Oregon said Obama stay away..so guess who's coming to Roseburg?

[JQPublic1]

According to statistics, you are six times more likely to get murdered by a black than a white. Yes, per capita tells the real story.

Who is 6 times more likely to be killed by a black than a white? A black or a white? You don't provide links so I have little confidence in what you say. Here is a link that contradicts most of what you believe. Can you debunk anything herein:


* Only about 1 percent of African Americans — and no more than 2 percent of black males — will commit a violent crime in a given year;

* Even though there are more black-on-white interracial crimes than white-on-black interracial crimes, this fact is not evidence of anti-white racial targeting by black offenders. Rather, it is completely explained by two factors having nothing to do with anti-white bias: namely, the general differences in rates of criminal offending, and the rates at which whites and blacks encounter one another (and thus, have the opportunity to victimize one another). Once these two factors are “controlled for” in social science terms, the actual rates of black-on-white crime are lower than random chance would predict;

* No more than 0.7 percent (seven-tenths of one percent) of African Americans will commit a violent crime against a white person in a given year, and fewer than 0.3 (three-tenths of one percent) of whites will be victimized by a black person in a given year;

* Whites are 6 times as likely to be murdered by another white person as by a black person; and overall, the percentage of white Americans who will be murdered by a black offender in a given year is only 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002). This means that only 1 in every 500,000 white people will be murdered by a black person in a given year. Although the numbers of black-on-white homicides are higher than the reverse (447 to 218 in 2010), the 218 black victims of white murderers is actually a higher percentage of the black population interracially killed than the 447 white victims of black murderers as a percentage of the white population. In fact, any given black person is 2.75 times as likely to be murdered by a white person as any given white person is to be murdered by an African American.

So why did officers stop and frisk minorities? Probably because minorities are the most likely to be carrying a gun illegally. Probably because before stop and frisk, minorities were the primary groups that were doing the murders in NYC.

Your use of the word "probably" indicates you are not sure. That uncertainty is a glaring sign that you just don't know what you are talking about. If the peak of Stop and Frisk was 700,000 people with most of them being innocent minorities the justification for continuing that pattern was gone long before half that many people were stopped and frisked. How many times do I have to repeat that 90% of the minorities stopped were innocent Are we to disregard the Constitutional rights of the many for the transgressions of a few? Thankfully, reasonable men refused to let that happen

When you stop and think of all the innocent black lives that were saved when the program was in operation, it's a shame that blacks don't understand what's been keeping them safe. The 10% that cops busted and took off the street really helped the situation. Now those 10% or more are right back out there. I BTW, what's 10% of 1,000?

Whites are 6 times more likely to be killed by Whites than by a black. That is nothing to sneeze at. Who was keeping those white victims safe? Frankly, I am a bit surprised at your complete disregard for the Constitution when it applies to the illegal searching of Blacks and Hispanics but you would be the first to scream discrimination if the roles were reversed and whites were the objects of police overreach!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to statistics, you are six times more likely to get murdered by a black than a white. Yes, per capita tells the real story.

Who is 6 times more likely to be killed by a black than a white? A black or a white? You don't provide links so I have little confidence in what you say. Here is a link that contradicts most of what you believe. Can you debunk anything herein:


* Only about 1 percent of African Americans — and no more than 2 percent of black males — will commit a violent crime in a given year;

* Even though there are more black-on-white interracial crimes than white-on-black interracial crimes, this fact is not evidence of anti-white racial targeting by black offenders. Rather, it is completely explained by two factors having nothing to do with anti-white bias: namely, the general differences in rates of criminal offending, and the rates at which whites and blacks encounter one another (and thus, have the opportunity to victimize one another). Once these two factors are “controlled for” in social science terms, the actual rates of black-on-white crime are lower than random chance would predict;

* No more than 0.7 percent (seven-tenths of one percent) of African Americans will commit a violent crime against a white person in a given year, and fewer than 0.3 (three-tenths of one percent) of whites will be victimized by a black person in a given year;

* Whites are 6 times as likely to be murdered by another white person as by a black person; and overall, the percentage of white Americans who will be murdered by a black offender in a given year is only 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002). This means that only 1 in every 500,000 white people will be murdered by a black person in a given year. Although the numbers of black-on-white homicides are higher than the reverse (447 to 218 in 2010), the 218 black victims of white murderers is actually a higher percentage of the black population interracially killed than the 447 white victims of black murderers as a percentage of the white population. In fact, any given black person is 2.75 times as likely to be murdered by a white person as any given white person is to be murdered by an African American.

So why did officers stop and frisk minorities? Probably because minorities are the most likely to be carrying a gun illegally. Probably because before stop and frisk, minorities were the primary groups that were doing the murders in NYC.

Your use of the word "probably" indicates you are not sure. That uncertainty is a glaring sign that you just don't know what you are talking about. If the peak of Stop and Frisk was 700,000 people with most of them being innocent minorities the justification for continuing that pattern was gone long before half that many people were stopped and frisked. How many times do I have to repeat that 90% of the minorities stopped were innocent Are we to disregard the Constitutional rights of the many for the transgressions of a few? Thankfully, reasonable men refused to let that happen

When you stop and think of all the innocent black lives that were saved when the program was in operation, it's a shame that blacks don't understand what's been keeping them safe. The 10% that cops busted and took off the street really helped the situation. Now those 10% or more are right back out there. I BTW, what's 10% of 1,000?

Whites are 6 times more likely to be killed by Whites than by a black. That is nothing to sneeze at. Who was keeping those white victims safe? Frankly, I am a bit surprised at your complete disregard for the Constitution when it applies to the illegal searching of Blacks and Hispanics but you would be the first to scream discrimination if the roles were reversed and whites were the objects of police overreach!

No, because I've been hassled because of my race before. Years ago I worked for a medical company where we did deliveries in the black projects here in Cleveland and Akron.

When a black police officer sees you in an area like that, he is bound to think something is not right. So I've been approached several times, but never searched because they didn't do that back then.

For the most part I was cooperative and gave the officer all the information he needed to prove that I was not there looking for drugs. It always ended up pleasant and on a few occasions, the officer escorted me to the apartment I needed to make the delivery to.

Several years ago our city set up a sobriety check point; something I've always been against from a constitutional standpoint. However after reading about the results in our local newspaper, I changed my mind.

We didn't nab any drunks or high people, but what our police officers did accomplish was getting several suspended drivers off of the road, a few with warrants, and another few with vehicles that were dangerous and not roadworthy.

The problem our suburb has is lowlifes coming here from the inner-city to start trouble. Those checkpoints acted as sort of a dragnet to keep those people out of here. Now I wish they had one every week.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wiat. Stop! Pull yourself together... If a stranger answers a newspaper add and buys a gun from the owner, there is NO background check...capice? SAME FOR A GUN SHOW... GUNS ARE SOLD TO STRANGERS WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED.... re you always this stupid or are you having a senior moment?

Correct! No background check, but it is STILL a felony Why does it need to be a felony to sell a gun to a felon TWICE? Is a criminal then twice as likely to break or follow the law?
I doubt you have ever touched a gun, let alone sold one so I'll educate you. LEGAL gun owners take their responsibilities rather seriously. We tend to value our freedom and rights to the point where we make it our duty to know who we hand a gun to.
No one I have ever sold to was a criminal. Every one was known to me to be of good character.
Street thugs who sell guns out of the trunk of their cars are already criminals and prohibited from possessing weapons, much less selling them. They don't take anything seriously, especially their duty to their fellow man. They don't care who they sell to as long as the person ahas enough money so that they can get their next bag of heroin. Making private sales of guns by criminals to criminals is redundant and stupid, stupid.

Good character can be a subjective thing. Whenever guns change hands with no paper trail or documentation there is always the chance for ulterior things to occur. Your modus operandi
is admirable but why should the society at large trust you or anyone else to do the right thing just because YOU decide who is or is not a person of good character? I know, it doesn't really matter since guns are all over the place and even thugs have plenty of them.

But thugs do not generally go to churches or schools to commit mass murder. Further, the loser nerds who perpetrate those kind of killings are too afraid to go in to thug territory to buy their guns. Those type of killers usually go the legal route. typically they have no criminal record and appear to be just ordinary joes protected by the 2nd Amendment. Even YOu might have sold a gun to any of them.

It would be possible that someone with my sense of responsibility may have sold a weapon to someone like Adam Lanza's mother, but I believe she acquired her weapons by retail sales with background checks, records; the whole 9 yards.
Her son murdered her. Circumstances of that are unknown. Could it be that he killed his mother because she was trying to prevent the rampage her son was about to go on? Interesting twist, but it can never be more than a supposition.....
Other school shooters stole weapons from parents as well and yes, some purchased their weapons legally.
Those that purchased their weapons were subject to background checks. NONE, to my knowledge bought weapons from a private seller at a gun show. None acquired weapons that they wouldn't have obtained if all private sales were subject to background checks. Your proposals would have accomplished NOTHING but inconveniencing tens of thousands of sane, law abiding persons as they tried to purchase a legal product in a legal transaction between them and another person who had every right to legally sell a firearm.
SUGGEST SOMETHING THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK.

How do you know how many killings have been prevented by background checks already?
You're saying that they don't work...how do you know?

Just look at the places that have them already. Look what it takes to own a gun in a state like California. Google Stossle and see if you can find the video of him trying to get a CCW in New York and see what he had to go through only to be denied.

Well now, you are certainly making a good arguement for Australian type gun laws.

Did gun control work in Australia?

John Howard, who served as prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007, is no one's idea of a lefty. He was one of George W. Bush's closest allies, enthusiastically backing the Iraq intervention, and took a hard line domestically against increased immigration and union organizing (pdf).

But one of Howard's other lasting legacies is Australia's gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia's footsteps. "There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit," he concluded. "But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path."

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

 

[Ernie S.]

Correct! No background check, but it is STILL a felony Why does it need to be a felony to sell a gun to a felon TWICE? Is a criminal then twice as likely to break or follow the law?
I doubt you have ever touched a gun, let alone sold one so I'll educate you. LEGAL gun owners take their responsibilities rather seriously. We tend to value our freedom and rights to the point where we make it our duty to know who we hand a gun to.
No one I have ever sold to was a criminal. Every one was known to me to be of good character.
Street thugs who sell guns out of the trunk of their cars are already criminals and prohibited from possessing weapons, much less selling them. They don't take anything seriously, especially their duty to their fellow man. They don't care who they sell to as long as the person ahas enough money so that they can get their next bag of heroin. Making private sales of guns by criminals to criminals is redundant and stupid, stupid.

Good character can be a subjective thing. Whenever guns change hands with no paper trail or documentation there is always the chance for ulterior things to occur. Your modus operandi
is admirable but why should the society at large trust you or anyone else to do the right thing just because YOU decide who is or is not a person of good character? I know, it doesn't really matter since guns are all over the place and even thugs have plenty of them.

But thugs do not generally go to churches or schools to commit mass murder. Further, the loser nerds who perpetrate those kind of killings are too afraid to go in to thug territory to buy their guns. Those type of killers usually go the legal route. typically they have no criminal record and appear to be just ordinary joes protected by the 2nd Amendment. Even YOu might have sold a gun to any of them.

It would be possible that someone with my sense of responsibility may have sold a weapon to someone like Adam Lanza's mother, but I believe she acquired her weapons by retail sales with background checks, records; the whole 9 yards.
Her son murdered her. Circumstances of that are unknown. Could it be that he killed his mother because she was trying to prevent the rampage her son was about to go on? Interesting twist, but it can never be more than a supposition.....
Other school shooters stole weapons from parents as well and yes, some purchased their weapons legally.
Those that purchased their weapons were subject to background checks. NONE, to my knowledge bought weapons from a private seller at a gun show. None acquired weapons that they wouldn't have obtained if all private sales were subject to background checks. Your proposals would have accomplished NOTHING but inconveniencing tens of thousands of sane, law abiding persons as they tried to purchase a legal product in a legal transaction between them and another person who had every right to legally sell a firearm.
SUGGEST SOMETHING THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK.

How do you know how many killings have been prevented by background checks already?
You're saying that they don't work...how do you know?

Just look at the places that have them already. Look what it takes to own a gun in a state like California. Google Stossle and see if you can find the video of him trying to get a CCW in New York and see what he had to go through only to be denied.

Well now, you are certainly making a good arguement for Australian type gun laws.

Did gun control work in Australia?

John Howard, who served as prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007, is no one's idea of a lefty. He was one of George W. Bush's closest allies, enthusiastically backing the Iraq intervention, and took a hard line domestically against increased immigration and union organizing (pdf).

But one of Howard's other lasting legacies is Australia's gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia's footsteps. "There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit," he concluded. "But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path."

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

Then maybe you should run for POTUS and repeal the 2nd Amendment by executive order.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct! No background check, but it is STILL a felony Why does it need to be a felony to sell a gun to a felon TWICE? Is a criminal then twice as likely to break or follow the law?
I doubt you have ever touched a gun, let alone sold one so I'll educate you. LEGAL gun owners take their responsibilities rather seriously. We tend to value our freedom and rights to the point where we make it our duty to know who we hand a gun to.
No one I have ever sold to was a criminal. Every one was known to me to be of good character.
Street thugs who sell guns out of the trunk of their cars are already criminals and prohibited from possessing weapons, much less selling them. They don't take anything seriously, especially their duty to their fellow man. They don't care who they sell to as long as the person ahas enough money so that they can get their next bag of heroin. Making private sales of guns by criminals to criminals is redundant and stupid, stupid.

Good character can be a subjective thing. Whenever guns change hands with no paper trail or documentation there is always the chance for ulterior things to occur. Your modus operandi
is admirable but why should the society at large trust you or anyone else to do the right thing just because YOU decide who is or is not a person of good character? I know, it doesn't really matter since guns are all over the place and even thugs have plenty of them.

But thugs do not generally go to churches or schools to commit mass murder. Further, the loser nerds who perpetrate those kind of killings are too afraid to go in to thug territory to buy their guns. Those type of killers usually go the legal route. typically they have no criminal record and appear to be just ordinary joes protected by the 2nd Amendment. Even YOu might have sold a gun to any of them.

It would be possible that someone with my sense of responsibility may have sold a weapon to someone like Adam Lanza's mother, but I believe she acquired her weapons by retail sales with background checks, records; the whole 9 yards.
Her son murdered her. Circumstances of that are unknown. Could it be that he killed his mother because she was trying to prevent the rampage her son was about to go on? Interesting twist, but it can never be more than a supposition.....
Other school shooters stole weapons from parents as well and yes, some purchased their weapons legally.
Those that purchased their weapons were subject to background checks. NONE, to my knowledge bought weapons from a private seller at a gun show. None acquired weapons that they wouldn't have obtained if all private sales were subject to background checks. Your proposals would have accomplished NOTHING but inconveniencing tens of thousands of sane, law abiding persons as they tried to purchase a legal product in a legal transaction between them and another person who had every right to legally sell a firearm.
SUGGEST SOMETHING THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK.

How do you know how many killings have been prevented by background checks already?
You're saying that they don't work...how do you know?

Just look at the places that have them already. Look what it takes to own a gun in a state like California. Google Stossle and see if you can find the video of him trying to get a CCW in New York and see what he had to go through only to be denied.

Well now, you are certainly making a good arguement for Australian type gun laws.

Did gun control work in Australia?

John Howard, who served as prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007, is no one's idea of a lefty. He was one of George W. Bush's closest allies, enthusiastically backing the Iraq intervention, and took a hard line domestically against increased immigration and union organizing (pdf).

But one of Howard's other lasting legacies is Australia's gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia's footsteps. "There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit," he concluded. "But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path."

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

Yeah, and that's all fine and dandy until you see the entire picture.

Before the gun ban, homicides and gun related suicides were already on the decline, in fact the decline started over 10 years before the ban.

In fact the decline was about the same before the gun ban as during the gun ban. The only thing that changed was non-gun related suicides which were on the rise until the gun ban went into effect. Of course there is no relationship there, but the point is the gun ban didn't change anything in Australia with the exception of violent crimes increasing:

Australia Model -- Obama's Proposal | National Review Online

 

[JQPublic1]

According to statistics, you are six times more likely to get murdered by a black than a white. Yes, per capita tells the real story.

Who is 6 times more likely to be killed by a black than a white? A black or a white? You don't provide links so I have little confidence in what you say. Here is a link that contradicts most of what you believe. Can you debunk anything herein:


* Only about 1 percent of African Americans — and no more than 2 percent of black males — will commit a violent crime in a given year;

* Even though there are more black-on-white interracial crimes than white-on-black interracial crimes, this fact is not evidence of anti-white racial targeting by black offenders. Rather, it is completely explained by two factors having nothing to do with anti-white bias: namely, the general differences in rates of criminal offending, and the rates at which whites and blacks encounter one another (and thus, have the opportunity to victimize one another). Once these two factors are “controlled for” in social science terms, the actual rates of black-on-white crime are lower than random chance would predict;

* No more than 0.7 percent (seven-tenths of one percent) of African Americans will commit a violent crime against a white person in a given year, and fewer than 0.3 (three-tenths of one percent) of whites will be victimized by a black person in a given year;

* Whites are 6 times as likely to be murdered by another white person as by a black person; and overall, the percentage of white Americans who will be murdered by a black offender in a given year is only 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002). This means that only 1 in every 500,000 white people will be murdered by a black person in a given year. Although the numbers of black-on-white homicides are higher than the reverse (447 to 218 in 2010), the 218 black victims of white murderers is actually a higher percentage of the black population interracially killed than the 447 white victims of black murderers as a percentage of the white population. In fact, any given black person is 2.75 times as likely to be murdered by a white person as any given white person is to be murdered by an African American.

So why did officers stop and frisk minorities? Probably because minorities are the most likely to be carrying a gun illegally. Probably because before stop and frisk, minorities were the primary groups that were doing the murders in NYC.

Your use of the word "probably" indicates you are not sure. That uncertainty is a glaring sign that you just don't know what you are talking about. If the peak of Stop and Frisk was 700,000 people with most of them being innocent minorities the justification for continuing that pattern was gone long before half that many people were stopped and frisked. How many times do I have to repeat that 90% of the minorities stopped were innocent Are we to disregard the Constitutional rights of the many for the transgressions of a few? Thankfully, reasonable men refused to let that happen

When you stop and think of all the innocent black lives that were saved when the program was in operation, it's a shame that blacks don't understand what's been keeping them safe. The 10% that cops busted and took off the street really helped the situation. Now those 10% or more are right back out there. I BTW, what's 10% of 1,000?

Whites are 6 times more likely to be killed by Whites than by a black. That is nothing to sneeze at. Who was keeping those white victims safe? Frankly, I am a bit surprised at your complete disregard for the Constitution when it applies to the illegal searching of Blacks and Hispanics but you would be the first to scream discrimination if the roles were reversed and whites were the objects of police overreach!

No, because I've been hassled because of my race before. Years ago I worked for a medical company where we did deliveries in the black projects here in Cleveland and Akron.

When a black police officer sees you in an area like that, he is bound to think something is not right. So I've been approached several times, but never searched because they didn't do that back then.

For the most part I was cooperative and gave the officer all the information he needed to prove that I was not there looking for drugs. It always ended up pleasant and on a few occasions, the officer escorted me to the apartment I needed to make the delivery to.

Several years ago our city set up a sobriety check point; something I've always been against from a constitutional standpoint. However after reading about the results in our local newspaper, I changed my mind.

We didn't nab any drunks or high people, but what our police officers did accomplish was getting several suspended drivers off of the road, a few with warrants, and another few with vehicles that were dangerous and not roadworthy.

The problem our suburb has is lowlifes coming here from the inner-city to start trouble. Those checkpoints acted as sort of a dragnet to keep those people out of here. Now I wish they had one every week.

Nice anecdote. The problem with you is that you just don't respect the constitutional rights of people you don't like. Freedom means you and people whom you deem as "low-lifes" have the same rights to go wherever the public domain allows. You should join a private community if you don't want to be bothered with strangers or interlopers. But the Stop and Frisk campaigns were discriminatory and un Constitutional... I think we both understand that now...

 

[Rustic]

Correct! No background check, but it is STILL a felony Why does it need to be a felony to sell a gun to a felon TWICE? Is a criminal then twice as likely to break or follow the law?
I doubt you have ever touched a gun, let alone sold one so I'll educate you. LEGAL gun owners take their responsibilities rather seriously. We tend to value our freedom and rights to the point where we make it our duty to know who we hand a gun to.
No one I have ever sold to was a criminal. Every one was known to me to be of good character.
Street thugs who sell guns out of the trunk of their cars are already criminals and prohibited from possessing weapons, much less selling them. They don't take anything seriously, especially their duty to their fellow man. They don't care who they sell to as long as the person ahas enough money so that they can get their next bag of heroin. Making private sales of guns by criminals to criminals is redundant and stupid, stupid.

Good character can be a subjective thing. Whenever guns change hands with no paper trail or documentation there is always the chance for ulterior things to occur. Your modus operandi
is admirable but why should the society at large trust you or anyone else to do the right thing just because YOU decide who is or is not a person of good character? I know, it doesn't really matter since guns are all over the place and even thugs have plenty of them.

But thugs do not generally go to churches or schools to commit mass murder. Further, the loser nerds who perpetrate those kind of killings are too afraid to go in to thug territory to buy their guns. Those type of killers usually go the legal route. typically they have no criminal record and appear to be just ordinary joes protected by the 2nd Amendment. Even YOu might have sold a gun to any of them.

It would be possible that someone with my sense of responsibility may have sold a weapon to someone like Adam Lanza's mother, but I believe she acquired her weapons by retail sales with background checks, records; the whole 9 yards.
Her son murdered her. Circumstances of that are unknown. Could it be that he killed his mother because she was trying to prevent the rampage her son was about to go on? Interesting twist, but it can never be more than a supposition.....
Other school shooters stole weapons from parents as well and yes, some purchased their weapons legally.
Those that purchased their weapons were subject to background checks. NONE, to my knowledge bought weapons from a private seller at a gun show. None acquired weapons that they wouldn't have obtained if all private sales were subject to background checks. Your proposals would have accomplished NOTHING but inconveniencing tens of thousands of sane, law abiding persons as they tried to purchase a legal product in a legal transaction between them and another person who had every right to legally sell a firearm.
SUGGEST SOMETHING THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK.

How do you know how many killings have been prevented by background checks already?
You're saying that they don't work...how do you know?

Just look at the places that have them already. Look what it takes to own a gun in a state like California. Google Stossle and see if you can find the video of him trying to get a CCW in New York and see what he had to go through only to be denied.

Well now, you are certainly making a good arguement for Australian type gun laws.

Did gun control work in Australia?

John Howard, who served as prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007, is no one's idea of a lefty. He was one of George W. Bush's closest allies, enthusiastically backing the Iraq intervention, and took a hard line domestically against increased immigration and union organizing (pdf).

But one of Howard's other lasting legacies is Australia's gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia's footsteps. "There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit," he concluded. "But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path."

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

You are as dumb as a box of rocks, you do realize that if the federal government tried an outright ban like they did, millions would be dead on both sides of the issue...

Hashtag stupid in the head

 

[Mertex]

Thank you for proving my point with "like you." That's exactly what I'm talking about. Somebody disagrees with you, and you would want to label them mental and take away their firearms.

Nobody has proven your point....you're delusional. And who said anything about taking away firearms from people that are not mental? If you are mental then you definitely shouldn't have any. That is why you appear mental....you keep claiming that libs are trying to "take your guns away from you"! Where does that paranoia come from? Faux News? The NRA?

There is only one thing more dangerous than allowing a mental person access to a gun, and that is giving Democrats power.

No, there is only one thing more dangerous than allowing a mental person access to a gun, it's allowing someone that is mental and doesn't know it, to have guns. Like you.

 

[Mertex]

Then I take it you haven't heard about the lawsuit and resultant court ruling that the methods used by NYPD in their Stop and Frisk frenzy were unconstitutional. The stops were arbitrary and capricious, being statistically discriminatory towards Blacks and Hispanics.


The ruling came after a decade in which the number of police stops in the city ballooned. In 2011, almost 700,000 New Yorkers were stopped by police, a 600 percent increase from 2002. Almost 90 percent of the people stopped that year were completely innocent of a criminal offense, and 87 percent of those stopped were black or Latino.

NYPD Can't Just Stop And Frisk People For The Hell Of It Anymore, Says Memo

And now gun and violent crime have increased--particularly in the black community.

Please tell me how the NYC Stop and Frisk freeze has caused gun and violent crime to increase in the "black community." The so-called "black community," as white people define it, consists of far more than the NYC metropolitan areas.

People are more weary of carrying a gun if they know they can be stopped and disarmed for no reason at all. Now that they know it's no longer a possibility, they are carrying their guns once again. More guns in the hands of criminals means more violence and death.

More guns means more violence and death?
Who knew?!

Sure it does in the criminal world. That's why they're criminals.

Most of the shooters were not criminals before they committed their heinous crime....so there goes your theory.

 

[Mertex]

Here's another reason for stronger gun laws......many of the gun owners, who think they are responsible are just idiots. These parents left an 8 year old alone with a younger sister.....now, what responsible parent leaves an 8 year old home alone with a 6 year old and a gun in their home?

And so much for the conservative excuse "guns don't kill people - people kill people" - I guess this boy would have beaten himself to death with a bat, if there had been one in the home, right?


Officers said the only person at home with the boy during the shooting was another child, his younger sister.

Detectives haven't released any information as to where the parents were when the child shot himself. It's also unclear how the child was able to get his hands on the gun.

"I think it's a bigger issue that an 8-year-old was left alone with a 6-year-old. That can increase the amount of danger that could occur," said Denise Tanata-Ashby, executive director of Children's Advocacy Alliance. "This coupled with the unsafe storage of weapons was a disaster waiting to happen."

Tanata-Ashby with the children's advocacy alliance says the laws in Nevada don't state a specific age that's illegal to leave kids at home alone. In Nevada, parent's discretion is the law of the land. Other states have stricter laws.

8-year-old who shot, killed himself was home alone with younger sister

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here's another reason for stronger gun laws......many of the gun owners, who think they are responsible are just idiots. These parents left an 8 year old alone with a younger sister.....now, what responsible parent leaves an 8 year old home alone with a 6 year old and a gun in their home?

And so much for the conservative excuse "guns don't kill people - people kill people" - I guess this boy would have beaten himself to death with a bat, if there had been one in the home, right?


Officers said the only person at home with the boy during the shooting was another child, his younger sister.

Detectives haven't released any information as to where the parents were when the child shot himself. It's also unclear how the child was able to get his hands on the gun.

"I think it's a bigger issue that an 8-year-old was left alone with a 6-year-old. That can increase the amount of danger that could occur," said Denise Tanata-Ashby, executive director of Children's Advocacy Alliance. "This coupled with the unsafe storage of weapons was a disaster waiting to happen."

Tanata-Ashby with the children's advocacy alliance says the laws in Nevada don't state a specific age that's illegal to leave kids at home alone. In Nevada, parent's discretion is the law of the land. Other states have stricter laws.

8-year-old who shot, killed himself was home alone with younger sister

There are irresponsible parents. Do we disarm our entire society because of that?

Leaving children that age at home with or without a gun is stupid. Just like those stories we hear every summer of parents that leave their kids in the car with the windows rolled up. Or the hundreds of children not properly supervised while they are in the water that drown every year. Or the parents that use recreational narcotics around children.

Maybe as long as we need to get rid of guns because of irresponsible parents, we need to get rid of swimming pools, bath tubs, drugs of all kinds and cars..........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Thank you for proving my point with "like you." That's exactly what I'm talking about. Somebody disagrees with you, and you would want to label them mental and take away their firearms.

Nobody has proven your point....you're delusional. And who said anything about taking away firearms from people that are not mental? If you are mental then you definitely shouldn't have any. That is why you appear mental....you keep claiming that libs are trying to "take your guns away from you"! Where does that paranoia come from? Faux News? The NRA?

There is only one thing more dangerous than allowing a mental person access to a gun, and that is giving Democrats power.

No, there is only one thing more dangerous than allowing a mental person access to a gun, it's allowing someone that is mental and doesn't know it, to have guns. Like you.

The only reason Democrats can't take our guns away is because of our Constitution. If not for that, Democrats would make guns illegal tomorrow.

Google your President's speech to the country after the Oregon shooting. What did he say? He praised Germany and Australia for their wonderful ability to control guns. How did they do that? THEY DISARMED THEIR CITIZENS!

Your party hates the fact that we are able to defend ourselves with firearms without the help of government. It drives liberals crazy because they want everybody depending on government. The more government dependents-the more likely Democrat voters.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to statistics, you are six times more likely to get murdered by a black than a white. Yes, per capita tells the real story.

Who is 6 times more likely to be killed by a black than a white? A black or a white? You don't provide links so I have little confidence in what you say. Here is a link that contradicts most of what you believe. Can you debunk anything herein:


* Only about 1 percent of African Americans — and no more than 2 percent of black males — will commit a violent crime in a given year;

* Even though there are more black-on-white interracial crimes than white-on-black interracial crimes, this fact is not evidence of anti-white racial targeting by black offenders. Rather, it is completely explained by two factors having nothing to do with anti-white bias: namely, the general differences in rates of criminal offending, and the rates at which whites and blacks encounter one another (and thus, have the opportunity to victimize one another). Once these two factors are “controlled for” in social science terms, the actual rates of black-on-white crime are lower than random chance would predict;

* No more than 0.7 percent (seven-tenths of one percent) of African Americans will commit a violent crime against a white person in a given year, and fewer than 0.3 (three-tenths of one percent) of whites will be victimized by a black person in a given year;

* Whites are 6 times as likely to be murdered by another white person as by a black person; and overall, the percentage of white Americans who will be murdered by a black offender in a given year is only 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002). This means that only 1 in every 500,000 white people will be murdered by a black person in a given year. Although the numbers of black-on-white homicides are higher than the reverse (447 to 218 in 2010), the 218 black victims of white murderers is actually a higher percentage of the black population interracially killed than the 447 white victims of black murderers as a percentage of the white population. In fact, any given black person is 2.75 times as likely to be murdered by a white person as any given white person is to be murdered by an African American.

So why did officers stop and frisk minorities? Probably because minorities are the most likely to be carrying a gun illegally. Probably because before stop and frisk, minorities were the primary groups that were doing the murders in NYC.

Your use of the word "probably" indicates you are not sure. That uncertainty is a glaring sign that you just don't know what you are talking about. If the peak of Stop and Frisk was 700,000 people with most of them being innocent minorities the justification for continuing that pattern was gone long before half that many people were stopped and frisked. How many times do I have to repeat that 90% of the minorities stopped were innocent Are we to disregard the Constitutional rights of the many for the transgressions of a few? Thankfully, reasonable men refused to let that happen

When you stop and think of all the innocent black lives that were saved when the program was in operation, it's a shame that blacks don't understand what's been keeping them safe. The 10% that cops busted and took off the street really helped the situation. Now those 10% or more are right back out there. I BTW, what's 10% of 1,000?

Whites are 6 times more likely to be killed by Whites than by a black. That is nothing to sneeze at. Who was keeping those white victims safe? Frankly, I am a bit surprised at your complete disregard for the Constitution when it applies to the illegal searching of Blacks and Hispanics but you would be the first to scream discrimination if the roles were reversed and whites were the objects of police overreach!

No, because I've been hassled because of my race before. Years ago I worked for a medical company where we did deliveries in the black projects here in Cleveland and Akron.

When a black police officer sees you in an area like that, he is bound to think something is not right. So I've been approached several times, but never searched because they didn't do that back then.

For the most part I was cooperative and gave the officer all the information he needed to prove that I was not there looking for drugs. It always ended up pleasant and on a few occasions, the officer escorted me to the apartment I needed to make the delivery to.

Several years ago our city set up a sobriety check point; something I've always been against from a constitutional standpoint. However after reading about the results in our local newspaper, I changed my mind.

We didn't nab any drunks or high people, but what our police officers did accomplish was getting several suspended drivers off of the road, a few with warrants, and another few with vehicles that were dangerous and not roadworthy.

The problem our suburb has is lowlifes coming here from the inner-city to start trouble. Those checkpoints acted as sort of a dragnet to keep those people out of here. Now I wish they had one every week.

Nice anecdote. The problem with you is that you just don't respect the constitutional rights of people you don't like. Freedom means you and people whom you deem as "low-lifes" have the same rights to go wherever the public domain allows. You should join a private community if you don't want to be bothered with strangers or interlopers. But the Stop and Frisk campaigns were discriminatory and un Constitutional... I think we both understand that now...

Fine with me. I don't live there so I don't care. Let them all kill each other as far as I'm concerned. Take your rights to the grave with you.

But after a few hundred die, I don't want to hear "Somebody needs to do something!" Well, they did do something, but you would rather see children gunned down in the street because of one persons interpretation of your Forth Amendment rights.

Kind of reminds me when I was a young adult. Our suburb was nearly all white. There was one small section across the main road with only a half-dozen streets or so that was black.

So I'm reading our local paper and the blacks were complaining our police did not patrol their area. They said crime was getting out of control. So as expected, our Mayor beefed up police patrols in that neighborhood.

About six months goes by and once again, the black community spoke out in protest. This time they were complaining about the makeup of the people hauled into court for violations. They asked how could half of the people going to court be black when we only had about 3% of blacks in our city?

You can't win for losing with these people. That's why the police in Baltimore and Ferguson have the best idea: let them kill each other and we'll stay out of it until you call.

 

[Rustic]

Here's another reason for stronger gun laws......many of the gun owners, who think they are responsible are just idiots. These parents left an 8 year old alone with a younger sister.....now, what responsible parent leaves an 8 year old home alone with a 6 year old and a gun in their home?

And so much for the conservative excuse "guns don't kill people - people kill people" - I guess this boy would have beaten himself to death with a bat, if there had been one in the home, right?


Officers said the only person at home with the boy during the shooting was another child, his younger sister.

Detectives haven't released any information as to where the parents were when the child shot himself. It's also unclear how the child was able to get his hands on the gun.

"I think it's a bigger issue that an 8-year-old was left alone with a 6-year-old. That can increase the amount of danger that could occur," said Denise Tanata-Ashby, executive director of Children's Advocacy Alliance. "This coupled with the unsafe storage of weapons was a disaster waiting to happen."

Tanata-Ashby with the children's advocacy alliance says the laws in Nevada don't state a specific age that's illegal to leave kids at home alone. In Nevada, parent's discretion is the law of the land. Other states have stricter laws.

8-year-old who shot, killed himself was home alone with younger sister

How would more laws work??
What laws would work??
Details

 

[JQPublic1]

According to statistics, you are six times more likely to get murdered by a black than a white. Yes, per capita tells the real story.

Who is 6 times more likely to be killed by a black than a white? A black or a white? You don't provide links so I have little confidence in what you say. Here is a link that contradicts most of what you believe. Can you debunk anything herein:


* Only about 1 percent of African Americans — and no more than 2 percent of black males — will commit a violent crime in a given year;

* Even though there are more black-on-white interracial crimes than white-on-black interracial crimes, this fact is not evidence of anti-white racial targeting by black offenders. Rather, it is completely explained by two factors having nothing to do with anti-white bias: namely, the general differences in rates of criminal offending, and the rates at which whites and blacks encounter one another (and thus, have the opportunity to victimize one another). Once these two factors are “controlled for” in social science terms, the actual rates of black-on-white crime are lower than random chance would predict;

* No more than 0.7 percent (seven-tenths of one percent) of African Americans will commit a violent crime against a white person in a given year, and fewer than 0.3 (three-tenths of one percent) of whites will be victimized by a black person in a given year;

* Whites are 6 times as likely to be murdered by another white person as by a black person; and overall, the percentage of white Americans who will be murdered by a black offender in a given year is only 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002). This means that only 1 in every 500,000 white people will be murdered by a black person in a given year. Although the numbers of black-on-white homicides are higher than the reverse (447 to 218 in 2010), the 218 black victims of white murderers is actually a higher percentage of the black population interracially killed than the 447 white victims of black murderers as a percentage of the white population. In fact, any given black person is 2.75 times as likely to be murdered by a white person as any given white person is to be murdered by an African American.

So why did officers stop and frisk minorities? Probably because minorities are the most likely to be carrying a gun illegally. Probably because before stop and frisk, minorities were the primary groups that were doing the murders in NYC.

Your use of the word "probably" indicates you are not sure. That uncertainty is a glaring sign that you just don't know what you are talking about. If the peak of Stop and Frisk was 700,000 people with most of them being innocent minorities the justification for continuing that pattern was gone long before half that many people were stopped and frisked. How many times do I have to repeat that 90% of the minorities stopped were innocent Are we to disregard the Constitutional rights of the many for the transgressions of a few? Thankfully, reasonable men refused to let that happen

When you stop and think of all the innocent black lives that were saved when the program was in operation, it's a shame that blacks don't understand what's been keeping them safe. The 10% that cops busted and took off the street really helped the situation. Now those 10% or more are right back out there. I BTW, what's 10% of 1,000?

Whites are 6 times more likely to be killed by Whites than by a black. That is nothing to sneeze at. Who was keeping those white victims safe? Frankly, I am a bit surprised at your complete disregard for the Constitution when it applies to the illegal searching of Blacks and Hispanics but you would be the first to scream discrimination if the roles were reversed and whites were the objects of police overreach!

No, because I've been hassled because of my race before. Years ago I worked for a medical company where we did deliveries in the black projects here in Cleveland and Akron.

When a black police officer sees you in an area like that, he is bound to think something is not right. So I've been approached several times, but never searched because they didn't do that back then.

For the most part I was cooperative and gave the officer all the information he needed to prove that I was not there looking for drugs. It always ended up pleasant and on a few occasions, the officer escorted me to the apartment I needed to make the delivery to.

Several years ago our city set up a sobriety check point; something I've always been against from a constitutional standpoint. However after reading about the results in our local newspaper, I changed my mind.

We didn't nab any drunks or high people, but what our police officers did accomplish was getting several suspended drivers off of the road, a few with warrants, and another few with vehicles that were dangerous and not roadworthy.

The problem our suburb has is lowlifes coming here from the inner-city to start trouble. Those checkpoints acted as sort of a dragnet to keep those people out of here. Now I wish they had one every week.

Nice anecdote. The problem with you is that you just don't respect the constitutional rights of people you don't like. Freedom means you and people whom you deem as "low-lifes" have the same rights to go wherever the public domain allows. You should join a private community if you don't want to be bothered with strangers or interlopers. But the Stop and Frisk campaigns were discriminatory and un Constitutional... I think we both understand that now...

Fine with me. I don't live there so I don't care. Let them all kill each other as far as I'm concerned. Take your rights to the grave with you.

But after a few hundred die, I don't want to hear "Somebody needs to do something!" Well, they did do something, but you would rather see children gunned down in the street because of one persons interpretation of your Forth Amendment rights.

Kind of reminds me when I was a young adult. Our suburb was nearly all white. There was one small section across the main road with only a half-dozen streets or so that was black.

So I'm reading our local paper and the blacks were complaining our police did not patrol their area. They said crime was getting out of control. So as expected, our Mayor beefed up police patrols in that neighborhood.

About six months goes by and once again, the black community spoke out in protest. This time they were complaining about the makeup of the people hauled into court for violations. They asked how could half of the people going to court be black when we only had about 3% of blacks in our city?

You can't win for losing with these people. That's why the police in Baltimore and Ferguson have the best idea: let them kill each other and we'll stay out of it until you call.

You are good at making up stories and tailoring them to fit your agenda here. I could make up some too that would be just as good but I don't roll that way. If I give an example I will usually provide a link to a real incident to back it up.
"These people?" I guess that says it all. Throw the good in with the bad and categorize them as "these people." And as far as LETTING them kill each other off. well, that strategy has been quite effective for over 4 decades now but there still seems to always be enough left to continue the cycle.. How can that be? I think I know the answer: ... black thugs are only a fraction of the Black male population and they aren't killing each other in significant enough numbers to neutralize the numbers of black males who are working, going to school and making something of themselves. Do you see how proportional statistics can be used to make you believe things are worse than they are?

 

[Mertex]

Here's another reason for stronger gun laws......many of the gun owners, who think they are responsible are just idiots. These parents left an 8 year old alone with a younger sister.....now, what responsible parent leaves an 8 year old home alone with a 6 year old and a gun in their home?

And so much for the conservative excuse "guns don't kill people - people kill people" - I guess this boy would have beaten himself to death with a bat, if there had been one in the home, right?


Officers said the only person at home with the boy during the shooting was another child, his younger sister.

Detectives haven't released any information as to where the parents were when the child shot himself. It's also unclear how the child was able to get his hands on the gun.

"I think it's a bigger issue that an 8-year-old was left alone with a 6-year-old. That can increase the amount of danger that could occur," said Denise Tanata-Ashby, executive director of Children's Advocacy Alliance. "This coupled with the unsafe storage of weapons was a disaster waiting to happen."

Tanata-Ashby with the children's advocacy alliance says the laws in Nevada don't state a specific age that's illegal to leave kids at home alone. In Nevada, parent's discretion is the law of the land. Other states have stricter laws.

8-year-old who shot, killed himself was home alone with younger sister

There are irresponsible parents. Do we disarm our entire society because of that?

There you go with your "disarm our entire society" - Hello! Who in the hell is saying that anybody is trying to disarm the entire society. Are you that dense? Nobody is trying to disarm the entire society.......quit spewing your talking points that you heard at Faux News. Nobody is coming to take your guns, but we do need stricter controls.

And, for the record, this isn't the first time this has happened. It's not the first time a child has gotten ahold of a gun in one of your "responsible gun owners" home. The fact is we have a bunch of morons who think they are responsible gun owners and their just idiots.

Flashback To 2008: 8-Year-Old Killed While Shooting Uzi At Gun Fair

3-year-old Ohio boy kills himself with mother’s gun

4-year-old shot and killed himself after finding gun

Girl, 4, accidentally shot after gun left on chair

Leaving children that age at home with or without a gun is stupid. Just like those stories we hear every summer of parents that leave their kids in the car with the windows rolled up. Or the hundreds of children not properly supervised while they are in the water that drown every year. Or the parents that use recreational narcotics around children.

Yes, it is stupid....and maybe if the parents had been more thoroughly checked out it would have been realized that they were not so responsible. What I'm saying is that many that own guns and consider themselves "responsible" don't know the meaning of the word....they are the type that become alarmed when someone mentions stricter laws and think that the boogey man is coming to take their guns away.

Maybe as long as we need to get rid of guns because of irresponsible parents, we need to get rid of swimming pools, bath tubs, drugs of all kinds and cars.......

Okay...now you are just beginning to sound stupid. Nobody is saying get rid of guns. I'm tired of spelling that out for you. You are a moron and nobody is going to make you understand that nobody is trying to "take your guns away" - but like a broken record you keep repeating the same old rant. Geez......you are demented, maybe we do need to come and take your guns away.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to statistics, you are six times more likely to get murdered by a black than a white. Yes, per capita tells the real story.

Who is 6 times more likely to be killed by a black than a white? A black or a white? You don't provide links so I have little confidence in what you say. Here is a link that contradicts most of what you believe. Can you debunk anything herein:


* Only about 1 percent of African Americans — and no more than 2 percent of black males — will commit a violent crime in a given year;

* Even though there are more black-on-white interracial crimes than white-on-black interracial crimes, this fact is not evidence of anti-white racial targeting by black offenders. Rather, it is completely explained by two factors having nothing to do with anti-white bias: namely, the general differences in rates of criminal offending, and the rates at which whites and blacks encounter one another (and thus, have the opportunity to victimize one another). Once these two factors are “controlled for” in social science terms, the actual rates of black-on-white crime are lower than random chance would predict;

* No more than 0.7 percent (seven-tenths of one percent) of African Americans will commit a violent crime against a white person in a given year, and fewer than 0.3 (three-tenths of one percent) of whites will be victimized by a black person in a given year;

* Whites are 6 times as likely to be murdered by another white person as by a black person; and overall, the percentage of white Americans who will be murdered by a black offender in a given year is only 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002). This means that only 1 in every 500,000 white people will be murdered by a black person in a given year. Although the numbers of black-on-white homicides are higher than the reverse (447 to 218 in 2010), the 218 black victims of white murderers is actually a higher percentage of the black population interracially killed than the 447 white victims of black murderers as a percentage of the white population. In fact, any given black person is 2.75 times as likely to be murdered by a white person as any given white person is to be murdered by an African American.

So why did officers stop and frisk minorities? Probably because minorities are the most likely to be carrying a gun illegally. Probably because before stop and frisk, minorities were the primary groups that were doing the murders in NYC.

Your use of the word "probably" indicates you are not sure. That uncertainty is a glaring sign that you just don't know what you are talking about. If the peak of Stop and Frisk was 700,000 people with most of them being innocent minorities the justification for continuing that pattern was gone long before half that many people were stopped and frisked. How many times do I have to repeat that 90% of the minorities stopped were innocent Are we to disregard the Constitutional rights of the many for the transgressions of a few? Thankfully, reasonable men refused to let that happen

When you stop and think of all the innocent black lives that were saved when the program was in operation, it's a shame that blacks don't understand what's been keeping them safe. The 10% that cops busted and took off the street really helped the situation. Now those 10% or more are right back out there. I BTW, what's 10% of 1,000?

Whites are 6 times more likely to be killed by Whites than by a black. That is nothing to sneeze at. Who was keeping those white victims safe? Frankly, I am a bit surprised at your complete disregard for the Constitution when it applies to the illegal searching of Blacks and Hispanics but you would be the first to scream discrimination if the roles were reversed and whites were the objects of police overreach!

No, because I've been hassled because of my race before. Years ago I worked for a medical company where we did deliveries in the black projects here in Cleveland and Akron.

When a black police officer sees you in an area like that, he is bound to think something is not right. So I've been approached several times, but never searched because they didn't do that back then.

For the most part I was cooperative and gave the officer all the information he needed to prove that I was not there looking for drugs. It always ended up pleasant and on a few occasions, the officer escorted me to the apartment I needed to make the delivery to.

Several years ago our city set up a sobriety check point; something I've always been against from a constitutional standpoint. However after reading about the results in our local newspaper, I changed my mind.

We didn't nab any drunks or high people, but what our police officers did accomplish was getting several suspended drivers off of the road, a few with warrants, and another few with vehicles that were dangerous and not roadworthy.

The problem our suburb has is lowlifes coming here from the inner-city to start trouble. Those checkpoints acted as sort of a dragnet to keep those people out of here. Now I wish they had one every week.

Nice anecdote. The problem with you is that you just don't respect the constitutional rights of people you don't like. Freedom means you and people whom you deem as "low-lifes" have the same rights to go wherever the public domain allows. You should join a private community if you don't want to be bothered with strangers or interlopers. But the Stop and Frisk campaigns were discriminatory and un Constitutional... I think we both understand that now...

Fine with me. I don't live there so I don't care. Let them all kill each other as far as I'm concerned. Take your rights to the grave with you.

But after a few hundred die, I don't want to hear "Somebody needs to do something!" Well, they did do something, but you would rather see children gunned down in the street because of one persons interpretation of your Forth Amendment rights.

Kind of reminds me when I was a young adult. Our suburb was nearly all white. There was one small section across the main road with only a half-dozen streets or so that was black.

So I'm reading our local paper and the blacks were complaining our police did not patrol their area. They said crime was getting out of control. So as expected, our Mayor beefed up police patrols in that neighborhood.

About six months goes by and once again, the black community spoke out in protest. This time they were complaining about the makeup of the people hauled into court for violations. They asked how could half of the people going to court be black when we only had about 3% of blacks in our city?

You can't win for losing with these people. That's why the police in Baltimore and Ferguson have the best idea: let them kill each other and we'll stay out of it until you call.

You are good at making up stories and tailoring them to fit your agenda here. I could make up some too that would be just as good but I don't roll that way. If I give an example I will usually provide a link to a real incident to back it up.
"These people?" I guess that says it all. Throw the good in with the bad and categorize them as "these people." And as far as LETTING them kill each other off. well, that strategy has been quite effective for over 4 decades now but there still seems to always be enough left to continue the cycle.. How can that be? I think I know the answer: ... black thugs are only a fraction of the Black male population and they aren't killing each other in significant enough numbers to neutralize the numbers of black males who are working, going to school and making something of themselves. Do you see how proportional statistics can be used to make you believe things are worse than they are?

You are redefining my words. I never said that all blacks were the problem. In fact those good blacks are the people I feel bad for when the bad blacks protest police interaction with the criminals.

The law biding people are usually he victims in these violent crimes. Sometimes because the represent opportunity for a criminal, and other times just happen to be at the wrong place at the right time.

Either way, it's up to them to come out against those protesting police actions that are keeping them safe.

Sorry I can't back up my story with a link. It was in a local paper that went out of business years ago, and I doubt anybody posted the story from the early 70's on the internet for me to provide you a link. So I guess you either believe it or you don't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here's another reason for stronger gun laws......many of the gun owners, who think they are responsible are just idiots. These parents left an 8 year old alone with a younger sister.....now, what responsible parent leaves an 8 year old home alone with a 6 year old and a gun in their home?

And so much for the conservative excuse "guns don't kill people - people kill people" - I guess this boy would have beaten himself to death with a bat, if there had been one in the home, right?


Officers said the only person at home with the boy during the shooting was another child, his younger sister.

Detectives haven't released any information as to where the parents were when the child shot himself. It's also unclear how the child was able to get his hands on the gun.

"I think it's a bigger issue that an 8-year-old was left alone with a 6-year-old. That can increase the amount of danger that could occur," said Denise Tanata-Ashby, executive director of Children's Advocacy Alliance. "This coupled with the unsafe storage of weapons was a disaster waiting to happen."

Tanata-Ashby with the children's advocacy alliance says the laws in Nevada don't state a specific age that's illegal to leave kids at home alone. In Nevada, parent's discretion is the law of the land. Other states have stricter laws.

8-year-old who shot, killed himself was home alone with younger sister

There are irresponsible parents. Do we disarm our entire society because of that?

There you go with your "disarm our entire society" - Hello! Who in the hell is saying that anybody is trying to disarm the entire society. Are you that dense? Nobody is trying to disarm the entire society.......quit spewing your talking points that you heard at Faux News. Nobody is coming to take your guns, but we do need stricter controls.

And, for the record, this isn't the first time this has happened. It's not the first time a child has gotten ahold of a gun in one of your "responsible gun owners" home. The fact is we have a bunch of morons who think they are responsible gun owners and their just idiots.

Flashback To 2008: 8-Year-Old Killed While Shooting Uzi At Gun Fair

3-year-old Ohio boy kills himself with mother’s gun

4-year-old shot and killed himself after finding gun

Girl, 4, accidentally shot after gun left on chair

Leaving children that age at home with or without a gun is stupid. Just like those stories we hear every summer of parents that leave their kids in the car with the windows rolled up. Or the hundreds of children not properly supervised while they are in the water that drown every year. Or the parents that use recreational narcotics around children.

Yes, it is stupid....and maybe if the parents had been more thoroughly checked out it would have been realized that they were not so responsible. What I'm saying is that many that own guns and consider themselves "responsible" don't know the meaning of the word....they are the type that become alarmed when someone mentions stricter laws and think that the boogey man is coming to take their guns away.

Maybe as long as we need to get rid of guns because of irresponsible parents, we need to get rid of swimming pools, bath tubs, drugs of all kinds and cars.......

Okay...now you are just beginning to sound stupid. Nobody is saying get rid of guns. I'm tired of spelling that out for you. You are a moron and nobody is going to make you understand that nobody is trying to "take your guns away" - but like a broken record you keep repeating the same old rant. Geez......you are demented, maybe we do need to come and take your guns away.

So do tell, how do we go about weeding out irresponsible parents from responsible parents before they do something wrong? Are we ready for the Thought Police yet?

Democrats don't have the ability to totally disarm Americans. If they could--they would. But in the meantime, they will try to make it as difficult as possible to own a firearm. See states and cities where Democrats have tough laws on firearm ownership and carrying. You may want to Google John Stossel and what he went through to try and get a CCW permit in NYC. After weeks and weeks of filling out forms, waiting, spending hundreds and hundreds of dollars, they still denied him his permit.

 

[JQPublic1]

You are redefining my words. I never said that all blacks were the problem. In fact those good blacks are the people I feel bad for when the bad blacks protest police interaction with the criminals.

You didn't have to say it directly, it was implied when you failed to differentiate.

The law biding people are usually he victims in these violent crimes. Sometimes because the represent opportunity for a criminal, and other times just happen to be at the wrong place at the right time.

Either way, it's up to them to come out against those protesting police actions that are keeping them safe.

Diid you think before you posted the above? If law abiding people (Blacks) are usually the victims of violent crimes (perpetrated by Black thugs) Obviously the police are NOT protecting them. Why do you even THINK that the police are protecting them? The police aren't out there trying to protect Blacks from Black thugs, they are treating ALL blacks they encounter as thugs to protect White people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a pig.

Roseburg doesn't want him there, asked him to stay away, has been quite public about it.

So of course he's got to come and harass us on our own turf.

This isn't going to end well.


Obama Not Welcome In Roseburg, Says Local Newspaper Publisher


"President Obama will travel to Roseburg, Ore. on Friday to meet with the families of victims of the mass shooting at a community college there last week, White House officials said."

Obama to visit Roseburg Friday

You don't get to dictate what Obama does, and neither does that Republican rag of a newspaper. If the family members of the victims don't want to meet with him, they won't.

Excuse me? Last time I checked, MR. Obama was our employee. Furthermore, it's THEIR town, so that does convey some right for them to say, "Stay the fuck out."

More to the point - one that liberals never seem to get - it's just incredibly arrogant and crass of him.

But, dahlin' not ALL of the Roseburg citizenry felt that way. Besides Obama came to meet with the relatives of the victims, not the few anti-Obama Putin loving fanatics wearing guns to show how "patriotic" they aren't. Those idiots were an embarrassment. to the country.

Would it have mattered to Obama or you if the entire citizenry had said so? And is there any reason why he couldn't have respected people's wishes and brought any relatives of the victims who wanted to meet with him to DC? It certainly wouldn't have been the first time he dragged someone in for a royal audience and photo op. He went to Roseburg just to show everyone who's in charge.