Democrat cities are the problem
“Democrat crime cities and counties have created a massive social problem that otherwise would hardly exist. As the study notes, “If the 1% of the counties with the worst number of murders somehow were to become a separate country, the murder rate in the rest of the US would have been only 4.31 in 2020. Removing the worst 2% or 5% would have reduced the US rate to just 3.71 or 2.99 per 100,000, respectively.” We could have the murder rate of New Zealand.”
The Heartland is up to its ears in guns and is one of the safest places on Earth.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
It is the guns, stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But only in cities run by Democrats
LikeLike
No, its the guns, stupid.
These lame and obvious statistical tricks don’t hide the fact that gun deaths track the rates of gun ownership very, very closely. The more households with guns, the more gun violence. And it is the same in completely rural states just as much as in cities.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/26/politics/gun-violence-data-what-matters/index.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Didn’t read the article again, I see.
State level statistics don’t tell us anything.
The article takes it down to the county level and finds that murder is very concentrated in 1% of the counties run by Democrats.
I would bet if it could be broken down to precinct level, it would be even more concentrated.
LikeLike
Does that mean it is Democrats buying all the guns that are killing people?
LikeLike
No, they steal theirs(well, that and straw purchases)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Didn’t read the article again, I see.”
Oh, I understand the totally bogus statistical argument. Find the most densely crowded and impoverished areas where violence has always been greatest, exclude them from the statewide data, and say – Gee, look how low our murder rates are if we don’t count most of the deaths. Laughable.
Well, the statewide data is absolutely clear – the higher the rate of gun ownership, the higher the rate of gun violence and deaths. It also shows that blue states – even with heavy concentrations of those murderous Democratic cities – have far lower rates than the reddest of red states some of which have NO CITIES AT ALL.
It’s the guns, stupid. But what are a few thousand dead and maimed children every year so long as losers, cowards and weaklings can get their man licenses renewed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
er the source: “Biden won Cook County, the bloodiest county in the country, by 66%. He won Los Angeles County, the second bloodiest, by 71%, Harris County by 56%, Philadelphia by 81%, New York City by 76%, Wayne County by 68%, and Shelby County by 64%.”
With numbers like that you could make a reasonable speculation that Stumble Joe’s political base contains a high percentage of criminals.
Of course, speculation is a long way from a testable hypothesis, a testable hypothesis is a long way from a reasonable theory, and a reasonable theory is a long way from Truth as Truth as Truly is. On the other hand, brand identity is a precious commodity. Were I a Democrat I might be concerned about my reputation.
LikeLike
“With numbers like that you could make a reasonable speculation that Stumble Joe’s political base contains a high percentage of criminals.”
Reasonable?
Uh, no. That could not be more nonsensical. But absolue shitheads – people with shit where their brains should be – spend a lot of time on such “speculations.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Reasonable?”
Absolutely, but maybe you are innumerate. After all, your “shitheads” comment suggests you are irrational. You probably have more serious deficiencies.
LikeLike
You might notice that the more desperate he gets, the fouler the insults.
LikeLike
“You might notice that the more desperate he gets, the fouler the insults.”
I cop to calling like I see them. The thoughts being expressed are the products of such a mind. IMHO.
– Calling our nation’s obvious and very serious gun problem a “Democrat problem,”
– Stupid “Stumble Joe” insults,
– “speculations” that the Democratic base contains “a high percentage of criminals,”
– and claims that Democrats are gun thieves.
All qualify for that epithet and more. Childish, stupid and ugly.
As for desperation, there is nothing about you silly arguments that would make any rational person desperate. People with blood on their hands trying to shift blame to others is the simple fact of the matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many guns used in crimes are stolen, and of the remainder, many are straw purchases. Do you dispute that?
People in the Heartland have a lot of guns and New Zealand levels of murder. Most murders are in cities run by Democrats. Do you dispute that?
It’s the Democrats, stupid.
LikeLike
“Many guns used in crimes are stolen, and of the remainder, many are straw purchases. Do you dispute that?”
I dispute the fact that you assert – that criminals are Democrats. That is stupid, insulting and ignorant bullshit with no evidence. We are the majority party. We are the “real Americans” – white, brown, black, Asian and Latino. Your party is a party of extremist kooks. The MAGATS you support is even worse. Our party has a future. Yours is dying out. Your insults are a form of death rattle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t say they were Democrats, though that is a logical extension. I said they were in Democrat run cities.
LikeLike
“I didn’t say they were Democrats . . .”
Uh, yes you did.
Why would you LIE about something in black and white in the same thread?
Really odd.
Roberts said …
“Does that mean it is Democrats buying all the guns that are killing people?”
Your response . . .
“No, they steal theirs(well, that and straw purchases)”
The unambiguous referent of “they” is “Democrats.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a lot of out-of-context quotes to link together,
I also wrote very clearly that the problem was Democrat run cities.
LikeLike
“That’s a lot of out-of-context quotes to link together,”
Bullshit. Who do you think you are fooling?
LikeLike
“Many guns used in crimes are stolen”…
From irresponsible gun owners. All the more reason that if a gun is stolen, it should be reported to the local authorities. Otherwise, the individual who allowed his/her gun to be stolen is culpable for any crime committed with it.
LikeLike
“Stumble Joe”. Might I suggest growing up?
LikeLiked by 2 people
No.
LikeLike
Potty mouth strikes again. Is that what a Darmouth “education” brings to the table? I’m sure it was well worth the money and Darmourh is very proud of its offensive proteges.
LikeLike
A dispute over a parking spot with a gun to settle it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-man-convicted-shooting-amazon-delivery-driver-dispute-disable-rcna75400
Guns are the common denominator in gun deaths. NYC was one of the safest big cities WRT gun violence in the last decades. But now they have been infected with 2nd Amendment, so it can now catch the red state cities and counties. Seems fair.
1/2 the state’s population live in Greater NYC, so the stats will catch up.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/feb/01/brian-kavanagh/rate-gun-caused-deaths-ny-among-lowest-country/
LikeLiked by 2 people
How do either of those bear on the issue?
It is just as true in NY as everywhere else. IT is the Democrat run cities where the murder are concentrated.
Statewide statisitics are useless.
LikeLike
“Statewide statisitics are useless.”
Baloney.
You just do not like what they clearly demonstrate. . .
Compare Alaska and Norway. Both are northern with a population that is a mix of Europeans and natives. Alaska has 23.5 gun deaths per 100K. Norway has 1.5. The Alaska rate is 16x that a country that has a similar mix of people, the same lack of sunshine, and a largely rural population. What is the difference – Norway controls guns. Alaska doesn’t. And Norway is a country where hunting is popular.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alaska has a high suicide rate primarily among the Alaskan natives. Michner wrote about it in 1988 and it has been a problem much longer.
LikeLike
Regarding your first link.
An Amazon driver parks in a handicap spot, and when a handicapped man confronts him and tries to take a picture, the Amazon driver attacks him, and gets shot.
What are we supposed to take from that ither than Amazon should stop hiring thugs?
LikeLike
Uh, no. The man was belligerent, then tried to take his photo, and the man pushed his hand and phone out of his face. The belligerent man tusseled and shot the driver.
No gun, no tragic shooting. Simple and effective.
An argument over a parking space is not a good reason to shoot someone. Period.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Being belligerent is not a crime nor is it justification for violence, Neither is taking a picture of someone parking in a handicap space.
Here is another account
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-charles-man-guilty-of-shooting-paralyzing-amazon-driver-over-target-disability-parking-spot/article_0302bf13-2062-515e-9bdf-f348388dea1d.html
It’s a marginal case for self defense, but even so, St Louis is still a city.
LikeLike
“…It’s a marginal case for self defense…”
The victim was shot in the back while running away. Crippled for life. Even stand your ground laws won’t excuse that. There should be enough to put that man away for life. He had no reason to own a gun and remains a threat to society.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I didn’t see anything in the article to indicate he was running away, are you looking at some other source?
As I read it, they were on the ground struggling when the shot was fired. That makes it very easy for a shot fired to enter the back.
LikeLike
https://news.yahoo.com/missouri-man-shot-
paralyzed-amazon-193855512.html
“ A fight ensued between the two as Walker tried to stop Thomlison from taking photos. The 70-year-old man responded with a punch after Walker pushed his hand away. As the two men fell to the ground while tussling, Thomlison pulled out his gun.
“He fell to the ground, and I started to run, and I looked back, and he was fumbling for a gun on his hip. Right, when I turned the corner, I was shot,” Walker told KMOV4. “When he pulled the gun out, my eyes were just amazed. I tried to run in between two cars. He had a nice aim and hit me right in the spine.”
The shooter was convicted and awaiting sentencing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I notice that once again when the unarmed victim of violence is a black man his being maimed for life is HIS fault. In fact, he is a “thug.”
But the black policemen defending the Congress against a rabid mob should go down for murder.
And you say that you are not a racist?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The driver parked in a handicap spot to talk to another driver, wouldn’t give up the spot and then attacked the handicapped man when he took a picture,.
I don’t care if he was purple, that’s a thug,
You’re the one who sees everything through a lens of race.
LikeLike
“You’re the one who sees everything through a lens of race.”
Uh, I do not have a double standard based on race for such tragedies. You do. And this is yet another example of that.
Did you even read the account you linked to? The shooter unnecessarily provoked the entire incident out of some sense of entitlement. The shooter stuck his phone in the face of the victim close enough for him to push it away. What part of “Thomlison punched Walker” did you not understand? (And you claim the driver attacked the shooter). Which part of he was convicted of “shooting an Amazon delivery driver in the back” while the victim was running away from the shooter did you not understand?
The shooter was ENTIRELY to blame for the maiming. What is your take . . . “Amazon should stop hiring thugs.” This “thug” was working to support his family. His “crime” – standing a little too long in a handicapped space as he dropped off a package at Target.
And, leaving aside the racist nature of your comments, the original point stands. If this old jackass had not been armed, he would not have violently confronted a young and able man. Guns provoke violence that otherwise would not happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I see. if you are old and/or disabled, you should just get used to young, strong men doing whatever the hell they please and deal with it.
He wasn’t just dropping off a package, he was having a conversation with another driver.
As for who struck first, the article is pretty subjective. How hard was the “push” of the phone?
The jury may well be correct but I don’t have enough information to go by to know, I do know that Amazon needs to fire the thug who took a handicap space and be more careful who they hire.
LikeLike
“As for who struck first, the article is pretty subjective.”
No, it is not. It is clear from the article YOU posted that the shooter instigated the entire incident. If the victim was able to push away the phone, it was because the shooter shoved it in his face. That is an assault. Look it up. The only blow mentioned in the article YOU posted was struck by the shooter. That is battery. Look it up.
The jury found the shooter guilty. But you call the victim a “thug.” As you ALWAYS do when the victim is black. There is a very clear double standard at play whether you are ready to accept the obvious truth of that or not.
And, again, none of this would have occurred if this shooter had not felt empowered by his little friend. It’s the guns stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…I do know that Amazon needs to fire the thug …”
Why fire him and why is he a thug?
His attacker is a menace to society. A simple discussion about a parking place was a tragedy because of a gun.
Again and again and…
LikeLiked by 2 people
He parked in a handicap space to talk to another driver and then slapped the guy’s phone away when he took his picture to document it.
DO you really think that young, strong, men are above the law or the rules of decency and can just do whatever they please and strongarm anyone who objects?
LikeLike
That is not what happened.
The attacker shoved a cellphone in the victims face, the victim slapped it away. The attacker threw a punch, they tussled, the FedEx driver got up to run off and was shot in the spine.
Where are you getting your info. Mine is after conviction at a trial. That was the story from the victim. I believe there was a witness.
Do you think the attacker was right to shoot a fleeing man, unarmed, in the back? And why was the victim a thug, and not the now convicted felon who initiated the attack?
The shooter is a great example of someone who should not be allowed to carry a gun.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If he was indeed fleeing, then no, self defense does not apply, but neither of the articles I have seen said that. Both said they were scuffling on the ground. Please point me to the account that says he was fleeing.
The guy had already taken a picture of the illegally parked truck, and had posted it to social media, He was then trying to get a picture to identify the driver. Being a photographer, please tell me how far you would have to be with a cellphone camera to take a mugshot type picture? Is that “in his face?”
LikeLike
Don I posted the link and the
quote.
If he was close enough to the victim so the victim could push away his hand then that was in his face. And the attacker punched the victim which started the tussle.
Why do you call the victim a thug?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why didn’t you answer the question? To get a picture with my cell phone I need a bit more than arm’s length.
LikeLike
Why didn’t you answer the question? I looked back over the thread and checked the link you posted. It doesn’t say that. Is there some other link?
LikeLike
Here is my entire post from 8 hours ago.
https://news.yahoo.com/missouri-man-shot-
paralyzed-amazon-193855512.html
“ A fight ensued between the two as Walker tried to stop Thomlison from taking photos. The 70-year-old man responded with a punch after Walker pushed his hand away. As the two men fell to the ground while tussling, Thomlison pulled out his gun.
“He fell to the ground, and I started to run, and I looked back, and he was fumbling for a gun on his hip. Right, when I turned the corner, I was shot,” Walker told KMOV4. “When he pulled the gun out, my eyes were just amazed. I tried to run in between two cars. He had a nice aim and hit me right in the spine.”
The shooter was convicted and awaiting sentencing.
The answer to you question was that he struck the camera in his face close enough for the victim to push the phone and hand aside.
No he did not have to get that close to make a recognizable image, so why did he get that close? And then he threw the first punch at the victim.
Why did you call the victim a thug?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had seen your post from NBC, but for some reason I never saw the one from Yahoo.
If the driver’s account is accurate then self defense does not apply.
The driver, nonetheless, is a thug, As I am sure you know, you have no right to not be photographed in a public place.
So, let’s review. The driver parked in a handicap place for his own convenience. When confronted he stalled long enough for a picture of the van to be taken and posted to social media and for the handicapped guy to get out of his car to confront him. When the guy tried to take an identifying picture, he physically pushed the phone aside.
A non-thug would not have parked in a handicap space,
A non-thug would have moved the van immediately when confronted, not waited for the handicap guy to park and come to take his picture.
A non-thug would not have laid hands on someone trying to take a picture.
A non-thug would not have tried to beat up an old man.
So, yes, thug.
LikeLike
“A non-thug would not have tried to beat up an old man.”
The shooter threw a punch, the first punch, the only punch. After sticking the camera in his face. Why punch the victim? Someone punches you, it is your fault to defend yourself?
Next time you go out, stop a few folks and suddenly put a camera close enough in their faces so they can reach your hand. You’ll find a lot more thugs.
Then he pulled his gun and shot the victim in the back.
I say the driver was pressed for time, got the delivery done, but obviously should not have used the space.
I say the shooter was pissed and confronted the driver up close and very personal because he had a gun and a foul temperament.
Get a grip, it was a parking dispute. The shooter lost his temper. Shooting the man in the back is the act of a despicable thug.
I say the shooter was the thug. The jury agreed. The Rule of Law prevailed. Not the rule of the gun.
People who carry guns should not start confrontations. If they do, they are totally responsible for the results.
I say you are wrong, and your hyper-partisan view prevents you from seeing the truth.
Please tell me that if the victim, a FedEx driver, was a young White woman, your view wouldn’t change and she was the the thug. You still be wrong, but consistently so.
LikeLike
Approaching random people and taking a closeup without explanation is very different from being photographed to document a traffic violation.
The driver certainly knew that with that picture posted he was going to lose his job.
We really only heard his side, but he laid hands on the handicap guy first. He describes that contact as pushing the phone away, and the response as a punch. How would that be described from the other point of view?
Where the handicap guy when wrong was in shooting the driver as he retreated, up to that point, he was in the right.
I can’t speak to other’s behavior, but I know that when I am carrying, I go to great lengths to avoid confrontation.
But again this has nothing to do with the issue of the concentration of crime in cities controlled by Democrats,
This is really just deflection.
LikeLike
The first punch was thrown by the shooter. Hard to admit for you. No reason to harass and assault the driver.
I can’t believe this conversation except that you are trying to excuse gun violence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Punch? Is that the new threshold for violence?
Is not slapping away a camera violence?
LikeLike
If you confronted me about some complaint, then shoved a cellphone camera in my face, I would definitely slap your hand away and ask what do you want. If I saw your gun, then we have a problem. I would see you as a threat to my life. No reason I couldn’t yell then try to disable you to save my life. How do I know that your belligerence will stop at not pulling your gun?
You said the victim would get fired. You invented that because you have no idea if he would or not. Good delivery drivers are valuable. If his record was good, he might be reminded that even if rushed, he has to avoid handicapped parking in the future.
Throw the punch was the secondary threat after shoving a camera in his face.
About your calling a FedEx driver a thug. That term is nothing more than a substitute for the n-word. It refers to black gangbangers and is absolutely an insult based on race.
The shooter was an asshole with a chip on his shoulder and a gun in his pocket. He just had to confront a man he knew was unarmed and I say he did it because he was a racist. More importantly, it shows the irresponsibility of a CCP holder.
I posited that if the driver were a woman, should the shooter punch her after getting the camera slapped away. Think about that. Women are wary of sexual or physical assault, old White man or not.
You brought up the thug issue and you need to own it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Having your picture taken in a public place is not justification for violence, and laying hands on someone to push their phone away is assault and battery.
Seeing a person legally carrying a firearm is also not justification for violence. Your paranoid fears of armed citizens do not justify violence.
You say he confronted the driver because he was a racist. Did he confront any Blacks who were not unlawfully blocking a handicap space? If not then it was because the thug was taking a handicap space and wouldn’t move the van.
LikeLike
“Having your picture taken in a public place is not justification for violence”
The violence was on the part of the convicted shooter. Duh!
If the camera and the shooter’s hand were shoved close enough to the victims face for him to push it away, then the shooter had already committed the crime of assault. And the victim was defending himself. The shooter then punched. That made it assault AND battery. And that was before he pulled his gun and shot the fleeing victim.
ALL of your imaginary scenarios justifying this white CCP maniac who maimed his black victim for life were available to the defense. They did not stand up to the testimony nor the cctv footage the jury saw. But you just can’t stop calling the victim a “thug.” That is just the way you people roll.
LikeLike
If the driver was fleeing, then the shooting was NOT justified. I have made that clear.
But taking a picture is NOT assault. If you raised a club that close to someone, that would be assault, but not a cell phone. When the driver laid hands on the handicap guy, that was assault and battery.
LikeLike
“But taking a picture is NOT assault. If you raised a club that close to someone, that would be assault, but not a cell phone”
What a joke you are. A hand close enough to your face to shove away is a threat. Whether it is empty or holding a phone. Especially when that hand belongs to a vicious person harrassing you. That makes it assault. The jury heard the testimony and saw the evidence, but you know better?
And, by the way, the shooter is NOT handicapped as you keep claiming. He was a strong and fit 65 year-old at the time of the crime. His car has a handicap sticker because of a relative. It appears that he was abusing the system by trying to park where he should not.
https://www.columbiatribune.com/story/news/crime/2019/03/07/driver-paralyzed-after-dispute-over/5772710007/
LikeLike
If he was using the placard that would be criminal.
But that doesn’t make the van parked there any more legal. Anyone can object and report it.
Assault only occurs when you demonstrate an ability and intent to do physical harm. That’s why a weapon like a club that close would be assault, but a cell phone camera is not.
LikeLike
“Assault only occurs when you demonstrate an ability and intent to do physical harm.”
Yes. That is true. The jury saw the surveillance video. Did you? As noted in another post, the criminal is not handicapped. He is a robust man at least the same size as the victim. He had the ability to harm and his harrassment showed the intent.
I think I understand your adamant defense of this vicious racist cretin. He pushes two of your buttons. He is an okder white man “winning” a confrontation with a “thug” (a 21 year old with a wife and a child and working two jobs) – something that lives in your waking dreams every day. And, of course, he is a CCP holder whom you have told us are to be trusted with their sneaky little friends because they are the “good guys.”
You can let me know if I am wrong.
LikeLike
No, I have not seen the surveillance video, is it available?
A cell phone is not a club. No, he did not demonstrate an ability to do harm, he demonstrated an ability to take a picture.
He certainly did not win anything, I have pointed out repeatedly that if he shot while the driver was noticeably fleeing, self defense does not apply.
LikeLike
I am going to be nice and say that you are full of it.
Pushing your camera in my face with obvious belligerence is assault. Wearing a visible gun while doing it is threat. And punching me first while wearing a gun is cowardly and life threatening to me. Would you do that to a White woman? Or any woman, but we are on the thug track according to you.
Calling a working young man a thug is racist as hell. You know, and you have kept it up through this whole tirade. Post, after post.
As the evidence put forth in the trial, the man wasn’t even handicapped, he was cheating the system. He was the thug looking for a fight.
And, to boot, no gun, no crippling for life. But the gun probably gave him the “S&W man license” to harass a working American because he was Black.
You just have no respect for the danger of assholes like the shooter being armed.
Even when confronted with the facts of the case and the jury decision, you still blame the victim.
Shameful, IMO
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Shameful, IMO”
That is putting it mildly.
LikeLike
I am extremely careful to avoid confrontation when I am armed, and that includes how I drive. The consequences require extra care,
But that has nothing to do with the driver’s behavior. And it does not make taking a picture an assault.
We don’t know if the guy wanted to park in that space or if he is just militant about abuse of those spaces, We have heard only one point of view.
LikeLike
Is that “in his face?”
If it was close enough for the victim to push it away, it was in his face. Duh!
LikeLike
Well, I was waiting for the photographer to weigh in but.
That’s kind of the point, To take that picture I would think you would have to be at least 3 feet away. To push it away, you’d have to step forward.
LikeLike
“To push it away, you’d have to step forward.”
So this vicious old fool is also a skilled photographer merely getting set up for a portrait when set upon by a “thug.” You are beyond ridiculous. Here is what actually happened.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/missouri-man-shot-paralyzed-after-disabled-parking-space-argument-1453866563785
LikeLike
Well, that’s what he said happened, and if so, then self-defense does not apply. I
would like to hear what the other guy had to say, or see the surveillance video.
Self-defense is evaluated from the viewpoint of the defendant. If it was evident, from where he was laying, that the driver was attempting to withdraw, then he was not allowed to use deadly force.
All of which, in any case, doesn’t apply to the original point.
LikeLike
“Well, that’s what he said happened, and if so, then self-defense does not apply. I
would like to hear what the other guy had to say, or see the surveillance video.”
The jury saw it all but still you cannot bring yourself to stop blaming the black victim of this vicious old white man whom – you may have noticed – is a concealed carry permit holder.
And the orginal point stands. In spades. The presence of the gun not only enabled the shooting but also affected the behavior of the shooter.
LikeLike
You don’t know that. Neither do I.
I lost a lot of confidence in juries sitting through the Ryan Frederick trial.
If the evidence exists, I’d want to see it myself.
LikeLike
“Thug”
You can tap dance all day long. You can demand more evidence. You can denigrate the jury system. You can try to expand the word “thug” to include people who park where they shouldn’t. Or who fail to respond well to orders from entitled white men. You are fooling no one. “Conservative” dog whistles can be heard by everyone.
Whether you have the wisdom to accept the truth or not, you exhibit a very clear double standard when it comes to these mixed race gun tragedies. EVERY black victim brought it on himself. Every white victim was murdered. Even the woman out to “hang Mike Pence.”
LikeLike
“Thug” is not a race, It is a pattern of behavior.
It is “I’m big and strong and violent, so I will do as I please, and rules do not apply.”
It is parking in a handicap space and getting angry instead of being ashamed when called on it.
LikeLike
“Thug” is not a race, It is a pattern of behavior.
Yeah, that’s right. But that is not how YOU use it. It is always shorthand for black people. Always. It is your goto explanation to discount our insane gun deaths rates. Nice “Heartland” people do not shoot each other – you say. It is those damn “thugs” making us look bad.
By the way, why were the people invading the Capitol and specifically Ashli Babbitt not “thugs?” by your definition. Where is your outrage directed at those “thugs?”
LikeLike
You’re projecting your own race obsession again.
There are plenty of Black people in the Heartland. They are not the problem.
Did Ashli Babbitt strike anyone? Or try to intimidate anyone? No, she was protesting in the wrong place.
LikeLike
“You’re projecting your own race obsession again.”
I did not think you would be able to face the truth.
As a reminder, you are someone who argued that Trump’s birtherism was not racist.
LikeLike
It isn’t. It’s just lazy.
LikeLike
“It isn’t. It’s just lazy.”
Your calling this racist attack – birtherism – against our first African-American President as “just lazy” says everything that needs to be said about where you are coming from. But thanks for confirming your attitude.
LikeLike
Ted Cruz(Canada) and John McCain(born in Panama.)tried to do the same thing to each other in 2008
It’s not racist it’s just lazy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/07/there-was-a-very-real-birther-debate-about-john-mccain/
LikeLike
“Ted Cruz(Canada) and John McCain(born in Panama.)tried to do the same thing to each other in 2008”
BULLSHIT!
That is a totally false equivalence. There were actual questions about the elegibility of both Cruz and McCain. Neither was actually born in our country. Obama’s elegibility was NEVER in doubt. He was born of an American mother (like Cruz) and IN THE UNITED STATES (unlike Cruz). There was zero legitimate reason to question his citizenship and yet the known racist Trump kept it up for years in order to rally the racists that are the base of the Republican Party. And you ate it up constantly trying to justify this racist line of attack.
LikeLike
Hillary campaign apparatchiks first circulated birther emails about Obama’s birth in 2008, long before Trump entered politics.
But there is no real difference between the Obama, Cruz and McCain efforts. In all cases, the attempt was to take out an opponent on a technicality instead of defeating them in a primary.
Was it racist when Hillary’s people were doing it? Of course not, it’s just how lawyers do things.
LikeLike
Didn’t read either link did you?
NYC had one of the lowest gun fatality rates in the nation.
And the other point, is that NYS is low, even counting NYC. That is counter to your incessant posting of Democrat cities screwing up state stats.
In other words, your theory is shaky at best.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I did read it. It echos the original link.
NY state, outside of NYC and Buffalo, is as safe, and Republican, as the Heartland.
LikeLike
Your theory that a large city in a red state distorts the state stats. Is that the point?
Well, NYC and Buffalo are over 1/2 the population of NY State, yet NY State is very safe. Why no distortion? Plus NYC alone had fewer gun deaths / 100K than most in the nation. How did that square?
LikeLiked by 2 people
NYC is an outlier. IT is so expensive to live there that the criminal element has been forced to move to New Jersey.
LikeLike
“NYC is an outlier.”
No, it isn’t.
Your ignorance is showing. Again. New York City consists of five boroughs – Manhattan, Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Staten Island. Manhattan is a pricey place to live but the other boroughs are filled with middle class and poor people.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Average 2 bedroom 650 sq ft appt Brooklyn $3252
Average 2 bedroom 650 sq ft appt Bronx $2250
Average 2 bedroom 650 sq ft appt Queens $2798
Average 2 bedroom 650 sq ft appt Staten Island $2298
Not as bad as Manhatten, but still a lot.
LikeLike
Do those numbers include rent control? Also, average is a bit distorting.
NYC, including the boroughs still had low gun violence. It has a lot of Democrats and is Democrat managed. But it doesn’t fit your preconceptions so it is an outlier.
LikeLiked by 2 people
…”forced to move to New Jersey.”
I take personal offense to that. My dad and his wife moved out of the city , across the Hudson, several years ago and it had nothing to do with cost. Are you saying my family is criminal? 😇
LikeLike
Of course not, there are lots of good reasons to move out of NYC.
LikeLike
Sure there are. There are a lot of good reasons to move out of Chesapeake, as well.
LikeLike
RE: “Your theory that a large city in a red state distorts the state stats. Is that the point?”
That is not the point. The point is that compiling gun-crime statistics at the county level gives a more accurate representation of the correlation between gun crime and political affiliation than compiling the statistics at the state level. This should make sense to any insightful or numerate person.
Then comes the surprise:
The counties where most gun crime occurs are all Democrat in political affiliation.
These results are indisputable. It is not my opinion that they are indisputable. They are just indisputable.
LikeLike
The point Don has been driving home for years is that the red state stats are distorted by high population blue cities as far as gun violence is concerned.
And yet NY , Massachusetts, etc. challenge that.
The point I have is that no matter where we are, guns are needed for gun violence. Hard to have a drive by knifing.
That poor inner cities have violent crime is nothing new. Been that way for centuries. What is new is the incredible proliferation of easily available, high powered guns without any effective controls. Don said most are stolen. From whom, by whom? And why so easily available?
The gun supply is enormous and probably no longer controllable, so we kill each other off at rates that are very high. Inner city or not, Americans are dying by bullets at higher rates than most industrialized nations, if not all of them. Our police are killing civilians at a higher rate by orders of magnitude than similar countries. And the reason is that they assume everyone has a gun.
The gun lobby is thrilled because we are “safe” from a dictatorship and manufacturers are profitable. And the price is only more gun deaths than most wars over time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you want to prevent the theft of firearms, particularly handguns, a good first step is to allow Concealed Handgun Permit holders to carry any place the police can carry.
Many handguns are stolen in parking lots of places where CHP holders are barred from carry, forcing them to leave their handgun in the car.
The other big source for criminals is straw purchase, and we already have the laws to prevent that in place, we just don’t use them. When suspected straw purchases are reported by firearms dealers, less than 1 in 1000 are prosecuted. If making a straw purchase regularly got someone sent to prison, that source would be deterred.
So, if you are serious about keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, do those things, and leave people like me alone. We are not the problem.
LikeLike
“…a good first step is to allow Concealed Handgun Permit holders to carry any place the police can carry.”
What good would that do? First, many states or jurisdictions are just ignoring the laws in favor of Constitutional carry. Next, how would police know you are the help, not the criminal?
Nobody is going to take your guns. Nobody has tried, even. But the laws you opposed which would control the massive supply among anyone and everyone no matter their records or mental capacity, affect us all.
But, as I have consistently held, it is too late. The gun lobby has won, and Americans have lost. With 400 million plus guns, you could immediately execute a straw purchaser on a public gallows, and the problem would still exist. Just like pickpockets used to attend public hangings of pickpockets to ply their trade while spectators were mesmerized by the execution.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Allowing CHP holders to maintain control of their handguns instead of leaving them in the car at certain locations would reduce the opportunity for theft.
The only way to deter straw purchases is to prosecute those who make them
LikeLike
“reduce the opportunity for theft.”
Lockboxes in the trunk? Just another inconvenience for gun owners.
LikeLike
More than an inconvenience. You might as well stand on the roof of the car and shout “I’m locking my gun in the trunk so I will be defenseless when I come back and you can then rob me and get the gun and my wallet.” You’re telling the thieves who to rob.
There really just no good reason to require a CHP holder to disarm to go into the post office or a Dr’s office. We are less likely to harm anyone than a policeman.
LikeLike
“You might as well stand on the roof of the car and shout “I’m locking my gun in the trunk so I will be defenseless when I come back and you can then rob me and get the gun and my wallet.” You’re telling the thieves who to rob.”
Really? So if I put my cell phone in my trunk because it is not appropriate to carry it where I am going, I am screaming that someone should break into my trunk and steal my phone.
Do you even so how desperately you are against ANY good idea to prevent the use of a gun?
LikeLiked by 1 person
A cell phone is not particularly useful when you’re being robbed.
And if stolen, it will not enable a criminal to rob someone else.
Why would I want to prevent the use of a gun in self defense? That’s what they are made for.
LikeLike
“Hard to have a drive by knifing.”
Ninjas everywhere are offended. 😇
LikeLike