Sign in to follow this  
.22 Tom

Number of School Shootings Decreased

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, bpm57 said:

But do keep crowing about the amusing "law" website you found. No links to NY or NYC code, I guess we are just supposed to take their word for it. You demand proof from anyone who disagrees with you, but when asked to live up to your own requirements you refuse to do so. Your assertion has never been "NY state gun laws are great" It was specifically that laws amended or added since the 80s ended all the gun violence. Since I provided links months ago that suggested otherwise, it is now your turn. Please provide your evidence, the link you continue to repost does nothing to support the assertion you made.

quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Your opus of NY gun law dates is gonna make me look pretty bad, when complete. But DiFi and Bloomie will sing happy birthday forty times a year.

DeadEye Dick could take a page from Mueller's playbook.Go quietly about your work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

He may be onto something. Or just on something. But probably just stupid, which can't be fixed.

Agreed.

I looked at him and asked if he had been smoking something.  We talked a bit and it truly was a revelation that he hadn't heard of any school shootings because the kids are on Summer Break.  He truly hadn't put that together, on his own.  That is scary.  Even scarier is he was giving credit to President Trump for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well school starts tomorrow. Any estimates on how long it will be until the first shooting?

After 2 months of summer vacation there must be a lot of pent up demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Agreed.

I looked at him and asked if he had been smoking something.  We talked a bit and it truly was a revelation that he hadn't heard of any school shootings because the kids are on Summer Break.  He truly hadn't put that together, on his own.  That is scary.  Even scarier is he was giving credit to President Trump for it.

Sounds pretty typical of a Trump supporter.

They really are that incredibly ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Sounds pretty typical of a Trump supporter.

They really are that incredibly ignorant.

Obama's birth certificate was faked, and the proof is the lack of a baby footprint. Eric Holder will be in jail bye and bye. Only Uranium One saved the failing Clinton Foundation. Hilary had space alien sex, which produced a green baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which she promptly sold to human traffickers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Well school starts tomorrow. Any estimates on how long it will be until the first shooting?

After 2 months of summer vacation there must be a lot of pent up demand.

Didn't read the topic post?

A school doesn't have to be in session, or even currently a school, for a suicide on the grounds to be counted as a "school shooting."

When you get a type of shooting that politically useful, you gotta maximize! And the rubes will buy it, except for a few Uncooperative types, because they agree with the gungrabby goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

When you get a type of shooting that politically useful, you gotta maximize! And the rubes will buy it, except for a few Uncooperative types, because they agree with the gungrabby goal.

The "Uncooperative types" need to answer for the very real school shootings.Stayy tuned Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2018 at 7:17 AM, jocal505 said:

Your opus of NY gun law dates is gonna make me look pretty bad, when complete.

Why would I write anything? _You_ are the one who continues to make claims about all sorts of new (but uncited) gun laws that solved the drug related gang violence in NYC in the 80s. As I posted (check your DB), the NYPD feels that the violence was solved by better police work and communication, but you have more then doubled down about these phantom laws.

Sad to say, I'm not going to do your homework Joe. You made the claim, you get to defend it. I made my rebuttal, you just continue to double down on your nonsense while avoiding a real answer. I'll give you a hint tho, Joe: The cornerstone of NYC gun control came out in 1911, not in the 80s.

quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bpm57 said:

new (but uncited) gun laws

Pay attention The effective NY laws are not new. They were crafted over a thirty year timeframe.

10 hours ago, bpm57 said:

you just continue to double down on your nonsense

These NY laws are not nonsense. They have enough substance to be upsetting to you.

10 hours ago, bpm57 said:

The cornerstone of NYC gun control came out in 1911

Ah, we could rely upon your vintage solution in Chicago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear, watching jocal argue with anyone is like watching a child argue with his puppy.  And the puppy is winning......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I swear, watching jocal argue with anyone is like watching a child argue with his puppy.  And the puppy is winning......

Right. I just came from the AW thread. where you were lying away, using old and selective crime gun figures. I have organized the problems of The Standard Model, quite ably, I might add, which elicits the words blah blah blah from a phony.  In other Jeffie head trips, your Dabs lite racial confusion is publicly self-inflicted.

I don't mind having a flat-earth gun guy around. a model gun owner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Pay attention The effective NY laws are not new. They were crafted over a thirty year timeframe.

Joe, I realize that you have reading comprehension problems and other issues stemming from landing on your head, but most adults would of realized that in the context of my post that "new" means "laws that came after the 80s". Otherwise known as all the phantom laws you say solved the crime problems of the 80s.

13 hours ago, jocal505 said:

These NY laws are not nonsense.

And yet you cannot describe any of these laws that have gone into effect since the 80s. I would of expected you to crow about them, since you claimed they solved all the evil gun problems in NYC.

13 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Ah, we could rely upon your vintage solution in Chicago.

If only you could tell us all about these 30-ish year old laws that solved all the NYC issues during the 80s. Maybe you could tell us all why the Sullivan Act was unable to stem the violence, and what these phantom laws you are telling us about (but not citing) did differently.

But it is nice to see your ignorance of what the laws were in Chicago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bpm57 said:

If only you could tell us all about these 30-ish year old laws that solved all the NYC issues during the 80s.

You may have misunderstood. I said that NYC had problems similar to Chicago thirty years ago, and that attention to developing sound gun laws (over that thirty years) made all the difference there. In NYC, they have some problems with crime gun imports, but that problem is much worse around Chicago.

Think of it this way. The guns from Wisconsin and Indiana are not being pumped into NYC, for several reasons, having to do with supply and demand.

You don't agree with me I guess, but I'll just move on with my life anyway I suggest you do the same.

We can recognize a bloodbath when we see one. We will sort out the mess in Chicago, unguided by the SAF or violent, race-baiting Libertarians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You may have misunderstood. I said that NYC had problems similar to Chicago thirty years ago, and that attention to developing sound gun laws (over that thirty years) made all the difference there.

Oh, I didn't misunderstand Joe - I'm waiting for you to tell us, with links, the laws that made all the difference in NYC gun crime.

12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You don't agree with me I guess, but I'll just move on with my life anyway I suggest you do the same.

So you will remain unwilling to share with us all of the "sound gun laws" that solved the issues in NYC?

After multiple self-aggrandizing posts over the last few months, you remain unwilling to follow that standards you hold others to in this case.

 Disappointing, but not surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

You may have misunderstood. I said that NYC had problems similar to Chicago thirty years ago, and that attention to developing sound gun laws (over that thirty years) made all the difference there. In NYC, they have some problems with crime gun imports, but that problem is much worse around Chicago.

Think of it this way. The guns from Wisconsin and Indiana are not being pumped into NYC, for several reasons, having to do with supply and demand.

You don't agree with me I guess, but I'll just move on with my life anyway I suggest you do the same.

I asked this of you already in this thread, but I'll try again.  Can you please explain how NYC's gun laws are different than Chicago's gun laws and how those differences achieved different outcomes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I asked this of you already in this thread, but I'll try again.  Can you please explain how NYC's gun laws are different than Chicago's gun laws and how those differences achieved different outcomes.  

I can't say I understand it. One situation degenerated into a gun bloodbath, and one didn't. If you gave a shit, you could read this.

Quote

1. The Chicago Gambit

Chances are you won’t be able to discuss gun regulation with a gunster for more than 10 minutes without him bringing up Chicago.  That’s because Chicago has rather stringent gun policy, yet in 2012 it experienced 516 homicides  (or, according to some sources, as high as 535)– an increase of in the neighborhood of 20 percent over the previous year (officially 433, though variously reported as 435 to 441). So clearly, “gun control” is to blame, right? Furthermore, since the city is the president’s hometown,Obama himself must be somehow behind it all. Especially since the city’s current mayor, Rahm Emanuel, was formerly Obama’s Chief Of Staff. For gun fanatics, many of whom are rabidly right-wing reactionaries, Chicago’s murderous ways are thus a triple dose of gloat juice; they’ve even been known to suggest that Mayor Emanuel is deliberately cranking up the bloodbath in order to give himself political leverage. No, really.

 

First off, we should note that crime statistics for cities are not necessarily a reliable gauge of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of gun laws. Cities, after all, aren’t normally surrounded by barbed wire or moats, so it isn’t that difficult for guns to be brought in from the outside.  This is especially true in a city like Chicago, which can be readily accessed by residents of at least three states — including deep red, gun-totin’ Indiana. Indeed, the rest of Illinois has more lax gun laws than does The Windy City; and this is one reason that advocates for stricter gun regulation stress the need for reform at a national level.

 

This is not to say that municipal gun regulations are utterly useless and shouldn’t be pursued. It just means that it’s difficult to assess their success or failure; and that their effectiveness itself may vary wildly.  But if you want to select specific cities where “gun control” seems to have made a difference, there are plenty of them to choose from.  There are, for example, New York and Los Angeles.

 

But the gun culture wants to train its crosshairs only on those cities with strict gun regulations that have experienced an increase in violent crime.  Three years ago, Boston was all the rage, as 2010 saw a temporary (and relatively minor) jump in homicides for that city. But when levels returned to normal the following year, the gunsters turned their sights toward the Second City instead. But the focus is on only one particular year in Chicago — i.e., 2012. It’s not hard to figure out why if you take a look at the statistics for the few years leading up to that:

As even a casual glance makes clear, the city’s homicide tally had been on a rather steady downward slide for 20 years; thus, it appears that what happened last year was an anomaly rather than a trend. And this is borne out by the fact that the homicide rate for 2013 appears to have dived back down again, and has been on pace to be the lowest in about 40 years! No wonder you hear a lot more about 2012 than you do about 2013 or 2011. You also hear about isolated days or weekends of exceptional bloodshed much more than you hear about the overall trend (which is almost never).

 

This obsession with recent (though not too recent) crime statistics, and trying to tie them to “gun control” suggests that the gun lobby wants to give the impression that strict gun regulation is a recent development in Chicago. But far from it. Way back in 1982 the city passed one of the strictest of gun policies: an outright ban on handguns. And guess what? The streets haven’t become Armageddon Unlimited. In fact, at the time the ban went into effect, the city’s homicide rate had been on the rise; but since then, it has dropped 17 percent.

 

 

 

This chart is borrowed from JustFacts, which seems to be implying that since Chicago homicides dropped “only” 17 percent during this time, as contrasted with a 25 percent decline across the country, this is an indication that “gun control” is a shot in the foot. But averages can be misleading; just because murders declined by 25 percent nationwide doesn’t mean that every city except Chicago experienced that much of a drop. The rate of decrease (or increase) varied widely from place to place. Furthermore, Chicago’s rate of “only” 17 percent (which is in fact quite impressive) incorporates a brief period (roughly 1990-94) when there was a temporary sharp spike. (Note that this chart is based on homicides per capita – an important consideration, especially here, since the city’s population has dropped significantly during this time frame.)

 

But look again at the graph above, and imagine that the little section with the sharp spike is missing, You’ll see that without it, Chicago’s murder rate would have dipped more than did the nation’s as a whole. Now here you may cry foul over the suggestion that we discard a slice of data that doesn’t fit a particular profile. The thing is if you’re going to draw a broad conclusion that “gun control doesn’t work” or even that the Chicago gun ban specifically hasn’t worked, you need to eliminate all other factors that might influence crime rates. That’s impossible to do in the real world; but as the next best thing, we can try to filter out major aberrations.

 

Crime, for example, might be influenced by demographics. If the demographic breakdown for a city remains more or less constant on a perennial basis, then it can be taken as a normal part of the backdrop that gun laws have to function against. But if there is a sudden drastic shift — say an influx of refugees from another country — then we might have to consider the possibility that racial, national and/or religious tensions could be contributing to any abrupt change in crime rate. (Please note that this is a purely hypothetical illustration pulled out of a hat; you shouldn’t assume that I’m suggesting particular nationalities, ethnicities and/or religions are more prone to crime.)

 

Chicago’s murder spike is so dramatic that it reeks of the freak factor. And indeed it coincides with the crest of the crack epidemic, which certainly contributed to violent crime in many places — it apparently hit Chicago with its fullest force slightly later than it did other major cities. The crack phenomenon was a relatively brief period that had never happened before and hopefully will never happen again. Thus, removing it and its probable aftermath from the equation just might yield a more accurate portrait of the long-term homicide trend. Even without doing so, however, we still are left with a declining homicide trend in Chicago since the gun ban went into effect.

 

Okay, we’ve been discussing homicide in general, and it may have occurred to you that not all homicides involve a firearm. But guns are the weapon of choice in the great majority of cases; while it may vary from year to year, the norm in the U.S. is around 70 to 80 percent of murders committed with guns (considerably higher than most other countries), JustFacts tries to hedge its bets by looking specifically at the portion of Chicago’s murders committed by handguns — which at first blush appears entirely relevant, since the city’s ban specifically targeted that flavor of firearm:

 

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.

 

This statement, along with several others and the supporting data, is lifted from a brief for the landmark 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald Vs. Chicago, which successfully challenged the ban.  It was not long after the court’s ruling, by the way, that Chicago experienced its temporary surge in homicides.  And it’s especially bizarre that gunsters should attribute the 2012 murder surge mostly to a law that already had been overturned. The brief also includes this statement:

 

Chicago’s handgun ban is an utter failure.

 

Which is an unsubstantiated claim. And this one:

Handgun Murders Have Soared During the 25 Years the Ordinance Has Been in Effect

Which is a bare-butted lie based solely on the apparent increase in the percentage of handgun murders among all homicides. But an increased percentage of another variable percentage isn’t necessarily an increase at all, much less a “soaring” increase.  That “40 percent” figure incorporates the crack years, but even so, it doesn’t mean that handgun murders have been on the rise on a long-term basis. Despite the spin, handgun slayings have been decreasing during the past 20 years or so.

 

The counsel for McDonald et al and the writers of JustFacts have overlooked or ignored at least a couple of key ingredients. First, the ban is hardly the only gun law Chicago has put into effect. In fact, gunsters have been known to refer to the city as the “Gun Control Capital of the Nation”. The increasing percentage of handgun killings, rather than meaning that the handgun ban has not been effective at all, might actually mean that other gun laws are more effective — especially since the total number of gun killings has been on the wane.

 

Moreover, it’s possible if not probable that not even the percentage of handgun murders has actually increased.  The figures cited are official numbers provided in the Chicago Police Department’s annual crime reports. But if you examine those official reports a bit more closely, you might notice something that never gets mentioned — certainly not by Wayne LaPierre.

 

It was not uncommon in past years for CPD statistics to list 20 to 30 percent of gun homicides as having been committed by firearms of an “unknown” type. That percentage has shrunk considerably as the percentage of official handgun killings has increased — which strongly indicates that many handgun murders in the past escaped categorization because they were listed as “unknown”.

 

JustFacts cites the particular example of the (post-ban) year 2005, for which handgun murders constituted a whopping 96 percent of firearm homicides.  Notice the subtle shift in gears; after discussing the percentage of all homicides, they point to one year’s percentage of firearm homicides in particular. Whatever. That 96 is certainly extreme, and is quite a contrast to, say, 1981 (the year before the ban was passed), in which 42 percent of gun murders were committed with handguns. Even so, the total of such slayings for 1981 (374 ) is considerably more than the total (327) for 2005. (Factoring in the population, the handgun murder rate per 100,000 residents was 12.44 for 1981 and 11.29 for 2005.)

 

Furthermore, 68 percent of the 1981 firearm murders (546) were committed with a handgun and 26 percent (142) were committed with guns of an unknown type. In contrast, of the 339 firearm murders for 2005, only 1.5 percent (5) were listed as “unknown”.  It’s entirely possible that all or nearly all of those 142 unknowns in 1981 were actually handguns, which would bring the year’s total to as many as 516, and the percentage of total gun murders to as high as 95. Even if we only assume that the “unknowns” were distributed among the same 11.5 to 1 ratio as the officially identified weapons, that would make about 504 handgun murders, and bring the percentage of all gun murders to about 92.

 

Homicide isn’t the only story, of course; there are other crimes to consider. And how has the overall crime rate fared in the wake of the handgun ban? The short answer is down, down, down.  Every category of crime  has seen an overall decline in Chicago for at least 20 years or so. (Burglary has been holding steady for the past 10 years, but was on the decline in the preceding years just like everything else.)

 

In sum, while we cannot prove that the handgun ban has been an effective deterrent to crime, we do know that its passage coincides with the reversal of a crime trend that had been on the rise prior to that and subsequently has been declining. When gunsters cite specific years that buck this trend, they are cherry picking. And when they bring up Chicago, they are fighting against their own cause. As more of them start to realize this, you can look for them to find another cherry-picked year in another cherry-picked city.

 

(NOTE: An earlier version of this article contained a confusingly worded sentence which suggested that homicide in Chicago since 1982 had dropped 17 percent per year instead of 17 percent overall. It has been corrected, and my thanks to readers who spotted the problem.)

http://propagandaprofessor.net/2013/09/30/the-poorly-armed-assault-on-gun-control-how-the-gun-culture-manipulates-statistics-part-1/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Oh, I didn't misunderstand Joe - I'm waiting for you to tell us, with links, the laws that made all the difference in NYC gun crime.

I gave you enough information to get you started on what you claim you want to know. Then you began to cry about this and that.

I hope you don;t frustrate yourself, and stay all worked up, barking out orders for a few more weeks. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
21 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I asked this of you already in this thread, but I'll try again.  Can you please explain how NYC's gun laws are different than Chicago's gun laws and how those differences achieved different outcomes.  

I can't say I understand it. One situation degenerated into a gun bloodbath, and one didn't. If you gave a shit, you could read this.

Thanks for finally admitting that more and tougher gun laws, in and of themselves, are not the panacea to stopping violence.  Your own cunt-n-paste article even backs me up on this fact.  I've been saying for years here that violence is a complex and multifaceted problem.  And concentrating on only one small correlational factor (gunz) is actually counter-productive to the need to address the actual causal issues.

IMHO, the difference between NYC and Shitcago is that the two cities took very different approaches in how they dealt with violence and the underlying causes.  NYC took a more holistic approach and through better community policing, social services, minority relations, etc and were able to get at some of the root causes of the violence they faced several decades ago.  Meanwhile, Chicago took a more hardline regulatory and skull cracking approach and they thought they could just make their violence problem go away through more and more laws while their enforcement of those laws was poor, uneven and blatantly discriminatory.  So it's no wonder they ended up sitting on a powder keg.  

The point is, and your article even bears this out, is that just writing more laws to govern peripheral issues does nothing if you don't address the root causes of those issues themselves.  NYC and Chiraq have almost identical gun laws on the books.  Yet their outcomes are markedly different.  

"Gunsters" as the article refers to us are not in anyway advocating for no gun laws and no regulations.  We are saying that there comes a point where more laws will have not only diminishing returns but actually start making the problem worse unless you also address the WHY this violence is happening in the first place.  Meanwhile, you are simply punishing those who are already obeying the laws while achieving nothing of value.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And concentrating on only one small correlational factor (gunz) is actually counter-productive to the need to address the actual causal issues.

That is your unsupported opinion.It is counter-factual. Gun control has been proven to be effective. 

 

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

"Gunsters" as the article refers to us are not in anyway advocating for no gun laws and no regulations.

Chris Cox, the NRA/ILA legal guy, says otherwise, so does Larry Pratt. And I know you better than to take your words at face value. (aka Fuck you second amendment etc)

 

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

NYC and Chiraq have almost identical gun laws on the books.  Yet their outcomes are markedly different. 

Are the "root causes" just the same, or different?

 

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

unless you also address the WHY this violence is happening in the first place. 

This violence starts with rationalizations, such as your own, then continues the chain of violence.

 

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Meanwhile, you are simply punishing those who are already obeying the laws while achieving nothing of value.

You are the victim here, a crybaby with gunz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alarming news: there's been a massive increase in "school shootings" in recent history!

The good news: the vast majority of them only occurred in Senator Feinstein's imagination.
 

Quote

 

Yesterday Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who wrote the federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004 and in recent years has been pushing a new, broader version of that law, asked Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to explain why he concluded that such legislation is unconstitutional. After Kavanaugh recapped his reasoning (more on that in a minute), Feinstein replied, "How do you reconcile what you've just said with the hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons that have taken place in recent history?"

Feinstein's response was striking for two reasons. First, there have been nothing like "hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons," whether you look at "recent history" or go back half a century. Second, the shootings are irrelevant to the question of whether banning so-called assault weapons is consistent with the Second Amendment.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Alarming news: there's been a massive increase in "school shootings" in recent history!

The good news: the vast majority of them only occurred in Senator Feinstein's imagination.

You don't seem to think that school shootings are a problem. Many disagree. I knew a little girl name Bui who was shot DTS, based on an infatuation at school. i think school related shootings are a problem, that DiFi has the right idea here. She wants to air it out, and to limit battle guns for highschoolers and other underdeveloped, pro-violent types.

You want to parse how to count the enormity of school shootings, to quibble with the unacceptabke totals. DiFi wants to address a broad gun problem. You are technically correct, and DiFi is right IMO.

Quote

There were at least nine mass-casualty shootings over the long weekend, leaving at least six dead and 42 injured. The count is from Gun Violence Archive. The incidents included:

  • A firefight during a dice game at a San Bernardino, California, apartment complex on Sunday night that left eight injured, including a 17-year-old boy.
  • A shooting at a party hosted by a high school sorority in Birmingham, Alabama, where seven people were wounded, most of them in their teens.
  • A fight that turned violent at a nightclub in Cleveland. One woman was fatally shot in the head and seven men were injured.

One man was shot during Brooklyn’s annual J’Ouvert Festival, which has been marred by gun violence in recent years. The victim was struck in the busy Crown Heights neighborhood. He is expected to survive. In 2015, an aide to Governor Andrew Cuomo was fatally shot in crossfire between gangs; the next year, two persons were killed by gunfire during the festivities.

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/maria-butina-nra-russia-militias-gun-sales/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Thanks for finally admitting that more and tougher gun laws, in and of themselves, are not the panacea to stopping violence. 

You are kinda putting words in my mouth. Gun control works better all over the country than in does in Chicago. But that doesn't mean that gun control doesn't work.

Jeff, in the idea you are trying to present, you are denying one of the two basics which have been established by empirical evidence, and that is that tougher gun laws are effective at preventing public and private gun casualties. This study has been put to use at the circuit court level.

 

Fleegler,  Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You don't seem to think that school shootings are a problem. Many disagree. I knew a little girl name Bui who was shot DTS, based on an infatuation at school. i think school related shootings are a problem, that DiFi has the right idea here. She wants to air it out, and to limit battle guns for highschoolers and other underdeveloped, pro-violent types.

You want to parse how to count the enormity of school shootings, to quibble with the unacceptabke totals. DiFi wants to address a broad gun problem. You are technically correct, and DiFi is right IMO.

 

Tom has a standard for just how many shootings can occur before he deems it a "problem".

We just don't know what that number is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Tom has a standard for just how many shootings can occur before he deems it a "problem".

We just don't know what that number is.

Lots of noise about the count, none about the damage done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You don't seem to think that school shootings are a problem.

Only the imaginary ones are not a problem. Fortunately, that's most of them.

2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

24482923.jpg

Of course you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Only the imaginary ones are not a problem. Fortunately, that's most of them.

What about the non-imaginary school shootings? Have you defined them? Where, pray tell, is the total of the blood and gore in high schools which you approve of? Have pics? Let's get started Tom.

The heads of the kids at Sandy Hook went missing, I have heard. Was there improvement, good news for us, at Parkland, FL? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I gave you enough information to get you started on what you claim you want to know. Then you began to cry about this and that.

I hope you don;t frustrate yourself, and stay all worked up, barking out orders for a few more weeks.

What, expect you to live up to your own oft-proclaimed standards? Why would I? You have long proven that your "standards" post is nothing but long-winded bit of masturbation..

You just haven't found a paper that agrees with your take on things yet.

 

10 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Tom has a standard for just how many shootings can occur before he deems it a "problem".

We just don't know what that number is.

What we do know, however, is that Soros, Bloomberg, the alphabet soup of anti-gun groups they fund, and their allies in the press are willing to lie about the number of incidents.

Of course, the same people in here that scream "liar" everytime an (R) says something are silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

. DiFi wants to address a broad gun problem. You are technically correct, and DiFi is right IMO.

"Feinstein replied, "How do you reconcile what you've just said with the hundreds of school shootings using assault weapons that have taken place in recent history?" "

It doesn't sound like she is talking about a "broad problem", Joe. She is talking about a non-existant problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 9/7/2018 at 9:55 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

And concentrating on only one small correlational factor (gunz) is actually counter-productive to the need to address the actual causal issues.

That is your unsupported opinion.It is counter-factual. Gun control has been proven to be effective.

Gun control has been proven to be both effective and ineffective - depending on what specifically you mean by "gun control", how its implemented, how its enforced, what are the social, economic and cultural factors where its being implemented, etc, etc.  

Saying the phrase:  "Gun control is effective" is like saying "Drugs Kill".  Yes, drugs kill.  Sometimes.  Other times they save lives when used properly and safely and as prescribed.  You know...... just like gunz.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 9/7/2018 at 9:55 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

NYC and Chiraq have almost identical gun laws on the books.  Yet their outcomes are markedly different. 

Are the "root causes" just the same, or different?

 

Without doing an exhaustive research thesis paper, I would assume that the root causes for the violence in both cities were much the same.  i.e. Overcrowded slums, the war on drugs, gangs - both street gangs and organized crime syndicates, poverty among minorities in those overcrowded slums, etc.  I believe they started with pretty much the same problems, but they diverged significantly based on how each city addressed those root causes - primarily through policing methods and community outreach. 

Trust me, Shitcago is not unique in the availability of guns in the outlying areas.  There are LOTS of guns in upstate NY alone.  So that dog won't hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Trust me, Shitcago is not unique in the availability of guns in the outlying areas.  There are LOTS of guns in upstate NY alone.  So that dog won't hunt.

Here you enter a false, and useless, comparison. Some of your other thoughts I find darned valid. 

The next time you type the word Chicago, reflect on the bloodbath involved. This deal disturbs you enough to mention the situation, a lot: the search function shows six pages of your pre-occupation. You must feel badly about it, just terrible, while you scapegoat away... without retraction...

Quote

JBSF, on 02 Jan 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

I don't recall ever saying that all or most gun homicides were gang related.

 

(JEFFIE, ALL JEFFIE Direct Jeffie quotes. Jeff used to be a scapegoater, and may have reformed: here are words from the past)

May 2013  (Jeffie) the urban thugs in Chicago and similar who are committing the vast majority of the "gun crime"

Sept 2013  (Jeffie)  the majority of the murders in the US (VAST MAJORITY) are commited in the inner city urban areas 

Nov. 2013   (Jeffie) The VAST majority of the gun murders out there are committed by run of the mill criminals and gangbangers,

June 2014  (Jeffie)  The vast majority of our homicide rate is inner city drug related crime and gang activity.  [...]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Gun control has been proven to be both effective and ineffective - depending on what specifically you mean by "gun control", how its implemented, how its enforced, what are the social, economic and cultural factors where its being implemented, etc, etc.

I like this. But science has concluded, and situations have shown, and first world nations have demonstrated, that gun control is pretty effective. A mental giant such as yourself is not going to claim that a convoluted bloodbath in Chicago disproves the general, and proven, effectiveness of misc. gun control.

Furthermore, in general, research now shows that areas of lax gun laws are demonstrating that the more gun control in an area (in other words, the firmer the laws) the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

science has concluded,

Cite.

9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

situations have shown

Cite.

9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

and first world nations have demonstrated,

Worked oh so well in France a bit ago.

9 hours ago, jocal505 said:

general, research now shows that areas of lax gun laws are demonstrating that the more gun control in an area (in other words, the firmer the laws) the better.

You would expect your #1(best gun control) state in that "study" to have fewer incidents, not more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bpm57 said:
23 hours ago, jocal505 said:

science has concluded,

Cite.

What a sucker. DeadEye Dick glibly walked into a hole the size of the Astrodome.

Here, we discuss a growing body of scientific work. As I understand it, gun control is supported from a variety of angles, which therefore draws a"robust correlation" between gun availability and gun mishaps. Causal conclusions are not far away...and the tobacco problem was attacked without causal conclusion.

Here's a fairly recent Hemenway review of the active, recently published scientists in the field of gun violence research.  Mr. Hemenway is annoyed that posers like you get equal time and equal column inches to actually informed individuals, such as myself.

Sorry, John Lott and Gary Kleck were not considered in this survey: they haven't been published recently, due to lack of quality content.

Quote

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

David Hemenway Apr. 2015   http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html

 I discovered that in their news articles journalists would write that I said one thing while some other firearms researcher said the opposite. This “he said-she said” reporting annoyed me — because I knew that the scientific evidence was on my side.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2018 at 9:30 AM, jocal505 said:

What about the non-imaginary school shootings?

 They seem to be a tiny minority of those reported, which makes sense given how useful "school" shootings are for gungrabby propaganda purposes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 They seem to be a tiny minority of those reported, which makes sense given how useful "school" shootings are for gungrabby propaganda purposes.

"Tiny minority" is propaganda pumped out while on swamp gas. Your daily choirboy solo is a (grotesque) distraction mechanism. You can't make the broad variety of shooting incidents go away in schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

"Tiny minority" is propaganda pumped out while on swamp gas.

Where did NPR get the swamp gas?

On 8/29/2018 at 6:02 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Inconvenient report from NPR:
 

The School Shootings That Weren't


You know that DiFi is lying about the "hundreds" of "school" shootings, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Where did NPR get the swamp gas?


You know that DiFi is lying about the "hundreds" of "school" shootings, right?

Not just "hundreds of school shootings", but "hundreds of school shootings with assault weapons"

If you are going to lie on live TV, why not go for a big one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

What a sucker. DeadEye Dick glibly walked into a hole the size of the Astrodome.

Here, we discuss a growing body of scientific work. As I understand it, gun control is supported from a variety of angles, which therefore draws a"robust correlation" between gun availability and gun mishaps. Causal conclusions are not far away...and the tobacco problem was attacked without causal conclusion.

Here's a fairly recent Hemenway review of the active, recently published scientists in the field of gun violence research.  Mr. Hemenway is annoyed that posers like you get equal time and equal column inches to actually informed individuals, such as myself.

Sorry, John Lott and Gary Kleck were not considered in this survey: they haven't been published recently, due to lack of quality content.

 

" So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn. "

Wow. he made a poll, then decided who was good enough to be counted in his poll.

I would of expected even you might understand the issues with that kind of methodology, Joe, but I guess like everything else: it fits your goals, so being misleading is acceptable.

Besides, you actually said:

On 9/8/2018 at 4:34 AM, jocal505 said:

science has concluded

Carefully making a list of those that agree with you then "polling" only them isn't "science", Joe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2018 at 2:11 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:


You know that DiFi is lying about the "hundreds" of "school" shootings, right?

Wait a minute. Are you for, or against, lying?

  • Is this your typing? Adam Winkler: Not A Fan Of Due Process
  • The idea that Miller case law involves The People was a TR return lie, featured this week
  • Maybe you didn;t lie about all the gun confiscation by colonists, perhaps you were only mistaken. Yet you didn't retract or correct that.
  • Maybe you didn't lie (nine times) about what is effectvely a federal ban on gun research, Maybe it was just a spoof or a phase for you. You stopped making the claim when called out, but never corrected your disinformation.
  • You once claimed that the NRA was the org most responsible for Heller..yet CATO admittedly financed and produced Heller. You never corrected this.
  • Maybe you didn't lie that no country had outlined a plan to challenge a soverign wth arms, four times in one week. When challenged, you failed to set this straight.
  • When I caught you cooking the books in MO, using viilent crime figures to deny the gun murder increases acter they cancelled background checks, you  simply lied about the deception.

 

Note: a "lie" is an intentional falsehood. Some of these falsehoods have been sustained. Now my training is to avoid calling another person a liar, so in all sincerity I want to avoid using the "liar" label in your case. Let's say for now that the pattern above shows quite a bit of sustained falsehood.

I suggest you not bitch about veracity until you display more of it. You have had the chance to retract falsehoods, and you passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bpm57 said:
On 9/9/2018 at 5:11 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Where did NPR get the swamp gas?


You know that DiFi is lying about the "hundreds" of "school" shootings, right?

Not just "hundreds of school shootings", but "hundreds of school shootings with assault weapons"

If you are going to lie on live TV, why not go for a big one?

The description of weapon type is probably accurate since "assault weapon" just means "gun DiFi wants to ban." It's reasonable to assume that she imagines shootings that occur with guns she wants to ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

You once claimed that the NRA was the org most responsible for Heller.

You can reply to the various statements to which you object in the threads where they appear, but this won't appear anywhere.

The NRA repeatedly tried to prevent the Parker and then Heller cases from getting to the Supreme Court. I'm aware of that history and would never say they're responsible for Heller. They obstructed the case and only joined in when they could no longer see any way to prevent it from being heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Wow. he made a poll, then decided who was good enough to be counted in his poll.

Hi. No, Hemenway set a standard, as stated in the posting. The standard was recent publication. If you get published, you are top-drawer...and you come under fire. 

Tom proudly offered some publication by Kleck last month, something he found on reason.com. By the time I opened the link, the lousy work had been withdrawn by the publication. It survived less than six days of peer scrutiny.

 

21 hours ago, bpm57 said:
On 9/8/2018 at 1:34 AM, jocal505 said:

science has concluded

The understated way to phrase this is that there is a growing body of work. And your boys didn't cut it, within scientific standards, dummy. BTW, Hemenway is a cool guy, and beyond repute AFAiK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Tom proudly offered some publication by Kleck last month, something he found on reason.com. By the time I opened the link, the lousy work had been withdrawn by the publication. It survived less than six days of peer scrutiny.

And is back with data errors corrected.

Quote

in direct response to queries from Reason, who first directly notified Kleck of his error, he worked through and has since issued a revised version of the paper, published as was the original as a working paper on the Social Science Research Network. In the new version, Kleck re-analyzes the BRFSS survey data accurately as limited to a small number of states, and ultimately concludes, when their surveys are analyzed in conjunction with his NSDS, that their surveys indicate likely over 1 million defensive uses of guns (DGUs) a year nationally, compared to the over 2 million of his own NSDS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

15 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
18 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You once claimed that the NRA was the org most responsible for Heller.

You can reply to the various statements to which you object in the threads where they appear, but this won't appear anywhere.

Close enough for me, Pal. CATO announced McD from the Heller steps. 

Quote

Posted Monday at 07:23 AM

  Quote

(Tom Ray:) Historically, the NRA helped Otis McDonald more than any other group.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

Close enough for me, Pal. CATO announced McD from the Heller steps. 

Well, no. As readers of these cases understand, Dick Heller, much lack Jack Miller, is not Otis McDonald.

The NRA was very helpful in McDonald's case, which Gura would have lost badly without their help. Scalia told him to sit down and shut up just for suggesting that the phrase "privileges and immunities" might have some kind of practical meaning in the real world.

But their help in the McDonald case would never make me revise history to say they were helpful in the Parker/Heller cases. They were not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Well, no. As readers of these cases understand, Dick Heller, much lack Jack Miller, is not Otis McDonald.

The NRA was very helpful in McDonald's case, which Gura would have lost badly without their help. Scalia told him to sit down and shut up just for suggesting that the phrase "privileges and immunities" might have some kind of practical meaning in the real world.

But their help in the McDonald case would never make me revise history to say they were helpful in the Parker/Heller cases. They were not.

Go ahead and define the NRA's "help" in McDonald. 

Yes,  Scalia walked Gura like a doggie on a leash. Winkler says Scalia did that in Heller too. That is not evidence of help from the NRA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

And is back with data errors corrected.

Sweet. Gary Kleck has been published again. Last seen in Kleck and Wang, 2009, eh That's the one Tom asked me to diagnose, twice... then Tom forgot the inherent problems with it. http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165145&page=4#entry4973180

Quote

--Kleck and Wang claim that the ATF and certain studies maintain that large illegal gun shipments account  for criminal supply. These writings, however, articulate a broad variety of crime gun sources, with no emphasis on bulk gun sales to syndicates.

--There were problems with Kleck and Wang's unsupported assertion that newish (short time-to-crime) guns used in crimes were obtained by burglary. They offered zero data.

--Kleck and Wang use a very high threshold (traficking arrests involving 100 guns or more) to quantify major gun trafficking. The bulk of solid arrests contain a fraction of that amount. Their chosen criteria artificially screens, and insulates, the conclusions of Kleck and Wang.

--Kleck and Wang attempt to refute that new guns are an important connection between crime and retail suppliers. The researchers, however, detect straw man activity, because of criminal preference for guns in original packaging. (By their own preference, perps don't want "a body" on a used gun). Braga et al examine the criminal preference for clean ballistics, as opposed to used guns...again relating new guns, and their known short time-to-crime, to legal retail sales.

They are scientists, Tom. So here is their math

(…)  If theft is the predominant source of crime guns, the age distribution of crime guns should follow the age distribution of legally owned firearms

(…) One-year-old handguns are overrepresented by a factor of nearly 4.6 times when the handgun production history age distribution and time-to-crime distribution are compared.

 

 

--The Kleck and Wang research takes the position that crime gun sourcing cannot be determined from ATF trace data. Well, yes, the data, how the data is stored, and access to the data by public disclosure request was severely restricted. (The mechanisms were unrelated appropriations riders sponsored by Sen Todd Tiahart in 2003).

 

But Braga et al go to pre-2003 information (material that is now prevented by the Tiahart Amendments, and examine time-to-crime characteristics, and the high numbers of new crime guns recovered.

 

--There were fundamental problems with conclusions Kleck and Wang made about guns with removed serial numbers.

 

…"Kleck and Wang misinterpreted a key ATF table that explored possible links between guns with obliterated serial numbers and multiple handgun sales.18 To be included in that table, an obliterated serial number gun had to be traced, which requires the serial number to be restored. Many handguns with obliterated serial number cannot be traced, and the guns in the table therefore represent a selective undercount of guns with obliterated serial numbers. Kleck and Wang’s estimate is therefore incorrect.

 

…"Unfortunately, the ATF report from which Kleck and Wang collected their obliterated serial number data clearly states that these data were seriously limited: they were reported from just eight cities, did not include long guns, and did not include older guns.18 The flaws in the data raise serious doubts about the reliability and validity of Kleck and Wang’s conclusions."

My credit goes to Anthony Braga for the peer-reviewed analysys of Kleck's work.

Kleck and Wang math.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The NRA was very helpful in McDonald's case, which Gura would have lost badly without their help.

Dude if they cut a bonus check to Joyce Lee Malcolm they need their money back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Tom proudly offered some publication by Kleck last month, something he found on reason.com. By the time I opened the link, the lousy work had been withdrawn by the publication. It survived less than six days of peer scrutiny.

I suppose he could of taken the Lankford route and refused to share any of his work, or claimed the info belonged to whatever newspaper it was sent to.

6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Gary Kleck has been published again. Last seen in Kleck and Wang, 2009

Odd, I find several papers since 2009.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another school shooting

We have to ban squirrel shooters to protect the cheeruns!
 

Quote

 

A longtime College of Southern Nevada sociology professor is facing felony gun charges in connection with an on-campus shooting on the second day of classes.

Mark J. Bird, 69, was charged last month with discharging a gun within a prohibited structure, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit and possessing a dangerous weapon on school property, court records show. He was found bleeding from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his arm about 8:15 a.m. on Aug. 28 outside a bathroom in the Charleston campus K building.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Another school shooting

We have to ban squirrel shooters to protect the cheeruns!
 

Quote

 

A longtime College of Southern Nevada sociology professor is facing felony gun charges in connection with an on-campus shooting on the second day of classes.

Mark J. Bird, 69, was charged last month with discharging a gun within a prohibited structure, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit and possessing a dangerous weapon on school property, court records show. He was found bleeding from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his arm about 8:15 a.m. on Aug. 28 outside a bathroom in the Charleston campus K building.

 

SCHOOL SHOOTING!!!!  Ban AR-15s now!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Bloomberg map is worth a visit.

Most of those red dots seem to be things like cops firing their guns negligently/by accident, things like road rage incidents that spill onto the edge of a college campus, and kids as young as 12 who are showing off with a gun at school and fire it.  None of which seem to me to be the results of my wife putting a telescoping stock on her squirrel gun, but banning that is the SOLution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That Bloomberg map is worth a visit.

Most of those red dots seem to be things like cops firing their guns negligently/by accident, things like road rage incidents that spill onto the edge of a college campus, and kids as young as 12 who are showing off with a gun at school and fire it.  None of which seem to me to be the results of my wife putting a telescoping stock on her squirrel gun, but banning that is the SOLution.

We must have twenty different reasons guns are going off in (and around) schools, during (and after) school. We have gun mayhem, in schools, eh?

I don't think the same psycho pattern is happening in Australia or Canada.

If guns are going off in schools, and this draws attention, any concern is well considered IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2018 at 3:13 PM, bpm57 said:

Odd, I find several papers since 2009.

Great job. DeadEye. I AM HERE TO LEARN FROM YOU.

Link us to the Kleck papers. I dare you. Where were these "papers" "published"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
20 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That Bloomberg map is worth a visit.

Most of those red dots seem to be things like cops firing their guns negligently/by accident, things like road rage incidents that spill onto the edge of a college campus, and kids as young as 12 who are showing off with a gun at school and fire it.  None of which seem to me to be the results of my wife putting a telescoping stock on her squirrel gun, but banning that is the SOLution.

We must have twenty different reasons guns are going off in (and around) schools, during (and after) school. We have gun mayhem, in schools, eh?

I don't think the same psycho pattern is happening in Australia or Canada.

If guns are going off in schools, and this draws attention, any concern is well considered IMO.

Well, OK. Let's consider how my wife putting a telescoping stock on her squirrel gun contributed to a cop who was trying to teach a gun safety course shooting his gun off in the classroom.

Since I don't know how that happened, you explain it and I'll consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Well, OK. Let's consider how my wife putting a telescoping stock on her squirrel gun contributed to a cop who was trying to teach a gun safety course shooting his gun off in the classroom.

Since I don't know how that happened, you explain it and I'll consider it.

You sound tangential, kinda off subject. In this thread, we were discussing the pattern of gun mayhem, in schools.

You have objections to any exaggerated documentation of gun mayhem in schools, which is just a loud straw man. The issue here is the twenty flimsy reasons for all the guns in schools. We need to re-set.

I read the NPR article, and between the lines it shows a piss poor reporting system within most schools.You must be lobbying for an accurate tally of gun mayhem in schools. Be careful what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

You sound tangential, kindaoff subject.

My point exactly.

When people say, "Look at all the terrible school shootings in America" they're talking about stuff like this:

Quote

While teaching public safety in an Administration of Justice class, Dennis Alexander, a teacher and reserve police officer, unintentionally discharged his gun into the ceiling. Three students were injured by bullet fragments or debris, none seriously. Alexander was placed on administrative leave and the Seaside PD opened an investigation.

Banning "assault" weapons in response to that incident seems extremely tangential and off-subject to me too, yet that's the SOLution proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

My point exactly.

When people say, "Look at all the terrible school shootings in America" they're talking about stuff like this:

Banning "assault" weapons in response to that incident seems extremely tangential and off-subject to me too, yet that's the SOLution proposed.

Get off the tangent, and back to the thread topic. (Or be a fucking flake.)

Do you deny the basic fact that all the guns in (and around) schools in the USA are a problem?

They are a growing problem, IMO. I am speaking up for more accurate reporting of the problem, so you can STFU sooner, rather than later. You will abandon this subject once we get decent figures on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

My point exactly.

When people say, "Look at all the terrible school shootings in America" they're talking about stuff like this:

Banning "assault" weapons in response to that incident seems extremely tangential and off-subject to me too, yet that's the SOLution proposed.

Get off the tangent, and back to the thread topic. (Or be a fucking flake.)

Do you deny the basic fact that all the guns in (and around) schools in the USA are a problem They are a growing problem, IMO. I am speaking up for more accurate reporting of the problem, so you can STFU sooner, rather than later.

So you're saying that the Bloomberg "school shooting" report I linked and quoted is tangential and inaccurate? Good, I'm glad we agree.

Can you describe why Bloomberg'$ $peech is inaccurate in that case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So you're saying that the Bloomberg "school shooting" report I linked and quoted is tangential and inaccurate? Good, I'm glad we agree.

Can you describe why Bloomberg'$ $peech is inaccurate in that case?

We need to improve these figures, I get it. Which figures should we turn to? We will heed your voice, and will follow your guidance, if you have any. Proceed to solve the problem of these school shootings for us, whether they be few or many.

If the school shootings are just a fantasy, generated by the Deep State, I will be so relieved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys got the wrong thread but...

On 9/14/2018 at 11:39 AM, benwynn said:
On 9/14/2018 at 11:29 AM, Olsonist said:

Report: Las Vegas professor shot himself in arm to protest Trump

https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/shootings/report-las-vegas-professor-shot-himself-in-arm-to-protest-trump/

TL;DR and since the gun nutz will want to know the caliber, prof shot himself with a dogballs

 

"A longtime College of Southern Nevada sociology professor is facing felony gun charges in connection with an on-campus shooting on the second day of classes."

yosoo-recoil-starter-pull-assembly-for-b

Of course Bloomberg did not miss that opportunity to crank up the gungrabby propaganda machine. You don't get to be a billionaire by passing up opportunities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had a comprehensive reporting system for gun incidents in schools, Bloomberg would have to face, and sort, the truth. And so would Tom Ray.

 

Is that what you are asking for, Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

If we had a comprehensive reporting system for gun incidents in schools, Bloomberg would have to face, and sort, the truth. And so would Tom Ray.

 

Is that what you are asking for, Tom?

That's not necessary. We already have one right here. If a "school shooting" is politically convenient, it will get a thread here before the bodies reach room temperature. No thread? Probably just another cop accidentally shooting his gun or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's not necessary. We already have one right here. *

*Ah, research by Tom Ray. What could go wrong with that?

Quote

Uncooperative Tom  Posted February 17, 2015

I take it from the non-answer that you can't find colonial examples of banning and confiscation of guns. Neither can I. That's not what "well regulated" meant back then, nor should it be what it means today.

 

  • Post 34  2-16 Again, Tom Ray claims  the absence of "confiscation" by Colonists in the FF period.
  • Post 76 Feb. 18  Tom replies that only the British confiscated guns.
  • Post 76.  Tom adds an un-sourced history piece which coaches bringing confiscation into the FF-era gun control discussion. (Note: this was Scalia, repeating disinformation)
  • Post 78 Feb. 21. Again, Tom brings historically false gun confiscation claims into a discussion of history.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2018 at 2:42 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 9/10/2018 at 2:39 AM, jocal505 said:

You once claimed that the NRA was the org most responsible for Heller.

You can reply to the various statements to which you object in the threads where they appear, but this won't appear anywhere.

You have a terrible relationship with the truth.

Quote

The SAF was the entity most responsible for the Heller case getting to the Supreme Court and it was only once that outcome was inevitable that the NRA climbed aboard.

NOTES

--DE-BUNKING TOM RAY and other gun idiots is a hobby for me.

-- CATO's Robert Levy flew $olo to produce Heller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grayson Community College School Shooting

Quote

A criminal justice club student picked up a loaded gun, belonging to an advisor, which the student thought was an unloaded training weapon. She then shot at a wall target, unintentionally firing a bullet, which went through the wall and broke a window. The advisor was a licensed peace officer permitted to carry a firearm on campus.

The need to ban "assault" weapons in response to this school shooting is unclear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michigan High School Shooting

Quote

An off-duty police officer, watching his son compete at a high school wrestling meet, unintentionally discharged a handgun. A bullet hit the gymnasium floor but did not strike anyone. The meet was paused for fifty minutes before resuming.

The need to ban "assault" weapons in response to this school shooting is unclear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The need to ban "assault" weapons in response to this school shooting is unclear to me.

Then why invent, and maintain, such a connection? Seriously, do you really think this type of content makes you appear clever? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting At Virginia Middle School

Quote

A school resource officer unintentionally fired his weapon inside his office at George Washington Middle School. He checked the area for any injuries—there were none—and notified his superiors. Classes continued as normal.

 

2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
30 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The need to ban "assault" weapons in response to this school shooting is unclear to me.

Then why invent, and maintain, such a connection? Seriously, do you really think this type of content makes you appear clever? 

I think Bloomberg invents and maintain$ the connection between these "school shootings" and banning our guns because it's easy to scare people with "60 school shootings so far this year" and get them to support gun bans.

It makes him appear full of shit to me, but it does seem to work so is clever enough in that respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Shooting At Virginia Middle School

 

I think Bloomberg invents and maintain$ the connection between these "school shootings" and banning our guns because it's easy to scare people with "60 school shootings so far this year" and get them to support gun bans.

It makes him appear full of shit to me, but it does seem to work so is clever enough in that respect.

Let's review the other, for now. A licensed officer has a gun go off in the bleachers of a high school competition. It causes a 40 minute delay in the event, and generates fear and terror within the realm.

Bloomberg's mechanism reports the incident, in the context of being a gun discharge in a school setting, and you go full whiner-ama....then say this is about an AW ban. What's up with that Tom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

(Bloomberg) maintain$ the connection between these "school shootings" and banning our guns

I think the connection here is a Tommy Dogballs fabrication, so you can be a crybaby, about gunz. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A school resource officer unintentionally fired his weapon inside his office at George Washington Middle School. He checked the area for any injuries—there were none—and notified his superiors. Classes continued as normal.

Source: NBC Washington

This fact, demonstrating more gun mayhem in schools, needs censorship, generated by a guy like Tom Ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Great job. DeadEye. I AM HERE TO LEARN FROM YOU.

Link us to the Kleck papers. I dare you. Where were these "papers" "published"?

Uh-oh, you _dare_ me.

Tell you what, Joe: You show us your evidence of Palmer being an antigun win, and I'll tell you the super secret method of finding papers by Kleck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Uh-oh, you _dare_ me.

Tell you what, Joe: You show us your evidence of Palmer being an antigun win, and I'll tell you the super secret method of finding papers by Kleck.

Palmer wanted a gun, just in case gay bashers in DC came after him, for his gay orientation. He didn't get the gun, even after Judge Scullin made sweeping changes for CATO lawyers. Seems like a pro-restriction outcome, with high standards. As yuou know, the Scullin ruling was shitcanned when Peruta collapsed.

Quote

Judge Denies Preliminary Injunction Against D.C.'s Concealed-Carry Laws  MAR 7, 2016

 D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine has released the following statement on the ruling: "We are pleased with the Court’s order, because it means the District will be able to continue enforcing its law requiring applicants for permits to carry concealed guns in public to state a ‘good reason’ for doing so."

 

Hi, DeadEye. Kleck is a dirtbag among these researchers, with weak, disproven mojo from the nineties. What did he write recently, and who published it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Palmer wanted a gun, just in case gay bashers in DC came after him, for his gay orientation. He didn't get the gun, even after Judge Scullin made sweeping changes for CATO lawyers. Seems like a pro-restriction outcome, with high standards. As yuou know, the Scullin ruling was shitcanned when Peruta collapsed.

Quote

Judge Denies Preliminary Injunction Against D.C.'s Concealed-Carry Laws  MAR 7, 2016

 D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine has released the following statement on the ruling: "We are pleased with the Court’s order, because it means the District will be able to continue enforcing its law requiring applicants for permits to carry concealed guns in public to state a ‘good reason’ for doing so."

Joe, I'm expecting you to use "evidence" that is contained in the link to the Palmer case documents I posted the other day. Not a press release from the DC AG in a different case.

The Palmer case had been over for months by that date.

Do try to stay on topic.

While explaining the Palmer "win", would you please explain why DC appealed the district court injunction (in Palmer, not some other case)  to the court of appeals.

 

20 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Hi, DeadEye. Kleck is a dirtbag among these researchers, with weak, disproven mojo from the nineties. What did he write recently, and who published it?

You mean he doesn't agree with you. By "you" I really mean the quoted but uncited papers you feel contain all the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

Joe, I'm expecting you to use "evidence" that is contained in the link to the Palmer case documents I posted the other day.

I'm expecting you to seance with Elvis, I want you to come back with a good song about dogballs.

And I want to be schooled by some recent Gary Kleck, on your dime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I'm expecting you to seance with Elvis, I want you to come back with a good song about dogballs.

But Joe, you assured us that Palmer v. DC was a big antigun win. Do I need to post a link to case documents again?

Here: http://michellawyers.com/palmer-v-district-of-colombia/

All you need to prove your point is contained in that link.

26 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

And I want to be schooled by some recent Gary Kleck, on your dime.

I've already posted my requirements.

Maybe I should of asked for "Peruta II" links as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this