Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism

Conceal Carry, the 2nd Amendment, & Vigilantism (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
So the guy in question attacked the kid, then shot him? That would pretty much rule out "self defense."
Well, I'm glad you put so much faith in my skills of deduction, but usually my presumptions can't swing a felony murder conviction. I've got to bring more to the table.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Washington DC murder rates dropped 28.5%. Illinois murder rates drops 13.38%. What happened in Florida after 2005 that cause it's murder rate to increase by 21.3%?



Washington DC Murder rates:

2001 to 2005: 227.4 per year
2006 to 2010: 162.6 per year (28.5% decrease)

Illinois Murder rates:

2001 to 2005: 877.6 per year
2006 to 2010: 760.2 per year (13.38% decrease)

California Murder rates:

2001 to 2005: 519.34 per year
2006 to 2010: 507.08 per year (2.36% decrease)

Virginia Murder rates:

2001 to 2005: 403.2 per year
2006 to 2010: 357.6 per year (11.3% decrease)

Florida Murder rates:

2001 to 2005: 907.6 per year
2006 to 2010: 1,100.6 per year (21.3% increase)
They made the orange the official State fruit.

What happened in 2005 in those other states that caused their murder rates to drop? Maybe Florida passing the Stand Your Ground law in 2005 lowered the murder rates in other states?

The fact is, crime data can be looked at and manipulated to support any point of view. Just look at different time periods, leave out some types of crimes, etc. and you can make raw data fit into any world view and say it "correlates" with the passing of some (any) law.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
They made the orange the official State fruit.

What happened in 2005 in those other states that caused their murder rates to drop? Maybe Florida passing the Stand Your Ground law in 2005 lowered the murder rates in other states?

The fact is, crime data can be looked at and manipulated to support any point of view. Just look at different time periods, leave out some types of crimes, etc. and you can make raw data fit into any world view and say it "correlates" with the passing of some (any) law.
How many times do you have to be wrong? Oh it's stats. It's meaningless. It's only factual data.

Why ask about murder rates in Washington DC and Illinois when you just dismiss when it goes against your arguments?

I guess it's only meaningless when is goes against your arguments, but it's very important factual data if it supports your argument right?



Yet, your proof is to links from fff.org?

I love how you provided us a link to fff.org to prove that more guns means less crime.

If found this gem from fff.org written in 1994 against the Brady Bill, telling us the Brady Bill will lead to more violent crimes.

Will You Be Safer If Guns Are Banned? Part 2

"The bitter irony of gun prohibition is that laws intended to reduce violence could spark the bloodiest violence in our history. We must stop gun prohibition now, before it is too late."


Turns out fff.org is so wrong. A big drop in violent crimes since the Brady Bill was passed in 1994.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 10:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
But, truth be told, all the statistics are meaningless. What is more important is that human being should feel that they have the right to defend themselves, even to the point of lethal force, if someone else instigated a threat to their lives or property. They shouldn't have to fear prosecution, which is what Florida's laws now protect against.

TRUE STORY: The son of a co-worker went to a party. He was attacked by two other older boys and they were beating on him. In self defense, he pulled out his pocket knife and stabbed one of his attackers in the upper thigh. His intent was to inflict damage enough so that he could escape the beating, but he hit a major artery and the other guy ended up bleeding to death. He was prosecuted and found guilty of manslaughter. The judge stated that he acted recklessly by bringing a "knife into a fistfight".

His conviction was later overturned, but he should never have been prosecuted in the first place. He was being attacked, was being beaten in the head, and acted appropriately. While the death of the person attacking him would likely increase the crime mortality numbers as quoted above, it isn't the fault of the victim and happened despite absolutely no firearms being involved.
Statistics are meaningless unless it supports your argument right?

I say they should give all high school students guns in Florida. That would put an end to the high school bullying problem right? If all the bullies are dead, problem is solved.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 11:02 AM
 
Stand Your Ground Law

How neighbors solve their dispute with guns in Florida. Grumpy old man kills a father of an 8 year old girl.

Witnesses dispute Trevor Dooley's 'Stand Your Ground' claim in Valrico shooting - Tampa Bay Times

Get off my lawn you pesky kids!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Statistics are meaningless unless it supports your argument right?
No. Statistics are meaningless if they are being used to try and squelch your freedom. The numbers are a moot point.

Would you say that showing that the number of abortions skyrocketed after they were made legal, would be a valid argument as to again banning them? Or, would you suggest that such a statistic is irrelevant given that you believe that the right the law protects trumps the statistics.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No. Statistics are meaningless if they are being used to try and squelch your freedom. The numbers are a moot point.

Would you say that showing that the number of abortions skyrocketed after they were made legal, would be a valid argument as to again banning them? Or, would you suggest that such a statistic is irrelevant given that you believe that the right the law protects trumps the statistics.
Are you arguing that we should make remove all regulations on abortions and make all abortions legal including late term partial birth abortions?

Who said anything about banning ALL guns? We are talking about regulating gun sales, sale of certain types of guns, and under what circumstances should the use of the gun be considered illegal.

You are comparing guns to oranges.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
How many times do you have to be wrong? Oh it's stats. It's meaningless. It's only factual data.

Why ask about murder rates in Washington DC and Illinois when you just dismiss when it goes against your arguments?

I guess it's only meaningless when is goes against your arguments, but it's very important factual data if it supports your argument right?



Yet, your proof is to links from fff.org?

I love how you provided us a link to fff.org to prove that more guns means less crime.

If found this gem from fff.org written in 1994 against the Brady Bill, telling us the Brady Bill will lead to more violent crimes.

Will You Be Safer If Guns Are Banned? Part 2

"The bitter irony of gun prohibition is that laws intended to reduce violence could spark the bloodiest violence in our history. We must stop gun prohibition now, before it is too late."


Turns out fff.org is so wrong. A big drop in violent crimes since the Brady Bill was passed in 1994.
Says the guy who linked to the BRADY CAMPAIGN to support this argument.

Look, I provided numbers. You provided numbers. Mine support my argument, yours support yours. You select certain time periods, I select others.

It has nothing to do with being meaningless if it doesn't support my argument. My point was crime data can be looked at and manipulated to support any point of view. Just look at different time periods, leave out some types of crimes, etc. and you can make raw data fit into any world view and say it "correlates" with the passing of some (any) law.

You clearly like posting data and saying it supports your argument yet you conveniently refuse to respond to questions or explain why other data don't support your arguments.

1) What happened in 2005 in those other states that caused their murder rates to drop?

2) "You also conveniently forget the fact that gun sales have exploded, yet the opposite should be happening, according to the Brady Bunch."

You posted:

Violent Crime numbers:

1986 to 1993 shows an increase in violent crime. Close to an 80% increase.

1986: 9,423
1987: 10,016
1988: 11,914
1989: 12,937
1990: 14,919
1991: 14,671
1992: 16,685
1993: 16,888

After Brady Bill passed, violent crime dropped by over 40%.

1994: 15,177 <-- Brady Bill passed
1995: 14,744
1996: 13,411
1997: 10,708
1998: 8,988
1999: 8,448
2000: 8,626
Yet....

In fact, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the significant drop in crime that began in the mid-1990s coincided with more guns being in private possession and more restrictive gun laws being taken off the books.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...FMR_story.html

And...

Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI.
Gun Crime | Federal Bureau of Investigation | Gun Rights | The Daily Caller

You may not like it, and you can post all the data you want, but it is an UNDENIABLE FACT that gun crimes are dropping even though MORE GUNS ARE BEING SOLD.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 01:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post

You may not like it, and you can post all the data you want, but it is an UNDENIABLE FACT that gun crimes are dropping even though MORE GUNS ARE BEING SOLD.
Haha... I thought it has to do with oranges?

Can you provide me with the gun ownership numbers for the last 30 years broken down by state? Still haven't gotten those numbers yet.


Here's an UNDENIABLE FACT:

Murder rates jumped up more than 20% in Florida after 2005, when Florida passed the "Stand Your Ground Law".
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
How many times do you have to be wrong? Oh it's stats. It's meaningless. It's only factual data.
What you're doing is not "statistics," it's "cherry picking"

Edit: everyone else is too, but mostly they're doing it to demonstrate why it's a fallacy: it can be used to show anything you want it to.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 01:43 PM
 
Opinion piece written by "The writer is senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms industry."

Yes. I trust the firearms industry fully without any data to back it up.

Will you stop posting opinion fluff pieces and calling it fact.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 01:57 PM
 
Haha... silly writers from the Daily Caller. Do they even have a brain?

From the article:

The top three states for gun murders in 2010 were, in order, California, Texas and New York. While Texas has lax gun control laws, California and New York are among the strictest gun-control states in the country.

“California is in a category of its own as far as gun control laws there,” Parsons said. “New York is a little bit better, but they still have discretionary concealed carry laws.”

According to FBI data, California had the most gun murders last year —- 1,257, which is 69 percent of all murders in 2010.
Let me guess. Would that have anything to do with population? States with most the highest population:

1. California
2. Texas
3. New York


Murder rate.

Code:
New York Texas Florida 2006 4.8 5.9 6.2 2007 4.2 5.9 6.6 2008 4.3 5.6 6.3 2009 4.0 5.0 5.5
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Uhm, yeah, NO. There ARE other ways to GET INTO a gated community.
Your logical conclusions are (again) a fail.

Your thinking: the only way to GET INTO a gated community is to have the code or be buzzed in.
Therefore: anyone physically in a gated community must be in there legally.

Seriously, don't you see how silly (naive) this is ?

The whole point is NOT to say that he could not have possibly been there legally, he WAS.
The point is that there are enough idiots that frown upon someone entering a gated community by foot, not by car.

Again, I'm, not making a value statement, I'm describing what many might think.

-t
Please take note of the key bolded and upper case words in your post and compare them to the same in my post that you responded to below:

Originally Posted by OAW
You don't just WALK INTO a gated community ... you either have to have the code to open the gate ... or someone has to buzz you in!
So since you want to go there ... let me ask you this in the manner in which you brought it to me:

Seriously, don't you see how silly (naive) it is to think that this blatant and transparent straw-man would go unnoticed?

Naturally a person could physically enter a gated community by other means. They could climb the fence. They could dig a tunnel. They could parachute in. They could rappel down from a helicopter. Any of these things are possible. But not only are they NOT what we were discussing because I explicitly said WALK INTO the community ... as in through the gate where you would need the code. They also are very improbable. Kind of hard to abscond out of a gated community over the fence with someone's 55 inch flat screen tied to your back n'est-ce pas? So yes ... you are correct in one sense. Anyone who sees someone on foot inside a gated community and automatically thinks they are "up to no good" is in fact an IDIOT.

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Haha... I thought it has to do with oranges?

Can you provide me with the gun ownership numbers for the last 30 years broken down by state? Still haven't gotten those numbers yet.


Here's an UNDENIABLE FACT:

Murder rates jumped up more than 20% in Florida after 2005, when Florida passed the "Stand Your Ground Law".
I don't have the time nor the inclination to find gun ownership numbers for the last 30 years broken down by state. If you want those numbers go find them yourself.

Here's another UNDENIABLE FACT:

Murder rates jumped up more than 20% in Florida after 2005, when Florida passed a law making the orange the offical State fruit.

2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Opinion piece written by "The writer is senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms industry."

Yes. I trust the firearms industry fully without any data to back it up.

Will you stop posting opinion fluff pieces and calling it fact.
What fact do you dispute: 1) that gun ownership has increased or 2) that crime rates have gone down or 3) both?

Here's another link that make the same conclusions. Not sure how many you need before you accept this as a fact.

MSNBC Shocker: Firearms Deaths Fall As Gun Restrictions Ease | NewsBusters.org
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 10:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
What fact do you dispute: 1) that gun ownership has increased or 2) that crime rates have gone down or 3) both?

Here's another link that make the same conclusions. Not sure how many you need before you accept this as a fact.

MSNBC Shocker: Firearms Deaths Fall As Gun Restrictions Ease | NewsBusters.org
A lot more can be published, but it won't change anything. As has already been noted, he cherry picks to suit his his made up mind, while reality is quite different. I've already pointed that gun sales are skyrocketing, which is a FACT, and that homicide dropped out of the top 15 reasons for dying last year, for the first time since 1965, and that about 80 million people own approximately 300 million guns (yet the homicide rate keeps dropping), but it won't matter. The Brady Bunch know better than the rest of us what's happening, because their goal is to eliminate private firearm ownership, and they'll stop at nothing, including propagating outright lies, to achieve their goal, just because they '"know better."
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
What fact do you dispute: 1) that gun ownership has increased or 2) that crime rates have gone down or 3) both?

Here's another link that make the same conclusions. Not sure how many you need before you accept this as a fact.

MSNBC Shocker: Firearms Deaths Fall As Gun Restrictions Ease | NewsBusters.org
What fact do you dispute:
1) Murder rates went up in Florida after 2005
2) Florida pass the Stand Your Ground Law in 2005
3) Both?

Oh right. According to you, correlation means nothing unless there's a correlation between increase gun ownership and decrease in crime rates.

If there's a correlation between increase gun ownership and decrease in crime rates, then it's a fact.
If there's a correlation between increase gun ownership and increase murder rates in Florida, then it's not a fact. It could be oranges.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
A lot more can be published, but it won't change anything. As has already been noted, he cherry picks to suit his his made up mind, while reality is quite different. I've already pointed that gun sales are skyrocketing, which is a FACT, and that homicide dropped out of the top 15 reasons for dying last year, for the first time since 1965, and that about 80 million people own approximately 300 million guns (yet the homicide rate keeps dropping), but it won't matter. The Brady Bunch know better than the rest of us what's happening, because their goal is to eliminate private firearm ownership, and they'll stop at nothing, including propagating outright lies, to achieve their goal, just because they '"know better."
Dude. You can't even get your facts straight.

You are the guy who says violent crime has been decreasing for the last 30 years. Absolutely false statement.

Your FACTS are pulled from your behind.

Show me the violent crime rates for the last 30 years. Show me the gun ownership numbers for the last 30 years with the breakdown by state.

You just make up FACTS cause you don't have anything to back it up with.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 10:50 PM
 
Both OldManMac and Mrjinglesusa keep insisting correlation means nothing and doesn't prove anything.

Then you both go about harping correlation between increase gun ownership and decrease in violent crime.

I get it. Pro-gun logic:

If there's a correlation between increase gun ownership and decrease in crime rates, then it's a fact.
If there's a correlation between increase gun ownership and increase murder rates in Florida, then it's not a fact. It could be oranges.


Too bad both of you can't get your facts straight and have no data to back it up.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 10:56 PM
 
Here's a study by guys from Harvard School of Public Health.

Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997


In the United States, regions and states with higher rates of firearm ownership have significantly higher homicide victimization rates.


Code:
Victim Age High Gun States Low Gun States Mortality Rate Ratio (High Gun:Low Gun) 5–14 years Gun-related homicide 302 80 3.8 Non–gun-related homicide 149 104 1.5 Total 451 184 2.5 15–24 years Gun-related homicide 5157 1539 3.4 Non–gun-related homicide 963 697 1.4 Total 6120 2236 2.8 25–34 years Gun-related homicide 4397 1078 4.1 Non–gun-related homicide 1445 920 1.6 Total 5842 1998 3.0 35–44 years Gun-related homicide 2825 495 5.8 Non–gun-related homicide 1168 684 1.7 Total 3993 1179 3.4 45–54 years Gun-related homicide 1316 264 5.0 Non–gun-related homicide 544 331 1.7 Total 1860 595 3.2
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 11:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Here's another link that make the same conclusions. Not sure how many you need before you accept this as a fact.

MSNBC Shocker: Firearms Deaths Fall As Gun Restrictions Ease | NewsBusters.org
I just read the article that conservative NewsBuster links to. Seems that your 'fact' is contradicted by the article. Haha... I love how you guys just keep arguing against yourselves. You just shot down your own argument. They found no credible evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws increases or decreases violent crime.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389.../#.T2vdcmJSRG5

From the article:

But Dr. David Hemenway, Ph.D., a Harvard professor of public health who has studied gun violence for years, said that when it comes to concealed-carry laws, neither side can make a legitimate claim about their effects on crime.

Hemenway said that the most definitive review to date — a 2004 look at research on the topic by the National Research Council — “found no credible evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws increases or decreases violent crime.

Americans overall are far less likely to be killed with a firearm than they were when it was much more difficult to obtain a concealed-weapons permit, according to statistics collected by the federal Centers for Disease Control.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Mar 22, 2012 at 11:27 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2012, 11:34 PM
 
Unfortunately for you, I never claimed causation. I merely stated that it is a fact that, despite, gun sales going up tremendously over the past few decades, homicide is down, and that is a fact. I don't really care so much what's causing it, as the net effect is what concerns me, and that has been positive for a lot of people who might otherwise have been murdered or injured. You no doubt buy into the fallacious argument that eliminating guns from private ownership would solve the crime problem, which is, quite bluntly, one of the stupidest arguments the Brady Bunch makes. They can't seem to wrap their little brains around the reality that criminals don't care what the laws are (that's why they're criminals; get it?), and that they're going to get weapons whether it's against the law or not. Reality is apparently a tough pill for you to swallow. You win.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Are you arguing that we should make remove all regulations on abortions and make all abortions legal including late term partial birth abortions?
No.

Who said anything about banning ALL guns?
Hopefully, no one sane.

We are talking about regulating gun sales, sale of certain types of guns, and under what circumstances should the use of the gun be considered illegal.

You are comparing guns to oranges.
Not really. I was asked about statistics. I showed why statistics weren't as relevant if they were being used to try and restrict what have already been determined to be "rights."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 12:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
I don't have the time nor the inclination to find gun ownership numbers for the last 30 years broken down by state. If you want those numbers go find them yourself.

Here's another UNDENIABLE FACT:

Murder rates jumped up more than 20% in Florida after 2005, when Florida passed a law making the orange the offical State fruit.

     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 12:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Unfortunately for you, I never claimed causation. I merely stated that it is a fact that, despite, gun sales going up tremendously over the past few decades, homicide is down, and that is a fact. I don't really care so much what's causing it, as the net effect is what concerns me, and that has been positive for a lot of people who might otherwise have been murdered or injured. You no doubt buy into the fallacious argument that eliminating guns from private ownership would solve the crime problem, which is, quite bluntly, one of the stupidest arguments the Brady Bunch makes. They can't seem to wrap their little brains around the reality that criminals don't care what the laws are (that's why they're criminals; get it?), and that they're going to get weapons whether it's against the law or not. Reality is apparently a tough pill for you to swallow. You win.
Unfortunately for you, I never said "eliminating guns from private ownership would solve the crime problem." I merely stated that it is a fact that, despite, gun sales going up, Florida's murder rate shot up over 20% after the Stand Your Ground Law was passed in 2005.

Instead you are making up a fallacious argument that I and the Brady Bill wants to eliminate guns from private ownership.

My dad owns a gun and I support the right of citizens to defend their homes with a gun. I just think a background check, a waiting period, and gun registration is a good idea.

Brady Bill doesn't ban ALL guns. Brady Bill doesn't even ban conceal weapons.

Yet, you keep insisting on making up the straw man argument to argue against, when no one is making such as argument about eliminating guns from private ownership.

I believe in gun control and sensible gun laws. I never said I want to eliminate guns from private ownership.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 12:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post

Not really. I was asked about statistics. I showed why statistics weren't as relevant if they were being used to try and restrict what have already been determined to be "rights."
Really?

So why are Republicans using their made up stats to pass voter ID laws when voting is a right.

So you are against voter ID laws right?


By the way, I'm pretty sure when it intrudes on someone else's right to live, there should be restrictions on it.

There are restrictions on Freedom of Speech (Yelling fire and threats). So why not restrictions on right to bear arms?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 01:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Really?

So why are Republicans using their made up stats to pass voter ID laws when voting is a right.

So you are against voter ID laws right?
What does this have to do with your biased, selective statistics that you are attempting to use to derail everyone's second amendment rights with?

By the way, I'm pretty sure when it intrudes on someone else's right to live, there should be restrictions on it.
Your right to live ends when it's dependent upon me giving up my all of my rights.

There are restrictions on Freedom of Speech (Yelling fire and threats). So why not restrictions on right to bear arms?
There already are the same types of restrictions. "Fire" is a restriction that has to be made AFTER THE FACT. You can't put someone in jail because they have the ability to yell "fire" in a crowded building any more than you can restrict someone who has the power to defend themselves from threat prior to their decision to abuse that right.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 02:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post

Your right to live ends when it's dependent upon me giving up my all of my rights.
Um.. what? No one is asking you to give up ALL your rights. Just give up some of your rights when you are in public.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 07:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Um.. what? No one is asking you to give up ALL your rights. Just give up some of your rights when you are in public.
Having those rights "in public" doesn't stop your right to live in any way.

It's only when a person decides to violate another's rights is where there's a problem, and a gun doesn't ever decide to do that. Ever. It's impossible.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 10:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
What fact do you dispute:
1) Murder rates went up in Florida after 2005
2) Florida pass the Stand Your Ground Law in 2005
3) Both?

Oh right. According to you, correlation means nothing unless there's a correlation between increase gun ownership and decrease in crime rates.

If there's a correlation between increase gun ownership and decrease in crime rates, then it's a fact.
If there's a correlation between increase gun ownership and increase murder rates in Florida, then it's not a fact. It could be oranges.
You're right, it COULD be oranges. It COULD be a lot of things or a combination of things.

Yes, it's a fact that murder rates went up in Florida after 2005. Yes, it's a fact that Florida passed the Stand Your Ground Law in 2005. I have NEVER disputed either of these facts. My point is and has consistently been that THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THESE TWO INDEPENDENNT FACTS ARE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER.

Florida passed a lot of laws in 2005. Why are you picking this one?

"Correlation" does NOT equal causation.

What fact do you dispute:
1) Murder rates went up in Florida after 2005
2) Florida passed a law making the orange the official state fruit in 2005
3) Both?

I don't know why this concept is so hard for you to understand.

And with that, I'm done with this thread. I've said all I have to say and to be honest, it's pointless debating this.

You can have the last word if you want it, I'm going to the range....
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 01:49 PM
 
Check out the video for this recent incident in Arkansas. Fortunately no one was hurt. But it's interesting that the guy in the video pulls a weapon in the middle of the street on a female news reporter and her cameraman and gets charged with a Class D Felony of Aggravated Assault ... yet in Florida a guy pulls a gun on a kid on the streets and kills him and he's yet to even be charged.

msnbc.com Entertainment - Man pulls a gun on Arkansas news team

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2012, 11:43 PM
 
Geraldo's got this one: he was killed because he was wearing a hoodie.

He even brings up the comparison that Muslims in religious garb invite suspicion on themselves for "dressing like terrorists." Seriously. I'm surprised he didn't bring up the "dressing like a slut" defence too.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 12:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Geraldo's got this one: he was killed because he was wearing a hoodie.

He even brings up the comparison that Muslims in religious garb invite suspicion on themselves for "dressing like terrorists." Seriously. I'm surprised he didn't bring up the "dressing like a slut" defence too.
I haven't watched Geraldo in years, and now I know why. His statements are idiotic!
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 12:32 AM
 
Unfortunately in this case he's probably right.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 01:11 AM
 
How Sharpton and others are gonna work their game on this one? Are they going to pit the Hispanic and Black communities against each other?

George Zimmerman's father on Trayvon Martin: My son is not racist, did not confront Trayvon Martin - Orlando Sentinel
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 01:13 AM
 
Look at this punk! He's gonna get shot dressed like that!

     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 01:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
How Sharpton and others are gonna work their game on this one? Are they going to pit the Hispanic and Black communities against each other?

George Zimmerman's father on Trayvon Martin: My son is not racist, did not confront Trayvon Martin - Orlando Sentinel
The family can't even get their "facts" straight:

The letter does not provide details about what happened Feb. 26 on a walkway in the gated community where George Zimmerman lives and where Trayvon was visiting. But it does challenge one basic assumption of the family's lawyers: that Zimmerman's intent when he got out of his sport utility vehicle was to confront Trayvon after calling police to report a suspicious person.

"At no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin. When the true details of the event became public, and I hope that will be soon," the letter said, "everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media."
Everyone who has listened to the 911 call knows that Zimmerman followed the kid. We also know that the kid complained to his girlfriend that a stranger was chasing him and he was trying to get away. Zimmerman is the instigator.

We all want to hear "the true details of the event" BUT the police have been keeping these details from us, because it makes them look bad.

As much as you want it, Chongo, there will be no tensions between Hispanics and blacks over this issue. And complaining about "Sharpton" is racist dog whistle. You think we don't hear it, but we do. The entire country, not just Sharpton, is in an uproar over the execution of a kid by the self-appointed hall monitor.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
As much as you want it, Chongo, there will be no tensions between Hispanics and blacks over this issue. And complaining about "Sharpton" is racist dog whistle. You think we don't hear it, but we do. The entire country, not just Sharpton, is in an uproar over the execution of a kid by the self-appointed hall monitor.
As a American of Mexican/Spanish descent, it's the last thing I want to see. Until the facts come out, we can't say it was an "execution" Where was he shot? In the head, the back, or the front? I would venture to say that figured into the decision not to file charges.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Unfortunately in this case he's probably right.
Wow, just wow! It's now okay to target people with hoodies?
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 11:57 AM
 
All this talk for three pages about gun control is a red herring. Sure, if Zimmerman went out on his vigilante crusade armed with a knife (or even a flashlight) it is true that Martin would probably not be dead. But he would still have been violently attacked for no reason. Gun Control in this case is like a narcotic: it treats the pain, but not the underlying problem. (And too many narcotics could make you think your problem is gone, when in reality it is getting worse.) IMHO, we're much better off letting people keep their guns, but holding them accountable when they use them in force against others.

The more I read about this situation, the more it seems that the problem isn't even with the "stand your ground" law itself: as the facts are coming out, it seems apparent that the law shouldn't apply here, because Zimmerman was never threatened (expect possibly by his own paranoia.) But it does seem that the police really screwed up here, in taking Zimmerman's word on the matter and not investigating it further. No matter what your position on gun control is, I think it's reasonable to admit that whenever a life is taken by force the public should demand a police investigation. If someone was truly threatened and acted out of defense of his own life, the investigation would bear that out.

So of course Zimmerman should be charged, but I think the police officers who took Zimmerman at his word and did not investigate further should have a good stern talking to. And if it's the "stand your ground" law that gives the police discretion to choose not to investigate a death by force, them maybe that needs amending.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Until the facts come out, we can't say it was an "execution" Where was he shot? In the head, the back, or the front? I would venture to say that figured into the decision not to file charges.
Well, here's a fact that the media didn't bother to mention before now: Zimmerman's father was judge. Which is probably the reason George Zimmerman wasn't charged with assaulting a police officer in 2005.

Who is George Zimmerman, and why did he shoot Trayvon Martin?

There is one set of laws for cops, judges, and politicians (and their families), and another set for the rest of us.

Chongo, since you're interested in the facts, have you listened to the 911 calls? We can hear Martin howling in agony for a very long time until he's shot dead by Zimmerman. It doesn't sound like they are fighting at all. I would love to know what injury he sustained to make him howl like that.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Wow, just wow! It's now okay to target people with hoodies?
my hypothesis is if Martin was dressed like he walked out of the pages of a jcrew catalog Zimmerman would have stereotyped him differently and he's be alive today. I'm not saying that Martin should have dressed differently I'm saying that Zimmermans reaction to the stereotype is the problem.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
my hypothesis is if Martin was dressed like he walked out of the pages of a jcrew catalog Zimmerman would have stereotyped him differently and he's be alive today. I'm not saying that Martin should have dressed differently I'm saying that Zimmermans reaction to the stereotype is the problem.
You mean like this guy right here in the $595 J. Crew jacket?



Woolrich John Rich & Bros.� To Ki To field jacket - J.Crew in good company - Men's outerwear - J.Crew

This guy runs the risk of catching a slug in the chest because some knucklehead chooses to view him as "suspicious". But this same knucklehead wouldn't think twice if he saw these guys dressed quite similarly:



Imagine that.

Now there's one side of me that can appreciate what Geraldo Rivera was trying to say ... because it is an unfortunate reality that Black and Latino males, especially those of darker hue, are viewed uh ... "differently" than their white or lighter-skinned counterparts even if they are dressed exactly the same way. And then there's the cynical side of me that wonders if he intentionally made this comment that he knew would gin up a negative reaction because his employer Fox News, which essentially ignored this story for weeks, is trying to make a splash now that the story has gone national by having one of its own say something controversial. In any event, regardless of his motivations .... Geraldo's comment overlooks one very salient point. Cabbies in NYC will pass by a black man in a $5000 Armani suit and will stop for a white dude in a hoodie without a second thought. All day every day. And the last time I checked there were PLENTY of white guys in jail for armed robbery. So my point here is that we still live in a society where the darker your skin tone is, the more likely you will be viewed as "threatening" or "suspicious" ... REGARDLESS of how you are dressed. And you can only go so far to assuage a fool's biases. Moreover, the last thing Geraldo should be doing right is suggesting that somehow this kid's parents "dressed him wrong" when his body hasn't even been six feet deep a month. Not only was it an incredibly insensitive comment on his part ... it turns out that Geraldo is being quite the hypocrite as well

http://geraldoinahoodie.tumblr.com

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Mar 24, 2012 at 03:08 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 03:03 PM
 
Cabbies? Fox News? Going a little far afield with that one aren't we? Are you trying to gin up a reaction?



j/k with you OAW, to be honest when I read the OP I wondered if Zim's overreaction had something to do with racism, even though there was no indication of the race of either party, because it was just too extreme to be believed
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Cabbies? Fox News? Going a little far afield with that one aren't we? Are you trying to gin up a reaction?



j/k with you OAW, to be honest when I read the OP I wondered if Zim's overreaction had something to do with racism, even though there was no indication of the race of either party, because it was just too extreme to be believed
Not really. Just responding to the Blaze's comments re: Geraldo's "The hoodie is just as much at fault as Zimmerman." comment.

Well the OP was written that way because A) I wanted the thread to be focused on the incident itself in relation to gun control legislation, and B) I personally haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that this was a racially motivated incident. Do I think that "race" is a factor in how this all went down? Well yeah. I don't think a white guy carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea would get shot in the chest for walking down the street in the rain wearing a hoodie. And even if he did ... I don't think the local police would be so quick to take a black man's word for it that the shooting was in "self-defense". But honestly, I'd rather the thread not get sidetracked by that angle ... because regardless of all of that, I think we can all agree that a KID is dead who shouldn't be over some bullish*t.

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Not really. Just responding to the Blaze's comments re: Geraldo's "The hoodie is just as much at fault as Zimmerman." comment.

Well the OP was written that way because A) I wanted the thread to be focused on the incident itself in relation to gun control legislation, and B) I personally haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that this was a racially motivated incident. Do I think that "race" is a factor in how this all went down? Well yeah. I don't think a white guy carrying a bag of Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea would get shot in the chest for walking down the street in the rain wearing a hoodie. And even if he did ... I don't think the local police would be so quick to take a black man's word for it that the shooting was in "self-defense". But honestly, I'd rather the thread not get sidetracked by that angle ... because regardless of all of that, I think we can all agree that a KID is dead who shouldn't be over some bullish*t.

OAW
White text fail.

-t
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
White text fail.
Racist
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You mean like this guy right here in the $595 J. Crew jacket? :
OAW
yes. That's exactly the look that set Martin off. I hadn't realized that jcrew was going for gang banger chic these days. Not too surprising.

In a perfect world what you wear wouldn't affect how people see you. In a perfect world there would be no gun toting lunatics.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
yes. That's exactly the look that set Martin off. I hadn't realized that jcrew was going for gang banger chic these days. Not too surprising.

In a perfect world what you wear wouldn't affect how people see you. In a perfect world there would be no gun toting lunatics.
Yeah J. Crew is all into the "gang banger chic these days" it would seem.









http://www.jcrew.com/mens_category/outerwear.jsp

OAW
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2012, 05:27 PM
 
Whatever, fashion statements is got nothing to do with the point I was trying to make and you know it.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:24 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2