The Geography of Gun Deaths

[bigrebnc1775]

Blow it out your ass.
Liberal policy kills more people than anything else.

Now, there's a nice non-violent attitude but ...

PROVE IT.

PROVE that "Liberal policy kills more people than anything else".

Even you have to admit that's a pretty silly thing to say.

some of the things you say are pretty silly too Dudley......like no matter what you post.... "rw's" are the cause of every ******* negative thing happening in the Country....

I'm still waiting on him to answer my question. He hasn't as of yet, and I'm not wondering why he hasn't I already know why.

 

[Pogo]

Yep Invading Iraq was a liberal policy...
Proof positive.

Who were the biggest warmongers of the 20th century?

Hint: It wasn't conservatives.

Hint: Fascists.

 

[skookerasbil]

How about shading the chart by urban centers, where most of the shootings occur?

Which political party is in charge of cities like New York, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles, hackopotamus?

Cities with the Highest Rates of Total Gun-Related Deaths
(per 100,000 people)
Rank City City Rate Metro Rate City/Metro
Ratio
1 New Orleans 69.1 32.8 2.1
2 Detroit 41.4 14.8 2.8
3 Las Vegas 36.9 17.6 2.1
4 Miami 33.5 11.7 2.9
5 Baltimore 33.1 15.2 2.2
6 St. Louis 31.1 14.0 2.2
7 Richmond 29.9 15.7 1.9
8 Memphis 25.5 19.8 1.3
9 Cleveland 25.2 10.9 2.3
10 Philadelphia 24.3 12.4 2.0
The Geography of U.S. Gun Violence - Neighborhoods - The Atlantic Cities

It looks to me like the most significant correlation is with race. Most of the cities on your list have large black populations - all except Las Vegas and Miami

Limpwrister bubble burst............



Stuff Black People Don't Like - SBPDL: Guns Don't Kill People; Dangerous Minorities Do -- The Chicago Edition

 

[Old Rocks]

Which liberal arguement for what? Here in Oregon most liberals own guns. And most hunt.

What we are argueing for is addressing the increasing toll from crazies getting their hands on weapons of war and creating slaughter in our schools, theaters, and malls. What you 'Conservatives' keep yapping about is unlimited freedom for any asshole to have any kind of weapon that he or she pleases.

Well, we have been seeing the outcome of that kind of thinking.

My wife who was born and raised in the Philippines asked me why don't they have armed police in the schools like we do? I couldn't help but smile and say, because people here are stupid. Indeed, the guns used in that massacre did not belong to the shooter, but his mother. How would you prevent that? Lemmie guess, not by having an armed police officer in the schools? See, ... ... ... thats stupid.

OK. Let's put a police officer in every school in the nation. 24/7. And send the bill to gun manufacturers, and all the retail stores that sell guns.

 

[blastoff]

This isn't surprising. We see it here every day.

Red states are gun happy and shoot at each other.

Blue states tend to be better educated and have higher paid jobs.

How about blue cities like Chicago? 529 homicide deaths in '12, the vast majority by black, NRA lovin', Republicans/conservatives I guess, huh?

 

[PredFan]

The graphic in the OP does and says nothing.If you actually read the report, you will find nothing at all to come away with.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Now, there's a nice non-violent attitude but ...

PROVE IT.

PROVE that "Liberal policy kills more people than anything else".

Even you have to admit that's a pretty silly thing to say.

some of the things you say are pretty silly too Dudley......like no matter what you post.... "rw's" are the cause of every ******* negative thing happening in the Country....

I'm still waiting on him to answer my question. He hasn't as of yet, and I'm not wondering why he hasn't I already know why.

he wont answer if he doesnt like what you ask......Dean is the same way.....

 

[JKVegas]

OK, so more people in poorer areas die from guns.

Why? Are they more frustrated? Feel more hopeless? Seems like shooting someone would be a last resort type of thing. The ultimate get-back.

You've got what I want, I can't figure out how to get it on my own, so I'll shoot you to prove I'm not inferior.

 

[tjvh]

Which liberal arguement for what? Here in Oregon most liberals own guns. And most hunt.

What we are argueing for is addressing the increasing toll from crazies getting their hands on weapons of war and creating slaughter in our schools, theaters, and malls. What you 'Conservatives' keep yapping about is unlimited freedom for any asshole to have any kind of weapon that he or she pleases.

Well, we have been seeing the outcome of that kind of thinking.

So tell me numbskull... Why go after the Rights of Law abiding citizens when you should be going after crazies??? Oh, that's right... It isn't about controlling guns, it's about controlling people.

 

[Oddball]

Yep Invading Iraq was a liberal policy...
Proof positive.

Who were the biggest warmongers of the 20th century?

Hint: It wasn't conservatives.

Hint: Fascists.

Answer: American progressive/socialists, who do quite a handy job of mimicking fascists.

Thanks for playing...Johnny has a case of Bardahl for you as a parting gift.

 

[Pogo]

Who were the biggest warmongers of the 20th century?

Hint: It wasn't conservatives.

Hint: Fascists.

Answer: American progressive/socialists, who do quite a handy job of mimicking fascists.

Thanks for playing...Johnny has a case of Bardahl for you as a parting gift.

You actually think you have a bigger warmonger than Adolf Hitler?

Do they have a rhetorical law named after the fallacy of invoking them as a comparative?

OK then.

 

[Oddball]

Hint: Fascists.

Answer: American progressive/socialists, who do quite a handy job of mimicking fascists.

Thanks for playing...Johnny has a case of Bardahl for you as a parting gift.

You actually think you have a bigger warmonger than Adolf Hitler?

Do they have a rhetorical law named after the fallacy of invoking them as a comparative?

OK then.

Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ have far more blood on their hands than Hitler ever dreamed of having.

That's the historical fact, Jack.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

some of the things you say are pretty silly too Dudley......like no matter what you post.... "rw's" are the cause of every ******* negative thing happening in the Country....

I'm still waiting on him to answer my question. He hasn't as of yet, and I'm not wondering why he hasn't I already know why.

he wont answer if he doesnt like what you ask......Dean is the same way.....

Ask him what he asked me cuz I have no idea.

THEN I'll ignore him.



(Not all of us sit in front of this board 24/7. Not all of us read every single post by every single rw nutter crackpot who has a computer.)

 

[Bfgrn]

Answer: American progressive/socialists, who do quite a handy job of mimicking fascists.

Thanks for playing...Johnny has a case of Bardahl for you as a parting gift.

You actually think you have a bigger warmonger than Adolf Hitler?

Do they have a rhetorical law named after the fallacy of invoking them as a comparative?

OK then.

Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ have far more blood on their hands than Hitler ever dreamed of having.

That's the historical fact, Jack.

A historical fact is none of those presidents started a war. Hitler did when he invaded Poland. The only American president who started a war and invaded a sovereign nation was George W. Bush.


The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Answer: American progressive/socialists, who do quite a handy job of mimicking fascists.

Thanks for playing...Johnny has a case of Bardahl for you as a parting gift.

You actually think you have a bigger warmonger than Adolf Hitler?

Do they have a rhetorical law named after the fallacy of invoking them as a comparative?

OK then.

Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ have far more blood on their hands than Hitler ever dreamed of having.

That's the historical fact, Jack.

You forgot to give credit to runner-up, George W Bush.

 

[Pogo]

Answer: American progressive/socialists, who do quite a handy job of mimicking fascists.

Thanks for playing...Johnny has a case of Bardahl for you as a parting gift.

You actually think you have a bigger warmonger than Adolf Hitler?

Do they have a rhetorical law named after the fallacy of invoking them as a comparative?

OK then.

Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ have far more blood on their hands than Hitler ever dreamed of having.

That's the historical fact, Jack.

If you're trying to shift to body counts so you can insert nuclear warhead here, well the thing about moving the goalposts is that everybody can see you doing it. You said "warmongers".

Those four guys were either drawn into an already-existing war or inherited them, whereas nobody drew Dubya into Iraq (or McKinley into Cuba); another guy you made conspicuous in his absence is Richard Nixon. But to actually try to establish a pattern of association of either political party with war in a political forum is to venture forth on rhetorical training wheels. You're gonna have to break more of a brain sweat, because nobody's buying that swill either, and by the way I have a bridge for sale.

The fact is we don't have, especially in matters of war, two political parties; we have One Party with Two Heads, it comes in Red or Blue, we change them out every few years and pretend we're watching something different but it's the same old thing with a new coat of paint. Repulicrat? Demoblican? Doesn't matter. Nothing changes. Pretending they do change, and bickering with each other over that idea, is exactly what they want. Makes it easier to get away with doing what they do.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm still waiting on him to answer my question. He hasn't as of yet, and I'm not wondering why he hasn't I already know why.

he wont answer if he doesnt like what you ask......Dean is the same way.....

Ask him what he asked me cuz I have no idea.

THEN I'll ignore him.



(Not all of us sit in front of this board 24/7. Not all of us read every single post by every single rw nutter crackpot who has a computer.)

you know how to read....go read it......and if you Start the ******* thread people expect you to at least stick around to answer some questions on what you bring up.....otherwise WHY START THE DAM THINGS?.....and you avg more posts than i do per day....so you sit in front of that machine more than i do....

 

[Oddball]

You actually think you have a bigger warmonger than Adolf Hitler?

Do they have a rhetorical law named after the fallacy of invoking them as a comparative?

OK then.

Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ have far more blood on their hands than Hitler ever dreamed of having.

That's the historical fact, Jack.

If you're trying to shift to body counts so you can insert nuclear warhead here, well the thing about moving the goalposts is that everybody can see you doing it. You said "warmongers".

Those four guys were either drawn into an already-existing war or inherited them, whereas nobody drew Dubya into Iraq (or McKinley into Cuba); another guy you made conspicuous in his absence is Richard Nixon. But to actually try to establish a pattern of association of either political party with war in a political forum is to venture forth on rhetorical training wheels. You're gonna have to break more of a brain sweat, because nobody's buying that swill either, and by the way I have a bridge for sale.

The fact is we don't have, especially in matters of war, two political parties; we have One Party with Two Heads, it comes in Red or Blue, we change them out every few years and pretend we're watching something different but it's the same old thing with a new coat of paint. Repulicrat? Demoblican? Doesn't matter. Nothing changes. Pretending they do change, and bickering with each other over that idea, is exactly what they want. Makes it easier to get away with doing what they do.

The body counts are what they are...American progressive/socialists were the greatest and most prolific warmongers of the 20th century and the body count speaks for itself.

That the neocon republicans have hijacked this policy of international meddling, warmongering, nation building and puppet-propping has merely made them partners in the ghoulish and borderline criminal enterprise set in motion by Woodrow Wilson....But it doesn't change who were the original practitioners of the policy and made it business-as-usual.

 

[skookerasbil]

You actually think you have a bigger warmonger than Adolf Hitler?

Do they have a rhetorical law named after the fallacy of invoking them as a comparative?

OK then.

Wilson, FDR, Truman and LBJ have far more blood on their hands than Hitler ever dreamed of having.

That's the historical fact, Jack.

A historical fact is none of those presidents started a war. Hitler did when he invaded Poland. The only American president who started a war and invaded a sovereign nation was George W. Bush.


The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough — more than enough — of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.
President John F. Kennedy

I see plenty of BS on this forum, but this post may perhaps be the biggest crock of shit Ive seen in almost 4 years on here. We're all used to the left on here makin' up shit, but this is beyond mental case. You might find 492 people countrywide who would agree with this dolt.

 

[The Infidel]

which party's politicians are running those cities, dumbshit?

winner!