Remember your manners be a good victim

[lantern2814]

Except we've established that you can shoot an unarmed person if you merely "feel" threatened.

Better watch it, I might feel "threatened".





The CDC says nothing of the sort.. The CDC is specifically prohibited from studying Gun violence.

You’re a ***** who will run away if you get looked at sideways. Threatening violence. Typical leftard. Your bullshit scenario is dismissed.

 

[JoeB131]

We have too many gang members. We also have a gray area of gang murders being a non crime.

Not really. Gang murders only account for 2000 of the 16,000 homicides every year. By comparison, police homicides account for 1000 a year. Most of the rest are people killing their family and neighbors.

No we did not, you dumb ****.

Intentional actions of another that make a person REASONABLY believe that his life is in danger is what we established.

Again, key part being "reasonably". What's reasonable to me isn't reasonable to you.

Do what you must, you ******* moron. I WILL do the same.

See, you are making my point... inadvertantly.

Yes they did...BEFORE they were prohibited. Look, you're an idiot.

Can we just agree that you're an idiot right now, before I have to go get links?

Oh, I'm sure it's the same bullshit link 2TinyGuy puts up.

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.

And that's the point. The CDC didn't do a study, it collated everyone else's studies. A range between 60K and 2.5MM? That's a pretty big range. I don't know of any business that would accept a range like that as acceptable.

Now, here's why these numbers- all of them - are bullshit.

According to the FBI, only 200 gun homicides by civilians are ruled as "justified". (About 1000 police homicides are also ruled as "justified", which I translate as 'nobody got it on video!!!") So you would have to believe that of 60K or 2.5MM times some gun nut finally got to pull his gun on a darky, he managed to refrain from shooting him. The way you guys wank off every day about your fantasies of killing a "criminal", and 99.99% of the time you are able to contain yourselves, just isn't credible.

 

[JoeB131]

They can, and WILL, claim. But a jury will decide.

You'd really trust your fate to 12 people too stupid to get out of Jury duty?

 

[daveman]

Not really. Gang murders only account for 2000 of the 16,000 homicides every year. By comparison, police homicides account for 1000 a year. Most of the rest are people killing their family and neighbors.



Again, key part being "reasonably". What's reasonable to me isn't reasonable to you.



See, you are making my point... inadvertantly.



Oh, I'm sure it's the same bullshit link 2TinyGuy puts up.



And that's the point. The CDC didn't do a study, it collated everyone else's studies. A range between 60K and 2.5MM? That's a pretty big range. I don't know of any business that would accept a range like that as acceptable.

Now, here's why these numbers- all of them - are bullshit.

According to the FBI, only 200 gun homicides by civilians are ruled as "justified". (About 1000 police homicides are also ruled as "justified", which I translate as 'nobody got it on video!!!") So you would have to believe that of 60K or 2.5MM times some gun nut finally got to pull his gun on a darky, he managed to refrain from shooting him. The way you guys wank off every day about your fantasies of killing a "criminal", and 99.99% of the time you are able to contain yourselves, just isn't credible.

Why do you want people helpless against criminals? Do you have a prison ***** fetish?

 

[daveman]

You'd really trust your fate to 12 people too stupid to get out of Jury duty?

Then to whom should he leave it -- retard Commies on the internet?

 

[JoeB131]

Why do you want people helpless against criminals? Do you have a prison ***** fetish?

Because for every person who fights back against the criminal, we have 100 who are victims of domestic violence.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Then to whom should he leave it -- retard Commies on the internet?

To be honest, the best solution would be to have professional jurors with backgrounds in law, forensics, etc.

It's largely a moot conversation, most criminal cases never get anywhere near a jury.

 

[daveman]

Because for every person who fights back against the criminal, we have 100 who are victims of domestic violence.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Speak for yourself. People who hit women should be horsewhipped.

Are you okay with DV victims shooting their abusers? I am.

You, however, are not.

To be honest, the best solution would be to have professional jurors with backgrounds in law, forensics, etc.

It's largely a moot conversation, most criminal cases never get anywhere near a jury.

So, you want jurors to be agents of the State.

You are such a stupid damn Communist.

 

[Roudy]

Actually, what happened in NYC is you got a guy who could talk out of both sides of his mouth on the police reform issue, who won barely because the progressives split their vote and the ranked choice clusterfuck let him win.

Of course, Crime is only half of what it was in the 1990's... but don't tell that to the Right Wing, they have white people to scare.

What happened in New York was the people that lived there watched psychotic Leftists and Democrats destroy the best run major city in world.

 

[JoeB131]

Speak for yourself. People who hit women should be horsewhipped.

Are you okay with DV victims shooting their abusers? I am.

You, however, are not.

I think that's an extreme solution to a problem. You think everything suddenly becomes okay in the family because Mom shot Dad?

So, you want jurors to be agents of the State.

You are such a stupid damn Communist.

Jurors are already agents of the state. What I want is ones who know what they are doing.

Or do you think that letting OJ go free because the jurors didn't understand DNA science was a good thing?

 

[JoeB131]

What happened in New York was the people that lived there watched psychotic Leftists and Democrats destroy the best run major city in world.

Except, of course, it wasn't. What you had was Giuliani and Bloomberg let the police run riot over the rights of people of color, with stop and frisk, or sticking a plunger up a suspect's ass, or shooting someone 56 times in a dark stairwell and no one being held accountable.

I personally thought Bloomberg would be a better candidate than Biden, but his stewardship of NYC continuing Giuliani's fascist policies made him poison.

But let's look at what happened in that election. In the first round, Adams got 30% of the vote. This was because he was talking out of both sides of his mouth, on one side, promising, "Hey, I'm a cop, I'll bring back law and order" and on the other, saying, "I'm black, I'll bring police reform". The two leading progressive candidates got 40% between them in the first round.

Then you have the convoluted ranked voting system where votes for other candidates were awarded based on their third and fourth choices, and EIGHT ROUNDS later, Adams finally got to 50.4% compared to 49.6% for his more progressive challenger. This involved 140K ballots being eliminated because NEITHER of the top two vote getters were anyone's alternative choices. (Out of some 942K cast.)

In a year, when Adams fails to deliver, people will ask how the hell he got elected to start with.

I honestly hope that this kind of stupidity eliminates anyone who thinks ranked choice voting is a good alternative to runoff elections.

 

[Roudy]

Except, of course, it wasn't. What you had was Giuliani and Bloomberg let the police run riot over the rights of people of color, with stop and frisk, or sticking a plunger up a suspect's ass, or shooting someone 56 times in a dark stairwell and no one being held accountable.

I personally thought Bloomberg would be a better candidate than Biden, but his stewardship of NYC continuing Giuliani's fascist policies made him poison.

But let's look at what happened in that election. In the first round, Adams got 30% of the vote. This was because he was talking out of both sides of his mouth, on one side, promising, "Hey, I'm a cop, I'll bring back law and order" and on the other, saying, "I'm black, I'll bring police reform". The two leading progressive candidates got 40% between them in the first round.

Then you have the convoluted ranked voting system where votes for other candidates were awarded based on their third and fourth choices, and EIGHT ROUNDS later, Adams finally got to 50.4% compared to 49.6% for his more progressive challenger. This involved 140K ballots being eliminated because NEITHER of the top two vote getters were anyone's alternative choices. (Out of some 942K cast.)

In a year, when Adams fails to deliver, people will ask how the hell he got elected to start with.

I honestly hope that this kind of stupidity eliminates anyone who thinks ranked choice voting is a good alternative to runoff elections.

What you’re complaining about is some stupid Democrat voters voted for him not because of his qualifications but just because he was Black, while the rest voted for him because they were fed of of failed Democrat politicians and what their insane policies Had dine to their cities.

 

[Godboy]

I have always defended myself and managed to live. I never do rely on someone else to do it because you can't rely on someone else to do it, including cops.

Does every person have that same experience in the US? If not, who cares about your anecdotal example?

 

[Godboy]

There's been a lot of people who were shot dead after not giving their wallets up.

What's $50 compared to your life?

I would rather see the mugger and his friends shot dead, than someone lose $50.

 

[Moonglow]

Does every person have that same experience in the US? If not, who cares about your anecdotal example?

I don't care, don't be an individual make yerself a ward of the state.

 

[JoeB131]

What you’re complaining about is some stupid Democrat voters voted for him not because of his qualifications but just because he was Black, while the rest voted for him because they were fed of of failed Democrat politicians and what their insane policies Had dine to their cities.

Actually, 70% didn't vote for him on the first round and nearly 57% didn't vote for him on any round. Even in the general election against the assclown, Swila, he only got 66% of the vote.

And if he tries to go back to the jackbooted tactics of Guliani and Bloomberg, he's not going to be very popular very long.