Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed

Recommended Posts

I don't need to be exact, I just need to show you that your 11,500 'homicides' stat is wrong. Because even YOU know that a lot of those are by law enforcement, and a lot of them are legit s/defense killings. So I am sure that you can now, publicly, admit that you're fuking wrong....right?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figure that's wrong is your 4000 number.

The figure unpresented is your LE fatal shooting number.

You are tossing around assfacts (your term). Ahem, then you failed (twice) to back up your own argument.

 

That's not how the big boys do it on PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figure that's wrong is your 4000 number.

The figure unpresented is your LE fatal shooting number.

You are tossing around assfacts (your term). Ahem, then you failed (twice) to back up your own argument.

 

That's not how the big boys do it on PA.

 

 

Then it's now your turn to show the class just how many of those 11,500 'homicides' are not really 'homicides'. You know, 'cuz you're the one that keeps posting that erroneous stat and all?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might help. Not a bad effort to 19 May 2015.

 

Gun Violence Archive 2015 Toll of Gun Violence

Total Number of Incidents: 17,937
Number of Deaths1: 4,656
Number of Injuries1: 8,790
Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured1: 237
Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured1: 861
Mass Shooting2: 95
Officer Involved Shooting2: 1,611
Home Invasion2: 812
Defensive Use2: 473
Accidental Shooting2: 761

 

Notice the number of accidental over the Defensive use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that just in Los Angeles alone where they've been averaging one police shooting a day for years now, I highly doubt that number of 1,611 is even remotely close....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post credible cite for alternative numbers.

 

As you have just so effectively demonstrated, any fuckwit can just call bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post credible cite for alternative numbers.

 

As you have just so effectively demonstrated, any fuckwit can just call bullshit.

 

 

Well, in an ironic twist, if what you just posted there is true....that completely blows out the other stupid stats y'all were posting earlier about averaging almost 100,00 'gun incidents a year'.

 

Sorry Darling, but once again, you gurlz can't have it both ways.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post cite. You still have no credible numbers to back up what you post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might help. Not a bad effort to 19 May 2015.

 

Gun Violence Archive 2015 Toll of Gun Violence

Total Number of Incidents: 17,937

Number of Deaths1: 4,656

Number of Injuries1: 8,790

Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured1: 237

Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured1: 861

Mass Shooting2: 95

Officer Involved Shooting2: 1,611

Home Invasion2: 812

Defensive Use2: 473

Accidental Shooting2: 761

 

Notice the number of accidental over the Defensive use.

 

BTW. Except for the Deaths and Injuries, most of the numbers above are 'incidents', sometimes no one hurt.

 

But the dead ones ... are dead.

 

Click to enlarge.

 

Stats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the first time that you've finally realized that humans die? Like every 1/10 of a second, every fuking day?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why the fuck do you bother here with that attitude. Looks like we have completed another Booze Cycle, stage 3, give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might help. Not a bad effort to 19 May 2015.

 

Gun Violence Archive 2015 Toll of Gun Violence

Total Number of Incidents: 17,937

Number of Deaths1: 4,656

Number of Injuries1: 8,790

Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured1: 237

Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured1: 861

Mass Shooting2: 95

Officer Involved Shooting2: 1,611

Home Invasion2: 812

Defensive Use2: 473

Accidental Shooting2: 761

 

Notice the number of accidental over the Defensive use.

Notice shit happens. Its a dangerous world out there. You better not come here. Its too dangerous for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must have missed some earlier posts Rockdog, I have no intention to return, been there got the T-shirt. NEXT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Booze Cycle

 

Stage 1 You are wrong

I don't need to be exact, I just need to show you that your 11,500 'homicides' stat is wrong. Because even YOU know that a lot of those are by law enforcement, and a lot of them are legit s/defense killings. So I am sure that you can now, publicly, admit that you're fuking wrong....right?....

 

 

Stage 2 You are wrong again

 

Then it's now your turn to show the class just how many of those 11,500 'homicides' are not really 'homicides'. You know, 'cuz you're the one that keeps posting that erroneous stat and all?....

 

 

 

Stage 3 Gives up, who gives a fuk.

Is this the first time that you've finally realized that humans die? Like every 1/10 of a second, every fuking day?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must have missed some earlier posts Rockdog, I have no intention to return, been there got the T-shirt. NEXT!

Oh, good. You recovered from your injuries then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly died there, thanks for asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly died there, thanks for asking.

Watch your p's & Q's and don't look'em in the eye and they won't shoot you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder just how much longer it'll be before JokeAwf's gun forces him to go violent and start shooting people?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to. His gun will go violent itself and start shooting people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that happens every frickin day here in America....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

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

 

 

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

March 25, 2015

by Bernie Horn

 

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

...

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

Maybe the gun ownership rate is not the problem?

 

 

 

 

Oooo another post pointing out how bad black Americans are.

 

 

Oooh, another post that won't address whether the gun ownership rates causes the difference in behavior. What a shocker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

 

 

No, you continue to misunderstand.

 

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me.

 

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

 

 

No, you continue to misunderstand.

 

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me.

 

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

 

 

More race baiting. One gent to another, you were asked you to knock it off.

 

ANY law can be applied with discrimination. You are trying to hide an indiscriminate gun permit policy behind the discrimination of racism.

 

I don't "know" that may issue is a racial sledgehammer (so don't mis-quote me). In fact, any racial application of "may issue" should be, and can be, sorted.

I welcome such sorting...while the content of character of gunowners is examined openly and fairly, before firearms purchases in the retail or secondary markets.

 

 

Six Baltimore officers were just indicted for conduct that would have passed before George Zimmerman came along.

Thanks, George. Thanks SYG.

You see, Tom, gun behavior and race are getting sorted, in fits and starts.

 

"If you don't agree with my pro-gun policy, you are a racist."

Your argument is hollow, elementary, and promotes misunderstanding. For guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Jocal - I know I'm wasting my breath here, but its getting close to cocktail hour and I have a few minutes to kill....

 

Tom is talking about "May issue". IN case you don't quite understand how it works - it allows for arbitrary and subjective denial of rights. Denying a permit based on race is just one of those ways a person can be discriminated against and denied their rights.

 

Another way is lets say I were to go into the Sheriff's office to apply for a permit. I have a spotless record but I show up with long hair and a beard because I just got back from an offshore race and I hadn't had time to go to the barber. The sheriff just doesn't like long hairs and he denies it. Tom, OTOH goes in an hour later and he's clean cut and clean shaven and he gets the permit.

 

Is this OK with you? A simple yes or no will suffice. No need to post scientific studies or photoshops......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

 

 

No, you continue to misunderstand.

 

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me.

 

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

 

 

 

 

ANY law can be applied with discrimination. You are trying to hide an indiscriminate gun permit policy behind the discrimination of racism.

 

I don't "know" that may issue is a racial sledgehammer (so don't mis-quote me). In fact, any racial application of "may issue" should be, and can be, sorted.

I welcome such sorting...while the content of character of gunowners is examined openly and fairly, before firearms purchases in the retail or secondary markets.

 

 

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination.

 

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area.

 

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way. If a sheriff has unlimited authority and no reason to explain his decisions, there's no way to "sort" them, is there?

 

I think a fair examination of "character" would have objective standards for success or failure. The complete lack of standards and utter faith in the good character and judgement of those with badges of a "may issue" scheme is not for me.

 

But you've jumped from permission to carry to permission to purchase like we have in North Carolina. Like "may issue" carry laws, "may issue" purchase permit laws have a racist history.

 

You didn't answer the questions asked above about that history:

 

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

 

 

Do you think things have changed so much? I don't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

...

In the case of MLK, whom I used to work for, it led to Tom Ray repeatedly insisting I am a racist--for not supporting Tom's thoughtless, dangerous policies.

...

 

 

No, you continue to misunderstand.

 

It's your support of a policy that you know has been (and will be) applied in a racially discriminatory manner that seems racist to me. Forty days of this? You're sort of an idiot, I take it.

 

Yes, it was a big deal that MLK got "dissed on da permit."

 

 

 

 

ANY law can be applied with discrimination. You are trying to hide an indiscriminate gun permit policy behind the discrimination of racism.

The gun permit process in not necessarily LE; magistrates or court clerks or gun clubs could do it.

I don't "know" that may issue is a racial sledgehammer (so don't mis-quote me). In fact, any racial application of "may issue" should be, and can be, sorted.

I welcome such sorting...while the content of character of gunowners is examined openly and fairly, before firearms purchases in the retail or secondary markets.

????

 

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination. No racist application of ANY law is legal. What clause in "may issue" specifies that racist denials are legal, or even acceptable?

 

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area. Again, court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs could do it.

 

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way.Bullshit. If a sheriff has unlimited authority WHAT??? and no reason to explain his decisions, risk assessment for firearms is already wide-open; permit denial could encourage stability, since further training or counselling could improve or offset one's risk assessment there's no way to "sort" them, is there? Double straw man noted, but you have given this little thought. (Too busy with race-baiting?)

 

I think a fair examination of "character" would have objective standards for success or failure. Yes, they would be any evidence-based "high risk" quantifications set by the social sciences. The complete lack of standards and utter faith in the good character and judgement of those with badges ???? The Badgeless One fears badges. of a "may issue" scheme is not for me. Well, carefulness applied to gun carriers is not for you.

 

But you've jumped from permission to carry to permission to purchase like we have in North Carolina. Like "may issue" carry laws, "may issue" purchase permit laws have a racist history. Therefore, just cancel "may issue" laws in their entirety, for guns, and to fight racism.

 

You didn't answer the questions asked above about that history: Get used to that.

 

 

Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by "etc." which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of "good moral character" would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer. Zzzzzz...To demonstrate racism in X spot in 1919 is unremarkable. It does not prove that 1919 racial bias In NC makes "may issue" impossible today, or tomorrow, or in other places in 1919.

 

Federal monitors can sort such racism by court mandate. But such monitors don't come in and cancel laws just because individuals (ahem, not "the government") abuse them.

 

 

Do you think things have changed so much? I don't.

 

 

 

Things will never change if folks cling to racial misunderstandings, to employ race-baiting endlessly.

Tom, in the life of this thread, uniquely your own, your progression is disappointing.

You've dropped like a dud in my estimation. Often, a messenger reflects the message he carries.

NIce to have met you.

 

 

 

Why did you introduce us to Rev. Mosteller...twice? What is your takeaway with his situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you finally admit that you hate black people. Thanx for that, you just made our lives that much simpler....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jocal, again I know I'm wasting my time on you, but I think this whole may issue thing has gotten lost in all of Tom's race stuff. What he is saying 100% valid, sometimes tho he can be a bit pedantic in continuing to hammer a theme.

 

So let's distill this down to simple facts. I believe from your rantings postings that you believe that "shall issue" means there are no disqualifying grounds to deny a permit and that anyone who shows up at the po-leece station will be allowed to have a gun. I think you are overly getting hung up on the word "SHALL". I think what you're missing is it really means "shall issue AS LONG AS there are no already pre-defined reasons to deny one, such as a felony conviction, drug use, domestic abuse, mental instability, etc. Those and many more will disqualify you from buying and carrying a gun in SHALL ISSUE States. But the point is its not an arbitrary process where the po-leece chief can look at you and say "nope" just because he doesn't like you or how you look. I don't want some gov't functionary making those kinds of arbitrary and capricious decisions when it comes to a constitutional right. I know you are ok with that, but we are not.

 

Contrast that with "MAY ISSUE" states:

 

May-Issue[edit]

A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement.

The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met, or that the permit applicant must have "good cause" (or similar) to carry a concealed weapon. In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself often does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement, and issuing authorities in some May-Issue jurisdictions have been known to arbitrarily deny applications for CCW permits without providing the applicant with any substantive reason for the denial. Some May-Issue jurisdictions require a permit-holder to provide justification for continued need for a concealed carry permit upon renewal, and may deny the renewal of an expiring permit without sufficient showing of "good cause." Some of these jurisdictions may revoke a permit after it has been issued when the issuing authority in its discretion has determined that the "good cause" used in approving the permit application no longer exists. Other May-Issue jurisdictions allow for automatic renewal of the permit, as long as the permit-holder completes any required firearms safety training and files the renewal application before the permit expires.

How do you "sort" out these issues if you don't even know why you're being denied? As Tom rightly said, race is one of the arbitrary reasons people are denied permits. Looks is another. The wrong political bent is another. The size of your wallet is another. And so on.

So your continued accusation that "SHALL ISSUE" states proliferate guns and put guns in the hands of bad guys is a BIG FAT LIE! That is absolutely and demonstrably false. Even shall issue states deny permits to people who don't qualify under the pre-defined guidelines. If you don't like the disqualifying items in your state and want to make them tougher - then lobby your congress critter to change it. But allowing a single individual gov't official at the po-leece station the power to decide your constitutional rights based on a whim or on how he or she feels that day is no way to run a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More guns, More deaths. The rest of this discussion is just noise, interspersed with some white guys pointing out that black guys are the problem. While you are masturbating over the finer points of words like 'shall issue', the country is on track to have more than another 11 thousand people killed by guns this year. Bang fucking BANG!

 

YAWn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More guns, More deaths. Bang fucking BANG!

 

 

No, its more like LIE fucking LIE! More guns = more death = more LIES

 

chart6.JPG

 

Screen-Shot-2013-02-20-at-8.59.21-AM.png

 

And yet conversely in the UK - less guns = more crime

 

Guns-in-other-countries-U.K-Violent-Crim

 

 

Bazinga...... bitch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uk figures? But I thought you said that other countries figures (like AUS e.g) are bullshit.

 

So let me see if I have understood you. After posting some graphs (one of which ends in 1999), you have saved the 11,000 people? Some of them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW here's some more recent stuff, looks like more deaths to me. All of the below have died since your graph ended :rolleyes:

 

Total Number of Gun Deaths
In the United States,

annual deaths resulting from firearms

2013: 33,636
2012: 33,563
2011: 32,351
2010: 31,672
2009: 31,347
2008: 31,593
2007: 31,224
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,136
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874

 

gundeaths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination.

 

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area.

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way. If a sheriff has unlimited authority

...No racist application of ANY law is legal. What clause in "may issue" specifies that racist denials are legal, or even acceptable?...

 

Again, court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs could do it.

 

Bullshit.

 

WHAT???

 

A better question would be: what clause do you think prevents them? A sheriff can deny a permit for any reason at all and all he has to say is "no" with no explanation required, no recourse for the citizen.

 

After he says "no" there is no further role for court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs. They have no authority and the sheriff doesn't have to explain himself to them or anyone else.

 

That's why it's not "bullshit" to say these can't be sorted. Just like when MLK had his permit denied for racist reasons, there's no appeal, no provision in the law to "sort" a denial, and no reason to "sort" a denial since there are no limits on the authority of a sheriff in a "may issue" situation.

 

You seem surprised and disbelieving, but you also seem unable to find for me any limits on the power of a sheriff. Have you got any examples of denials being sorted? Ever? Feel free to go back to the last century if you want, but you will find none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey randumb, this is the most damning visual yet. They say a pic is worth 1000 words. This one is worldwide, not just US related.

 

table2.jpg

 

And since you obviously struggle to read graphs.... those red dots and the red line thingy equates to murder rates. While the blue line/dot thingy show that the numbers of guns have gun way up while the murder rate has stayed almost perfectly flat.

 

Ergo - the number of guns going up while the murders do not succinctly and definitely proves once and for fucking all time that more guns =/= more death. You can repeat your lie as often as you want, no one is listening much less buying it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homicide ... really? Got any figures for the rest of the people killed with guns? You know, like those in my post above, or are you only interested in just one way to die?

 

Not that long ago you discounted results from other countries, like Australia. Now you seem quite happy to do so, Mmmmm.

 

Meanwhile, back in the good Ol US of A;

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

THEN

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

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

SO

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

 

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

 

Proving my point that more guns = more deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weak sauce. repeating the same weak shit over and over.

 

Duh....

 

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you finally admit that you hate black people. Thanx for that, you just made our lives that much simpler....

 

Not gonna bite on this today. We'll toss it around later, maybe.

But this is getting good. The conversation is just starting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jocal, again I know I'm wasting my time on you, but I think this whole may issue thing has gotten lost in all of Tom's race stuff. What he is saying 100% valid, sometimes tho he can be a bit pedantic in continuing to hammer a theme.

 

So let's distill this down to simple facts. I believe from your rantings postings that you believe that "shall issue" means there are no disqualifying grounds to deny a permit and that anyone who shows up at the po-leece station will be allowed to have a gun. I think you are overly getting hung up on the word "SHALL". I think what you're missing is it really means "shall issue AS LONG AS there are no already pre-defined reasons to deny one, such as a felony conviction, drug use, domestic abuse, mental instability, etc. Those and many more will disqualify you from buying and carrying a gun in SHALL ISSUE States. But the point is its not an arbitrary process where the po-leece chief can look at you and say "nope" just because he doesn't like you or how you look. I don't want some gov't functionary making those kinds of arbitrary and capricious decisions when it comes to a constitutional right. I know you are ok with that, but we are not.

 

Contrast that with "MAY ISSUE" states:

 

May-Issue[edit]

A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement.

The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met, or that the permit applicant must have "good cause" (or similar) to carry a concealed weapon. In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself often does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement, and issuing authorities in some May-Issue jurisdictions have been known to arbitrarily deny applications for CCW permits without providing the applicant with any substantive reason for the denial. Some May-Issue jurisdictions require a permit-holder to provide justification for continued need for a concealed carry permit upon renewal, and may deny the renewal of an expiring permit without sufficient showing of "good cause." Some of these jurisdictions may revoke a permit after it has been issued when the issuing authority in its discretion has determined that the "good cause" used in approving the permit application no longer exists. Other May-Issue jurisdictions allow for automatic renewal of the permit, as long as the permit-holder completes any required firearms safety training and files the renewal application before the permit expires.

How do you "sort" out these issues if you don't even know why you're being denied? As Tom rightly said, race is one of the arbitrary reasons people are denied permits. Looks is another. The wrong political bent is another. The size of your wallet is another. And so on.

So your continued accusation that "SHALL ISSUE" states proliferate guns and put guns in the hands of bad guys is a BIG FAT LIE! That is absolutely and demonstrably false. Even shall issue states deny permits to people who don't qualify under the pre-defined guidelines. If you don't like the disqualifying items in your state and want to make them tougher - then lobby your congress critter to change it. But allowing a single individual gov't official at the po-leece station the power to decide your constitutional rights based on a whim or on how he or she feels that day is no way to run a nation.

 

Ignore all of randumbs BS trolls. Why don't you bite on this one for a while - I took the time to actually try to appeal to that kernal of common sense you have buried somewhere deep down inside you that has been begging to get out.

 

And while you're at it. Maybe you can answer the question about whether a woman who shoots her rapist is a vigilante? What is her mindset when leaving the house with a pistol that day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jocal, again I know I'm wasting my time on you, but I think this whole may issue thing has gotten lost in all of Tom's race stuff. What he is saying 100% valid, sometimes tho he can be a bit pedantic in continuing to hammer a theme.

 

So let's distill this down to simple facts. I believe from your rantings postings that you believe that "shall issue" means there are no disqualifying grounds to deny a permit and that anyone who shows up at the po-leece station will be allowed to have a gun. I think you are overly getting hung up on the word "SHALL". I think what you're missing is it really means "shall issue AS LONG AS there are no already pre-defined reasons to deny one, such as a felony conviction, drug use, domestic abuse, mental instability, etc. Those and many more will disqualify you from buying and carrying a gun in SHALL ISSUE States. But the point is its not an arbitrary process where the po-leece chief can look at you and say "nope" just because he doesn't like you or how you look. I don't want some gov't functionary making those kinds of arbitrary and capricious decisions when it comes to a constitutional right. I know you are ok with that, but we are not.

 

Contrast that with "MAY ISSUE" states:

 

May-Issue[edit]

A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement.

The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met, or that the permit applicant must have "good cause" (or similar) to carry a concealed weapon. In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself often does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement, and issuing authorities in some May-Issue jurisdictions have been known to arbitrarily deny applications for CCW permits without providing the applicant with any substantive reason for the denial. Some May-Issue jurisdictions require a permit-holder to provide justification for continued need for a concealed carry permit upon renewal, and may deny the renewal of an expiring permit without sufficient showing of "good cause." Some of these jurisdictions may revoke a permit after it has been issued when the issuing authority in its discretion has determined that the "good cause" used in approving the permit application no longer exists. Other May-Issue jurisdictions allow for automatic renewal of the permit, as long as the permit-holder completes any required firearms safety training and files the renewal application before the permit expires.

How do you "sort" out these issues if you don't even know why you're being denied? As Tom rightly said, race is one of the arbitrary reasons people are denied permits. Looks is another. The wrong political bent is another. The size of your wallet is another. And so on.

So your continued accusation that "SHALL ISSUE" states proliferate guns and put guns in the hands of bad guys is a BIG FAT LIE! That is absolutely and demonstrably false. Even shall issue states deny permits to people who don't qualify under the pre-defined guidelines. If you don't like the disqualifying items in your state and want to make them tougher - then lobby your congress critter to change it. But allowing a single individual gov't official at the po-leece station the power to decide your constitutional rights based on a whim or on how he or she feels that day is no way to run a nation.

 

jocal, again I know I'm wasting my time on you, but I think this whole may issue thing has gotten lost in all of Tom's race stuff. What he is saying 100% valid, sometimes tho he can be a bit pedantic in continuing to hammer a theme.

 

So let's distill this down to simple facts. I believe from your rantings postings that you believe that "shall issue" means there are no disqualifying grounds to deny a permit and that anyone who shows up at the po-leece station will be allowed to have a gun. I think you are overly getting hung up on the word "SHALL". I think what you're missing is it really means "shall issue AS LONG AS there are no already pre-defined reasons to deny one, such as a felony conviction, drug use, domestic abuse, mental instability, etc. Those and many more will disqualify you from buying and carrying a gun in SHALL ISSUE States. But the point is its not an arbitrary process where the po-leece chief can look at you and say "nope" just because he doesn't like you or how you look. I don't want some gov't functionary making those kinds of arbitrary and capricious decisions when it comes to a constitutional right. I know you are ok with that, but we are not.

 

Contrast that with "MAY ISSUE" states:

 

May-Issue[edit]

A May-Issue jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement.

The law typically states that a granting authority "may issue" a permit if various criteria are met, or that the permit applicant must have "good cause" (or similar) to carry a concealed weapon. In most such situations, self-defense in and of itself often does not satisfy the "good cause" requirement, and issuing authorities in some May-Issue jurisdictions have been known to arbitrarily deny applications for CCW permits without providing the applicant with any substantive reason for the denial. Some May-Issue jurisdictions require a permit-holder to provide justification for continued need for a concealed carry permit upon renewal, and may deny the renewal of an expiring permit without sufficient showing of "good cause." Some of these jurisdictions may revoke a permit after it has been issued when the issuing authority in its discretion has determined that the "good cause" used in approving the permit application no longer exists. Other May-Issue jurisdictions allow for automatic renewal of the permit, as long as the permit-holder completes any required firearms safety training and files the renewal application before the permit expires.

How do you "sort" out these issues if you don't even know why you're being denied? As Tom rightly said, race is one of the arbitrary reasons people are denied permits. Looks is another. The wrong political bent is another. The size of your wallet is another. And so on.

So your continued accusation that "SHALL ISSUE" states proliferate guns and put guns in the hands of bad guys is a BIG FAT LIE! That is absolutely and demonstrably false. Even shall issue states deny permits to people who don't qualify under the pre-defined guidelines. If you don't like the disqualifying items in your state and want to make them tougher - then lobby your congress critter to change it. But allowing a single individual gov't official at the po-leece station the power to decide your constitutional rights based on a whim or on how he or she feels that day is no way to run a nation.

Jeff

Pretty thoughtful post. It has the kind of tone that induces thoughtful response, too.

I come here hoping to read stuff like that.

But the content shows you gave no thought to, and have not absorbed, my red ink suggestions to Tom.

To make our conversation worthwhile, give these grounded ideas the consideration they deserve.

 

A few particulars you mention are quite valid. They are the valuable basis for valid improvements (as are most of Tom's pet bitches). They are fine tuning. They merely focus on the sorting we need.

 

 

 

Look, friend, "shall issue" killed a bluegrass associate of mine. Tom posted the typical, minimal, shall issue restrictions, called it evidence of discretion, and the bastard then added a fucking smiley face!

 

The law which killed Drew (and several others) was pushed through by Alan Gottlieb's local SAF crowd. The heart of the law which killed Drew, which I posted twice, basically said SHALL NOT BE DENIED without evidence of two weeks of involuntary incarceration. Ian Stawicki, who had terrorized his grown siblings for five years in three cities (including several violent episodes, permanent injury to a brother, and the trashing of a girlfriends' house) had never been involuntarily incarcerated. His father (a former firearms instructor by one account) went to authorities, who suggested waiting for the behavior to get worse. It did.

 

I am discussing gun-collection options which could be fairly applied. MANY other problems are inherent in the status quo. Shall issue," state-by-state, is a litany of dangerous weaknesses: I read them yesterday, and it's so bad it will take me a few hours to organize the horror. Jeff, the laws are a chain of dangerous gun lobby snow-jobs.

 

The problem: gun culture encourages minimal restrictions, and rewards wild gun justification philosophy. The profile itself is reckless, and dangerous. This stuff erodes the credibility, image, and stature of the second, of course.

 

IMO, for your own sakes gun clubs and gun publications need to apply pressure for stable, positive behavior. Certain failures to meet gun purchase standards, or gun permit standards, should be reversible, IMO. (If the stats on that effort show a public health failure, address that for what it is.)

 

Let's say that upon examination brought by the SA Gun Club, accredited authorities find that jocal505 is not fit to have a weapon. They should define the terms of my failure. Since my legal record lacks violent misdemeanors, and such, counselling could be applied, or specified weapons training could be applied, in the hopes that I could meet the standards. If violent misdemeanants can be demonstrated to have been rehabilitated with gun club group counseling (or anything else), they should be re-considered for a permit or a purchase, IMO.

If social science says counseling, or public service, or the Flying Spaghetti Factory, will re-constitute certain felons, also fine.

 

FFS hit the nail on the head. Since international gun damage figures show the US has a gun problem, benchmarks could be set to guide gun restrictions, and thus offset (de-tune) the effects of present gun lobby legislation. Consider what worked with auto safety (then with mandated gas mileage goals). If deaths and injuries were not diminished at an acceptable rate, more onerous restrictions were applied. If gun owners and the gun industry could get ahead of the damage control, then less restrictive applications could apply. Win-win: loose cannons would have to clean it up.

 

The net effect would reverse the present irresponsibility of the gun culture. The gun culture would begin to self-police, to encourage mental stability, thorough gun safety education, responsibility, and culturally positive behaviors. (Sadly, where this breaks down is that the last item is being shouted down by anti-authority elements.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No other laws can LEGALLY be applied with racial discrimination.

 

There's no reason the list of disqualifying reasons under a "shall issue" system could not be long. It could even be written by you, if you were willing to in any way limit the authority of LEO's in this area.

And no, racist applications of "may issue" can't be "sorted" in any way. If a sheriff has unlimited authority

...No racist application of ANY law is legal. What clause in "may issue" specifies that racist denials are legal, or even acceptable?...

 

Again, court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs could do it.

 

Bullshit.

 

WHAT???

 

A better question would be: what clause do you think prevents them? A sheriff can deny a permit for any reason at all and all he has to say is "no" with no explanation required, no recourse for the citizen.

 

After he says "no" there is no further role for court clerks, magistrates, or gun clubs. They have no authority and the sheriff doesn't have to explain himself to them or anyone else.

 

That's why it's not "bullshit" to say these can't be sorted. Just like when MLK had his permit denied for racist reasons, there's no appeal, no provision in the law to "sort" a denial, and no reason to "sort" a denial since there are no limits on the authority of a sheriff in a "may issue" situation.

 

You seem surprised and disbelieving, but you also seem unable to find for me any limits on the power of a sheriff. Have you got any examples of denials being sorted? Ever? Feel free to go back to the last century if you want, but you will find none.

 

 

You are ranting half-truths. And I have no foundation to define the authority of sheriffs, but sheriffs around here deal with formidible exposure from newspapers. Our sheriff gets her wings clipped all da time.

 

Ahem, the research others are asking for could, and would, generate evidence-based particulars for an individual's gun suitability, or lack of suitability.

 

It seems you see a need for appeals, specifics, and recourse after gun permit denials, and for gun purchase denials. Got it.

I got it long ago. I think you are right, Tom. You should propose some specifics, and flesh out your idea.

You say that sorting is not possible...as we sort these problems.

 

 

 

 

I see what you did.

 

With a not-very-sharp combo of no background checks and no gun permit checks, you are being quite careless about who gets guns.

No wonder we have a gun problem. (It doesn't have to be like this.)

Why grant criminals & whack jobs a pipeline of guns within the unregulated secondary market, then give them a permit without a proper examination?

Both seem to contribute to the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only 'gun problem' we have-----is that there's not enough people owning them. 'Cuz for the last fuking time, as the number of guns in American's hands go up, the crime rate has been proven to drop. Jfc but even Stevie Wonder can see that.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ignore all of randumbs BS trolls. Why don't you bite on this one for a while - I took the time to actually try to appeal to that kernal of common sense you have buried somewhere deep down inside you that has been begging to get out.

 

And while you're at it. Maybe you can answer the question about whether a woman who shoots her rapist is a vigilante? What is her mindset when leaving the house with a pistol that day?

 

 

Actually, LenP already asked this pretty intelligent question. He framed Gandhi against ISIS, basically.

Gandhi would fail. I agree. In the act of forcible rape, sure, a gun would be convenient...but statistically it would get used on a member of one's social circle. Especially in college.

 

But this goes to another poster's recent comment that pinheads only see in black and white, and in good-and-bad absolutes.

It's like Tom, who likes to find an exception, then claim that it disproves a broad body of scientific conclusion.

 

This non-violent stuff is a mixed bag. I warned all of you that this would get subtle. Three years ago I hit that, twice.

It took a long time to get here, but we can finally discuss it.

 

Pay attention.

Non violence is not going to work as an absolute. Correct.

But neither is violence, mate.

Violence begets violence, however. (Your self-defense beliefs demonstrate that, actually.)

But non-violence does not beget violence...yet it can rule over the violent (e.g. civilized societies).

Thus the irony and power of "the meek shall inherit the earth."

 

The idea is to be a living, dynamic application of non-violence, to break the chain, the cycle, of violence.

And to be the best you can be. YOU rise above the orbit of violence.

YOU are the difference.

 

I did ghetto work and have found that this bit works far more often than it doesn't work.

I would not have survived one day with a gun doing the social work I did. That whole vibe, that dynamic, is just wrong.

The gun triggers an animal-like instinct, all around.

And that's a wrong-ass, violence-based way to develop a society, IMO.

 

The direction of society should be mapped around our better instincts, IMO.

If you've had children, you are familiar with those very admirable, finer, qualities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, valid self-defense uses certainly occur. I've had a few.

I had a boning knife poking an indent into my abs one day in SF. Lost my wallet and Timex that day.

 

In a past lifetime, I confronted guns in ghettos, for YEARS. Three years ago I told you guys a bit about it.

 

Jocal 505 on 30 Jan. 2012 at 9:51AM said
EM, there is a difference between a pacifist and a dreamer/weenie. Yes, I am the former. (...)

And for those who want to address me as out of touch with violence or the black communities, read the details below. I will fight if I have to but have no skills or interest inhand-to-hand. I am not a big guy, just fit.


You seem to think I'm sheltered because I am against the proliferation of firearms? Think I've had no encounters with bad guys?
Olgatrooper, here's my (street victimization) score: A couple muggings, two attempted muggings by three men, one robbery at knife point (two assailants), two attempted strongarm robberies (each with three assailants), one beat-down of a companion, one set of slashed tires (Albq. NM) . Let's add one pickpocket on the Green Line, Boston, and six house break-and-enters, methadone types, Philly.

Was I supposed to shoot them all? Read on if you think you smell a Swan 69 type fibber here.

 

It turns out that Chinabald's Mom paid me a visit in Detroit.

She was connected, and hooked us up with several available social services.

Bullet holes dotted the stucco, it was near MoTown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem: gun culture encourages minimal restrictions, and rewards wild gun justification philosophy. The profile itself is reckless, and dangerous. This stuff erodes the credibility, image, and stature of the second, of course.

 

 

 

Conversation over.

 

If this is your position, then there is and never will be any reasonable discussion. Try harder not to be such a fucking douche next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More guns, More deaths. The rest of this discussion is just noise, interspersed with some white guys pointing out that black guys are the problem. While you are masturbating over the finer points of words like 'shall issue', the country is on track to have more than another 11 thousand people killed by guns this year. Bang fucking BANG!

 

YAWn.

I agree YAWN. Worry about your own environment destroying country for a whole. Your coal is killing us all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems you see a need for appeals, specifics, and recourse after gun permit denials, and for gun purchase denials. Got it.

I got it long ago. I think you are right, Tom. You should propose some specifics, and flesh out your idea.

You say that sorting is not possible...as we sort these problems.

 

 

 

Glad to see you finally agreeing that specific reasons would be a good thing before allowing a government official to infringe on individual rights.

 

It's strange, though, because any such specifics will violate your "may issue" religion. The whole point of may issue is to avoid specific reasons for denials.

 

If specific reasons must be given, or else a permit SHALL be issued, then we call that "shall issue" permitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

weak sauce. repeating the same weak shit over and over.

 

Duh....

 

 

 

This more guns more deaths thing was put to bed with Randoms' Law. Simple verifiable relationship.

 

I have to re post it because you keep reclaiming it is not correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More guns, less crime. I'm fucking LOVING it!.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It seems you see a need for appeals, specifics, and recourse after gun permit denials, and for gun purchase denials. Got it.

I got it long ago. I think you are right, Tom. You should propose some specifics, and flesh out your idea.

You say that sorting is not possible...as we sort these problems.

 

 

 

Glad to see you finally ???? agreeing that specific reasons would be a good thing before allowing a government official to infringe on individual rights. Hyperbole. Except for Justice Scullin's ruling, the "rights" exist for home and hearth, per Heller.

 

It's strange, though, because any such specifics will violate your "may issue" religion. The whole point of may issue is to avoid specific reasons for denials.

 

If specific reasons must be given, or else a permit SHALL be issued, then we call that "shall issue" permitting.

 

 

Not so fast (and don't twist this around). The "specific reasons" in play in present state law are careless, and devastating--they don't examine well. They fall short, and it's not working. At this point, too many idiots can get (and carry) guns legally.

 

"The whole point of may issue is to avoid specific reasons for denials."

Cite, pls. That's quite the fib. The whole point of may issue is to screen gun possession sensibly, for reasons of public safety.

 

Let's agree that may issue needs improvement. To be improved towards real fairness, evidence-based standards need to be established. Sorry, but that research (to establish and define suitability for firearms use) and the standards established need to be supported by the gun culture.

The fact that this research is being blocked is quite incriminating.

 

 

 

You kinda used this trick to justify Drew's demise by CCP. The "specific reasons" for refusal which you listed, wink wink, cough cough,(such as can be found in Jeff's post...concluded with a vague "etc."), excluded Genghis Khan, but few others.

 

As it stands, I'm pretty sure nearly all "must issue" standards, and their sources of behavior info, and their enforcement, are not ship-shape.

 

The gun damage numbers reflect this, Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there's less than 6,000 intentional homicides a year in this country....what's your fuking problem? Why don't you jump on a more helpful and worty social cause....like booze, or drugs, or cars that kill millions of more people in America than do murderers with guns?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem: gun culture encourages minimal restrictions, and rewards wild gun justification philosophy. The profile itself is reckless, and dangerous. This stuff erodes the credibility, image, and stature of the second, of course.

 

 

 

Conversation over.

 

If this is your position, then there is and never will be any reasonable discussion. Try harder not to be such a fucking douche next time.

 

 

Jeff. I'm reasonable enough...and I heard you out. Once I informed myself, the SA Gun Club fell silent.

The choir stopped singing, too.

 

You see, my common sense opinions of 2012 have been supported by social scientists, pretty much across the board.

 

I will wear your new signature line with dignity, hopefully. They say a man has to stand for something.

Your new chart, and all your charts, need to be sourced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there's less than 6,000 intentional homicides a year in this country....what's your fuking problem? Why don't you jump on a more helpful and worty social cause....like booze, or drugs, or cars that kill millions of more people in America than do murderers with guns?....

 

Where's your math, Rick? In our last mathematical communication, you needed to show 7,500 LE shootings per year.

In today's figure, you need to show 5,550 LE perp killings.

But the FBI's figure for justifiable homicides by police is now around 400/yr. It's highest rate was 1983, around 500/yr.

 

Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime. (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 14 and 15.)

Pasted from <http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain>

 

You are a bit like an aggressive chijuajua yapper dog. Please present your math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to apologise Booze, I just skip over any posts of yours with numbers in them. They are always wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to be exact, I just need to show you that your 11,500 'homicides' stat is wrong.

 

(...)

 

Since there's less than 6,000 intentional homicides a year in this country...

 

(...)

 

Seems I'm off a bit....but here ya go. Enjoy.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

 

From your link, Goofus.

In 2010, there were... 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The loftiest Choir chanting comes from Tom Ray. Very hi-tone, at times.

Whenever he's not using race-baiting tricks, or peddling gun suicides, or twisting stats, or cherry-picking anomalies, he's introducing Rev. Mosteller I. and Rev. Mosteller II.

 

 

 

Since you seem to have something to say about my posts in this thread, why not reply to them and say it to me in this thread instead of talking about it to someone else in another thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The loftiest Choir chanting comes from Tom Ray. Very hi-tone, at times.

Whenever he's not using race-baiting tricks, or peddling gun suicides, or twisting stats, or cherry-picking anomalies, he's introducing Rev. Mosteller I. and Rev. Mosteller II.

 

 

Since you seem to have something to say about my posts in this thread, why not reply to them and say it to me in this thread instead of talking about it to someone else in another thread?

 

 

 

You ever see a dozen eggs tossed into a cement mixer while it's spinning? That's exactly like what goes on between JokeAwfs' ears.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The loftiest Choir chanting comes from Tom Ray. Very hi-tone, at times.

Whenever he's not using race-baiting tricks, or peddling gun suicides, or twisting stats, or cherry-picking anomalies, he's introducing Rev. Mosteller I. and Rev. Mosteller II.

 

 

Since you seem to have something to say about my posts in this thread, why not reply to them and say it to me in this thread instead of talking about it to someone else in another thread?

 

 

 

You ever see a dozen eggs tossed into a cement mixer while it's spinning? That's exactly like what goes on between JokeAwfs' ears.....

 

 

Hahaha! that's some funny shit right there, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The loftiest Choir chanting comes from Tom Ray. Very hi-tone, at times.

Whenever he's not using race-baiting tricks, or peddling gun suicides, or twisting stats, or cherry-picking anomalies, he's introducing Rev. Mosteller I. and Rev. Mosteller II.

 

 

Since you seem to have something to say about my posts in this thread, why not reply to them and say it to me in this thread instead of talking about it to someone else in another thread?

 

 

I pretty much comment as I wish, to whomever, on whatever thread I am reading.

Tell us about your interest in our Rev. Mosteller, on the thread of your choice.

This is my fourth request of The Badgeless Dodger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Darren X makes more sense.

 

Black Panthers Encourage Firearms Proliferation


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

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


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did the trailer trash mentality begin with you?

Was it your environment? Was it instilled by your mother?

If I understand it correctly, was she not an attorney, and a prosecutor?

Let's go sailing someday, just the three of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did the trailer trash mentality begin with you?

Was it your environment? Was it instilled by your mother?

If I understand it correctly, was she not an attorney, and a prosecutor?

Let's go sailing someday, just the three of us.

 

The trailer trash mentality that blacks shouldn't have guns is way older than I am. I pointed it out before. Not sure where or when you got it.

 

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

 

Your repeated requests to sail with my mother are creepy. There's no way I'd introduce you. If I did, you might learn that she doesn't like sailing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf thinks women should just lay there and take it while they are being raped and killed. To do anything to protect themselves would mean they are bloodthirsty vigilantes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf thinks women should just lay there and take it while they are being raped and killed. To do anything to protect themselves would mean they are bloodthirsty vigilantes.

 

 

When did the trailer trash mentality begin with you?

Was it your environment? Was it instilled by your mother?

If I understand it correctly, was she not an attorney, and a prosecutor?

Let's go sailing someday, just the three of us.

 

The trailer trash mentality that blacks shouldn't have guns is way older than I am. I pointed it out before. Not sure where or when you got it.

 

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

 

Your repeated requests to sail with my mother are creepy. There's no way I'd introduce you. If I did, you might learn that she doesn't like sailing.

 

 

 

Sorry to hear that your mother doesn't care for sailing. That's a bad break.

But she may enjoy good conversation. Let's just get some coffee, the three of us.

I can say what IU need to say in front of you, Tom.

 

Do your a-moral beliefs originate with her?

Would she approve of your dangerous, heartless policies, as outlined over the years on our Political Anarchy?

Is she a southern redneck dressed up as a lofty intellectual too?

I would settle for her e-mail address. It is amazing to have met you, Pal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf thinks women should just lay there and take it while they are being raped and killed. To do anything to protect themselves would mean they are bloodthirsty vigilantes.

 

 

Yups. 'Cuz he feels self defense is just sooooo un-fuking civilized....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke-awf thinks women should just lay there and take it while they are being raped and killed. To do anything to protect themselves would mean they are bloodthirsty vigilantes.

 

Infantile stuff. Follow your own meme.Go to the cause of the rape, the behavior. The problem actually rests within average males, who let their sex drive take them places they are not welcome.

 

The morals and values which you present are sorted by parents about age eight, in third grade. (When reason emerges in young humans.)

Your violence-based ethics are a lie. If guns brought safety to women in the USA, scientists would propose guns for women in many situations.

 

They don't. Because evidence-based facts show (quite consistently) that the gun a woman may choose for her protection will actually be used by males (whom she knows) against her.

 

Guns prey upon the weak elements of society, women, children, and the dis-enfranchised:

FBI report on Women and Self Defense

In 2009…1,818 females were murdered by males in single victim/single offender incidents that were submitted to the FBI for its Supplementary Homicide Report. Examination of that data dispels many of the myths regarding the nature of lethal violence against females.

  • For homicides in which victim-to-offender relationship could be identified, 93% of female victim (1,579 out of 1,693) were murdered by a male they knew.
  • Nearly fourteen times as may females were murdered by a male they knew (1,579 victims) as were killed by male strangers (114 victims).
  • For victims who knew their offenders, 63% (989) of female homicide victims were wives or intimate acquaintances of their killers.
  • There were 296 women shot and killed by either their husbands or acquaintances during the course of an argument.
  • Nationwide, for homicides in which the weapon could be determined (1,654), more female homicides were committed with firearms (53%) than any other weapon.

 

Jeffie. You are peddling another Cuntfinder Cliche. You could enlighten yourself here, any year now:

 

When Men Murder Women:

An Analysis of 2001 to 2011 Homicide Data

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

In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun.

 

On the whole, guns DO NOT work for the betterment of women.

The guns you propose kill women at the hands of men. Each of these men is somewhat human, like you and me. You have no case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'But if we can save just one life'......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

When Men Murder Women:

An Analysis of 2001 to 2011 Homicide Data

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

In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun.

 

On the whole, guns DO NOT work for the betterment of women.

The guns you propose kill women at the hands of men. Each of these men is somewhat human, like you and me. You have no case.

 

 

The value of a firearm cannot be determined in this way, from counting up gun use such as to kill an assailant. A firearm's real value is in preventing violence, i.e.. deterrence. As usual, you confuse defensive uses with deterrent value. That 101 women murdered figure would be a whole lot lower without a doubt had the majority been armed.

 

More importantly, it's not up to you to decide for others whether they have the right of self-defense. That is a natural right, which in this country anyway, 'shall not be infringed'.

 

Q: How many rounds should she get to protect herself from a Jokeauf?

partisan_girl_4306web.jpg

A: As many as she needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Joke-awf thinks women should just lay there and take it while they are being raped and killed. To do anything to protect themselves would mean they are bloodthirsty vigilantes.

 

 

When did the trailer trash mentality begin with you?

Was it your environment? Was it instilled by your mother?

If I understand it correctly, was she not an attorney, and a prosecutor?

Let's go sailing someday, just the three of us.

 

The trailer trash mentality that blacks shouldn't have guns is way older than I am. I pointed it out before. Not sure where or when you got it.

 

In the antebellum period, the chief justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, wrote a grave warning into the heart of the execrable Dred Scott decision. If blacks were permitted to become citizens, Taney cautioned, they, like whites, would have full liberty to “keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

Your repeated requests to sail with my mother are creepy. There's no way I'd introduce you. If I did, you might learn that she doesn't like sailing.

 

Sorry to hear that your mother doesn't care for sailing. That's a bad break.

But she may enjoy good conversation. Let's just get some coffee, the three of us.

I can say what IU need to say in front of you, Tom.

 

Do your a-moral beliefs originate with her?

Would she approve of your dangerous, heartless policies, as outlined over the years on our Political Anarchy?

Is she a southern redneck dressed up as a lofty intellectual too?

I would settle for her e-mail address. It is amazing to have met you, Pal.

CREE

 

PEE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

When Men Murder Women:

An Analysis of 2001 to 2011 Homicide Data

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

In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun.

 

On the whole, guns DO NOT work for the betterment of women.

The guns you propose kill women at the hands of men. Each of these men is somewhat human, like you and me. You have no case.

 

 

The value of a firearm cannot be determined in this way, from counting up gun use such as to kill an assailant. A firearm's real value is in preventing violence, i.e.. deterrence. As usual, you confuse defensive uses with deterrent value. Well, that's the problem. They don't deter violence, they create a primal reaction to danger: the "Weapons Effect". Guns are violence-based; their intended use, or a reliance upon them, participates in the chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course. That 101 women murdered figure would be a whole lot lower without a doubt had the majority been armed. Gain a clue. The scientific evidence, much-presented here, says that 101 women murdered figure happened because too many guns were all about.

 

More importantly, it's not up to you to decide for others whether they have the right of self-defense. Self defense per se is fine. Self defense itself will excel alongside the responsible regulation of firearms.Further developments in inner resources, and our chosen emotional responses is already happening. Yoga develops the compassionate/understanding part of the brain, for example, while training for physical violence develops the aggression part of the brain. That is a natural right, which in this country anyway, 'shall not be infringed'. That's hyperbole, mate. Heller says, in very strong terms, these very rights can be regulated. State courts and federal appeals courts have sustained that.

 

Q: How many rounds should she get to protect herself from a Jokeauf? Where do you get this bit? Since I have zero history as a sexual predator, you must be suggesting she shoot me for stating my pro-regulation view of guns. WTF?

 

Your mentality seems both unfair and unhealthy. Combined with guns, that mentality shows a bad mix, NGS.

partisan_girl_4306web.jpg

A: As many as she needs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are violence-based; they participate in a chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course. [/color]

Guns "participate"??? Wow, so the inanimate objects participate now of their own free will.

 

Hahaha, and the unraveling of joke-awf continues.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The value of a firearm cannot be determined in this way, from counting up gun use such as to kill an assailant. A firearm's real value is in preventing violence, i.e.. deterrence. As usual, you confuse defensive uses with deterrent value.

 

"Well, that's the problem. Guns are violence-based; they participate in a chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course.

Ergo, to prevent such violence, you will surrender your firearms to der Jokeawf."

 

HANDBIL3.gif

 

hol-1.gif

 

 

partisan_girl_4306web.jpg

 

 

"Ummm... No thanks, der Jokeawuf."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guns are violence-based; they participate in a chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course. [/color]

Guns "participate"??? Wow, so the inanimate objects participate now of their own free will.

 

Hahaha, and the unraveling of joke-awf continues.....

 

 

The Cuntfinder changed the words of my quote. I didn't say those words. I spoke of the human motivation behind the gun.

Here is what I wrote (see Post 574).

 

 

. Guns are violence-based; their intended use, or a reliance upon them, participates in the chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Guns are violence-based; they participate in a chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course. [/color]

Guns "participate"??? Wow, so the inanimate objects participate now of their own free will.

 

Hahaha, and the unraveling of joke-awf continues.....

The Cuntfinder changed the words of my quote. I didn't say those words. I spoke of the human motivation behind the gun.

Here is what I wrote (see Post 574).

 

. Guns are violence-based; their intended use, or a reliance upon them, participates in the chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course.

No I didn't change anything at all. I quoted you verbatim. Are you resorting to lying now, you POS?

 

Edit: I want and rechecked your post and you DID CHANGE IT!! You motherfucking coward POS cunt. You are not a man if you can't even own your words. You could have easily said that's wasn't what you meant and given your contorted writing style, no one would have questioned that. But to go back and change it after you'd been caught and then lie about it??? WTFF????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf, dts.

 

Goodbye fuck-apple.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Guns are violence-based; they participate in a chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course. [/color]

Guns "participate"??? Wow, so the inanimate objects participate now of their own free will.

 

Hahaha, and the unraveling of joke-awf continues.....

The Cuntfinder changed the words of my quote. I didn't say those words. I spoke of the human motivation behind the gun.

Here is what I wrote (see Post 574).

 

. Guns are violence-based; their intended use, or a reliance upon them, participates in the chain of violence. Violence breeds violence, of course.

No I didn't change anything at all. I quoted you verbatim. Are you resorting to lying now, you POS?

 

Edit: I want and rechecked your post and you DID CHANGE IT!! You motherfucking coward POS cunt. You are not a man if you can't even own your words. You could have easily said that's wasn't what you meant and given your contorted writing style, no one would have questioned that. But to go back and change it after you'd been caught and then lie about it??? WTFF????

 

 

I didn't even notice your post for a day or so. Anything I edit is for clarity, or to better express my understanding of these things.

I edit stuff (pretty frequently, too) to be as clear as possible, and to express my genuine POV.

 

But now that you mention it, the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine agree with the idea that guns participate in violence. They define the gun as an AGENT in each act of gun violence. And the AMA has recently stated guns have brought an epidemic of gun violence.

 

No offense, but mosquitoes once came into the attention of science, as agents of epidemic malaria. Many mosquitoes got sprayed with deadly chemicals, and their swamps got drained. That malaria was contained through science. Damage control can be brought to the gun violence situation through similar science. That's how civilized nations roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JokeAwf, dts.

 

Goodbye fuck-apple.....

 

The more I think about it, I might take you up on that 2015 deadpool thing. He's becoming more unraveled by the minute....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites