NRA initially was active in framing gun laws to restrict ex-slaves from getting guns. Now they just want to sell more ... to anyone, even making pink ones for little girls.

 

hello-kitty-pistol.jpg

 

 

Nope, no mystery. Government officials were allowed to discriminate based on race, so they did. They're still allowed to in places, called "may issue" concealed weapons permit states. But of course racism is a thing of the past, so the fact that they are allowed to do it doesn't mean they would. We don't have racist officials in America any more.

 

The NRA doesn't sell any guns. Not sure where you got that idea.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the idea from things like this,

 

"Smith & Wesson, the storied American gun company, is today a proud supporter of the NRA.

In 2012, the company signed on to a four-year sponsorship of one of the NRA’s promotional programs. And its new chief executive, James Debney, was inducted into the NRA’s Golden Ring of Freedom — the highest ranking of donors, reserved for those who donate $1 million or more. It comes with a golden jacket with the NRA insignia on the breast pocket.

In a statement hailing the award, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, said: “Smith & Wesson is a valued corporate partner in NRA’s fight to preserve the Second Amendment and we are grateful for their dedication to our shared American values.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/gunned-down/what-happened-when-a-major-gun-company-crossed-the-nra/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the idea from things like this,

 

"Smith & Wesson, the storied American gun company, is today a proud supporter of the NRA.

In 2012, the company signed on to a four-year sponsorship of one of the NRA’s promotional programs. And its new chief executive, James Debney, was inducted into the NRA’s Golden Ring of Freedom — the highest ranking of donors, reserved for those who donate $1 million or more. It comes with a golden jacket with the NRA insignia on the breast pocket.

In a statement hailing the award, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, said: “Smith & Wesson is a valued corporate partner in NRA’s fight to preserve the Second Amendment and we are grateful for their dedication to our shared American values.”

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/gunned-down/what-happened-when-a-major-gun-company-crossed-the-nra/

 

That cite doesn't show the NRA selling guns, let alone "to anyone" as you claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck Tom, seriously, you play dumb badly. The NRA has to get money from somewhere other than membership. Large donations bias the place in the same way as the political donation do. Completely corrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck Tom, seriously, you play dumb badly. The NRA has to get money from somewhere other than membership. Large donations bias the place in the same way as the political donation do. Completely corrupt.

 

I still don't believe that the NRA gets money by selling guns. Dealers and manufacturers do.

 

Since you're not a member, I'm not sure why you care about donations and how they "bias the place." Corrupt? What do you mean?

 

I went to the Friends of the NRA banquet here the other night. I saw items donated by businesses large and small, local and national, being auctioned off to raise money to support range facilities and buy safety equipment for local shooting groups. Looked to me like people cooperating to achieve a goal and nothing about it seemed corrupt. Explain why it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are saying that Gun Manufacturers are not in control of the NRA ... "Golden Ring of Freedom" and the like. Still playing dumb Tom.

 

So this is bullshit then ...

 

"Throughout its 142-year history, the National Rifle Association has portrayed itself as an advocate for the individual gun owner’s Second Amendment rights. In turn, the NRA relied on those gun owners, especially its 4 million or so members, to pressure lawmakers into carrying out its anti-gun control agenda.

In the last two decades, however, the deep-pocketed NRA has increasingly relied on the support of another constituency: the $12-billion-a-year gun industry, made up of manufacturers and sellers of firearms, ammunition and related wares. That alliance was sealed in 2005, when Congress, after heavy NRA lobbying, approved a measure that gave gunmakers and gun distributors broad, and unprecedented, immunity from a wave of liability lawsuits related to gun violence in America’s cities."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And ^that^ was a good thing. The only time a firearm manufacture should be subject to a lawsuit is if their firearm malfunctions and hurts someone.

 

Duh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

,,,

When gun-rights people think making the assassination of famous people a case for looser gun laws,,,

,,,

Cite, please.

 

 

See thread title.

 

Woudn't be shocked if they had strident racists on the board of directors of the NRA trying to scare people about the scary black man ,,,

:rolleyes:

 

Google "Ted Nugent". re: "Dead or in jail" "Subhuman mongrel" ect .

 

 

 

Your standards are funny...

 

 

 

 

Probably because he was black. As a member in good standing of the board of directors of the NRA says, "subhuman", and nobody wants animals to have guns.

 

MLK's permit was "probably" denied because he was black, but Nugent's rants definitely mean millions of NRA members and supporters are Aryan Nations associates who just want armed mobs here. But only armed white mobs! And that's the only thing the NRA is about!

 

Google "stop and frisk" and NAACP and Bloomberg and you'll find out what I've already told you: the NRA are not the ones who want to disarm black people. Bloomberg is the guy who understands the need to throw them against the wall. Gun controllers want to keep the guns away from the animals, just as they always have.

 

If I ask several more times, I may get you to admit what the NAACP loudly proclaims: that stop and frisk is a racist gun control policy. Not sure I have the patience. The topic post of this thread contained the question you avoided until allowing that racism was "probably" a factor in MLK's carry permit denial. You seem to have thought that question was a statement that a concealed weapon is a perfect defense against any and all threats. It wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, Tom, thanks for the long argument containing nothing, about nothing.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. But chaos is the result of guns in the black community.

The fact that MLK got dissed on da gun permit has a grain of truth in it. Wonderful.

Again, big deal.

Are you saying that guns are a race equalizer? That "shall carry" is an anti-racism mechanism or champion?

State your distortion, whatever it is, clearly for us.

 

But the fact is that guns have devastated the black communities. Guns aren't working out there. Got it?

Enough already. STFU about how guns will protect the non-violent, MLK, or blacks.

 

Race, Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—

(Data from FBI UCR and SHR reports.)

n Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and off enders. Th e victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The off ending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000) (table 1).

P11

Trends by race

Blacks were disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders.

n In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for

whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000).

n The victimization rate for blacks peaked in the early 1990s, reaching a high of 39.4 homicides per 100,000 in 1991 (figure 17).

n After 1991, the victimization rate for blacks fell until 1999, when it stabilized near 20 homicides per 100,000.

n In 2008, the off ending rate for blacks (24.7 off enders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 off enders per 100,000) (figure 18).

n The off ending rate for blacks showed a similar pattern to the victimization rate, peaking in the early 1990s at a high of 51.1 off enders per 100,000 in 1991.

n After 1991, the off ending rate for blacks declined until it reached 24 per 100,000 in 2004. Th e rate has since fluctuated, increasing to 28.4 off enders per 100,000 in 2006 before falling again to 24.7 off enders per 100,000 in 2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are saying that Gun Manufacturers are not in control of the NRA ... "Golden Ring of Freedom" and the like. Still playing dumb Tom.

 

So this is bullshit then ...

 

"Throughout its 142-year history, the National Rifle Association has portrayed itself as an advocate for the individual gun owner’s Second Amendment rights. In turn, the NRA relied on those gun owners, especially its 4 million or so members, to pressure lawmakers into carrying out its anti-gun control agenda.

In the last two decades, however, the deep-pocketed NRA has increasingly relied on the support of another constituency: the $12-billion-a-year gun industry, made up of manufacturers and sellers of firearms, ammunition and related wares. That alliance was sealed in 2005, when Congress, after heavy NRA lobbying, approved a measure that gave gunmakers and gun distributors broad, and unprecedented, immunity from a wave of liability lawsuits related to gun violence in America’s cities."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html

 

Tom took his answer to the NRA Remodel thread. His answer was lightweight: a series of untruthful statements.

 

 

Tom Ray, on 29 Mar 2015 - 01:44 AM, said:

snapback.png

 

Yes, pretty much each and every line that you quoted is BS.

(...)

The NRA's role as an advocate for individual gun owner's 2A rights is very recent indeed. Tell the truth. We have suffered 38 years of formidable legislation from the new NRA/ILA . (1977-2015).

They even tried to scuttle the Heller (then Parker) lawsuit specifically to avoid a big 2A confrontation at the Supreme Court.

This is another lie. CATO's Robert Levy, while sponsoring quasi-historical research in FL, considered six plaintiffs...then groomed Officer Heller.

It was only after that confrontation became inevitable that they became helpful in the pursuit of individual 2A rights.

Fiction, by Tom Ray. See Gura and LaPierre quotes, below. (They were divided, some even wanted to jump the gun early on a skeptical supreme court.)

The third sentence is unsupported...

Here is random's third sentence:

In the last two decades, however, the deep-pocketed NRA has increasingly relied on the support of another constituency: the $12-billion-a-year gun industry, made up of manufacturers and sellers of firearms, ammunition and related wares.

Plenty of "support" for the gun lobby's flow of money to the NRA available. This is well known.

WTF, Tom has read information on several of our forums exposing his lie.

Here's a black eye for Tom (facts, delivered by VPC research):

 

The report, Blood Money: How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA, reveals that since 2005 contributions from gun industry "corporate partners" to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million.

Total donations to the NRA from all "corporate partners" -- both gun industry and non-gun industry -- for the same time period total between $19.8 million and $52.6 million. The vast majority of funds -- 74 percent -- contributed to the NRA from "corporate partners" come from members of the firearms industry: companies involved in the manufacture or sale of firearms or shooting-related products.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/nra-receives-millions-fro_b_848727.html>

Tom Ray, on 29 Mar 2015 - 01:44 AM, said:They even tried to scuttle the Heller (then Parker) lawsuit specifically to avoid a big 2A confrontation at the Supreme Court.

A deceitful statement. The DOJ began supporting individual rights, while not enforcing, then mis-quoting the Emerson decision.

The Emerson DV Gun case

Ashcroft Deconstructed: This is easier said than done. It is an open secret that the unnamed litigation on the Second Amendment in question is United States v. Emerson, which now has been pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans for more than a year. In Emerson, a federal judge in Texas, Sam R. Cummings, flouted more than a century of Supreme Court precedent to find that the defendant, under an active domestic violence restraining order that prevented him from possessing firearms, had his Second Amendment rights violated. In a textbook example of judicial overreaching, Cummings held that the prohibition on possession of firearms by persons under domestic violence restraining orders violated the Second Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.16

When turkey hunter Scalia came along, the ILA had the votes. ALEC considered Officer Heller among half a dozen plaintiffs. and prepared for six years for the SC case.

He does not participate in shooting sports, by the way.

Tom Ray, on 29 Mar 2015 - 01:44 AM, said:It was only after that confrontation became inevitable that they became helpful in the pursuit of individual 2A rights.

Gura and LaPierre expose that as a lie, Tom. From Wiki FFS:

Gura also stated that "the NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case".[53]These concerns were based on NRA lawyers' assessment that the justices at the time the case was filed might reach an unfavorable decision.[54]Cato Institute senior fellow Robert Levy, co-counsel to the Parker plaintiffs, has stated that the Parker plaintiffs "faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation."[55] He also stated that "The N.R.A.’s interference in this process set us back and almost killed the case. It was a very acrimonious relationship."[6]

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive officer, confirmed the NRA's misgivings. "There was a real dispute on our side among the constitutional scholars about whether there was a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who would support the Constitution as written," Mr. LaPierre said.[citation needed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

The fact that MLK got dissed on da gun permit has a grain of truth in it. Wonderful.

Again, big deal.

Are you saying that guns are a race equalizer? That "shall carry" is an anti-racism mechanism or champion?

State your distortion, whatever it is, clearly for us.

 

But the fact is that guns have devastated the black communities. Guns aren't working out there. Got it?

Enough already. STFU about how guns will protect the non-violent, MLK, or blacks.

 

Race, Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—

(Data from FBI UCR and SHR reports.)

n Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and off enders. Th e victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The off ending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000) (table 1).

P11

Trends by race

Blacks were disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders.

n In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for

whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000).

n The victimization rate for blacks peaked in the early 1990s, reaching a high of 39.4 homicides per 100,000 in 1991 (figure 17).

n After 1991, the victimization rate for blacks fell until 1999, when it stabilized near 20 homicides per 100,000.

n In 2008, the off ending rate for blacks (24.7 off enders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 off enders per 100,000) (figure 18).

n The off ending rate for blacks showed a similar pattern to the victimization rate, peaking in the early 1990s at a high of 51.1 off enders per 100,000 in 1991.

n After 1991, the off ending rate for blacks declined until it reached 24 per 100,000 in 2004. Th e rate has since fluctuated, increasing to 28.4 off enders per 100,000 in 2006 before falling again to 24.7 off enders per 100,000 in 2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

 

 

I'm saying dat dissin' blacks on da permit because dey are black is racist and wrong. That government permits should not be issued nor denied on that basis. And that it's a big deal.

 

Otis McDonald lived under strict gun control (and a constant threat of violence from armed criminals) in Chicago and wanted to defend himself. I'm glad the system wasn't rigged to tell him to STFU just because he was black.

 

If guns are causing the violence levels you cite, I assume the gun ownership rate must be much higher among blacks than whites. Any stats on that subject?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

The fact that MLK got dissed on da gun permit has a grain of truth in it. Wonderful.

Again, big deal.

Are you saying that guns are a race equalizer? That "shall carry" is an anti-racism mechanism or champion?

State your distortion, whatever it is, clearly for us.

 

But the fact is that guns have devastated the black communities. Guns aren't working out there. Got it?

Enough already. STFU about how guns will protect the non-violent, MLK, or blacks.

 

Race, Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—

(Data from FBI UCR and SHR reports.)

n Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and off enders. Th e victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The off ending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000) (table 1).

P11

Trends by race

Blacks were disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders.

n In 2008, the homicide victimization rate for blacks (19.6 homicides per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for

whites (3.3 homicides per 100,000).

n The victimization rate for blacks peaked in the early 1990s, reaching a high of 39.4 homicides per 100,000 in 1991 (figure 17).

n After 1991, the victimization rate for blacks fell until 1999, when it stabilized near 20 homicides per 100,000.

n In 2008, the off ending rate for blacks (24.7 off enders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 off enders per 100,000) (figure 18).

n The off ending rate for blacks showed a similar pattern to the victimization rate, peaking in the early 1990s at a high of 51.1 off enders per 100,000 in 1991.

n After 1991, the off ending rate for blacks declined until it reached 24 per 100,000 in 2004. Th e rate has since fluctuated, increasing to 28.4 off enders per 100,000 in 2006 before falling again to 24.7 off enders per 100,000 in 2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

 

 

I'm saying dat dissin' blacks on da permit because dey are black is racist and wrong. That government permits should not be issued nor denied on that basis. And that it's a big deal.

 

Otis McDonald lived under strict gun control (and a constant threat of violence from armed criminals) in Chicago and wanted to defend himself. I'm glad the system wasn't rigged to tell him to STFU just because he was black.

 

If guns are causing the violence levels you cite, I assume the gun ownership rate must be much higher among blacks than whites. Any stats on that subject?

 

 

 

 

Ah hem .... Tom, saying this as nicely as I can but, you have lost your mandate to ask about stats. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I lose it when I asked you about jocal's cherry-picking article that claimed a sharp increase in FL gun murders by picking the lowest year in recent memory as a starting point?

 

Sorry, but the fact that you could see no problem with that tells me all I need to know.

 

If the question came from a different messenger, would it be invalid? Seems to me that you and others think guns cause crime. OK, jocal has shown us the highest crime rates, so those should be associated with the highest gun ownership rates, right? Take another look at my picture from the FNRA banquet before answering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFC Tom, do I have to embarrass you again? You know very well what I'm taking about. You know I thought for a while that jocal may have been a bit hard on you, now I think he is right and not being hard enough.

 

So you haven't posted this lately and you are still playing fucking dumb. Disingenuous Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFC, random, do you have to distract again?

 

If the question came from a different messenger, would it be invalid? If so, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the totally bullshit image that you posted proudly for years and have not posted since your arse was reamed. So I'll have to do it for you.

 

You made it up. You cannot explain it. It is a complete fabrication of your imagination. What kind of dishonest fuck-wit would post this shit and attempt to confuse fellow sailors?

 

But you did. What the fuck does this mean? Shame on you.

 

brady-vs-census.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the totally bullshit image that you posted proudly for years and have not posted since your arse was reamed. So I'll have to do it for you.

 

You made it up. You cannot explain it. It is a complete fabrication of your imagination. What kind of dishonest fuck-wit would post this shit and attempt to confuse fellow sailors?

 

But you did. What the fuck does this mean? Shame on you.

 

brady-vs-census.jpg

 

It means that if you go to the Handgun Control Inc Brady Center site and look at their rankings of the best and worst state gun laws, then go to the US Census website and look at the states with the lowest and highest violent crime and murder rates, then (later, I modified the image at some point) you find estimated gun ownership rates by state, you can look to see how state gun laws and gun ownership rates affect violent crime and murder rates.

 

And they answer is: they don't.

 

States with strict gun laws and states with loose gun laws are among the ones with the lowest violent crime and murder rates. They're also among those with the highest rates. Gun control laws don't affect violent crime and murder rates one way or the other. The idea that we can arm everyone and all be safe from crime doesn't explain Arkansas, with high gun ownership, weak gun laws, and making the ten worst in violent crime and murder. The idea that we can pass gun laws to stop violent crime and murder doesn't explain Illinois, among other places.

 

The image is related to the question at hand, but I was hoping that someone reliable would post those gun ownership rate stats, since I seem to be disqualified.

 

Why don't you show us how it's done by the pros? Post estimated gun ownership rates for white and black Americans. Let's see if they correlate with jocal's stats above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What . the fuck . was that? The ramblings of a discredited gun lobbyist?

 

Please post definitions for the columns in the image, cite where the stats come from ... it's designed to look credible but is just confusing.

 

I gave you the real figures. I can post them again if you insist. Just trying to save you the humiliation Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How about the totally bullshit image that you posted proudly for years and have not posted since your arse was reamed. So I'll have to do it for you.

 

You made it up. You cannot explain it. It is a complete fabrication of your imagination. What kind of dishonest fuck-wit would post this shit and attempt to confuse fellow sailors?

 

But you did. What the fuck does this mean? Shame on you.

 

brady-vs-census.jpg

 

It means that if you go to the Handgun Control Inc Brady Center site and look at their rankings of the best and worst state gun laws, then go to the US Census website and look at the states with the lowest and highest violent crime and murder rates, then (later, I modified the image at some point) you find estimated gun ownership rates by state, you can look to see how state gun laws and gun ownership rates affect violent crime and murder rates.

 

And they answer is: they don't.

 

States with strict gun laws and states with loose gun laws are among the ones with the lowest violent crime and murder rates. They're also among those with the highest rates. Gun control laws don't affect violent crime and murder rates one way or the other. The idea that we can arm everyone and all be safe from crime doesn't explain Arkansas, with high gun ownership, weak gun laws, and making the ten worst in violent crime and murder. The idea that we can pass gun laws to stop violent crime and murder doesn't explain Illinois, among other places.

 

The image is related to the question at hand, but I was hoping that someone reliable would post those gun ownership rate stats, since I seem to be disqualified.

 

Why don't you show us how it's done by the pros? Post estimated gun ownership rates for white and black Americans. Let's see if they correlate with jocal's stats above.

Tom . This is a castrophic failure.

Certain statements are flawed, they are just viewpoints.

 

But the basis of your justification for Brady's best is so sloppy it is worthless.

 

What's more, your open defense of comparing violence stats to gun homicides is flat-out unacceptable to the standards of PA.

 

Check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...crickets...for twelve hours...)

 

Tom, what would a statistician say about your work? random was once gracious, and let you save face, considering. However...

You are worse than I thought. You defend comparing violent crime rates to gun crimes? No wonder you can find such disparities.

Then, big surprise, you even conclude

 

you can look to see how state gun laws and gun ownership rates affect violent crime and murder rates.

And they answer is: they don't.

 

Priceless. YCMTSU.

 

I became the third person to call Tom out on this quaint behavior. He was using the general murder rates in Missouri, and comparing them to increased gun murders in MO (which increased 25% right after background checks were cancelled). In his next post, he claimed

 

 

Tom Ray, on 22 March 2015 - 01:33 PM, said: I was responding to a post distorting carefully massaged gun murder stats by citing the actual gun murder stats.
Do you see gun murders on his list?

Missouri Crime Rates 1960 - 2010

Index:

Violent Crime

Property Crime

Murder

Violent

Forcible Rape

Aggravated Robbery

Assault

Burglary

Vehicle Theft

Theft

 

WTF. Tom Ray's response was to disgracefully defended his dishonest, worthless statistical comparison with another lie. And he has defended the practice of dishonest statistical comparisons, directly, with random.

To be continued.

 

Gun mentality: we have moral slippage for guns, credibility slippage for guns, and now statistical comparisons can be compromised, for guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since random won't show me how it's supposed to be done, maybe you can, jocal. Care to answer the question below?

 

I'd provide some stats myself, but you're obviously way better at it. Go ahead and show us how it should be done.

 

 

I'm saying dat dissin' blacks on da permit because dey are black is racist and wrong. That government permits should not be issued nor denied on that basis. And that it's a big deal.

 

Otis McDonald lived under strict gun control (and a constant threat of violence from armed criminals) in Chicago and wanted to defend himself. I'm glad the system wasn't rigged to tell him to STFU just because he was black.

 

If guns are causing the violence levels you cite, I assume the gun ownership rate must be much higher among blacks than whites. Any stats on that subject?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now they just want to sell more ... to anyone, even making pink ones for little girls.

 

hello-kitty-pistol.jpg

 

 

Actually that is for BIG girls.... I knew a girl who competed in (and usually kicked the guy's assess) in sniper rifle competitions and she had little pink daises painted on her stock.

 

BTW - I think elle likes Hello Kitty, so its another of your disingenuous bullshit assumptions that thinks only little girls would like that. Elle, you here lurking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

 

 

...Now Darren X says he wants black people to start feeling safe again when they walk along America’s streets.

 

“Our initiative is for black men and women to start arming themselves and for us to start patrolling our own communities. That way we have a visual, we have an eye on what is going on in our neighborhoods. So our mission is to arm every black man that can legally be armed throughout the Unites States of America,” he said....

 

It's Chief Justice Taney's nightmare come to life! The horror.

 

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

 

The head of the Georgia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to promote nonviolent social change, on Tuesday advocated African-American families “exercise their Second Amendment rights” in response to recent police shootings of unarmed black men.

 

 

These people don't know what's good for blacks. Bloomberg does: throw 'em up against the wall and frisk 'em!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We spend a lot of time together here. To aid our mutual understanding, and for the benefit of our guns in the USA, please give this post a careful read.

For the benefit of an important discussion, let's avoid personal attacks and spurious comments.

 

 

Gun Ownership Is Declining...So Why Is the Gun Lobby So Powerful?

March 25, 2015

by Bernie Horn

 

This post first appeared at Campaign for America’s Future.

...

 

Intelligent discussion from the SA Gun Club, if possible, is welcome.

 

Hmmm... following that link and links on the page, I got here.

 

In 2010-14, household firearms ownership was higher among households with white respondents (39.0%) than among those with black respondents (18.1%)(Table 4).

 

 

 

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

 

Maybe the gun ownership rate is not the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We spend a lot of time together here. To aid our mutual understanding, and for the benefit of our guns in the USA, please give this post a careful read.

For the benefit of an important discussion, let's avoid personal attacks and spurious comments.

 

 

Gun Ownership Is Declining...So Why Is the Gun Lobby So Powerful?

March 25, 2015

by Bernie Horn

 

This post first appeared at Campaign for America’s Future.

...

 

Intelligent discussion from the SA Gun Club, if possible, is welcome.

 

Hmmm... following that link and links on the page, I got here.

 

In 2010-14, household firearms ownership was higher among households with white respondents (39.0%) than among those with black respondents (18.1%)(Table 4).

 

 

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

 

Maybe the gun ownership rate is not the problem?

 

 

Shhhh - you know that your interpretation of those numbers is colored by NRA propaganda, and that anything you say on the subject simply can't be accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope Tom doesn't get sued by JokeAwf's family for causing his head to implode and ruining the new carpet...... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We spend a lot of time together here. To aid our mutual understanding, and for the benefit of our guns in the USA, please give this post a careful read.

For the benefit of an important discussion, let's avoid personal attacks and spurious comments.

 

 

Gun Ownership Is Declining...So Why Is the Gun Lobby So Powerful?

March 25, 2015

by Bernie Horn

 

This post first appeared at Campaign for America’s Future.

...

 

Intelligent discussion from the SA Gun Club, if possible, is welcome.

 

Hmmm... following that link and links on the page, I got here.

 

In 2010-14, household firearms ownership was higher among households with white respondents (39.0%) than among those with black respondents (18.1%)(Table 4).

 

 

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

 

Maybe the gun ownership rate is not the problem?

 

 

It's because you strip out gun related deaths to only the categories that suit your twisted argument. Lot's more ways to die that homocide. Showing your racist side again.

 

Already proven that here but you choose to ignore it.

 

In 1999, 217 million guns, 28,874 people died by gun.

 

In 2011, 286 million guns, 32,163 people died by gun.

 

Guns increased by 24% and Deaths by them increased by 11% between 1999 and 2011 while the number of households were the same percentage

 

THEN

32163 - 28874 = 3,289 more people dead because ..

286 - 217 = 69 million more guns were out there.

SO

69,000,000/3,289 = 20,979 guns per annual death.

 

Randoms' Law states that ... For every 21,000 additional guns sold one death a year will result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil well, shit happens when shitheads cause shit.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what you do when you lose Booze, "Oil well, shit happens when shitheads cause shit....."

 

That's after things like "JFC you are a fucktoid ..."

 

The only thing you have proven is that your beliefs cannot be supported by facts. But I don't mind that so much, as long as that is clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 'beliefs' revolve around the two facts that none of us gun enthusiasts here are the 'problem', and that bad shit happens to good people. Every. Fuking. Second. Curtailing my firearm purchasing or confiscating them will solve absolutely fuking nothing. Take it up with the gang bangers and the crazies....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PA Gun Club always, eventually, pulls out the race card. Tom has, you have. This supports my 'belief' that you are all shit scared that the blacks will revolt anytime now. Been the same right back to the plantations, now burnt into the DNA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhmmm, no you fuking moron. I've stated twice here that I actually want MORE minorities to get into shooting. Like I do with sailing. Just as long as they're not criminal thug barbarians, I could give a flying fuck what color the guy next to me at the range is.

 

You really need to rein in your prejudices and pre-conceived notions about as to who & what we are here in America. 'Cuz right now you're striking out very badly and only succeed in making yourself look like a tool of epic proportions. ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you could be right. I'll have to stop watching the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We spend a lot of time together here. To aid our mutual understanding, and for the benefit of our guns in the USA, please give this post a careful read.

For the benefit of an important discussion, let's avoid personal attacks and spurious comments.

 

 

Gun Ownership Is Declining...So Why Is the Gun Lobby So Powerful?

March 25, 2015

by Bernie Horn

 

This post first appeared at Campaign for America’s Future.

...

 

Intelligent discussion from the SA Gun Club, if possible, is welcome.

 

Hmmm... following that link and links on the page, I got here.

 

In 2010-14, household firearms ownership was higher among households with white respondents (39.0%) than among those with black respondents (18.1%)(Table 4).

 

So if guns cause violence and whites own guns at more than twice the rate of blacks, how did jocal show at post 127 that the homicide rate among blacks is six times higher than among whites?

 

Maybe the gun ownership rate is not the problem?

 

 

It's because you strip out gun related deaths to only the categories that suit your twisted argument. Lot's more ways to die that homocide. Showing your racist side again.

..

Randoms' Law states that ... For every 21,000 additional guns sold one death a year will result.

 

 

I can't help the stats jocal posted. I was just commenting on them. If he stripped something out, scold him, not me. He asked that we avoid personal attacks, but I guess that's out the window in your book.

 

I still don't see how you've proven that selling guns (mostly to white people) is the cause of the elevated levels of violence among blacks that jocal posted about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same old shit Tom. Just dissect it until you get the right result. If that division needs to be on race, that's ok with you. Comes across that you are racist. Blame all bad numbers on black people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same old shit Tom. Just dissect it until you get the right result. If that division needs to be on race, that's ok with you. Comes across that you are racist. Blame all bad numbers on black people.

 

Questioning the placing of blame on gun ownership is not placing the blame elsewhere. It's questioning the placing of blame on ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Same old shit Tom. Just dissect it until you get the right result. If that division needs to be on race, that's ok with you. Comes across that you are racist. Blame all bad numbers on black people.

 

Questioning the placing of blame on gun ownership is not placing the blame elsewhere. It's questioning the placing of blame on ownership.

 

 

IMO, you are not at peace with racial issues, Tom. That's based on several (incomplete) angles which YOU have presented, repeatedly.

The issues don't seem settled within yourself...angles of blamery are persistent...while you peddle more guns using a vague, two-sided racial presentation.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall during your family's dinner conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PA Gun Club always, eventually, pulls out the race card. Tom has, you have. This supports my 'belief' that you are all shit scared that the blacks will revolt anytime now. Been the same right back to the plantations, now burnt into the DNA.

 

random, don't do like some worthless downunder bum--you left out Jeffie.

He has the most fearsome gangbanger pics (and a stat machine not unlike Tom's).

 

***Jeffie's Gangbanger Research, LLC. (chronological)

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number One:

How would you folks remodel the NRA?....

Posted by JBSF on 03 May 2013 - 10:49 PM in Political Anarchy

But you continually rail on about the supposed "gun culture" as if people like me, and CF, and AGITC, and LenP and Sarosa and Tom Ray, etc have ANYTHING in common with the urban thugs in Chicago and similar who are committing the vast majority of the "gun crime".

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number two:

who commits more gun crime, liberals or conservatives?

Posted by JBSF on 18 September 2013 - 01:14 AM in Political Anarchy

Well, given that the majority of the murders in the US (VAST MAJORITY) are commited in the inner city urban areas - I think they are likely firmly blue voters.

Thanks Obama!

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number three:

#4384391The real roadblock to stopping gun violence? The NRA or Jocal?

Posted by JBSF on 13 November 2013 - 03:02 AM in Political Anarchy

The VAST majority of the gun murders out there are committed by run of the mill criminals and gangbangers, most likely as a directly result of the drug trade. If we ended the "war on drugs" - I'm betting the violent crime rate would plummet overnight.

From JBSF, fall 2013: The real situation in the USA:

Armed home defense and home invasion thread

JBSF, on 25 Mar 2014 - 21:08, said:

The vast majority of murders are committed by completely sane individuals

who are murdering for other reasons like drugs, domestic violence, robbery, etc.

By March 2014 Jeff had assimilated the facts (acquaintence offings account for about 80%of the numbers)

possibly because I quoted them here as Boothy scoffed at them. Hmmm, yet Jeff continued to blame blacks.

Jeffie Gangbanger Scapegoating Fib number four; (seven months after stating the truthful situation)

Posted by JBSF on 11 June 2014 - 09:27 PM in Political Anarchy

Furthermore, the 12x rate is not all because of mentally disturbed kids. The vast majority of our homicide rate is inner city drug related crime and gang activity. [...]

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163760#entry4847529>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since random won't show me how it's supposed to be done, maybe you can, jocal. Care to answer the question below?

 

I'd provide some stats myself, but you're obviously way better at it. Go ahead and show us how it should be done.

 

 

I'm saying dat dissin' blacks on da permit because dey are black is racist and wrong. That government permits should not be issued nor denied on that basis. And that it's a big deal.

 

Otis McDonald lived under strict gun control (and a constant threat of violence from armed criminals) in Chicago and wanted to defend himself. I'm glad the system wasn't rigged to tell him to STFU just because he was black.

 

If guns are causing the violence levels you cite, I assume the gun ownership rate must be much higher among blacks than whites. Any stats on that subject?

 

 

 

 

 

This is your response to being asked to compare gun stats to gun stats? It must be, it follows post 138.

This is what you have to say after you defended "Brady's Best" to quality forum members?

 

Badgeless Dodger, yo, you need to address your own credibility. (You need to alter course, Tom, or become a punching bag.)

 

 

Tom Ray, Kellerman, and honor go into a bar…

Where Dr. Arthur Kellerman improves his research conclusions based on critical input. While in that bar, did Tom Ray improve his statistical comparisons to the standards of Political Anarchy?

Kellerman and Honor walk our of the bar, sans Tom Ray.

 

tomraygate%20three%20dollar%20bill%20II_

 

Tom has employed non-comparing stats repeatedly. Do we accept that on this forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are still pushing that line about how "gun murders" is a more relevant metric than "all murders", huh?

 

As if it was relevant, at all, in any meaningful way?

 

 

(shakes head)

 

(leaves thread)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are still pushing that line about how "gun murders" is a more relevant metric than "all murders", huh?

 

As if it was relevant, at all, in any meaningful way?

 

 

(shakes head)

 

(leaves thread)

 

No, it's about gun caused deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are gun deaths more important than other deaths? What makes them so special?

 

It doesn't make sense, on any level.

 

 

If you could be safer overall - less likely to be bludgeoned, stabbed, run over, electrocuted - while at slightly higher risk of getting shot - but not by nearly enough to make up for the decrease in other risks - wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

If you could be completely safe from getting shot - while so much more likely to be bludgeoned, stabbed or beaten to death, that your overall risk of violent death was much higher - wouldn't that be a bad thing?

 

 

You guys' insistence on talking about only gun deaths is the worst sort of disingenuous cherry-picking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed so Frenchie - as it distracts focus from the real causes, the real solutions that could be derived from an objective analysis of causal factors. "Guns kill-therefore, if we get rid of guns, people won't die early anymore!".

Yeah, OK. I'm on record as saying that if I thought that my turning in my firearms would save even a single innocent person, that I'd be in the car, headed for the police station right now. It won't, I won't, and I'll continue to oppose BS kneejerk feelgood legislation that accomplishes nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that amazes me, is they're not even bothering to argue that point. They're saying we're cheating by talking about overall murder rates; they're seriously arguing that it's only gun deaths that matter.

 

WTF?

 

Like getting shot to death hurts more than being beaten to death?

 

I don't even...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is arguing that more thugs on the street lowers bashing's. More swimmers less drownings. But we have those here who will not admit that more guns causes more gun deaths. Exactly 1 annual additional death for every 21,000 weapons sold. It does not matter whether you think that is a lot or trivial, it simply confirms the relationship, the relationship not acknowledged by the SA Gun Club. That's the difference.

 

After the brains stick to the wall, what does it matter what or who pulled the trigger. They are just as dead, by a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Same old shit Tom. Just dissect it until you get the right result. If that division needs to be on race, that's ok with you. Comes across that you are racist. Blame all bad numbers on black people.

 

Questioning the placing of blame on gun ownership is not placing the blame elsewhere. It's questioning the placing of blame on ownership.

 

 

IMO, you are not at peace with racial issues, Tom. That's based on several (incomplete) angles which YOU have presented, repeatedly.

The issues don't seem settled within yourself...angles of blamery are persistent...while you peddle more guns using a vague, two-sided racial presentation.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall during your family's dinner conversation.

 

 

It's already well-established that I'm an extremely bad messenger. A racist promoter of mayhem, blah blah blah.

 

But what about the message?

 

If gun proliferation is the problem you always say it is, why isn't it manifesting itself most among those with the most guns? You've already provided stats showing that the violent crime rate is much higher among blacks but gun ownership is much higher among whites. Seems to me that if gun ownership causes violence, the violent crime rate among whites would be higher.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that amazes me, is they're not even bothering to argue that point. They're saying we're cheating by talking about overall murder rates; they're seriously arguing that it's only gun deaths that matter.

 

WTF?

 

Like getting shot to death hurts more than being beaten to death?

 

I don't even...

 

Most of the deaths that matter are suicides. Because they used a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is arguing that more thugs on the street lowers bashing's. More swimmers less drownings. But we have those here who will not admit that more guns causes more gun deaths. Exactly 1 annual additional death for every 21,000 weapons sold. It does not matter whether you think that is a lot or trivial, it simply confirms the relationship, the relationship not acknowledged by the SA Gun Club. That's the difference.

 

After the brains stick to the wall, what does it matter what or who pulled the trigger. They are just as dead, by a gun.

 

Well... reality CAN be ounter-intuitive, you know. Example: dozens of studies in multiple countries show that more cyclists on the road leads to less cyclists getting hit by cars. Same is true for pedestrians. It's obvious to explain why, one you know the facts of it - as drivers get more used to seeing bikes, they're more prone to keeping an eye out for them. What's less obvious, to you guys, it seems, is the possibility that similar processes may apply to the proliferation of guns.

 

I'm not saying they DO, I'm just saying they MIGHT, and pretending otherwise is just silly.

 

 

I saw where you calculated that there was an extra gun death for every 21000 guns sold. But that doesn't tell me whether other modes of death stayed stable, increased, or decreased. Suppose there was also a drop in other violent deaths? One extra gun death doesn't concern me so much if there's (just "for example", not actual numbers, just illustrating the logical point) 20 less stabbings, 100 less bludgeonings, 60 less beatings, and an overall drop in violent deaths.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Same old shit Tom. Just dissect it until you get the right result. If that division needs to be on race, that's ok with you. Comes across that you are racist. Blame all bad numbers on black people.

 

Questioning the placing of blame on gun ownership is not placing the blame elsewhere. It's questioning the placing of blame on ownership.

 

 

IMO, you are not at peace with racial issues, Tom. That's based on several (incomplete) angles which YOU have presented, repeatedly.

The issues don't seem settled within yourself...angles of blamery are persistent...while you peddle more guns using a vague, two-sided racial presentation.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall during your family's dinner conversation.

 

 

It's already well-established that I'm an extremely bad messenger. A racist promoter of mayhem, blah blah blah.

 

But what about the message?

 

If gun proliferation is the problem you always say it is, why isn't it manifesting itself most among those with the most guns? You've already provided stats showing that the violent crime rate is much higher among blacks but gun ownership is much higher among whites. Seems to me that if gun ownership causes violence, the violent crime rate among whites would be higher.

 

 

 

Over time, this is the only point you care to make with this terrible racial situation. I feel you can do much better.

We see by the damage figures that guns are not working out for blacks, or for whites. Yet, you manipulate this mess to your own end: gun proliferation for both races.

 

Tom, I'd like to see the guns toned down in the black communities; MLK felt the same (while urgently needing protection for implementing effective, peaceful policies).

You, on the other hand, are peddling guns to blacks, and to whites, as a cure for both. They aren't working out for either, for various reasons.

 

 

The blacks are a minority, with complex issues. It's a false equivalency to apply the anomaly of their present distress to mainstream society.

You are reaching, and shouldn't need the blacks' convoluted problems to justify your guns.

 

But what about the message?

 

"A small number of blacks, a relatively small minority, are doing more harm with guns, per capita, than whites. Therefore the guns in the hands of the majority of whites are relatively safer. This shows that guns are okay; and it disproves all the studies linking high gun ownership to more gun violence."

 

If gun proliferation is the problem you always say it is...

 

 

Is this about what I say? I learned from a variety of studies (here are eighteen of them to deny, again), which consistently confirm that high gun numbers add to gun problems.

 

Don't be childish: anomalies may be found with ANY conclusion. Black gun behavior in the USA may be an example... but encouraging more guns in their community is very, very misguided.

 

You are cherry-picking gun stats to suit your narrative, again, giving out bad advice based on whatever selective numbers are available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it would be ok for MLK to have a concealed carry permit. .....but the rest of should not? Are you fuking insane? .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

 

 

...Now Darren X says he wants black people to start feeling safe again when they walk along America’s streets.

 

“Our initiative is for black men and women to start arming themselves and for us to start patrolling our own communities. That way we have a visual, we have an eye on what is going on in our neighborhoods. So our mission is to arm every black man that can legally be armed throughout the Unites States of America,” he said....

 

It's Chief Justice Taney's nightmare come to life! The horror.

 

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

 

The head of the Georgia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to promote nonviolent social change, on Tuesday advocated African-American families “exercise their Second Amendment rights” in response to recent police shootings of unarmed black men.

 

 

These people don't know what's good for blacks. Bloomberg does: throw 'em up against the wall and frisk 'em!

 

 

This doesn't quite fit with what jocal is trying to explain to me.

 

Interesting that jocal is more connected to MLK's legacy than the head of the GA chaper of King's SCLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No one is arguing that more thugs on the street lowers bashing's. More swimmers less drownings. But we have those here who will not admit that more guns causes more gun deaths. Exactly 1 annual additional death for every 21,000 weapons sold. It does not matter whether you think that is a lot or trivial, it simply confirms the relationship, the relationship not acknowledged by the SA Gun Club. That's the difference.

 

After the brains stick to the wall, what does it matter what or who pulled the trigger. They are just as dead, by a gun.

 

Well... reality CAN be ounter-intuitive, you know. Example: dozens of studies in multiple countries show that more cyclists on the road leads to less cyclists getting hit by cars. Same is true for pedestrians. It's obvious to explain why, one you know the facts of it - as drivers get more used to seeing bikes, they're more prone to keeping an eye out for them. What's less obvious, to you guys, it seems, is the possibility that similar processes may apply to the proliferation of guns.

 

I'm not saying they DO, I'm just saying they MIGHT, and pretending otherwise is just silly.

 

 

I saw where you calculated that there was an extra gun death for every 21000 guns sold. But that doesn't tell me whether other modes of death stayed stable, increased, or decreased. Suppose there was also a drop in other violent deaths? One extra gun death doesn't concern me so much if there's (just "for example", not actual numbers, just illustrating the logical point) 20 less stabbings, 100 less bludgeonings, 60 less beatings, and an overall drop in violent deaths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very interesting Frenchie, got a cite for the reduction in cyclists and pedestrians after numbers increased?

 

And about "But that doesn't tell me whether other modes of death stayed stable..." Feel free to start a thread on Death. The topic at hand has been guns. Off you go and report in when your research has satisfied you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCLC has suspended Mosteller for going off the plantation. He has agreed to be "taken away for regrooving."

 

 

http://wabe.org/post/sclc-suspends-ga-president-after-second-amendment-comments

 

 

Tom Ray, with more racial poo slinging.

Tom, you sell cheap, selfish values. I see why they are easy to support.

Following the higher road takes character, discipline, and insight. It is a harder road to navigate.

Mosteller has been through stuff I have not experienced; he may be weary.

 

These are the days that try mens' souls. There were days MLK needed "regrooving."

 

"Maybe we just have to admit that the day of violence is here, and maybe we have to just give up and let violence take its course. The nation won't listen to our voice - maybe it'll heed the voice of violence." Attributed to MLK

 

 

But, Tom, taking a flyer on a race course does not show skill, or overall awareness. It doesn't build championship seasons.

Look at the whole picture. You need to factor that in with every flyer.

 

 

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,

begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.

Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.

Through violence you may murder the liar,

but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.

Through violence you may murder the hater,

but you do not murder hate.

In fact, violence merely increases hate.

So it goes.

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,

adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness:

only light can do that.

Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

 

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

Dr.Martin Luther King Jr.

 

 

Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?

Expediency asks the question - is it politic?

Vanity asks the question - is it popular?

But conscience asks the question - is it right?

And there comes a time when one must take a position

that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;

but one must take it because it is right.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Nonviolence is the answer

to the crucial political and moral questions of our time:

the need for man to overcome oppression and violence

without resorting to oppression and violence.

Man must evolve for all human conflict

a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation.

The foundation of such a method is love.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech,

Stockholm, Sweden, December 11, 1964

 

 

A nation that continues year after year

to spend more money on military defense

than on programs of social uplift

is approaching spiritual death.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, 1967

 

 

Man was born into barbarism

when killing his fellow man

was a normal condition of existence.

He became endowed with a conscience.

And he has now reached the day

when violence toward another human being

must become as abhorrent as eating another's flesh.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Why We Can't Wait, 1963

 

 

Somehow this madness must cease.

We must stop now.

I speak as a child of God and brother

to the suffering poor of Vietnam.

I speak for those whose land is being laid waste,

whose homes are being destroyed,

whose culture is being subverted.

I speak for the poor in America

who are paying the double price

of smashed hopes at home

and death and corruption in Vietnam.

I speak as a citizen of the world,

for the world as it stands aghast

at the path we have taken.

I speak as an American

to the leaders of my own nation.

The great initiative in this war is ours.

The initiative to stop it must be ours.

 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Trumpet of Conscience, 1967

 

 

Darkness cannot drive out darkness;

only light can do that.

Hate cannot drive out hate;

only love can do that.

Hate multiplies hate,

violence multiplies violence,

and toughness multiplies toughness

in a descending spiral of destruction....

The chain reaction of evil --

hate begetting hate,

wars producing more wars --

must be broken,

or we shall be plunged

into the dark abyss of annihilation.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Strength To Love, 1963

 

 

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life.

Longevity has its place.

But I'm not concerned about that now.

I just want to do God's will.

And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain.

And I've looked over.

And I've seen the promised land.

I may not get there with you.

But I want you to know tonight,

that we, as a people will get to the promised land.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I've Been To The Mountaintop, April 3, 1968

 

 

Back to DrMartinLutherKingJr.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that's the game plan for the fuk-stiks running Detroit, DC and Chicago?

 

F'ng brilliant. ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that's the game plan for the fuk-stiks running Detroit, DC and Chicago?

 

F'ng brilliant. ....

 

That is your takeaway, Rick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that amazes me, is they're not even bothering to argue that point. They're saying we're cheating by talking about overall murder rates; they're seriously arguing that it's only gun deaths that matter.

 

WTF?

 

Like getting shot to death hurts more than being beaten to death?

 

I don't even...

 

This is a gun thread. (About MLK's desire and need for a CCP.)

This is a country where our gun deaths, not knife deaths or fistfight deaths, have spiked.

With fewer guns in AUS, 100% of gun mayhem did not transfer to other objects.

I flat-out don't follow your objection to facing runaway gun violence on this, or any, gun thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I lose it when I asked you about jocal's cherry-picking article that claimed a sharp increase in FL gun murders by picking the lowest year in recent memory as a starting point?

 

Sorry, but the fact that you could see no problem with that tells me all I need to know.

 

If the question came from a different messenger, would it be invalid? Seems to me that you and others think guns cause crime. OK, jocal has shown us the highest crime rates, so those should be associated with the highest gun ownership rates, right? Take another look at my picture from the FNRA banquet before answering.

 

The Florida Dept.of Law Enforcement website only goes back to 1999. That could be why that year was chosen, I don't know.

But you are quite unhappy with the Great FL Stat Warpage of '99. Let's try again, using 2005 as a starting point.

 

That was the year FL embraced Stand Your Ground. That loose gun law, or something else, caused an immediate spike in gun murders.

(Yes, I know you do not support SYG. But FL gun deaths increased a second time, six years after 1999. You can quit your crying.)

 

2005 521 gun murders

2006 740

2007 825

2008 780

2009 695

2010 669

2011 691

2012 721

2013 695 aa%20FL%20SYG%20gun%20deaths%20chart_zps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it would be ok for MLK to have a concealed carry permit. .....but the rest of should not? Are you fuking insane? .....

 

Do you equate your situation to the situation of MLK in the mid-sixties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have to keep imagining what our FF's were really thinking about in the 1770's?......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites