Mid

New Orleans : Three dead, seven injured

Recommended Posts

On 8/4/2018 at 2:21 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

How many of those “gun deaths” on your chart are self-murder?  What gun laws prevent suicide?

Look at the chart again.  I'll say it slower so you can understand:

States with restrictive gun laws have fewer gun deaths. 

That includes self-death by gun.  

Therefore, restrictive gun laws DO prevent gun deaths of ALL kinds. 

Not that I expect you to even consider this viewpoint. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2018 at 9:07 PM, Bent Sailor said:

How much more of this does one need before concluding someone is a despicable sack of shit, @A guy in the Chesapeake? Perhaps imagine someone was saying that about you when Nazis break into your house. Might help you get past the "but Jeff & I agree on guns" roadblock.

Not sure what point you're trying to make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2018 at 1:59 AM, SloopJonB said:

I've been watching that car customizing program that's based in Nawlins - The Bomb Factory is the name of the shop.

When they cruise around the city it looks like an incredible shithole - like Caracas slums or something. It looks totally third world - I can't recall ever seeing even one city block that looked remotely attractive.

Lots of both kinds of places down there.  The hurricane hit 'em hard - and several neighborhoods probably won't come back.  out by Tulane?  There are some gorgeous old homes, georgian and antebellum architecture abound. 

Share this post


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

I'm not. I'm engaging him on the subject of his dishonesty. Which is not something limited to the topic of gun control.

In all sincerity, Bent - can you point to any comment of Tom's that is dishonest?  He's pedantic with the proposed dogballs bans, but, he's right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 Not sure what point you're trying to make. 

Because you don't want to see it. Jeff continues to double down on an accusation which you admit was over the line. You continue to believe that doesn't make him a sack of shit because he only does it when discussing guns. I suggested, based on your public disdain for those calling you a Nazi & similar, that you place Jeff's accusations about me in the context of you & your family being attacked by Nazis and see where that takes you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 In all sincerity, Bent - can you point to any comment of Tom's that is dishonest?  He's pedantic with the proposed dogballs bans, but, he's right.  

Yes. His deliberate misquotes of my posts to start with. The pretence that not wanting to discuss things with him is solely about his position on guns for another. His pretence that he is not instrumental in threads devolving into "gungrabby nonsense" recently. His denial that he cannot find a press release more specifically targeted at this shooting than a press release made months before it happened.  And so on.

In all sincerity, you ignore his dishonesty because you agree with him on one thing he says (over and over and over,). I, in all sincerity, don't care whether he's right or wrong about that one thing when he is deliberately dishonest in how he goes about trying to get people to argue with him on the subject.

Share this post


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

His pretence that he is not instrumental in threads devolving into "gungrabby nonsense" recently. His denial that he cannot find a press release more specifically targeted at this shooting than a press release made months before it happened.

Threads would be plural and there are no examples of what you're complaining about.

I can't find anything more relevant for political discussion of mass shootings than this:

On 7/30/2018 at 6:59 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Just check the press release:

On 11/10/2017 at 4:46 PM, badlatitude said:
"We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote. 

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere. 

“To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job."

....................................................... 

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).


I'm not allowed to say what they mean by "weapons of war" any more, but it means guns like my assault weapon, which looks something like one of these:

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

Or the assault weapon I'm thinking of acquiring, which looks something like this:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

They both shoot ammo like the one on the right:

On 6/2/2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark K said:

Not really. Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 22_223a.jpg

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness. Perhaps someone who has been horribly brain-washed, I dare not guess.  I think it best to leave such in the hands of professionals.    

 

 

Because "after every mass shooting" means "after every mass shooting" to me and Bent claims to know I could find something more relevant (untrue, I can't) and yet can't find something more relevant himself. I'm not sure why he feels that my search skills are so superior to his. They're not.

There's nothing more relevant to be found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said you could find a press release more relevant to this shooting. I did not say anything about legislation regarding mass shootings in general. You pretending I said anything else is an example of your dishonesty. You pretending that a press release about legislation made before the shooting is more relevant to this specific shooting (as I stated) than any press release about this specific shooting (as I stated) is dishonest. 

If you haven't found any press release more relevant to this shooting - you haven't tried. If you have tried, you would have found a more relevant press release to this shooting. Either way, claiming you cannot is another example of your dishonesty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Because you don't want to see it. Jeff continues to double down on an accusation which you admit was over the line. You continue to believe that doesn't make him a sack of shit because he only does it when discussing guns. I suggested, based on your public disdain for those calling you a Nazi & similar, that you place Jeff's accusations about me in the context of you & your family being attacked by Nazis and see where that takes you.

Thanks for explaining - I wasn't getting that at all from your prior post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2018 at 12:59 AM, SloopJonB said:

I've been watching that car customizing program that's based in Nawlins - The Bomb Factory is the name of the shop.

When they cruise around the city it looks like an incredible shithole - like Caracas slums or something. It looks totally third world - I can't recall ever seeing even one city block that looked remotely attractive.

Uh huh.    On what else have you based your understanding of New Orleans??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2018 at 10:49 AM, Kirwan said:

Look at the chart again.  I'll say it slower so you can understand:

States with restrictive gun laws have fewer gun deaths. 

That includes self-death by gun.  

Therefore, restrictive gun laws DO prevent gun deaths of ALL kinds. 

Not that I expect you to even consider this viewpoint. 

 

I'll take a moment to consider whether the number of laws is an indication of the quality of legislation and whether correlation proves causation.

OK, all done. Nonsense in both cases. That was quick and easy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

I said you could find a press release more relevant to this shooting. I did not say anything about legislation regarding mass shootings in general. You pretending I said anything else is an example of your dishonesty. You pretending that a press release about legislation made before the shooting is more relevant to this specific shooting (as I stated) than any press release about this specific shooting (as I stated) is dishonest. 

If you haven't found any press release more relevant to this shooting - you haven't tried. If you have tried, you would have found a more relevant press release to this shooting. Either way, claiming you cannot is another example of your dishonesty.

 

Not sure where I got the idea that there was something political about that press release. Possibly the first seven words?

Quote

We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting...

Still waiting for you to name the secret political topic or legislation that justifies putting this thread in PA, since I am trying to mislead people into thinking it's about the TeamD crusade to ban guns.

Why not say what the political issue really is?

Share this post


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

I'll take a moment to consider whether the number of laws is an indication of the quality of legislation and whether correlation proves causation.

OK, all done. Nonsense in both cases. That was quick and easy!

What a good little sheep you are to repeat the NRA talking point so perfectly.... do you even know what those words mean, or is it just a convenient way to dismiss the facts? 

The dead don't care about the difference between correlation and causation, and if you live in a state with lots of guns and few laws, you have a greater chance of becoming one, as my data shows.  Meanwhile, you've got nothing of substance.  You're fluff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2018 at 4:17 PM, jocal505 said:

Tom pulls out his currently over-used photo tool, from his database, which he denies having...Tom weighs in on suicide, using the Japan gambit. Tom is brainwashing, using tired, misleading info.

Tom is not comparing similar cultures. Tom knows better, but tosses his honor aside to introduce Japan's unique belief system, which accepts suicide in certain situations, unacceptable to the rest of the world, as a justification for the rampant gun suicide in the USA. 

 

I had a friend who shot himself. The death made no sense to those who knew him.

He didn’t do it to make sense for you or others, dumb ass!!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nolatom said:

Uh huh.    On what else have you based your understanding of New Orleans??

Absolutely nothing - it was a simple observation.

Share this post


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

Absolutely nothing - it was a simple observation.

Based on a TV show. :wacko:

Share this post


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

Not sure where I got the idea that there was something political about that press release. Possibly the first seven words?

Not sure where you got the idea I said there was nothing political about your press release. Certainly wasn't something I wrote because I never wrote anything like that.

 

6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Still waiting for you to name the secret political topic or legislation that justifies putting this thread in PA, since I am trying to mislead people into thinking it's about the TeamD crusade to ban guns.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate where I said it belonged anywhere but PA. Certainly wasn't something I wrote because I never wrote anything like that

 

6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Why not say what the political issue really is?

Because I've never argued that there is or isn't a political issue nor ever argued that you were or weren't arguing something political. Once again, any impression you have I did certainly wasn't from something I wrote, because I never wrote anything like that.

And you wonder why people think you're a dishonest twat...

Share this post


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

Based on a TV show. :wacko:

Well, technically yes but it was merely an observation of what can be seen out the windows as they drive around the city.

It does not give a flattering impression of the place. Most all of it appears to look like these pics.

False impression?

 

image.png.80acf6a4210816c93231e7607a91304f.pngimage.png.3e82eeba9a40ad9bdf250922ef908aa8.pngimage.png.cda6674a57cd15f92f271c32eb829055.png

Share this post


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

Because I've never argued that there is or isn't a political issue nor ever argued that you were or weren't arguing something political.

Uh huh.

On 8/5/2018 at 6:55 AM, Bent Sailor said:
On 8/5/2018 at 5:28 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

As usual, a devolution into gungrabby nonsense.

It'll do that when people make their first contribution about "gungrabby nonsense".


You were blaming me for the fact that Mid started a thread about banning assault weapons so I linked to the appropriate press release and legislation and commented on them.

Share this post


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

Uh huh.

You conceding to the facts is not required for them to be so. 

 

Quote

You were blaming me for the fact that Mid started a thread about banning assault weapons so I linked to the appropriate press release and legislation and commented on them.

You might want to read that again. My post discusses how a thread might become a "devolution into gungrabby nonsense". It does not assign blame to anyone in particular for that behaviour, though I do link to an example of the behaviour. It doesn't even mention why people might start any thread, let alone why Mid might have started this one specifically and who is to blame for that.

None of which is me discussing politics. Merely the predictable trajectory of conversation given the stated input. I deliberately don't discuss firearm politics with you Tom. This thread isn't an exception, no matter how desperately you try to make it so.

Share this post


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

He didn’t do it to make sense for you or others, dumb ass!!   

My friend Pat once lived, involved with certain purpose and potential. It was the fifties; He ran and laughed played with me and others, respectfully. He had seven brothers in his house; the only female sibling was the smartest kid in my class. She was pretty. Good times.

The convenience of a nearby gun factored into the end of all that. That incident, that gun suicide, was destructive to many. It wasn't meant to be, IMO. I was there.  

The hard core elk hunters in our town swallowed hard when it happened; the matter reflected on the safety of having casual guns around. This kid's back porch held maybe thirty hunting rifles, leaned against a wall. That crowd preferred scoped thirty thirties.

Share this post


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

I'll take a moment to consider whether the number of laws is an indication of the quality of legislation and whether correlation proves causation.

OK, all done. Nonsense in both cases. That was quick and easy!

You are a liar; sir; you know better by reading these boards. Your announcement of nonsense is formally challenged by science.

Kirwan has nailed the two basic conclusions of research. First, more guns create more problems. Second, firm gun laws have safety results that are measured in double digits.

 

Correlation vs. causation? A robust correlation has been formally established, in peer-reviewed work, between more guns, and more violent crime, more murder, and more suicide.

Share this post


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

What a good little sheep you are to repeat the NRA talking point so perfectly.... do you even know what those words mean, or is it just a convenient way to dismiss the facts? 

The dead don't care about the difference between correlation and causation, and if you live in a state with lots of guns and few laws, you have a greater chance of becoming one, as my data shows.  Meanwhile, you've got nothing of substance.  You're fluff.

 

Illinois.  Some of the toughest gun laws in the country.  66 people shot and 12 dead in just this past weekend.  How are your stringency scores there working out for you.  

BTW - 66 people shot and 12 dead would be a pretty shocking mass killing even for the US.  Why is no one screaming about what happened in Shitcago just a few days ago?  Is the Melanin content of the victims too high for the outrage meter to move for you guys???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2018 at 4:09 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

In a thread that seems to have vanished, I pointed out that a city to the south of me that I call Fort FatGrifter on this forum for technical reasons has a higher crime rate than Chicago.

I looked up violent crime rates and murder rates and compared them go gun ownership rates some time back. They don't correlate particularly well for those who think more guns reduce crime, nor for those who think more gun control does.

brady-vs-census.jpg

Speaking of correlation,

Do you suppose you're observing correlation or causation?

 

OMG. The return of Brady's Best. A steaming pile of shit. TR has no shame; I spend my time where the air smells better, every day. 

IMO, members of this community need to speak out when they see disinformation. If they don't, the garbage becomes mainstream. Thus ordinary dogballs's become fused with assault weapons. Good enough for PA.

Buncha turkeys. Out. I leave you with Tom's research, you deserve something on that level for mainstreaming TR bullshit.

Share this post


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

Illinois.  Some of the toughest gun laws in the country.  66 people shot and 12 dead in just this past weekend.  How are your stringency scores there working out for you.  

BTW - 66 people shot and 12 dead would be a pretty shocking mass killing even for the US.  Why is no one screaming about what happened in Shitcago just a few days ago?  Is the Melanin content of the victims too high for the outrage meter to move for you guys???

Hi Jeff. You should study the Chicago situation. It's on your mind a lot. (The search function shows four pages of Jeffie references to Chicago. We find another two pages of references to "Shitcago.")

To whom it may concern: the Chicago situation is a gun bloodbath, and one was predicted. Interstate trafficking statutes are inadequate; it was a terrible idea to kneecap the ATF. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The forum software is using the work "dogballs" when I type in ordinary twenty two? Somebody deserves my thanks. Funny stuff.

Share this post


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

Hi Jeff. You should study the Chicago situation. It's on your mind a lot. (The search function shows four pages of Jeffie references to Chicago. We find another two pages of references to "Shitcago.")

To whom it may concern: the Chicago situation is a gun bloodbath, and one was predicted. Interstate trafficking statutes are inadequate; it was a terrible idea to kneecap the ATF. 

If ease of obtaining guns in bordering states is causing such high gun crimes in Chicago, why aren't the neighboring states similarly awash with crime?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2018 at 6:49 PM, Kirwan said:

Look at the chart again.  I'll say it slower so you can understand:

States with restrictive gun laws have fewer gun deaths. 

That includes self-death by gun.  

Therefore, restrictive gun laws DO prevent gun deaths of ALL kinds. 

Not that I expect you to even consider this viewpoint. 

 

I HAVE looked at the chart several times.  There's so much wrong with it, its almost not even worth discussing.  "Stringency score"????  Really?  I looked up the "source" for the other half of the data on that chart here:  http://crimadvisor.com/  YGBFSM!!!!  Yeah, there's a really unbiased, scientific source of information.  

Another issue - the chart implies AZ has ZERO gun laws.  Do you really think that is accurate?  And lets say that it is true that AZ has zero firearms laws.  By your expectation, AZ should be pegged at the max number of gun deaths.  But they are only average.  AZ is not far off MO, MD and CO - all of which have MUCH more stringent gun laws.  How do you account for that?

Anyway, I ran the numbers.  I averaged both the gun death and the BS "Brady score".  I plotted the average lines on the chart.  There are several states like MI, OR, DE, MD, PA, and CO that have high "Brady scores" and yet are almost perfectly average on the death score.  

And yet there are many states that are well below the death score that are also very low on the brady score as well.  For instance:  VA, ME, NE, VT, and SD.  

Finally, if you take suicides out - the numbers are completely different.  Sorry, but including self-murder in with murder to try to make a point is beyond douche-engenuous.  Gun laws are about preventing intentional harm to others, and you know this.  We don't call don't call suicide by hanging - "Rope Violence".  Or suicide by wrist cutting - "razor violence".   Or suicide by jumping - bridge violence.  So suicide by gun is not "gun violence".  

If you cannot make a cogent case for gun control without including self-murder to pad your numbers (more than 2/3 of all gun deaths BTW) - you are already losing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

My friend Pat once lived, involved with certain purpose and potential. It was the fifties; He ran and laughed played with me and others, respectfully. He had seven brothers in his house; the only female sibling was the smartest kid in my class. She was pretty. Good times.

The convenience of a nearby gun factored into the end of all that. That incident, that gun suicide, was destructive to many. It wasn't meant to be, IMO. I was there.  

FIFY.

BTW - why did he shoot himself?  Did you laugh at him when he couldn't jump all the over a car?  

Share this post


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

If ease of obtaining guns in bordering states is causing such high gun crimes in Chicago, why aren't the neighboring states similarly awash with crime?

Blasphemer!!!  Don't point out such things.  It makes the grabbers go cry in stairwells when you speak this kind of truth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're such a good parrot for the NRA, Jeffy. 

It's a shame, the NRA used to be about safety and sportsmanship, now it's just political arm twisting, fearmongering and propaganda; whataboutism and illogic.  Bring up Chicago a few more times, and ignore New Orleans, where the murder rate is over 3 TIMES as high.

Awk! Polly want a Pistol!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Kirwan said:

You're such a good parrot for the NRA, Jeffy. 

It's a shame, the NRA used to be about safety and sportsmanship, now it's just political arm twisting, fearmongering and propaganda; whataboutism and illogic.  Bring up Chicago a few more times, and ignore New Orleans, where the murder rate is over 3 TIMES as high.

 Awk! Polly want a Pistol!

Tangent much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
10 hours ago, Kirwan said:

You're such a good parrot for the NRA, Jeffy. 

It's a shame, the NRA used to be about safety and sportsmanship, now it's just political arm twisting, fearmongering and propaganda; whataboutism and illogic.  Bring up Chicago a few more times, and ignore New Orleans, where the murder rate is over 3 TIMES as high.

 Awk! Polly want a Pistol!

Tangent much?

Yes, he does tangent all the time. 

Hey @Kirwan, care to actually address what I said in post #228 or what China posted in #227???  Or are you just going to continue to hurl monkey poo when faced with inconvenient truths???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Tangent much?

You mean the part about New Orleans... . you know, the TITLE OF THE FUCKING THREAD...?

Or the part about how Jeffy doesn't have any data to refute my arguments, only pre-programmed talking points?

Or maybe you like Jeffy's tangent of 'whataboutism' regarding Chicago, where despite a bad weekend, the murder RATE is lower than most of the deep south. 

 

 

Share this post


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

You mean the part about New Orleans... . you know, the TITLE OF THE FUCKING THREAD...?

Or the part about how Jeffy doesn't have any data to refute my arguments, only pre-programmed talking points?

Or maybe you like Jeffy's tangent of 'whataboutism' regarding Chicago, where despite a bad weekend, the murder RATE is lower than most of the deep south. 

 

Of course....  What data would refute a BS statement? 

Let me help you walk thru this:  
CB pointed out that the localities that are purported to be the source of guns getting in to Chicago all had significantly lower murder rates, which refutes your assertion in post 201 that :

On 8/6/2018 at 10:49 AM, Kirwan said:

States with restrictive gun laws have fewer gun deaths

in Post 228 Jeff raised several rational objections to the  validity of the source you cited, and then in post 230, he made a tongue in cheek reply to the effect that people like you wouldn't accept that position w/out conflation

Your response was the same parroted tangential BS that you offered as a rebuttal to every person who questioned your position in this thread.  Was it an objective rebuttal to the points they raised?  

On 8/7/2018 at 1:50 PM, Kirwan said:

What a good little sheep you are to repeat the NRA talking point so perfectly....

 

On 8/8/2018 at 3:56 PM, Kirwan said:

You're such a good parrot for the NRA, Jeffy. 

 

And you complain that everyone ELSE is replying with pre-programmed talking points?  Read what you wrote. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 6:56 AM, chinabald said:

If ease of obtaining guns in bordering states is causing such high gun crimes in Chicago, why aren't the neighboring states similarly awash with crime?

The "ease of obtaining guns" plays in to convoluted racial problems in certain areas of Chicago. The concentration of this unfortunate dynamic doesn't apply to other areas, like Wisconsin or Indiana, does it?

Four other urban areas show similar stress patterns; four cities have worse stats than Chicago. The nasty gun dynamic can apply there for the same reasons, soon.

 

Okay chinabald, lay out your own take on Chicago for us.

Share this post


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

The "ease of obtaining guns" plays in to convoluted racial problems in certain areas of Chicago. The concentration of this unfortunate dynamic doesn't apply to other areas, like Wisconsin or Indiana, does it?

Four other urban areas show similar stress patterns; four cities have worse stats than Chicago. The nasty gun dynamic can apply there for the same reasons, soon.

Why won't anyone back my reasonable proposal to set up checkpoints into the "stressed" areas of the highest crime cities and search every car and every person who enters and remove any guns going in?  And do a one time house to house and vehicle search in those neighborhoods and confiscate all the weapons.  Once they are gone and you can interdict any gunz coming into those neighborhoods - they will become utopian models of peace overnight.  Right?  It Certainly seems better to inconvenience a few tens of thousands of people in the inner city "stressed" slums than to punish the hundred million law abiding gun ownerz who are not causing any crime problems.  Problem SOLved.

Share this post


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

Why won't anyone back my reasonable proposal to set up checkpoints into the "stressed" areas of the highest crime cities and search every car and every person who enters and remove any guns going in?

Everyone knows Bloomberg thought up the whole "throw 'em against the wall and frisk 'em" approach before you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the die is cast; no solutions, only bodies. 

'murica

 

Share this post


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

Why won't anyone back my reasonable proposal to set up checkpoints into the "stressed" areas of the highest crime cities and search every car and every person who enters and remove any guns going in?

Everyone knows Bloomberg thought up the whole "throw 'em against the wall and frisk 'em" approach before you did.

And it worked well before those damned constitutional snowflakes started crying about privacy rights.  

Share this post


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

And it worked well before those damned constitutional snowflakes started crying about privacy rights.  

No it didn't. The vast majority of people harassed had done nothing wrong.

Share this post


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

The "ease of obtaining guns" plays in to convoluted racial problems in certain areas of Chicago. The concentration of this unfortunate dynamic doesn't apply to other areas, like Wisconsin or Indiana, does it?

Four other urban areas show similar stress patterns; four cities have worse stats than Chicago. The nasty gun dynamic can apply there for the same reasons, soon.

 

Okay chinabald, lay out your own take on Chicago for us.

You don’t really give an answer here. A brief aside to convuluted racial problems is not an answer.

You actually opine that it’s not the guns.  And then double down on the ridiculousness.

By pointing out that since Wisconsin and Indiana don’t have the same racial dynamic is not lost on me either. The racist irony here is thick.

You cast aspersions on Jeff for pointing out gangs are violent and yet here you imply that minorities are violent while white people aren’t, so we can’t compare different areas. 

So it’s white people selling guns from other states to Blacks and the blacks are killing each other because “convoluted racial problems” it’s not a convoluted racial problem, it’s people of one race killing people of the same race. 

But to boil your answer down to its bare essence. It’s not the guns it’s people.  And to stir it up just a bit it’s proof that even with gun control criminals will have guns and the law abiding won’t. 

Share this post


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

And it worked well before those damned constitutional snowflakes started crying about privacy rights.  

We just want some common sense rules on controlling personal privacy. Let’s face it our founding fathers wrote the 4th amendment long before there were locks in every door. And the military grade metals being used in deadbolts were not used back then. Security cameras and alarms weren’t even invented. To keep our police from being able to sneak in and out of a house without being detected shouldn’t be allowed. The use of security Cameras and alarms should be banned. Like the founding fathers wanted. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No it didn't. The vast majority of people harassed had done nothing wrong.

WHAT????  You mean harassing the majority of the people who aren't doing anything wrong just in the hopes of stopping a tiny minority of people who commit crime is bad???  I guess its only bad..... sometimes.

Share this post


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

We just want some common sense rules on controlling personal privacy. Let’s face it our founding fathers wrote the 4th amendment long before there were locks in every door. And the military grade metals being used in deadbolts were not used back then. Security cameras and alarms weren’t even invented. To keep our police from being able to sneak in and out of a house without being detected shouldn’t be allowed. The use of security Cameras and alarms should be banned. Like the founding fathers wanted. 

Agree.  I would go even one step further and ban pass codes and encryption on smart phones.  The FF's didn't have smart phones back then, so why the fuck should a drug kingpin or a pedophile have any expectation of privacy on their personal devices if the Po-Leece want to see what they are doing??  The Big C only says personal papers and effects.  Smartphones and computers are not made out of paper.  Therefore not protected by the bill of rights.  

Share this post


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

Agree.  I would go even one step further and ban pass codes and encryption on smart phones.  The FF's didn't have smart phones back then, so why the fuck should a drug kingpin or a pedophile have any expectation of privacy on their personal devices if the Po-Leece want to see what they are doing??  The Big C only says personal papers and effects.  Smartphones and computers are not made out of paper.  Therefore not protected by the bill of rights.  

could computers and smartphones be "effects"?  Why are bombs not arms?  You seem to have a problem with consistency and logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

could computers and smartphones be "effects"?  Why are bombs not arms?  You seem to have a problem with consistency and logic.

Several folks certainly do... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Several folks certainly do... 

Do you think bombs are arms?   Do you think smartphones could be effects?  Jeff doesn't think so.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Do you think bombs are arms?   Do you think smartphones could be effects?  Jeff doesn't think so.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

WTF are you on about, specious?  Ya know what - never mind.   I'm not interested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

WTF are you on about, specious?  Ya know what - never mind.   I'm not interested. 

Oh well, I guess you just ignore Jeff's posts.  Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spatial Ed said:

Oh well, I guess you just ignore Jeff's posts.  Carry on.

Jeff and I were illustrating the absurdity of the argument that semi automatic guns arent protected by the 2nd amendment because they weren’t around when the bill of rights was written. When the same argument is used for the 1st or 4th amendment it illustrates well just how ridiculous such an argument is. 

Share this post


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

Jeff and I were illustrating the absurdity of the argument that semi automatic guns arent protected by the 2nd amendment because they weren’t around when the bill of rights was written. When the same argument is used for the 1st or 4th amendment it illustrates well just how ridiculous such an argument is. 

The absurdity is you defend banning explosives from 2nd amendment protections because they aren't guns.  Yet the second never mentions guns.  Only arms and well regulated militias.  Bombs are arms. And should be available to well regulated militias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

The absurdity is you defend banning explosives from 2nd amendment protections because they aren't guns.  Yet the second never mentions guns.  Only arms and well regulated militias.  Bombs are arms. And should be available to well regulated militias.

Please show me where I said anything like that. 

Share this post


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

Jeff and I were illustrating the absurdity of the argument that semi automatic guns arent protected by the 2nd amendment because they weren’t around when the bill of rights was written. When the same argument is used for the 1st or 4th amendment it illustrates well just how ridiculous such an argument is. 

except when it comes to citizenship Jeff's all about revisionism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, fer gawd's SAKE specious,,

??  do you have a TI6-4 closet to store it safely ??

If not, go sit in the corner for such a TIRED old strawman.

 

If you CAN safely handle your precious,,

(1)  Behave yourself with that stuff.

(2)  Do NOT hurt anybody.

Penalties for infraction (1) are Severe.

Penalties for infraction (2) are Terminal

( current cost is twenty four cents,, but we'll make that up with pay per view. )

 

If you blow your own dishonest ass  into orbit,, 

:) Kumbaya.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike in Seattle said:

Oh, fer gawd's SAKE specious,,

??  do you have a TI6-4 closet to store it safely ??

If not, go sit in the corner for such a TIRED old strawman.

 

 

Show me in the constitution where I have to have a TI6-4 closet or that I even have to store it safely?  Why do you hate the 2nd Amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
10 hours ago, chinabald said:

Jeff and I were illustrating the absurdity of the argument that semi automatic guns arent protected by the 2nd amendment because they weren’t around when the bill of rights was written. When the same argument is used for the 1st or 4th amendment it illustrates well just how ridiculous such an argument is. 

except when it comes to citizenship Jeff's all about revisionism.

Nice attempt at deflection, but since you brought it up - where am I all about revisionism wrt to citizenship?  

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