Sign in to follow this  
Cacoethesic Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

 

Remember this?

 

I don't know much about Bloomberg, but if he was for "stop and frisk," I can't support him on that.

 

Yes

 

If you remembered the quote, and have even quoted the quote, then why did say this yesterday?

Tom Ray Posted Yesterday 10:58AM

That's why I remain hopeful that you will denounce Bloomberg and his racist idea that blacks need to be thrown up against a wall and frisked.

 

 

Again, I am not here to speak XYZ on command of Tom Ray, or else be abused.

Shall the Badgeless One ever let go of his fixation with Mr. Bloomberg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom, I study history a lot, including wild westish stuff, and the armed conflicts of the fur traders.

Once upon a time, the writings of TE Lawrence and Gandhi each grabbed me.

The History Channel, in it's better days, was my entertainment of choice.

I watched the civil rights history in real-time when I was a teen, and I was crushed by the cheap gun which took out MLK.

 

 

Let me ask you a question, to make sure I understand your post.

Do you consider me, jocal 505, to be one of the persons who is motivated by racism, in my objection to armin' up the brothers?

...

 

I don't believe I have the window into your soul that you seem to think you have into mine, so I can't say for sure, but my impression is that you're not a racist. That's why I remain hopeful that you will denounce Bloomberg and his racist idea that blacks need to be thrown up against a wall and frisked. I hope you'll see it for what it is: a continuation of a long history of racist gun control, including the denial of MLK's carry permit.

 

I'm optimistic that way.

 

 

Let me be very clear. I am not here for you to put words into my mouth.

 

 

Let me be very clear. I am here for you to deride as "pro-mayhem" again because that's so helpful and amusing.

 

Let me be even more clear. If you don't want my opinion, don't ask for it.

 

And even more clear. It's not the case that Bloomberg "was" for stop and frisk as you said. He IS for stop and frisk.

 

Not wanting to put words in your mouth... what's your opinion on his recent statement about throwing people against the wall and frisking them as an effective and sensible gun control policy?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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

 

 

Bullshit. I posted this image when you first posted that cherry-picking article. 1971 is earlier than 1999.

 

 

 

...

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

...

 

Gosh, I wonder why they picked 1999 in particular for that statistic? Could there be more to the story if you look at other years?

 

(snipped: a chart which has been used much too much, due to lack of intelligent material)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Googled the FDLE, just keying off the graph. It gave me FDLE info only to 2000...which reflected 1999.

Sorry, I can't answer for the original study, but that researcher may have used that FDLE source. Whatever.

 

But you are evading the point. Because of loose gun laws, Florida gun crimes shot up TWICE in one decade. One you rationalize away, saying the starting point is poorly chosen, and other, the SYG surge, you have not commented on.

 

You are ignoring it, and have not stopped crying like a tittybaby, either.

You are a lightweight "expert" on gun rights (but the best the SA Gun Club can offer :lol: ).

 

 

Did you really want to link to and revive this discussion, jocal?

 

In which you said that FDLE stats go back to 1999?

 

Learned nothing, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

????? Geez. What a boor.

 

This was a non-starter in 2012. (You shot that horse dead, then you kicked on it for three years.)

You are, for some reason, still hung up on it.

 

I thought I put it to rest long ago.

 

Jocal 505 Posted 09 September 2012 - 11:30 AM

Tom, I think you need to take it easy on the myopia over any single bunk stat. Because you will discourage posters from contributing valid stats which may be helpful; I mean all stats are imperfect and any may have anomalies.

But, sorry. For my own part, there was zero intention to deceive posting that info.

We can move on, to what the better data says.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&p=3855852

 

 

A few years have passed, it's time to move on with your life, mate.

 

TOM RAY, PROPAGANDA BUSTER

Tom Ray Posted 05 September 2012 - 05:33 PM

Calling out bullshit propaganda is kind of a hobby of mine and you presented an irresistible target.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&p=3851815

'Tom Ray', on 26 Jul 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

What's that thing called where you make up a really outrageous position and ascribe it to your opponent in an argument? I think it has a name…

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&p=3852152

Tom Ray Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:25 AM

My offer to teach you how to actually quote posts instead of making shit up still stands. Tom Ray

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&p=385c2152

Tom Ray Posted 26 July 2014 - 01:02 PM

BTW, ever notice how, when I characterize a post of yours, I also either link to it or quote it? I'd appreciate the same consideration, if you're able to rise to my level.

<http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=156707>

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=166644&p=4996381

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

 

Guess I heard wrong.

 

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

I don't think racial discrimination by government is OK, especially when it comes to protected rights. I think we should make it illegal everywhere.

 

That view makes me a terrible racist. Somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

 

Guess I heard wrong.

 

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

I don't think racial discrimination by government is OK, especially when it comes to protected rights. I think we should make it illegal everywhere.

 

That view makes me a terrible racist. Somehow.

 

Hi Tom. "Terrible racist?" I doubt that. But you have nothing to offer on this subject (i.e. race relations), except misunderstanding.

You are a petty sort, not man enough to read MLK. He could easily set you right.

 

Short of that, the Dylann Roofs will relish, and thrive on, the present-tenseTom Ray approach:

 

Tom Ray, on 25 Mar 2015 - 2:44 PM, said:

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

(…)

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

In Post 378 Tom quotes Jocal from Post 127, with NIJ stats showing horrifying, disproportionate gun violence among blacks.

Post 385 May 4 Tom quotes Joe (red ink), from some other thread

Tom Ray Posted 04 May 2015 - 01:05 PM

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

How does that black gun violence amplifier work, anyway?

2.Post 390 May 5

Tom Ray, on 02 Apr 2015 - 1:26 PM, said:

Quote:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

A twit like me can't see how the amplified and volatile desire for gunpower is working to create the problems you noted.

3.Post 400 May 7

Tom Ray Posted 07 May 2015 - 04:27 AM

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.

From <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=4#entry4938209>

4.Post 415, May 8

Tom Ray Posted 08 May 2015 - 01:38 AM

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.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4944332

5. Post 417, May 8

Tom Ray Posted 08 May 2015 - 02:10 AM

(To anarchist random) 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?

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4944344

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

 

Guess I heard wrong.

 

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

I don't think racial discrimination by government is OK, especially when it comes to protected rights. I think we should make it illegal everywhere.

 

That view makes me a terrible racist. Somehow.

 

Hi Tom. "Terrible racist?" I doubt that. But you have nothing to offer on this subject, except misunderstanding.

You are a petty sort, not man enough to read MLK. He could easily set you right.

 

 

So you think MLK would "set me right" and explain to me that racists denying his concealed weapons permit because he was black was actually a good thing, huh?

 

Can you give me the cliff notes on that? I always thought he was opposed to racial discrimination by government officials. Now you're saying he'd set me right and get me to support it?

 

I doubt it, but am willing to hear you out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

 

Guess I heard wrong.

 

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

I don't think racial discrimination by government is OK, especially when it comes to protected rights. I think we should make it illegal everywhere.

 

That view makes me a terrible racist. Somehow.

 

Hi Tom. "Terrible racist?" I doubt that. But you have nothing to offer on this subject, except misunderstanding.

You are a petty sort, not man enough to read MLK. He could easily set you right.

 

 

So you think MLK would "set me right" and explain to me that racists denying his concealed weapons permit because he was black was actually a good thing, huh?

 

Can you give me the cliff notes on that? I always thought he was opposed to racial discrimination by government officials. Now you're saying he'd set me right and get me to support it?

 

I doubt it, but am willing to hear you out.

 

 

 

Your thought process shows an immature, narrow racial groove.

MLK could expand it. I'll let him speak for himself, as you study this very special human.

I'm not going to be rolled around in your racial misunderstandings, Tom.

Best wishes in your quest for armed racial parity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actions speak louder than words. MLK owned guns and applied for a concealed weapons permit. Losers like me think that the racists who denied it because of his skin color were wrong.

 

Why do winners think that kind of racial discrimination is OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Child: "Can we get a dog?"


Parent: "No."


Child: "It would protect us."


Parent: "Still, no."


Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"



"straw man argument": <"MLK needed a gun permit, and it was denied due to his race.


Joe:" Still, no."


Tom: "Why are you a racist?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't use quotation marks on shit you make up about me, Joe Calhoun.

 

I call the POLICY racist but nowhere said that about you. The fact that you support a racist policy is for you to explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I heard somewhere that this thread died.

 

Guess I heard wrong.

 

I still think it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

I don't think racial discrimination by government is OK, especially when it comes to protected rights. I think we should make it illegal everywhere.

 

That view makes me a terrible racist. Somehow.

Hi Tom. "Terrible racist?" I doubt that. But you have nothing to offer on this subject (i.e. race relations), except misunderstanding.

You are a petty sort, not man enough to read MLK. He could easily set you right.

 

Short of that, the Dylann Roofs will relish, and thrive on, the present-tenseTom Ray approach:

 

Tom Ray, on 25 Mar 2015 - 2:44 PM, said:

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation

()

More proliferation.

SCLC Director urges blacks to arm themselves

In Post 378 Tom quotes Jocal from Post 127, with NIJ stats showing horrifying, disproportionate gun violence among blacks.

Post 385 May 4 Tom quotes Joe (red ink), from some other thread

Tom Ray Posted 04 May 2015 - 01:05 PM

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

How does that black gun violence amplifier work, anyway?

