(10-05-2017 07:54 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 06:08 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm kneeling the next time I hear the anthem.

Just like i thought, they would get butthurt.

I thought it was funny.

(10-06-2017 06:18 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...hip-survey

A 2015 study by Harvard and Northeastern of 4000 registered gun owners. It's the most extensive gun ownership survey in two decades. The amount of guns have risen by an estimated 70 million guns (to 265 million total) since 1994 but the overall percentage of people who own at least 1 gun has lowered from 25 to 22 percent. And the survey estimates that 133 million of guns are concentrated in the hands of just 3% of American adults – a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each.

There are some other interesting tidbits in the link. I'm not sure why those numbers are creating such a stir among a few posters here. What part is getting you upset - the part about their being gun 'super-owners' or the part about the overall percentage of gun owners being just 22 percent of Americans (and I even got the number wrong in my first post - it's 22 percent not 28 percent)?

I looked into this in another thread. It doesn't show anything 'bad'. It was also an opt-in paid survey- something that could definitely affect the results and probably why the study was never officially published.

(10-05-2017 11:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 05:57 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 05:23 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:SAN DIEGO – White men scare me. There, I said it.

Based on my conversations with Latino and African-American friends, I think many of them feel the same way. If they’re walking down a dark street at night and see three white men in their 20s walking toward them, they’re thinking hate crime.

After all, pick up a history book, and look at what white males did to black slaves, American Indians, Chinese immigrants and Mexicans in the occupied Southwest. They’re the original bad hombres.

And so, after the Las Vegas massacre – where a 64-year-old white man named Stephen Paddock carried 23 guns into a hotel suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino and opened fire on an outdoor concert crowd, killing at least 59 people and wounding more than 520 others – it’s fair to ask: “Is it time for authorities to start profiling white males who purchase unusually large amounts of high-powered weapons and ammunition?”

Yes, it is. And why not? There is plenty of evidence that law enforcement officers routinely profile African-Americans, Latinos and Muslim Americans. It’s become part of police work.

In 1999, the New Jersey State Police admitted to pulling over African-American motorists more often than white drivers. In 2010, Arizona lawmakers codified ethnic profiling by requiring local police to determine the legal status of those suspected of being in the country illegally – read: Latinos.

So how did white men get to be so special that, in an era when so many mass shootings are linked to gunmen who fit that profile, it is still considered outrageous to say that this demographic merits extra scrutiny? Talk about white male privilege.

Given the carnage in Las Vegas, a lot of folks – on both the right and the left – are instinctively talking about guns. That’s a circular, highly charged argument that goes nowhere.

What we should be talking about is race. Not the race of the victims, but the race of the shooter.

Authorities insist that Paddock – who was reportedly wealthy, liked to gamble and had no known political or religious affiliations – fits none of the established profiles.

But actually, Paddock does fit one. He’s a white male, and most serial killers and mass murderers are white males.

For the sake of public relations, and because – in the era of “If you see something, say something” – law enforcement doesn’t want the public discounting anyone who might look suspicious just because of skin color, the FBI claims that it’s a myth to suggest that “serial killers are all white males.” The agency insists that serial killers span all racial groups.

Sure. But note that I said “most,” not “all.” The majority of mass murderers are white men. The fact that we might be able to find the occasional serial killer who is a woman of color does not significantly change the pie chart.

Besides, the FBI would be more convincing if it practiced what it preached.

In 2002, federal agents were frantically searching for the so-called Beltway Sniper, who killed 10 people and wounded three more in the Washington metropolitan area. Authorities got off to a slow start because, according to the profile, serial killers are usually white men. Retired FBI profilers went on broadcast media and said, as one put it at the time, “This is something white males do.”

The shooters, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, were African-American.

Like many Latinos, when I hear about a tragedy like the one in Las Vegas, I hold my breath and hope the culprit wasn’t one of ours. My African-American and Muslim American friends do the same. I’ve even heard a religious conservative call into a radio show and say he does it, too. It’s human nature.

Still, I have to wonder if white men go through that exercise. I don’t think so. That must be yet another ancillary benefit to being a white male.

Well, the free pass has expired. It’s time for law enforcement authorities to keep track of white men who stockpile guns.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1073497/why-d...-guns.html

Sure we can profile them once we stop and frisk all young black males and demand all Latinos present their papers. /sarc

We should probably register and track anyone who has ever visited visited a mosque or touched a quran while we're at it.

(10-05-2017 05:23 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:SAN DIEGO – White men scare me. There, I said it.

Based on my conversations with Latino and African-American friends, I think many of them feel the same way. If they’re walking down a dark street at night and see three white men in their 20s walking toward them, they’re thinking hate crime.

After all, pick up a history book, and look at what white males did to black slaves, American Indians, Chinese immigrants and Mexicans in the occupied Southwest. They’re the original bad hombres.

And so, after the Las Vegas massacre – where a 64-year-old white man named Stephen Paddock carried 23 guns into a hotel suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino and opened fire on an outdoor concert crowd, killing at least 59 people and wounding more than 520 others – it’s fair to ask: “Is it time for authorities to start profiling white males who purchase unusually large amounts of high-powered weapons and ammunition?”

Yes, it is. And why not? There is plenty of evidence that law enforcement officers routinely profile African-Americans, Latinos and Muslim Americans. It’s become part of police work.

In 1999, the New Jersey State Police admitted to pulling over African-American motorists more often than white drivers. In 2010, Arizona lawmakers codified ethnic profiling by requiring local police to determine the legal status of those suspected of being in the country illegally – read: Latinos.

So how did white men get to be so special that, in an era when so many mass shootings are linked to gunmen who fit that profile, it is still considered outrageous to say that this demographic merits extra scrutiny? Talk about white male privilege.

Given the carnage in Las Vegas, a lot of folks – on both the right and the left – are instinctively talking about guns. That’s a circular, highly charged argument that goes nowhere.

What we should be talking about is race. Not the race of the victims, but the race of the shooter.

Authorities insist that Paddock – who was reportedly wealthy, liked to gamble and had no known political or religious affiliations – fits none of the established profiles.

But actually, Paddock does fit one. He’s a white male, and most serial killers and mass murderers are white males.

For the sake of public relations, and because – in the era of “If you see something, say something” – law enforcement doesn’t want the public discounting anyone who might look suspicious just because of skin color, the FBI claims that it’s a myth to suggest that “serial killers are all white males.” The agency insists that serial killers span all racial groups.

Sure. But note that I said “most,” not “all.” The majority of mass murderers are white men. The fact that we might be able to find the occasional serial killer who is a woman of color does not significantly change the pie chart.

Besides, the FBI would be more convincing if it practiced what it preached.

In 2002, federal agents were frantically searching for the so-called Beltway Sniper, who killed 10 people and wounded three more in the Washington metropolitan area. Authorities got off to a slow start because, according to the profile, serial killers are usually white men. Retired FBI profilers went on broadcast media and said, as one put it at the time, “This is something white males do.”

The shooters, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, were African-American.

Like many Latinos, when I hear about a tragedy like the one in Las Vegas, I hold my breath and hope the culprit wasn’t one of ours. My African-American and Muslim American friends do the same. I’ve even heard a religious conservative call into a radio show and say he does it, too. It’s human nature.

Still, I have to wonder if white men go through that exercise. I don’t think so. That must be yet another ancillary benefit to being a white male.

Well, the free pass has expired. It’s time for law enforcement authorities to keep track of white men who stockpile guns.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1073497/why-d...-guns.html

Well if you are on a dark street at night and see 3 young men in their 20s walking towards you, especially if they aren't well dressed, you should be alert.

We should be honest with ourselves.

There will be no gun confiscation or serious restrictions. Such an act would create a situation when many otherwise law abiding citizens will refuse and a crisis unlike anything before will ensue.

(10-05-2017 07:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, why should someone buy 30 guns in a year? Maybe the gun shops could form a communication between to let others know who bought a gun and what types they bought. Then, if a red flag comes up? They could call the feds on that person. If that was in place before Las Vegas? We might have avoided this.

What business is it of yours what someone else legally buys? If you buy 4 cases of twinkies a week, should the supermarkets "communicate with each other" to inform your insurance company that you are eating unhealthy foods. You are a moron, and a dangerous moron, as your thoughts and arguments are that of a six year old.

(10-06-2017 10:50 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 07:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, why should someone buy 30 guns in a year? Maybe the gun shops could form a communication between to let others know who bought a gun and what types they bought. Then, if a red flag comes up? They could call the feds on that person. If that was in place before Las Vegas? We might have avoided this.

What business is it of yours what someone else legally buys? If you buy 4 cases of twinkies a week, should the supermarkets "communicate with each other" to inform your insurance company that you are eating unhealthy foods. You are a moron, and a dangerous moron, as your thoughts and arguments are that of a six year old.

Speaking of insurance. That actually might be the way that the federal government reduces gun ownership. If everyone who registered a weapon was forced to buy some type of liability insurance. Then that would reduce the amount of legally owned weapons. Now that's not going to stop a criminal. But it would reduces the amount of weapons sold.

And the benefit of stopping free trade to law-abiding citizens when you admit that criminals would not be stopped is what exactly?

(10-06-2017 06:18 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...hip-survey

A 2015 study by Harvard and Northeastern of 4000 registered gun owners. It's the most extensive gun ownership survey in two decades. The amount of guns have risen by an estimated 70 million guns (to 265 million total) since 1994 but the overall percentage of people who own at least 1 gun has lowered from 25 to 22 percent. And the survey estimates that 133 million of guns are concentrated in the hands of just 3% of American adults – a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each.

There are some other interesting tidbits in the link. I'm not sure why those numbers are creating such a stir among a few posters here. What part is getting you upset - the part about their being gun 'super-owners' or the part about the overall percentage of gun owners being just 22 percent of Americans (and I even got the number wrong in my first post - it's 22 percent not 28 percent)?

What about the part that isn't "creating a stir", nor making anyone "upset"?

Tell me, us, "Rubes",

How many of your 3%'ers have committed one or some of these horrific, terroristic attacks?

Was this assshole a confirmed NRA member? And even if so, how could that ever actually matter?!?

(10-06-2017 11:16 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 10:50 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 07:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, why should someone buy 30 guns in a year? Maybe the gun shops could form a communication between to let others know who bought a gun and what types they bought. Then, if a red flag comes up? They could call the feds on that person. If that was in place before Las Vegas? We might have avoided this.

What business is it of yours what someone else legally buys? If you buy 4 cases of twinkies a week, should the supermarkets "communicate with each other" to inform your insurance company that you are eating unhealthy foods. You are a moron, and a dangerous moron, as your thoughts and arguments are that of a six year old.

Speaking of insurance. That actually might be the way that the federal government reduces gun ownership. If everyone who registered a weapon was forced to buy some type of liability insurance. Then that would reduce the amount of legally owned weapons. Now that's not going to stop a criminal. But it would reduces the amount of weapons sold.

That would require registration. Most states do not, and you'll be hard pressed to get a national gun registry passed because a national gun registry is the first step towards confiscation.

(10-06-2017 11:16 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 10:50 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 07:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, why should someone buy 30 guns in a year? Maybe the gun shops could form a communication between to let others know who bought a gun and what types they bought. Then, if a red flag comes up? They could call the feds on that person. If that was in place before Las Vegas? We might have avoided this.

What business is it of yours what someone else legally buys? If you buy 4 cases of twinkies a week, should the supermarkets "communicate with each other" to inform your insurance company that you are eating unhealthy foods. You are a moron, and a dangerous moron, as your thoughts and arguments are that of a six year old.

Speaking of insurance. That actually might be the way that the federal government reduces gun ownership. If everyone who registered a weapon was forced to buy some type of liability insurance. Then that would reduce the amount of legally owned weapons. Now that's not going to stop a criminal. But it would reduces the amount of weapons sold.

Yes, indeedy.

May well reduce the amount of weapons sold...

Legally.

Reduce the amount of weapons sold? Nope. Not by one barrel.

Why are so many clamoring desperately to legalize the sale of products now illegal, drugs, yet simultaneously trying to impede the sale of something written into our Constitution?

Which claims more lives each and every year? Especially otherwise innocent lives?

Makes no sense. But what else is new...

(10-06-2017 11:16 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 10:50 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 07:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, why should someone buy 30 guns in a year? Maybe the gun shops could form a communication between to let others know who bought a gun and what types they bought. Then, if a red flag comes up? They could call the feds on that person. If that was in place before Las Vegas? We might have avoided this.

What business is it of yours what someone else legally buys? If you buy 4 cases of twinkies a week, should the supermarkets "communicate with each other" to inform your insurance company that you are eating unhealthy foods. You are a moron, and a dangerous moron, as your thoughts and arguments are that of a six year old.

Speaking of insurance. That actually might be the way that the federal government reduces gun ownership. If everyone who registered a weapon was forced to buy some type of liability insurance. Then that would reduce the amount of legally owned weapons. Now that's not going to stop a criminal. But it would reduces the amount of weapons sold.

Homeowners policies are already a general liability policy. Vast majority of guns are not registered even if there is a requirement to do so.