Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NastyFart

2 yr old shoots mom in walmart

Recommended Posts

Speaking of the CDC, a query report from its WISQARS for all unintentional injuries

 

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

 

sfau6c.gif

 

Found in an article a couple days ago

 

http://extranosalley.com/?p=67267

 

Pretty safe to have a firearm in the home, huh? I'll take my chances.

that's your call.

 

No one is stopping you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the CDC, a query report from its WISQARS for all unintentional injuries

 

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

 

sfau6c.gif

 

Found in an article a couple days ago

 

http://extranosalley.com/?p=67267

 

Pretty safe to have a firearm in the home, huh? I'll take my chances.

 

HAH, you are twice as likely to be killed by a firearm as being run over by someone on a bicycle.

 

There's some proof for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Speaking of the CDC, a query report from its WISQARS for all unintentional injuries

 

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

 

sfau6c.gif

 

Found in an article a couple days ago

 

http://extranosalley.com/?p=67267

 

Pretty safe to have a firearm in the home, huh? I'll take my chances.

 

HAH, you are twice as likely to be killed by a firearm as being run over by someone on a bicycle.

 

There's some proof for you.

Well, I do walk around our King William district a lot. Damn hipsters may kill me yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jesus, Jose y Maria! Do I have to do all the heavy lifting around here? The phrase is correlation doesn't imply causation. And in this case, why the fuck would it? The kid is the (pardon the expression) nigger in the woodpile.

 

And Random is calling the other guy stupid! YCMTSU.

 

You don't get to use offensive racist phrases like that and excuse it by saying pardon. African Americans have had a hell of a struggle over several centuries of our history here in the US. There is never a place or an excuse to use cutesy racist sayings. It hurts good folks you don't even know and exposes your ignorance at best and a dark and hateful heart at worst.

It isn't just unfair that white guys don't get to use that word too...it is SO Unfair. Right RD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nigger in the woodpile is just an expression that the younger crowd hasn't heard. Note that Red Tuna (what's that anyway?) and Oboist tried to get all engineering and statistical on me like they had the only knowledge of a "random variable." I take that to mean the only way they knew how to use the term. And that's really common on the internet:"I know what I know and you fuckin don't!"

 

You folks that are so sure of yourselves are amazing: you have no idea what you don't know, and you don't think there's anything more to know.

 

And as we continue to dumb down education, so that "no child is left behind" (I couldn't even type it with a straight face) It's never going to improve.

 

The shame, it seems to me, is that life is so much narrower with no education, or with the razor thin technocrat education that so many are going for these days. I made sure my kids saw the world and were truly educated. They're still young so who knows how life will play out for them, but they are starting out armed with a lot broader base of knowledge than many of you bullshitters and blowhards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it Sol. You seem to have one of those self-inflated egos here. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that you have something to offer, yet I see 54,000 posts and counting. What a fucking waste of bandwidth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N... In the woodpile

N... Rig

N... Wipe

Boat N...

 

All those are terms the younger crowd might not have heard before. Apparently all you need to do is say "pardon the expression" and it's the N...'s fault if he's offended. Plus, it shows you have a well rounded education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it Sol. You seem to have one of those self-inflated egos here. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that you have something to offer, yet I see 54,000 posts and counting. What a fucking waste of bandwidth.

Oh my god and baby jesus too. Somebody's sock puppet is saying mean awful terriblenasty things about me. Help. Help. I can't handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the ignorant assholish championship thread from 2008. Took me two beers to get through it which was the highlight of the endeavor.

 

 

Not much has changed from now til then; same silly jr high shit. I don't want to think what you guys are like in real life. I don't think participating in this forum is healthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which thread specifically? Your description is pretty broad for this forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Speaking of the CDC, a query report from its WISQARS for all unintentional injuries

 

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

 

sfau6c.gif

 

Found in an article a couple days ago

 

http://extranosalley.com/?p=67267

 

Pretty safe to have a firearm in the home, huh? I'll take my chances.

HAH, you are twice as likely to be killed by a firearm as being run over by someone on a bicycle.

 

There's some proof for you.

Those are unintentional injuries. How many people are unintentionally injured by firearms? Sure, some are, but it must be rare.

 

Then again, if two lovers get into a passionate argument and it escalates straight to hell so that one shoots the other, that chart will have no mention of it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Speaking of the CDC, a query report from its WISQARS for all unintentional injuries

 

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

 

sfau6c.gif

 

Found in an article a couple days ago

 

http://extranosalley.com/?p=67267

 

Pretty safe to have a firearm in the home, huh? I'll take my chances.

HAH, you are twice as likely to be killed by a firearm as being run over by someone on a bicycle.

 

There's some proof for you.

Those are unintentional injuries. How many people are unintentionally injured by firearms? Sure, some are, but it must be rare.

 

Then again, if two lovers get into a passionate argument and it escalates straight to hell so that one shoots the other, that chart will have no mention of it at all.

 

Have no mention at all??? Really? More deliberate woolfing, I see. "Intentional injuries" are what most edumacated people call "crimes" and are in fact mentioned - just not in a table on unintentional injuries.

 

You are welcome. I'm glad I could clear that up for you......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we have racists supporting the gun toting mom (now deceased)...

 

and racists, using charts to tell us how safe their precious guns are..

 

only chart missing is inverse correlation between gun ownership and IQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only chart missing is inverse correlation between gun ownership and IQ

 

I think a chart showing the correlation between the number of douchebag sockpuppets a poster has and his penile dysfunction rate would very be enlightening......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

only chart missing is inverse correlation between gun ownership and IQ

 

I think a chart showing the correlation between the number of douchebag sockpuppets a poster has and his penile dysfunction rate would very be enlightening......

word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the ignorant assholish championship thread from 2008. Took me two beers to get through it which was the highlight of the endeavor.

 

 

Not much has changed from now til then; same silly jr high shit. I don't want to think what you guys are like in real life. I don't think participating in this forum is healthy.

You know where the door is. Sitting at a party and getting all mouthy after only two beers, complaining that the company is disagreeable, is the act of a fool if one chooses to stay.

 

Find another party. It's OK. No one will judge you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which thread specifically? Your description is pretty broad for this forum

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=73596

 

I read it to get a sense of these older posters like Gator, and others that I hadn't read or even heard of. What I noticed tho was that Sol was chided over and over for posting "shit and sailing pics". So like I assumed, a lot of Sol's 54,000 posts were garbage, intended only to disrupt the various threads. I was very surprised when Elle did that with the dog drift in the torture thread but that was before I understood the game. Poopie Pants is in on this as well, and I just see it as inappropriate and juvenile. How desperate are these people for attention?

 

In my current scuffle with Sol, I was going to go back and find the post he made that took up an entire page with one sentence repeated ad nauseam but decided it wasn't worth the effort. Sol claims to be a guy who speaks his mind but a lot of those posts read like out of his ass. I guess he has to move 505's nose out of the way before posting. Perhaps not.

 

And how about Mike Wof? The man just will not quit arguing. There's something very wrong there. The only redeeming social value I've seen in Ed's posts are that they're short.

 

All up, I don't see this as a real active political forum with genuine political discourse but rather an ongoing gang fight between very longterm rivals. When yer a jet, yer a jet all the way.

 

For my own mental health, I'm unfollowing this silly shit and reserve the right to jump in on a real discussion when and if.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which thread specifically? Your description is pretty broad for this forum

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=73596

 

I read it to get a sense of these older posters like Gator, and others that I hadn't read or even heard of. What I noticed tho was that Sol was chided over and over for posting "shit and sailing pics". So like I assumed, a lot of Sol's 54,000 posts were garbage, intended only to disrupt the various threads. I was very surprised when Elle did that with the dog drift in the torture thread but that was before I understood the game. Poopie Pants is in on this as well, and I just see it as inappropriate and juvenile. How desperate are these people for attention?

 

In my current scuffle with Sol, I was going to go back and find the post he made that took up an entire page with one sentence repeated ad nauseam but decided it wasn't worth the effort. Sol claims to be a guy who speaks his mind but a lot of those posts read like out of his ass. I guess he has to move 505's nose out of the way before posting. Perhaps not.

 

And how about Mike Wof? The man just will not quit arguing. There's something very wrong there. The only redeeming social value I've seen in Ed's posts are that they're short.

 

All up, I don't see this as a real active political forum with genuine political discourse but rather an ongoing gang fight between very longterm rivals. When yer a jet, yer a jet all the way.

 

For my own mental health, I'm unfollowing this silly shit and reserve the right to jump in on a real discussion when and if.

A505, check it out. You got RD to do the old Malarkey trick of claiming to search the forums to read about people.

 

Creepy. Cree

 

py.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know where the door is. Sitting at a party and getting all mouthy after only two beers, complaining that the company is disagreeable, is the act of a fool if one chooses to stay.

 

Find another party. It's OK. No one will judge you.

 

Yes we will, but that's still no reason not to GTFO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you say so... I was talking about one person's professed dislike for SA, yet, hangs out on SA. In the context of that part of the conversation, a person who dislikes the company and leaves has done the honorable thing whether he deserves judgement on other grounds or not. He who stays, complaining about how much it sucketh - go and judge away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

only chart missing is inverse correlation between gun ownership and IQ

 

I think a chart showing the correlation between the number of douchebag sockpuppets a poster has and his penile dysfunction rate would very be enlightening......

word

you gun experts, please weigh in on the topic of penile dysfunction...

 

you seem to have some level of experience here??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you say so... I was talking about one person's professed dislike for SA, yet, hangs out on SA. In the context of that part of the conversation, a person who dislikes the company and leaves has done the honorable thing whether he deserves judgement on other grounds or not. He who stays, complaining about how much it sucketh - go and judge away.

This would be the same poster who complained about the level of discourse upon arrival and then proceeded to take daily dumps here.

 

It never ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom, if I carry, how can I not have a higher risk?

 

It's like a car. I can avoid most car accidents if I never get in a car.

 

I may still get run over on a sidewalk or I may get shot by some random nutter, but I can't get killed with my own gun or with my own car if I don't have one,

I would love to know who is disputing that point? I think most of us view it as an acceptable risk given that accidental shooting deaths are a tiny percentage of the overal number of accidental deaths. You are correct - I could reduce my risk to almost zero if I never was around a gun just like I could reduce my risk of dying in a plane crash if I never set foot on an airplane. I could also seriously reduce my risk of cholesterol if I never ate a steak. But those are all risks I'm willing to take. We all, every single one of us make risk decisions everyday. Probably hourly. What's your point again?

 

Here's the point. Okay, you make a personal choice to accept the danger of eating a steak, or having a firearm. But unlike the steak, at the point you take that gun outside it becomes a public danger. When you plave that gun loaded in your house, you endanger children and visitors inside your home. At the point you force guns into libraries, parks, and interstate roads, you apply that danger, and whatever rationale a random gun-toter may use at a given moment, to others.

With a gun, your personal choice has public consequences. With the gun lobby's broad push for gun laxity, the guns of a minority endanger all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How one can convince oneself that this vast proliferation of guns is a good thing for society at large is beyond me. Some tortured logic going on here.

 

Vast proliferation??? Gun ownership as a % of the total population is actually down from a couple of decades ago. BAck in the day there WAS a vast proliferation of guns compared to the population. And yet mass shootings, school shootings and such rarely occured. What changed since then? It was the gun. The gun has remained unchanged for 50+ years. And yes, there were scary black AR-15s even back 30+ years ago.

 

Hint: people changed......

 

Gun ownership is working pretty well in Switzerland, where it's like 100% of households.

 

The Swiss have a gun utopia?

Firearm access and ownership in Israel and Switzerland

This section assesses gun control opponents’ claim that Switzerland and Israel have permissive gun control laws.

 

The Swiss federal government requires gun permit applicants to demonstrate need for protection against a specific risk and pass weapons safety and firearm use regulation tests (Swiss code RS 514.54, ch. 6, art. 27 (1997)). Permit holders may own only one handgun for 6 months, after which they must renew their permit every 3 months (Swiss code RS 514.54, ch. 2, §1, art. 8 (1997))

 

Gun ownership in Switzerland

Poe called Switzerland “the most heavily armed nation on earth, per capita,” with 2 million guns7,8. At the time of his writing, Poe was not correct: the 2002 Small Arms Survey estimated 1.2 million civilian firearms in Switzerland, or 16 per 100 residents29, versus 83–97 civilian firearms per 100 residents in the US for the same period21 Swiss firearm ownership increased between 2002 and 2007 Small Arms Surveys because military rifles were released to the public due to drastic army size reductions30,31. In 2007, Switzerlandhad 31–60 total firearms per 100 residents, about the same as Finland, and less than the estimated 83–97 per 100 in the US and 29–81 per 100 in Yemen31.

 

On a per-household basis, the nationally representative ICVS data find that, compared with Swiss households, more US households own handguns and at least as many own firearms (Figure 1). A quarter of Swiss households reported that they own a gun for army service. Few Swiss households, less than 13%, own a gun for non-military reasons. Gun advocates claim that Swiss own guns due to tradition7,32,33, but more than six times as many US households reported owning a gun because they’ve “always had one” (Figure 2). Gun advocates claim that Swiss own guns because shooting contests are the national sport32,33, but only 5% of Swiss households reported owning guns for sport versus 12% of American households. Eight times as many American households reported owning a gun for “self-protection” as did Swiss.

 

Switzerland’s limited gun access does not prevent gun violence. Greater firearm ownership predicts greater firearm suicide, homicide of females, and murder-suicide34. Swiss gun owners are more likely than non-gun owners to report having seriously injured others35. Respondents who owned a handgun or more than one gun reported more violence than respondents who owned long guns or just one gun35. These findings imply that either owning a gun makes these men more violent, or that more violent men choose to own guns and Swiss law does not screen out violent men.

 

Switzerland has a large proportion of firearm suicide relative to other European countries, and the proportion increased as household gun ownership increased between 1983 and 200036. Within Switzerland, Swiss cantons with greater household firearm ownership had more firearm suicide between 1998 and 2007, and firearm suicide decreased as household firearm ownership declined in this decade37. Military weapons account for about 40% of firearm suicides in Switzerland37 and at least a third of murder-suicides34.Firearm prevalence in Switzerland is also proportional to the prevalence of firearm homicide of women but not men38. These ecological studies are correlational, but Martin Killias notes that they are unlikely attributable to confounding by violent crime. High rates of violent crime might induce firearm ownership, but there is no “third variable which, simultaneously, might push people to buy guns, to kill female partners (but not male opponents), and to commit assault or suicide, but not robbery.”38.

 

Conclusions

Swiss and Israeli gun ownership is rare, regulated stringently such as by putting the burden of proof on permit applicants to demonstrate a specific need for a gun, and neither country encourages gun ownership. The extensive gun control in both countries do not prevent guns from being associated with violent deaths, but increased gun control in the Israeli army may have reduced gun suicide. The evidence from Switzerland and Israel seems to concur with the public health literature finding3.

 

<http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3267868/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, dangerous out there. Seems like everyone has a gun.

 

If everyone has a gun and a single accident is news, that would seem to indicate that the practice of owning and carrying guns is remarkably safe. We are so used to car accidents that they never make the national news. A woman was speeding here and crashed her minivan killing 5 kids in the van. That did not make anything more than our little local paper, probably because car crashes that kill people are so common. Another woman just got sentenced because she thought giving a toddler oxicodone was a good way to quiet the kid down, she did not realize it would be permanent. I think the lesson is that stupid people are dangerous, and stupid people with dangerous things are even more dangerous. But yeah... GUN!!

 

Len, viewing the U.S. gun problem is like a slow-motion train wreck. It can be mesmerizing. Your own part, the constant rationalizations, is certainly a part of the interest for me.

 

Such a tragedy draws attention from many, because it is fascinating to watch such stupidity in play.

Sean has stated it plainly: her chosen lifestyle, to pack a handgun, was specifically what proved fatal.

Crikes, Len, she was the most dangerous situation in that Wal-Mart, because of the gunster lifestyle.

Her purse was only days old, it had been a Christmas present from the now-bereaved husband. It was a purpose-built handgun purse; the child may have opened the zipper to the gun compartment, where she found a loaded, chambered gun with no safety and a trigger so sensitive it had been the subject of a recall.

Very sad. My thoughts of support go out to the family, but not so much to the hapless Second Amendment. Three other children saw that shooting; I doubt they will buy into being fans of CC.

In all her lifestyle of sophistication with firarms, the deceased chose an easy trigger pull...with a loaded chamber in her zipper gun purse. She was very cool, for a few days.

On December 31, the Kootenai County Sheriff’s Department issued a formal statement about the shooting and this clarified things for me in one respect but created an even greater sense of unease in another. It turns out that Veronica Rutledge was shot with a Smith & Wesson 9mm pistol, but it was a gun called The Shield, which is one of the smaller and more compact full-caliber guns available to buy. The Shield was designed for the concealed-carry market and with a total length of just 6 inches and an unloaded weight of slightly more than one pound, the gun slips easily into a purse and can be operated without difficulty by someone with small hands. In other words, it’s the perfect gun for a woman who, like Veronica Rutledge, wanted to walk around with a gun.

 

It’s also a gun that could be grabbed and shot by a little kid since the gun’s action, known as striker fire, was specifically developed for use by law enforcement personnel who might need to activate the firing mechanism quickly without disengaging an external safety or being slowed by a long or heavy trigger ‘creep.’ The striker design was developed by Glock and when Smith & Wesson decided to revamp its pistol line to compete with the Austrian gun maker, they outfitted all their police guns with the striker-fired design.

 

This explains how a very young child might have been able to pick up his mother’s gun and shoot off a round. But the story also has a rather disquieting side because in August, 2013 Smith & Wesson recalled every single Shield pistol manufactured to date. The reason was to fix a flaw in the trigger which could result in the gun discharging if it were dropped. Which means that the gun might discharge with the trigger hardly being pulled.

 

I don’t know when Veronica Rutledge purchased her Shield or when it was made. But if what I said about the defect was true for her gun, we may not just be talking about a terrible accident. We may be talking about wrongful death. On the other hand, no matter how and why Veronica Rutledge died, the important question isn’t whether the gun worked properly or not. The only real question is why was the gun in her purse? Her family said she was ‘raised’ around guns. That’s not much of a reason to lose your life – it’s really not

 

Pasted from <http://mikethegunguy.com/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Len, viewing the U.S. gun problem is like a slow-motion train wreck.

The US doesn't have a "gun" problem. It has a "violence and a stupid" problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I had no idea that such specialist handbags existed. How fucked-up is a culture where such a thing is created, let alone purchased and used. Anyone with half a brain would have looked at the 'idea' and in three heartbeats come to the conclusion that this type of mishap would be made possible.

 

My wife has a couple of them. I have a fanny pack designed for concealed carry. There are also a wide variety of holsters to hold a gun inside the waistband, under an arm, on your ankle, all kinds of places.

 

This woman put it down for a second. You just can't do that, any more than you can just leave a gun lying on the counter. A holster containing a gun (and CC purses are just overgrown holsters) should ONLY be put down where you would put a gun down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Seriously, I had no idea that such specialist handbags existed. How fucked-up is a culture where such a thing is created, let alone purchased and used. Anyone with half a brain would have looked at the 'idea' and in three heartbeats come to the conclusion that this type of mishap would be made possible.

 

My wife has a couple of them. I have a fanny pack designed for concealed carry. There are also a wide variety of holsters to hold a gun inside the waistband, under an arm, on your ankle, all kinds of places.

 

This woman put it down for a second. You just can't do that, any more than you can just leave a gun lying on the counter. A holster containing a gun (and CC purses are just overgrown holsters) should ONLY be put down where you would put a gun down.

Tom. The idea that my wife has to carry a firearm is so fucking extreme that I can't comprehend it. Not kidding. WTF! GTF outta there FFS. JFC and whatever other FB abreviations are applicable. Get a boat and sail away.

 

She doesn't have to, but sometimes chooses to. She has experienced the feeling of wanting a gun to protect herself but not having one and doesn't wish to repeat it. It doesn't seem crazy to me and I've never experienced that feeling.

 

Should I take her car away too? I consider it a far greater danger to her health.

 

Owning and carrying guns is not a major risk in our lives. It's sometimes a PITA to do it safely, so I don't do it at all. The reason is what I said above: a holster containing a gun must be treated as you would treat a gun. The consequences for ignoring firearms safety can indeed be severe.

 

I expect I'll never have to shoot anyone and something other than a gun will eventually kill me, just like virtually every other American gun owner. Including our cops, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But she did put it down. That's what humans do, they are not machines. Gun + humans =

 

Violence, self-defense, and mistakes, among other things.

 

The topic incident happened in Idaho, a state that makes our top-ten list in gun ownership rates. It makes a couple of other top ten lists... Lowest in violent crime and lowest in murder rate. Did the high gun ownership rate cause those things?

 

brady-vs-census.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you say so... I was talking about one person's professed dislike for SA, yet, hangs out on SA. In the context of that part of the conversation, a person who dislikes the company and leaves has done the honorable thing whether he deserves judgement on other grounds or not. He who stays, complaining about how much it sucketh - go and judge away.

This would be the same poster who complained about the level of discourse upon arrival and then proceeded to take daily dumps here.

 

It never ends.

 

As I said elsewhere: "And there is the problem. I'm a fairly reasonable person but ya start reading these rabid hyenas, and the conversation, like freeway driving, quickly goes to the lowest common denominator; never the highest."

 

I think, D', you have opined along these same lines.

 

...

 

Thanks jocal for what I assume is the real scoop on Swiss gun ownership. Guess that other info is urban legend, gun lobby stuff.

...

 

Sure glad I live in a country where firearms ownership is a choice, and there are forums where whiners can bitch their little hearts out that other folks have rights too.

 

Think I'll go into the nearby woods and go boom boom boom! for awhile, and blow the bejessus out of hapless beer cans while screaming "get yer hands up and don't move!" Je suis part of the militia.

 

Then popatop on a fresh one while contemplating you 9-5ers happily slaving away so that others can redistribute your money. Is this a great country or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

number are approximate since some data is from different years but the scale is accurate (most data is from 2010)

 

gun suicides 19,372

gun murders 11,078

Black offenders 6,500

Hispanic offenders 1,400

 

White (non hispanic) murder rate in America 1.03 per 100,000 people

 

Swiss 0.60 per 100,000 people

Germany 0.80

France 1.00

USA 1.03

Australia 1.10

UK 1.10

Canada 1.60

Finland 1.60

Norway 2.20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do have one question. Are those non-white offenders US citizens? Guessing not otherwise you wouldn't have seen the need to separate them out.

 

Just checking ... maybe you could get serious and start breaking them down further like they did in South Africa under apartheid.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Registration_Act,_1950

 

"For example, the following criteria were used for separating the coloureds from the whites:[2]

  • Characteristics of the person's head hair
  • Characteristics of the person's other hair
  • Skin colour
  • Facial features
  • Home language and especially the knowledge of Afrikaans
  • Area where the person lives, the person's friends and acquaintances
  • Employment
  • Socioeconomic status
  • Eating and drinking habits

 

Is separating out white people bad?

 

If so, please chastise jocal.

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

angrywhitemales_zpsb561b7b1.png

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a lying cunt HJ. You have put this up in a discussion on guns when they are figures for any method. Weasel.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_gun_homicide

 

Australia Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People = 0.2 (2012)

Are you surprised by happys disingenuous use of stats? Seems par for the course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are a lying cunt HJ. You have put this up in a discussion on guns when they are figures for any method. Weasel.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_gun_homicide

 

Australia Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People = 0.2 (2012)

Are you surprised by happys disingenuous use of stats? Seems par for the course

 

You are correct I seem to have mixed statics ( unintended but sloppy on my part). I make very few mistakes and own up when I do. Your par for the course is a lie.

 

In any case the point remains The US murder rates can not be compared to nations that historically have small ethnic immigrant populations. France where I have family has and is learning what happens when you open your arms to large ethnic migrations and the results are not universally positive. In France's case the problems are coming from Roma and Islamic immigrants.

 

Compared fairly the US rates are average among first world nations.

 

The corrected figure for ALL US White murderers is below so now the comparison is really apples to apples.

 

Numbers are approximate since some data is from different years (+- a year or two for some countries) but the scale is representative (most data is from 2010. the last year I could find statistics by ethnicity. In most tables hispanics are simply combined with White )

gun suicides 19,372

gun murders 11,078

Black offenders 6,500

Hispanic offenders 1,400

White (non hispanic) gun murder rate in America 1.03 per 100,000 people

White (non hispanic) total murder rate in America approx 1.49 per 100,000 people

Swiss 0.60 per 100,000 people

Germany 0.80

France 1.00

Australia 1.10

UK 1.10

USA 1.49

Canada 1.60

Finland 1.60

Norway 2.20

​PS: if it were possible to isolate ethnic murderers from the other nations it might change their rates marginally as well but I don't think it would change the ordering in the table above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a lying cunt HJ. You have put this up in a discussion on guns when they are figures for any method. Weasel.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_gun_homicide

 

Australia Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People = 0.2 (2012)

 

 

You are a lying cunt HJ. You have put this up in a discussion on guns when they are figures for any method. Weasel.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_gun_homicide

 

Australia Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People = 0.2 (2012)

Are you surprised by happys disingenuous use of stats? Seems par for the course

 

 

Being shot to death is somehow worse than being beaten to death, or stabbed to death, or ...?

 

Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are a lying cunt HJ. You have put this up in a discussion on guns when they are figures for any method. Weasel.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_gun_homicide

 

Australia Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People = 0.2 (2012)

>

You are a lying cunt HJ. You have put this up in a discussion on guns when they are figures for any method. Weasel.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_gun_homicide

 

Australia Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People = 0.2 (2012)

Are you surprised by happys disingenuous use of stats? Seems par for the course
Being shot to death is somehow worse than being beaten to death, or stabbed to death, or ...?

 

Really?

 

 

He was right; I mistakenly compared US gun murder against Aussie Total murder from all weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are a lying cunt HJ. You have put this up in a discussion on guns when they are figures for any method. Weasel.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_gun_homicide

 

Australia Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People = 0.2 (2012)

Are you surprised by happys disingenuous use of stats? Seems par for the course

 

 

LMAO. Says the guy who believes it when Bloomberg $ay$ we've had a hundred "school shootings" since Newtown. I think you and jocal are the only ones left here who have not called BS on those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Is separating out white people bad?

 

If so, please chastise jocal.

 

 

>...

 

 

angrywhitemales_zpsb561b7b1.png

lockquote>

 

 

 

 

 

Given the shared genocidal backgrounds of all countries that have been colonised by Europeans, including South Africa, there is something distasteful and even racist about racial profiling of citizens. As I pointed out in the above post, where are the boundaries once you start this course?

 

It all starts looking like Apartheid particularly when separating out white stats and then claiming the numbers for 'America' aren't so bad if you remove the numbers for non-whites. Apartheid was rejected by the rest of the world, apparently.

 

I'm not jocal. He's the one who posted the cartoon separating out white guys. Why are you getting on me about what he did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You are a lying cunt HJ. You have put this up in a discussion on guns when they are figures for any method. Weasel.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_gun_homicide

 

Australia Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People = 0.2 (2012)

Are you surprised by happys disingenuous use of stats? Seems par for the course

 

 

LMAO. Says the guy who believes it when Bloomberg $ay$ we've had a hundred "school shootings" since Newtown. I think you and jocal are the only ones left here who have not called BS on those.

 

The Badgeless wonder may be referring to this exchange:

Bloomberg's School Shooting Math, NOT 74 etc.

Speaking of cheap propaganda... Tom, 74 minus 15 is 59.

Are you attempting to dismiss some combination of 59 arguments settled by gunfire in schools, 59 gun accidents in schools, 59 incidents of gunfire near schools, etc?

Even if you are, both the 74 figure and the 59 figure speak of a BIG, ongoing problem of guns in schools.

Are you supporting arguing with guns in schools? Gun accidents in schools? Gunfire near schools? WTF?

Your entire line of reasoning here is cheap propaganda.

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=157877#entry4587702>

 

I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.

 

You present an extreme, socially crippled view to insist that the new normal must include or accept ANY school shootings. Educators, BTW, feel that the stress of school, and guns don't mix.

 

Again, even if you are correct, Badgeless One, that SDU's and gun disputes are hunky-dory in schools, the number of school shootings which meet your criteria still shows quite a problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A shooting at night, when no children nor teachers are present, that happens near a school, is not a school shooting to anyone who is not trying to drum up gun control propaganda.

 

That's why it IS one to you and Flash and Bloomberg,

 

You still don't want to comment on those CT gun laws you like and explain how they should be more strict and the confiscation should come sooner, do you?

 

Why not? Why talk to me? I don't even own one of those scary large cap magazine-holding guns you hate. Billy does. Go tell him what should have happened to his magazine instead of registering it. Don't be afraid to call what you advocate registration followed by confiscation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Len, viewing the U.S. gun problem is like a slow-motion train wreck.

The US doesn't have a "gun" problem. It has a "violence and a stupid" problem.

 

Where are your sources that we are more violent, or more dumb?

Because these research doctors have studied it, and they say otherwise.

 

Dr. David HEMENWAY:

I think the most shocking thing is to compare ourselves to the other developed countries. People think we have a violence problem in the United States, but we really don’t. We’re an average country in terms of all the violence measures you can think of, in terms of crime.

But where we’re very different is guns. We have lots more guns than anybody else, particularly handguns. A lot of countries have hunting rifles, but we have these handguns, and then we have these assault weapons. Secondly, we have by far the most permissive gun control laws, the weakest gun policies of any country. It’s not even close. Not surprisingly, we have more gun crime and more gun homicide.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/12/looking-for-lessons-in-newtown/>

Dr. Garen Wintemute, on Violence in the USA.

Emergency physician Wintemute argues that the first step to protecting children is to shed the assumption that homicides are inevitable, that America has a uniquely high share of wolves. If one ranks the 36 developed nations on the rates of violent assault, he says, America is third from the bottom, relatively safe.

"What makes us unique is not our violence rate but our homicide rate," Wintemute said. "We add firearms to the mix."

<http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/12/21864128-newtown-anniversary-daily-drumbeat-of-child-homicides-gets-little-notice?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1>

Dr. Matthew Miller, of the Harvard School of Public Health, on U.S. violence

America is not a particularly violent country, according to Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health. The rate of violent crimes falls right in the middle of the rates in other high-income nations. American kids are not more likely to get into fights at school, and Americans are not more likely to be mentally ill than people in comparable countries.

“What we do have is guns. Especially handguns. And we have more homicides,” Miller said. “Our firearm homicide rate is an order of magnitude higher than in these other countries. Our rates of homicides with non-gun mechanisms—knives, bats, whatever—is pretty much right where they are in other high income countries.”

And guns make all the difference, Miller said. “We’re not more violent, but when we are violent, we kill.”

<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/01/gun_violence_summit_at_johns_hopkins_researchers_present_data_and_analyses.single.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other researchers agree that gun presence is a player.

Jeff, to demonstrate another way, here's a view of the effect of our gun saturation vs Canada. Look at the contrast shown by this Canadian study:

Content from external source

Like with overall firearm deaths, the consequences of permissive access to firearms can also be seen in homicide and crime statistics. The US homicide rate (per 100,000) committed without guns is only slightly higher (1.4 times) than the Canadian rate. However the rate of homicide with guns in the U.S. is 6 times higher than that seen in Canada and the rate of homicide with handguns in the U.S. (2.41 per 100,000) is 7 times higher than the Canadian rate (0.33 per 100,000).

The pattern with robbery is similar. In the United States, there were more than 408,000 robberies in 2009, 36 percent of them with firearms, with a rate of 55 per 100,000. In Canada, in contrast, there were 32,200 robberies, 14 percent of them with firearms, for a rate of 13 per 100,000. Yet the rates of robberies without firearms are roughly the same in the two countries. (Click on this link for table and graphs)

The rate of robberies without firearms are about the same between Canada and the US in a 2009 study, but when you add guns to the mix, you can see more guns equals more crime. I know its just statistics, and its hard to prove if the person owning the gun would've committed the crime even if he/she didn't own the gun. But you do see a distinction between the US and Canada where the US has more guns and as a result has a higher rate of robberies with guns, and homicide with guns.

Pasted from <https://www.metabunk.org/threads/needs-debunking-more-guns-more-crime.3395/page-4#post-107934>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A shooting at night, when no children nor teachers are present, that happens near a school, is not a school shooting to anyone who is not trying to drum up gun control propaganda.

 

That's why it IS one to you and Flash and Bloomberg,

 

You still don't want to comment on those CT gun laws you like and explain how they should be more strict and the confiscation should come sooner, do you?

 

Why not? Why talk to me? I don't even own one of those scary large cap magazine-holding guns you hate. Billy does. Go tell him what should have happened to his magazine instead of registering it. Don't be afraid to call what you advocate registration followed by confiscation.

 

???? I have little content to offer at this point, about the burr under your saddle.

But whack-a-mole I believe I will not play with you.

Just sniper for now, or one other game.

 

How did you do with your answers to my twenty broad questions about your positions on the US gun problem?

Where I left off with you you found a request for an intelligent, focused thread where we could tackle those 25 Questions, and thus avoid your practiced tangents.

 

The offer is still open.

Tom, you bark out orders when you are cornered. It's one of your standard tricks.

Another TR trick: as if in fight-or-flight, you jump sideways with distraction techniques when challenged by thoughtful posts.

The overview IMO, in non-inflammatory language, is that your breezy view of guns in the USA fails to hold up to scrutiny.

I have organized somesubstantive questions I've asked on Political Anarchy, the ones which you are avoiding. We can take it to it's own thread if you like, but dude you are going to find these questions are seeking non-evasive, non-semantic, non-flip answers; they may follow you if not addressed directly.

(Your silences remind me of John LeCarre's chubby, bespeckled, cuckholded master spy George Smiley...who looked very, very carefully for things left unsaid in interrogations and debriefings)

Full of Air?

Big-picture Questions for Tom ray

  1. How do you address the denial of a perp's civil liberties, particularly his right to due process, when a CCW gets used?

2."Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a Judaeo-Christian basic, and one of the Ten Commandments. The moral overtones of this once-established concept are challenged (and violated) by the NRA's "shoot to kill" firearms training. Care to comment on the relaxed moral guidelines in play?

3.Significant gun control was in place in cities and rural taverns during colonial times, but in a popular absolutist angle of "constitutional carry", restrictions within homes and on city streets are considered odious. If restrictions were accepted then, why not now?

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159858&page=3>

4.Do you stand by the bit that I. since I discourage women being armed in the USA, that I carry a "pro-rapist stance"?

(Was that just hyperbole, or is it your best understanding?)

5.You are on record as opposing background checks for private sales . Since 40% of the general public and 80% of criminals get their weapons from this source, what is your plan to compensate for that? How is your position responsible, in that a vast, unaccountable market in the sale of lethal weapons (including on the internet) is the result?

 

6.As a constant mouthpiece on Sailing Anarchy for the libertarian pro-gun principles, do you find pro-gun sources credible? Do you agree the gun lobby has an honesty problem, or disagree? (The NRA website claims no gun lobby affiliation, for example, yet several industry execs sit on the NRA board of directors.)

7.You have repeatedly stated that gun violence research has not been banned. I have posted a chain of researchers who have described the chilling events of 1996 and the result: the intended lack of viable research. I have found sources stating a CDC gun research budget of $100,000/yr. max., and zero budget for the current year. Where is the public funding for gun violence research you are saying is on the table? Can you cite any specific Congressional funding for gun research?

8.You said you have have cited Kleck's numbers seven times from the 2013 CDU report) as your DGU justification, so time to man-up. Gary Kleck's numbers have serious problems covered in recent threads. http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&page=26#entry4663935> Any reply linky? Where have you discussed this on Political Anarchy?

9.In a separate issue, you seem to be dancing around Kleck's 1997 peer review defense. that unreported illegal gun use was driving his DGU theory. Do you support those criminals? If not, where have you (or others) subtracted them from your DGU source? Tom, what figures are you now claiming?

10.I gathered and presented 20 sources refuting the "More guns, less crime" theory. No comment? Were they all deemed mere advocacy by yourself, or just certain ones?

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770>

11.IMO you are fibbing about researchers in general, Tom. You repeat one errant example by openly maligning Dr. Arthur Kellerman ('et al") as a failed scientist (while not even holding Justice Scalia's scholarship up to peer-review standards). Given Kellerman's accomplishments in several fields since his research was challenged in 1994, can you cite any credible evidence to back up your slander of him? Did he cook his numbers in those Emergency Room treatises he wrote, too? (BTW Kellerman's wiki has thunder, but Dr. Gary Kleck has taught for Gator's alma mater, FSU, since 1978, and is still sitting in a contemporary's chair.)

12.Your narrative is that the "anti's" somehow have only crooked scientists. But after much study I find that the pro-rights apologists have virtually no scientifically presentable figures to support their vigilante logic. Where, is your idea of the validity of DGU scientifically supported?

13.Within the gun culture, a nearly-automatic connection is made between gun registration and imminent gun confiscation. With all the options available, this pat position seems stretched, and over-simplistic. Do you have any suggestions to bridge this impasse?

14. You have cited the racist denial of MLK's gun permit as a solitary present cause for "shall issue". You have weighed in IIRC that you think more guns in the black community would lessen their gun mayhem. Explain why you are promoting guns in the black community. Are you aware that current black community leaders (at least this side of the Black Panthers) want fewer guns? Can you see why current civic leaders take that position?

15. The NRA engraved only the last half of the Second Amendment in their lobby, clipping thirteen words, well before the same clipping of the amendment in the legal interpretation of Heller 2008. Do you have any comment about that progression? No worries? Is the tail (a trade organization of a dangerous consumer product) not wagging the dog (the rather sacred U.S. Constitution) here?

16.You are on record as stating repeatedly that the CDC's gun violence research is merely "advocacy." Do you consider Gary Kleck an exception to this generalization? Do you think it appropriate that the CDC notify the NRA about the appearance of any gun-related study? If u don't approve of the CDC's involvement, which government agency can you propose to fiull this public health need.

 

17.The BATFE finally has a director. Any comments on B.Todd Jones at this point? If your insights are still disparaging of the BA TFE, do you have some other agency in mind to monitor guns in the USA?

19.Many fears were voiced that Obama, given his years leading the Joyce Foundation, would lead a rampage for gun control. Nothing like that has occurred and not even a gutted background check bill would pass. Congratulations. Don't you think the Obama rhetoric was over-stated? Any comments?

20.What is your latest insight or information about Fast and Furious? What is your position on the culpability of the guns Dodson walked? Do you agree with the Fortune article that he was the primary gunwalker?

21.Do you feel that Timothy McVeigh created a black eye for the libertarian philosophy? Do the militia undertones of the gun culture give you any concern?

22.Doctors are sworn to the health of their patients. What are your views of the Florida "Docs vs. Glocks" gag ruling, which was recently upheld?

ACLU “Astounded” by Appeals Court Decision Declaring Doctor Gun Safety Gag Rule Constitutional

23.You are on record for automatic Shall Issue of CCP's, assuming the typical, very minimal state standards are met. This may be indiscriminate, given that marginal individuals who possibly lethal dynamics in play. What is your opposition to requiring a better face-to-face assessment by a responsible magistrate, clerk, lower court judge, or LE officer? <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=160457#entry4680564>

24.Fortunately, "Stand Your Ground" legislation has recently been corrected by addressing due process in Florida. What can be done now about the SYG cloned legislation in scores of states which copied the FL law? Can you admit that toothpaste out of the CATO tube has done some damage here?

25.You are on record as supporting "reciprocity," (the granting of the right to carry in one state based on the CCP requirements of another state). What standards for training are you proposing? As a libertarian champion of rights, what about the voting rights of localities? Lastly, what about the need for flexible application of gun safety measures?

26.To be "responsible", the public health costs of gun damage should be offset by gun enthusiasts and the gun industry. Why should non-gunowners be burdened with the cost of gun damage, especially given the extremes to which guns "rights" are being taken?

STUDY: Gun Violence Hospitalizations Cost Over $600 Million In 2010 Alone

27. Where do you stand on the gun lobby's proposed legislation challenging the conventional risk aspects of gun insurance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a lying cunt HJ. You have put this up in a discussion on guns when they are figures for any method. Weasel.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_gun_homicide

 

Australia Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People = 0.2 (2012)

 

So other types of murder don't count? Who's the lying cunt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A shooting at night, when no children nor teachers are present, that happens near a school, is not a school shooting to anyone who is not trying to drum up gun control propaganda.

 

That's why it IS one to you and Flash and Bloomberg,

 

You still don't want to comment on those CT gun laws you like and explain how they should be more strict and the confiscation should come sooner, do you?

 

Why not? Why talk to me? I don't even own one of those scary large cap magazine-holding guns you hate. Billy does. Go tell him what should have happened to his magazine instead of registering it. Don't be afraid to call what you advocate registration followed by confiscation.

 

???? I have little content to offer at this point, about the burr under your saddle.

But whack-a-mole I believe I will not play with you.

Just sniper for now, or one other game.

 

How did you do with your answers to my twenty broad questions about your positions on the US gun problem?

Where I left off with you you found a request for an intelligent, focused thread where we could tackle those 25 Questions, and thus avoid your practiced tangents.

 

The offer is still open.

>

I have organized somesubstantive questions I've asked on Political Anarchy,...

 

 

You said you like CT's gun control laws and the Governor's panel of experts just finished reviewing the subject and recommended confiscating stuff like Billy's magazine. You have no comment?

 

I responded to your long list of questions.

 

 

 

 

If you're going to ignore the answers and ignore questions and just run to another thread again, I guess that's a fun game we can play.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may interrupt the "lying cunt" remarks for just a moment, gentlemen, I'd like to offer a Happy Sunday! to one and all. The weather here in my 'hood is gonna be 55 and sunny which I take as a modest indicator that the lesser gods of weather are smiling on this mid-winter day. Hooray!!!

 

And lest I impede the 7th grade insult session unduly, I will be brief in my remarks today. I have read prosecutor Jocal505's master's thesis-like slapdown of defendant Thomas Ray in open court yesterday. I have now slept on this situation with my trusty (and never rusty) SS S&W .357 at the ready, and loaded with snake shot to repel boarders and/or take out the occasional offending mallard who dares to defecate on my dock , and in the crystaline light of hindsight only moderately hindered by the aftereffects of too many beers mixed with heart medicine, I have seen the fallacy of jocal's all-too-many remarks clumsily posed as questions. As a public service I am now here to reveal said fallacy.

 

To preempt the obvious question WRT whether jocal is still beating his wife, jocal has prefaced all that liberal nose-wiping yakety yak with the following question aimed (see what I did there?) at the defendant: "How did you do with your answers to my twenty broad questions about your positions on the US gun problem?"

 

As you know, I am not the kind of poster to use terms like "lying cunt" or other "adult" language so often in use in the boys' bathroom at PA but allow me to use the milder term "weasel" in conjunction with jocal's position. For the reading impaired: the only gun problem in the US in my view is that agents of the government have too many; so many, in fact, they feel justified in selling and giving them to people that will use them on US citizens. This I see as unwise, and un-American FFS!

 

As I said, this is a PSA. I am happy to provide this service, and once again remind readers that their remarks are just opinions, no matter how forcibly or "cleverly" stated. And while most of us have just the single asshole anus, opinions here come by the shit shipload.

 

Speaking of opinions, what do you guys and gals think about Liberty 50 grain HP .357 at 2100 FPS!? Woo Hoo Baby! Run mallards run!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fallacy with jojo's "questions" are that they started out as "twenty broad questions", then later in the same post expanded to 25. Then when actually listed, they ended up as 27 questions. FFS, he can't even make up his mind. Weasel indeed......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You are a lying cunt HJ. You have put this up in a discussion on guns when they are figures for any method. Weasel.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_gun_homicide

 

Australia Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People = 0.2 (2012)

 

So other types of murder don't count? Who's the lying cunt?

 

HJ said:

He was right; I mistakenly compared US gun murder against Aussie Total murder from all weapons.

 

So maybe HJ is?

 

has nothing to do with HJ being right or wrong. My point is why focus on just guns? ignore the gun rates for a moment. If total homicide rates are comparable between the countries - then focusing on guns is silly. It just means that people are murdering people in AUS with other tools while people in the US are using the gun as a tool to get to the same end point. Dead is dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are such gloomy Guses!

 

From upthread: “[Americans] We’re not more violent, but when we are violent, we kill.”

 

The optimist sees this as reducing recidivism quickly and cheaply. A lifetime in prison, say 40 or 50 years @ $30K a year ... call it a million dot two US taxpayer dollars to feed and house a stupid fucking gangbanger (pick your color) punkass who didn't finish high school, has never even imagined a career track job, and really and truly isn't what most of us would call a genuine American citizen, versus a $0.50 cartridge. 50cent sounds good all of a sudden! We need to look on the bright side of life and death. With seven billion +++ and counting, human life is not all that precious. Indeed, the numbers are out of balance in the same way our national debt is out of balance.

 

Have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, going that way in UK too...

 

Prisoner transport and prisons all way down the privatisation route

 

Trouble is when profit/ROI rears its ugly head then corners are cut and basics appear to be being charged for in the US if I am correct, like towels, soap, laundry, clothing and even food and lodging!

 

Over here the Probation system has started its progressive journey towards the enlightenment of privatisation as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R: You are so out of touch with reality Crabby. There is a reason why the US has more people in prison than anywhere else. It is big, very BIG business.

 

I've heard this before, perhaps on this board. Privatization seems like a good thing in the US where the gov't just throws money into black holes. The Post Office comes to mind. If taxpayers aren't footing the bill, private prisons are OK with me. Maybe I am out of touch. All I do is sail and drink beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R: You are so out of touch with reality Crabby. There is a reason why the US has more people in prison than anywhere else. It is big, very BIG business.

 

I've heard this before, perhaps on this board. Privatization seems like a good thing in the US where the gov't just throws money into black holes. The Post Office comes to mind. If taxpayers aren't footing the bill, private prisons are OK with me. Maybe I am out of touch. All I do is sail and drink beer.

The post office does not take taxpayer funds. Anything else you are ignorant on that I can help with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R: You are so out of touch with reality Crabby. There is a reason why the US has more people in prison than anywhere else. It is big, very BIG business.

 

I've heard this before, perhaps on this board. Privatization seems like a good thing in the US where the gov't just throws money into black holes. The Post Office comes to mind. If taxpayers aren't footing the bill, private prisons are OK with me. Maybe I am out of touch. All I do is sail and drink beer.

 

Private prisons have one client. Who do you think that is? Taxpayers are footing the bill and the prison lobby is like any other: always wanting more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

R: You are so out of touch with reality Crabby. There is a reason why the US has more people in prison than anywhere else. It is big, very BIG business.

 

I've heard this before, perhaps on this board. Privatization seems like a good thing in the US where the gov't just throws money into black holes. The Post Office comes to mind. If taxpayers aren't footing the bill, private prisons are OK with me. Maybe I am out of touch. All I do is sail and drink beer.

The post office does not take taxpayer funds. Anything else you are ignorant on that I can help with?

 

Come on man. I took you off ignore 20 minutes ago. Now this? But you're correct of course. In a way. Taxpayers buy stamps though, so that may be one of those pesky distinctions without much of a difference. But we don't absolutely have to buy stamps so it's your point.

 

TR: Private prisons have one client. Who do you think that is? Taxpayers are footing the bill and the prison lobby is like any other: always wanting more.

 

Yepper. I didn't need any help with that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

R: You are so out of touch with reality Crabby. There is a reason why the US has more people in prison than anywhere else. It is big, very BIG business.

 

I've heard this before, perhaps on this board. Privatization seems like a good thing in the US where the gov't just throws money into black holes. The Post Office comes to mind. If taxpayers aren't footing the bill, private prisons are OK with me. Maybe I am out of touch. All I do is sail and drink beer.

The post office does not take taxpayer funds. Anything else you are ignorant on that I can help with?

 

Come on man. I took you off ignore 20 minutes ago. Now this? But you're correct of course. In a way. Taxpayers buy stamps though, so that may be one of those pesky distinctions without much of a difference. But we don't absolutely have to buy stamps so it's your point.

 

TR: Private prisons have one client. Who do you think that is? Taxpayers are footing the bill and the prison lobby is like any other: always wanting more.

 

Yepper. I didn't need any help with that one.

Taxpayers buy gas too. And hotdogs. And porn. Does that make them taxpayer funded?

Peddle your crazy someplace else, we are full up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may interrupt the "lying cunt" remarks for just a moment, gentlemen, I'd like to offer a Happy Sunday! to one and all. The weather here in my 'hood is gonna be 55 and sunny which I take as a modest indicator that the lesser gods of weather are smiling on this mid-winter day. Hooray!!!

 

And lest I impede the 7th grade insult session unduly, I will be brief in my remarks today. I have read prosecutor Jocal505's master's thesis-like slapdown of defendant Thomas Ray in open court yesterday. I have now slept on this situation with my trusty (and never rusty) SS S&W .357 at the ready, and loaded with snake shot to repel boarders and/or take out the occasional offending mallard who dares to defecate on my dock , and in the crystaline light of hindsight only moderately hindered by the aftereffects of too many beers mixed with heart medicine, I have seen the fallacy of jocal's all-too-many remarks clumsily posed as questions. As a public service I am now here to reveal said fallacy.

 

To preempt the obvious question WRT whether jocal is still beating his wife, jocal has prefaced all that liberal nose-wiping yakety yak with the following question aimed (see what I did there?) at the defendant: "How did you do with your answers to my twenty broad questions about your positions on the US gun problem?"

 

As you know, I am not the kind of poster to use terms like "lying cunt" or other "adult" language so often in use in the boys' bathroom at PA but allow me to use the milder term "weasel" in conjunction with jocal's position. For the reading impaired: the only gun problem in the US in my view is that agents of the government have too many; so many, in fact, they feel justified in selling and giving them to people that will use them on US citizens. This I see as unwise, and un-American FFS!

 

As I said, this is a PSA. I am happy to provide this service, and once again remind readers that their remarks are just opinions, no matter how forcibly or "cleverly" stated. And while most of us have just the single asshole anus, opinions here come by the shit shipload.

 

Speaking of opinions, what do you guys and gals think about Liberty 50 grain HP .357 at 2100 FPS!? Woo Hoo Baby! Run mallards run!!!

 

Far from being weasil-like, this is an open and intelligent challenge among gentlemen.

Jeff, the list is dynamic. It has been reduced several times, and will be cleaned up a bit.

 

No intention has been made to twist Tom's positions. No need to, either. On the contrary, I want him to answer for their enormity.

Tom is, without argument,the best-informed pro-rights bloke around, and is the de facto Gun CLub Choir Director. But he spins stuff all day, every day--I find that pretty consistently his talking points don't scrutinize well. Same for Gottlieb and Farago, though. What it is.

 

My problem is the annoyance of the good discussions scattered on multiple threads.

 

BC I have jousted with these boys for three whole years. I have presented many thoughtful, time-consuming post to Tom, and not long ago they only met flip or semantic type answers. He is still quite evasive, but better dialogue, in general, is emerging.

 

Tom Ray, you missed the point of the young Politico scientists who agreed to disagree online about gun policy using intelligent discourse. Because of non-evasiveness, and focus, the content of each's argument was comparable, to all.

 

Blue Crab, whether certain guys agree with me or not, my hope is to have a conversation with a bit of overview, and some focus on the overall , out-lying part guns play in society. It seems Tom is in agreement. Insofar as he responded, I'll study his replies for actual content as opposed to evasion, and we'll take the discussion where we can all learn from it, hopefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BC I have jousted with these boys for three whole years.

 

Gotcha. You're way ahead of me on all of this. Guns sure do kill. And few of us hunt with handguns, but I like having them. If/when nobody has em except the gov't and the gangsters, we're fucked. IMO. Thanks for the civil response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is someone in the US advocating that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is someone in the US advocating that?

 

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Is separating out white people bad?

 

If so, please chastise jocal.

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

angrywhitemales_zpsb561b7b1.png

 

 

 

 

 

Given the shared genocidal backgrounds of all countries that have been colonised by Europeans, including South Africa, there is something distasteful and even racist about racial profiling of citizens. As I pointed out in the above post, where are the boundaries once you start this course?

 

It all starts looking like Apartheid particularly when separating out white stats and then claiming the numbers for 'America' aren't so bad if you remove the numbers for non-whites. Apartheid was rejected by the rest of the world, apparently.

 

So the FBI collecting and distributing this chart is "like Apartheid" to you?

 

fbi-murders-race-sex.gif

 

I thought the oppression under Apartheid went a bit further than collecting such information and making it available to the public. Maybe it wasn't so bad if it's more or less like Obama's FBI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, clearly racist. But that is a simplistic view. What about non-hispanic whites? or Non-white hispanics? or half white blacks or 75% black whites or ... I'm sure they'd have that shit there somewhere.

 

But you have to ask yourself the question, for balance, a bit of roughage, to what use would the FBI put this information to? Given that they are all US citizens under the same law?

 

Well, one use I can think up would be to test the hypothesis that increased levels of gun ownership cause increased levels of violence. Let's see... who has the highest rate of gun ownership? Refer to jocal's cartoon above if you can't figure it out. And who has the highest homicide rate?

 

Strangely enough, it's not the people who own the most guns.

 

Do you apply your "once you start, you're on the road to Apartheid" logic to the Congressional Black Caucus? How about NAACP Inc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites