Shooting in California

mid fifties

Billy86 wrote: »

Which claims were they again? The FBI's official statistics? Like I said, they are the ones who compiled them so feel free to write to the FBI about it. Still waiting on your breakdown for every individual state by the way.

On the subject of being busted on claims though, you still haven't admitted you were wrong that "Trump is dominating every poll and will , inshallah, be President". You wouldn't want to be a hypocrite, now would you?

But hey, if the guy is sure of it, then surely he would be willing to put his money where his mouth is at 2/1 odds, with the loser giving to a charity of the winner's choosing. Actually since you said Trump will be president also, I'll give you the option too... or were you just being a keyboard warrior that didn't even believe what you were typing, yourself?

Sorry bit late coming into this but can you or anyone else here tell me how Trump is going to solve the problem with all these shooting in america.

Anachrony

Billy86 wrote: »

Which claims were they again? The FBI's official statistics? Like I said, they are the ones who compiled them so feel free to write to the FBI about it. Still waiting on your breakdown for every individual state by the way.

But you're combining those statistics with those from another source that use other definitions, to make inaccurate conclusions. The US population is 64% non-Hispanic white and 16% Hispanic. So 80% White and/or Hispanic.

If you use statistics from the FBI that say White including Hispanic people commit 68% of crime, and then combine that with non-FBI statistics from a different source which claim that White not including Hispanic people are 64% of the population, then you are being very disingenuous. Using comparable definitions to the FBI, then it would be 80% rather than 64%. Continuing to do apples to oranges comparison after the flaw has repeatedly been pointed out to you is obviously intentional.

Do you think you're fooling anyone? Do you think the people that you're arguing with are convinced? Do you think others reading the thread read only your posts and not the rebuttals? When they see you ignoring the obvious facts and repeating mistakes after it's been pointed out to you, that seems transparently dishonest and it undermines rather than strengthens whatever point you were trying to make.

Billy86

mid fifties wrote: »

Sorry bit late coming into this but can you or anyone else here tell me how Trump is going to solve the problem with all these shooting in america.

He won't, but then again he also won't be elected and probably won't even get the nomination. The guy is a clown.

Manic Moran

mid fifties wrote: »

Looking up on the history of the second amendment of the united states of America the right to bear arms it was written into their constitution in 1791 and seemly it has been subjected to a good few court cases probably because the weapons of modern times are far more powerful than the weapons of 1791, i mean the people of America are not just allow to buy your normal hand gun or hunting rifle they are walking out of gun shops with weapons you would normally see been use in battle grounds of war, crazy.

Also i presume those buyers names are register onto some data computer file along with the type of weapons they buy so surely the law enforcement agencies can give them a call and say "ah come mate what the hell do you need that AK47 for"

As for the president what do you want him to do bring in martial law and interments, the only solution i see is control the right to bare arms by removing the likes of the AK47 weapons and just let them have the right to buy your normal hand gun or hunting rifle and yes they still kill but not so many at the same time, sad and im sure for many families worrying times over there.

There is a fair bit incorrect with this post.

2A actually hasn't been to the Supreme Court all that much. Indeed, prior to the Heller case about ten years ago, it had never been directly addressed. This made it a matter of some interest to Constitutional scholars because it isn't often that an entirely new chapter of Constitutional law is created directly from the document.

The exact nature of what weapons are protected under 2A has not been addressed, with one exception: A handgun. In 1934 the court indicated that a shotgun might be covered, but since nobody showed that the shotgun had a military use (the defendant was dead and offered no evidence), the court declined to proceed further. However, the court has indicated that weapons which are commonly used should be protected. A related issue taken by the courts is that principle is what matters, not technology. This is why Freedom of Speech, protection against government invasion of privacy, etc, receive protection from the words written in 1791, despite mobile 'phone eavesdropping, for example, not existing back then.

No records are usually kept of firearms or owners. Attempts at creating such registries after the fact in several States and Canada have failed.

KingBrian2

mid fifties wrote: »

Looking up on the history of the second amendment of the united states of America the right to bear arms it was written into their constitution in 1791 and seemly it has been subjected to a good few court cases probably because the weapons of modern times are far more powerful than the weapons of 1791, i mean the people of America are not just allow to buy your normal hand gun or hunting rifle they are walking out of gun shops with weapons you would normally see been use in battle grounds of war, crazy.

Also i presume those buyers names are register onto some data computer file along with the type of weapons they buy so surely the law enforcement agencies can give them a call and say "ah come mate what the hell do you need that AK47 for"

As for the president what do you want him to do bring in martial law and interments, the only solution i see is control the right to bare arms by removing the likes of the AK47 weapons and just let them have the right to buy your normal hand gun or hunting rifle and yes they still kill but not so many at the same time, sad and im sure for many families worrying times over there.

America is at risk of losing the original meaning of the right to bear arms. The reason it was put into the US constitution was to prevent the country from being invaded by a foreign power. The citizen can take up arms to defend his land. It was never intended to be used as an excuse to carry a weapon against your political opponents.
A dangerous precedence is being set if you identify with policies of the gvt than you may be placing your life in harms way. That opposes another right we all have namely free speech.

Billy86

Anachrony wrote: »

But you're combining those statistics with those from another source that use other definitions, to make inaccurate conclusions. The US population is 64% non-Hispanic white and 16% Hispanic. So 80% White and/or Hispanic.

If you use statistics from the FBI that say White including Hispanic people commit 68% of crime, and then combine that with non-FBI statistics from a different source which claim that White not including Hispanic people are 64% of the population, then you are being very disingenuous. Using comparable definitions to the FBI, then it would be 80% rather than 64%. Continuing to do apples to oranges comparison after the flaw has repeatedly been pointed out to you is obviously intentional.

Do you think you're fooling anyone? Do you think the people that you're arguing with are convinced? Do you think others reading the thread read only your posts and not the rebuttals? When they see you ignoring the obvious facts and repeating mistakes after it's been pointed out to you, that seems transparently dishonest and it undermines rather than strengthens whatever point you were trying to make.

Again, I never disputed that the FBI is including Hispanic people in with white people - something I was unaware of at the time of initially posting them. If people have issue with how those numbers are displayed, I cannot change them - they would want to contact the FBI about that matter and not me, simple as.

Now amazingfun said he was going to put together the statistics broken up into black/white/hispanic/etc for every state in the USA. Funny enough, despite repeatedly being invited to do so, he has failed to follow through.

But I wasn't as interested in the statistics as it is known that minorities are more prone to crime and poverty than white people in the USA, which I have also said multiple times in this thread - you seem to have missed that part of my posts? I was interested in talking about why that is, because there would appear to be some on here of the opinion that it is 100% due to the inherent superiority of the white race, is entirely of their own making and has absolutely nothing to do with historical socio-economic problems brought about by social policy and discrimination.

mid fifties

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is a fair bit incorrect with this post.

2A actually hasn't been to the Supreme Court all that much. Indeed, prior to the Heller case about ten years ago, it had never been directly addressed. This made it a matter of some interest to Constitutional scholars because it isn't often that an entirely new chapter of Constitutional law is created directly from the document.

The exact nature of what weapons are protected under 2A has not been addressed, with one exception: A handgun. In 1934 the court indicated that a shotgun might be covered, but since nobody showed that the shotgun had a military use (the defendant was dead and offered no evidence), the court declined to proceed further. However, the court has indicated that weapons which are commonly used should be protected. A related issue taken by the courts is that principle is what matters, not technology. This is why Freedom of Speech, protection against government invasion of privacy, etc, receive protection from the words written in 1791, despite mobile 'phone eavesdropping, for example, not existing back then.

No records are usually kept of firearms or owners. Attempts at creating such registries after the fact in several States and Canada have failed.

I see theres an awful lot of tidying up to do with there second amendment, thank you for that makes the reason for all these shooting more understandable but still sad.

mid fifties

KingBrian2 wrote: »

America is at risk of losing the original meaning of the right to bear arms. The reason it was put into the US constitution was to prevent the country from being invaded by a foreign power. The citizen can take up arms to defend his land. It was never intended to be used as an excuse to carry a weapon against your political opponents.
A dangerous precedence is being set if you identify with policies of the gvt than you may be placing your life in harms way. That opposes another right we all have namely free speech.

Would i be right in saying free speech in the past for all countries in our world was always to do with the fact that we could all be invaded by a foreign power, so i have to ask is america still living in that belief.

kettlehead

Billy86 wrote: »

So do you want to take up my offer, or do you not feel confident enough to back up what you were claiming?

You're giving him shyte odds. Why would he bet with an anonoymous internet poster when he can get better odds with a bookie? Make it worth his while and offer better odds.

As for Trump, he's a clown but a very entertaining clown. The divilment in me would love to see him get elected.

Billy86

kettlehead wrote: »

You're giving him shyte odds. Why would he bet with an anonoymous internet poster when he can get better odds with a bookie? Make it worth his while and offer better odds.

As for Trump, he's a clown but a very entertaining clown. The divilment in me would love to see him get elected.

If he believes it so much, then he surely he is willing to back it up though, right? Christ, if he is so sure of it then he can even put a bet on at the bookies and show some proof. Because I have a hard time believing anyone that says they think Trump will win the election believes what they are even saying, themselves.

rizzodun

Is this a good example of the benefits of restrictive gun laws would people say?
I admit it probably really early to make a comparison (if one could be made at all) but I would wonder if it was easier to get guns in the UK this person could have came in loaded with more than a machete?

Or I could be miles off either, just putting it out there.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1205/751562-stabbing-london/

The Randy Riverbeast

rizzodun wrote: »

Is this a good example of the benefits of restrictive gun laws would people say?
I admit it probably really early to make a comparison (if one could be made at all) but I would wonder if it was easier to get guns in the UK this person could have came in loaded with more than a machete?

Or I could be miles off either, just putting it out there.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/1205/751562-stabbing-london/

Depends on which "side" a person is on. A person could claim that if they cant get a gun they will find another way to attack people. On the other hand I would rather have someone with a machete attacking people in the area than a gun. There's a reason guns are more popular for attacks and defense.

Someone will probably say we need "machete control" as a joke but mass stabbings don't happen quite as often as mass shootings.

rizzodun

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Depends on which "side" a person is on. A person could claim that if they cant get a gun they will find another way to attack people. On the other hand I would rather have someone with a machete attacking people in the area than a gun. There's a reason guns are more popular for attacks and defense.

Someone will probably say we need "machete control" as a joke but mass stabbings don't happen quite as often as mass shootings.

Kind of what I was hinting at, the fact that a stabbing incident is a lot less likely to claim a large amount of victims as opposed to shootings, and as such, the fact that more restrictive gun laws could perhaps explain why this was a 'mass stabbing' with 3 victims, as opposed to a mass shooting with many, many more.

KingBrian2

mid fifties wrote: »

Would i be right in saying free speech in the past for all countries in our world was always to do with the fact that we could all be invaded by a foreign power, so i have to ask is america still living in that belief.

Washington is under the impression we all could do with their version of how to run a country. America which is a Nation of 50 states each with very different opinions on everything from marijuana to the death penalty lecturing Arabs, Europeans, Africans, Asians and South Americans on conducting US friendly policies.

mid fifties

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Washington is under the impression we all could do with their version of how to run a country. America which is a Nation of 50 states each with very different opinions on everything from marijuana to the death penalty lecturing Arabs, Europeans, Africans, Asians and South Americans on conducting US friendly policies.

so whats the solution

Amazingfun

Billy86 wrote: »

Again, I never disputed that the FBI is including Hispanic people in with white people - something I was unaware of at the time of initially posting them. If people have issue with how those numbers are displayed, I cannot change them - they would want to contact the FBI about that matter and not me, simple as.

Now amazingfun said he was going to put together the statistics broken up into black/white/hispanic/etc for every state in the USA. Funny enough, despite repeatedly being invited to do so, he has failed to follow through.

But I wasn't as interested in the statistics as it is known that minorities are more prone to crime and poverty than white people in the USA, which I have also said multiple times in this thread - you seem to have missed that part of my posts? I was interested in talking about why that is, because there would appear to be some on here of the opinion that it is 100% due to the inherent superiority of the white race, is entirely of their own making and has absolutely nothing to do with historical socio-economic problems brought about by social policy and discrimination.

:pac: You post such tripe and then dare call the great man Trump a "clown"? The man runs circles around you in every department.

Anyways, why would I waste time going through the crime stats of each State when in the middle of that convo, you disappeared? And now that you have finally admitted you didn't know that white and hispanic crime rates were intermixed, and that those crime rates are shocking when separated (whites being a very small % of those numbers)--what more do you need? It's the same result all over the USA---once you separate white and hispanic crime within the "white" column.

But of course, rotten lying scoundrels (like democrat Rahm Emanuel in Chicago) are doing their very best to hide these uncomfortable truths by halting the practice of accurate racial crime rate recording.

KingBrian2

mid fifties wrote: »

so whats the solution

Washington engage with the rest of the world in a amicable and friendly manner instead of treating us as furniture to be rearranged when they see fit. The heart of the matter is that since the cold war a lot of the world does not support the policies coming out of Washington. They lectured the Russians about the Chechen insurgence. They feel the South China Sea needs their attention by sending in military ships to patrol allies. They have military exorcises in Eastern Europe. No fly zones are set up instead of getting countries to send in police forces to defend vulnerable populations.

The Randy Riverbeast

Amazingfun wrote: »

:pac: You post such tripe and then dare call the great man Trump a "clown"? The man runs circles around you in every department.

Anyways, why would I waste time going through the crime stats of each State when in the middle of that convo, you disappeared? And now that you have finally admitted you didn't know that white and hispanic crime rates were intermixed, and that those crime rates are shocking when separated (whites being a very small % of those numbers)--what more do you need? It's the same result all over the USA---once you separate white and hispanic crime within the "white" column.

But of course, rotten lying scoundrels (like democrat Rahm Emanuel in Chicago) are doing their very best to hide these uncomfortable truths by halting the practice of accurate racial crime rate recording.

I wouldnt be so hard on him. Remember when you claimed Trump was leading all polls? You mentioned the fox poll while ignoring lots of others.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

You also ran off when you coudlnt explain how a database of muslims would have prevented this situation.

Amazingfun

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I wouldnt be so hard on him. Remember when you claimed Trump was leading all polls? You mentioned the fox poll while ignoring lots of others.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

You also ran off when you coudlnt explain how a database of muslims would have prevented this situation.

You're lying. I said very clearly at the time that I am not law enforcement and have no idea what kind of database Trump is working on, said we would find out soon enough when he takes office.

Also: I posted the CNN poll from yesterday and Trump's lead is bigger than ever. Sorry this disappoints you so, lol.

The Randy Riverbeast

Amazingfun wrote: »

You're lying. I said very clearly at the time that I am not law enforcement and have no idea what kind of database Trump is working on, said we would find out soon enough when he takes office.

Also: I posted the CNN poll from yesterday and Trump's lead is bigger than ever. Sorry this disappoints you so, lol.

You dont know what kind of database it will be and yet you said

Amazingfun wrote: »

No,Trump NEVER said "badges for muslims", lol....he spoke of a database, which in this case would have been very helpful.

According to CNN he is losing to Clinton. His lead has grown within the republican candidates. He has to do more than beat other republican candidates to become president. Sorry to disappoint you, lol.

Billy86

Amazingfun wrote: »

Anyways, why would I waste time going through the crime stats of each State when in the middle of that convo, you disappeared?

Oh, so you're a liar then. You were bragging about getting them for every state and now you won't. Got it.

I see you are still pretending you to ignore that you were completely wrong that "Trump is dominating every poll and will , inshallah, be President". But what else could be expected from a liar like you?

So are you willing to take up a bet on it if you are so sure of it, either with me (the loser giving to a charity of the losers choice, or just something trivial like getting to choose the other posters screen name) or with the bookies as proof? Or were you just lying... again?

Amazingfun

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

You dont know what kind of database it will be and yet you said

According to CNN he is losing to Clinton. His lead has grown within the republican candidates. He has to do more than beat other republican candidates to become president. Sorry to disappoint you, lol.

Yes, an effective NEW mechanism, of which none of us know the details of yet, would indeed be very helpful in cases like the California horror where we now discover that someone supposedly "vetted" by the current one ---and who turned out to be affiliated with some wacky folks, even going so far as to be posting her allegiance to ISIS on Facebook................was given the green light.

Trump hasn't yet turned his focus to Hillary full blast. After he wins the nomination , we will be treated to that. And be assured, there is nothing I feel for Trump except admiration and gratitude for the incredible task he has taken on.

Amazingfun

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh, so you're a liar then. You were bragging about getting them for every state and now you won't. Got it.

I see you are still pretending you to ignore that you were completely wrong that "Trump is dominating every poll and will , inshallah, be President". But what else could be expected from a liar like you?

So are you willing to take up a bet on it if you are so sure of it, either with me (the loser giving to a charity of the losers choice, or just something trivial like getting to choose the other posters screen name) or with the bookies as proof? Or were you just lying... again?

There isn't anything I've lied about, you however are a complete flake.
I just realized that trying to reason with you is pointless. I shall ignore your ramblings from now on

I am heartened that others see through your game though:

Do you think you're fooling anyone? Do you think the people that you're arguing with are convinced? Do you think others reading the thread read only your posts and not the rebuttals? When they see you ignoring the obvious facts and repeating mistakes after it's been pointed out to you, that seems transparently dishonest and it undermines rather than strengthens whatever point you were trying to make.

Billy86

Amazingfun wrote: »

There isn't anything I've lied about, you however are a complete flake.
I just realized that trying to reason with you is pointless. I shall ignore your ramblings from now on

What was that about flaking? :pac: What next, putting your hands over your ears while running away shouting "la la la, I can't hear you la la la!"... Fact is, you're not willing to back up your Trump statements in any meaningful way, which fits in well with your type. Ta-ra, love!

Amazingfun wrote: »

Trump is dominating every poll and will , inshallah, be President

Here are the polls: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016

mid fifties

Its probably true that an awful lot of americans agree with an awful lot of what trump is saying but if he does become president its going to be the usual party politics that rule the roost and not what trump is promising, hillary clinton has far more political experience and is well travel in world politics and regardless of what people really think of her when she talks world leaders listen because like her they too have the experience but when trump talks, world leaders will just see him as a joke and regardless whether an awful lot of americans agree with an awful lot of what trump is saying, they know that to be true.

Its always good to have experience on your side and i like to think one of the thing hillary will do if she becomes president is tidy up the mess of their second amendment and thats where her political experience will help, as for trump, he reminds me of that guy who just started a new job and thinks he knows it all, maybe in four years he'll have the experience but right now, he's just mouthing off.

strelok

even if hillary gets in, she won't do anything other than a token attempt to rein in some small measure of gun rights. the second amendment is far too loud a dogwhistle for the progressive left, the democrats will never try to get rid of it.

mid fifties

strelok wrote: »

even if hillary gets in, she won't do anything other than a token attempt to rein in some small measure of gun rights. the second amendment is far too loud a dogwhistle for the progressive left, the democrats will never try to get rid of it.

Getting rid of it is not the solution and both parties know that, controlling what weapons americans can buy is the only solution, hand guns and hunting rifles and leave it at that.

KingBrian2

mid fifties wrote: »

Its probably true that an awful lot of americans agree with an awful lot of what trump is saying but if he does become president its going to be the usual party politics that rule the roost and not what trump is promising, hillary clinton has far more political experience and is well travel in world politics and regardless of what people really think of her when she talks world leaders listen because like her they too have the experience but when trump talks, world leaders will just see him as a joke and regardless whether an awful lot of americans agree with an awful lot of what trump is saying, they know that to be true.

Its always good to have experience on your side and i like to think one of the thing hillary will do if she becomes president is tidy up the mess of their second amendment and thats where her political experience will help, as for trump, he reminds me of that guy who just started a new job and thinks he knows it all, maybe in four years he'll have the experience but right now, he's just mouthing off.

Trump's speech's all come from personal experiences. Most of the people attending his rallies know of the Mexican crime rates. The reports are well known of a porous border with Mexico. The pundits are talking up the epidemic of problems relating to Mexican lifestyle. For the least politically inclined sticking up for the Mexican is a suckers game. Arizona already has imposed strict legislation on immigrants. The Trump phenomenon is very much in keeping with the wishes of local and gubertorial districts.

JPNelsforearm

mid fifties wrote: »

Getting rid of it is not the solution and both parties know that, controlling what weapons americans can buy is the only solution, hand guns and hunting rifles and leave it at that.

Hand guns have been used in far more murders then full/semi auto rifles. Banning or saying what type of gun you can own is a non runner, its in the constitution and US culture. Tackle the people who do it, not peoples freedoms and rights.

KingBrian2

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Hand guns have been used in far more murders then full/semi auto rifles. Banning or saying what type of gun you can own is a non runner, its in the constitution and US culture. Tackle the people who do it, not peoples freedoms and rights.

I'm I correct in saying the gvt wants a register of gun owners while the gun owners distrust any gvt with lists of named individuals. Fear the gvt will clampdown on peoples right, is that the heart of the issue.