More Open Carry Nonsense in Wisconsin

[TerryMathews]

Being gay isn't a right.

Bite your tongue Alec Baldwin, the LGBT community will be by shortly with your tar and feathers.

 

[bradly1101]

Bite your tongue Alec Baldwin, the LGBT community will be by shortly with your tar and feathers.

I have a right to be gay? Thank you!

 

[TerryMathews]

I have a right to be gay? Thank you!

Supposedly. The Supremes seem to think so.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The Daily Beast
The rate per 100,000 looks like it's in decline (definitely time for gun control) but lets examine Chicago since it's near and dear to my heart. Chicago, Detroit, and New York are right around 40 per 100,000. Now you could say that's 20% lower than Abiline but let's also note that Chicago (when the ban was still in effect in 2008) was sitting pretty at 60 per 100,000.

Huh? New York is at less than 10 per 100,000. New York is the safest large city in the United States. I think you are confusing New York with Baltimore on that graph.

 

[CLite]

Huh? New York is at less than 10 per 100,000. New York is the safest large city in the United States. I think you are confusing New York with Baltimore on that graph.

Yeah per the article it's actually 4.0 and below the national average of 4.7.

Manhattan is even safer if you factor out the more troubled boroughs.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah per the article it's actually 4.0 and below the national average of 4.7.

Manhattan is even safer if you factor out the more troubled boroughs.

Actually I'm pretty sure that either Queens or Staten Island are the safest boroughs. Brooklyn and the Bronx are the most dangerous ones, although crime varies wildly within each one as does the type of crime. (ie: wealthier areas tend to have less violence but more property crime, go figure)

Manhattan is reasonably safe, but it also has Spanish Harlem and to a lesser degree plain old Harlem and the lower east side.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The fact is there is a large segment of the population that has no desire to see people visibly carrying as a matter of habit. It's not going to suddenly change with more people trying to open carry, as the police chief says its only going to put up walls.

Exactly, I saw more 30.06 signs where I lived after an open carry group decided to hang out at a Starbucks in Austin, Texas.

30.06 sign informed those who carry concealed they are not allowed to do so on the premises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Texas#30.06_signage

 

[OCGuy]

Will be OCing in LV, including the strip, next weekend. Never have a problem. Last time LVPD waved us over and started discussing our gear.

I hope anyone in WI who is harassed by police gets a nice settlement. It is the only way to teach the rookies how to handle the situation.

 

[Thebobo]

Will be OCing in LV, including the strip, next weekend. Never have a problem. Last time LVPD waved us over and started discussing our gear.

I hope anyone in WI who is harassed by police gets a nice settlement. It is the only way to teach the rookies how to handle the situation.

So you are so scared in Las Vegas you need a gun? Or you just it doing because your one of those look at me I have a gun egomaniacs?

Hope its rookie day at the LVPD.

 

[OCGuy]

So you are so scared in Las Vegas you need a gun? Or you just it doing because your one of those look at me I have a gun egomaniacs?

Hope its rookie day at the LVPD.

I did it because the moon visibility was 66%, and I had blueberry pancakes for breakfast that morning. I always carry in NV, AZ, and MT on days where I have blueberry pancakes and a moon visibility between 6-70%.

 

[dali71]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population

Feel free to compare and draw your own conclusions.

 

[OCGuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population

Feel free to compare and draw your own conclusions.

The way to do this is by linking the poverty rate to gun-crime, since poverty absolutely plays a part in gang and violence risk, while the amount of melanin in your skin does not.

Add poverty and population density, and you get Chicago, Oakland, etc.

 

[bradly1101]

Progressive policies to end poverty sure are demonized a lot. It seems like a praise-worthy goal to me if it could help keep people from resorting to crime. But there may always be gangs; we are a very territorial species. Some countries and political groups even behave that way. Until we have our population reset and one world order where poverty is eliminated and only the officials are allowed to have phasers, we will be plagued with violent crime. But I'll be outta here by then.

 

[OCGuy]

Progressive policies to end poverty sure are demonized a lot. It seems like a praise-worthy goal to me if it could help keep people from resorting to crime. But there may always be gangs; we are a very territorial species. Some countries and political groups even behave that way. Until we have our population reset and one world order where poverty is eliminated and only the officials are allowed to have phasers, we will be plagued with violent crime. But I'll be outta here by then.

The only territory battles going on are due to the other major contributor to violent crime: the Drug War.

 

[BUnit1701]

Progressive policies to end poverty sure are demonized a lot. It seems like a praise-worthy goal to me if it could help keep people from resorting to crime. But there may always be gangs; we are a very territorial species. Some countries and political groups even behave that way. Until we have our population reset and one world order where poverty is eliminated and only the officials are allowed to have phasers, we will be plagued with violent crime. But I'll be outta here by then.

No one has ever said its a bad goal, but the policies are obviously not working. 60 years and trillions of dollars later we are no better off.

 

[bradly1101]

No one has ever said its a bad goal, but the policies are obviously not working. 60 years and trillions of dollars later we are no better off.

No better off? What if all those people who get assistance with housing and food lost it. Homelessness, crime and hunger would greatly increase. It has failed some, but does that mean we should end it for all?

 

[fskimospy]

No better off? What if all those people who get assistance with housing and food lost it. Homelessness, crime and hunger would greatly increase. It has failed some, but does that mean we should end it for all?

His post is based on a very selective reading of federal poverty statistics.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Until we have our population reset and one world order

Hmmmmmm reminds me of the Georgia Guidestones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

 

[bradly1101]

Hmmmmmm reminds me of the Georgia Guidestones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

I didn't know about that. I'm afraid the road to 500M is paved with global disaster. WWIII over the former Soviet states? An asteroid? Disease? A super volcano? Climate change?

If none of that ever happens and populations rise as they have been, most people will be in for long term suffering, much more than now. And we, the most invasive species on the planet, will destroy the natural world on a scale never seen before as we search for and burn through resources. I once heard humanity referred to as the Asian carp of simian species.

 

[WackyDan]

No better off? What if all those people who get assistance with housing and food lost it. Homelessness, crime and hunger would greatly increase. It has failed some, but does that mean we should end it for all?

So we are buying their peaceful nature with our tax dollars as benefits? Rubbish. Stop enabling these people. Some truly need it, but many abuse it.

 

[fskimospy]

So we are buying their peaceful nature with our tax dollars as benefits? Rubbish. Stop enabling these people. Some truly need it, but many abuse it.

Define 'many' and show how they are abusing it with empirical evidence?

 

[bradly1101]

Some truly need it, but many abuse it.

Yes wherever there is money our greedy nature will cause abuse. Are you against corporate welfare (tax/regulation loopholes, subsidies for oil companies...) as much as you are against welfare for humanity? Does that not get abused as well? Should we punish the needy because of some bad apples?

 

[ivwshane]

So we are buying their peaceful nature with our tax dollars as benefits? Rubbish. Stop enabling these people. Some truly need it, but many abuse it.

Some "truly need it" like yourself, right? Fuck everyone else! They just abuse it! Who are "these people" btw?

You are quite the disgusting individual aren't you? Karma's a bitch and it sounds like you've met her already.