2.Post 390 May 5

Tom Ray, on 02 Apr 2015 - 1:26 PM, said:

Quote:

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

A twit like me can't see how the amplified and volatile desire for gunpower is working to create the problems you noted.

3.Post 400 May 7

Tom Ray Posted 07 May 2015 - 04:27 AM

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.

From <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=4#entry4938209>

4.Post 415, May 8

Tom Ray Posted 08 May 2015 - 01:38 AM

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.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4944332

5. Post 417, May 8

Tom Ray Posted 08 May 2015 - 02:10 AM

(To anarchist random) 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?

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&p=4944344

Are you saying that some one in government responsible for deciding who would or wouldn't be granted a permit would not use race as a deciding factor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Child: "Can we get a dog?"

Parent: "No."

Child: "It would protect us."

Parent: "Still, no."

Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

"straw man argument": <http://www.wisegeek....m#didyouknowout>

Tom: "Do you support 'shall issue'?"

Joe: "No."

Tom: "MLK needed a gun permit, and it was denied due to his race.

Joe:" Still, no."

Tom: "Why are you a racist?"

Parents = government.

 

Jokal sees us as his children. Jokal is a gun owner. Do as I say , not as I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't use quotation marks on shit you make up about me, Joe Calhoun.

 

I call the POLICY racist and the supporters of Bloomberg racist, ad nauseam but nowhere said that about you. The fact that you support a racist policy is for you to explain. Which is dimestore innuendo, to insinuate racism. Yawn...

 

You need to explain your edgy racial position. What is it?

You've brought race into a LOT of discussions, including apartheid barbs at random.

Bloomberg has been used as a poster boy to support accusations of racism, which were extended to Bloomberg supporters, REPEATEDLY.

Rev. Mosteller and MLK's church, the Southern Christian Leadership conference, were brought in, by yourself.

(You can't explain why, though.)

 

You point a lot of fingers using alleged issues of race.

Such behavior is less than sophisticated: it's loser talk, even in Florida.

You need to explain this entire thread for us, and the tired race-baiting it has shamelessly employed.

 

Issues of skin color aside, you also drag peace-loving people into your raggedy-assed, ignorant, pro-gun philosophy. You violate the core principles of peaceful souls, for lowbrow entertainment.

 

Tom Ray, I think less and less of you as the days of 2015 go by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You need to explain your edgy racial position. What is it?

 

 

OK, it's wrong to allow government officials to discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

 

But I said that before, so I guess it wasn't sufficiently explained.

 

Allowing government officials to discriminate based on race is wrong because humans have rights regardless of melanin content in skin.

 

I'm not sure how to make it any more clear. What's confusing about my position and how did you fail to notice my repeatedly mentioning it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see now. Your pages of racebaiting are based on righteousness. You are fighting
the racist policies of "the government." The New Zealand racial zingers must your international outreach to fight racism. Got it.

Where do your Black Panther posts fit in to this altruism?

Rev. Mosteller was opposed by his church's non-violent principles. Why mention him a few times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see now. Your pages of racebaiting are based on righteousness. You are fighting

the racist policies of "the government." The New Zealand racial zingers must your international outreach to fight racism. Got it.

Where do your Black Panther posts fit in to this altruism?

Rev. Mosteller was opposed by his church's non-violent principles. Why mention him a few times?

 

 

I don't see how opposing racist policies by the government is racebaiting, but yes, I do see opposing racist government policies as righteous.

 

The people I mentioned came to the same conclusion that MLK did: they could and should arm themselves for self-defense. If a church doesn't understand the difference between non-aggression and non-violence, that's not my concern. If a government wants to prevent them from exercising second amendment rights because of their skin color, that does concern me.

 

Why is it so important to you to preserve the ability to deny permits on any basis whatsoever, including race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are you saying that some one in government responsible for deciding who would or wouldn't be granted a permit would not use race as a deciding factor?

 

 

Hi Rockdog. You and I are both gunowners, yes. So are Tom Diaz, and Mike the Gun Guy. Four guys with guns.

The difference between you and the three of us, is that the three of us are honest about the true cost of the guns in our society.

We view SAF and the modern IRA a deadly, dishonest sham, and we are concerned about the long-term trajectory of the shooting sports.

 

Yep, I'm a lifetime gunowner. What it is. EMF.

 

 

Since Jocal didn't answer your question, I will. I think we still have some racist police officers in America who might just discriminate based on race if given a chance. I think they are probably a small minority, but still believe they should not be allowed the discretion to discriminate based on race.

 

Now I'll wait for Jocal to not answer my question about why preserving the discretion to discriminate on any basis whatsoever, including race, is so important.

 

 

 

ps: tools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Child: "Can we get a dog?"

Parent: "No."

Child: "It would protect us."

Parent: "Still, no."

Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

"straw man argument": <http://www.wisegeek....m#didyouknowout>

Tom: "Do you support 'shall issue'?"

Joe: "No."

Tom: "MLK needed a gun permit, and it was denied due to his race.

Joe:" Still, no."

Tom: "Why are you a racist?"

Parents = government.

 

Jokal sees us as his children. Jokal is a gun owner. Do as I say , not as I do.

 

 

Hi Rockdog. You and I are both gunowners, yes. So are Tom Diaz, and Mike the Gun Guy. Four guys with guns.

The difference between you and the three of us, is that the three of us are honest about the true cost of the guns in our society.

We view SAF and the modern NRA a deadly, dishonest sham, and we are concerned about the long-term trajectory of the shooting sports.

 

Yep, I'm a lifetime gunowner. What it is. EMF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Are you saying that some one in government responsible for deciding who would or wouldn't be granted a permit would not use race as a deciding factor?

 

 

Hi Rockdog. You and I are both gunowners, yes. So are Tom Diaz, and Mike the Gun Guy. Four guys with guns.

The difference between you and the three of us, is that the three of us are honest about the true cost of the guns in our society.

We view SAF and the modern IRA a deadly, dishonest sham, and we are concerned about the long-term trajectory of the shooting sports.

 

Yep, I'm a lifetime gunowner. What it is. EMF.

 

 

Since Jocal didn't answer your question, I will. I think we still have some racist police officers in America who might just discriminate based on race if given a chance. I think they are probably a small minority, but still believe they should not be allowed the discretion to discriminate based on race.

 

Now I'll wait for Jocal to not answer my question about why preserving the discretion to discriminate on any basis whatsoever, including race, is so important.

 

 

 

ps: tools

 

 

Tom, race is not the thrust of may issue, except in your agenda.

This point is so childish, I hate to see you demean yourself day after day.

 

You had to crawl under a rock with your race-baiting after the Charleston Church Massacre.

Now you are out and about again.

 

 

 

Child: "Can we get a dog?"

Parent: "No."

Child: "It would protect us."

Parent: "Still, no."

Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

"straw man argument": <http://www.wisegeek....m#didyouknowout>

 

Tom: Do you think American women should be armed during daily activity?

Joe: No.

Tom: If women carried firearms, it would prevent rapes.

Joe: Still, no.

Tom: "Admit that you would not mind if Mason was raped, as long as she did not defend herself with an evil gun. That is your position, right? Say it loud and proud!"

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry5009776>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom, race is not the thrust of may issue

 

But racist application of the policy is obviously the result. We all know that's what happened to MLK.

 

Would it be so hard to prevent it?

 

Why is it so important to you to preserve the ability to deny permits on any basis whatsoever, including race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I see now. Your pages of racebaiting are based on righteousness. You are fighting

the racist policies of "the government." The New Zealand racial zingers must your international outreach to fight racism. Got it.

Where do your Black Panther posts fit in to this altruism?

Rev. Mosteller was opposed by his church's non-violent principles. Why mention him a few times?

 

 

I don't see how opposing racist policies by the government is racebaiting, but yes, I do see opposing racist government policies as righteous.

 

 

The people I mentioned came to the same conclusion that MLK did: they could and should arm themselves for self-defense. If a church doesn't understand the difference between non-aggression and non-violence, that's not my concern. If a government wants to prevent them from exercising second amendment rights because of their skin color, that does concern me.

 

Why is it so important to you to preserve the ability to deny permits on any basis whatsoever, including race?

 

 

You are avoiding a good question. And just going back to your petty gimmick...(after six pages of said "shall issue defeats racism" gimmick).

 

The hubris runs deeply in you, my friend. You don't know dick about either of these:

If a church doesn't understand the difference between non-aggression and non-violence, that's not my concern.

 

You are playing with racial fire, but...

1.You are not man enough to read Martin Luther King Jr.

2. An alarming strain of bigotry runs deeply in the modern gun culture, and the extreme right wing.

 

You have a seven page thread here taking misc. shots at non-violent black others. But you are, in fact, clueless about dynamics of non-violence, of any color. You even announced that Rev. Mosteller's one sermon on the Second Amendment was the new wave for the SCLC. You want to name-drop MLK to sell "shall issue" gun violence...which is not unlike using the Pope to sell condoms.

 

You seem to have learned nothing by the Charleston Church shootings. I'll give you a hint: right wing nut jobs get off on dissing the USA, and bigots get off on racial poo-slinging.

 

Clueless stuff here. How many more pages will you write, Tom, extolling your idea that using "shall issue" will solve our racial issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tom, race is not the thrust of may issue

 

But racist application of the policy is obviously the result. Untruthful statement. Any racist applications are a minor and manageable and illegal side-effect, by an individual. News flash: ALL laws can be applied with discrimination, but we rely on them regardless. We all know that's what happened to MLK.

 

Would it be so hard to prevent it? Address bigotry for what it is, appropriately. That problem has zip to do with the NEED for using discretion to grant permits for lethal weapons.

 

Why is it so important to you to preserve the ability to deny permits on any basis whatsoever, including race? RACEBAITER STRAW MAN ALERT> Please cite where I said such a thing.

 

 

You are in a serious rut, dude. When was the last time you read a book, on ANY subject?

 

Cheer up. All you need is a Jeffie Gangsta pic.

 

 

(#7of 7)Young%20Baltimore_zpssecdgvcc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tom, race is not the thrust of may issue

 

But racist application of the policy is obviously the result. We all know that's what happened to MLK.

 

Would it be so hard to prevent it?

 

Why is it so important to you to preserve the ability to deny permits on any basis whatsoever, including race?

 

 

Any racist applications are a minor and manageable and illegal side-effect, by an individual.

That problem has zip to do with the NEED for using discretion to grant permits for lethal weapons.

Please cite where I said such a thing.

 

 

The "minor side effect" of racist application of our laws is not manageable because the racists are not forced to give a reason for permit denial.

 

Forcing them to give a reason is "shall issue" and letting them use any reason they wish without any accountability is "may issue."

 

They don't need the discretion to use race in deciding whether to grant a permit. You advocate giving them discretion to use any reason they choose. They might choose race, so that's where you said such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Tom, race is not the thrust of may issue

 

But racist application of the policy is obviously the result. We all know that's what happened to MLK.

 

Would it be so hard to prevent it?

 

Why is it so important to you to preserve the ability to deny permits on any basis whatsoever, including race?

 

 

Any racist applications are a minor and manageable and illegal side-effect, by an individual.

That problem has zip to do with the NEED for using discretion to grant permits for lethal weapons.

Please cite where I said such a thing.

 

 

The "minor side effect" of racist application of our laws is not manageable because the racists are not forced to give a reason for permit denial.

 

Forcing them to give a reason is "shall issue" and letting them use any reason they wish without any accountability is "may issue."

 

They don't need the discretion to use race in deciding whether to grant a permit. You advocate giving them discretion to use any reason they choose. They might choose race, so that's where you said such a thing.

 

 

Tom Ray: You advocate giving them discretion to use any reason they choose.

 

No cite, I see.

You are making shit up, all over the place. And not reading my posts, evidently.

  • I've outlined a need for expanding the evidence-based "high risk" definitions, and for the restriction of high-riskers from legally obtaining firearms.
  • I'd like a permit denial appeals process, and further training or counselling offered to apply to PTC re-consideration.
  • I'd like rigid psychological testing, as used for Israeli gun permits, for exotic weapons.
  • I'd like gun clubs to do the testing and apply healthy, socially positive standards,
  • ...while facing federally monitored public health benchmarks
  • ...until our gun violence numbers equal the international mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you appeal denial of a permit when "Because I didn't feel like giving him one" is a perfectly acceptable reason for denial?

 

That's how it is in "may or may not issue" jurisdictions.

 

What's to appeal? If the LEO didn't feel like giving him one for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine under the law you support.

 

And "whatever reason" includes race as long as he's not stupid enough to admit it. And why admit it when "Because I didn't feel like giving him one" is a perfectly acceptable reason for denial?

 

The only accountability in "may or may not issue" jurisdictions would come if the LEO were stupid enough to say, "Because he's a nigger and I don't give permits to niggers."

 

I don't think we should have to count on LEO's being that stupid to have accountability. They should have to give a better reason. An objective reason. Like they do in shall issue jurisdictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The party is over. It's just not a good idea to let any clown have a gun.

Restricted types need to be screened better, and fresh, relevant standards need to be applied for PTC.

Enough of this madness.

 

You have your foot to the floor, full throttle for guns.

You recently mentioned you want the machine gun registry lifted!

Your policies are deadly, Tom, starting with no background checks on the private gun market

extending to "shall issue' carry permits, to unrestricted interstate gun travel...

look, dipshit, fighting the registration of guns lacks common decency.

You have hounded the BATF until gun trafficking is out of control.

Your stats are twisted and inapplicable, Tom.

You don't flat-out don't understand the CDC 2013.

You are a snake-in-the-grass gun research ban denier to boot :rolleyes:

 

Next, your talking points are weak-ass, and your sources are flakey...complete with both global warming denial and MOLON LABE.

FFS.

You want "may issue" discretion cancelled because racists are behind (and belong enshrined behind) every bush?

You can maintain such a position for months on end?

When you quote the Federalist you offer no treatise, just one five-word-phrase, which only indirectly suggests individual gun rights?

You quote Scalia's historians, but can't name them, or present their credentials?

You want suicide by gun to be convenient, in spite of the known impulsivity of gun suicide risk?

 

Your basic pro-rights wisdom is that

 

Crime causes gun control but gun control does not affect crime. (Tom Ray)

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=131105&p=3856473

but hells bells you have no sources, and you can't refute nine of mine.

 

Carry on, Badgeless One. Your whole schtick makes the gun culture look bad, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you appeal denial of a permit when "Because I didn't feel like giving him one" is a perfectly acceptable reason for denial?

 

That's how it is in "may or may not issue" jurisdictions. As, so you are speaking for specifics of refusal. I got that hundreds of posts ago. Total cancellation of may issue (ahem, due to racism) is a non-sequitur. An hyperbole.

 

What's to appeal? If the LEO didn't feel like giving him one for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine under the law you support. Wrong-ass, again.*

 

And "whatever reason" includes race put a quarter in the jukebox ma as long as he's not stupid enough to admit it. And why admit it when "Because I didn't feel like giving him one" is a perfectly acceptable reason for denial?

 

The only accountability in "may or may not issue" jurisdictions would come if the LEO were stupid enough to say, "Because he's a nigger and I don't give permits to niggers." The Badgeless Wonder is not PC today

 

I don't think we should have to count on LEO's being that stupid to have accountability. They should have to give a better reason. An objective reason. Like they do in shall issue jurisdictions. Ha ha ha. MOST "shall issue jurisdictions" have standards set by the gun lobby. The criteria, Tom, are an affront to public safety.

 

*As stated for the fourth time, the specifics of failure, subject to appeal, would be desirable IMO. IMPROVABLE specifics, hopefully.

The list of "high risk" behavior will expand, based on evidence, but not contract.

WHo knows, but anger management and impulse control aspects may be introduced, and even social adjustment factors.

The rejection process could apply pressure for positive, desirable social behavior and attitudes. The gun culture would clean it up, by becoming self-correcting, while encouraging personal stability and positive cultural outcomes.

 

Tom, I gave your thread and PA a break for a day. Meanwhile, I was confident I would find more mindless stuff about a real dealbreaker: how racism and "may issue" are inexorably linked. You did not disappoint. Yer like a troll-under-the-bridge cartoon character.

 

Break it up a bit. This thread needs some "Bloomberg...mumble mumble...stop-and-frisk" posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JBSF, on 19 Jul 2015 - 11:07 PM, said:

 

jocal doesn't think that permits are a good thing in almost any case.

Bad start. You can't cite this. This is not my POV.

 

 

So by acknowledging that denying permits based on race is a bad thing and wrong...

 

I have acknowledged that denying permits based on race happens, and that it is wrong. But this is another straw man: the true suitability for one's gun ownership is a different determination.

 

You and Tom need to separate the possibility of racism/biased decisions on the part of a magistrate (not "the government"), then determine a good measurement for the quality of the applicant. For starters, I suggest something like SoakEd's Minnesota psychological test.

On a level playing field, I propose that public research should set the standards for "high risk" of gun ownership.

Mandatory insurance could be a factor in encouraging stable behavior, for a change.

 

So by acknowledging that denying permits for other arbitrary reasons are a bad thing and also wrong, he would then have to acknowledge that denying permits for other arbitrary reasons are a bad thing and also wrong. And that would screw his narrative.

 

Rest easy, Simple Jeff. I hereby acknowledge, again, that both are wrong. And that you and Tom are barking up the wrong tree.

 

My "narrative" is that we need to look at folks who want to pack loaded guns around.

To propose NOT doing so, in order to valiantly fight racism with "shall issue" (LMFAO) is not responsible.

 

Your "shall issue fights racism" argument is lame...but you trot it out every day. You think it's clever enough to use the argument for months on end.

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bad news is that the series of seven Jeffie Gangsta Pics is sadly now over.

 

The good news is that I was only fibbing about the seven figure. Simple Jeff has contributed ten gangsta pics.

 

Jeff's statements reveal that these pictures represent the down side of the gun culture to him.

It's not the "up" side...but Jeff is missing something here.

 

Jeffie Bonus Gansta Pic #1 (of 3)aa%20gangsta%208_zpsrx7nkvlm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

For starters, I suggest something like SoakEd's Minnesota psychological test.

On a level playing field, I propose that public research should set the standards for "high risk" of gun ownership.

...

 

And if someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen?

 

Should the rules say that the government then shall issue a permit, or should they say that even once objective standards are met, LEO's may or may not deny a permit based on unstated and arbitrary reasons?

 

If you're now on the "shall issue" side of that question, welcome. If you believe that there must be a "cops' judgment" factor that still must be included, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

For starters, I suggest something like SoakEd's Minnesota psychological test.

On a level playing field, I propose that public research should set the standards for "high risk" of gun ownership.

...

 

And if someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen?

 

Should the rules say that the government then shall issue a permit, or should they say that even once objective standards are met, LEO's may or may not deny a permit based on unstated and arbitrary reasons?

 

 

If you're now on the "shall issue" side of that question, welcome. If you believe that there must be a "cops' judgment" factor that still must be included, why?

 

 

I think you've backed joke-al into the proverbial corner. WFD! This should be fun to watch the mental wiggling and writhing that will shirley ensue.....

 

 

McCarthy%20racial%20policy_zpsbbysycfr.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wiggle wiggle wiggle

 

Yep: the bottom line of the "may issue" vs "shall issue" debate is the question he won't answer: should cops have to give a reason for denying a permit?

 

It doesn't seem too much to ask, especially considering the lack of accountability has led to racist denials of permits as in the case of MLK. Does anyone believe he was the only one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Off the top of me head, the bucket list of gun control proposals goes something like this:

--Employ comprehensive background checks;

--Close the private sales loophole chasm.

--Fix the NICS system, and apply in it 50 states.

--Use public studies to define high-risk behavior.

--Apply the improved NICS background check to the high risk.

--Re-visit the CCP standards which ALEC recently imposed on thirty states, and insert the relevant, evidence-based standards.

--Address the gun violence numbers of handguns, sooner rather than later.

Guy, get back to us if you feel that any of these is "shooting in the dark."

 

 

My own bucket list:

--Recruit solid,high awareness-type guys (like sailors) to apply a fresh look at the liabilities of the 38 years of NRA/SAF belligerence, and the resulting mindless gun damage.

--Get a positive dialogue going in gun industry magazines.

 

 

I thought you argued endlessly in this thread for the preservation of the "may issue" system, the opposite of "evidence based standards" that are proposed by "shall issue" advocates like myself?

 

There's no need nor desire for evidence-based standards with the "may issue" crowd. A sheriff may issue a permit or may not, completely at his discretion and without giving any reason. I still see no need to preserve that power in a single LEO, especially since we know it has been abused in the past.

 

If you truly welcome evidence-based standards for permits, welcome to the "shall issue" crowd, jocal.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well dishonestly played Tom!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Off the top of me head, the bucket list of gun control proposals goes something like this:

--Employ comprehensive background checks;

--Close the private sales loophole chasm.

--Fix the NICS system, and apply in it 50 states.

--Use public studies to define high-risk behavior.

--Apply the improved NICS background check to the high risk.

--Re-visit the CCP standards which ALEC recently imposed on thirty states, and insert the relevant, evidence-based standards.

--Address the gun violence numbers of handguns, sooner rather than later.

Guy, get back to us if you feel that any of these is "shooting in the dark."

 

 

My own bucket list:

--Recruit solid,high awareness-type guys (like sailors) to apply a fresh look at the liabilities of the 38 years of NRA/SAF belligerence, and the resulting mindless gun damage.

--Get a positive dialogue going in gun industry magazines.

 

 

I thought you argued endlessly in this thread for the preservation of the "may issue" system, the opposite of "evidence based standards" that are proposed by "shall issue" advocates like myself?

 

There's no need nor desire for evidence-based standards with the "may issue" crowd. A sheriff may issue a permit or may not, completely at his discretion and without giving any reason. I still see no need to preserve that power in a single LEO, especially since we know it has been abused in the past.

 

If you truly welcome evidence-based standards for permits, welcome to the "shall issue" crowd, jocal.

 

 

 

 

I am weary of repeating myself. My position has been clearly stated: you must have missed Post 682, on this page.

I am also weary of childish, dishonest Tom Ray word games.

I am tired of my points of view being misrepresented.

Tom Ray, you delusional fool, DO NOT present me as supporting the indiscretion of "shall issue," in any way.

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've already been over the post 682 proposal. It seems you just don't understand what "may issue" means. The part you deride as "wrong ass, again" is actually correct. There is nothing to appeal under a "may issue" permit scheme because no reason for denial needs to be given.

 

I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

 

 

How can you appeal denial of a permit when "Because I didn't feel like giving him one" is a perfectly acceptable reason for denial?

 

That's how it is in "may or may not issue" jurisdictions. As, so you are speaking for specifics of refusal. I got that hundreds of posts ago. Total cancellation of may issue (ahem, due to racism) is a non-sequitur. An hyperbole.

 

What's to appeal? If the LEO didn't feel like giving him one for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine under the law you support. Wrong-ass, again.*

 

And "whatever reason" includes race put a quarter in the jukebox ma as long as he's not stupid enough to admit it. And why admit it when "Because I didn't feel like giving him one" is a perfectly acceptable reason for denial?

 

The only accountability in "may or may not issue" jurisdictions would come if the LEO were stupid enough to say, "Because he's a nigger and I don't give permits to niggers." The Badgeless Wonder is not PC today

 

I don't think we should have to count on LEO's being that stupid to have accountability. They should have to give a better reason. An objective reason. Like they do in shall issue jurisdictions. Ha ha ha. MOST "shall issue jurisdictions" have standards set by the gun lobby. The criteria, Tom, are an affront to public safety.

 

*As stated for the fourth time, the specifics of failure, subject to appeal, would be desirable IMO. ..

 

 

If you really want an open and honest debate, take a shot at my question from above about your proposal:

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen?

 

Should the rules say that the government then shall issue a permit, or should they say that even once objective standards are met, LEO's may or may not deny a permit based on unstated and arbitrary reasons?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you really want an open and honest debate, take a shot at my question from above about your proposal:

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen?

 

Should the rules say that the government then shall issue a permit, or should they say that even once objective standards are met, LEO's may or may not deny a permit based on unstated and arbitrary reasons?

 

 

Tom, what you're missing in this discussion is that joke-al simply cannot get past the word 'Shall". He sees shall and imagines all kinds of crazy stuff like the sheriff "shall" issue handguns to felons when they walk out of prison, that shall means the NRA and Alan Gottlieb himself are passing out AR-15s at mental institutions - all funded with taxpayer $$. This is what "Shall" means to idiot boy. What he doesn't understand is that "SHALL" is still conditional. LEO's shall issue CCW permits once certain objective and pre-defined criteria are met - like passing a thorough background check, like getting fingerprinted, like passing a training course, etc etc. Jo-fuck's logic is binary - its either on/off, yes/no, etc.

 

 

The PTC atmosphere is a mess...and you want some pie-in-the-sky commitment to certain standards from me.

If the standards for "shall issue" were sound, they would easier to support.

But at present, the standards, and the information available to apply those standards, are a joke.

They have been buggered by the gun lobby, eh?

So I don't trust such a process, and I won't trust it until I see reasonable standards applied, based on easily available info.

The dangerous atmosphere defining who packs lethal firepower is the doin' of the gun lobby. I don't trust it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And some wonder why so many humans are shot and killed in the US. They practice to do it.

 

Of course we do. That's called being a responsible gun-owner? If, god forbid, I ever have to pull a trigger on a real human to defend my life or those around me - I want to make sure I can actually hit what I'm aiming at and effectively stop the threat. For the exact same reason cops practice shooting at human targets. And for the exact same reason Marines practice shooting at human targets.

 

Interestingly, I doubt that many gang-bangers, common thieves and murderers spend much time at the practice range. Yet they shoot humans too. Unfortunately, not very effectively - because too often they spray bullets and hit innocent bystanders.

 

What shape target should I shoot at so as not to offend your pussified sensitivity?

 

Pre-visualizing the shooting of other humans is "being a responsible gun-owner."

When packing, Jeff is the equivalent of a law enforcement officer, equivalent to a soldier bearing arms.

Jeff is superior to "many gang-bangers, common thieves and murderers" because of his humanitarian time at the range.

But no vigilante mentality is in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Tom is part of the new breed using a modern media approach where if you say something enough times it must be true.

 

Western civilisation has been based on a process where discussion and debate eventually leads to a just and agreed conclusion. That has broken down, it is the past. Now we have the message of preference to sell more stuff (guns e.g.), repeated constantly until the dumb believe it and the intelligent become numb and frustrated. That's how Fox works and the media in general.

 

What the 'spin-doctors' do not realise is that the stupid are not worth convincing and the silenced intelligentsia is more of a foe, hardened by argument.

 

Your post gets it pretty close. You just presented a forest, while I am quite mesmerized by Tom, one very likable tree in that forest.

I suppose most of our community will aggree that in Tom we have a special person...but that's why this is really bugging me.

Even a fine zealot has to look in the mirror.

 

Let's take Tom's repeated denial of the gun violence research ban. With each denial, a cycle of disinformation begins.

Phase 1.Tom lays down the plank of research ban denial as one part of his dishonest propaganda.

Phase 2.When confronted with evidence, Tom puts the research ban delial fib on a shelf, to be repeated later, when under less scrutiny.

Phase 3. To address the resulting repeated loss of credibility, Tom deflects that he is a mere "bad messenger" for a worthy message.

Phase 4. Tom gravitates to other dishonest propaganda, using a narrow bandwidth of his own choosing.

 

But where is the daily point whereTom's own dishonesty is accepted by Tom?

When did that become okay for him (or for Fox News)?

 

Given the pattern of deceit...

1.This degree of dishonesty must be driven by the sub-conscious, and may be masked by well-meaning rationalizations.

2. But to some degree the dishonesty must be admitted by the conscious mind. I often wonder what percent of Tom's conscious mind grasps the deceit.

3. There must be a compensating rationale in play. Could it be about "the end justifies the means"?

4. Please note that Tom's pattern of wide-open dishonesty matches John R. Lott, the SAF, and NRA/ILA.

 

 

--The first casualty of this behavior is the responsibility for the present gun reality. The denied funding for this vital gun violence study contributes to the gun carnage, and masks the causes and consequences of gun violence.

--Secondly, knowledge has just become a casualty of ignorance.

--But third, another casualty is that a fine man feels okay about lying in public, repeatedly...and it is an accepted on a straight-shooting forum.

 

This is routine now, a dishonest new normal. For guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If you really want an open and honest debate, take a shot at my question from above about your proposal:

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen?

 

Should the rules say that the government then shall issue a permit, or should they say that even once objective standards are met, LEO's may or may not deny a permit based on unstated and arbitrary reasons?

 

 

Tom, what you're missing in this discussion is that joke-al simply cannot get past the word 'Shall". He sees shall and imagines all kinds of crazy stuff like the sheriff "shall" issue handguns to felons when they walk out of prison, that shall means the NRA and Alan Gottlieb himself are passing out AR-15s at mental institutions - all funded with taxpayer $$. This is what "Shall" means to idiot boy. What he doesn't understand is that "SHALL" is still conditional. LEO's shall issue CCW permits once certain objective and pre-defined criteria are met - like passing a thorough background check, like getting fingerprinted, like passing a training course, etc etc. Jo-fuck's logic is binary - its either on/off, yes/no, etc.

 

 

The PTC atmosphere is a mess...and you want some pie-in-the-sky commitment to certain standards from me.

If the standards for "shall issue" were sound, they would easier to support.

But at present, the standards, and the information available to apply those standards, are a joke.

They have been buggered by the gun lobby, eh?

So I don't trust such a process, and I won't trust it until I see reasonable standards applied, based on easily available info.

The dangerous atmosphere defining who packs lethal firepower is the doin' of the gun lobby. I don't trust it.

 

 

Why do you keep talking about reasonable standards?

 

You're a may issue guy. The only reasonable standard for you is: does a cop think it's OK? He may, he may not. Either way, his decision needs no justification and is generally final.

 

If that's what you consider reasonable, can you describe one that gives the cop too much power and too little oversight? Because I don't see how you could go any further in the "all power, no oversight" direction, but you do amaze me sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Violent, Vigilante Mentality Will Get You Killed

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4bYXK7je8

 

Published on Aug 3, 2015

Retaliation! If the federal government won't intercede in our affairs, then we MUST rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!

 

 

The video is promoting justiceorelse.com, a site about the 20th anniversary celebration for the Million Man March.

 

Unjust Killings

From the slaughter of Native Americans to the unjustified lynchings of Blacks, the only thing “new” are the methods and uniforms of the perpetrators. The results are yet the same. Let’s speak for the Mike Browns, Trayvon Martins, Oscar Grants, Tamir Rice and thousands of others whose name go unknown and stop this madness.

 

 

 

So I guess the plan would be to stalk and kill this guy to solve racism in America. Because black people murdering Darren Wilson would be so helpful to racial relations in America. Farrakan is a dangerous buffoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Child: "Can we get a dog?"

Parent: "No."

Child: "It would protect us."

Parent: "Still, no."

Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

"straw man argument": <http://www.wisegeek....m#didyouknowout>

Tom: "Do you support 'shall issue'?"

Joe: "No."

Tom: "MLK needed a gun permit, and it was denied due to his race.

Joe:" Still, no."

Tom: "Why are you a racist?"

Parents = government.

 

Jokal sees us as his children. Jokal is a gun owner. Do as I say , not as I do.

 

 

Hi Rockdog. You and I are both gunowners, yes. So are Tom Diaz, and Mike the Gun Guy. Four guys with guns.

The difference between you and the three of us, is that the three of us are honest about the true cost of the guns in our society.

We view SAF and the modern NRA a deadly, dishonest sham, and we are concerned about the long-term trajectory of the shooting sports.

 

Yep, I'm a lifetime gunowner. What it is. EMF.

Then stop being a hypocrite and get rid of your gun or quit preaching about them.

 

I fully understand the cost involved with having a criminal element within society. They will always be present. We know who most of the people are who usebgun for crime. Put the effort into making sure they don't commit crimes and leave law abiding folk alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A Violent, Vigilante Mentality Will Get You Killed

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4bYXK7je8

 

Published on Aug 3, 2015

Retaliation! If the federal government won't intercede in our affairs, then we MUST rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!

 

 

The video is promoting justiceorelse.com, a site about the 20th anniversary celebration for the Million Man March.

 

Unjust Killings

From the slaughter of Native Americans to the unjustified lynchings of Blacks, the only thing “new” are the methods and uniforms of the perpetrators. The results are yet the same. Let’s speak for the Mike Browns, Trayvon Martins, Oscar Grants, Tamir Rice and thousands of others whose name go unknown and stop this madness.

 

 

 

So I guess the plan would be to stalk and kill this guy to solve racism in America. Because black people murdering Darren Wilson would be so helpful to racial relations in America. Farrakan is a dangerous buffoon.

 

Do blacks get a pass on hate speech? That seems like a pretty direct incitement to violence and action.

 

 

Nah, "stalk them and kill them" is just rhetorical flourish and subject to many interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Child: "Can we get a dog?"

Parent: "No."

Child: "It would protect us."

Parent: "Still, no."

Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

"straw man argument": <http://www.wisegeek....m#didyouknowout>

Tom: "Do you support 'shall issue'?"

Joe: "No."

Tom: "MLK needed a gun permit, and it was denied due to his race.

Joe:" Still, no."

Tom: "Why are you a racist?"

Parents = government.

 

Jokal sees us as his children. Jokal is a gun owner. Do as I say , not as I do.

 

 

Hi Rockdog. You and I are both gunowners, yes. So are Tom Diaz, and Mike the Gun Guy. Four guys with guns.

The difference between you and the three of us, is that the three of us are honest about the true cost of the guns in our society.

We view SAF and the modern NRA a deadly, dishonest sham, and we are concerned about the long-term trajectory of the shooting sports.

 

Yep, I'm a lifetime gunowner. What it is. EMF.

Then stop being a hypocrite and get rid of your gun or quit preaching about them.

 

I fully understand the cost involved with having a criminal element within society. They will always be present. We know who most of the people are who usebgun for crime. Put the effort into making sure they don't commit crimes ???? and leave law abiding folk alone.

 

 

Rockdog wants to skate blissfully, friction free, while avoiding the basics.

 

Certain individuals (or even the majority) among your "law abiding folk" must lead the way. That isn't happening.

Instead, these "law abiders" are letting extremists manage the guns for them (ahem, in the name of the constitution, patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels). The "law abiders" are fully responsible for generating the carnage.

 

 

 

I find it amusing that you insist I give up my gun. Knowing your values, I suppose you gunslingers would respect me less, alpha-male-wise, for giving it up. But I have a right and a duty to speak up as a gunowner, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A Violent, Vigilante Mentality Will Get You Killed

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4bYXK7je8

 

Published on Aug 3, 2015

Retaliation! If the federal government won't intercede in our affairs, then we MUST rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!

 

 

The video is promoting justiceorelse.com, a site about the 20th anniversary celebration for the Million Man March.

 

Unjust Killings

From the slaughter of Native Americans to the unjustified lynchings of Blacks, the only thing “new” are the methods and uniforms of the perpetrators. The results are yet the same. Let’s speak for the Mike Browns, Trayvon Martins, Oscar Grants, Tamir Rice and thousands of others whose name go unknown and stop this madness.

 

 

 

So I guess the plan would be to stalk and kill this guy to solve racism in America. Because black people murdering Darren Wilson would be so helpful to racial relations in America. Farrakan is a dangerous buffoon.

 

Do blacks get a pass on hate speech? That seems like a pretty direct incitement to violence and action.

 

 

Nah, "stalk them and kill them" is just rhetorical flourish and subject to many interpretations.

 

 

Tom, you are back to slinging racial poo. Ah, back to stoking the Dylann Roofs of the world.

Your racial overview is all about shall issue, according to you.

So...since you have little or nothing to add to the subject of race relations, you should let it rest.

 

But you can't. You are drawn to the subject for some reason...but sadly, you seem to dog paddle about in a cesspool of carpetbagger ignorance.

My good man, if your soul wanted racial satisfaction (as opposed to cheeky bigotry), you would have read MLK by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

May issue, shall issue, will issue, won't issue, could issue, can't issue, might issue ...

 

Concealed Carry is going to erode the Second Amendment because a right doesn't require permission from someone if you've retained your rights, either guaranteed or not. You concealed carry nuts are going to do it to yourselves and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

 

And yeah, I get that some states have CC without permit, and others allow OC but some condition it, etc., etc.. Go blame the anti-nutters, go blame the politicians, go blame everyone but yourselves. If you can't feel comfortable with your firearm displayed openly then you shouldn't be carrying a weapon, that's my opinion, insult away, if I hear something new I'll let you know, otherwise, my silence indicates your repetition.

Have you seen the open carry advocates? I'm sorry, but that is some scary shit. I like guns, and support the 2nd amendment. but when a group of scruffily dressed guys men come wondering into the mall - from different entrances and at the same time - packing assault rifles, I'm shouting "Gun!" and calling the cops - unless I decide to take advantage of my concealed carried 2nd amendment rights. ALA Sarah P.

Mike is addicted to telling other people they are wrong. Whatever position allows him to tell the most people, the most often, they are wrong is the one he is going to take. That is why he says things like we should only allow OC, or that the police are violating the BoR by checking houses in Boston when the bombers were on the loose, or that we are all violating federal law by not posting with our full names, etc. etc. etc. Arguing with him just gives him more opportunities for a fix.

This is my opinion, your psychology evaluation is a distraction.

 

Open Carry doesn't bother me now, it didn't bother me from as early as I can remember and I suspect it won't ever bother me. It's not about the gun in plain sight, it's about people openly asserting their Constitutional rights.

 

Concealed carry is unnerving to me, I don't support it, and I would have no problem seeing it outlawed, even though I know that's not going to happen because so many people like doing it.

 

Your physiological diagnosis of my opinion just suggests to me that a rational debate on the topic itself isn't something you feel you can do, so you fallback to attacking the messenger rather than the message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... The "law abiders" are fully responsible for generating the carnage.

 

 

 

I find it amusing that you insist I give up my gun. Knowing your values, I suppose you gunslingers would respect me less, alpha-male-wise, for giving it up. But I have a right and a duty to speak up as a gunowner, IMO.

 

 

How much carnage have you caused and why do you love carnage so much as to keep a gun when you KNOW it's causing carnage?

 

Farrakan proposes stalking and killing people because of their race, I point it out, and I'm the problem?

 

So if I did not point it out there would be no problem with his call for murders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farrakan proposes stalking and killing people because of their race, I point it out, and I'm the problem?

 

Tom, I asked you to explain your edgy racial position. Your answer was childish.

(To paraphrase: "I thought you knew I oppose racist government policy...")

Here's a review of some of your post content, from this thread, started by yourself:

--The Black Panthers are coming with guns,

--Louis Farrakin is coming with guns,

--MLK's SCLC is going to guns, lead by Rev. Mosteller,

--the core purpose of Bloomberg and "may issue", and those who support either, is racism.

You're a bright guy, but it seems you are uneasy about race...and have nothing of substance to contribute to the subject of race relations.

Well, why can't you give it a rest, while informing yourself?

Do some (non-right-wing) reading on the subject, dude.

Give Ernie something he can work with.

McCarthy%20racial%20policy_zpsbbysycfr.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf, the Siri of Political Anarchy.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Farrakan proposes stalking and killing people because of their race, I point it out, and I'm the problem?

 

Tom, I asked you to explain your edgy racial position. Your answer was childish.

(To paraphrase: "I thought you knew I oppose racist government policy...")

Here's a review of some of your post content, from this thread, started by yourself:

--The Black Panthers are coming with guns,

--Louis Farrakin is coming with guns,

--MLK's SCLC is going to guns, lead by Rev. Mosteller,

--the core purpose of Bloomberg and "may issue", and those who support either, is racism.

...

 

 

I see a huge difference between a couple of the other people I have brought up in this thread and Farrakan. The others advocated acquiring guns for self-defense, including possibly against agents of government. Farrakan is advocating stalking and killing for retaliation. I favor the former, condemn the latter.

 

I'm not sure about the core purpose of "may issue" but would learn more if only you would answer my question on it. You seem to have in mind standards for carry permits.

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen? Should he get a permit or should a law enforcement officer still be able to deny it with no reason given and no accountability possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oath Keepers to join black protesters in Ferguson open carry advocacy march

 

...While in Ferguson, however, Oath Keepers were confronted by St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar who clashed briefly with the group over the state’s open carry law. The conversation was videotaped and placed on YouTube.

 

“My only problem is with the long guns and inciting these guys out here,” Belmar said, referring to the Ferguson protesters.

 

When asked specifically about the state’s open carry law, the chief said, “I have attorneys. I didn’t go to law school. I get what you guys stand for and probably agree with most of it. All I’m trying to do is manage this thing.”

 

At one point in the video, Andrews told Belmar, “We would like for you to respect the state law.”

 

...

 

Andrews claimed he and the other Oath Keepers spent an entire night talking to African-American protestors about the situation in Ferguson and their Second Amendment right to bear arms. He said Oath Keepers never encountered any violence or profane language during their stay in Ferguson.

 

“Every person we talked to said if they carried they’d be shot by police. That’s the reason we’re going to hold this event and it will be a legal demonstration,” he said....

 

Yes, Chief Belmar, people can openly and notoriously exercise their rights in MO. Yes, we really mean even the black people.

 

Black rights matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere in the existing literature of the Oathkeepers do they discuss such concern for minorities, or their rights.

This was concocted in the past week.

They are using this bit as PR, after adverse reaction to their heavily armed curfew caper.

Some fingers were on triggers, the police noted.

This AW behavior is bizarre, and will prove counter-productive, IMO.

 

 

 

The Badgeless Wonder Posted Today, 05:05 AM

Yes, we really mean even the black people.

Are you with the Oathkeepers now, Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen? Should he get a permit or should a law enforcement officer still be able to deny it with no reason given and no accountability possible?

 

 

I'm going to avoid your world of myopia and absolutes, Tom, and discuss Permits to Carry intelligently.

This is why LE wants to be involved:

Permit-to-purchase systems are backed by strong data.

Is congressional legislation that would take the idea national the proposal more people should be debating?

 

A team led by David Hemenway, Ph.D., at the Harvard School of Public Health recently conducted a survey of Massachusetts police chiefs in order to understand their reasons for rejecting permit applications under the state’s discretionary system. “Local police chiefs typically know more about the people in their community than does a national computer,” Hemenway wrote. The police chiefs interviewed in the study were particularly cautious when a permit-seeker had a history of assault, domestic abuse, mental illness, or substance abuse. Under the existing federal background check system, persons with a pattern of drug or alcohol addiction or a record of violent misdemeanors are typically cleared for gun purchases, despite those risk factors. A discretionary PTP system allows local law enforcement to consider such warning signs and withhold permits when justified.

 

One police chief interviewed for the study explained his justification for denying a permit to someone who would have otherwise passed a federal background check, describing the individual as someone with “no convictions, but was arrested numerous times for offenses including trafficking in cocaine, assault and battery, assault and battery on a police officer, resisting arrest, and destruction of property.” Another police chief used his discretion to forbid an applicant who had “made [a] statement that he was going to take his guns and go to one officer’s home and shoot him in the head.”

 

It was due to similar concerns that a law enforcement group in North Carolina came out against a measure that would have done away with the handgun-permit system in place there. Writing in opposition to the change, which ultimately was blocked, the North Carolina Sheriffs Association argued that, “[t]he sheriff has access to significantly more information about the applicant’s criminal record, pending criminal charges, mental health record, and other relevant data than is contained in the federal NICS system. To protect the citizens of North Carolina, all of the information required by federal law that is available to the sheriff should be considered when a decision is made about whether or not it is appropriate for a person to be authorized to purchase a handgun.”

 

Discretion, when applied to gun permits, generates positive effects on crime...not racism as such:

Unsurprisingly, private sales account for a massive number of the firearms used in crime — a survey of prison inmates on this question found that prohibited individuals purchased their firearm from a federally licensed retailer only 3.9 percent of the time. A PTP requirement would close this “private sales loophole” by requiring both licensed dealers and unlicensed vendors to sell firearms only to someone with a valid permit.

 

One study found that states with PTP laws allowing police discretion tallied a 76 percent reduction in the likelihood of guns winding up in criminals’ hands relative to comparable states without such laws. Even without a discretionary policy, the best available research shows that PTP requirements in general are associated with lower rates of firearm-related mortality and reduced suicide rates (...) The first study found that, after the repeal of a 2007 Missouri permit-to-purchase law, statewide murder rates spiked 14 percent ...The study also found that the repeal of Missouri’s law significantly increased the diversion of crime guns that were purchased in Missouri and later recovered by police in neighboring states, suggesting that Missouri’s PTP system had been making surrounding states safer as well.

 

http://www.armedwithreason.com/the-simple-solution-to-gun-violence-permits/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen? Should he get a permit or should a law enforcement officer still be able to deny it with no reason given and no accountability possible?

 

 

I'm going to avoid your world of myopia and absolutes, Tom, and discuss Permits to Carry intelligently.

This is why LE wants to be involved:

Permit-to-purchase systems are backed by strong data.

Is congressional legislation that would take the idea national the proposal more people should be debating?

 

A team led by David Hemenway, Ph.D., at the Harvard School of Public Health recently conducted a survey of Massachusetts police chiefs in order to understand their reasons for rejecting permit applications under the state’s discretionary system. “Local police chiefs typically know more about the people in their community than does a national computer,” Hemenway wrote. The police chiefs interviewed in the study were particularly cautious when a permit-seeker had a history of assault, domestic abuse, mental illness, or substance abuse. Under the existing federal background check system, persons with a pattern of drug or alcohol addiction or a record of violent misdemeanors are typically cleared for gun purchases, despite those risk factors. A discretionary PTP system allows local law enforcement to consider such warning signs and withhold permits when justified.

 

One police chief interviewed for the study explained his justification for denying a permit to someone who would have otherwise passed a federal background check, describing the individual as someone with “no convictions, but was arrested numerous times for offenses including trafficking in cocaine, assault and battery, assault and battery on a police officer, resisting arrest, and destruction of property.” Another police chief used his discretion to forbid an applicant who had “made [a] statement that he was going to take his guns and go to one officer’s home and shoot him in the head.”

 

It was due to similar concerns that a law enforcement group in North Carolina came out against a measure that would have done away with the handgun-permit system in place there. Writing in opposition to the change, which ultimately was blocked, the North Carolina Sheriffs Association argued that, “[t]he sheriff has access to significantly more information about the applicant’s criminal record, pending criminal charges, mental health record, and other relevant data than is contained in the federal NICS system. To protect the citizens of North Carolina, all of the information required by federal law that is available to the sheriff should be considered when a decision is made about whether or not it is appropriate for a person to be authorized to purchase a handgun.”

 

Discretion, when applied to gun permits, generates positive effects on crime...not racism as such:

Unsurprisingly, private sales account for a massive number of the firearms used in crime — a survey of prison inmates on this question found that prohibited individuals purchased their firearm from a federally licensed retailer only 3.9 percent of the time. A PTP requirement would close this “private sales loophole” by requiring both licensed dealers and unlicensed vendors to sell firearms only to someone with a valid permit.

 

One study found that states with PTP laws allowing police discretion tallied a 76 percent reduction in the likelihood of guns winding up in criminals’ hands relative to comparable states without such laws. Even without a discretionary policy, the best available research shows that PTP requirements in general are associated with lower rates of firearm-related mortality and reduced suicide rates (...) The first study found that, after the repeal of a 2007 Missouri permit-to-purchase law, statewide murder rates spiked 14 percent ...The study also found that the repeal of Missouri’s law significantly increased the diversion of crime guns that were purchased in Missouri and later recovered by police in neighboring states, suggesting that Missouri’s PTP system had been making surrounding states safer as well.

 

http://www.armedwithreason.com/the-simple-solution-to-gun-violence-permits/>

 

 

OK, a good start would be to post articles that are about permits to carry, not permits to purchase.

 

Either way, it seems that you don't want to answer the questions:

 

If someone passes the mental competence test to exercise his rights and meets those standards, what should happen? Should he get a permit or should a law enforcement officer still be able to deny it with no reason given and no accountability possible?

 

Discretion to deny our rights without giving a reason means no accountability and effectively limitless government power over our rights.

 

Is it so much to ask that police give a reason when a permit is denied? That's the only way they can be held accountable. Why do you resist the idea of giving a reason for denial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere in the existing literature of the Oathkeepers do they discuss such concern for minorities, or their rights.

This was concocted in the past week.

They are using this bit as PR, after adverse reaction to their heavily armed curfew caper.

Some fingers were on triggers, the police noted.

This AW behavior is bizarre, and will prove counter-productive, IMO.

 

 

 

 

Yes, Chief Belmar, people can openly and notoriously exercise their rights in MO. Yes, we really mean even the black people.

 

Black rights matter.

 

 

Are you with the Oathkeepers now, Tom?

 

No, I'm not an Oathkeeper, just a supporter of our rights. And by "our" I mean all of us. Even the volatile ones. I know that must be disturbing to you since you seem to share the same attitudes about black people that gun controllers have historically had in America throughout our history. Specifically:

 

 

The immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower is amplified, and more volatile, among blacks. Even more deadly than among whites.

 

I don't have to call you names or snip part of that sentence. Anyone can see it for what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could be having an intelligent conversation, Tom. Instead, you present dimestore innuendo.

And more race-baiting, eh?

 

The red words are a pretty candid assessment of the problem, made by someone who has unshakably warm feelings towards the black community.

It is not unlike the two different stats I posted: each was solid and unequivocal, but quite unflattering to gun behavior among certain blacks.

You re-posted each stat multiple times, while drooling, and while claiming the figures disproved the danger of the high rates of white gun ownership.

You feel some need to smear me with racial poo slinging.

It won't work, bro. I risked my life following the non-violence of my mentor, MLK, into problem areas. The experience was definitive.

I saw what I saw...and Tom Ray, you lack enough understanding to discuss it with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you suppose MLK owned guns and applied for a concealed weapons permit?

 

Do you think his immature, short-sighted desire for gunpower was amplified, and more volatile, than that of whites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Child: "Can we get a dog?"

Parent: "No."

Child: "It would protect us."

Parent: "Still, no."

Child: "Why do you want to leave us and our house unprotected?"

"straw man argument": <http://www.wisegeek....m#didyouknowout>

Tom: "Do you support 'shall issue'?"

Joe: "No."

Tom: "MLK needed a gun permit, and it was denied due to his race.

Joe:" Still, no."

Tom: "Why are you a racist?"

Parents = government.

 

Jokal sees us as his children. Jokal is a gun owner. Do as I say , not as I do.

 

 

Hi Rockdog. You and I are both gunowners, yes. So are Tom Diaz, and Mike the Gun Guy. Four guys with guns.

The difference between you and the three of us, is that the three of us are honest about the true cost of the guns in our society.

We view SAF and the modern NRA a deadly, dishonest sham, and we are concerned about the long-term trajectory of the shooting sports.

 

Yep, I'm a lifetime gunowner. What it is. EMF.

Then stop being a hypocrite and get rid of your gun or quit preaching about them.

 

I fully understand the cost involved with having a criminal element within society. They will always be present. We know who most of the people are who usebgun for crime. Put the effort into making sure they don't commit crimes ???? and leave law abiding folk alone.

Rockdog wants to skate blissfully, friction free, while avoiding the basics.

 

Certain individuals (or even the majority) among your "law abiding folk" must lead the way. That isn't happening.

Instead, these "law abiders" are letting extremists manage the guns for them (ahem, in the name of the constitution, patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels). The "law abiders" are fully responsible for generating the carnage.

 

 

 

I find it amusing that you insist I give up my gun. Knowing your values, I suppose you gunslingers would respect me less, alpha-male-wise, for giving it up. But I have a right and a duty to speak up as a gunowner, IMO.

You have every right to be a hypocrite. I have every right to view you as a liar for being one. I don't respect liars.

 

I know a lot of people who don't own a gun. I don't respect them for not owning one. I respect them for not spending their money on something they don't have interest in.

 

And you continue to be afraid of criminals and redirect your thoughts to inanimate objects to cope. It's too obvious with you to be anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to define "liar" contrary to the dictionary, go for it.

 

If I am "afraid of criminals," why did I confront them on their own turf, at night, unarmed, for years?

 

Your reference to criminals is a scapegoat mechanism. 85% or gun mishaps in the USA become crimes, but don't relate to secondary crimes.

Mostly, drinking and anger are leading regular "law-abiders" into rash acts with nearby guns, which then become shooting statistics.

 

 

 

The experts feel that depression, panic, and confusion (which are human behaviors, but not criminal behaviors), when combined with the lethality of nearby guns, are driving the gun suicides.

 

Suicide%20cheerleading%20with%20Tom%20Ra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But hey now Jeff, he protected the niggas from offing themselves and each other back in the 80's for a year----by jumping on parked cars and shit. This fuker KNOWS the Darkies and their neighborhood(s) and their culture like no one else on the planet....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But hey now Jeff, he protected the niggas from offing themselves and each other back in the 80's for a year----by jumping on parked cars and shit. This fuker KNOWS the Darkies and their neighborhood(s) and their culture like no one else on the planet.... :lol:

 

A few corrections, Rick. Do you have reading comprehension thingee?

It was the seventies.

The period lasted seven or eight years.

I jumped over the cars. Some had astonished drivers sitting in them. They were blocking sidewalks.

I only know enough to try to discuss the race relations matter.

My thoughts are also based on two decades of constant contact with the local R&B cadre

and 33 years in Hendrix's racially mixed community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you want to define "liar" contrary to the dictionary, go for it.

 

 

Your reference to criminals is a scapegoat mechanism. 85% or gun mishaps in the USA become crimes, but don't relate to secondary crimes.

Mostly, drinking and anger are leading regular "law-abiders" into rash acts with nearby guns, which then become shooting statistics.

 

 

 

Jocal, the only liar here is you. We've been through this before, You are wrong. As evadent:

 

 

Gangs and Gun-Related Homicide

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

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

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make you right. If you don't like my stats - take it up with the DOJ.

And your weasel use of the word "gun mishap" doesn't get you out of this BS. Suicides and accidents are not intentional gun violence and do not belong in the conversation.

 

 

We fought for months over this quote. You began with liar liar pants on fire. You offered no other source to back your source up, and it is poorly written. It mentions neither the total homicide figure, nor the total number of stranger killers.

 

See Post 616 of this thread, FFS. Boothy made the same claim, without figures.

 

I could support my position with multiple sources, and did.

Let me see, I think I filed all that under "Stranger Danger"...

 

Nine sources, Stranger Danger

Source 1.

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

(see large graph in pic file under "murder by stranger".

Pasted from <http://malini.data36...h_Group_Id=1177>

Source 2.

Supplementary Homicide Reports

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

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

Source 3. Violent Victimization Committed By Strangers, 1993-2010

Erika Harrell, Ph.D.

December 11, 2012 NCJ 239424

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

Highlights:

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

About the Source Data

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Pasted from <http://www.bjs.gov/i...detail&iid=4557>

Source 4. The Top 5 Murders by Relationship to the Victim in the United States

Relationship

(victim)

Number of Murders

(2011)

Percentage of Total Murders

1

Acquaintence

2,700

21.3%

2

Wife

552

4.3%

3

Girlfriend

474

3.7%

4

Friend

377

2.97%

5

Other family

279

2.2%

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

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

i

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

Source 5. WHEN MURDERS ARE NOT COMMITTED BY STRANGERS

Which is most of the time March 27, 2011

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

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

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

And why would that be?

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

But unfortunately that report was flawed.

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

Beam’s piece can be read HERE

Pasted from <http://www.skyvalley...the-time-625525>

Source 6. The FBI Uniform Crime Report will give you an answer of a sort, but only two out of three homicides are ‘solved by arrest.’

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

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

Stranger

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

Source 7. Percentage of murders are convicted by a stranger?

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

Pasted from <http://www.chacha.co...d-by-a-stranger>

Source 8.

appendix Table 16

Percents for victim/offender relationship in homicides,

1993–2008

Total Offenders

known /Unknown relationships /Strangers

1993 100% 45.8% 39.7% 14.5%

1994 100% 46.3 40.1 13.6

1995 100% 44.4 40.0 15.7

1996 100% 47.2 38.1 14.7

1997 100% 45.9 40.3 13.8

1998 100% 47.5 38.7 13.8

1999 100% 46.7 40.9 12.4

2000 100% 43.2 43.0 13.8

2001 100% 40.8 45.5 13.7

2002 100% 41.6 43.8 14.6

2003 100% 41.5 45.6 13.0

2004 100% 41.3 45.2 13.5

2005 100% 39.2 46.3 14.5

2006 100% 40.8 46.0 13.2

2007 100% 39.3 47.2 13.5

2008 100% 41.7 45.4 12.8

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Supplementary Homicides Reports,

Uniform Crime Reports, 1993–2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/c...df/vvcs9310.pdf

Source 9: Wolfgang Abstract, shootings by familiar people

In 1958, Wolfgang published his seminal work examining criminal homicide cases that occured in Philadelphia between 1948 and 1952. This work was the beginning of an extensive body of literature focusing on the victim-offender relationship in homicides. Wolfgang and subsequent researchers consistently found that homicides tended to be intra-racial, intra-gender, and occurring overwhelmingly between relatives and friends.

Pasted from <http://www.sciencedi...047235288900335>

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157817&page=7#entry4980201>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

If you want to define "liar" contrary to the dictionary, go for it.

 

 

Your reference to criminals is a scapegoat mechanism. 85% or gun mishaps in the USA become crimes, but don't relate to secondary crimes.

Mostly, drinking and anger are leading regular "law-abiders" into rash acts with nearby guns, which then become shooting statistics.

 

 

 

Jocal, the only liar here is you. We've been through this before, You are wrong. As evadent:

 

 

Gangs and Gun-Related Homicide

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

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

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make you right. If you don't like my stats - take it up with the DOJ.

And your weasel use of the word "gun mishap" doesn't get you out of this BS. Suicides and accidents are not intentional gun violence and do not belong in the conversation.

 

 

We fought for months over this quote. You began with liar liar pants on fire. You offered no other source to back your source up, and it is poorly written. It mentions neither the total homicide figure, nor the total number of stranger killers.

 

 

 

 

I will take the DOJ and the FBIs data and conclusions over your agenda driven drivel. Again, if you don't like the data, take it up with the US gov't - its their data, not mine.

 

joke-off loses again.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your reference to criminals is a scapegoat mechanism. 85% or gun mishaps in the USA become crimes, but don't relate to secondary crimes.(...)

 

 

Jocal, the only liar here is you. We've been through this before, You are wrong. As evadent:

 

Jeff, your quote was debunked, for months. And more than once already.

Liar liar pants of fire was May 2014.

You made the same claim, July 2014 in a "Dear John" post, LOL.

Yikes, you had to uncle it Sept. 2014. (See below)

 

Gun Control Advocates, Restraining Order thread

Sept 22. From Jocal: You need to shed more light on your tired, single source for your 65% to 70% figures--

Note: The same single, ambiguously-worded source used by Jeff today

I am challenging the awkward wording of your single cite, the percentage of what they are referring to is unclear. http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx#note5.

The link on that page goes to a single page which does not mention gangs.

Here are the best gang stats and info I can find to support you. One says a 50% homicide ratio, but in two city areas only, with this statement:

In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in four gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2011 to 2012.

<http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems>

You may be dead wrong that gang homicides are generally connected to simultaneous crimes.

(see below). Their study uses NVDRS figures, and shows at most a 25% ratio of drug trade activity and any gang homicide--and that within a notoriously gang-infested city. Your 92%-gun use in gang homicides figure may be highlighted in red, below.

For example, one of your own sources, the CDC (supposedly claiming high gang homicide ratios during other criminal activity), is clearly being misquoted.

JBSF, on 22 Jul 2014 - 13:09, said:

The CDC and the DOJ categorically stated that something like 75%+ of gang related murders happen as part of the commission of a crime.

(From Jocal again) Here is the actual CDC finding, from a few years ago. (If you have more current info, or that DOJ info, I'm sure you'll share it.)

Quote

Study: Gang Homicides — Five U.S. Cities, 2003–2008

January 27, 2012 /

"The finding that gang homicides commonly were not precipitated by drug trade/use or other crimes in progress also is similar to previous research; however, this finding challenges public perceptions on gang homicides (5). The public often has viewed gangs, drug trade/use, crime, and homicides as interconnected factors; however, studies have shown little connection between gang homicides and drug trade/use and crime (5). Gangs and gang members are involved in a variety of high-risk behaviors that sometimes include drug and crime involvement, but gang-related homicides usually are attributed to other circumstances (6). Newark was an exception…[…]

"The study, which appears in the January 27, 2012 online edition of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), found more than 90 percent of gang homicide victims were male, victims were more likely to be young, and 92-96 percent of gang homicides involved firearms. Findings also show gang homicides usually did not result from other crimes in progress or bystander deaths; instead, they involved youth responding to gang-related conflict."

http://www.cdc.gov/v...prevention.html>

Quote

Gang homicides account for a substantial proportion of homicides among youths in some U.S. cities; however, few surveillance systems collect data with the level of detail necessary to gang homicide prevention strategies. To compare characteristics of gang homicides with nongang homicides, CDC analyzed 2003–2008 data from the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) for five cities with high levels of gang homicide. This report describes the results of that analysis, which indicated that, consistent with similar previous research, a higher proportion of gang homicides than other homicides involved young adults and adolescents, racial and ethnic minorities, and males. Additionally, the proportion of gang homicides resulting from drug trade/use or with other crimes in progress was consistently low in the five cities, ranging from zero to 25%. Furthermore, this report found that gang homicides were more likely to occur with firearms and in public places, which suggests that gang homicides are quick, retaliatory reactions to ongoing gang-related conflict.

http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/mm6103a2.htm>

(Post #283 , Most Violent, England vs USA thread:)

JBSF Posted 22 September 2014 - 09:51 PM

uncle

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770&page=3#entry4680823>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

So you're saying the DOJ is wrong? Again they are not MY stats. They are govt stats. Take it up with them.

 

Joke-awf loses again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But hey now Jeff, he protected the niggas from offing themselves and each other back in the 80's for a year----by jumping on parked cars and shit. This fuker KNOWS the Darkies and their neighborhood(s) and their culture like no one else on the planet.... :lol:

A few corrections, Rick. Do you have reading comprehension thingee?

It was the seventies.

The period lasted seven or eight years.

I jumped over the cars. Some had astonished drivers sitting in them. They were blocking sidewalks.

I only know enough to try to discuss the race relations matter.

My thoughts are also based on two decades of constant contact with the local R&B cadre

and 33 years in Hendrix's racially mixed community.

So basically you did nothing. Jumping over cars blocking sidewalks does not give you 'street cred'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And which Hendrix community are you referring to?

 

The Central District of Seattle, where Jimi went to school.

The brothers call it The Hood. A few of them were his classmates.

I lived there for 33 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And which Hendrix community are you referring to?

The Central District of Seattle, where Jimi went to school.

The brothers call it The Hood. A few of them were his classmates.

I lived there for 33 years.

What years did you live in Seattle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let this happen but don't affect MY freedom.

 

 

Toddlers Killed More Americans Than Terrorists Did This Year

 

674828.0.guns.jpg

 

11 Deaths in Five Months Where Shooter Was 3 to 6 Years Old

Listed below are the 11 gun fatalities I found where a preschooler pulled the trigger (from Jan. 1 to June 9, 2013). Starting with a list of five toddler shooting deaths The Jewish Daily Forward published in early May, I unearthed six additional cases. This tragic, unthinkable event has happened every month, like clock-work.

  • Jan. 10: 6-year-old playmate shoots and kills 4-year-old Trinity Ross, Kansas City, Kan.
  • Feb. 11: 4-year-old Joshua Johnson shoots and kills himself, Memphis, Tenn.
  • Feb. 24: 4-year-old Jaiden Pratt dies after shooting himself in the stomach while his father sleeps, Houston.