Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mass Shootings Thread


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I gave you links to support that the worst cities have been Democratic led for decades

If Democrats were going to fix violence in cities, they'd have done it. 

 

No.  According to fish one of the cities with a top 20 crime rate is Miami, which currently has a Republican Mayor, so your statement can’t be true. 😆

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Statement like these are just opinions?

 

Its pretty consistent that urban areas are more violent. A % increase in rural crimes might absolutely be true - but the urban area's dominate the violence landscape

 

2 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Now why should people need to escape inner cities at all?    

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/reoord-spike-murders-2020/2020/12/30/1dcb057c-4ae5-11eb-839a-cf4ba7b7c48c_story.html

2020 saw an unprecedented spike in homicides from big cities to small towns

the above article says 30% in rural, and  In New York City, killings rose almost 40 percent, and shootings nearly doubled from the previous year. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

13 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

we agree that's a huge problem 

but that's a culture thing, sugar momma's and getting Govt money to have kids when unmarried ... my buddy's daughter intentionally stayed single through her pregnancy so the State would pay for it ....... then, afterwards, she got married

millions do it, millions stay unmarried because of the Govt $$$ being sent

its a culture 

Not culture at all.  It is making the most rational choice given the perverse incentives we have created to keep our welfare programs on the cheap.  Easy enough to fix this.  At least conceptually.  Politically too many will get in the way of the solution.  The solution that conservatives offered up 50 plus years ago.  That we were once oh so close to implementing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

No.  According to fish one of the cities with a top 20 crime rate is Miami, which currently has a Republican Mayor, so your statement can’t be true. 😆

from 1967 to 1996 Democrat led Miami

10 of the last 25 split Democrat / Republican

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Miami

 

you gotta watch, sometimes partial truths are given as evidence when the full truths are not as clear huh ?

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

 

Not culture at all.  It is making the most rational choice given the perverse incentives we have created to keep our welfare programs on the cheap.  Easy enough to fix this.  At least conceptually.  Politically too many will get in the way of the solution.  The solution that conservatives offered up 50 plus years ago.  That we were once oh so close to implementing.  

I disagree, its engrained as part of culture now

However my point remains, if it was rational choices and inevitability, then we'd see nobody getting out and breaking the cycles

But people DO get out and break cycles, I did, many people do. its choice to stay and be a part of it all, or leave and be better (as far as big cities)

or you can try and change your culture - few are strong enough to do that though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Y'know, you can technically claim that the "gun laws don't work" when they're not being enforced and that seems to be what they're banking on to fool the rubes.  How about we start enforcing the ones we have and see how that pans out first?

with the exception of covid year 2019, violent crimes/murders have went down year after year for the most part in most places for 2 decades

with hundreds of millions more guns and tens of millions more citizens 

if guns were the problem, there is no WAY those combinations would result in less violence/murders

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

Its pretty consistent that urban areas are more violent. A % increase in rural crimes might absolutely be true - but the urban area's dominate the violence landscape

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/reoord-spike-murders-2020/2020/12/30/1dcb057c-4ae5-11eb-839a-cf4ba7b7c48c_story.html

2020 saw an unprecedented spike in homicides from big cities to small towns

the above article says 30% in rural, and  In New York City, killings rose almost 40 percent, and shootings nearly doubled from the previous year. 

 

 

 

So this blows you culture theory completely out the window.  You realize that - correct?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

if guns were the problem, there is no WAY those combinations would result in less violence/murders

I'm out!  I tried to give you an opportunity to participate in an honest discussion on the root causes, tried to look past the bigotry and ugliness of some of the assertions but this just proves that there is no such interest.  Have a good night.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

No.  According to fish one of the cities with a top 20 crime rate is Miami, which currently has a Republican Mayor, so your statement can’t be true. 😆

sorry, i have SC on ignore.  where are those links?

again, correlation does not equal causation.  if the least populated, wealthiest 20 cities in America had the least amount of crime, could you attribute that to whether their city councils were led by one party or another, or would it likely be something else?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, -fish- said:

sorry, i have SC on ignore.  where are those links?

again, correlation does not equal causation.  if the least populated, wealthiest 20 cities in America had the least amount of crime, could you attribute that to whether their city councils were led by one party or another, or would it likely be something else?  

Of the top 20 cities by population, the ones led by Republicans have on average much lower crime rates than the Democratic led cities.  And if we look at NYC you see a concrete example of how Republican policies completely turned the city around, only to have Democratic nitwit DeBlasio run it into the ground again.  In San Francisco Walgreen’s are shutting down all over because insane Liberal policies have basically decriminalized shoplifting.  The only thing the thief has to fear is stepping on a used needle or a pile of human crap when he walks out of the store.  This is what Democratic policies lead to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

well when all these states went to concealed weapons the fears were the same, wild wild west

didn't happen

Most states require some sort of training classes for concealed don't they? This is different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

Most states require some sort of training classes for concealed don't they? This is different. 

Have any of you ever been thru the "training" you need to conceal carry?  When you say 'training", what do you think that entails?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

San Francisco's shoplifting spike is devastating for small businesses
 

Brazen thieves in San Francisco are undeterred by uniformed security guards, surveillance cameras or customers filming on their cellphones. And corner markets and drug stores are the hardest hit. In one recent incident at a Walgreens, the shoplifter rode in on a bike, packed a trash bag of items, and rode out the front door. All of it was caught on camera. The thief hasn't been arrested. 

Jalal Haydari, owner of Limoncello Italian Market and Deli, said his store in tony Pacific Heights is targeted day and night. His 32 cameras catch criminals in the act all the time. In one video, a thief is seen breaking through a window and making off with cash and the electronic tablets needed to take delivery orders. 

Another video shows a man loitering around the deli counter. He then takes as many food containers and drinks as he can carry, and walks right out the door without paying. 

But broken windows are costing him much more than stolen merchandise — almost $23,000 in the past year. 

"My store has been broken into more than 14 times," Haydari says. "And I have all the police reports, but I have not been notified if anybody got arrested."

Haydari blames San Francisco's progressive district attorney, Chesa Boudin, and Prop. 47, a 2014 California law that lowered the penalty for non-violent thefts under $950. He says there's simply no deterrent for petty thieves.

"What [city officials] are doing, they are just promoting this crime. Promoting people to do more, because $950, or $1,000 or $2,000, it doesn't matter — they get away with it," Haydari said.

"We're in a state of chaos and anarchy out here in San Francisco," says former San Francisco police commissioner Joe Alioto Veronese. "If you ever lived here or spent any time here, you see it every day and you just come to expect it and hope that when it happens, you're not in the line of fire."

Usually no one is hurt, but a 72-year-old retailer lost an eye when a would-be thief stabbed him earlier this month.

Thanks to the Franklin Market's surveillance video, police were able to identify a suspect and make an arrest. Usually, however, the suspect is long gone by the time police arrive - in many cases, fencing their stolen goods on the street or online.

A steady increase in shoplifting at big chains like Walgreens and CVS prompted a recent hearing before the Board of Supervisors, with some city leaders expressing shock after hearing how bad things are. One executive said thieves would hit several stores in a day, keeping each theft below the $950 threshold, but stealing more than $30,000 of goods overall. City leaders promised to explore the idea of "aggregating" such crimes for prosecution. 

"Like other retailers," said a statement from Safeway, "we've seen a dramatic increase in shoplifting incidents and losses from shoplifting since California sentencing laws changed in 2014 to make all theft below $950 a misdemeanor when it was previously a wobbler, either a felony or a misdemeanor based on prosecutorial discretion. Enterprising thieves have figured out there are few consequences to shoplifting if they keep the value of their crimes below $950."

Walgreens has closed 17 stores in the past five years specifically because of shoplifting. CVS has shuttered at least two outlets, calling San Francisco "the epicenter of organized retail crime." 

"If you can walk into a store and steal something, that law is no longer enforced in San Francisco," said Alioto Veronese. "That which at one time was a felony, has now been reduced to a misdemeanor. And now the misdemeanor is not not being enforced or for that matter, the police won't even take a police report because it happens so often. It's those laws have been taken off the books and the criminals know it."

The owners of smaller stores that can't afford extra security say they're left to fend for themselves, and hope for a day that brings a change in the laws surrounding petty theft, and tougher penalties for shoplifters.

Haydari has a word of caution for retailers thinking of setting up shop in the City by the Bay: "I think before you open a business in San Francisco you should think twice because you’re not protected at all no matter what."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Have any of you ever been thru the "training" you need to conceal carry?  When you say 'training", what do you think that entails?

 

No, I haven’t taken a class because I have no desire to conceal carry. However I am aware that there is about an 8 hour class, written test and a shooting test one must pass in NC to get their conceal permit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

No, I haven’t taken a class because I have no desire to conceal carry. However I am aware that there is about an 8 hour class, written test and a shooting test one must pass in NC to get their conceal permit.

Then NC is on the money.  Here in WI all I needed was to sit thru a 2 hour class explaining what and what not to do.  No shooting test, no written test just sit in the room and listen.  If you made it the 2 hours you got a certificate on your way out (pre-printed, of course).

Although, technically I didn't have to take the class at all as former military, but I thought I would do it anyways.  Y'know, just to cover all the bases.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I'm out!  I tried to give you an opportunity to participate in an honest discussion on the root causes, tried to look past the bigotry and ugliness of some of the assertions but this just proves that there is no such interest.  Have a good night.   

I agree with you on the core problems, what we disagree on IMO is your belief that people are stuck where they are with no way out. That's a cop out IMO and I know because I've been there and I've done that. I've never said some people have a harder time escaping their cultures and communities etc than others do, but many still do. The ones who don't choose

Education means nothing if someone wants to drop out of school.

Family structure means nothing to the man who walks out.

Available jobs means nothing to the people who don't want to work.

 

In theory I do agree that places and people can change - but sadly I'm a realist and I see people too who simply don't want to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yenrub said:

Most states require some sort of training classes for concealed don't they? This is different. 

every state is different

one link said

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia have "Permitless Carry." Anyone who can legally possess a firearm may carry concealed in these states without a Permit/License.May 5, 2021

then this link shows more detail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#:~:text=The following are shall-issue,%2C North Carolina%2C North Dakota%2C

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Yenrub said:

No, I haven’t taken a class because I have no desire to conceal carry. However I am aware that there is about an 8 hour class, written test and a shooting test one must pass in NC to get their conceal permit.

oddly enough

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/nc-gun-laws/

Open carry is legal in North Carolina without a permit. Counties may regulate the display of firearms on public roads, sidewalks, alleys or other public property. The minimum age is 18 years old. Some areas are off-limits, including schools and the State Capitol grounds.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

So this blows you culture theory completely out the window.  You realize that - correct?  

not at all

% spikes were around the same or higher in urban vs rural during the covid year

historically, urban is more violent than rural

rural has far more guns than urban

 

how is that possible then if guns are the problem ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I agree with you on the core problems, what we disagree on IMO is your belief that people are stuck where they are with no way out. That's a cop out IMO and I know because I've been there and I've done that. I've never said some people have a harder time escaping their cultures and communities etc than others do, but many still do. The ones who don't choose

Education means nothing if someone wants to drop out of school.

Family structure means nothing to the man who walks out.

Available jobs means nothing to the people who don't want to work.

 

In theory I do agree that places and people can change - but sadly I'm a realist and I see people too who simply don't want to. 

Okay, this reply disserves cutting you a bit of slack.

Nowhere have I said that people are "stuck with no way out".  I have said that people have different gifts that means saying "I did it, so can they" a terrible argument.  So yes, some have a harder time "getting out".   

But you still keep believing that "getting out" should be the goal to begin with.  That maybe we as a society help those that tale the initiative to "escape" the inner cities and that culture of evil, lazy, etc.   But why?  What is so terribly wrong with the people of the inner cities that can't be fixed with a reshuffling of our approaches?  Why should we throw our hands up and give up on those that choose to stay because of family, because of the familiarity, because of whatever?  We have created and/or benefited from the relatively tiny enclaves of problems within our cities with our various policy and economic choices so we should be able to fix them over time.

In each of your three examples you have said it means nothing if the person choses a different route.  But you haven't addressed that we as a society have configured these areas where the undesirable choices (for society) make the most sense for the individuals.  We need to change that and helping a few escape isn't going to be enough.

As a conservative I assume you have a very large belief in the free markets and how they produce the best results if people exchange their efforts for what maximizes their own utility, act in their own best interest.  If you really believe this then shouldn't it also work for the people in inner cities?  That they are making choices within the constraints of their gifts to do what is in their own best interest?   So if this is the case doesn't it follow that the problems isn't with the choices that people make but the choices they had to select from?   

So ultimately it is a failed strategy to think we can get people to chose the way you would.  It is to me wrong to simply  help those that think the way you did to escape and abandon everyone else.  To me we should be adding better choices for the people and trusting that enough will take them to make a difference.  We should stop denigrating people for making the best choices they are capable of making because we as a society have created obstacles to move ahead.  We should tear down those obstacles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

But you still keep believing that "getting out" should be the goal to begin with.  That maybe we as a society help those that tale the initiative to "escape" the inner cities and that culture of evil, lazy, etc.   But why?  What is so terribly wrong with the people of the inner cities that can't be fixed with a reshuffling of our approaches?  Why should we throw our hands up and give up on those that choose to stay because of family, because of the familiarity, because of whatever?  We have created and/or benefited from the relatively tiny enclaves of problems within our cities with our various policy and economic choices so we should be able to fix them over time.

the part of me that has hope for humanity says yes, its possible to change "bad" areas and make them "good" areas

I guess first we have to decide if the way certain people choose to live should be acceptable. Drug dealers/users, gangs, unemployed, the low life's and deadbeats etc. These are the people committing violence/murders/crimes

Maybe, just maybe, some people are evil and don't want to do right. Or, they get into drugs or a lfiestyle they simply don't want to break? You can't help those people and I know this on a deep personal level :(

"fixing" has been tried for decades - I'd say there has been minimal success wouldn't you ? for decades we've seen "school" reforms over and over and yet we are in 2021 .... and yet these cities have lowest graduation rates - Indianapolis (31 percent), Cleveland (34 percent), Detroit (38 percent), Milwaukee (41 percent), Baltimore (41 percent), Atlanta (44 percent), Los Angeles (44 percent), Las Vegas (45 percent), and Columbus (45 percent).

how can that possible be ?  

but to be fair, it HAS went down gradually nationwide

https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/high-school-dropout-rates

 

I guess the hugest question is how can, in the same environment/culture/area, some people succeed and others don't ?

Some people I graduated with in high school have no 401K's, they live in a 1980 trailer and drive a 1985 chevy s-10 ...... living off welfare most likely "disability" for something or the other, smoking cigarettes and marijuana every day and beers.

Why don't each of them have $250K in their 401K, a nice house, some land, and 20+ years at a job / career etc ?

Choice. 

My best friend far exceeded what I have in terms of financial success and sometimes I wonder why he's so successful and I wasn't. I blueprinted what he did in his life, vs what i did in mine. 

Choices. 

I don't regret mine much, sometimes I do but overall I don't. The reason he's a millionaire and I'm not is he wanted it, he worked harder to get it and he did it. 

I chose not to.

That simple formula fits almost anybody. Its not easy to self diagnose and say hey, we simply didn't put in the work and effort. But its so often true. That's ok too ... but I don't blame him for being so much more successful than me. I had the same avenues he did, I just chose others. In fact, MORE opportunity was in my hands I think .... and yet, I squandered and wasted them.

My point is the in cities people everyday succeed and break the cycles. They choose it. Everyday, people don't choose it as well. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

As a conservative I assume you have a very large belief in the free markets and how they produce the best results if people exchange their efforts for what maximizes their own utility, act in their own best interest.  If you really believe this then shouldn't it also work for the people in inner cities?  That they are making choices within the constraints of their gifts to do what is in their own best interest?   So if this is the case doesn't it follow that the problems isn't with the choices that people make but the choices they had to select from?   

what constraints ?

please - tell me

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

what constraints ?

please - tell me

Everyone has different set of gifts.  Some of those gifts will help make better choices.  Some of those gifts (or lack of) will be a detriment to making better choices.   While not exhaustive, people have

  • different levels of intelligence
  • different personalities
  • different levels of risk aversion
  • different physical skills
  • different family backgrounds
  • different family situations
  • different appearances 

Each of these (and many others) play into the decision making processes.  Some will improve the choices being made, some will not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

"fixing" has been tried for decades - I'd say there has been minimal success wouldn't you ?

We kicked off the Great Society in the mid '60s to great fanfare and then replaced that approach shortly after with the "War on Drugs".  I'm a broken record in here arguing that the "war on drugs" is a failure.  You can  instead blame the "welfare state" but I'm also a broken record on replacing the welfare state with a UBI to eliminate (among other things)  the welfare traps.   I used to think that would be enough but over the past decade I've come around to thinking job guarantees should be part of the agenda.   There are other things in this mix (healthcare, education, etc.), where most of the fixes I support we have not tried at all.   Ever!     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Everyone has different set of gifts.  Some of those gifts will help make better choices.  Some of those gifts (or lack of) will be a detriment to making better choices.   While not exhaustive, people have

  • different levels of intelligence
  • different personalities
  • different levels of risk aversion
  • different physical skills
  • different family backgrounds
  • different family situations
  • different appearances 

Each of these (and many others) play into the decision making processes.  Some will improve the choices being made, some will not.

 

I 100% agree, which is why we have a society in which if you play to your strengths.

My Dad wasn't educated. He's not "smart". He's 86 and has a landline phone, no computer, no cell phones. He never "succeeded" when compared to other people's success financially

He was a super hard worker. He'd work your butt into the ground, all day long, never stopping. He's as good a man as you'll ever meet. Those were his strengths and he played to them.

He could easily have chosen to be a drunkard, a no good trashy nothing of a man. 

Why didn't he ? he was drafted in the military right after WWII ... maybe that was the pivot. Maybe something else was, maybe it was when he married he decided. who knows ?

Each of us has trials and difficulties, each of us has limitations and each of us exceed in things as well. That doesn't mean any of us has to choose to be trash.

One of the smartest people I know is one of the worst people I know. The most talented basketball player I ever met blew him mind on drugs. I knew a guy that could play a guitar like Eddie VH .... but he never wanted to do anything more than just drink beer and play local. 

Choices - and we all know people who could have exceeded, has vast more talents than we have, and just didn't want to 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

We kicked off the Great Society in the mid '60s to great fanfare and then replaced that approach shortly after with the "War on Drugs".  I'm a broken record in here arguing that the "war on drugs" is a failure.  You can  instead blame the "welfare state" but I'm also a broken record on replacing the welfare state with a UBI to eliminate (among other things)  the welfare traps.   I used to think that would be enough but over the past decade I've come around to thinking job guarantees should be part of the agenda.   There are other things in this mix (healthcare, education, etc.), where most of the fixes I support we have not tried at all.   Ever!     

I can solve the "war on drugs"

Execute drug dealers/traffickers. There. Done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

Honestly, open carry might be better than concealed carry.  At least that way private businesses can refuse service to those that violate their rules. 

SC's head just exploded.  Double whammy of can't getting into businesses because he is strapped and not vaccinated? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

Honestly, open carry might be better than concealed carry.  At least that way private businesses can refuse service to those that violate their rules. 

What are you talking about?  Private businesses already have the right to refuse firearms on their premises, conceal carry or open-carry.  It's literally built into every CC/Open carry law in all of the states.

This is what we talk about when we say the anti-gun people have ZERO idea what they're talking about.  It's all emotion and emotional talking points.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

What are you talking about?  Private businesses already have the right t refuse firearms on their premises, conceal carry or open-carry.  It's literally built into every CC/Open carry law in all of the states.

This is what we talk about when we say the anti-gun people have ZERO idea what they're talking about.  It's all emotion and emotional talking points.

I think the point was that if it were open carry it would be easier to spot/enforce rather than just "yeah, trust me, Im not carrying" that happens with concealed carry.

Because people do know what they are talking about...and they aren't just spouting talking points as is constantly claimed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

I think the point was that if it were open carry it would be easier to spot/enforce rather than just "yeah, trust me, Im not carrying" that happens with concealed carry.

Because people do know what they are talking about...and they aren't just spouting talking points as is constantly claimed.

Exactly.  I guarantee there's a considerable amount of concealed carry going on in private businesses that have policies against it.  If carrying weapons must be out in public, at least we can identify those people and ask them to leave the premises. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

Honestly, open carry might be better than concealed carry.  At least that way private businesses can refuse service to those that violate their rules. 

You know there is a training and education piece that goes into CCH over open carry? 

I'd prefer someone who conceals every day of the week. Open carry doesn't seem wise to me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

Exactly.  I guarantee there's a considerable amount of concealed carry going on in private businesses that have policies against it.  If carrying weapons must be out in public, at least we can identify those people and ask them to leave the premises. 

First off, you have no way to prove this.  It's an emotional based observation that has no basis in reality.

Secondly, if businesses want no firearms on premise, the put a sign right on the door.  I observe all of those signs.  Also, people CAN open carry without a license currently, so your second premise of "we can identify those people and ask them to leave" is also faulty because if businesses were doing that then we would be hearing about.  But it's not happening so, once again, an emotional based argument of yours with no basis in reality.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

You know there is a training and education piece that goes into CCH over open carry? 

I'd prefer someone who conceals every day of the week. Open carry doesn't seem wise to me.

His arguments are emotional and not based in reality.

Again, this is why we say anti-gun people have ZERO idea of what they are talking about when it comes to guns.  He doesn't even understand the current laws in place and what really goes on.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Max Power said:

You know there is a training and education piece that goes into CCH over open carry? 

I'd prefer someone who conceals every day of the week. Open carry doesn't seem wise to me.

there are at least 15 states with no training requirement whatsoever for concealed carry.  Texas just became one.  In every one, gun crime and homicide increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

His arguments are emotional and not based in reality.

Again, this is why we say anti-gun people have ZERO idea of what they are talking about when it comes to guns.  He doesn't even understand the current laws in place and what really goes on.

hey, no facts.  what a surprise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, -fish- said:

hey, no facts.  what a surprise.  

Couple things:

1) I thought you had me on ignore?  What happened?

2) Simply parroting "no fact!  no facts!" doesn't make it true. Cherry-picking posts and providing no context  is not making you look like good. 

3) Please don't report me for responding to you.  I know you tried it again the other day and got an admonishment from the mods.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, -fish- said:

again, no facts.   as far as I can tell, you don't ever make a factual argument.   I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about, ever.   Other than "I hate liberals" you have no point whatsoever.   You continue to attack other posters without having any actual argument, and you've been asked to stop.  Not only should you be reported, but you should be banned.  Your posts have no value at all.   This is a discussion board, but you don't discuss anything.  Your posts are useless and offensive.

He’s a much better poster than you and it’s not even close.  Why don’t you ignore him like he asked?

Edited by ekbeats
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

He’s a much better poster than you and it’s not even close.  Why don’t you ignore him like he asked?

did someone ask your opinion?  do you have a fact-based argument to present, or are you just doing the same thing?

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

First off, you have no way to prove this.  It's an emotional based observation that has no basis in reality.

Secondly, if businesses want no firearms on premise, the put a sign right on the door.  I observe all of those signs.  Also, people CAN open carry without a license currently, so your second premise of "we can identify those people and ask them to leave" is also faulty because if businesses were doing that then we would be hearing about.  But it's not happening so, once again, an emotional based argument of yours with no basis in reality.

CVS, Costco, and Target  and many other large retailers don't allow firearms in their stores per their policies. Neither do almost all movie theaters. 

My supposition (no, I don't have proof) is that there are many people that carry concealed weapons everywhere they go.  They simply ignore these policies and go about their business in the store.

All of you that carry concealed, have you entered any of these establishments with a weapon on your person?

That why I said I believe there's a ton of this going on right now.  I bet very few read the policies of every retailer they enter. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2021 at 8:16 PM, ekbeats said:

Of the top 20 cities by population, the ones led by Republicans have on average much lower crime rates than the Democratic led cities.  And if we look at NYC you see a concrete example of how Republican policies completely turned the city around, only to have Democratic nitwit DeBlasio run it into the ground again.  In San Francisco Walgreen’s are shutting down all over because insane Liberal policies have basically decriminalized shoplifting.  The only thing the thief has to fear is stepping on a used needle or a pile of human crap when he walks out of the store.  This is what Democratic policies lead to.

But comparing top 20 cities is a little misleading isn't it?  Do you think Denver with 250K has the same challenges as NY with 6.2M?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Dude said:

But comparing top 20 cities is a little misleading isn't it?  Do you think Denver with 250K has the same challenges as NY with 6.2M?

can i see where you are getting those population numbers?   seems low in both places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2021 at 9:42 PM, The Z Machine said:

Honestly, open carry might be better than concealed carry.  At least that way private businesses can refuse service to those that violate their rules. 

I'd disagree here.

A concealed carry license is a higher bar of training/education.  "Refusing" service to these open carry aholes looking for a fight seems a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, -fish- said:

there are at least 15 states with no training requirement whatsoever for concealed carry.  Texas just became one.  In every one, gun crime and homicide increased.

My wife is enrolled in a concealed carry class required by TX state law.  Might want to check your facts.

 

Edited by matuski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, -fish- said:

there are at least 15 states with no training requirement whatsoever for concealed carry.  Texas just became one.  In every one, gun crime and homicide increased.

Could you cite your sources here?

What I am finding seems weak in terms of evidence.

Quote

 

Lott and Mustard (1997)aDecrease in violent crime, murders, rapes, and assaults

Bartley and Cohen (1998)Decrease in violent crime robust to alternate model specifications

Black and Nagin (1998)Increase in assaults

Bronars and Lott (1998)Decrease in murders and rapes, displacement of crime to other jurisdictions

Lott (1998a)aDecrease in violent crime in most states implementing the law

Lott (1998b)aDecrease in violent crime; increase in property crime

Ludwig (1998)None detected

Ayres and Donohue (1999)aIncrease in property crime

Lott and Landes (1999)aDecrease in murders and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings

Lott (2000)aDecrease in all crime categories

Benson and Mast (2001)Decrease in violent crime, murders, rapes, and robberies

Duggan (2001)Decrease in assaults

Moody (2001)aDecrease in violent crime

Olson and Maltz (2001)Decrease in firearm murders

Plassmann and Tideman (2001)Decrease in murders and rapes; increase in robberies

Lott and Whitley (2003)aDecrease in violent crime, murders, rapes, and robberies

Plassmann and Whitley (2003)bDecrease in rapes and robberies

Rubin and Dezhbakhsh (2003)Decrease in murders; increase in robberies

Ayres and Donohue (2003a)aIncrease in more crime categories than saw a decrease

Ayres and Donohue (2003b)aIncrease or no effect in all crime categories

Donohue (2003)aMixed; effects were sensitive to model specifications and data

Helland and Tabarrok (2004)Increase in property crime, auto thefts, and larcenies

 

 

Edited by matuski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...