51% of mass shooters in 2019 were black, 29% were white, and 11% were Latino.
Comments
-
Hondo comes in for a little ass tonguing.2001400ex said:
Bob on full tilt.SFGbob said:
What the fuck are you talking about? That was you're fucking argument. You had no facts you had no data, by your own admission you were just stating your feelings. Go ahead Kunt, the W is all yours. You win who can emote the best.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Christ man, this is part of why no one takes you seriously. You rival StrongArm in inability to take an L or give a charitable interpretation of someone's argument.SFGbob said:
But you feel that poor white are more dangerous.dnc said:
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.SFGbob said:
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?dnc said:
We already agreed there are more poor whites.SFGbob said:And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
Are you even reading this thread?
You'd do yourself a favor if you spent just a bit more time picking your battles than picking fucking nits. -
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise... -
This really is why I have loved you all these years.dnc said:
I am racist against white people.SFGbob said:
But you feel that poor whites are more dangerous. I could be a Kunt and claim that you feel this way on account of their white skin but I'm not a Kunt.dnc said:
Because black people are more dangerous and there is no other explanation.SFGbob said:
Great, then if there are more poor whites why aren't more whites than blacks arrested for murder?dnc said:
We already agreed there are more poor whites.SFGbob said:And you still can't even say if a person who commits more violent crime is more dangerous than person who doesn't commit violent crime nor can you answer the question about if there are more poor whites than poor blacks.
You're just stating your feelings.
Are you even reading this thread?
After all these years, I've finally been found out.
Feels good to actually be able to say it, quite honestly. -
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
edit: As I said originally this one is super tricky because of all the possible ways this can be used as a tool of the state, a weapon against the populace, or just misused by angry employees, scorned lovers, etc. Tight controls, on the government, are warranted here. -
Assumption of innocence, no self crimination, due process, and equal protection can be a real bitch.Swaye said:
I do agree that we can be cautious, but still expeditious. What I mean is, no typical government bullshit whereby guns are removed for legitimate threat made or whatever on June 7th, first hearing on August 11th, mental health exam on October 1st, second hearing on October 30th, and return of guns after final decisions rendered on December 12th. These cases need to be streamlined and get by all the bullshit red tape - you are depriving someone of their civil liberties every day this drags on. So yes, you can be cautious but still operate in such a way as to say the entire process must conclude in 90 days, or whatever. I just do not want to see this used as a tool by the state to effectively disarm people for years while the system works it out. Figure it out - they are batshit or dangerous or they aren't. If no, return guns immediately, if yes, insane asylum or counseling.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Oh, and privacy. -
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise...
-
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I wouldn't presently trust the Fifth Estate to be of any help in defense of violation of gun-related civil liberties.HHusky said:
Well at some point you have to decide whether your distrust of government is so profound that you don't want background checks at all then. "Governments are instituted among men" to secure our rights, I'm told. Governments sometimes fail to do this. We have free press though.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Bc the government can be trusted to do that? It's not like they would ever mass incarcerate a minority population, or allow a group to amass weapons to intimidate another group who they denied weapons to.HHusky said:Swaye, I edited and my post disappeared, so I'll try to restate it. This is regarding your post about "red flags" and background checks.
It seems to me that every person here agrees that if he is unarmed, even for a period of days or weeks, that this very, very unlikely to ever matter. If we are arming ourselves for extremely unlikely, extraordinary events, it seems reasonable to me that we can be very cautions and deliberate in making decisions about whether an individual should be armed and can even err on the side of caution.
Hold on, there's someone from the black panthers here telling me otherwise... -
I never thought I would see a civil gun control debate on HH. Will wonders never cease?
-
And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
-
In Virginia you get a double check. NICS and the Virginia State Police run a database. If you are a CCW holder though the Virginia database thing is pretty much instant.GrundleStiltzkin said:And regarding background checks, my experience as a buyer has been fine. It's been far too long since I've bought a long gun but it was easy. I bought a pistol for my wife a while back, and it was simple with my CPL.
I've always wondered why more liberals don't support CCW. I got a background check, fingerprints, and was required to take a gun safety course (waived for military service) to get it. CCW is the BEST tool currently to make sure people using guns are not fuckheads.
