Gun Legislation

[Boatrocker]

. . . The entire NRA message is one of irrational fear and paranoia . . . .

Which works quite well in the irrationally fearful and paranoid RW. They are buying ammo as fast as they can cash their lottery tickets and complaining about ammo getting scarce and prices going up.

[ex-member]

If you want to deal with the real problem, consider this: minorities are responsible for doubling the U.S. murder rate each year.
If this unique American issue could be resolved, the rate would be around 2.5 per 100,000.

This is not meant to be racist; the vast majority of the thousands of murder victims killed by minorities are minorities.

[Boatrocker]

If you want to deal with the real problem, consider this: minorities are responsible for doubling the U.S. murder rate each year.
If this unique American issue could be resolved, the rate would be around 2.5 per 100,000.

This is not meant to be racist; the vast majority of the thousands of murder victims killed by minorities are minorities.

Of course. It's never meant to be racist. Perhaps it's more an issue of the vast majority of arrests are of minorities.

[ex-member]

If you want to deal with the real problem, consider this: minorities are responsible for doubling the U.S. murder rate each year.
If this unique American issue could be resolved, the rate would be around 2.5 per 100,000.

This is not meant to be racist; the vast majority of the thousands of murder victims killed by minorities are minorities.

Of course. It's never meant to be racist. Perhaps it's more an issue of the vast majority of arrests are of minorities.

Another fact that is undeniable. Are you postulating that these arrests are not legitimate? I ask because we need to figure out how to lessen the crime and consequently the arrests and murders in this community.

[O Really]

If you want to deal with the real problem, consider this: minorities are responsible for doubling the U.S. murder rate each year.
If this unique American issue could be resolved, the rate would be around 2.5 per 100,000.

This is not meant to be racist; the vast majority of the thousands of murder victims killed by minorities are minorities.

Of course. It's never meant to be racist. Perhaps it's more an issue of the vast majority of arrests are of minorities.

Another fact that is undeniable. Are you postulating that these arrests are not legitimate? I ask because we need to figure out how to lessen the crime and consequently the arrests and murders in this community.

Some arrests are; some are not. Some are simply "rounding up the usual suspects." But that's not the point. Of course some areas/locations have higher crime than others, and a lot of the high crime areas might be called ghettos or barrios. That's actually what makes it so funny when Bubba keeps talking about having to have a big gun to "protect his family" when he lives in a mostly white gated neighborhood and the biggest threat to his family is a golf ball going through the window.

[Boatrocker]

If you want to deal with the real problem, consider this: minorities are responsible for doubling the U.S. murder rate each year.
If this unique American issue could be resolved, the rate would be around 2.5 per 100,000.

This is not meant to be racist; the vast majority of the thousands of murder victims killed by minorities are minorities.

Of course. It's never meant to be racist. Perhaps it's more an issue of the vast majority of arrests are of minorities.

Another fact that is undeniable. Are you postulating that these arrests are not legitimate? I ask because we need to figure out how to lessen the crime and consequently the arrests and murders in this community.

I am postulating that the number of legitimate arrests for allegedly unlawful activities are skewed to the class and ethnicity of the alleged perpetrator. Within blocks of my home, I can point to arrests of black kids for activity that is ignored or passed over for white kids, especially those of "good" families with means. Simply implying that more per capita arrests for minorities is indicative of more criminal activity by minorities is disingenuous.

[ex-member]

...Simply implying that more per capita arrests for minorities is indicative of more criminal activity by minorities is disingenuous.

As is not adjusting for economic status for that enforcement that has been adjusted for unequal application. Partisan62 (ex-member) has never been very honest or very swift with statistical analysis.

I'm open to the statistical refutation of what I have posted; always have been. Vrede, you have never been very forthcoming with anything of the sort. You are welcome to try here.

You folks don't really want an echo chamber here, do you? So many liberals here that you have to troll other forums every day to find other viewpoints? Or is it satisfying to you leftists to just sit back and call them nuts from afar?

As far as criminal activity, no "adjustment" will, in any way, reduce the fact that 52% of the murders in this country are committed by members of an ethnic group that comprises just 13% of the population.

That alone is reason enough to justify increased enforcement and the assumption that there is the potential for more criminal activity in black communities. Common sense says that we address the area where there is a problem.

[Boatrocker]

...Simply implying that more per capita arrests for minorities is indicative of more criminal activity by minorities is disingenuous.

As is not adjusting for economic status for that enforcement that has been adjusted for unequal application. Partisan62 (ex-member) has never been very honest or very swift with statistical analysis.

I'm open to the statistical refutation of what I have posted; always have been. Vrede, you have never been very forthcoming with anything of the sort. You are welcome to try here.

You folks don't really want an echo chamber here, do you? So many liberals here that you have to troll other forums every day to find other viewpoints? Or is it satisfying to you leftists to just sit back and call them nuts from afar?

As far as criminal activity, no "adjustment" will, in any way, reduce the fact that 52% of the murders in this country are committed by members of an ethnic group that comprises just 13% of the population.

That alone is reason enough to justify increased enforcement and the assumption that there is the potential for more criminal activity in black communities. Common sense says that we address the area where there is a problem.

Feel free to post something to support your contention; when you make such declarations it is incumbent on you to offer substantiation. Unless you're the troll, here.

[O Really]

...Simply implying that more per capita arrests for minorities is indicative of more criminal activity by minorities is disingenuous.

As is not adjusting for economic status for that enforcement that has been adjusted for unequal application. Partisan62 (ex-member) has never been very honest or very swift with statistical analysis.

I'm open to the statistical refutation of what I have posted; always have been. Vrede, you have never been very forthcoming with anything of the sort. You are welcome to try here.

You folks don't really want an echo chamber here, do you? So many liberals here that you have to troll other forums every day to find other viewpoints? Or is it satisfying to you leftists to just sit back and call them nuts from afar?

As far as criminal activity, no "adjustment" will, in any way, reduce the fact that 52% of the murders in this country are committed by members of an ethnic group that comprises just 13% of the population.

That alone is reason enough to justify increased enforcement and the assumption that there is the potential for more criminal activity in black communities. Common sense says that we address the area where there is a problem.

Most cities do in fact put a lot of time, effort, manpower and equipment in high crime areas. Maybe yours doesn't, but most do. But a lot of that violence problem arises out of people in the free-lance pharmaceutical industry, created by prohibition, just like in the 20's. Shall we address that to start with?

[ex-member]

...Simply implying that more per capita arrests for minorities is indicative of more criminal activity by minorities is disingenuous.

As is not adjusting for economic status for that enforcement that has been adjusted for unequal application. Partisan62 (ex-member) has never been very honest or very swift with statistical analysis.

I'm open to the statistical refutation of what I have posted; always have been. Vrede, you have never been very forthcoming with anything of the sort. You are welcome to try here.

You folks don't really want an echo chamber here, do you? So many liberals here that you have to troll other forums every day to find other viewpoints? Or is it satisfying to you leftists to just sit back and call them nuts from afar?

As far as criminal activity, no "adjustment" will, in any way, reduce the fact that 52% of the murders in this country are committed by members of an ethnic group that comprises just 13% of the population.

That alone is reason enough to justify increased enforcement and the assumption that there is the potential for more criminal activity in black communities. Common sense says that we address the area where there is a problem.

Most cities do in fact put a lot of time, effort, manpower and equipment in high crime areas. Maybe yours doesn't, but most do. But a lot of that violence problem arises out of people in the free-lance pharmaceutical industry, created by prohibition, just like in the 20's. Shall we address that to start with?

Be my guest. Do you think that even begins to explain the wildly disproportionate number of murders committed by blacks?

[ex-member]

...Simply implying that more per capita arrests for minorities is indicative of more criminal activity by minorities is disingenuous.

As is not adjusting for economic status for that enforcement that has been adjusted for unequal application. Partisan62 (ex-member) has never been very honest or very swift with statistical analysis.

I'm open to the statistical refutation of what I have posted; always have been. Vrede, you have never been very forthcoming with anything of the sort. You are welcome to try here.

Whoosh. You offered a statistic without adjusting for unequal application or economic status. You've been refuted, and it's only your well-known racism and poor comprehension that has you still thinking that you haven't been, Partisan62.

You folks don't really want an echo chamber here, do you?

No. It's a long shot but if you know any rational, intelligent cons not driven by racism please send them this way.

So many liberals here that you have to troll other forums every day to find other viewpoints?

The wingnuts ran away to a nursemaid forum. Some of us, not me, lurk there for entertainment and I'm happy they post highlights here. We all go elsewhere for competent alternative viewpoints.

Or is it satisfying to you leftists to just sit back and call them nuts from afar?...

We'd do it up close but that gets one banned. Is this news to you?

As far as criminal activity, no "adjustment" will, in any way, reduce the fact that 52% of the murders in this country are committed by members of an ethnic group that comprises just 13% of the population.

Again, a statistic without adjusting for unequal application or economic status. In other words, not a meaningful statistic.

That alone is reason enough to justify increased enforcement and the assumption that there is the potential for more criminal activity in black communities. Common sense says that we address the area where there is a problem.

Most financial crime, mass shooting, hate crime and domestic terrorism is perpetrated by white males. That alone is reason enough to justify increased enforcement against white males like Partisan62 since common sense says that we address the area where there is a problem.

Anyone wonder now why I'm an ex-member? Vrede, "whoosh" is not refutation; the statistic that I posted is a hard documented fact from the DOJ, not something made up. All Vrede wants to do is offer excuses, the typical kneejerk response of liberals when facts don't suit their narrative. And call one racist if you dare mention such harsh realities.

So, show us how you would "adjust" for this statistic that would actually have statistical meaning. What revision would erase the fact that black murder rates are 4 times their population percentage? You haven't changed a bit by the way; facts still give you hives.

As far as enforcement of the crimes that you list above, law enforcement DOES profile white males for these alleged offenses, as they should on financial crime and mass shootings (sorry, but I won't include the others as they are subjectively applied and therefore not valid). So why is it not equally legitimate for them to profile blacks for those offenses that are statistically attributed to blacks?

As far as YOU getting banned from other forums, I'm shocked. Why in the world would they do a thing like that???

[O Really]

Be my guest. Do you think that even begins to explain the wildly disproportionate number of murders committed by blacks?

Actually it does. If you take out the gang and drug murders, the rate would look pretty much the same as other demographic groups. For example, they don't have a higher rate of domestic murders. But I don't recall anybody saying that law enforcement should ignore or slow down enforcement efforts in black communities. Seems that is a different subject entirely from the gun culture issue.

[ex-member]

I'm open to the statistical refutation of what I have posted; always have been. Vrede, you have never been very forthcoming with anything of the sort. You are welcome to try here.

Whoosh. You offered a statistic without adjusting for unequal application or economic status. You've been refuted, and it's only your well-known racism and poor comprehension that has you still thinking that you haven't been, Partisan62.

You folks don't really want an echo chamber here, do you?

No. It's a long shot but if you know any rational, intelligent cons not driven by racism please send them this way.

So many liberals here that you have to troll other forums every day to find other viewpoints?

The wingnuts ran away to a nursemaid forum. Some of us, not me, lurk there for entertainment and I'm happy they post highlights here. We all go elsewhere for competent alternative viewpoints.

Or is it satisfying to you leftists to just sit back and call them nuts from afar?...

We'd do it up close but that gets one banned. Is this news to you?

As far as criminal activity, no "adjustment" will, in any way, reduce the fact that 52% of the murders in this country are committed by members of an ethnic group that comprises just 13% of the population.

Again, a statistic without adjusting for unequal application or economic status. In other words, not a meaningful statistic.

That alone is reason enough to justify increased enforcement and the assumption that there is the potential for more criminal activity in black communities. Common sense says that we address the area where there is a problem.

Most financial crime, mass shooting, hate crime and domestic terrorism is perpetrated by white males. That alone is reason enough to justify increased enforcement against white males like Partisan62 since common sense says that we address the area where there is a problem.

Anyone wonder now why I'm an ex-member?

Someone came close to outing your real ID, I stood up for you, and you thanked me for doing so and then left. Why would you lie now about it now other than out of some pathetic desperation when you're floundering?

Vrede, "whoosh" is not refutation;

The sentence following it is. Pay attention!

the statistic that I posted is a hard documented fact from the DOJ, not something made up.

It's a fact without meaning absent adjusting for relevant factors. This is so basic to all science that you should have understood it by Jr. High at the latest.

All Vrede wants to do is offer excuses, the typical kneejerk response of liberals when facts don't suit their narrative.

Adjusting data for relevant factors is not "excuses", fool, it's the norm on this planet.

And call one racist if you dare mention such harsh realities.

You are racist, slaver-defender, don't be such a wuss about admitting it. The harsh reality is that things like adjusting for unequal application and economic status diminish your racist point and you just can't handle that.

So, show us how you would "adjust" for this statistic that would actually have statistical meaning. What revision would erase the fact that black murder rates are 4 times their population percentage? You haven't changed a bit by the way; facts still give you hives.

One does not have to be a chicken to make an omelet. I'm no statistician but it doesn't take one to see that you've chosen to focus exclusively on race while ignoring other obvious relevant factors.

As far as enforcement of the crimes that you list above, law enforcement DOES profile white males for these alleged offenses,

Citation needed. You're just making things up now, as you always do.

as they should on financial crime and mass shootings (sorry, but I won't include the others as they are subjectively applied and therefore not valid).

You're denying that hate crime and domestic terrorism is perpetrated mostly by white males? Good luck explaining your way out of that hole.

So why is it not equally legitimate for them to profile blacks for those offenses that are statistically attributed to blacks?

You haven't backed up your assertion re white males being profiled, while we all know and you admit that blacks are, and you cheerlead for it.

As far as YOU getting banned from other forums,

Nursemaid Solar's, refuge for wimps like Bowhntr/nascarfan88, "Reality", Supsalemgr and ColonelTaylor/Det.Thorn (now The Stranger). You get to choose between a free speech forum and their censored one.

I'm shocked. Why in the world would they do a thing like that???

They can't handle sane, honest and sourced material.

Sourced material? Show me, Vrede, that's all that I am asking. Would you excuse a drunk for killing someone because he had a bad day, week or life? Statistically, mathematically, that hypothetical drunk killed one person. Asking why or making excuses does not reduce the real number of dead. We all have choices in life; most of us would rather die ourselves than to hurt an innocent person. Others kill without remorse and without excuse, and that is their choice...don't try to give them a break from the facts or the consequences. These people don't kill because they have to or for some distant past that didn't go their way.

So, keep these words in mind...NUMBER, COUNT, QUANTITY, FIGURE. Because your excuses do not change the NUMBER....approximately 52% of murders are committed by blacks each year. If you disagree, simply list your excuses and the corresponding drop in this number that each excuse causes, if you still feel that I am incorrect. Or admit that I posted a valid number. Simple. no?

BTW, there exists for all of us the choice to leave or stay on this forum, so becoming an "ex-member" was a choice, regardless of circumstance. I'm sure Partisan is still grateful for your stance before, but he may not like being associated with me.

Why bring up an old foe anyway, Vrede, if your skill at debating is sufficient to the task? Do you need to smear to win? Character assassination indicates desperation on your part, as well as the lack of a cogent retort.

I'm not insulting you, nor am I planning to. I'm, therefore, not the poster that you seem to think that I am.

[O Really]

So, keep these words in mind...NUMBER, COUNT, QUANTITY, FIGURE. Because your excuses do not change the NUMBER....approximately 52% of murders are committed by blacks each year. If you disagree, simply list your excuses and the corresponding drop in this number that each excuse causes, if you still feel that I am incorrect. Or admit that I posted a valid number. Simple. no?

.

No, it's not simple. Your number is probably right, although I think the 52% is the percentage of homicide victims, not necessarily doers. In any case, I'll take your word for it for sake of discussion. But it doesn't mean much outside of some context because all murder is not the same in terms of cause or prevention. BTW, of your 52%, about 85% were males under 30. Murder of one gang member by another is not the same as murder of a wife by a husband, except in the sense that in both cases somebody is dead and committed a crime with the same name. Murder in the commission of robbery, for example, is different. Murder as a matter of convenience (fight got started, weapon was nearby) is different. Mass shootings by a certified loon are different from mass shootings by someone who just got fired from their job or had put up with one too many bullyings. But in none of those types are blacks prevalent. Black on black crime, particularly homicide is indeed a serious problem that probably doesn't get the attention it deserves, because it's more of a societal problem than many of us want to admit. But those guys are mostly killing each other. They aren't the ones killing school kids or former employers. Speaking of which, here's a couple of statistics for you - in 2011, homicides were 21% of all occupational fatalities for women, compared to 9% for men, about 40% of those by a spouse or other relative or relative-type person.

So for the sake of discussion, let's say we ship off all the under 30 black guys in the country to Somalia or somewhere where they can shoot each other without worrying about getting caught. After we've done that, what would you like to do about the rest of the violence?

[bannination]

Background checks in Colorado stop 38 from buying guns who were convicted of homicides, 600 burglars, 1300 who committed felonious assaults, 400 had existing restraining orders were stopped, and 236 showed up to pick up their guns but were arrested because of existing warrants for violent felonies

[O Really]

More insight as to how armed amateur school posses (Possies?) and teachers might react if threatened...
http://www.citizen-times.com/article2013303030054

Buncombe deputy was afraid of a hiker's dog and shot it in front of his kids - apparently shooting in the direction of the kids. Quote the shooter... “I hate it had to happen,” Honeycutt said. “I didn’t like doing what I had to do, but the only other option for me was to wait and see what the dog did before I took any action whatsoever. And that’s not an option for me.”

No, of course not. Can't wait to see if anybody does anything - just shoot them.

Asked about why he was armed on his outing ... “We carry our guns off-duty because the only time you’re not allowed to carry your gun is if you’re imbibing alcohol or if you’re impaired,” Sorrells said. “We carry that because we have the duty to protect people 24-7. That never goes away.”

Thanks for the "protection" asshole.

A miracle occurred today! So my wife and I were hiking out at Avery Creek, and were slowly crossing a bridge that had partially broken. A medium large mutty looking dog came running up and barked. Since my back was turned at first, I was definitely startled. Wonder of wonder, I didn't shoot him. Not with a gun, not with pepper spray. Shortly, his human came along, clipped him to a leash and apologized for the barking. And I didn't shoot him, either. So I am among the few who have survived an encounter with a loose dog in the forest and didn't shoot him! When I got back to the car, I opened a Black Mocha Stout in honor of St. Bernard, patron saint of doggie style and kissed the ground in appreciation to have faced a loose dog in the forest and not shot him - and I'm still alive!
Glory be to Dog!

[ex-member]

What a waste of time.

[rstrong]

Apparently though, the LAPD itself is planning to honor reward offers. It's the city of Riverside that withdrew the reward. Irvine is still planning to pay it out as is LA.

On the other hand, via News of the Weird:

-- During the massive February Southern California manhunt for former Los Angeles cop Christopher Dorner, nervous-triggered LAPD officers riddled an SUV with bullets after mistakenly believing Dorner was inside. Instead there were two women, on their early-morning job as newspaper carriers, and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck famously promised them a new truck and arranged with a local dealership for a 2013 Ford F-150 ($32,560). However, the deal fell through in March when the women discovered that Beck's "free" truck was hardly free. Rather, it would be taxable as a "donation," reported on IRS Form 1099, perhaps costing them thousands of dollars. [KNBC-TV (Los Angeles), 3-13-2013]

[ex-member]

What a waste of time.

[O Really]

Yes they are different. If you look at data on mass shootings, there have been just over 500 victims in the last 30 years (an earlier poster linked to a list by Mother Jones saying 513 since 1982). That's an average of about 17 per year. Based on current totals, the murder rate by blacks is around 6000 per year. At that rate, that's a minimum of 180,000 murders over the same period that mass shootings resulted in 513. Another statistic to understand is the rate per 100k for each race:14.82 murders per 100K by blacks versus 2.17 per 100K for whites.

And I'm not looking to "ship off" any blacks (that was Lincoln's idea, by the way), I want us to try to improve the odds that their victims might have a chance to defend themselves and perhaps save some lives. Shouldn't we value all murder victims equally and also address the group with the largest number of victims?

BTW, I appreciate your consistent practice of debating the subject in a reasoned and intelligent way. That shouldn't be unusual on a discussion forum, but sadly, here it is.

Can you source your stats on 2011 fatalities? I would be interested to read about this information to understand the underlying total numbers.

You're just playing with the numbers. Fine, but that isn't going to go anywhere. Nobody is arguing that blacks as a demographic have a higher homicide rate than the population as a whole. Everybody agrees. But we also know who in that demographic is doing the killing and whom they are killing. It's under-30 males killing each other, and I promise you most of those victims not only had weapons with a chance to defend themselves, but had likely been on the killing side before they were killed. I don't want to ship out any people either, for real, but I'm just saying if all the under-30 black males were taken out of the equation, there would still be a big problem with violence, and highest in violence is gun violence. My question was, forget about the under-30 black males killing each other. What would you do about the rest of the problem?

Sorry, I don't have a real cite for you on the 2011 stats. I have a friend/colleague who is an expert on workplace violence and I was quoting him. Probably came from OSHA. He isn't the only place I've seen similar stuff, though. Maybe google "workplace homicide" and see what you get.