10 most violent states in the US [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : 10 most violent states in the US


greentriple
04-25-2012, 10:36
Reuters releases list of 10 most violent states:
10: Mississippi
9: South Carolina
8: Arkansas
7: Texas
6: Missouri
5: Arizona
4: Florida
3: Nevada
2: Tennessee
1: Louisiana

Interestingly all but Arkansas and Missouri have Republican Governors...?

greentriple
04-25-2012, 10:50
And to be fair....
10 least violent:
10: Iowa
9: Rhode Island
8: Hawaii
7: Washington
6: North Dakota
5: Utah
4: Minnesota
3: New Hampshire
2: Vermont
1: Main

5 Democrat Governors, 4 Republican and one Independent.

jeanderson
04-25-2012, 12:51
And to be fair....
10 least violent:
...
3: New Hampshire
2: Vermont
1: Main

5 Democrat Governors, 4 Republican and one Independent.
Note: Least violent in New England with exception of R.I. allow concealed carry. http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

itstime
04-25-2012, 12:54
Wow. We are in the middle somewhere. Thought for sure top 10

1gewehr
04-25-2012, 14:02
I'd like to see the citation for that data. Frankly, I do not believe it. the data was pretty obviously fudged in some fashion.

greentriple
04-25-2012, 15:00
I'd like to see the citation for that data. Frankly, I do not believe it. the data was pretty obviously fudged in some fashion.

What??? Go search Reuters. And I love your challenging the data with no basis other than "pretty obviously fudged...". Now that's scientific thinking.

cowboywannabe
04-25-2012, 15:19
look at the data from the cities for each of the "violent" states. you will see the violence comes from liberal strong holds such as new orleans, memphis, atlanta....et cetera.

greentriple
04-25-2012, 15:52
look at the data from the cities for each of the "violent" states. you will see the violence comes from liberal strong holds such as new orleans, memphis, atlanta....et cetera.

Wait just one minute..., which one of the top ten is Atlanta in? Did someone change the location of Atlanta?

On another not that may be true, but I don't have the information from a different source other than your opinion. Which based on thinking Atlanta was relevant to the conversation concerns me.

HexHead
04-25-2012, 15:58
Tennessee would do a lot better if it weren't for Memphis.

How is MI not on that list, or is Detroit completely deserted now?

cowboywannabe
04-25-2012, 16:00
Wait just one minute..., which one of the top ten is Atlanta in? Did someone change the location of Atlanta?

On another not that may be true, but I don't have the information from a different source other than your opinion. Which based on thinking Atlanta was relevant to the conversation concerns me.

i have some experience we could say with Atlanta regarding the rest of Georgia....thats why i included that in this group. the other in this group which i have some experience is Little Rock and North Little Rock in Arkansas.

these bastions of liberal thinking are breeding grounds for crime and bring the whole state into a bad light.

Bren
04-25-2012, 16:00
I'd like to see the citation for that data. Frankly, I do not believe it. the data was pretty obviously fudged in some fashion.

That's what I was thinking, unless longstanding crime numbers in the USA suddenly changed completely last year, somebody had to play with the stats to get those numbers.

It doesn't make it easier to believe when there is no citation and it comes from greentriple.

I assume when he implies that it is Reuters' list, it won't turn out to be some nonsense like the crazy "Global Peace Index" from "The Institute for Economics and Peace" - they don't rate your state based on the actual violence there, they rate it based on things like "police employees" and "small arms availability."

So a state with plenty of police and where [people are free to own guns gets ranked as violent, over repressive states without the evil guns, like IL.

robtest
04-25-2012, 16:04
What??? Go search Reuters. And I love your challenging the data with no basis other than "pretty obviously fudged...". Now that's scientific thinking.


Why tell us to search... List your source... :dunno:

greentriple
04-25-2012, 16:10
Hey, I'm not saying you ain't right about the cities and their crime. And as far as a citation I found it on Google searching violence in America, and I found the list from Reuters. I'm clearly aware that crime is on the decline nationwide, in fact stats in San Diego, show violent crime is down, with the exception of Homicide.

I just provide the information as publicly articulated, you all read into it your politics and emotions....

Cities, having a greater concentration of a states population, will certainly have higher crime rates than rural areas. But claiming to know about Atlanta or Little Rock because you lived and or worked there is of little if not value. Now is you have numbers from those cities as they compare to comparable sized cities governed by Republicans, well then you have an argument.

So, list 10 US cities governed by liberal nutbags as they compare to cities of equal size governed by enlightened conservatives and you'll give legs to your opinions. Before that, your beliefs, opinions and ideas with $1 might buy me a cup of cheap coffee... Which I could use right now.

cowboywannabe
04-25-2012, 16:12
Hey, I'm not saying you ain't right about the cities and their crime. And as far as a citation I found it on Google searching violence in America, and I found the list from Reuters. I'm clearly aware that crime is on the decline nationwide, in fact stats in San Diego, show violent crime is down, with the exception of Homicide.:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I just provide the information as publicly articulated, you all read into it your politics and emotions....

Cities, having a greater concentration of a states population, will certainly have higher crime rates than rural areas. But claiming to know about Atlanta or Little Rock because you lived and or worked there is of little if not value. Now is you have numbers from those cities as they compare to comparable sized cities governed by Republicans, well then you have an argument.

So, list 10 US cities governed by liberal nutbags as they compare to cities of equal size governed by enlightened conservatives and you'll give legs to your opinions. Before that, your beliefs, opinions and ideas with $1 might by me a cup of cheap coffee... Which I could use right now.

thats like the crackhead mayor of wash d.c. marion berry stating that d.c. is a safe town if you dont count the homicides.

TexasFats
04-25-2012, 16:14
Even if it was published by Reuters, that does not, in itself, make the data reliable. Reuters likely got that data from some outside source. What was that source? Was it the Brady Center? Violence Policy Center? From whom did Reuters get that list?

Bren
04-25-2012, 16:15
Why tell us to search... List your source... :dunno:

Even if it was published by Reuters, that does not, in itself, make the data reliable. Reuters likely got that data from some outside source. What was that source? Was it the Brady Center? Violence Policy Center? From whom did Reuters get that list?


His source is what I said - I was just being sarcastic. It's from the Australian "Institute for Economics and Peace" from their "Global Peace Index." It's exactly what that title makes you think.

As I said - they consider your state more violent if it allows gun ownership or has more police officers or more people in prison.:upeyes: Let's see, who claims less guns, more criminals out of prison and less police will make a place less violent? It's not Republicans.

yeah, it's as left-wing and BS as it sounds, but it took a lot of work to figure out how to fudge the numbers just so states with more guns and less viiolent crime would look worse than states with less guns and more violent crime.

greentriple
04-25-2012, 16:18
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/24/us-usa-economy-crime-idUSBRE83N04M20120424



April 24 (Reuters) - Violence and its aftermath cost the U.S. economy some $460 billion last year, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace's second annual United States Peace Index, released on Tuesday.


Those costs - which include direct burdens like medical care for victims and the prison system and indirect factors like lost productivity - vary widely by state, with the most peaceful states bearing the lowest burden and the most violent spending
far more.

A state's level of peacefulness is not the only factor that determines the economic toll of violence; its population and level of overall economic activity also has a strong influence.

Below, a look at the cost of violence to the ten most peaceful and ten most violent U.S. states in 2012:

(Reporting by Scott Malone; Editing by Jackie Frank)

greentriple
04-25-2012, 16:20
thats like the crackhead mayor of wash d.c. marion berry stating that d.c. is a safe town if you dont count the homicides.

Hey Wannabe, SANDAG, and the Mayor here is Republican....:tongueout:

cowboywannabe
04-25-2012, 16:22
Hey Wannabe, SANDAG, and the Mayor here is Republican....:tongueout:

yeah i know, but after being convicted of the dope and getting re-elected he is the mayor.

Jerry
04-25-2012, 16:55
I call BS on that list. I donít know what they are using for data but last I heard Washington DC and Illinois lead the nation is violent crime. Grated DC isnít a state but Illinois not make it into the top ten and anyone telling me that Tennessee is more violent than Illinois and Comyfornia sets off my BS alarm.

greentriple
04-25-2012, 17:05
I call BS on that list. I donít know what they are using for data but last I heard Washington DC and Illinois lead the nation is violent crime. Grated DC isnít a state but Illinois not make it into the top ten and anyone telling me that Tennessee is more violent than Illinois and Comyfornia sets off my BS alarm.

Well once again a whole lot of opinion, feeling and emotion with ZERO source! I have tons of opinions but in any adult discussion they have no impirical weight.
Can just one of you Opinionated individuals site anything other than what u want to believe is true to contradict Reuters?!?

Right, well than shhhhhh.

dpadams6
04-25-2012, 17:16
Tennessee would do a lot better if it weren't for Memphis.

How is MI not on that list, or is Detroit completely deserted now?

Yeah. We have 4 in top 10 most violent. Detroit, flint, Pontiac and Saginaw.

Gunnut 45/454
04-25-2012, 21:28
greentriple

Ah they cook the books here's the actual Least violent! Murders per capita

Utah 1.9
Maine 1.8
Hawaii 1.8
Minnesota 1.8
North Dakota 1.5
Wyoming 1.4
Idaho 1.3
Iowa 1.3
Vermont 1.1
New Hampshire

10: Iowa
9: Rhode Island

8: Hawaii
7: Washington
6: North Dakota
5: Utah
4: Minnesota
3: New Hampshire
2: Vermont
1: Main


Most violent- murders per capita

Louisiana 11.2
Maryland 7.4
Missouri 7.0
Mississippi 7.0
New Mexico 6.9
Arizona 6.4
South Carolina 6.1
Nevada 5.9
Georgia 5.8
Alabama

10: Mississippi
Actually #7 on list
9: South Carolina Actually #4
8: Arkansas Not on top 10
7: Texas Not on top 10
6: Missouri Actually # 3
5: Arizona
4: Florida Not on top 10
3: Nevada Not on top 10
2: Tennessee Not on top 10
1: Louisiana

As you can see very misleading as its based on per capita! My data per FBI 2010


Look here for the real story per city- Notice all the Liberal bastions have the highest murder rates!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Jerry
04-25-2012, 21:31
Well once again a whole lot of opinion, feeling and emotion with ZERO source! I have tons of opinions but in any adult discussion they have no impirical weight.
Can just one of you Opinionated individuals site anything other than what u want to believe is true to contradict Reuters?!?

Right, well than shhhhhh.



Show me the numbers. I’ve seen data that says crime didn’t increase in Grate Britton after the firearms ban. I’ve also seen the data that it did. I’ve see data showing that Australia’s violent crime didn’t increase after they made it harder for citizens to posses firearms. I’ve also seen data disputing that data. Funny thing about data… it can be manipulated. For instance! The number of children killed by firearms every year; the numbers include “children” up the age of 25. Also the numbers of people killed by friends and family members include rival gang members that don’t know and have never had any previous involvement with the people they killed or the person that killed them. Soooooo show me the NUMBERS. And no I’m not looking them up. You are the one making the claims so prove it.

Firebob2917
04-25-2012, 21:49
Las Vegas being the largest draw from everywhere does not take that into account where they come from. When it happens in NV it stays in NV

greentriple
04-25-2012, 22:30
greentriple

Ah they cook the books here's the actual Least violent! Murders per capita

Utah 1.9
Maine 1.8
Hawaii 1.8
Minnesota 1.8
North Dakota 1.5
Wyoming 1.4
Idaho 1.3
Iowa 1.3
Vermont 1.1
New Hampshire

10: Iowa
9: Rhode Island

8: Hawaii
7: Washington
6: North Dakota
5: Utah
4: Minnesota
3: New Hampshire
2: Vermont
1: Main


Most violent- murders per capita

Louisiana 11.2
Maryland 7.4
Missouri 7.0
Mississippi 7.0
New Mexico 6.9
Arizona 6.4
South Carolina 6.1
Nevada 5.9
Georgia 5.8
Alabama

10: Mississippi
Actually #7 on list
9: South Carolina Actually #4
8: Arkansas Not on top 10
7: Texas Not on top 10
6: Missouri Actually # 3
5: Arizona
4: Florida Not on top 10
3: Nevada Not on top 10
2: Tennessee Not on top 10
1: Louisiana

As you can see very misleading as its based on per capita! My data per FBI 2010


Look here for the real story per city- Notice all the Liberal bastions have the highest murder rates!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Great post! However, the problem in relation to the original post is that they claim violence you specify homicide. While one includes the other, the second does not account for the fist.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
04-25-2012, 22:34
Show me the numbers. I’ve seen data that says crime didn’t increase in Grate Britton after the firearms ban. I’ve also seen the data that it did. I’ve see data showing that Australia’s violent crime didn’t increase after they made it harder for citizens to posses firearms. I’ve also seen data disputing that data. Funny thing about data… it can be manipulated. For instance! The number of children killed by firearms every year; the numbers include “children” up the age of 25. Also the numbers of people killed by friends and family members include rival gang members that don’t know and have never had any previous involvement with the people they killed or the person that killed them. Soooooo show me the NUMBERS. And no I’m not looking them up. You are the one making the claims so prove it.

Jerry, you are contesting their article. It's not my research, I just provided a source of a position, not my opinion. All you are doing is rattling off your opinion based on what you've heard or seen without substantiating it with even a news piece.

I've read and heard quite a bit in my life, don't make claiming it true. At least site one source, just one!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Jerry
04-26-2012, 09:31
Jerry, you are contesting their article. It's not my research, I just provided a source of a position, not my opinion. All you are doing is rattling off your opinion based on what you've heard or seen without substantiating it with even a news piece.

I've read and heard quite a bit in my life, don't make claiming it true. At least site one source, just one!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

:laughabove:

So you post unsubstantiated information (from an article) as fact and accuse me of only having an opinion and no facts. Thatís just plain :rofl:


I base my opinion on "facts" I've read over the years. They have been fudged to meet the particular organizationsí, liberal or law enforcementís agenda. Liberals make them high for the ďItís for the childrenĒ factor and law enforcement wants to look good so they make them low. :yawn:

Bren
04-26-2012, 09:47
Great post! However, the problem in relation to the original post is that they claim violence you specify homicide. While one includes the other, the second does not account for the fist.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Had you bothered to look at the information you originally posted, you'd see that they don't really claim violence either - unless your definition of "violence," like theirs, includes things like legal gun ownership and the number of police officers employed in your state.

That's the problem with the left - they often stretch so far to make up fake "facts" and mislead the public, that their "facts" are very easy to see through.

This lists the methodology used by the Institute for Economics and Peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Peace_Index) (as do various versions of the Reuters article you partially pasted here)

There are "five peace indicators :rofl:that make up the USPI." They include:
1. Number of Homicides per 100,000 people,
2. Number of violent crimes per 100,000 people,
3. Jailed population per 100,000 people,
4. Police officers per 100,000 people,
5. Ease of access to small arms

3 of the 5 are NOT related to violence. They are related to generating fake statistics to try to mislead the public - specifically, anti-gun statistics to support the claim that states with more guns and fewer restrictions are "more violent" when that is the opposite of the truth.

greentriple
04-26-2012, 10:36
Had you bothered to look at the information you originally posted, you'd see that they don't really claim violence either - unless your definition of "violence," like theirs, includes things like legal gun ownership and the number of police officers employed in your state.

That's the problem with the left - they often stretch so far to make up fake "facts" and mislead the public, that their "facts" are very easy to see through.

This lists the methodology used by the Institute for Economics and Peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Peace_Index) (as do various versions of the Reuters article you partially pasted here)

There are "five peace indicators :rofl:that make up the USPI." They include:
1. Number of Homicides per 100,000 people,
2. Number of violent crimes per 100,000 people,
3. Jailed population per 100,000 people,
4. Police officers per 100,000 people,
5. Ease of access to small arms

3 of the 5 are NOT related to violence. They are related to generating fake statistics to try to mislead the public - specifically, anti-gun statistics to support the claim that states with more guns and fewer restrictions are "more violent" when that is the opposite of the truth.

You had me, with exception of the rhetoric,until you go to your last phrase "anti-gun statistics to support the claim that states with more guns and fewer restrictions are "more violent" when that is the opposite of the truth" which you provide no proof of other than your assertion.

Your almost there, almost a cogent and lucid debater. Keep the discussion to facts and figures an cite support for your opinion and you may present a position that does not only float in a sea of supporters, but hold water an ocean of detractors.

greentriple
04-26-2012, 10:46
One could argue, albeit like most here I have no proof of this "opinion", that:
1) a large jailed population is a reflection of excessive and unreasonable incarceration of a statistically greater law breaking population (which would seem to be a reasonable factor in considering the violence of a particular place)
2) a lager police force could reflect an unneeded and disproportionate allocation of public funds to law enforcement or the need for police to protect the public from an unusually high number of criminally minded persons (again this would seem to support a factor in considering the violent level of a particular state)
3) I would tend to thing that the ease of access to small arms alone is a miss-leading factor. If it refers to the lawful access to small arms than I tend to agree it should not be a considered factor. However, if it refers to the ease of unlawful access to small arms than that would clearly support the notion that is a factor relevant to measuring the violence in a state.

Again, these are my opinions, and without more information I'm reluctant to champion any of them beyond this discussion.

Bren
04-26-2012, 14:43
You had me, with exception of the rhetoric,until you go to your last phrase "anti-gun statistics to support the claim that states with more guns and fewer restrictions are "more violent" when that is the opposite of the truth" which you provide no proof of other than your assertion.

Your almost there, almost a cogent and lucid debater. Keep the discussion to facts and figures an cite support for your opinion and you may present a position that does not only float in a sea of supporters, but hold water an ocean of detractors.


Yeah, maybe some day I'll reach your level.:rofl::rofl::rofl:


Lately, I'm just fascinated with the Dunning–Kruger effect, as demonstrated in so many ways on Glock Talk.:rofl:

Fred Hansen
04-26-2012, 16:16
Ugh! The rank stench of green tripe! :puking:

larryis1
04-26-2012, 16:58
Had you bothered to look at the information you originally posted, you'd see that they don't really claim violence either - unless your definition of "violence," like theirs, includes things like legal gun ownership and the number of police officers employed in your state.

That's the problem with the left - they often stretch so far to make up fake "facts" and mislead the public, that their "facts" are very easy to see through.

This lists the methodology used by the Institute for Economics and Peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Peace_Index) (as do various versions of the Reuters article you partially pasted here)

There are "five peace indicators :rofl:that make up the USPI." They include:
1. Number of Homicides per 100,000 people,
2. Number of violent crimes per 100,000 people,
3. Jailed population per 100,000 people,
4. Police officers per 100,000 people,
5. Ease of access to small arms

3 of the 5 are NOT related to violence. They are related to generating fake statistics to try to mislead the public - specifically, anti-gun statistics to support the claim that states with more guns and fewer restrictions are "more violent" when that is the opposite of the truth.

This is a good explanation of how to interpret the data in a logical fashion. With this understanding, Nevada is not such a violent place as the survey would make it to be.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

IhRedrider
04-26-2012, 17:05
Triplegreen,

Assuming the data you posted is correct and not manipulated, What is your point?

Republicans are evil?
Guns are evil?
Gun control is good?
Liberals are good?
Other?

Thanks for the clarification on your OP.

greentriple
04-26-2012, 20:20
Triplegreen,

Assuming the data you posted is correct and not manipulated, What is your point?

Republicans are evil?
Guns are evil?
Gun control is good?
Liberals are good?
Other?

Thanks for the clarification on your OP.

Not at all.
1) I do not think any Republican is evil. And while I don't agree with all the party articulates as goals, the same goes for Democrats.
2) clearly as inanimate objects guns can't be evil. Can they be put to "evil" use? Sure, but just as often if not more they can serve a "good" purpose.
3) one should always have control of ones gun. But more to the question, I believe some "reasonable" regulation is good, just as there are "reasonable" regulations to other Amendments.
4) most Liberals are good, just as most Conservatives are good.

My point in posting about the article is to present information that might be counter intuitive to most peoples opinions. My adding of the political parties was to present my opinion that the sanctified Republican/Conservative views here are often nothin more than emotional opinions based on rhetoric, dogma and individual agendas. I also truly enjoy reasoned and supported points regardless of politics.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
04-26-2012, 20:23
Ugh! The rank stench of green tripe! :puking:

Oh Fred..., you are a clever fellow, I am devastated by your insult. But, thank you I did wait too long to shower after my run.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
04-26-2012, 20:29
Yeah, maybe some day I'll reach your level.:rofl::rofl::rofl:


Lately, I'm just fascinated with the Dunning–Kruger effect, as demonstrated in so many ways on Glock Talk.:rofl:

I agree Bren, the Dunning-Kruger effect is rampant on Glock Talk.

It's not about "level". You ask for citation and support for the articles implies conclusions. You provide a link to the resource used to create the data. And the you simply say its wrong based on nothing more than your unsupported (other than by less analitically competent posters) opinion and belief.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Bren
04-27-2012, 05:42
I agree Bren, the Dunning-Kruger effect is rampant on Glock Talk.

It's not about "level". You ask for citation and support for the articles implies conclusions. You provide a link to the resource used to create the data. And the you simply say its wrong based on nothing more than your unsupported (other than by less analitically competent posters) opinion and belief.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

That didn't happen.

Your objection seemed to be my inference, based on stated, cited and linked facts, that the "peace index" is skewed to support anti-gun thinking (as well as pro-authoritarian government and the various things that go with it - the things that bring "peace" in the leftist mind).

In both law and debate, that's what we call a reasonable inference based on the facts. At worst, it requires a minimal level of common knowledge of current events on the part of the reader. Heck, I even do it for a living - it won't convince leftists who rely on faith, instead of evidence, but it's 100% with judges.

ModGlock17
04-27-2012, 13:55
Triplegreen,

Assuming the data you posted is correct and not manipulated, What is your point?

Republicans are evil?
Guns are evil?
Gun control is good?
Liberals are good?
Other?

Thanks for the clarification on your OP.

I could also argue that the commonality of all these states is as follows:

1. A democrat President
2. A nationally failed economic policy

A better picture would be the most violent Cities. Then at that argument, you list demographics characteristics of that city and employment prospects.

yadi yada...

Happypuppy
04-27-2012, 14:03
Another list and I suspect more accurate based on cities ( why states the sizes varies too much for any accuracy (Rhode Island vs Alaska )). http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/the-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-america/239513/#slide10. Based on the last FBI data

IhRedrider
04-28-2012, 06:34
Greentriple

Let's get to the point. You posted this in the gun control issues forum AND you have alluded to the need for some sort of gun control, so.

What gun control measures are you in favor that we adopt, AND. How do they square with the Constitution?

Let's not get lost in the swamp of violence, when it comes to man, he has no limit to the level of violence he will inflict upon another. THAT is why only a fool remains unprotected. And if you think another man will protect you, you need to read a little history and you will see, violence also comes from men in authority. Only when it comes from men in authority, the violence is much more heinous and far reaching.

eracer
04-28-2012, 07:57
If I was a criminal, I'd rather live in Florida than North Dakota, that's for sure.

larryis1
04-28-2012, 09:26
Another list and I suspect more accurate based on cities ( why states the sizes varies too much for any accuracy (Rhode Island vs Alaska )). http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/the-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-america/239513/#slide10. Based on the last FBI data

This list of the top ten most dangerous looks a,lot more reasonable than the other BS report/data.

ModGlock17
04-28-2012, 13:15
If I was a criminal, I'd rather live in Florida than North Dakota, that's for sure.

I would pick a state or country where people don't get to own a gun, or tough to get permission for a gun.

TheExplorer
04-28-2012, 13:17
Different times all around. People used to just hold you up and take your money. Now they have to shoot you, too.

greentriple
04-28-2012, 17:41
Greentriple

Let's get to the point. You posted this in the gun control issues forum AND you have alluded to the need for some sort of gun control, so.

What gun control measures are you in favor that we adopt, AND. How do they square with the Constitution?

Let's not get lost in the swamp of violence, when it comes to man, he has no limit to the level of violence he will inflict upon another. THAT is why only a fool remains unprotected. And if you think another man will protect you, you need to read a little history and you will see, violence also comes from men in authority. Only when it comes from men in authority, the violence is much more heinous and far reaching.

There are regulations i.e. controls, to the other amendments to the Constitution. Generally they revolve around public safety. For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, for public safety Or, the police cannot search you without a reasonable suspicion you are involved in criminal conduct, however what is a reasonable suspicion has been expanded to the slightest act for public safety. You are free to worship as you like so long as you do not endanger the public or yourself. You have the right to not incriminate yourself but officers can "trick" you into admissions under certain conditions. The point is that there are many "controls" to our protected rights.

As for guns, I have no issue with mandatory registration of all weapons, or waiting periods for background checks. I don't have an issue with regulating the use of "hight" capacity magazines or prohibiting fully automatic weapons. I think sawed-off shotguns should be illegal and grenades, rocket launchers, and other mass-destructive weapons should be kept out of our hands.

I think people who stockpile high capacity weapons, ammo and believe the "end" is soon should have to undergo a psychological evaluation to keep their arsenal. This one is more of a personal opinion not rooted in anything more than fear.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

TexasFats
04-28-2012, 18:32
Not one of the limits mentioned, registration, waiting periods, magazine capacity limits, even background checks, have been shown to enhance public safety. Can you point me to a properly done scholarly study, published in a journal subject to peer review, that provides credible evidence that these things help? As for registration, as well register the books that we own.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

IhRedrider
04-28-2012, 18:46
This one is more of a personal opinion not rooted in anything more than fear.

As long as you acknowledge this, I see no problem.

However, as far as LEGAL restrictions. The Constitution could not be more clear. "shall not be infringed".

Gunnut 45/454
04-28-2012, 19:20
greentriple
Just admit it your original post was based on BS. I corrected the BS with the truth. Sorry it doesn't match the BS you posted!:rofl: Word to the wise if your going to post here get your **** in on sock or it will get broken off in your arse. Cause I don't know about most folks here I get enough **** shoveled my way from the current Mainstream media and our current Ocuppier in Chief ! I'll not put up with it here! :steamed:

steve581581
04-28-2012, 20:55
Tennessee would do a lot better if it weren't for Memphis.

How is MI not on that list, or is Detroit completely deserted now?

Not only Detroit. Flint, Pontiac, and all surrounding areas are crime-ridden areas.

greentriple
04-28-2012, 21:21
greentriple
Just admit it your original post was based on BS. I corrected the BS with the truth. Sorry it doesn't match the BS you posted!:rofl: Word to the wise if your going to post here get your **** in on sock or it will get broken off in your arse. Cause I don't know about most folks here I get enough **** shoveled my way from the current Mainstream media and our current Ocuppier in Chief ! I'll not put up with it here! :steamed:

Nut, huh...?

Based on your post I clearly understand the rigor in your thinking. Party on Wayne!

Oh and if you don't like discourse, tune out!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Jerry
04-28-2012, 21:23
There are regulations i.e. controls, to the other amendments to the Constitution. Generally they revolve around public safety. For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, for public safety Or, the police cannot search you without a reasonable suspicion you are involved in criminal conduct, however what is a reasonable suspicion has been expanded to the slightest act for public safety. You are free to worship as you like so long as you do not endanger the public or yourself. You have the right to not incriminate yourself but officers can "trick" you into admissions under certain conditions. The point is that there are many "controls" to our protected rights.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Again you make me :rofl:. Again you post BS as fact. You absolutely CAN yell FIRE in a crowded theater. If the people don’t panic and no one is harmed no harm no foul. If the people do panic and someone is hurt you WILL NOT be arrested for yelling FIRE you’ll be charged with public endangerment or similar charge. There is no law against yelling FIRE.

As for your reasonable suspicion example that has nothing to do with a right being denied. Police MUST have had REAL reasonable suspicion or it won’t hold up in court. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. Name me one person that has been arrested or imprisoned for practicing religion. Now if you endanger someone you will be arrested for that act not practicing religion. So you see your examples ARE NOT controlling rights they are controlling illegal actions that one might do while otherwise practicing a Constitutionally protected right. The law does NOT restrict the RIGHT.



As for guns, I have no issue with mandatory registration of all weapons, or waiting periods for background checks. I don't have an issue with regulating the use of "hight" capacity magazines or prohibiting fully automatic weapons. I think sawed-off shotguns should be illegal and grenades, rocket launchers, and other mass-destructive weapons should be kept out of our hands.

I think people who stockpile high capacity weapons, ammo and believe the "end" is soon should have to undergo a psychological evaluation to keep their arsenal. This one is more of a personal opinion not rooted in anything more than fear.


Oh boy! Just what we need. Another FUD! :ufo:

greentriple
04-28-2012, 21:33
Not one of the limits mentioned, registration, waiting periods, magazine capacity limits, even background checks, have been shown to enhance public safety. Can you point me to a properly done scholarly study, published in a journal subject to peer review, that provides credible evidence that these things help? As for registration, as well register the books that we own.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Hmmm, well let's look at one simple example of how registration helps public safety. You precious pistola is pilfered from wherever you reside in the Lone-star State. You report it, and B/C it's registered law-enforcement has a record of who it belonged to, when it was taken and from where to aid in an investigation should some evil doer use it across the country. Or here is an even easier problem. Some non-felon evil does who purchases but does not register his pocket rocket can turn around and sell it to felon friends without worry that it should ever come back to him.

A reduced 4th Amendment does not promote public safety.
Coerced confessions do not promote public safety. Unless, you mean not being able to beat it out of a suspect.
No booze it full nude strip clubs does not promote public safety.

But, I'm sure you'd be happy to restrict the Amendments that protect the criminally accused.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
04-28-2012, 21:35
Again you make me :rofl:. Again you post BS as fact. You absolutely CAN yell FIRE in a crowded theater. If the people don’t panic and no one is harmed no harm no fowl. If the people do panic and someone is hurt you WILL NOT be arrested for yelling FIRE you’ll be charged with public endangerment or similar charge. There is no law against yelling FIRE.

As for your reasonable suspicion example that has nothing to do with a right being denied. Police MUST have had REAL reasonable suspicion or it won’t hold up in court. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. Name me one person that has been arrested or imprisoned for practicing religion. Now if you endanger someone you will be arrested for that act not practicing religion. So you see your examples ARE NOT controlling rights they are controlling illegal actions that one might do while otherwise practicing a Constitutionally protected right. The law does NOT restrict the RIGHT.






Oh boy! Just what we need. Another FUD! :ufo:

Dude, you'r post is pure BS.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

IhRedrider
04-29-2012, 08:36
Greentriple

Are you basing your logic for violating the Constitution on "public safety"? If so, where in the Constitution does it state "public safety" is a reasonable exception to the bill of RIGHTS?


You called BS on Jerry's last post. Can you explain where Jerry was wrong, or are you just going to dismiss his comments without addressing them?

Bren
04-29-2012, 09:01
You called BS on Jerry's last post. Can you explain where Jerry was wrong, or are you just going to dismiss his comments without addressing them?

You won't find many occasions when "Dude" is followed by a well-reasoned response. :rofl::rofl:

Jerry
04-29-2012, 11:17
Dude, you'r post is pure BS.

Prove it! Facts dude facts. Show me the facts.

Here’s a little clue for you. If it were illegal to yell fire in a theater you could not yell fire when there was a fire. Facts dud FACTS.


Hmmm, well let's look at one simple example of how registration helps public safety. You precious pistola is pilfered from wherever you reside in the Lone-star State. You report it, and B/C it's registered law-enforcement has a record of who it belonged to, when it was taken and from where to aid in an investigation should some evil doer use it across the country. Or here is an even easier problem. Some non-felon evil does who purchases but does not register his pocket rocket can turn around and sell it to felon friends without worry that it should ever come back to him.

:laughabove: :rofl:

If it wasn’t so sad it really would be funny.

First, if he reports his pistol stolen the police know who it belongs to, the person with the receipt of purchase, or a picture or even just the correct SS # that is reporting it stolen.

And there you go again posting BS as fact. Canada just DROPPED their registration program because after 10 years and millions of dollers wasted it didn’t help solve ONE crime. Funny how real facts can come back and bite you in the arss when you post OPINION without knowing the facts.



A reduced 4th Amendment does not promote public safety.
Coerced confessions do not promote public safety. Unless, you mean not being able to beat it out of a suspect.
No booze it full nude strip clubs does not promote public safety.

But, I'm sure you'd be happy to restrict the Amendments that protect the criminally accused.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Actually NO! I support the whole Constitution. As long as someone isn’t PHYSICALLY FORCING people into strip clubs I have no problem with full nudity or the serving of booze or smoking. If someone doesn’t like it THEY DO NOT HAVE TO GO IN. If the owner wants to restrict drinking or smoking that's HIS/HER prerogative, it’s their property.

Now keep on spewing you liberal crap here if you wish but you’re going to get nailed every time you post it. I’d advise you follow your own advise and stop posting OPINIONS and start researching some facts. :okie:

Silver_Bullet_00
04-29-2012, 13:35
Here is a link of actual statistics. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-jun-2011

If one cares to organise the data, you can verify the claims.

Republican or Democratic governors have nothing to do with the crime!

I might take some heat for saying it, but socioeconomics, plays a huge part in crime. If you look into socioeconomics, you find certain races are greatly effected by socioeconomics.

Notice the South East has the most violent crime rates according to the articals. The North has less.
http://debitage.net/humangeography/images/USA_race.png

IhRedrider
05-01-2012, 15:44
Triple green,

Are you going to answer my questions?

You had time to start another thread, so do you have answers?

Amplified
05-01-2012, 22:21
Reuters releases list of 10 most violent states:
10: Mississippi
9: South Carolina
8: Arkansas
7: Texas
6: Missouri
5: Arizona
4: Florida
3: Nevada
2: Tennessee
1: Louisiana

Interestingly all but Arkansas and Missouri have Republican Governors...?

Odd that California is not on that list.

Silver_Bullet_00
05-01-2012, 22:42
Odd that California is not on that list.

Outside Southern California LA area to San Diego (which is horrible) , and the Bay Area (San Francisco / Oakland) Northern and Mid California is suprisgly a nice place. If only the rest of California could straiten their horrible liberal policies!

OctoberRust
05-02-2012, 12:00
There are regulations i.e. controls, to the other amendments to the Constitution. Generally they revolve around public safety. For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, for public safety Or, the police cannot search you without a reasonable suspicion you are involved in criminal conduct, however what is a reasonable suspicion has been expanded to the slightest act for public safety. You are free to worship as you like so long as you do not endanger the public or yourself. You have the right to not incriminate yourself but officers can "trick" you into admissions under certain conditions. The point is that there are many "controls" to our protected rights.

As for guns, I have no issue with mandatory registration of all weapons, or waiting periods for background checks. I don't have an issue with regulating the use of "hight" capacity magazines or prohibiting fully automatic weapons. I think sawed-off shotguns should be illegal and grenades, rocket launchers, and other mass-destructive weapons should be kept out of our hands.

I think people who stockpile high capacity weapons, ammo and believe the "end" is soon should have to undergo a psychological evaluation to keep their arsenal. This one is more of a personal opinion not rooted in anything more than fear.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Sawed off shotgun? Why exactly is that? What do you have against the home-owner having one more option to home-defense?

AH, wait, are we talking about fantasy land AKA your land, where criminals listen to the law, and won't saw their shotguns off?

OctoberRust
05-02-2012, 12:04
You won't find many occasions when "Dude" is followed by a well-reasoned response. :rofl::rofl:


Well man, that's just like, your opinion and stuff.

The dude abides. :cool:

series1811
05-02-2012, 12:13
Reuters releases list of 10 most violent states:
10: Mississippi
9: South Carolina
8: Arkansas
7: Texas
6: Missouri
5: Arizona
4: Florida
3: Nevada
2: Tennessee
1: Louisiana

Interestingly all but Arkansas and Missouri have Republican Governors...?

I've lived and worked in three of those states and I know where the violence was coming from in them, but I don't think a liberal would appreciate hearing the answer.

series1811
05-02-2012, 12:14
There are regulations i.e. controls, to the other amendments to the Constitution. Generally they revolve around public safety. For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, for public safety Or, the police cannot search you without a reasonable suspicion you are involved in criminal conduct, however what is a reasonable suspicion has been expanded to the slightest act for public safety. You are free to worship as you like so long as you do not endanger the public or yourself. You have the right to not incriminate yourself but officers can "trick" you into admissions under certain conditions. The point is that there are many "controls" to our protected rights.

As for guns, I have no issue with mandatory registration of all weapons, or waiting periods for background checks. I don't have an issue with regulating the use of "hight" capacity magazines or prohibiting fully automatic weapons. I think sawed-off shotguns should be illegal and grenades, rocket launchers, and other mass-destructive weapons should be kept out of our hands.

I think people who stockpile high capacity weapons, ammo and believe the "end" is soon should have to undergo a psychological evaluation to keep their arsenal. This one is more of a personal opinion not rooted in anything more than fear.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

You don't even own a gun, do you?

Jerry
05-02-2012, 12:55
You don't even own a gun, do you?



He had one once. It was silver with real make-believe stag horn grips and a holster with a picture of Roy Rogers on it but his mommy took it away for Public Safety reasons. :rofl:

Hdoc
05-02-2012, 14:35
[QUOTE=greentriple;18890016]Reuters releases list of 10 most violent states:
10: Mississippi
9: South Carolina
8: Arkansas
7: Texas
6: Missouri
5: Arizona
4: Florida
3: Nevada
2: Tennessee
1: Louisiana

/QUOTE]
Anytime I see "data" from an organization with the words "peace" and/or "Justice" in it's title I think left-wing / biased/ subjective.
I'm not usually wrong.

Silver_Bullet_00
05-03-2012, 15:58
I've lived and worked in three of those states and I know where the violence was coming from in them, but I don't think a liberal would appreciate hearing the answer.

Exactly, I know where your coming from. See my post #59.

concretefuzzynuts
05-03-2012, 18:10
Well, after reading this thread all I can say is... Jerry, you're my hero! Oh and Bren too!

greentriple
05-03-2012, 20:17
You don't even own a gun, do you?

No, not just one.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
05-03-2012, 20:18
He had one once. It was silver with real make-believe stag horn grips and a holster with a picture of Roy Rogers on it but his mommy took it away for Public Safety reasons. :rofl:

I bet the Dr. Does not allow you near firearms or sharp objects.

And please don't tell me that's a Triumph in your Avatar.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
05-03-2012, 20:21
[QUOTE=greentriple;18890016]Reuters releases list of 10 most violent states:
10: Mississippi
9: South Carolina
8: Arkansas
7: Texas
6: Missouri
5: Arizona
4: Florida
3: Nevada
2: Tennessee
1: Louisiana

/QUOTE]
Anytime I see "data" from an organization with the words "peace" and/or "Justice" in it's title I think left-wing / biased/ subjective.
I'm not usually wrong.

Clearly, because "peace" and "justice" are two things right wing nuts hate.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Jerry
05-03-2012, 20:58
I bet the Dr. Does not allow you near firearms or sharp objects.

And please don't tell me that's a Triumph in your Avatar.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Yes that’s a triumph and Mr. Dr. could care less how many firearms or sharp objects I own. I own a LOT! :supergrin:





Clearly, because "peace" and "justice" are two things right wing nuts hate.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Better take a good look at who the most violent are. Have you see any right wing nut jobs rioting? I didn’t see one “Right Wing Nut Job get out of line in any protests. I see a lot of good(?) “it’s for the children” LEFT WING MORONS “let the world learn to sing” liberals on the evening news breaking windows, throwing rocks and paint cans at police on and on and on.


Haven't heard any Right Wing Nut Jobs placing bounties on anyone’s head. Have heard bounties being offered by the Left Wingers. Between the two I much prefer the Right Wing Nut Jobs” they are a much more peaceful bunch. :tongueout:

When you get tired of having your but handed to you just stop posting you liberal BS. :rofl:

IhRedrider
05-03-2012, 21:14
Triplegreen,

Did you miss my questions, or are you simply ignoring them? You did start this thread.

greentriple
05-03-2012, 21:28
Yes that’s a triumph and Mr. Dr. could care less how many firearms or sharp objects I own. I own a LOT! :supergrin:





Better take a good look at who the most violent are. Have you see any right wing nut jobs rioting? I didn’t see one “Right Wing Nut Job get out of line in any protests. I see a lot of good(?) “it’s for the children” LEFT WING MORONS “let the world learn to sing” liberals on the evening news breaking windows, throwing rocks and paint cans at police on and on and on.


Haven't heard any Right Wing Nut Jobs placing bounties on anyone’s head. Have heard bounties being offered by the Left Wingers. Between the two I much prefer the Right Wing Nut Jobs” they are a much more peaceful bunch. :tongueout:

When you get tired of having your but handed to you just stop posting you liberal BS. :rofl:

Jerry, don't just type for the sake of typing. It's like you have diarrhea of the mouth that manifests on your keyboard. Right wing nut blow up black churches shoot doctors who perform procedures they disagree with and blow up federal buildings with children inside. Or kill family and friends and then themselves or barricade themselves in bunkers or compounds armed to the teeth and ready to kill themselves, their children and anyone who comes across them. Or nuts who put pipe bombs in bathrooms during the olympics. No bounty, just murder. Not saying you condone this, just pointing out extremists are wrong regardless and dangerous, and your desire to type away without thinking is, well..., uninformed




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
05-03-2012, 21:29
Triplegreen,

Did you miss my questions, or are you simply ignoring them? You did start this thread.

Sorry, missed the questions and don't feel like digging for them. Please repeat?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Jerry
05-03-2012, 21:44
Jerry, don't just type for the sake of typing. It's like you have diarrhea of the mouth that manifests on your keyboard. Right wing nut blow up black churches shoot doctors who perform procedures they disagree with and blow up federal buildings with children inside. Or kill family and friends and then themselves or barricade themselves in bunkers or compounds armed to the teeth and ready to kill themselves, their children and anyone who comes across them. Or nuts who put pipe bombs in bathrooms during the olympics. No bounty, just murder. Not saying you condone this, just pointing out extremists are wrong regardless and dangerous, and your desire to type away without thinking is, well..., uninformed




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Funny, I though Neo-Nazi’s and religious fanatics were the ones doing that. But then I forgot liberals consider anyone on the right Nazis and religious fanatics.

For your information, most people on the right don’t consider those groups conservatives. They consider them CRIMINALS and a group unto themselves, unlike those on the left who embrace and condones rioters and hate mongers. :upeyes:

greentriple
05-04-2012, 07:35
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

dugo
05-04-2012, 13:16
Well, this was kind of a fun read, but there's always a problem with these threads: Some folks go into denial when they are getting shot down.

Maybe I can help. Greentriple, why don't you try this: step back and get your head clear, then go back over this thread with your analytical thinking cap on. You may figure you got a couple of licks in, but if you are honest, you will also realize that what you tried to do here was not well-founded and therefore did not work. Once you see that, you have taken the first step towards healthy objectivity.

Then, imagine you were free to examine the whole issue again, objectively, including things that you previously refused to consider (or didn't understand -- a couple of Jerry's posts, for instance). Here's the thing: you will either learn how to present a better argument, or you will begin to change your mind about some of these things.

I'd bet that the more honest and objective you can be, the more you will tend to change your mind. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Jerry
05-04-2012, 14:47
Well, this was kind of a fun read, but there's always a problem with these threads: Some folks go into denial when they are getting shot down.

Maybe I can help. Greentriple, why don't you try this: step back and get your head clear, then go back over this thread with your analytical thinking cap on. You may figure you got a couple of licks in, but if you are honest, you will also realize that what you tried to do here was not well-founded and therefore did not work. Once you see that, you have taken the first step towards healthy objectivity.

Then, imagine you were free to examine the whole issue again, objectively, including things that you previously refused to consider (or didn't understand -- a couple of Jerry's posts, for instance). Here's the thing: you will either learn how to present a better argument, or you will begin to change your mind about some of these things.

I'd bet that the more honest and objective you can be, the more you will tend to change your mind. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Much better stated than I have or could have. :thumbsup:

greentriple
05-04-2012, 14:48
Funny, I though Neo-Nazi’s and religious fanatics were the ones doing that. But then I forgot liberals consider anyone on the right Nazis and religious fanatics.

For your information, most people on the right don’t consider those groups conservatives. They consider them CRIMINALS and a group unto themselves, unlike those on the left who embrace and condones rioters and hate mongers. :upeyes:

Saying the left embraces left wing nuts is like saying the right embraces right wing nuts. We can agree, neither is correct. Just b/c you don't identify with their extreme politics does not mean they do not consider themselves right wing conservatives.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
05-04-2012, 14:52
Well, this was kind of a fun read, but there's always a problem with these threads: Some folks go into denial when they are getting shot down.

Maybe I can help. Greentriple, why don't you try this: step back and get your head clear, then go back over this thread with your analytical thinking cap on. You may figure you got a couple of licks in, but if you are honest, you will also realize that what you tried to do here was not well-founded and therefore did not work. Once you see that, you have taken the first step towards healthy objectivity.

Then, imagine you were free to examine the whole issue again, objectively, including things that you previously refused to consider (or didn't understand -- a couple of Jerry's posts, for instance). Here's the thing: you will either learn how to present a better argument, or you will begin to change your mind about some of these things.

I'd bet that the more honest and objective you can be, the more you will tend to change your mind. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Spare me the sanctimonious, condescending, quasi-intellectual BS, and direct me to the points you seem to think I "missed". I'm happy to reconsider my position and openly concede I'm capable of miscommunication a point. However, based on the logic and reasoning I'm confronted with I'm hard pressed to move ideologues such as you or your cadre. But, again, point me to my folly and I will defend what merits defending.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Jerry
05-04-2012, 15:54
Saying the left embraces left wing nuts is like saying the right embraces right wing nuts. We can agree, neither is correct. Just b/c you don't identify with their extreme politics does not mean they do not consider themselves right wing conservatives.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

First, I’m quite often referred to as a right wing not job by those on the left merely because I’m a firearm owner. They have also called me Gun Nazi so whenever a liberal says right wing nut job I naturally assume they are speaking of people like myself. What you have offered as an explanation of right wing nut jobs are considered just plain nut jobs by those on the right but of course the left has to associated them with the right.

Why not call them what they really are, extremists outside of the realm of conservatism.

Here's why your opinion is wrong. Groups that are extreme are WIDELY accepted and supported by liberals. The Black Panther’s leader offered a bounty on Zimmerman. That is ageist the law. If someone on the right had offered a bounty on the Panther’s leader it would have been all over the liberal networks and liberals would be demanding an arrest be made just like they did with Zimmerman. Instead the liberal networks didn’t say a word about the Panther’s doing it and the liberal administration has not arrested anyone. Black Panthers stood outside poling places with sticks during the last presidential election and nothing was done about it. The liberal media glossed over it. The Occupy Wall-Street people have taken to destroying property and even tried to blow up a bridge and the liberals are still supporting them. I could go on and on.

When churches are burned or abortion clinics or Doctors are attacked it’s all over the Conservative (right leaning) TV and Radio and we are just as outraged as the left. When extremists create problems we call for action no matter what side of center they profess to be on. However, when extremists claim to be doing it for left i.e. progressives they are either openly supported by liberals or liberals stay mum in silent support.

greentriple
05-04-2012, 20:16
First, I’m quite often referred to as a right wing not job by those on the left merely because I’m a firearm owner. They have also called me Gun Nazi so whenever a liberal says right wing nut job I naturally assume they are speaking of people like myself. What you have offered as an explanation of right wing nut jobs are considered just plain nut jobs by those on the right but of course the left has to associated them with the right.

Why not call them what they really are, extremists outside of the realm of conservatism.

Here's why your opinion is wrong. Groups that are extreme are WIDELY accepted and supported by liberals. The Black Panther’s leader offered a bounty on Zimmerman. That is ageist the law. If someone on the right had offered a bounty on the Panther’s leader it would have been all over the liberal networks and liberals would be demanding an arrest be made just like they did with Zimmerman. Instead the liberal networks didn’t say a word about the Panther’s doing it and the liberal administration has not arrested anyone. Black Panthers stood outside poling places with sticks during the last presidential election and nothing was done about it. The liberal media glossed over it. The Occupy Wall-Street people have taken to destroying property and even tried to blow up a bridge and the liberals are still supporting them. I could go on and on.

When churches are burned or abortion clinics or Doctors are attacked it’s all over the Conservative (right leaning) TV and Radio and we are just as outraged as the left. When extremists create problems we call for action no matter what side of center they profess to be on. However, when extremists claim to be doing it for left i.e. progressives they are either openly supported by liberals or liberals stay mum in silent support.

Jerry,

Trying to reason with you is beginning to feel like talking with my 5 year old when he's emotional about something. But, I'll try.

I'll start I reverse order with your assumptions.

1) All your examples of radical conservative action that bring the rational conservative outrage are situations where the extremists have killed or injured people. Clearly this kind of behavior must be condemned regardless of political leanings. However, by contrast the example should give to show leftist support are examples of speech, vial as it may be. Had the BP hurt Zimmerman I can't imagine any reasonable progressive celebrating, in fact every progressive I know and spoke with found the BP bounty offensive and even criminal. As for the "occupy wall street" movement, again their right to protest was supported by progressives and I would think as a strict Constitutionalist you would encourage their freedom of assembly and speech. Now I did not hear the right protesting when the OWS people were forcibly ejected, beaten and OCed. Further their destruction of public property was not applauded by progressives nor their arrests for this objected to

2) In a more similar example to radical right actions that are lauded by conservatives are statements and gatherings by groups like the Minutemen. When this group threatens, albeit not actually injures, women and children crossing the border I don't hear conservatives clamoring about the "evil" of terrorizing women and children. But I'm certain if a minuteman killed a child or woman you would decry the conduct as would the left.

3) As for your leanings, I don't assume your gun ownership makes you a wack-job. After all I am a gun owner as well. But if you are an Extremist in your 2nd Amendment views crying foul at every turn, well then you might be a gun nut. As for Gun Nazi, well anyone who compares you to a Nazi is not firing on all pistons, unless of course you believe in the tenants of the Nazi party.





Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

IhRedrider
05-04-2012, 20:32
Sorry, missed the questions and don't feel like digging for them. Please repeat?


They are not hard to find, they are right above where you posted your reply. However I will assume that you are a VERY important person and do not have time to "dig these questions up" and I will re post them after my arduous search.


Are you basing your logic for violating the Constitution on "public safety"? If so, where in the Constitution does it state "public safety" is a reasonable exception to the bill of RIGHTS?


You called BS on Jerry's last post. Can you explain where Jerry was wrong, or are you just going to dismiss his comments without addressing them?

I look forward to your reply.

Jerry
05-04-2012, 21:33
Jerry,

Trying to reason with you is beginning to feel like talking with my 5 year old when he's emotional about something. But, I'll try.

:rofl: Why don't we put it to a vote and see who is acting more like a 5 year old. Dollar to do-nut it's you.

I'll start I reverse order with your assumptions.

1) All your examples of radical conservative action that bring the rational conservative outrage are situations where the extremists have killed or injured people. Clearly this kind of behavior must be condemned regardless of political leanings.

Well once again my words went completely over your head. The people committing those acts are not conservatives. By your reasoning Hitler was a conservative. Actually he consider himself a progressive.


However, by contrast the example should give to show leftist support are examples of speech, vial as it may be. Had the BP hurt Zimmerman I can't imagine any reasonable progressive celebrating, in fact every progressive I know and spoke with found the BP bounty offensive and even criminal.

Had the Zimmerman's and Martin's rolls be reversed the liberals wouldn't even be talking about it. It never would have made the news. Funny the liberal news didn't report on the ILLEGAL ACT of BP offering a bounty. Free speech? Nope ILLEGAL act.

As for the "occupy wall street" movement, again their right to protest was supported by progressives and I would think as a strict Constitutionalist you would encourage their freedom of assembly and speech.

Funny how when the Tea Party people "peacefully" assembled the liberals were in an uproar calling them racists and and demanding the government shut them down. However even after the the Occupy Wall-Street crowd has turned violent here you are voicing your support and trying to make it look as if I want to curtail their right to free speech. I haven't said one word about their speech I have condemned their actions.

The Tea Party people made their speeches then clean the places up before they left. The Occupy Wall-street bunch have made a mess of parks, defecate in public areas, and destroy property yet here you are defending their "free speech". Shows how a liberal mind works. Free speech ends when the speakers start destroying that which belongs to others.

Now I did not hear the right protesting when the OWS people were forcibly ejected, beaten and OCed. Further their destruction of public property was not applauded by progressives nor their arrests for this objected to

And why were they being beaten and forcible ejected? Their actions become dethronement and destructive. But then that's ok in the liberals view as long as it's to further the progressive agenda. How would you feel if they camped out on your front law, were having sex in front of your children, peeing in your garden and blocking your driveway and front door? Bet you'd be peachy keen with that right?

2) In a more similar example to radical right actions that are lauded by conservatives are statements and gatherings by groups like the Minutemen. When this group threatens, albeit not actually injures, women and children crossing the border I don't hear conservatives clamoring about the "evil" of terrorizing women and children. But I'm certain if a minuteman killed a child or woman you would decry the conduct as would the left.

:rofl: All the Minutemen did was "report" ILLEGAL activity to the Border Patrol. You do understand report ILLEGAL activity? I'll bet not!

3) As for your leanings, I don't assume your gun ownership makes you a wack-job. After all I am a gun owner as well. But if you are an Extremist in your 2nd Amendment views crying foul at every turn, well then you might be a gun nut. As for Gun Nazi, well anyone who compares you to a Nazi is not firing on all pistons, unless of course you believe in the tenants of the Nazi party.

We've been over my views of the Second amendment and that of the Constitution as a whole. You still haven't grasp the concept. :yawn:

greentriple
05-04-2012, 21:33
They are not hard to find, they are right above where you posted your reply. However I will assume that you are a VERY important person and do not have time to "dig these questions up" and I will re post them after my arduous search.




I look forward to your reply.

First I'm not saying I agree with restrictions on the BoR, in fact I'm inclined to write I don't. However, my point was that most, not all, conservative and progressive leaders have made restrictions usually around public safety, most of which The Court had upheld as Constitutional. So, if we accept "reasonable" restrictions to one Amendment it seems fair to accept it for others. I argue that conservatives often champion restrictions that erode the Constitutional protections of the criminally accused and try to create equal protections for Victims, which is not in the document. Our opinions will vary as to what is reasonable.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
05-04-2012, 21:50
:rofl: Why don't we put it to a vote and see who is acting more like a 5 year old. Dollar to do-nut it's you.

"Well once again my words went completely over your head. The people committing those acts are not conservatives. By your reasoning Hitler was a conservative. Actually he consider himself a progressive."

I never mentioned Hitler or said conservatives are Nazis. Those groups, individuals I mentioned consider themselves conservatives. They don't have to share all your values to be on the right.

"Had the Zimmerman's and Martin's rolls be reversed the liberals wouldn't even be talking about it. It never would have made the news. Funny the liberal news didn't report on the ILLEGAL ACT of BP offering a bounty. Free speech? Nope ILLEGAL act."

Yes they did, and condemned it. I don't listen to FOX and I read and heard about their outrageous and potentially illegal actions. And I condemn it. Without question the Martin shooting has been blown out of proportion and exploited my left wing extremist.

"Funny how when the Tea Party people "peacefully" assembled the liberals were in an uproar calling them racists and and demanding the government shut them down. However even after the the Occupy Wall-Street crowd has turned violent here you are voicing your support and trying to make it look as if I want to curtail their right to free speech. I haven't said one word about their speech I have condemned their actions. "

No I'm not. When they are violent they should be arrested. And some Tea Baggers mad PE threats, and displayed vial and perhaps illegal posters.

"The Tea Party people made their speeches then clean the places up before they left. The Occupy Wall-street bunch have made a mess of parks, defecate in public areas, and destroy property yet here you are defending their "free speech". Shows how a liberal mind works. Free speech ends when the speakers start destroying that which belongs to others. "

No, you can't hide behind free speech and destroy property. If they are fought they are prosecutor. And the media outlets I listen to condemned the violence and any distraction of property.


"And why were they being beaten and forcible ejected? Their actions become dethronement and destructive. But then that's ok in the liberals view as long as it's to further the progressive agenda. How would you feel if they camped out on your front law, were having sex in front of your children, peeing in your garden and blocking your driveway and front door? Bet you'd be peachy keen with that right?"

Not all did this, and the problem was with a few. Again if hey can be identified, prosecute. BTW the OWS in my city did not have sex in front of children, or destroyed public property. Unfortunately some more destructive elements, with no real political agenda did cause problems.

":rofl: All the Minutemen did was "report" ILLEGAL activity to the Border Patrol. You do understand report ILLEGAL activity? I'll bet not! "

Not true.

"We've been over my views of the Second amendment and that of the Constitution as a whole. You still haven't grasp the concept. :yawn:


You truly are a selective reader.

You just don't get it, but that's ok.

Enjoy you corner of realty, I tire of your inability to read, comprehend and articulate.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Jerry
05-04-2012, 21:58
There, I corrected the quoted formatting for you. Took me all of two minutes. Seems you are just a challenged by posting as you are by right and wrong.

Actually you can ask anyone here who is the one not getting it or you can merely look in the mirror.

IhRedrider
05-05-2012, 04:26
greentriple


First I'm not saying I agree with restrictions on the BoR, in fact I'm inclined to write I don't.

What are you actually saying? Because it LOOKS,to the casual reader, that you support the Constitution. However, like many far left liberals, you never actually pledge your support to the highest law of the land.

Do you actually support the Constitution and the BOR completely and in it's entirety OR do you not?

Just so you know, I COMPLETELY support the Constitution and the BOR.


However, my point was that most, not all, conservative and progressive leaders have made restrictions usually around public safety, most of which The Court had upheld as Constitutional.


IF, the point of your OP was simply to state that politicians and judges have acted very poorly by trampling the Constitution and subsequently men's rights, we are in agreement. However, if that was your goal, the OP was VERY unclear and misleading. I would suggest rereading it and maybe you will see were your point was lost.


So, if we accept "reasonable" restrictions to one Amendment it seems fair to accept it for others.

"WE" are NOT accepting "reasonable restrictions" to the Constitution. You may accept restrictions to your RIGHTS, however I (and many others) do NOT.

"Reasonable restrictions" are the one of the first steps to taking away something. Are you in support of giving up your RIGHTS? If you are, I guess that is one of your right, but I will not submit to tyranny!

Our opinions will vary as to what is reasonable.

This is the very reason I will never agree to "reasonable restrictions". Why don't we simply follow what is written in the Constitution? Makes life much easier.


I've said all this and haven't even delved into the fact that if we allow someone (the government or any other wack job) to restrict our RIGHTS, then they were never RIGHTS to begin with. This I cannot abide by, how about you?

series1811
05-05-2012, 06:06
Jerry,

After all I am a gun owner as well

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Sure you are.

dugo
05-05-2012, 06:09
Spare me the sanctimonious, condescending, quasi-intellectual BS, and direct me to the points you seem to think I "missed". I'm happy to reconsider my position and openly concede I'm capable of miscommunication a point. However, based on the logic and reasoning I'm confronted with I'm hard pressed to move ideologues such as you or your cadre. But, again, point me to my folly and I will defend what merits defending.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Your response is actually a joke on me, and I had to laugh at myself. You see, I had originally written that, "...before you get personal, I admit to being pompous and condescending here, but that should not stop you from being honest with yourself". Then, I edited to omit that sentence and soften my post overall, to your benefit, thinking it would give you a little more room for thoughtfulness rather than provoking defensiveness and anger.

But you were clever enough to see through that.

(Gosh, I had never been called "ideologue", or "sanctimonious", though I certainly will think about it, now. I have joked that I used to be a pseudo-intellectual, but I accept your upgrade to "quasi". Thanks for the personal attention.) (-- No need to point out the sarcasm here; I am aware of it.)

Anyway, the joke is on me.

On the OTHER hand, that doesn't get YOU any closer to the truth; AND, your name calling as a primary response to challenges could be taken to indicate a pretty low level of commitment to intellectual honesty.

Since you asked about your "folly", you might want to take another look at Jerry's post, where you responded with only, "Dude, you'r (sic.) post is pure BS".

Jerry's was actually pretty well reasoned, and specifically relevant to what you had said, but your response to him made it look like you could not understand it at all. That might be a good place for you to start.

Bren
05-05-2012, 06:58
I'm trying to figure out if greentriple has, once again, become hysterical because he posted some DU troll topic that was easily seen through, but he can't give it up.:rofl:

Or is he posting while drinking...and becoming hysterical...?

dugo
05-05-2012, 07:08
Greentriple, You know what? No need to respond to my above post if you don't want to. I'll leave it here, but thanks anyway.

Jerry and Redrider are being way more substantive than I am, and reasonable responses to their posts should be enough. (Only partly condescending, here.)

I'll just be checking in, to see how it goes.

Thanks for the perspective, Bren.

Silver_Bullet_00
05-05-2012, 08:23
Saying the left embraces left wing nuts is like saying the right embraces right wing nuts. We can agree, neither is correct. Just b/c you don't identify with their extreme politics does not mean they do not consider themselves right wing conservatives.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Obama embraced Bill Ayers! (extreme communist, terrorist and founder of the weather underground) Who conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s.

I haven't seen a right wing president, or political leader embrace Timothy McVeigh, or any other criminal.

Oh and Nancy and other on the left embrace the poo throwing, rapists, and rioting idoits.

So your point is mute, and incorrect. Of the violent crime states listed, study where it comes from, and you might learn that it comes from the people on the programs you on the left support.
Oh and see my chart on my post # 59 in this thread. I would love you to comment on it. You might get an understanding of why these states are listed!

greentriple
05-05-2012, 09:21
I'm trying to figure out if greentriple has, once again, become hysterical because he posted some DU troll topic that was easily seen through, but he can't give it up.:rofl:

Or is he posting while drinking...and becoming hysterical...?

Yup, you win! I'm running out of tissue.

Oh and as my original post did, here is another for discussion.

A lethal right to self-defense

Stand Your Ground laws have come under fire after the death of Trayvon Martin. Do they offer a license to kill?

What are Stand Your Ground laws?

Statutes that expand a person’s right to use deadly force in self-defense, which have been adopted by 25 states in the last decade. An established legal principle, the Castle Doctrine, has long allowed people to use reasonable, and sometimes deadly, force to protect themselves from an assailant inside their homes. But on public property outside the home, a person who could safely retreat from a threat generally has a legal duty to do so. Stand Your Ground laws remove that requirement to retreat, and authorize the use of deadly force if a person reasonably feels at risk of death or great bodily harm. In the Trayvon Martin case, police in Sanford, Fla., said they didn’t initially arrest the shooter, neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman, because they couldn’t refute his claim that he’d fired in self-defense—even though Martin, 17, was unarmed when killed.

Why were these laws introduced?

The push for Stand Your Ground began in Florida in 2004, after Pensacola resident James Workman shot and killed a man who entered his recreational vehicle. Prosecutors eventually decided not to charge Workman, but lawmakers said they were disgusted that the retiree had to suffer months of legal uncertainty before being cleared. Together with National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer, Republican state Sen. Durell Peaden drafted a bill that would allow Floridians to defend themselves without fear of prosecution, wherever they were. “Now, the law and their government is on the side of law-abiding people and victims, rather than on the side of criminals,” said Hammer. Some law-enforcement officials warned that the statute would make it hard to secure murder convictions, by enabling almost any defendant to claim self-defense and increasing the burden of proof on prosecutors. The state legislature overruled those objections, and the bill became law in 2005. Since then the NRA has successfully pushed for similar statutes in 24 additional states.

What impact have these laws had?

That is a matter of bitter dispute, as is so often the case when gun rights are involved. State legislators who supported Florida’s law cite a 23 percent drop in violent crime over the first five years the law was in effect; they contend that criminals were cowed by the knowledge that citizens could legally shoot them in self-defense. Gun-control advocates argue that the decrease was not related to Stand Your Ground, noting that violent-crime rates dropped 12 percent in the five years before the law was passed, and have continued falling in states with or without such laws. These critics also contend that the law has caused a surge in people using guns to settle conflicts.

What do the statistics show?

Before 2005, Florida civilians committed an average of 12 justifiable homicides a year. Two years after the law’s passing, that number surged to more than 40 a year. Other states with Stand Your Ground laws have seen similar spikes. An analysis of FBI data by the office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg shows that states that passed Stand Your Ground laws saw a 53.5 percent increase in justifiable homicides in the three years after enactment. States without such laws experienced a mere 4.2 percent increase. “These laws are vigilantism masquerading as self-defense,” said Bloomberg, a gun-control advocate. He accused the NRA of seeking to “create a nation where disputes are settled by guns instead of gavels, and where suspects are shot by civilians instead of arrested by police.”

How do the laws’ supporters respond?

Florida state Rep. Dennis Baxley, who co-sponsored the original bill, says the jump in justifiable homicides simply proves that the law is working. “The perpetrator suffered instead of the person they were victimizing,” said Baxley. “That’s what those numbers mean.” Supporters note that the law contains safeguards designed to counter vigilantism and prevent criminals from murdering someone and then claiming self-defense. “In order to get the protection of the law,” said Florida state Sen. David Simmons, an alleged victim “must not, for example, be the aggressor; cannot be waving a gun at someone; and cannot be engaged in drug dealing.”

Do these laws remain popular?

The Trayvon Martin case appears to be causing second thoughts. Attempts to pass Stand Your Ground laws in Alaska and Iowa were halted after Martin was killed, and Democrats in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin are attempting to roll back the legislation. In Florida, Rep. Baxley has said that he is open to considering small amendments to the law, such as clarifying when neighborhood-watch volunteers like Zimmerman can use force. But the drive to repeal Stand Your Ground faces fierce opposition from the NRA, a powerful lobbying force in many state legislatures. In addition, the law’s opponents are almost all Democrats, many of whom serve in states with legislatures controlled by pro–Stand Your Ground Republicans. “When laws have unintended consequences, they demand review,” said Democratic state Rep. Bakari Sellers of South Carolina, who filed a repeal bill last month. But “it’s an uphill battle.”

When gangsters stand their ground

Could a criminal use Stand Your Ground to justify a deliberate homicide? It’s happened on multiple occasions, say critics of the law. One such case occurred in 2008, when a wild gunfight broke out between rival gangs outside an apartment block in Tallahassee. Some 30 shots were fired, and one of them resulted in the death of 15-year-old Michael Jackson. Two young men were arrested for his murder, but they were subsequently freed after claiming they had acted in self-defense. An angry Judge Terry Lewis said he had no choice but to order their release. “The law would appear to allow a person to seek out an individual, provoke him into a confrontation, then shoot and kill him if he goes for his gun,” Lewis said. “Contrary to the state’s assertion, it is very much like the Wild West.”



– Sent from The Week iPad edition –
All You Need To Know About Everything That Matters
Download the app and try The Week for free: http://iTunes.com/apps/theweekmagazineus


Until such time,


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
05-05-2012, 09:30
Here is a link of actual statistics. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-jun-2011

If one cares to organise the data, you can verify the claims.

Republican or Democratic governors have nothing to do with the crime!

I might take some heat for saying it, but socioeconomics, plays a huge part in crime. If you look into socioeconomics, you find certain races are greatly effected by socioeconomics.

Notice the South East has the most violent crime rates according to the articals. The North has less.
http://debitage.net/humangeography/images/USA_race.png

My apologies for not responding. I find the information compelling. And I never disputed it, I simply found a article that listed states, I the, out of curiosity, looked up the governors. Any assumptions made by others of some intended corollary was fear and defensiveness by others.

I agree that socioeconomics "play a huge part in crime".


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Jerry
05-05-2012, 11:00
I've warned you already and you've managed to get a second thread closed. It is obvious that what is posted below is copped. You don't show it as a quote and you don't credit the original source.



Oh and as my original post did, here is another for discussion.

A lethal right to self-defense

Stand Your Ground laws have come under fire after the death of Trayvon Martin. Do they offer a license to kill?

What are Stand Your Ground laws?

Statutes that expand a person’s right to use deadly force in self-defense, which have been adopted by 25 states in the last decade. An established legal principle, the Castle Doctrine, has long allowed people to use reasonable, and sometimes deadly, force to protect themselves from an assailant inside their homes. But on public property outside the home, a person who could safely retreat from a threat generally has a legal duty to do so. Stand Your Ground laws remove that requirement to retreat, and authorize the use of deadly force if a person reasonably feels at risk of death or great bodily harm. In the Trayvon Martin case, police in Sanford, Fla., said they didn’t initially arrest the shooter, neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman, because they couldn’t refute his claim that he’d fired in self-defense—even though Martin, 17, was unarmed when killed.

Why were these laws introduced?

The push for Stand Your Ground began in Florida in 2004, after Pensacola resident James Workman shot and killed a man who entered his recreational vehicle. Prosecutors eventually decided not to charge Workman, but lawmakers said they were disgusted that the retiree had to suffer months of legal uncertainty before being cleared. Together with National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer, Republican state Sen. Durell Peaden drafted a bill that would allow Floridians to defend themselves without fear of prosecution, wherever they were. “Now, the law and their government is on the side of law-abiding people and victims, rather than on the side of criminals,” said Hammer. Some law-enforcement officials warned that the statute would make it hard to secure murder convictions, by enabling almost any defendant to claim self-defense and increasing the burden of proof on prosecutors. The state legislature overruled those objections, and the bill became law in 2005. Since then the NRA has successfully pushed for similar statutes in 24 additional states.

What impact have these laws had?

That is a matter of bitter dispute, as is so often the case when gun rights are involved. State legislators who supported Florida’s law cite a 23 percent drop in violent crime over the first five years the law was in effect; they contend that criminals were cowed by the knowledge that citizens could legally shoot them in self-defense. Gun-control advocates argue that the decrease was not related to Stand Your Ground, noting that violent-crime rates dropped 12 percent in the five years before the law was passed, and have continued falling in states with or without such laws. These critics also contend that the law has caused a surge in people using guns to settle conflicts.

What do the statistics show?

Before 2005, Florida civilians committed an average of 12 justifiable homicides a year. Two years after the law’s passing, that number surged to more than 40 a year. Other states with Stand Your Ground laws have seen similar spikes. An analysis of FBI data by the office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg shows that states that passed Stand Your Ground laws saw a 53.5 percent increase in justifiable homicides in the three years after enactment. States without such laws experienced a mere 4.2 percent increase. “These laws are vigilantism masquerading as self-defense,” said Bloomberg, a gun-control advocate. He accused the NRA of seeking to “create a nation where disputes are settled by guns instead of gavels, and where suspects are shot by civilians instead of arrested by police.”

How do the laws’ supporters respond?

Florida state Rep. Dennis Baxley, who co-sponsored the original bill, says the jump in justifiable homicides simply proves that the law is working. “The perpetrator suffered instead of the person they were victimizing,” said Baxley. “That’s what those numbers mean.” Supporters note that the law contains safeguards designed to counter vigilantism and prevent criminals from murdering someone and then claiming self-defense. “In order to get the protection of the law,” said Florida state Sen. David Simmons, an alleged victim “must not, for example, be the aggressor; cannot be waving a gun at someone; and cannot be engaged in drug dealing.”

Do these laws remain popular?

The Trayvon Martin case appears to be causing second thoughts. Attempts to pass Stand Your Ground laws in Alaska and Iowa were halted after Martin was killed, and Democrats in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin are attempting to roll back the legislation. In Florida, Rep. Baxley has said that he is open to considering small amendments to the law, such as clarifying when neighborhood-watch volunteers like Zimmerman can use force. But the drive to repeal Stand Your Ground faces fierce opposition from the NRA, a powerful lobbying force in many state legislatures. In addition, the law’s opponents are almost all Democrats, many of whom serve in states with legislatures controlled by pro–Stand Your Ground Republicans. “When laws have unintended consequences, they demand review,” said Democratic state Rep. Bakari Sellers of South Carolina, who filed a repeal bill last month. But “it’s an uphill battle.”

When gangsters stand their ground

Could a criminal use Stand Your Ground to justify a deliberate homicide? It’s happened on multiple occasions, say critics of the law. One such case occurred in 2008, when a wild gunfight broke out between rival gangs outside an apartment block in Tallahassee. Some 30 shots were fired, and one of them resulted in the death of 15-year-old Michael Jackson. Two young men were arrested for his murder, but they were subsequently freed after claiming they had acted in self-defense. An angry Judge Terry Lewis said he had no choice but to order their release. “The law would appear to allow a person to seek out an individual, provoke him into a confrontation, then shoot and kill him if he goes for his gun,” Lewis said. “Contrary to the state’s assertion, it is very much like the Wild West.”



– Sent from The Week iPad edition –
All You Need To Know About Everything That Matters
Download the app and try The Week for free: http://iTunes.com/apps/theweekmagazineus


Until such time,


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine