Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

Well, it would be pretty hard to dance with Black Women at the Friends of the NRA meeting. There were none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it would be pretty hard to dance with Black Women at the Friends of the NRA meeting. There were none.

 

That’s because black pigment folks need to be disarmed by the state to make you feel safer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

You see, your elk are uneasy about race...while I am dancing with black women, by invitation.

You have a lot to learn.

Man o man. W.t.f. does dancing with black women have to do with posting of government supplied data?

 

 

I'm not sure either, but I do have a lot to learn.

 

My guess: it has something to do with the hope that ...the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower penispower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks.

 

 

 

 

More race-baiting, and a further promotion of racial misunderstanding.

Your solution to troubled racial relations (which you keep bringing up) has not been presented.

 

 

Your message is that if we don't support your pro-gun policies, that we are racist. Hmmm. How you go on about this.

Next, your bottom line is to promote lots of poorly regulated guns to blacks and whites, regardless of the consequences.

 

Tom since you have little insight to offer on the subject of positive racial outcome (and until you've read a good book on MLK), how about you just be a decent sort and pick topics other than race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that Jocal is continuing his somebody else DO something diatribe, and will once again remind him, and those who accept his vacuous arguments, that controlling the implement doesn't abate the causes of the undesirable behavior, and that that abatement ought to be the primary goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
random, on 07 May 2015 - 04:34 AM, said:

 

scarjo_popcorn.gif

 

 

While you were putting all that together the very large number of firearms in my home shot exactly 0 people. In fact the ones that I bought new have never killed anyone.

Not a single one of them even fired on its own.

They did not try to escape from a safe - most aren't even in a safe.

Hell, they didn't move at all.

So please explain this violence you refer to. See figures, below. Each number affects family, loved ones, living situations, etc. These numbers are outliers among high-income countries.. One in my collection was built in 1875. It is a little worn, but in all the years It has existed I feel pretty certain that it alone did not kill anyone. It was originally issued to a Texas Ranger, so there is a possibility it was used to kill someone. Yet I feel 100% certain that it alone has not harmed anyone. Hell, it can't even load its self.

In fact, the potted plant in my window sill moved more. It breaths, it eats and it could be very toxic.

 

They have killed. Snakes, deer turkey, and other food sources, also stray critters of various and dubious nature have all died because I used guns to do the job. But not a single human being. At least not yet. Not very likely either. Damn near every house in my home town has guns. There has only been one murder with a firearm in town that I can remember. Just one. It was drug related. Texting drivers on the other hand.....

 

 

Good on 'ya. I assume you can keep them indefinitely.

But outside your sphere, many, many others are screwing up with guns.

 

Yr Tot Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

 

Society itself bears the costs of our guns, and, even after Heller, regulations and laws still need to be considered.

This is not an either/or matter, as if all your guns are at risk. That is called imagining.

 

As Mark Rosenberg, the former director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control put it during another recent radio conversation, the entrenched gun debate itself carries a steep price:

This is really destructive to our ability to make progress. It's posed as an "either or," and this was done by strategists working for the NRA over a long period of time. They wanted people to think that either you protect the rights of all gun owners to keep their guns, or you do research on gun violence, and that the two are diametrically opposed. And they had a zero-tolerance philosophy that said, "You can't even discuss research on gun violence because that leads down the slippery slope of all of us losing our guns." And that's led us into the morass where we are today.

Mark Rosenberg, former Director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/05/idiotic-gun-debate-itself-is-killing-us>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that Jocal is continuing his somebody else DO something diatribe, and will once again remind him, and those who accept his vacuous arguments, that controlling the implement doesn't abate the causes of the undesirable behavior, and that that abatement ought to be the primary goal.

 

This is not for you to say, Guy. Is fixing public health epidemics your discipline, your field of expertise?

Where are some social science sources for your (ahem) opinion?

 

 

You wanted proven policy, correct? The policy of challenging the agents of damage to public health has been proven with malaria, lung disease, AIDS, traffic safety, asbestos removal, etc. Guns are an agent of gun violence, according to public health scientists.

 

Guy, your right hand in demanding evidence-based action only, while your left hand is denying research...and challenging established science.

Just sayin'.

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.

 

, just to keep perspective ,

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.

 

, just to keep perspective ,

 

 

 

Doesn't the state of Washington require a background check and a psych eval before they issue an SPP*?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*'Shroom Picking Permit.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

, best get sitting down for this, Boothy,,

 

? ready ?

 

Rico, 'shrooms grow in the back yard here, & I find 'em in the Mts too.

 

(Some 'shroomies say Ilk-shit-shrooms are the "finest in the land")

 

 

 

 

 

, but even that isn't enough to 'splain jocal "logic"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My "logic" is in sync with the current research. This study is significant because it is the newest, AND the most comprehensive (covering 50 states for 30 years).

It suggests that fewer guns = less crime.

 

 

Quote

SIEGAL 2013: The Relationship Between Gun Ownership

and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010.

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio=1.009; 95% confidence interval=1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

Studies analyzing data over long periods are valuable because they assess the effects of variation in gun availability not only between states but within states over time. Although we are aware of no multiyear studies of interstate variation in gun ownership and homicide rates since 1999, national data from the General Social Survey show that the prevalence of household gun ownership has decreased by approximately 12% since then.http://ajph.aphapubl...JPH.2013.301409>

Quote

The results of the research are consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher levels of firearm homicide.

Siegel noted that the study did not determine causation, allowing that it is theoretically possible that people are more likely to purchase guns if they live in states with higher levels of firearm homicide. But he said the issue warrants further study. “In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, last year, many states are considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths. This research is the strongest to date to document that states with higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides. It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates...”

 

My logic agrees with the opinions of the medical community:

 

AMA on Gun Violence

Gun violence in America has reached epidemic proportions and the horrific school shootings in Newtown, CT, has increased the sense of urgency to find workable solutions to reduce the epidemic of gun violence and the culture of violence in America. In a January 8, 2013 letter to the President and Congressional leaders, the AMA along with 51 other national specialty societies and state medical societies urged the nation to strengthen its commitment and resources to improve comprehensive access to mental health services including screening, prevention and treatment. The letter acknowledges that while the vast majority of patients with mental illness are not violent, physicians and other health professionals must be trained to respond to those who have a mental illness that might make them more prone to commit violence.

Based on long-time AMA-HOD policy, the letter also calls for renewing and strengthening the assault weapons ban, including banning high-capacity magazines. AMA supports S. 150, the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” which was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Pasted from <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/topics/violence-prevention.page>

 

My logic has long been echoed by the American Bar Assn:

 

ABA Policy

The first ABA policy related to gun violence, adopted in 1965, supported amending federal law in a number of respects to address interstate sales of firearms as were involved in formerly unregulated mail-order purchases, including the rifle used by Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy. These reforms were later enacted as key provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the principal federal law regarding firearm sales, transfer, and possession, which are still operative to date. They include: mandatory licensing of dealers in interstate commerce of firearms; prohibiting sales to felons, fugitives, persons under indictment, adjudicated mental incompetents, and minors; and restricting sale of firearms to residents of the state where they are purchased. The ABA also called for controlling commerce and importation of large caliber weapons and firearms.

The ABA has repeatedly reaffirmed and expanded its recommendations for strengthening the 1968 Act in the decades following. As a result, the ABA supports reforms that would prohibit sale and possession of certain types of firearms, such as cheap, foreign made handguns (1973); limit availability of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices to the military or law enforcement organizations (1989 and 1993); and strengthen the National Instant Check System background check data base to include other public records such as court orders and relevant records regarding mental health status bearing on eligibility to purchase firearms (2004). In 1975, 1983, 1994, and 1996 the ABA adopted additional policies supporting amendments to the Gun Control Act of 1968. These amendments would:

  • Require background checks for all purchasers of firearms, including for purchases at gun shows and for private, nondealer sales.
  • Prohibit sales, transfers, and possession of firearms by persons convicted of violent misdemeanors, including persons convicted of domestic violence and child abuse offenses or subject to a protective order
  • Prohibit interstate sales by unlicensed persons of ammunition and firearm components

My logic is in agreement with the American Psychology Assn.

 

At the time APA advocated in support of firearm-related injury research, and APA released the following statement when the Dickey amendment was adopted:

Research on the prevention of firearm-related injury, supported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and coordinated within CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), has come under attack from Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee initially rejected Rep. Dickey's attempt to eliminate the $2.6 million dedicated to CDC firearm-injury research. However, Mr. Dickey prevailed in the full Appropriations Committee. The Dickey amendment would transfer the $2.6 million to regional health education centers. This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA. The NRA has taken the position that firearm-related injury research at the CDC amounts to 'antigun' political advocacy and has also attacked the quality of this research. However, research proposals submitted to CDC are subject to a peer review process that follows standard practices. APA's Public Policy Office (PPO) has distributed accurate information to Congress on the nature of CDC-supported firearm-injury research and is advocating against the Dickey amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah fuckitty blah. But in other news, I just bought another 'killing machine' today. Rem model #600 in 6.5. Gotta love the 2nd,gotta love Arizona. Suck it, JokeAwf.....:lol:

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?

 

 

You are quoting the Pew Research library of pro-gun outcomes. They have a track record.

And their questions blip the either/or, black-or-white issue framework proposed by the NRA.

 

The Pew Research Center released a survey this month suggesting that for the first time in two decades more Americans support "gun rights" than "gun control." But the poll's question on that point, asking respondents whether it's more important to "control gun ownership" or to "protect the right of Americans to own guns," drew sharp criticism from some experts, who say it offered a false choice.

"I could not think of a worse way to ask questions about public opinions about gun policies," Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told Media Matters. "The question's implicit and incorrect assumption is that regulations of gun sales infringe on gun owners' rights and control their ability to own guns. The reality is that the vast majority of gun laws restrict the ability of criminals and other dangerous people to get guns and place minimal burdens on potential gun purchasers such as undergoing a background check."

(...) That context comes from numerous recent surveys. A July 2014 poll from Quinnipiac University found that 92 percent of voters—including 86 percent of Republicans and 92 percent of gun owners—support background checks for all gun sales, up four points from the previous year.

In January, Rasmussen Reports found that 59 percent of respondents supported a ban on assault weapons, while a 2013 CBS News/New York Times poll reported that 63 percent of Americans polled favored a limit on high-capacity magazines.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/12/pew-poll-gun-rights>

 

 

 

Another factor, argues political scientist Jonathan Bernstein, is that few Americans are taking to the streets to demand universal background checks. Ninety percent of people answering a phone survey the same way is not the same as hordes of voters protesting in the streets or badgering their congressmen.

The lopsided level of activism was clear in a January Pew Research poll, where respondents who prioritized gun rights were more than four times as likely as those backing gun control to donate money to an organization that takes a position on gun policy. More than four in 10 gun rights supporters (42 percent) reported participating in at least one type of political activism on the issue, compared with 25 percent of those prioritizing gun control.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/03/90-percent-of-americans-want-expanded-background-checks-on-guns-why-isnt-this-a-political-slam-dunk/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf...the Random of the anti-gun-nutter religion....

 

5-7-2015%20146.jpg

 

5-7-2015%20190.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What disease do guns cause anyway?

 

You know what else = less crime? Less criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

Your solution to troubled racial relations (which you keep bringing up) has not been presented.

 

 

Your message is that if we don't support your pro-gun policies, that we are racist. ..

 

Tom since you have little insight to offer on the subject of positive racial outcome (and until you've read a good book on MLK), how about you just be a decent sort and pick topics other than race.

 

 

I don't have an overall solution, but think that eliminating government discrimination based on race would be a good start. And yes, knowingly supporting racial discrimination by government is racist. So is saying what you said about it: "big deal."

 

 

...

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

Again, big deal.

 

 

I'm here to learn. Specifically, I'm eager to learn how the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. What is it about black people that make them more immature, more short-sighted, and more volatile when they are exposed to guns? Was it wise to deny MLK his permit because his melanin-rich skin made him more volatile than white people? You seem determined to preserve the ability to cops to engage in that kind of discrmination, so I want to learn why blacks are so darn dangerous in your view.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFC Tom.

 

"What is it about black people that make them more immature, more short-sighted, and more volatile when they are exposed to guns?" Tom Ray.

 

These people are US citizens, get off the blame truck in a effort to justify your unsupportable views. Seems unpatriotic to me. Do black people serve in the armed forces? You not supporting the troops?

 

More guns more deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFC Tom.

 

"What is it about black people that make them more immature, more short-sighted, and more volatile when they are exposed to guns?" Tom Ray.

 

These people are US citizens, get off the blame truck in a effort to justify your unsupportable views. Seems unpatriotic to me. Do black people serve in the armed forces? You not supporting the troops?

 

More guns more deaths.

 

I'm just trying to learn more about black people from local expert Jocal. Obviously, there's nothing racist about this statement he made: the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks.

 

So I'm asking about it. Why is that bad? And by the way, what actions have you taken so far to eliminate Aussie Apartheid? Or are you all complaints about other countries, no action in your own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not an Aussie Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self portrait of Random. Aussie as fuck.

 

Osho.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, I'm from a family of seven children. Each was unique. As our characters developed, we each faced different challenges.

We each overcame some challenges; we each folded on others. Life is the process of sorting all that out, innit?

 

I am waiting for you to apply some understanding to this situation. Instead, you choose to misunderstand my Irish ass.

I am still getting painted with the Tom Ray racist broadbrush. This is pointless (but no surprise).

 

We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.
Address it as well as you can, and lay out your viewpoint on how to sort it.

Pointing fingers at others is not good enough, since you constantly drag the topic of racism and guns into our forums.

Simply lay out your overview for us.

 

 

 

 

Racism may apply to getting a driver's license. So should we just avoid testing individuals for driving skill to avoid racism?

Racism may apply to getting an electrician's journeyman card. Should we avoid setting standards for electricians' licenses to avoid racism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...

Your solution to troubled racial relations (which you keep bringing up) has not been presented.

 

 

Your message is that if we don't support your pro-gun policies, that we are racist. ..

 

Tom since you have little insight to offer on the subject of positive racial outcome (and until you've read a good book on MLK), how about you just be a decent sort and pick topics other than race.

 

 

I don't have an overall solution, No shit. Who does? But given that, why grind away with the TR misunderstandings? but think that eliminating government discrimination based on race would be a good start. Your argument is far from brilliant. How about real estate licences, and stock brokerage licences? Are they not just as subject to racist decisions? And yes, knowingly supporting racial discrimination by government is racist. So is saying what you said about it: "big deal." This is key. A true pacifist would find that situation (a gun permit denial based on racism) amusing, since his power is not based on gunfighting in the first place.

 

Here's the punch line. You can take out the remarkable pacifist with a cheap gun...but The Mountain remains... just sitting there.

 

 

...

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

Again, big deal.

 

 

I'm here to learn. Specifically, I'm eager to learn how the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. What is it about black people that make them more immature, more short-sighted, and more volatile when they are exposed to guns? Was it wise to deny MLK his permit because his melanin-rich skin made him more volatile than white people? You seem determined to preserve the ability to cops to engage in that kind of discrmination, so I want to learn why blacks are so darn dangerous in your view.

 

 

 

Whether being denied a handgun permit was a "big deal" to MLK was up to MLK.

Please cite his massive disappointment. Please source this particular bit as a life-changing event (not for yourself, but for MLK).

 

Or STFU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.

 

OK, one explanation that doesn't work is the random one: blacks have fewer guns but higher "gun damage" as you put it.

 

I also don't agree with your view that blacks are inherently more volatile when exposed to guns.

 

I think the violence (gun and otherwise) we see is a result of a history of discrimination.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have an overall solution, but think that eliminating government discrimination based on race would be a good start.

 

 

Your argument is far from brilliant. How about real estate licences, and stock brokerage licences? Are they not just as subject to racist decisions?

 

 

 

1. No, they are not.

 

2. Even if they were, there is no protected right to sell real estate or stocks, but we do have a protected right to keep and bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.

 

OK, one explanation that doesn't work is the random one: blacks have fewer guns but higher "gun damage" as you put it. This is a very confusing non-answer.

 

I also don't agree with your view that blacks are inherently more volatile when exposed to guns. Dangit, I didn't say that. The stats are ugly. Gun violence within a subset of the black community is heinous. The situation has demonstrated volatility, and currently demonstrates volatility. You don't have the sensitivity or understanding to discuss it.

 

I don't know (or care much) if you are racist. I am just pointing out that you seem to bring racial tension to our forums. A lot.

What conclusion do you draw about your SNCC Rev. who openly discussed gunplay as a tactic, and was recalled? Why have you posted about that...twice?

Why have you quoted my honest (but very unflattering) NBIC numbers four times?

 

Tom, the singer Norma in the polka dot dress does Edda James beautifully. She's built pretty well, and learned real dancing elsewhere.

You are missing out down at the Friends of the NRA.

 

I think the violence (gun and otherwise) we see is a result of a history of discrimination. But you can't advance that thought for us?

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have an overall solution, but think that eliminating government discrimination based on race would be a good start.

 

 

Your argument is far from brilliant. How about real estate licences, and stock brokerage licences? Are they not just as subject to racist decisions?

 

 

1. No, they are not. How about racist applications to dog licenses? If we cancel dog licenses, the discrimination factor will be zero.

 

2. Even if they were, there is no protected right to sell real estate or stocks, but we do have a protected right to keep and bear arms.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.

 

OK, one explanation that doesn't work is the random one: blacks have fewer guns but higher "gun damage" as you put it.

 

I also don't agree with your view that blacks are inherently more volatile when exposed to guns.

 

This is a very confusing non-answer.

...

Dangit, I didn't say that. The stats are ugly. Gun violence within a subset of the black community is heinous. The situation has demonstrated volatility, and currently demonstrates volatility. You don't have the sensitivity or understanding to discuss it.

 

I think the explanation frequently offered by your elk, that gun ownership rates predict violence, is a very confusing non-answer in light of the much lower gun ownership rates and much higher violent crime rates among blacks. My conclusion from those stats you posted: gun ownership rates don't predict crime rates, nor even suicide rates.

 

You said that the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. The gun ownership rate clearly doesn't cause it. I figured the inherent volatility does since you haven't explained further. If that was wrong, please explain what you meant.

 

I guess your view is that government racial discrimination is not a big deal unless I can prove that the person discriminated against said so. I just don't accept that view. I think it's wrong regardless of what anyone else thinks about it, including the person being discriminated against. But I guess you don't have the same sensitivity to government racism that I do and we can't discuss it.

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.

 

, just to keep perspective ,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

We need you to take a shot at explaining the high gun damage numbers among blacks.

 

OK, one explanation that doesn't work is the random one: blacks have fewer guns but higher "gun damage" as you put it.

 

I also don't agree with your view that blacks are inherently more volatile when exposed to guns.

 

This is a very confusing non-answer.

...

Dangit, I didn't say that. The stats are ugly. Gun violence within a subset of the black community is heinous. The situation has demonstrated volatility, and currently demonstrates volatility. You don't have the sensitivity or understanding to discuss it.

 

I think the explanation frequently offered by your elk, that gun ownership rates predict violence, is a very confusing non-answer in light of the much lower gun ownership rates and much higher violent crime rates among blacks. My conclusion from those stats you posted: gun ownership rates don't predict crime rates, nor even suicide rates.

 

You said that the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. The gun ownership rate clearly doesn't cause it. I figured the inherent volatility does since you haven't explained further. If that was wrong, please explain what you meant.

 

I guess your view is that government racial discrimination is not a big deal unless I can prove that the person discriminated against said so. I just don't accept that view. I think it's wrong regardless of what anyone else thinks about it, including the person being discriminated against. But I guess you don't have the same sensitivity to government racism that I do and we can't discuss it.

 

 

Tom is oh-so sensitive to "government racism".

Bloomberg is a racist, unless he agrees with Tom and Tom's Bubba friends.

Jocal is a racist if he comments on angry white males (AWM's).

MLK is proof positive that "shall issue" will save the constitution, etc.

Some blacks are going all bloodbath with easy-to-obtain guns, which disproves the danger of guns across society.

 

Stupid stuff. The whole world is racist, unless Tom can apply his idiotic gun policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the explanation frequently offered by your elk, that gun ownership rates predict violence, is a very confusing non-answer in light of the much lower gun ownership rates and much higher violent crime rates among blacks. My conclusion from those stats you posted: gun ownership rates don't predict crime rates, nor even suicide rates.

 

 

That is convenient for you to deduce, no doubt, but not very scholarly.

You are cherry-picking one situation to avoid the conclusions of broad studies.

As Firearm Ownership Rises, Florida Gun Murders Increasing

 

There’s no clear answer as to why gun murders have increased so dramatically. But one fact is hard to ignore: Floridians own more guns than they did a decade ago, when the gun murder rate was significantly lower.

Concealed carry permits and the state’s so-called “stand your ground” law also have emboldened more people to carry firearms, leading to more opportunities for gun murders.

(...) “With this law, it’s really not defending yourself anymore as much as it is exerting your power,” Phillips said. “A situation that used to be handled by reason is now handled by gunfire.”

 

(...) The presence of guns in a home during domestic violence increases the homicide chance for women by 500 percent, according to a 2003 study of domestic violence incidences in 11 cities.

 

 

Guns contribute to gun suicides, the experts say:

 

 

Twelve or more U.S. case control studies have compared individuals who died by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more likely to live in homes with guns.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/>

Access to guns increases risk of suicide, homicide

Of the 15 studies included in the meta-analysis, the only one that did not find a statistically meaningful increase in the odds of death associated with access to firearms was from New Zealand, where guns are much less available than they are in the United States. And even that study did find an increase, although not a statistically significant one.

(…)

When firearms were accessible, men were nearly four times more likely to commit suicide than when firearms were not accessible, while women were almost three times more likely to be victims of homicide.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-01-access-guns-suicide-homicide.html>

Source: American College of Physicians

All but 1 study (20) found significantly higher odds of suicide among participants who had firearm access than among those who did not, with ORs ranging from 1.38 to 10.38.

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426#f2-6>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess your view translation: here comes a straw man is that government racial discrimination is not a big deal unless I can prove that the person discriminated against said so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty childish train of thought. Not really grown-up dialogue, Tom.

In fact, it's a dishonest, obtuse application of what I said.

I said that MLK's not geting a legal gun permit was no big deal. You accused me of racism based on that. I defined no big deal, twice, in the context of what MLK was, at his core (since MLK himself was not at all about guns, shall issue or SAF hubris). I asked you to document that it was a big deal to him, not to yourself. You can't document any big impact on MLK, I guess.

 

You are using MLK to give class to your serial race-baiting and dishonest propaganda. Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you for ONE fuking second think that a person who has legitimate concerns about being targeted by people who may wish him harm yet was denied a CCP because of the color of his skin is 'no big deal'....then you're more f'd in the head than I previously thought. And just because he never told YOU how he truly felt about him being rejected, does not for a second mean he was not pissed about it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the explanation frequently offered by your elk, that gun ownership rates predict violence, is a very confusing non-answer in light of the much lower gun ownership rates and much higher violent crime rates among blacks. My conclusion from those stats you posted: gun ownership rates don't predict crime rates, nor even suicide rates.

 

 

That is convenient for you to deduce, no doubt, but not very scholarly.

You are cherry-picking one situation to avoid the conclusions of broad studies.

As Firearm Ownership Rises, Florida Gun Murders Increasing

 

Guns are now the weapons of choice in 75 percent of all homicides in Florida. That’s up from 56 percent in 2000.

 

 

Guns contribute to gun suicides, the experts say:

 

I picked the above quote out of the article you linked because it looked suspect.

 

Sure enough, checking the actual source, one finds that guns have never been the weapons of choice in 75% of FL murders, at least not in the decades since such records have been kept.

 

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/332e1b3d-2648-4b06-8be5-d322f340c95d/1971_fwd_murder_firearms.aspx

 

I think you need to go back to your own propagandist instead of borrowing random's. I know it's his because there can't be two of them stupid enough to look at a list of numbers and cherry-pick the second lowest one as a baseline for comparison. As we've discussed many times, the proper year to cherry pick is 1999.

 

If you want to talk about suicide rates, how about comparing the US rate to the rates in other developed countries? Not the gun suicide rate, the suicide rate. Your "experts" have only proven that an available tool will be used while one that is not available won't be, but that says nothing about preventing suicides through gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30,000 posts since 2008?? Holeee shit Tom

 

 

And what's your point? Do you realize how fuking boring this place would be if the Top 20 Posters here suddenly disappeared tomorrow morning and moved to Diego-fricken-Garcia? It'd be about as exciting as f'ng My Space---hosted by AOL........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pick me pick me. I'd like to have a look around DFG. JB can only get me a one-way ticket.

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.

Yes we will.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

I don't have the patience to address all of your silliness..... but to take a couple of egregious bits:

 

Ummm - you continually write as if there are no background checks. Hate to break it to you, but there are Federally mandated BGCs in all 50 states.

 

Both the "well regulated" bit and the "fighting tyranny" bit are well described by the founders as to what they meant. Are you really suggesting the Federalist Papers are not peer reviewed enough for you? Sorry, I will take their word over any BS scholar you want to throw out there.

 

And finally, I hate to keep bursting your bubble - but the fact that it is 2015 is totally irrelevant to what the 2A means. Fighting tyranny is just as if not more relevant now as then. The fact that we are not currently using it to fight an internal tyrannical gov't, fortunately, has no bearing as to whether it might be needed in the future. The constitution and the processes to change it exists specifically so that the whims of the current generation cannot easily override the principles they laid down. I realize explaining this to you, joe,, is like talking to a rock. But it is what it is. The constitution was specifically designed to protect the country against people EXACTLY like you! Get this through your thick fucking skull..... the 2A is not about hunting or sports or collecting or whatever. It is about protection from a tyrannical gov't either internally or externally as well as personal defense, Nothing else. Everything else is gravy.

 

The oath tells the story..... "against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Texting drivers on the other hand.....

Thats a really good point.... Hey Jocal, it is clear that smart phones are killing people at alarming rates. It is pure irresponsibility to text and drive and stata are showing it is killing at rates equivalent to DUI. Smart phones, especially the new ones like the iphone 6 are like having LCMs - makes them more deadly because of all the things that can be done rapidly. And they are black too, so kinda like the AR-15 of the smart phone world. Should we regulate them? Ban them, Limit their speed, limit their memory? Should we have a safety so they can't used one handed like a pistol grip. Are the auto-dimming features kinda like a flash suppressor? All the features make it mor deadly to the rest of us - so shouldn't we limit, regulate them, perform BCGs on new buyers? If not, why not? Serious question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

I don't have the patience to address all of your silliness..... but to take a couple of egregious bits:

 

Ummm - you continually write as if there are no background checks. Hate to break it to you, but there are Federally mandated BGCs in all 50 states.

Bad start, bro. This is a very dishonest statement, since private sales (40% of the market) are excluded from federal law.

 

Both the "well regulated" bit and the "fighting tyranny" bit are well described by the founders as to what they meant. Produce your quotes. The only quotes I've seen were taken way out of context. Are you really suggesting translation: here comes a straw man the Federalist Papers are not peer reviewed enough for you? Sorry, I will take their word over any BS scholar you want to throw out there.

And finally, I hate to keep bursting your bubble - but the fact that it is 2015 is totally irrelevant to what the 2A means. Fighting tyranny is just as if not more relevant now as then. The fact that we are not currently using it to fight an internal tyrannical gov't, fortunately, has no bearing as to whether it might be needed in the future. The constitution and the processes to change it exists specifically so that the whims of the current generation cannot easily override the principles they laid down. I realize explaining this to you, joe,, is like talking to a rock. But it is what it is. The constitution was specifically designed to protect the country against people EXACTLY like you! Get this through your thick fucking skull..... the 2A is not about hunting or sports or collecting or whatever. It is about protection from a tyrannical gov't either internally or externally as well as personal defense, Nothing else. Everything else is gravy.

 

The oath tells the story..... "against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic".

 

 

As presented, all this Founding Father intellectual arrogance may not be what one thinks.

 

Dana Loesch's New Gun Book Botches Quotes From The Founding Fathers

Conservative commentator Dana Loesch's new book Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America includes spurious quotes from George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers, despite the fact that it purports to teach readers about "the history of the Second Amendment."

 

Loesch, who hosts a radio show on The Blaze, is currently on a media tour promoting her book and has made appearances on Fox News programs The Kelly File, Fox & Friends, Hannity and America's Newsroom.

She joins other conservative authors, including Emily Miller and Glenn Beck, in advancing a pro-gun agenda, in part by citing thediscredited "more guns, less crime" research of economist John Lott.

In her book, Loesch also attempts to demonstrate that the Founding Father's view of the Second Amendment matches her own, but in doing so she misquotes, and often takes out of context, the Founder's true words.

In a section titled, "In Their Own Words," Loesch writes, "Just to make sure everyone reading this book is well armed -- pun intended -- with the facts about the Founders and their intentions, the Buckeye Firearms Association compiled a list of quotes attributed to various Founders that demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt what our Constitution's drafters intended when they drafted and approved the Second Amendment."

Loesch added, "Do the new-century equivalent of sticking them onto your fridge: Post them to Facebook or Twitter."

However, many of the quotes listed are not accurate.

GEORGE WASHINGTON

Loesch:

"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington

Actual Quote:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

The version appearing in Loesch's book crops language from Washington's quote that made it clear he was talking about the creation of a national defense strategy. According to the full text of Washington's first State of the Union address, he was discussing what it meant to "be prepared for war" and "[t]he proper establishment of the troops."

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Loesch:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson (quoting eighteenth-century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

Loesch presents this quote as if Jefferson were quoting Beccaria approvingly, but that is not necessarily the case. Monticello, Jefferson's estate which is currently maintained by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., lists the quote as "spurious" when attributed to Jefferson.

Jefferson copied the Beccaria quote in Italian into his legal commonplace book, a "journal or notebook in which a student, reader, or writer compiles quotations, poems, letters, and information, along with the compiler's notes and reactions." Jefferson notated the copied passage with the words, "False idee di utilità," which is a summation of the idea contained in the quotation and is not evidence of what "our Constitution's drafters intended when they drafted and approved the Second Amendment."

JAMES MADISON

Loesch:

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." -- James Madison

Actual Quote (Emphasis Added To Highlight Deleted Portions):

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

In this quote, Loesch presented a mangled summation of The Federalist Papers #46 that distorts Madison's meaning. Loesch's version omits parts of Madison's commentary because those sentences make it clear he was talking about state militias being a check on government tyranny, not privately held arms.

PATRICK HENRY

Loesch:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." --Patrick Henry

Actual Quote (Emphasis Added To Highlight Deleted Portions):

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined... May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? So that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed.But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case.

Henry was actually talking about ensuring that members of the militia were adequately armed, not the general public. According to historian and Patrick Henry scholar Henry Mayer, "[W]ielding the scholar's power of the ellipse several partisans of gun ownership have edited Henry's remarks about how best to regulate the militia into an inflammatory half-truth 'The great object is that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun.' The NRA has blown this up into a poster-sized blurb embossed with Patrick Henry's image."

Furthermore, the Henry quotation uses ellipses to join together two ideas that Henry expressed days apart. Henry spoke about guarding "the public liberty" on June 5, 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. His comments about arms, which appear distorted in Loesch's book,occurred on June 14 at the same convention.

THOMAS PAINE

Loesch:

"Arms... discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived the use of them." --Thomas Paine

Actual Quote (Emphasis Added To Highlight Deleted Portions):

"... arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them ..."

The quote cited by Loesch is taken from "Thoughts on Defensive War," which was published in Pennsylvania Magazine in the early months of the Revolutionary War in 1775. It was "probably" written by Paine.

As the essay's title suggests, it is about armed conflict between nations and how a religious Quaker should respond to British aggression, not private ownership of firearms. Where Loesch's book uses brackets to say Paine wrote about "the law-abiding," Paine actually wrote, "one half the world," an allusion to his argument that nations that failed to possess arms would be overrun by those who did.

Pasted from <http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/22/dana-loeschs-new-gun-book-botches-quotes-from-t/201264>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:( , looks like we need yet another perspective re-set here,,

 

 

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.

 

:) Paging jocal to the Background Check thread,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Texting drivers on the other hand.....

Thats a really good point.... Hey Jocal, it is clear that smart phones are killing people at alarming rates. It is pure irresponsibility to text and drive and stata are showing it is killing at rates equivalent to DUI. Smart phones, especially the new ones like the iphone 6 are like having LCMs - makes them more deadly because of all the things that can be done rapidly. And they are black too, so kinda like the AR-15 of the smart phone world. Should we regulate them? Ban them, Limit their speed, limit their memory? Should we have a safety so they can't used one handed like a pistol grip. Are the auto-dimming features kinda like a flash suppressor? All the features make it mor deadly to the rest of us - so shouldn't we limit, regulate them, perform BCGs on new buyers? If not, why not? Serious question.

 

 

Really? See my signature line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two weeks ago a guy working in same building I do suddenly stopped showing up. Heard yesterday he hung himself.

 

So last two suicides around here in the past year were by hanging. This deadly rope shit has gotta stop. It is killing more and more people...but they were white so no one cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two weeks ago a guy working in same building I do suddenly stopped showing up. Heard yesterday he hung himself.

 

So last two suicides around here in the past year were by hanging. This deadly rope shit has gotta stop. It is killing more and more people...but they were white so no one cares.

 

 

I think the cordage manufacturers and dealers should be held liable for these violent rope self-murders, don't you?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Two weeks ago a guy working in same building I do suddenly stopped showing up. Heard yesterday he hung himself.

 

So last two suicides around here in the past year were by hanging. This deadly rope shit has gotta stop. It is killing more and more people...but they were white so no one cares.

 

 

I think the cordage manufacturers and dealers should be held liable for these violent rope self-murders, don't you?....

 

 

And waiting periods for anything stronger than cotton string.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no longer than 23-1/2"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can buy the stuff. No age limit. No background checks. No waiting period. Some of it is made of STEEL! That shit is the worst - way scarier than the normal stuff.

 

Fucking immature sailors buy all this shit up and don't care how deadly it is to the common man. Fuck the sailors. They should just find a new hobby.

 

What do people need rope for these days anyway- no one uses clothes lines anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus sailing is made up of mostly good ole white guys with bad attitudes and tons of money. Easily one of the most racist group of people this side of the NRA Eric Holder et al....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Texting drivers on the other hand.....

 

Thats a really good point.... Hey Jocal, it is clear that smart phones are killing people at alarming rates. It is pure irresponsibility to text and drive and stata are showing it is killing at rates equivalent to DUI. Smart phones, especially the new ones like the iphone 6 are like having LCMs - makes them more deadly because of all the things that can be done rapidly. And they are black too, so kinda like the AR-15 of the smart phone world. Should we regulate them? Ban them, Limit their speed, limit their memory? Should we have a safety so they can't used one handed like a pistol grip. Are the auto-dimming features kinda like a flash suppressor? All the features make it mor deadly to the rest of us - so shouldn't we limit, regulate them, perform BCGs on new buyers? If not, why not? Serious question.

Really? See my signature line.

I have them hidden for everyone. You can thank Woody for that..... Answer the fooken question,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Texting drivers on the other hand.....

Thats a really good point.... Hey Jocal, it is clear that smart phones are killing people at alarming rates. It is pure irresponsibility to text and drive and stata are showing it is killing at rates equivalent to DUI. Smart phones, especially the new ones like the iphone 6 are like having LCMs - makes them more deadly because of all the things that can be done rapidly. And they are black too, so kinda like the AR-15 of the smart phone world. Should we regulate them? Ban them, Limit their speed, limit their memory? Should we have a safety so they can't used one handed like a pistol grip. Are the auto-dimming features kinda like a flash suppressor? All the features make it mor deadly to the rest of us - so shouldn't we limit, regulate them, perform BCGs on new buyers? If not, why not? Serious question.

Really? See my signature line.

I have them hidden for everyone. You can thank Woody for that..... Answer the fooken question,

 

 

No thanks. Your question is too childish to bother with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How. F'ng. Con. Veene. Yent....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Texting drivers on the other hand.....

Thats a really good point.... Hey Jocal, it is clear that smart phones are killing people at alarming rates. It is pure irresponsibility to text and drive and stata are showing it is killing at rates equivalent to DUI. Smart phones, especially the new ones like the iphone 6 are like having LCMs - makes them more deadly because of all the things that can be done rapidly. And they are black too, so kinda like the AR-15 of the smart phone world. Should we regulate them? Ban them, Limit their speed, limit their memory? Should we have a safety so they can't used one handed like a pistol grip. Are the auto-dimming features kinda like a flash suppressor? All the features make it mor deadly to the rest of us - so shouldn't we limit, regulate them, perform BCGs on new buyers? If not, why not? Serious question.

Really? See my signature line.

I have them hidden for everyone. You can thank Woody for that..... Answer the fooken question,

 

 

Well let me see now. One big difference is that smart phones are not designed to kill people. They perform a useful required function in peaceful society. There is no requirement in a peaceful community, to kill other people. In particularly there is no requirement to carry out armed assaults with automatic weapons. But some seem to need them for penis enlargement.

 

Isn't it already illegal to operate a phone while driving? Done.

 

False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it already illegal to murder someone?

 

Done....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man. Why didn't you say so sooner? Think of all the lives that would have been saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man. Why didn't you say so sooner? Think of all the lives that would have been saved.

 

 

This is why I need to be Master Of The Fuking Universe for a day----to straighten this shit out....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where and who are all these people going to assault using their assault weapons?

 

If they cannot specify who they are going to attack then they should be treated with suspicion.

 

Unlike mobile phones ...

 

4 million assault weapons in America: That should be enough

They shoot at targets for the fuck of it. Also competitions...also for the fuck of it. That's the best reason of all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they do. No school children were killed in the making of this myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they do. No school children were killed in the making of this myth.

 

 

I've asked our resident JackAwf this question---twice. So now I'm gonna ask you. Just how many school children have been killed with 'assault weapons' since this country came to be?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where and who are all these people going to assault using their assault weapons?

 

If they cannot specify who they are going to attack then they should be treated with suspicion.

 

Unlike mobile phones ...

 

4 million assault weapons in America: That should be enough

They shoot at targets for the fuck of it. Also competitions...also for the fuck of it. That's the best reason of all.

 

 

I thought assault weapons were full auto? Semi auto isn't an assault weapon is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where and who are all these people going to assault using their assault weapons?

 

If they cannot specify who they are going to attack then they should be treated with suspicion.

First of all, I don't use an assault weapon.

I use a full caliber Main Battle Rifle

I use it to assault forest creatures.

I had never seriously considered murdering one particular Disney creature before,

 

 

, but this year, the full moon is calling for his blood on my weapons.

 

So, it seems, I must prepare to commit premeditated murder on poor Boo Boo

 

booboo-yogi-bear-26019797-500-500.png

 

 

 

? that answer your question, random ?

 

, and yes, Grumps an assault weapon is full auto capable.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assault Weapons and Mass Shootings

The year 2012 was a terrible year for mass shootings involving assault weapons. The Sandy Hook elementary school shooting killed 20 young children and six teachers. The Portland Mall shooting left three dead, including the gunman. In the mass shooting at the Aurora movie theater, 12 people were killed and 58 injured. At a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee, six were killed.

Statistics like this refocus attention on a federal ban on assault weapons.

 

Assault Weapons Are Military Weapons

Assault weapons are civilian versions of military weapons. They are a class of semi-automatic firearms that requires a single pull of the trigger for each shot fired, with the next round loaded automatically. Rounds are typically stored in an ammunition clip. Because someone using an assault weapon can fire many more shots before needing to reload, the shooter can kill a lot of people in a short time.

The vast majority of mass shootings in the last three decades involved assault weapons and semiautomatic handguns, three-fourths of which were legally obtained.

 

Here in Pusstralia, the ban on assault weapons is not completely based on the number of people killed by them. There has not been that many. Instead, it is to prevent even one more innocent person dying by them. That's how it should be where you are.

 

Questions

Weapons Questionnaire: "Who are you going to assault and or shoot?"

"Ah ... don't know, yet"

 

Phone Questionnaire: "Who are you going to call?"

"My family and friends"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full autos have been banned on mainland Aussie since the 30's knucklehead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weapons Questionnaire: "Who are you going to assault and or shoot?"

...

 

Whoever needs shooting, should the need arise. That's the job of the "great body of the yeomanry" here and one reason we can't be disarmed by our government.

 

So if citizens want to participate in preserving or restoring order, would "assault" weapons or the kinds of guns Aussies are allowed to have be more appropriate to the task?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

I think we still have law enforcement officials who might be inclined to discriminate based on race. Maybe even in North Carolina.

 

The linked article is about a bill on the NC permit to purchase a pistol, not to carry one in public.

 

As the law states right now, before you can get a gun, you have to apply for a permit at your local sheriff's office, and wait for a background check. Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page says it's a lengthy, but worthy process.

 

"I look for felony convictions, I look for domestic violence convictions, I look for mental health adjudications," said Page. "I also look for what's called moral character."

 

The proposed bill would eliminate the sheriff's role altogether.

 

Instead, potential buyers would be evaluated through the National Instant Criminal Background Check.

 

 

I think we have a right to own a handgun, which includes a right to buy one. I don't think we have a right to buy one that is dependent on whether the local sheriff approves of our moral character. I think we might just have a couple of sheriffs around who can not see good moral character when it's covered by black skin. I'd like to see that discretion taken away from sheriffs.

 

Also, that bill is odd in prohibiting the carriage of guns on state fair rides. Presumably, this means you can carry your gun at the fair, but you have to stash it someplace before getting on a ride. Ummm.... where?

 

 

So how did North Carolina get such a law?

 

The Usual Way

 

 

The end of the Great War in 1918 saw the return of many African-American veterans who had served in segregated military units. They had served their country both home and abroad and were now coming home expecting some recognition of their rights. W.E.B. DuBois had encouraged black veterans to not just return home but to return home fighting against Southern racism.

At an Emancipation Day ceremony in Raleigh in January 1919, a crowd of 3,000 passed resolutions condemning lynching and attacking segregation. Through the 1920s, the annual commemorations of emancipation as well as the Armistice ending World War I remained occasions for rallies. Editorials in the black press in Durham and Raleigh frequently called for improvements in, if not an end to, the Jim Crow system.

 

White North Carolinians listened with concern to the outbursts of black protests after the War, but they managed to preserve both white supremacy and the myth that black North Carolinians were contented with legal segregation and Jim Crow. North Carolina's postwar reconsideration of racial relations and racial policy took place in the context of the nationwide "Red Scare" between 1918 and 1921, touched off by fears of communist and foreign subversion.

Adding to this general fear was Winston-Salem's November 17, 1918 riot over the attempted lynching of a black man who had been erroneously accused of raping a white woman. Most of the rioting was done by whites but it was the black community which had the tanks sitting in their streets.

 

The General Assembly passed "An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina" on March 10, 1919. It required a permit to purchase "any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or metallic knucks." The "so-called pump-gun" is, as best as I can determine, what we would now call a pump shotgun. Section 3 of Chapter 197 reads:

That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits, oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character of the applicant therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue said license or permit : and Provided further, that nothing in this act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms. The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license or permit a fee of fifty cents.
The Clerk and the firearms dealer were both required to keep records of the permittees/purchasers including name, age, residence, former residence, "etc." The owner of the firearm was also required to list it as personal property with the local tax authorities.

 

Let's think about this a bit. Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by "etc." which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of "good moral character" would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one supports laws deeply rooted in racism, I guess that makes one a racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one supports laws deeply rooted in racism, I guess that makes one a racist.

 

Hi, RT. You are very wrong...unless that person's motives and rationale are "deeply rooted" on racism.

A negative racial outcome may be a side-effect of other factors in an otherwise sensible law. Sort that shit.

 

Tom's race-baiting tactics, laid out across this thread, are cheap. His hollow logic (that if one doesn't support "shall issue", that one is a racist, or that Bloomberg supporters are racists for his employment of "stop and frisk") is sick, immature, scary, and dangerous IMO.

 

It's so stupid it never should have been repeated. So hey, don't repeat it. To be continued, I guess.

 

 

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If one supports laws deeply rooted in racism, I guess that makes one a racist.

 

Hi, RT. You are very wrong...unless that person's motives and rationale are "deeply rooted" on racism.

A negative racial outcome may be a side-effect of other factors in an otherwise sensible law. Sort that shit.

 

 

 

I'm sure the white Southern plantation owners thought slavery was a pretty sensible law too for their economy.... I guess a "negative racial outcome" was just a negative side-effect as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If one supports laws deeply rooted in racism, I guess that makes one a racist.

 

Hi, RT. You are very wrong...unless that person's motives and rationale are "deeply rooted" on racism.

A negative racial outcome may be a side-effect of other factors in an otherwise sensible law. Sort that shit.

 

Tom's race-baiting tactics, laid out across this thread, are cheap. His hollow logic (that if one doesn't support "shall issue", that one is a racist, or that Bloomberg supporters are racists for his employment of "stop and frisk") is sick, immature, scary, and dangerous IMO.

 

It's so stupid it never should have been repeated. So hey, don't repeat it. To be continued, I guess.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If you want a new question, the one in the article I just posted is also pretty good:

 

"Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK?"

 

I'll answer before attempting to drag an answer out of the grabbers: a white person would have been considered a person of "good moral character" back then. This might seem sensible to some. After all, ...the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. So a negative racial outcome is actually socially beneficial.

 

Ugh. I feel dirty after sorting Jocal's racist shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

golf clap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where and who are all these people going to assault using their assault weapons?

 

If they cannot specify who they are going to attack then they should be treated with suspicion.

First of all, I don't use an assault weapon.

I use a full caliber Main Battle Rifle

I use it to assault forest creatures.

I had never seriously considered murdering one particular Disney creature before,

 

 

, but this year, the full moon is calling for his blood on my weapons.

 

So, it seems, I must prepare to commit premeditated murder on poor Boo Boo

 

booboo-yogi-bear-26019797-500-500.png

 

 

 

? that answer your question, random ?

 

, and yes, Grumps an assault weapon is full auto capable.

 

:)

 

 

I am itching to get a bear this year. We are almost out of bear meat, and it makes the best sausage and chili

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But doesn't it taste kinda touristy?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But doesn't it taste kinda touristy?....

 

Good point Booze...

 

But doesn't it taste kinda touristy?....

 

Good point Boozer...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, denying a government permit because of race is no big deal. We know.

 

Sickening.

 

 

Yeah, but he did dance with a black chick the other night.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, yeah, denying a government permit because of race is no big deal. We know.

 

Sickening.

 

Yeah, but he did dance with a black chick the other night.....

 

More than one. But one in particular could dance.

It's kind of the Baptist crowd from Jimi Hendrix' neighborhood.

A friend of mine produces music showcases for them. He took over from "Blackie Joe", she is DTS a decade now.

He has cracked Pioneer Square (which excluded us in the early nineties).

It's sort of like the "midnight ramble" which Levon Helm mentioned in The Last Waltz.

You need to see a few line dances with 300lb gals gliding all over, Boothy.

It's a different culture, each person seems to hold a certain dignity.

I gotta say I am honored to be there, just to be a fly on the wall.

To maybe get beyond what Tom Ray is struggling with.

Did you see the Friends of the NRA pics? He can EMF after his double-down in Post 467.

 

Which brings us to Tom's umteenth offensive, race-baiting post, in the quote.

I repeat: IMO MLK's gun permit would have been inconsequential...yep, whether granted or not.

 

Let's see if this works:

Tom, from one gentleman to another, I would like to ask you to stop race-baiting me. And others.

 

 

 

images_zpsu5qsbkeg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I actually had a black Russian last night....so I guess I'm racism free for the next year or so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If one supports laws deeply rooted in racism, I guess that makes one a racist.

 

Hi, RT. You are very wrong...unless that person's motives and rationale are "deeply rooted" on racism.

A negative racial outcome may be a side-effect of other factors in an otherwise sensible law. Sort that shit.

 

Tom's race-baiting tactics, laid out across this thread, are cheap. His hollow logic (that if one doesn't support "shall issue", that one is a racist, or that Bloomberg supporters are racists for his employment of "stop and frisk") is sick, immature, scary, and dangerous IMO.

 

It's so stupid it never should have been repeated. So hey, don't repeat it. To be continued, I guess.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If you want a new question, the one in the article I just posted is also pretty good:

 

"Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK?"

 

I'll answer before attempting to drag an answer out of the grabbers: a white person would have been considered a person of "good moral character" back then. This might seem sensible to some. After all, ...the immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. So a negative racial outcome is actually socially beneficial.

 

Ugh. I feel dirty after sorting Jocal's racist shit.

 

 

I just found this. I feel dirtier for your post, too. I'm going to take a shower.

You have no shame, sir.

 

You posted the blacks' awful nbic numbers four times. You posted one other ugly stat, proudly calling me the source to Random, twice. The red bolded words, posted about six times, are just my candid summary of ugly, but real, figures. But you broadcast all these words, repeatedly to draw all the wrong conclusions.

 

I don't know the chemistry in play, but I can see the direction NOT to go for the brothers. The very one you are proposing: more guns for blacks (and whites).

 

The gross supply of guns is convoluting a sensitive situation. Your bit is an enthusiastic part of the gun and race problems. It seems slimy to me, thus the shower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which brings us to Tom's umteenth offensive, race-baiting post, in the quote.

I repeat: IMO MLK's gun permit would have been inconsequential...yep, whether granted or not.

 

 

 

Why? Lay out a concise, in your own words, explanation for why it is ok to arbitrarily deny a permit to certain folks and not others? No cunt-n-pastes allowed. Betcha can't do it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The gross supply of guns is convoluting a sensitive situation.

 

 

Why is it that while the "gross supply of guns" has gone waaay up in recent years, the actual violence rate has gone waaay down? Take your time on answering this question. I know its a tough one to get right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The gross supply of guns is convoluting a sensitive situation.

 

 

Why is it that while the "gross supply of guns" has gone waaay up in recent years, the actual violence rate has gone waaay down? Take your time on answering this question. I know its a tough one to get right.

 

 

Gun injuries are up, not down. Gun homicides spiked, and levelled there (at 11,500/yr)

 

Yr Tot Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

 

I answered you specifically about "guns up, violence down" twice in the past 60 days, quoting sociologists. They attribute the drop in crime to a combination of about seven factors, but gun mentality isn't one of them.

 

The open supply of guns on the private market is the pipeline to criminals. The lack of background checks there is the culprit.

 

But violence going down defeats your own point. With less crime around, fewer guns are "needed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've already fuking gone thru this-----4000 of those 11,500 'homicides' are legit self defense shootings and another 4000 are by law enforcement. That leaves less than 4000 'real homicides' a year. Which is like fuking nothing, considering how many guns and how many people in America own them....like millions upon millions.

 

Do the math....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites