why are you concerning yourself with just the firearm homicide rate as opposed to the total homicide rate?

7/10/2016 10:09:21 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/texas-open-carry-laws-blurred-lines-between-suspects-and-marchers.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Kind of ironic

7/11/2016 11:19:42 AM

^glad to see the cops didnt murder a bunch of people like they did recently at the waco biker bar. thats progress

7/11/2016 12:08:50 PM

Quote :

"why are you concerning yourself with just the firearm homicide rate as opposed to the total homicide rate? "

seriously? in a thread about gun control and in discussion of how other countries handle gun control, you're asking why I'm taking about "just" firearm homicide rates? are you being intentionally obtuse?

[Edited on July 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2016 12:36:31 PM

Quote :

"Dallas Police Chief David Brown clarified Monday where Johnson was killed with a bomb delivered by a remote-controlled robot, saying that it happened on the second floor of El Centro College, not a parking garage as authorities previously described."

Quote :

"On Sunday, Brown discussed Johnson's negotiations with police on CNN's "State of the Union," saying he laughed at authorities, sang and at one point asked how many officers he had shot. Johnson insisted on speaking with a black negotiator and wrote "RB" and other markings in blood on the wall — the meanings of which were unclear and being looked at by investigators, Brown said."

http://www.wral.com/dallas-suspect-taunted-police-during-2-hours-of-negotiation/15842831/

7/11/2016 2:04:29 PM

other countries are issuing travel warnings to their citizens about visiting the US:


http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/travel/bahamas-us-travel-advisory/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-travel-warning_us_57828da2e4b0344d514fc63f



Yep.

7/11/2016 3:42:05 PM

^ The US used to have one for the UK as recently as the early 2000s during all the problems with Northern Ireland.

7/11/2016 4:13:42 PM

^ Point?

These nations are warning their citizens to be cautious of American police, not of foreign terrorists.

7/11/2016 4:22:17 PM

Quote :

"These nations are warning their citizens to be cautious of American police"

Wasn't that just 1 out of 4 nations linked above tho?

Seems like the other 3 were saying be cautious of crowds, festivals etc

7/11/2016 4:28:52 PM

^ Possibly, but I don't recall the US state department ever telling US citizens to be careful around English law enforcement during the example ^^^ referenced

7/11/2016 4:40:36 PM

^ going by your links, it was just the Bahamas, not all 4.

[Edited on July 11, 2016 at 5:14 PM. Reason : definitely not a good precedent tho]

7/11/2016 5:02:57 PM

Quote :

"seriously? in a thread about gun control and in discussion of how other countries handle gun control, you're asking why I'm taking about "just" firearm homicide rates? are you being intentionally obtuse?"

you can't see the forest for the trees - got it.

7/11/2016 10:47:43 PM

They can't see race unless it aligns with their narrative.

Quote :

"^^lol get the fuck out of here you racist motherfucker"

So bringing attention to a serious problem for minorities makes me a racist according to SJW logic? Interesting.

The stats and factors used to determine "gang related" are iffy, hence why I also referenced black on black crime, which also accounts for a considerable size of the gun violence in America. I guess it's easier for the democrats to blame inanimate objects rather than deal with the reality that they have utterly failed to bring about prosperity to the perpetual "victim" minority bases they pander to, after decades of failed social engineering.

7/12/2016 2:36:36 AM

no. that's not at all what you said. you said the only reason our homicide rate was so high is because of gang violence, implying that without gang violence our murder rates would be much more similar to those in France. which I then showed to be complete and utter bullshit.

you are a racist. it has nothing to do with your stance on gun control or a feigned interest in gang violence. you are just flat the fuck out racist. no hiding behind "SJW" can protect you from that

Quote :

"For the period 2008–12— Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000). Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000). The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels. Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000). Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000). Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000)."

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137

today you learned that poor white people are more violent than poor black or brown people. whoops.

[Edited on July 12, 2016 at 9:07 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2016 8:44:51 AM

Didn't you just critique a post for referencing overall homicides instead of firearm homicides? Now here you are arguing about violence instead of gun violence?

Yes I said gang violence. I guess the actual term is Black gun violence, which goes hand in hand with gang violence, though counting "gang related" isn't as easy as counting the black bodies... Which represent a large portion of America's statistics liberals love to cry about.

Also, it doesn't make someone a racist to address the elephant in the room, it just means they aren't as big of a pussy as you are.

7/12/2016 6:23:27 PM

^^"Household Poverty and Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012"

Quote :

"today you learned that poor white people are more violent than poor black or brown people. whoops. "

today you should learn that violent victimization means that they are the victim of a violent crime, not the perpetrator. whoops!

7/12/2016 10:16:08 PM

LMAO... I was on mobile I'm glad you caught that. Sounds like par for the course with SJWs trying to use big boy studies. LOLOLOL

goalielax, today you learned to read your links before you post them. whoops.

7/12/2016 11:29:25 PM

do you think they mistakenly left out "victimization" from the parts I bolded? there are stats for violence and stats for violent victimization. two different things. good job, good effort.

sad!

[Edited on July 13, 2016 at 7:29 AM. Reason : .]

7/13/2016 7:27:57 AM

LOL. Except they did. Go to page 4.

Quote :

" the rate of violent victimization was 46.4 per 1,000 for poor whites and 43.4 per 1,000 for poor blacks."

You should stick to personal insults and crying about "racism"... SJWs aren't really mentally equipped for using statistics. I am proud of you for trying to put on big-boy pants though. If you need help learning to read studies I am happy to help!

Sad!

7/13/2016 1:56:38 PM

How many of the past mass shooters were on the no-fly list, out of curiosity?

How much due process should be required before we remove rights from American citizens?

And I thought the liberals in the Chit Chat threads were oblivious...

7/13/2016 2:10:39 PM

7/13/2016 9:30:53 PM

was the "expert" just trolling or what?

7/13/2016 9:37:07 PM

Oh shit, not a double shot weapon! You know, like the ones they sell at the grocery store.

7/13/2016 9:44:41 PM

Whoa whoa whoa, let's not gloss over goalielax's fuck up. I've been too nice to SJWs in the past.

Quote :

"today you learned that poor white people are more violent than poor black or brown people. whoops."

Quote :

"good job, good effort.sad!"

It's like arguing with a child telling you 1+1 =3, but he's too busy giving a rude, condescending delivery to even read his own fuck up.

Also.... goalielax is white, right? I wouldn't want him to call me a racist for picking on him!!!

7/15/2016 1:35:23 AM

My logic is that laws don't deter law-breakers from breaking laws.

The logic behind this thread seems to be "The Soap Box Thread discussion had too many facts and statistics, lets whine about guns being bad here".

Thanks to the 2nd amendment, an irresponsible gang member parent leaves a 6 year old with access to a loaded, illegally purchased handgun. When will the evil NRA and gun nut Conservatives let us pass feel-good laws so we can feel like we have done something?

7/15/2016 1:39:40 AM

Can someone please explain to me why republicans oppose the gun control bills the democrats are trying to pass currently? They are:
1. Bill to ensure comprehensive background checks
2. 'No fly, no buy’ to block people on the terror watch list from buying guns
3. Barring firearm sales to hate crime offenders
4. Closing the "Charleston Loophole"

Most of my family and friends are democrats and the conversations I have with them turn into a circle jerk anti-gun conversation.

I get that some people might see these bills as infringing on their second amendment rights but I would think that if this stops a Charleston/Orlando/Dallas/ect. shooting, the ends most certainly justify the means.

7/15/2016 10:07:16 AM

Quote :

"Can someone please explain to me why republicans oppose the gun control bills the democrats are trying to pass currently? They are: 1. Bill to ensure comprehensive background checks 2. 'No fly, no buy’ to block people on the terror watch list from buying guns 3. Barring firearm sales to hate crime offenders 4. Closing the "Charleston Loophole""

1. concerns that it would create a registry
2. should be convicted of a crime to lose rights
3. felons cant have guns already
4. see 2

7/15/2016 10:43:22 AM

^^ Mainly regarding 2 and 4...

"Default proceed" is not "a loophole"... it's essentially a protection against government incompetence taking away the rights of citizens. 90% of background checks are completed instantly, so if it's been 3 days and the feds can't produce anything, you don't lose your rights because they suck at their job. If the FBI isn't competent enough to efficiently check someone's records, the solution is not to give the FBI more power.

If a cop wants to search your home, they need a warrant. They don't simply wait 3 days, say they couldn't get a warrant, then violate your rights anyway.

Democrats love to ignore these basic ideas of "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process" when they frame the issue as deceitfully as they do. The sit-ins from the left are just publicity stunts.

7/15/2016 2:27:56 PM

SJWs are the ones blaming this on guns, American homophobia, "toxic masculinity" (lol)... then any mention of the actual problem *cough* radical islam *cough* is met with "You're Islamaphobic". I missed the last POTUS response, did he cry this time? If only we cared as much as he did. I'm sure he wasted no time politicizing the tragedy and explaining to all the responsible, law abiding gun owners how it is their fault and that they are Islamaphobic if they don't agree.

7/15/2016 2:34:38 PM

Does anyone else find it absolutely incredible that they took down this terror suspect alive? Even though he was armed, shooting at cops, and actually sent one to a hospital? Every time there's a police shooting, reasonable people question "why didn't they aim for extremities? Why shoot to kill someone who isn't even an obvious threat?". Then we get the armchair firearms experts chiming in with "Well, you are only trained to aim for center of mass/vital organs/etc...". Turns out that is complete and total bullshit, cops are perfectly capable of shooting to wound and taking down even an armed and extremely dangerous suspect alive, if they want to.

9/20/2016 10:22:33 AM

I guess it depends on who is doing the shooting.

Take your average officer from the Lillington police force. Seriously doubt that guy is a crack shot with a pistol. He might be lucky if he gets center mass once out of 3 shots. I bet less than 10% of officers could hit a leg if they tried. And if they did hit a leg, there's a fairly good chance they'd hit the femoral and the person would bleed out.

No good option, except a taser.

They can't all be Deadshot.

9/20/2016 10:42:50 AM

lol Shrike

9/20/2016 10:58:31 AM

this guy can live, but an unarmed man selling cigarettes or walking with his hands up or laying down with his hands up must die...

9/20/2016 11:00:20 AM

Yea, if the terrorist was black they would have sent in a bomb robot to kill him. You know, because "oppression". Lol

9/20/2016 1:37:44 PM

its all about priorities. potential terror victims lives matter more than anything so you have to keep this guy alive so he can spill the beans on other potential attacks. theres no reason to keep some random black man alive

9/20/2016 1:40:49 PM

Quote :

"Every time there's a police shooting, reasonable people question "why didn't they aim for extremities""

Because that's not how it works. You shoot if your life is being threatened, not merely to disable someone.

Quote :

"cops are perfectly capable of shooting to wound"

Where's the interview with the officer where they state they were "shooting to wound?"

[Edited on September 20, 2016 at 1:56 PM. Reason : also what does this have to do with gun control? shoulda kept it in the chit chat thread.]

9/20/2016 1:50:26 PM

Lol at you SJWs making synapse seem reasonable by comparison

9/20/2016 1:54:05 PM

Quote :

"Because that's not how it works. You shoot if your life is being threatened, not merely to disable someone."

Which is why I said I found it incredible that they took him alive. I actually bought this line of bullshit because I have no personal experience shooting at people and it sounded reasonable to me. And maybe it was just dumb luck, but I find it hard to believe that they managed to only incapacitate him in the middle of a firefight unless that was their specific aim. This wasn't a highly trained tactical squad either, they were beat cops responding to a call about a vagrant loitering outside a bar.

Quote :

"Where's the interview with the officer where they state they were "shooting to wound?""

Because cops are notoriously transparent in these sorts of cases.

Quote :

"also what does this have to do with gun control? shoulda kept it in the chit chat thread."

Nothing, but a couple pages ago we were discussing why cops decided to blow someone up with a robot, so it seemed like a reasonable tangent.

9/20/2016 2:15:09 PM

Folks survive police shootings all the time, but it doesn't make national news.

9/20/2016 2:26:41 PM

Quote :

"Because cops are notoriously transparent in these sorts of cases."

The problem here is you claimed to know the officer's intent based solely on the results.

Quote :

"This wasn't a highly trained tactical squad either"

Making it even less likely that they were aiming for his leg with the intent to wound.


But I will use the opportunity of this bump to ask JesusHChrist, who disagrees with any application of deadly force by police, to explain that position, since he declined in the Dallas thread.

Quote :

"So how should police respond when they're being shot at? "

Quote :

"You can go to the gun control thread if you want to get my thoughts on that."

9/20/2016 2:27:20 PM

Quote :

"The problem here is you claimed to know the officer's intent based solely on the results."

That's fair, but I'd argue that it's a reasonable inference to make that they wanted this guy alive given the circumstances.

9/20/2016 2:39:18 PM

So, are you thinking there was a standing NYPD order to take this guy alive, or these beat cops decided on their own to do so?

9/20/2016 2:53:47 PM

A suspected terrorist who'd planted multiple bombs and might be connected to an active cell? Yeah, I think they were told to not kill him if at all possible.

9/20/2016 3:08:32 PM

first of all it wasn't nypd.

2nd of all it wasnt beat cops. the station had a call specifically for this suspect and probably sent in a well-prepared team.

9/20/2016 3:21:39 PM

MSNBC reporting dude was shot up to 11 times, with at least one of the rounds hitting his torso narrowing missing vital organs. He's had multiple surgeries, is intubated etc.

So either that's all propaganda or your theory is wrong.

9/22/2016 10:21:50 AM

Information at the time was saying he was just shot in the leg. Still amazing he's not dead given the description of shootout.

9/22/2016 10:37:37 AM

Can someone explain to me what the rational for blocking this regulation?

http://www.wral.com/senate-votes-to-block-rule-on-guns-and-mentally-impaired/16531046/

2/15/2017 12:09:10 PM

here is a good explanation:

Commentary: Why Obama's gun policy for mentally ill is flawed
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-mentally-ill-gun-buying-ban-20170213-story.html

Quote :

"Last year, when the Social Security rule change was proposed, the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy, of which I am a member, studied the issue and prepared a comment. The Consortium includes some of the nation's leading researchers, practitioners and advocates in gun violence prevention, public health and mental health. Our stated purpose is to advance evidence-based policy for reducing access to firearms by individuals who are at elevated risk of committing violence to themselves or others. We argued that the rule, in the form it was written, amounted to a substantially and overly broad categorical prohibition, and we recommended an improved process that would incorporate additional findings specifically related to violence risk. But the Obama administration finalized the rule as it stood, against our recommendation."

basically the rule was well intentioned but missed the mark and is too broad

2/15/2017 12:22:31 PM

Not sure if you read the article (doubtful) but buried all the way down on paragraph 68, is this little tidbit.

Quote :

"Gun rights groups weren't the only organizations upset about the Obama administration's regulation. The American Civil Liberties Union criticized it, too. The ACLU said the rule advanced a harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, "a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent." More than a dozen advocacy groups for the disabled also opposed the Obama administration's regulation."

So this was a poorly implemented rule that needed to be replaced (like another popular Obama era legislation, rhymes with Shobama Care). This also doesn't mean that the mentally handicapped can now get access tho guns. There are still mechanisms in place to screen out the mentally ill who are actually a danger to society.

2/15/2017 12:29:30 PM

Thanks. No, I hadn't had time to read into this yet, but this helps. I thought there had to more to it than what it seemed.

2/15/2017 12:36:27 PM