Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

I'm not pro suicide. I'm pro-choice. And that choice includes the tool to get the job done. Gun, rope, pills, razor blade - the end result is the same.

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?

 

Two feet to the rear of the sniper. Arms extended with the muzzle about a half inch from the snipers head. Not likely, but you asked..

 

How many deaths are there due to snipers in any given year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe we should keep it simple for randumb and jocal. Here's a series of YES/NO questions:

 

1. Has the overall gun death rate gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

 

2. Has the number of guns in circulation since like 25 years ago gone up up? YES/NO

 

3. Has the suicide rate by gun gone down since like 25 years ago? YES/NO

 

I'm sure I'll add these three to the growing list of questions that neither joe nor randumb will answer.

 

You can't demonstrate a positive correlation between 1 and 2. Your argument is pathetic, infantile...and all you got.

Common fallacies: post hoc, ergo propter hoc:

Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.

 

 

 

Why did crime rates go down? The sociologists do not even mention gun popularity (which decreased per capita during the crime drop, BTW).Here are some of the combined factors in play:

 

The baby boom males aged, and mellowed.

The crack cocaine epidemic came, and went.

The 911 emergency response system was implemented.

Triage centers improved in emergency rooms, and medical advances addressed high velocity bullet cavitations in human flesh.

Security camera use, and the presence of cellphone cameras, both influenced criminal activity.

An impressive (but incomplete) body of evidence suggests that because the presence of lead poisoning (from both gasoline and paint) was curbed, violent behavior diminished.

BIrth control meant that unwanted children would not extend their poor upbringing into criminal fields.

Stiffer criminal penalties also had a documented effect.

 

 

 

To simply attribute the drop in crime to personal gunplay is unworthy...and also unsupported. Jeff, you and NGS are shamefully making the tired "more guns less crime" argument. That theory was firmly discredited twenty years ago...we covered it on PA as well.

A LOTT OF LIES: SHOOTING DOWN THE GUN LOBBY’S FAVORITE “ACADEMIC”

When Gary Kleck can't defend, he attacks. (2015 Politico articles, pro and con)

You are a lightweight, with a mind filled with cliche's.

 

I'm going to have to visit Seattle again. That must be some seriously good shit circulating up there. When do the three weeks of Summer begin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 weeks??? That's overly optimistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How these fricken tools can't simply comprehend the fact that despite the number of guns in private citizens' hands having almost doubled in just twenty years----shootings and homicides have remained flat. If not dropped even. Jfc but even Stevie Wonder can see that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?

Not scared of anything, except big sharks maybe.

 

I just haven't answered to wind you up. Seems to have worked.

 

 

Not wound up at all. I frankly could care less if you answer or not. Your opinion is actually irrelevant to the conversation of what goes on inside of 'merica. I am just amused at your childishness. Carry on....

 

 

:lol: and you are under the impression that your opinion influences "what goes on inside of 'merica."?

 

JFC,

 

self-deluded-300x300.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How these fricken tools can't simply comprehend the fact that despite the number of guns in private citizens' hands having almost doubled in just twenty years----shootings and homicides have remained flat. If not dropped even. Jfc but even Stevie Wonder can see that...

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not including suicides here. Just homicides & intentional shootings. Please pay attention and don't piss me off anymore. ....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the thread title Booze. Stay with it, pay attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How these fricken tools can't simply comprehend the fact that despite the number of guns in private citizens' hands having almost doubled in just twenty years----shootings and homicides have remained flat. If not dropped even. Jfc but even Stevie Wonder can see that...

 

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.

 

 

 

Are you fuking kidding us? Which percentage are you talking about? The 24%? Or the 11%? 'Cuz I can almost garantee you that the number of households with guns in them has gone up at least 24% in the past sixteen years....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The percentage of households with guns remained the same ... biatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet only suicides have risen. Which all of us know don't mean jack shit. So my slogan is more than correct----more fuking guns mean much less murders and intentional shootings.

 

Suck. It.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah ok I will do that. Meanwhile,

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self-murderers don't count. And you know that. So just stop your childish shit, grow a mangina and repeat after me----More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings.More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings. More guns means less homicides and intentional shootings........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah ok I will do that. Meanwhile,

 

Iyears1999, 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.

 

Btw, I'm no fuking math wiz but when I see that only about 3,200 extra people 'died by gun' in twelve years, after Americans added another 69 million fuking guns to their collections, methinks you and your numbers are completely fuking wrong. And actually prove my point.

 

Thanx for that.....moran.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah ok I will do that. Meanwhile,

 

Iyears1999, 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.

Btw, I'm no fuking math wiz but when I see that only about 3,200 extra people 'died by gun' in twelve years, after Americans added another 69 million fuking guns to their collections, methinks you and your numbers are completely fuking wrong. And actually prove my point.

 

Thanx for that.....moran..... :lol:

 

 

You certainly are no math wiz, you seem to have some comprehension issues too.

 

Between 1999 and 2011 ... between 28,874 and 32,163 people died ... each fucking year.

 

45759571.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?

Not scared of anything, except big sharks maybe.

 

I just haven't answered to wind you up. Seems to have worked.

 

 

Not wound up at all. I frankly could care less if you answer or not. Your opinion is actually irrelevant to the conversation of what goes on inside of 'merica. I am just amused at your childishness. Carry on....

 

 

:lol: and you are under the impression that your opinion influences "what goes on inside of 'merica."?

 

JFC,

 

Yeah, actually my opinion and those like me DO influence what goes on inside of America. That's not delusion, that's fact. Through many avenues such as the NRA, SAF, my elected representatives, opinion polls, etc - my opinion, along with millions of others directly influences policy. If you look at any opinion polls out, even in the wake of mass shooting tragedies, there is no groundswell for additional gun control.

 

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Speaking of weasel, neither of you are going to answer my simple YES/NO questions, are you?. What are you so fucking scared of?

Not scared of anything, except big sharks maybe.

 

I just haven't answered to wind you up. Seems to have worked.

 

 

Not wound up at all. I frankly could care less if you answer or not. Your opinion is actually irrelevant to the conversation of what goes on inside of 'merica. I am just amused at your childishness. Carry on....

 

 

:lol: and you are under the impression that your opinion influences "what goes on inside of 'merica."?

 

JFC,

 

Yeah, actually my opinion and those like me DO influence what goes on inside of America. That's not delusion, that's fact. Through many avenues such as the NRA, SAF, my elected representatives, opinion polls, etc - my opinion, along with millions of others directly influences policy. If you look at any opinion polls out, even in the wake of mass shooting tragedies, there is no groundswell for additional gun control.

 

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.

 

 

You need to keep up. Most democracy advocates understand this. You really need to read more.

 

Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

 

"Ordinary citizens," they write, "might often be observed to 'win' (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the thread title Booze. Stay with it, pay attention.

 

The thread title is about non-violence.

 

It's well-established that suicides are gun violence. We have a whole thread about it, complete with appropriate title. Take your suicide crap there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tom, that is good advice. So do you have any more advice for other posters here? Like ... e.g. those talking ...

 

"We're not including suicides here. Just homicides & intentional shootings."?

 

I guess that must have mislead me.

 

I'm sure they would benefit as well, perhaps they just didn't realise it is the wrong thread as well.

 

stock-photo-stop-hypocrisy-faking-hypocr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Check out the thread title Booze. Stay with it, pay attention.

 

The thread title is about non-violence.

 

It's well-established that suicides are gun violence. We have a whole thread about it, complete with appropriate title. Take your suicide crap there.

 

 

Awesome. Did you hear that Boozy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.

 

 

what-if-i-told-you-that-both-political.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Check out the thread title Booze. Stay with it, pay attention.

 

The thread title is about non-violence.

 

It's well-established that suicides are gun violence. We have a whole thread about it, complete with appropriate title. Take your suicide crap there.

 

 

Awesome. Did you hear that Boozy?

 

 

I think he knows sarcasm when he sees it. There are only a few around here who believe gun control is the answer to "self-murder" and he's not in that clown car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Backing out now Tom? So soon? Stay and play! ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, actually my opinion and those like me DO influence what goes on inside of America. That's not delusion, that's fact. Through many avenues such as the NRA, SAF, my elected representatives, opinion polls, etc - my opinion, along with millions of others directly influences policy. If you look at any opinion polls out, even in the wake of mass shooting tragedies, there is no groundswell for additional gun control.

 

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.

 

 

Jeff's bolded parts are not honest statements. I can debate them intelligently. Jeff. you need to support your statements with cites.

Boothy's italicized post, same thing. These are hollow claims, merely lowbrow opinions which need sources.

 

Nearly three quarters (74 percent) of NRA members supported requiring a background check system for all gun sales, according to a poll released Monday by Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The survey found 89 percent of all Americans support the proposal.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/31/nra-leadership-members-divide-on-universal-background-checks/>

 

Why hunters should stand against the nation’s largest firearm association

Most of the country, and most of the NRA itself, doesn't support the current NRA extremism.The NRA is not for hunters any more than AAA is for bicyclists. In 2011, nearly 14 million Americans hunted, while NRA members number about four million, fewer than half of whom actually hunt. First and foremost the NRA serves gun fetishists and the firearms industry. (...) Like me, many hunters consider the NRA a bunch of paranoid loonies, with an increasing volume of innocent blood on their hands.(...)When I say "Fuck the NRA," as I do quite often lately, it's for a host of reasons both personal and political, but has nothing to do with my feelings for guns or the 2nd amendment.The NRA needs hunters a lot more than hunters need the NRA. And the nation needs the opinions of hunters more than it needs the opinion of the NRA. Hunters are intermediaries between government armed forces and private citizens. We are armed citizens, who know what guns can do, and if sensible gun-control policy is ever to be pursued, hunters need to be part of the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, actually my opinion and those like me DO influence what goes on inside of America. That's not delusion, that's fact. Through many avenues such as the NRA, SAF, my elected representatives, opinion polls, etc - my opinion, along with millions of others directly influences policy. If you look at any opinion polls out, even in the wake of mass shooting tragedies, there is no groundswell for additional gun control.

 

And even if there was, the beauty of the American system is that our Constitution protects us from the whims of the fickle masses. We have the 2nd Amendment specifically to prevent what happened in AUS after your Pt Arthur shootings. And we like it that way.

 

 

Jeff's bolded parts are not honest statements. I can debate them intelligently. Jeff. you need to support your statements with cites.

Boothy's italicized post, same thing. These are hollow claims, merely lowbrow opinions which need sources.

 

 

Ummm, you want cites that there is no majority public support for more gun control much less a groundswell??? Here, take your pick, dick: http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gun-control/pages/2/

 

Who's being dishonest now, joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ummm, you want cites that there is no majority public support for more gun control much less a groundswell??? Here, take your pick, dick: http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gun-control/pages/2/

 

Who's being dishonest now, joe?

 

 

Still don't get it do you.

 

1. Companies want to sell more guns

2. Companies fund .orgs as a front

3. .orgs enlist volunteers

4. .orgs create other groundswell puppets e.g. 'Friends of ..." etc

5. Companies fund politicians and point to the groundswell of ordinary people who want guns

6. Politicians take the money and point to the groundswell of ordinary people who want guns

7. People think they have influenced the outcome

8. Companies sell lots more guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The percentage of households with guns remained the same ... biatch.

Would love to know how they can even tell how many households have guns or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The percentage of households with guns remained the same ... biatch.

Would love to know how they can even tell how many households have guns or not.

 

 

 

Notice he said 'the percentage'. So if I'm following his thought process correctly, if the number of guns in Americans hands went up 24% in twelve years, that means 24% more households own them. Which is a great thing....but seems a bit low to me.....so we need to work on that and get more people into the shooting sports....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't catch if that's 24% increased annual sales or total. Lots of old guns around gov never tracked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yups. Lots of mine don't even have serial numbers.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The percentage of households with guns remained the same ... biatch.

Would love to know how they can even tell how many households have guns or not.

 

 

 

Notice he said 'the percentage'. So if I'm following his thought process correctly, if the number of guns in Americans hands went up 24% in twelve years, that means 24% more households own them. Which is a great thing....but seems a bit low to me.....so we need to work on that and get more people into the shooting sports....

 

 

In the United States, the percentage of households with one or more guns is reported to be

2012: 34.4

2010: 32.3

2008: 36.0

2006: 34.5

2004: 37.3

2002: 36.4

2000: 34.3

1998: 36.7

1996: 43.4

1994: 44.0

1993: 45.5

1991: 43.7

1990: 45.8

1989: 48.9

1988: 43.4

1987: 48.6

1985: 48.0

1984: 48.5

1982: 48.9

1980: 50.8

1977: 54.0

1976: 49.7

1974: 47.9

1973: 49.1

 

Cite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one way for someone to get those numbers----by calling them up at home during work hours, asking how many they have.....then writing down that number. Without ZERO clue if the callee answered truthfully. Ergo I don't trust any of those numbers you just posted----especially with the current gun-grabber craze that seems to have been going on for the past six or eight years.

 

So you gots anything verifiable? .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one way for someone to get those numbers----by calling them up at home during work hours, asking how many they have.....then writing down that number. Without ZERO clue if the callee answered truthfully. Ergo I don't trust any of those numbers you just posted----especially with the current gun-grabber craze that seems to have been going on for the past six or eight years.

 

So you gots anything verifiable? .....

 

Okay, Rick, if that's how you see telephone surveys.

But you just canned the high DGU figures which you guys quote. They came from Gary Kleck.

He hasn't been accepted in a peer-reviewed journal since the mid-nineties. And Kleck's numbers, according to him, were laden with criminal mis-uses.

Tom Ray quotes them, but won';comment on this bit:

 

One example of bias in the Politico article: "Kleck himself admitted in 1997, in response to criticism of his survey, that 36 to 64 percent of the defensive gun uses reported in the survey were likely illegal—meaning the firearm was used to intimidate or harm another person rather than for legitimate self-defense."

Will Caxton

Pasted from <http://www.onthemedia.org/story/myth-behind-defensive-gun-ownership/>

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 2.5 million DGUs, even in 1993, is 7000 per day. The fact that our newspapers, TV reports, and personal experience is completely at odds with those numbers mean something. It means that either there is a huge effort to suppress or hide all of these DGUs, or they just aren't happening in that number.

Pasted from <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1183422/-A-closer-look-at-DGU-numbers/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I don't know any one named Gary Kleck.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

The percentage of households with guns remained the same ... biatch.

Would love to know how they can even tell how many households have guns or not.

 

Notice he said 'the percentage'. So if I'm following his thought process correctly, if the number of guns in Americans hands went up 24% in twelve years, that means 24% more households own them. Which is a great thing....but seems a bit low to me.....so we need to work on that and get more people into the shooting sports....

In the United States, the percentage of households with one or more guns is reported to be

2012: 34.4

2010: 32.3

2008: 36.0

2006: 34.5

2004: 37.3

2002: 36.4

2000: 34.3

1998: 36.7

1996: 43.4

1994: 44.0

1993: 45.5

1991: 43.7

1990: 45.8

1989: 48.9

1988: 43.4

1987: 48.6

1985: 48.0

1984: 48.5

1982: 48.9

1980: 50.8

1977: 54.0

1976: 49.7

1974: 47.9

1973: 49.1

 

Cite

So the percentage of households with guns has gone down considerably since 1973- 27.6%...assuming the above is true.

 

Collectors own many many guns. But they aren't criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

R Booze, on 01 May 2015 - 5:52 PM, said:

 

So you gots anything verifiable? .....

 

 

That's now how we play here. It's on you to support your claim now.

Look at the damn bibliography in Random's source. It's a who's who of gun study content. Gun Policy.Org is awesome---on an international level.

 

You need sources to back up your bluster, buster. Here are some of mine.

 

Bernie Halpin put numbers to the actual breakdown of gun ownership ... and credits one particular survey:

Gun Ownership Is Declining, So Why Is the Gun Lobby So Powerful?We can get an idea of the number of households that own substantial arsenals of guns by examining data from a poll of gun owners conducted by Republican pollster Frank Luntz for Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Question: "How many guns do you or does a member of your family own?"

Number NRA Member Non-NRA

1gun 18% 25%

2 guns 16% 20%

3-5 guns 26% 39%

6-9 guns 17% 15%

10 or more 24% 11%

About 10 percent of gun owners belong to the NRA. You can do the math yourself. The numbers compute to this rough estimate: The owners of one-to-nine guns possess a total of about 110 million firearms. That means the “10 or more” respondents represent about 4.5 million households that own 230 million firearms — an average of more than 50 guns per household. And that’s just an average, which means some very large number (a million?) own more than 100 guns...The General Social Survey is considered the gold standard for polls. It’s based on face-to-face interviews going back four decades, conducted by the independent National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and funded by the National Science Foundation.The numbers reflect a long-term trend. During the same period, the percentage of households with a hunter plummeted from 32 to 15 percent. Other important factors during these decades: the percentage of the population living in urban areas increased from 73 to 81 percent while the percentage of the US that is non-Hispanic White declined from 83 to 63 percent. The last demographic is important because, while 39 percent of White households possess firearms, only 18 percent of Black and 15 percent of Hispanic households have them.

.aa%20guns-in%20decline_zpsbq122thd.gif

 

 

So the GSS is a survey, yes, but the one that has asked identical questions for forty years straight. The conclusion is consistent with the body of knowledge on the subject of gun presence in U.S. homes.

 

 

Survey Shows U.S. Guns in Homes Have Declined

The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it's ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.

According to the latest General Social Survey, 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That's a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.

The General Social Survey is conducted by NORC, an independent research organization based at the University of Chicago, with money from the National Science Foundation. Because of its long-running and comprehensive set of questions about the demographics, behaviors and attitudes of the American public, it is a highly regarded source of data about social trends.(...)

The drop in the number of Americans who own a gun or live in a household with one is probably linked to a decline in the popularity of hunting, from 32 percent who said they lived in a household with at least one hunter in 1977 to less than half that number saying so now. (...)

 

Your turn now, Boothy. Back up your huffing and puffing with some credible information.

 

LenP's best response was that gun owners are lying in unison, thus distorting all survey conclusions. Which sounds quite unscientific to me...and a lot like imagining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I don't know any one named Gary Kleck.....

 

You are as dumb as a rock, evidently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read any of that kind of shit...in decades. Mostly 'cuz I don't give a flying fuk about polls or studies or opinions or whatever. I own guns 'cuz I like them...and 'cuz I can.

 

It's truly as simple as that....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. What's not to like about them? Jocal even likes 'em. Most efficient way to remove pesky varmints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's only one way for someone to get those numbers----by calling them up at home during work hours, asking how many they have.....then writing down that number. Without ZERO clue if the callee answered truthfully. Ergo I don't trust any of those numbers you just posted----especially with the current gun-grabber craze that seems to have been going on for the past six or eight years.

 

So you gots anything verifiable? .....

 

Yes, the figure I posted.

 

They came from these three sources. All cited in the table at the source.

 

1.

General Social Survey. 2013. ‘Question 237: Do You Happen to Have in Your Home (or Garage) Any Guns or Revolvers?.’ General Social Survey Cumulative Datafile 1972-2012. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center / NORC at the University of Chicago. 3 December.

Relevant contents

General Social Survey

National Opinion Research Center*

Question 237: Do you happen to have in your home (or garage) any guns or revolvers?

 

2.

Siegel, Michael, Craig S. Ross and Charles King III. 2013. ‘Table A1: Average Gun Ownership Levels (Measured by Percentage of Suicides Committed Using Firearms) by State and Decade.’ The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010; Vol. 103, No. 11 (Appendix A). Washington, DC: American Journal of Public Health. 1 November.

Relevant contents

Percentage of Households Containing One or More Firearms

 

3.

Share of Homes with Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline

New York Times

9 March 2013

By Sabrina Tavernise and Robert Gebeloff

Relevant contents

The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decades, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.

The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read any of that kind of shit...in decades. Mostly 'cuz I don't give a flying fuk about polls or studies or opinions or whatever. I own guns 'cuz I like them...and 'cuz I can.

 

It's truly as simple as that....

 

and it shows ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome! We have just completed another "Booze Cycle" Ladies and Gentlemen.

 

Start: Is saying you are wrong.

"Btw, I'm no fuking math wiz but when I see that only about 3,200 extra people 'died by gun' in twelve years, after Americans added another 69 million fuking guns to their collections, methinks you and your numbers are completely fuking wrong. And actually prove my point.

Thanx for that.....moran..... :lol:"

 

Transition to next stage happens when it is shown that he is wrong.

 

Middle: Spinning, has a go at another set of numbers

"Ergo I don't trust any of those numbers you just posted----especially with the current gun-grabber craze that seems to have been going on for the past six or eight years.

So you gots anything verifiable? ....."

 

Transition to the final stage happens when yet again he is shown to be wrong.

 

End: Gives up, says he doesn't care.

"I haven't read any of that kind of shit...in decades. Mostly 'cuz I don't give a flying fuk about polls or studies or opinions or whatever. ..."

 

Which kinda defeats the purpose of calling you 'wrong' in the first place.

 

And so it goes, another thread another Booze Cycle completed. Fun to watch.

 

stock-photo-man-watching-television-9985

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Click to enlarge


Boozecycle


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Click to enlarge

 

I can't sleep so I have a decent excuse for posting at this time of day. You must be really really bored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see joe completely ignored my direct response to him about whether people in the U.S. Have a groundswell of opinion against guns. Not only is there no groundswell but it's just the opposite.

 

Jocal = lying cunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Click to enlarge

 

I can't sleep so I have a decent excuse for posting at this time of day. You must be really really bored?

 

 

Waiting for some epoxy to go off a bit more. Clearly I have too much time on my hands though, yes. On the otherhand I thought that the time taken to document the Booze Cycle might be a good investment. Maybe increasing his awareness that he does this, might in fact help him break the habit!

 

Heading out for a Saturday night soon ... I like Saturday nights.

 

Oh yeah, about not sleeping, works for me.

 

1. Relax the face and eyelids. Sometimes there is tension there you are not aware of.

2. Deliberately watch your closed eye visuals (CEVs), like you were tripping.

3. Repeat until ZZzzzzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see joe completely ignored my direct response to him about whether people in the U.S. Have a groundswell of opinion against guns. Not only is there no groundswell but it's just the opposite.

 

Jocal = lying cunt.

 

Ooops, there it is! The JB key indicator of frustration, the C word!

 

Maybe I'll stay in and ...

 

scarjo_popcorn.gif

 

NUH, I'm outta here.

 

(and I like the way her arm bumps her, ah, chest)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see joe completely ignored my direct response to him about whether people in the U.S. Have a groundswell of opinion against guns. Not only is there no groundswell but it's just the opposite.

Jocal = lying cunt.

 

Ooops, there it is! The JB key indicator of frustration, the C word!

 

Maybe I'll stay in and ...

 

scarjo_popcorn.gif

 

NUH, I'm outta here.

 

(and I like the way her arm bumps her, ah, chest)

I fully admit I am frustrated by the willful ignorance and the deliberate stupid so on display here.

 

and yes, the chest squeeze is quite mezmerizing.

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!

 

 

Uh oh.

 

Second amendment solutions.

 

This Week on the New Black Panther Party’s “Black Power Radio,” national chairman Hashim Nzinga said since America has “declared war on us,” evidenced by “military police in the black neighborhood” protecting the rich, the New Black Panthers should be looked upon as Founding Fathers who declare war and are “willing to die or kill to save our babies and to save a black nation that is dying before our eyes.”

 

Nzinga said, “America is about protecting the rich and the powerful.”

 

He added, “We pay taxes. They have declared war on us and it’s nothing but state racism.”

 

“So if we say we are at war, we should be applauded like George Washington,” Nzinga continued. “We should be applauded like Thomas Jefferson. We should be applauded like the Founding Fathers of the country.”

 

“This is not the hate hour, this is the love hour,”he added....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

VIle. Absolutely disgusting. You have been promoting racial misunderstanding for thirty days.

 

The gas from your swamp is affecting your better judgement. You are becoming intellectual pond scum.

I don't know the answer to this complex racial dynamic... but I'm certain it isn't more white or black gun culture.

 

You want to increase gun chaos among blacks? The brothers haven't been torn up enough by gun violence?

You are proposing vigilante values to solve create problems among blacks?

 

I can't explain why, but you sport a pattern of race-baiting. You point a lot of fingers WRT race.

I'm not sure what you have to offer in a conversation about racial diversity.

You use the blacks' gun violence numbers to promote your pro-gun idiocy? Then you lack social conscience, and are pretty much a loser, IMO.

 

Tom Ray, on 08 June 2014 - 02:47 AM, said:

Does anyone want to guess at the reason Martin Luther King's concealed weapons permit was denied?

I already know the answer, but will entertain guesses for a while before revealing it.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817#entry4893369>

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

Tom Ray, on 02 May 2015 - 03:48 AM, said:These people don't know what's good for blacks. Bloomberg does: throw 'em up against the wall and frisk 'em!

...2. Gun control has always been racist, and still is today with policies like "stop and frisk" and "may or may not issue" permits.

 

Quit advocating that our officials be allowed to use race to dispense our rights…

 

( Tom my buddy, I made so such claim, and shall avoid liar liar tangents here. This great discussion, if cleaned up a little bit, needs to be continued)

 

...and I will quit complaining about your advocacy of racist policies.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=160457&p=4680878>

 

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

 

Tom Ray Posted 27 July 2014 - 02:07 PM

Denying rights because of race is good, and MLK was glad to had his permit application denied for that reason. Got it.

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=160457&p=4680878>

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I see joe completely ignored my direct response to him about whether people in the U.S. Have a groundswell of opinion against guns. Not only is there no groundswell but it's just the opposite.

Jocal = lying cunt.

Ooops, there it is! The JB key indicator of frustration, the C word!

 

Maybe I'll stay in and ...

 

scarjo_popcorn.gif

 

NUH, I'm outta here.

 

(and I like the way her arm bumps her, ah, chest)

I fully admit I am frustrated by the willful ignorance and the deliberate stupid so on display here.

 

and yes, the chest squeeze is quite mezmerizing.

 

 

I meet no standards of "willfull ignorance." I am the hardest worker on the gun threads.

FIrst I organized and presented (using full text) all the current gun research in North America. (It took half of 2013 and 2014 to do so.)

A hush descended upon the Gun Club Choir.

Then I organized and presented the state-of-the-art conclusions of the social sciences. They are collaborative, and each is inclusive of the 2nd A.

These informed projects were satisfying work. I did it for your elk.

And to challenge your elk in every aspect of your entire SAF hyperbole.

 

 

I hope you didn't ignore all that knowledge, but none of it supported your cliche-type views.

"Willful ignorance and deliberate stupid" may apply to yourself, Jeffie, because...

1.You were wrong about 70% of gang violence happens during a secondary crime.

6.You were wrong about my owning a handgun (yet I had sorted that here a half-dozen times).

7. You are mistaken that the mentally ill cause violence. (Their overall violence figure is 4%.)

8. The idea that MADD's approach to drunk drivers precludes gun limitations has been opposed by NAS science.

 

As Cuntrinder the Great can see, "willful ignorance" may be a projection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

VIle. Absolutely disgusting. You have been promoting racial misunderstanding for thirty days.

 

The gas from your swamp is affecting your better judgement. You are becoming intellectual pond scum.

I don't know the answer to this complex racial dynamic... but I'm certain it isn't more white or black gun culture.

 

You want to increase gun chaos among blacks? The brothers haven't been torn up enough by gun violence?

You are proposing vigilante values to solve create problems among blacks?

 

I can't explain why, but you sport a pattern of race-baiting. You point a lot of fingers WRT race.

I'm not sure what you have to offer in a conversation about racial diversity.

You use the blacks' gun violence numbers to promote your pro-gun idiocy? Then you lack social conscience, and are pretty much a loser, IMO.

]

I don't think joe quite understands the difference between reporting a story and promoting a cause or position. How does Tom posting a link about blacks wanting to use guns for vigilante ism and revolution somehow promoting that? Help me understand because this is a fascination look into a convoluted mind. Somebody should study you, joe. The mental health community could learn oodles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there's just one teensy-eensy small problem, JokeAwf----only you and your two 'friends' here give a flying fuck about you, your 'stats', your opinions, your childish memes and your excruciatingly inane cut 'n pastes. All you've accomplished here since your debut is to make the rest of us despise you, your elks and the Brady Bunchers----and to get us dig our heels into the dirt even harder.

 

Oh yeah, and to buy more guns......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meet all standards of "willfull ignorance." I am the hardest worker on the gun threads.

FIrst I organized and presented (using full text) all the current gun research in North America. (It took half of 2013 and 2014 to do so.)

Then I organized and presented the state-of-the-art conclusions of the social sciences.

It was satisfying work. I did it for your elk.

And to challenge your elk in every aspect of your entire SAF hyperbole.

Good for you. And yet in all that blather. You still think there is a groundswell from the American public for more gun control. The disappointment that America doesn't share in your delusion must be gutting after all your hard work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there's just one teensy-eensy small problem, JokeAwf----only you and your two 'friends' here give a flying fuck about you, your 'stats', your opinions, your childish memes and your excruciatingly inane cut 'n pastes. All you've accomplished here since your debut is to make the rest of us despise you, your elks and the Brady Bunchers----and to get us dig our heels into the dirt even harder.

 

Oh yeah, and to buy more guns......

True dat. Oh and give more money to the NRA. I honestly never really liked the NRA and didn't see the point. Jocal opened my eyes to how his side thinks. So he does convince and change minds about guns, just not in the way he thinks he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read any of that kind of shit...in decades. Mostly 'cuz I don't give a flying fuk about polls or studies or opinions or whatever. I own guns 'cuz I like them...and 'cuz I can.

 

It's truly as simple as that....

 

It as simple as Gary Kleck is a key gun researcher for your elk. One of two.

Both got dissed by the scientific community. Both have been discussed on our forums, for good reasons.

Your only gun researchers are bunk, dude.

 

Hint: if you want to reach out for other researchers to help your cause, try Kates and Mauser, and Mark Gius.

Neither is peer-reviewed. Both are out-classed by the body of knowledge on the subject of gun violence in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Joe. Guess what? The 2nd amendment trumps every study you can throw out there. The end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is NO SUCH THING as 'gun violence', you stupid fuk.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Joe. Guess what? The 2nd amendment trumps every study you can throw out there. The end.

 

Sounds like trowing in the towel JB. Very close to "well I don't give a flying fuk' or 'well anyway, my daddy can beat your daddy'. Bit Boozy.

 

So I have to ask, if 'The End' is you view, why bother with the details at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...2. Gun control has always been racist, and still is today with policies like "stop and frisk" and "may or may not issue" permits.

 

Quit advocating that our officials be allowed to use race to dispense our rights…

...

 

 

( Tom my buddy, I made so such claim, and shall avoid liar liar tangents here. This great discussion, if cleaned up a little bit, needs to be continued)

 

Yes, you have advocated it, and you continue to do so every time you promote "may issue" concealed carry laws. May issue means "may not" and for any reason a cop might choose.

 

As we've seen in other threads, one reason a cop might choose for any given action is racism.

 

All we gun nutters want is a list of acceptable reasons to deny a permit. I don't think race should be on that list. If any reason is acceptable, as in your "may issue" states, then that means ANY reason, Any means ANY. That means including race

 

If you want to exclude race as a reason, I'm happy to have you join the shall issue bandwagon. Can't we agree on a list of reasons that are good enough to deny a permit and also agree on a list of reasons that are wrong? I'll start: let's put race on the list of reasons that are wrong.

 

But you must first agree that there should be such a list and that it should be finite. This infinite authorization of "may issue" was wrong when MLK got his permit denied for racist reasons and continues to be wrong today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shit Tom, you're gonna make the Cut 'n Paste Fairy work overtime tonight.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is NO SUCH THING as 'gun violence', you stupid fuk.....

I think in Jocals nightmares he's being chased by a defective gun firing by itself and he's a varmint that can't get away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact jocal owns a gun that he says he won't get rid of unless the government takes away due to not passing a background check trumps every single ones of his previous posts. He is a contradiction but actions trump words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and yes, the chest squeeze is quite mezmerizing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...2. Gun control has always been racist, and still is today with policies like "stop and frisk" and "may or may not issue" permits.

 

Quit advocating that our officials be allowed to use race to dispense our rights…

...

 

 

( Tom my buddy, I made so such claim, and shall avoid liar liar tangents here. This great discussion, if cleaned up a little bit, needs to be continued)

 

Yes, you have advocated it, (edit: that our officials be allowed to use race to dispense our rights) and you continue to do so every time you promote "may issue" concealed carry laws. May issue means "may not" and for any reason a cop might choose.

 

As we've seen in other threads, one reason a cop might choose for any given action is racism.

 

All we gun nutters want is a list of acceptable reasons to deny a permit. I don't think race should be on that list. If any reason is acceptable, as in your "may issue" states, then that means ANY reason, Any means ANY. That means including race

 

If you want to exclude race as a reason, I'm happy to have you join the shall issue bandwagon. Can't we agree on a list of reasons that are good enough to deny a permit and also agree on a list of reasons that are wrong? I'll start: let's put race on the list of reasons that are wrong.

 

But you must first agree that there should be such a list and that it should be finite. This infinite authorization of "may issue" was wrong when MLK got his permit denied for racist reasons and continues to be wrong today.

 

 

More race-baiting.

 

Tom, by twisting my point of view, are you promoting racial misunderstanding? Present YOUR OWN list of terms, if you want one presented, but the framework to apply it will need to include things like compassion, and the understanding of diversity.

 

To apply guns as a solution to race relations (???) is to be in a thoughtless rut. You've got your foot holding down the accelerator pedal for all things pro-gun. However, your reflection and compassion skills are needed to develop racial parity.

 

 

The white gun mentality has shortcomings. The black gun mentality is twisted too...but in a different (more convoluted) way.

Neither of these approaches will lead us to a healthy culture, IMO, since neither approach is healthy (or even considerate).

 

Please lay out your racial overview for us. Explain the incendiary: why you insist that Bloomberg and I are racist if we disagree with your pro-gun-rights policies.

Since you claim your guns are a last resort, they should not be framed as intrinsic to your racial hopes, goals, insights or methods.

 

Guns are making a mess of relating, on both sides, because they have a way of defeating the inner resources (such as understanding) which we need.

 

You are just hiding behind guns, I think, using the cache of MLK to dress up your gun-heavy, white-trash philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact jocal owns a gun that he says he won't get rid of unless the government takes away due to not passing a background check trumps every single ones of his previous posts. He is a contradiction but actions trump words.

 

I didn't say that the government would be needed, Rockdog. My family could take my rifle away.

My friends, or SE or Random or Sean or The Flash or Hard On or Gouv BL or Scot could take it away.

The SA Gun Club, not so much.

 

 

 

I think in Jocals nightmares he's being chased by a defective gun firing by itself and he's a varmint that can't get away.

That is some funny stuff, RD. Seriously.

 

 

 

If I didn't care about guns in the USA, we would never have met, boys.

Your problem is that Tom Diaz and Mike the Gun Guy and I DO care about them.

Yo, it doesn't have to go down like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"For the first time in decades, a majority of Americans say it is more important to protect gun rights than it is to limit gun ownership, according to a December poll from the Pew Research Center."

 

"The same Pew poll found that a slight majority of women now believe owning a handgun can protect them from becoming victims of crime."

 

 

Looks like no one is listening to the Jocal much these days. Bummer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact jocal owns a gun that he says he won't get rid of unless the government takes away due to not passing a background check trumps every single ones of his previous posts. He is a contradiction but actions trump words.

I didn't say that the government would be needed, Rockdog. My family could take my rifle away.

My friends, or SE or Random or Sean or The Flash or Hard On or Gouv BL or Scot could take it away.

The SA Gun Club, not so much.

 

I think in Jocals nightmares he's being chased by a defective gun firing by itself and he's a varmint that can't get away.

That is some funny stuff, RD. Seriously.

 

 

 

If I didn't care about guns in the USA, we would never have met, boys.

Your problem is that Tom Diaz and Mike the Gun Guy and I DO care about them.

Yo, it doesn't have to go down like this.

Ummn....we never have met.

 

I'm sorry but your posts usually don't make sense to me. Your life also contradicts the things you post. Due to that I disregard all that you post.

 

I'd love to know the real reason you so much anti gun stuff on here. Facts show you are not anti gun. What are you hiding? You can tell us. We won't judge you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact jocal owns a gun that he says he won't get rid of unless the government takes away due to not passing a background check trumps every single ones of his previous posts. He is a contradiction but actions trump words.

I didn't say that the government would be needed, Rockdog. My family could take my rifle away.

My friends, or SE or Random or Sean or The Flash or Hard On or Gouv BL or Scot could take it away.

The SA Gun Club, not so much.

 

I think in Jocals nightmares he's being chased by a defective gun firing by itself and he's a varmint that can't get away.

That is some funny stuff, RD. Seriously.

 

 

 

If I didn't care about guns in the USA, we would never have met, boys.

Your problem is that Tom Diaz and Mike the Gun Guy and I DO care about them.

Yo, it doesn't have to go down like this.

Ummn....we never have met.

 

I'm sorry but your posts usually don't make sense to me. Your life also contradicts the things you post. Due to that I disregard all that you post.

 

I'd love to know the real reason you so much anti gun stuff on here. Facts show you are not anti gun. What are you hiding? You can tell us. We won't judge you.

 

 

The direction of gun culture concerns me. These gun things require responsibility, but little of that is being shown by the Modern NRA.

Pitching concepts of "tyranny fighting" as the main benefit of the second amendment in 2015 is not acceptable to me.

Rendering the ATF useless concerns me; not accepting gutted background checks concerns me.

Making county gun statutes impossible in 40 states concerns me.

Ignoring the "well regulated militia" wordage of the second amendment is of great concern to me, especially if using manufactured, non peer-reviewed historical scholarship.

 

In short, moderate gunowners could find a path out of 85% of these numbers. They could play a role in defining, identifying, and enforcing high-risk-based gun situations. They could discredit the gun-extremists for what they are.

 

 

The gun culture itself to positively define and enforce what is un-cool. They could go with special licensing for AW's to limit their access to the unvetted masses.

Basics like background checks could be considered as a compromise to registration.

Moderates might distance themselves from insurrectionist rhetoric.

The present direction of the gun mentality is foolish, IMO, and has tones of lowbrow law-breaking (as opposed to true civil disobedience).

The gun culture has indicators that it needs strong opposition.

 

Rockdog, Anarchy, around here, is the act of pointing things like that out, as clearly as possible, while using broad sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats, Idiot, you got 12 out of 12 wrong up there. But thanx for playing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact jocal owns a gun that he says he won't get rid of unless the government takes away due to not passing a background check trumps every single ones of his previous posts. He is a contradiction but actions trump words.

I didn't say that the government would be needed, Rockdog. My family could take my rifle away.

My friends, or SE or Random or Sean or The Flash or Hard On or Gouv BL or Scot could take it away.

The SA Gun Club, not so much.

 

I think in Jocals nightmares he's being chased by a defective gun firing by itself and he's a varmint that can't get away.

That is some funny stuff, RD. Seriously.

 

 

 

If I didn't care about guns in the USA, we would never have met, boys.

Your problem is that Tom Diaz and Mike the Gun Guy and I DO care about them.

Yo, it doesn't have to go down like this.

Ummn....we never have met.

 

I'm sorry but your posts usually don't make sense to me. Your life also contradicts the things you post. Due to that I disregard all that you post.

 

I'd love to know the real reason you so much anti gun stuff on here. Facts show you are not anti gun. What are you hiding? You can tell us. We won't judge you.

 

 

He really, really likes guns and lusts for the feeling of power that owning a couple gives him.

 

Unfortunately, so long as others own guns he must fear facing his own adequacy or lack thereof in regard to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The fact jocal owns a gun that he says he won't get rid of unless the government takes away due to not passing a background check trumps every single ones of his previous posts. He is a contradiction but actions trump words.

I didn't say that the government would be needed, Rockdog. My family could take my rifle away.

My friends, or SE or Random or Sean or The Flash or Hard On or Gouv BL or Scot could take it away.

The SA Gun Club, not so much.

 

I think in Jocals nightmares he's being chased by a defective gun firing by itself and he's a varmint that can't get away.

That is some funny stuff, RD. Seriously.

 

 

 

If I didn't care about guns in the USA, we would never have met, boys.

Your problem is that Tom Diaz and Mike the Gun Guy and I DO care about them.

Yo, it doesn't have to go down like this.

Ummn....we never have met.

 

I'm sorry but your posts usually don't make sense to me. Your life also contradicts the things you post. Due to that I disregard all that you post.

 

I'd love to know the real reason you so much anti gun stuff on here. Facts show you are not anti gun. What are you hiding? You can tell us. We won't judge you.

The direction of gun culture concerns me. These gun things require responsibility, but little of that is being shown by the Modern NRA.

Pitching concepts of "tyranny fighting" as the main benefit of the second amendment in 2015 is not acceptable to me.

Rendering the ATF useless concerns me; not accepting gutted background checks concerns me.

Making county gun statutes impossible in 40 states concerns me.

Ignoring the "well regulated militia" wordage of the second amendment is of great concern to me, especially if using manufactured, non peer-reviewed historical scholarship.

 

In short, moderate gunowners could find a path out of 85% of these numbers. They could play a role in defining, identifying, and enforcing high-risk-based gun situations. They could discredit the gun-extremists for what they are.

 

 

The gun culture itself to positively define and enforce what is un-cool. They could go with special licensing for AW's to limit their access to the unvetted masses.

Basics like background checks could be considered as a compromise to registration.

Moderates might distance themselves from insurrectionist rhetoric.

The present direction of the gun mentality is foolish, IMO, and has tones of lowbrow law-breaking (as opposed to true civil disobedience).

The gun culture has indicators that it needs strong opposition.

 

Rockdog, Anarchy, around here, is the act of pointing things like that out, as clearly as possible, while using broad sources.

Putting away criminals who use guns would take care of the majority of the problem. Why not focus on criminals as without them guns are virtually harmless.

 

And, again, your above post rambles on and says nothing. Ensuring government over reach doesn't happen is the second most important reason someone should should have for owning a gun. If you think governments don't over reach you obviously don't live on our planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats, Idiot, you got 12 out of 12 wrong up there. But thanx for playing.....

 

We starting another Booze Cycle? Stage 1 is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...2. Gun control has always been racist, and still is today with policies like "stop and frisk" and "may or may not issue" permits.

 

Quit advocating that our officials be allowed to use race to dispense our rights…

...

 

 

( Tom my buddy, I made so such claim, and shall avoid liar liar tangents here. This great discussion, if cleaned up a little bit, needs to be continued)

 

Yes, you have advocated it, (edit: that our officials be allowed to use race to dispense our rights) and you continue to do so every time you promote "may issue" concealed carry laws. May issue means "may not" and for any reason a cop might choose.

 

As we've seen in other threads, one reason a cop might choose for any given action is racism.

 

All we gun nutters want is a list of acceptable reasons to deny a permit. I don't think race should be on that list. If any reason is acceptable, as in your "may issue" states, then that means ANY reason, Any means ANY. That means including race

 

If you want to exclude race as a reason, I'm happy to have you join the shall issue bandwagon. Can't we agree on a list of reasons that are good enough to deny a permit and also agree on a list of reasons that are wrong? I'll start: let's put race on the list of reasons that are wrong.

 

But you must first agree that there should be such a list and that it should be finite. This infinite authorization of "may issue" was wrong when MLK got his permit denied for racist reasons and continues to be wrong today.

 

 

...

 

 

The white gun mentality has shortcomings. The black gun mentality is twisted too...but in a different (more convoluted) way.

...

 

Please lay out your racial overview for us. Explain the incendiary: why you insist that Bloomberg and I are racist if we disagree with your pro-gun-rights policies.

...

 

As you showed in this thread, whites own guns at twice the rate of black people. If the guns cause the "mentality" you don't like, why are they causing it so much more among blacks?

 

Bloomberg advocates the gun/drug control policy of stop and frisk. If you want to know why that's racist, this link may help.

 

As for you, I'm not sure how much more clear I can make the bolded part above. You want to allow the exact same policy that you admit was applied in a racist manner against MLK. Knowingly allowing racial discrimination by government officials is wrong. We should prohibit it. "May issue" allows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

, why are they causing it so much more among blacks?

 

Mmmmm. Sounds racist Tom. Are these black people, of whom you speak, American citizens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

, why are they causing it so much more among blacks?

 

Mmmmm. Sounds racist Tom. Are these black people, of whom you speak, American citizens?

 

 

Check the source regarding the black people of whom jocal spoke. Since your ability to read and follow the thread is so limited, I'll paste it again for you.

 

 

 

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

What it is.

 

Tom, thanks for showing us how the U.S. gun problem is convoluting among blacks. The gun bloodbath you are denying is showing among parts of the socially frustrated black community. It speaks to the danger of the acceptance of guns.

 

The brothers' dynamic (social and economic frustration) is barely comparable to white gun mentality (which is composed of right-wing and insurrectionist-type belief systems). Both are misguided, IMO.

 

One can always find an exception or anomaly to a study conclusion (and you make a cottage industry of it). But to find such an exception does not disprove the overall evidence-based conclusion.

 

Tom Ray, your sustained race-baiting is trollish behavior. It adds nothing to the conversation. It displays a petty mind, one lost in blaming and misunderstanding.

 

Do us a favor. You are MLK curious. Go read a good book about that amazing man.

 

Abstract

Objective

Racism is related to policies preferences and behaviors that adversely affect blacks and appear related to a fear of blacks (e.g., increased policing, death penalty). This study examined whether racism is also related to gun ownership and opposition to gun controls in US whites.

Method

The most recent data from the American National Election Study, a large representative US sample, was used to test relationships between racism, gun ownership, and opposition to gun control in US whites. Explanatory variables known to be related to gun ownership and gun control opposition (i.e., age, gender, education, income, conservatism, anti-government sentiment, southern vs. other states, political identification) were entered in logistic regression models, along with measures of racism, and the stereotype of blacks as violent. Outcome variables included; having a gun in the home, opposition to bans on handguns in the home, support for permits to carry concealed handguns.

Results

After accounting for all explanatory variables, logistic regressions found that for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism there was a 50% increase in the odds of having a gun at home. After also accounting for having a gun in the home, there was still a 28% increase in support for permits to carry concealed handguns, for each one point increase in symbolic racism. The relationship between symbolic racism and opposition to banning handguns in the home (OR1.27 CI 1.03,1.58) was reduced to non-significant after accounting for having a gun in the home (OR1.17 CI.94,1.46), which likely represents self-interest in retaining property (guns).

Conclusions

Symbolic racism was related to having a gun in the home and opposition to gun control policies in US whites. The findings help explain US whites’ paradoxical attitudes towards gun ownership and gun control. Such attitudes may adversely influence US gun control policy debates and decisions.

Citation: O’Brien K, Forrest W, Lynott D, Daly M (2013) Racism, Gun Ownership and Gun Control: Biased Attitudes in US Whites May Influence Policy Decisions. PLoS ONE 8(10): e77552. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077552

Editor: Brock Bastian, University of Queensland, Australia

Received: May 3, 2013; Accepted: September 7, 2013; Published: October 31, 2013

Copyright: © 2013 O’Brien et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: These authors have no support or funding to report.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077552>

 

This racial thing is feeding itself, Tom. It feeds on patterns of misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The fact jocal owns a gun that he says he won't get rid of unless the government takes away due to not passing a background check trumps every single ones of his previous posts. He is a contradiction but actions trump words.

I didn't say that the government would be needed, Rockdog. My family could take my rifle away.

My friends, or SE or Random or Sean or The Flash or Hard On or Gouv BL or Scot could take it away.

The SA Gun Club, not so much.

 

I think in Jocals nightmares he's being chased by a defective gun firing by itself and he's a varmint that can't get away.

That is some funny stuff, RD. Seriously.

 

 

 

If I didn't care about guns in the USA, we would never have met, boys.

Your problem is that Tom Diaz and Mike the Gun Guy and I DO care about them.

Yo, it doesn't have to go down like this.

Ummn....we never have met.

 

I'm sorry but your posts usually don't make sense to me. Your life also contradicts the things you post. Due to that I disregard all that you post.

 

I'd love to know the real reason you so much anti gun stuff on here. Facts show you are not anti gun. What are you hiding? You can tell us. We won't judge you.

 

 

He really, really likes guns and lusts for the feeling of power that owning a couple gives him.

 

Unfortunately, so long as others own guns he must fear facing his own adequacy or lack thereof in regard to them.

 

 

I could surf on all the ad hominems. Personal attacks are all you have?

You feel a need to grab my gun, eh? The SA Gun Club, it hate me.

Your issue is that I offer a stream of learned, scientific conclusions...and nobody can debate them.

 

Saorsa et al, continue, and please analyze Tom Diaz and Mike the Gun Guy.

How the Gun Industry Is Killing Americans

Sorry Folks, But Gun Rights And Civil Rights Don’t Mean The Same Thing.

 

Are you proposing to take their guns away because they criticize the extreme gun mentality? How does that sort?

I share their views. And I share gun ownership with them. I find honor in their hopes and views.

We have a right to our views, and our guns...but we recognize the damage in play.

The evidence-based facts are that communities with strong gun laws offer better community safety.

It is not about me, or taking my gun away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites