DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Forum
HTML https://thewiforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: National topics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 20670--------------------------------------------------
Re: Isn't this like yelling fire in a crowded theater?
By: rapids_60 Date: September 2, 2015, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Snickers link=topic=1484.msg20648#msg20648
date=1441208308]
Gun laws have nothing to do with nor have never had anything to
do with race.
[/quote]
Seriously? The earliest gun laws grew out of fear the slaves
and later the newly freed blacks would take up arms (or dogs,
walking canes....) against whites.
Jim Crow states required "permits" to own a firearm, but
uniformly refused to issue permits to blacks.
There is a Florida SC case, Watson v. Stone (1941), that ruled
that these (gun control) laws were "never intended to apply to
the white population". This was in no way an isolated decision.
Then there's the Sullivan Act, the Mulford act and the Federal
Gun Control act of 1968.
None were passed because whites were openly carrying guns as
they had for centuries.
Sullivan and Mulford implemented permitting to carry a firearm,
which were issued at the whim of a local official.
( Even today Cali lawmakers admit that most approved permits go
to whites, most denied permits are to blacks. The standard is
basically "what do you need it for"
Money and good connections get you a permit. Blacks tend to
have neither. )
The 1968 law cut off the supply of low cost, imported or
sometimes surplus guns that were popular in the black
communities without touching the more expensive weapons Whites
generally owned.
It's true that taken at face value, none of these laws
specifically targeted blacks.
But we aren't stupid and neither are legislators.
These laws were written in direct response to blacks carrying
weapons and were designed to target the poorest, least
connected rungs of society, knowing those folks were
predominantly black.
The (much smaller number of) ghetto whites affected were
acceptable collateral damage.
#Post#: 20672--------------------------------------------------
Re: Isn't this like yelling fire in a crowded theater?
By: Snickers Date: September 2, 2015, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=rapids_60 link=topic=1484.msg20670#msg20670
date=1441228312]
Seriously? The earliest gun laws grew out of fear the slaves
and later the newly freed blacks would take up arms against
whites.
In several states free blacks could not own walking canes or
even dogs because they classified them as a "weapon"... but only
when blacks owned them.
Jim Crow states required "permits" to own a firearm, but
uniformly refused to issue permits to blacks.
Then there's the Sullivan Act, the Mulford act and the Federal
Gun Control act of 1968.
None were passed because whites were openly carrying guns as
they had for centuries.
They implemented permitting to carry a firearm, which were
issued at the whim of a local official. Money and good
connections got you a permit. Blacks tended to have neither.
They cut off the supply of low cost, imported or sometimes
surplus guns that were popular in the black communities without
touching the more expensive weapons Whites generally owned.
I could go on, but it's more fun if you read about it yourself.
:)
It's true that taken at face value, none of these laws
specifically targeted blacks.
But we aren't stupid and neither are legislators. They were
written to disproportionally affect blacks intentionally, the
(much smaller number of) ghetto whites affected were acceptable
collateral damage.
[/quote]
Well the existing gun laws do not discriminate. They apply to
everyone equally.
And your right back then blacks were not allowed to have fire
arms. I should not have used the word "never"
#Post#: 20673--------------------------------------------------
Re: Isn't this like yelling fire in a crowded theater?
By: rapids_60 Date: September 2, 2015, 4:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Snickers link=topic=1484.msg20672#msg20672
date=1441229146]
Well the existing gun laws do not discriminate. They apply to
everyone equally.
[/quote]
It's still a case of laws that don't specifically discriminate
against blacks, but blacks are more likely to be affected by the
laws. I guess we can debate whether or not that is intentional.
#Post#: 20675--------------------------------------------------
Re: Isn't this like yelling fire in a crowded theater?
By: trollslayer Date: September 2, 2015, 5:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=rapids_60 link=topic=1484.msg20668#msg20668
date=1441225616]
This year isn't breaking any records for cop deaths either, 26
officers killed in the line of duty this year, slightly behind
the pace of last year.
If things continue at this rate, we'll have fewer than 40 at
years end. (Vs. 51 for 2014)
The only number that's increasing are the number of citizens
killed by cops. Those numbers have been rising every year since
2000....We're currently at a 20-year high (provided you trust
FBI statistics)
[/quote]
The one statistic you don't mention is police deaths for 2014
was up approximately 90% from earlier years. So saying police
deaths are slightly down from last year isn't saying a lot.
It's like Obama saying he cut the deficit but the deficit is
still way above what it was years before.
The fact you quote that the number of citizens killed by cops
continue to increase is part of the whole picture I mentioned in
an earlier post.
#Post#: 20677--------------------------------------------------
Re: Isn't this like yelling fire in a crowded theater?
By: rapids_60 Date: September 2, 2015, 5:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=trollslayer link=topic=1484.msg20675#msg20675
date=1441232683]
The one statistic you don't mention is police deaths for 2014
was up approximately 90% from earlier years.
[/quote]
I didn't mention it because it isn't even close to true.
From the National Law Enforcement Center:
HTML http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
Total On Duty LE deaths from all causes:
2014: 117 (117 is not "up 90%" from previous years)
2013: 107
2012: 126
2011: 171
2010: 161
Total LE deaths from firearms:
2014: 48 (48 is not "up 90%" from any previous year)
2013: 33
2012: 50
2011: 73
2010: 60
Other violent deaths- stabbings, beatings, etc are too low to
affect the stats. Most years fall between 0-2)
[quote]The fact you quote that the number of citizens killed by
cops continue to increase is part of the whole picture I
mentioned in an earlier post.[/quote]
And why is that? You said killings were increasing. I
pointed out the (only) area where that is actually true, and you
don't want to talk about those deaths. :D
I personally think it's important to hold law enforcement to
account for each and every citizen they kill. They are not the
ruling class who's judgment must not be questioned. They are
public employees and we are their employers. Some killings will
justifiable, others might not. The first step in learning
more is knowing how often it happens.
#Post#: 20678--------------------------------------------------
Re: Isn't this like yelling fire in a crowded theater?
By: trollslayer Date: September 2, 2015, 6:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, lets take a look at "felonious deaths" of police officers.
My mistake for not clarifying. This of course if you can take
the word of the FBI. These were the death I'm talking about.
[quote]Preliminary statistics released today by the FBI show
that 51 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the
line of duty in 2014. This is an increase of almost 89 percent
when compared to the 27 officers killed in 2013.[/quote]
HTML https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2014-preliminary-statistics-for-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty
#Post#: 20679--------------------------------------------------
Re: Isn't this like yelling fire in a crowded theater?
By: rapids_60 Date: September 2, 2015, 7:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You are leaving out one teensy tiny detail from the FBI stats:
[quote](Note: From 1980–2014, an average of 64 law enforcement
officers have been feloniously killed per year. The 2013 total,
27, was the lowest during this 35-year period.)[/quote]
Fact is the 2014 death rate is the lowest in not only a 35 year
period, but lowest since 1959...except for the 2013 oddity.
Calling that "up approximately 90% from earlier years" is just
scaremongering. you have to cherry-pick one year out of 55 to
make that statement correct.
The article you linked did make clear the stated increase was
over one single previous year-2013- and that 2013 was a
historical oddity.
Your post, stating "earlier years", plural...conveniently did
not.
The global warming folks would appreciate the technique.
#Post#: 20680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Isn't this like yelling fire in a crowded theater?
By: trollslayer Date: September 2, 2015, 7:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=rapids_60 link=topic=1484.msg20679#msg20679
date=1441238818]
You are leaving out one teensy tiny detail from the FBI stats:
Fact is the 2014 death rate is the lowest in not only a 35 year
period, but lowest since 1959...except for the 2013 oddity.
Calling that "up approximately 90% from earlier years" is just
scaremongering.
[/quote]
It's amazing how posting facts makes people accuse you of
"scaremongering". I cherry picked nothing. I quoted what the
FBI said. I gave you a link for the stats. Still you don't
think this increase is a big deal. Talk to law enforcement.
They may tell you other wise.
[quote] I personally think it's important to hold law
enforcement to account for each and every citizen they kill.
They are not the ruling class who's judgment must not be
questioned. They are public employees and we are their
employers. Some killings will justifiable, others might not.
The first step in learning more is knowing how often it happens.
[/quote]
Now who is "scaremongering"? Each and every officer involved
shooting is investigated. Now you're saying some may not be?
Unlike yourself, I provided evidence for my "scaremongering".
You OTOH, all you have to offer is "others might not". That
statement is much like saying "global warning is our greatest
threat". It's easy to spit that type of rhetoric out, it's even
harder to prove it.
#Post#: 20683--------------------------------------------------
Re: Isn't this like yelling fire in a crowded theater?
By: trollslayer Date: September 2, 2015, 7:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This picture reminds me of those who think, gee the killing of
cops has decreased, they have it so much better. But civilians
OTOH, there are more of them dying, we need to do something
about it!
#Post#: 20684--------------------------------------------------
Re: Isn't this like yelling fire in a crowded theater?
By: rapids_60 Date: September 2, 2015, 7:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=trollslayer link=topic=1484.msg20680#msg20680
date=1441239828]
It's amazing how posting facts makes people accuse you of
"scaremongering". I cherry picked nothing. I quoted what the
FBI said.
[/quote]
No, you changed what the FBI said.
They said 2014 was an increase over 2013, then noted that 2013
was historically low.
YOU said that 2014 was an increase over "earlier years".
Plural. It is not and that statement is not true.
[quote]
Still you don't think this increase is a big deal. Talk to law
enforcement. They may tell you other wise.
[/quote]
Where did I say it wasn't a big deal? Straw man much?
This convo goes back to when you discounted the number of people
killed by police as insignificant.
I stated if that number is insignificant, then the number of
police killed on duty, a much smaller number, must also be
insignificant.
(My personal opinion, which I never stated, is that NEITHER
number is insignificant)
[quote]
Each and every officer involved shooting is investigated. Now
you're saying some may not be?
[/quote]
Not what I said. I said some might not be justifiable.
[quote]
Unlike yourself, I provided evidence for my "scaremongering".
You OTOH, all you have to offer is "others might not". That
statement is much like saying "global warning is our greatest
threat". It's easy to spit that type of rhetoric out, it's even
harder to prove it.
[/quote]
I said "might not", not "are not". There is a substantial
difference, the first being conjecture and the second stating
fact.
For my opinion to be wrong, there would have to be NO police
officers committing wrongful shootings. Every single one would
have to be cleared as justifiable.
Are you prepared to stake your statement on that being the
case?
(keep in mind there have been 54 police officers convicted of
murder in the last decade, many more convicted of lesser
criminal charges related to unjustified shooting)
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page