The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence

No it wasn't. That's a left wing fantasy.

 

They literally stopped and frisk young men. That was the policy. I didn't say by race. Any likely looking dude IE young enough and not dressed professionally, was apt to be searched.
Terry v Ohio says I had a good reason to pull you over, you're now seized under the 4a and I can search you for a weapon for my safety.

It explicitly does not say you can just roust people for walking down the ****ing street.

 

did you miss the following....
On June 10, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8–1 decision against Terry that upheld the constitutionality of the "stop-and-frisk" procedure as long as the police officer performing it has a "reasonable suspicion" that the targeted person is about to commit a crime, has committed a crime, or is committing a crime, and may be "armed and presently dangerous".

????
It does mean no cop can go yolo and just stop and frisk who ever.

I posted in my previous post that you're free to debunk it with a source.
You have ignored / refused and so are defaulting on the argument. strike 3

 

Well there you go! That's why you are wrong on this issue (and amusingly so!). It was never the policy that a "cop can go yolo and just stop and frisk who ever."

You guys are hilarious! This court case set the parameters of legal stop and frisk policies. If you think the policy was "yolo" than you've been getting your info from either MSNBC or some nutty conspiracy theory blogs."

It's amusing though.

 

You literally just brought up race. Why was that?

 

nope it ended it, because the lack of "reasonable suspicion" that the targeted person is about to commit a crime, has committed a crime, or is committing a crime, and may be "armed and presently dangerous".

I mean, it's right there. And all you got is your unfounded opinion.
You proved nothing. Your claim of "Stop and frisk was used in NYC for years. It wasn't stopped because of a lawsuit or constitutionality." also not founded.

I asked you plenty of times. You're ignoring it, and so defaulting.
Thanks for that.

 

Heh! I've asked you plenty of times to prove it's unconstitutional, knowing that I had the trump card (don't freak out) of Terry v Ohio in my back pocket to prove my point. Instead, you pulled it out trying to use it to prove your point that it was unconstitutional.

Very entertaining for me by the way!

Now you are trying to recast stop and frisk as the cops being able to stop anyone for any reason, which was never on the table. Stop and frisk as an actual policy always had guidelines, as Terry outlined.

So your entire premise of stop and frisk being unconstitutional based on this case from 1968 which allows it, is ridiculous.

And you are the one who made the claim it was unconstitutional, so it's not up to me to prove my claim that "Stop and frisk was used in NYC for years. It wasn't stopped because of a lawsuit or constitutionality" has yet to be disproved by you.

Although you seem to be pretty bad at this, I expect you to keep floundering for a while on this because no leftist lets mere facts get in the way of their emoting. So continue on!

 

Quote me where I said "by race". Or even mentioned race.
You too @Turtledude since you liked his post.

 

Lol…talk about getting something completely ass backward.
Crime is driven by poverty and greed.

 

my bad, you didn't bring up race-wrong post

 

Right here:



I wasn't talking about race, so what point about race were you trying to make?

 

You brought up the 'left wing fantasy'. The left wing fantasy was that it was restricted to blacks. It wasn't, it was any likely looking male IE young enough and not professionally dressed.
It was a LITERAL law that authorized LITERAL fishing expeditions.
The right wing fantasy is that it was always used in a somehow legally justifiable manner. Which it wasn't, from first principles.

 

What are you jabbering about? This is the context in which I brought up "left wing fantasy"



I said nothing about "The left wing fantasy was that it was restricted to blacks."

I never said that, and you're not making any sense.

Can you guys stop thinking about race every second? It's rotting your brains and damaging your ability to maintain a coherent thought.

 

Poverty AND Greed. Poverty alone is not enough. Vietnam is desparately poor and has been so for years. America's murder rate is 10X that of Vietnam..... 10X.

Things that drive crime are:
1. Low social trust - this is ironclad - there is no such animal as a multicultural society with low crime rates (unless all the different cultures are relatively non-violent)
2. Culture - this is ironclad as well - if you look at murder rate by country and compare it to murder rate in America by ethnicity - it is almost a one to one match. Sweden has a low murder rate and Swedish Americans have a low murder rate. Somalia has a high murder rate and Somali Americans have a high murder rate. Vietnam has a low murder rate and Vietnamese Americans have a low murder rate.

 

Now, take your map and break it down into districts controlled by Democrats, e.g. most large urban, dem-run areas, vs those controlled by the GOP.

 

BS. If you have a poverty stricken area with high crime nobody can prosper because criminals take for themselves any wealth generated. if you control the crime people can generate wealth.

so no you have it backward.

 

Few reasons suicide should not be included.

1: The only time gun grabbers try to pass legislation to make owning a gun or getting a gun harder they always do it after a mass shooting or a white guy shooting a black guy. IE: Its supposed to be about criminals.
2: Gun grabbers like to claim that they need this legislation to stop bad people (criminals) from doing bad things. Last I knew those who commit suicide are not "bad people (criminals)". Just highly depressed.
3: Gun grabbers often support making assisted suicide legal. Showing that they know that there is a clear difference between "gun violence" and suicide. The attempts to make it out as "violent" is only because its a gun that is used. Any sort of "harm" to the body could be considered "violence". Even a drug that just makes you go to sleep and die. IE: They're just twisting words to suit their argument and will twist it back the moment it suits them.
4: A person who truly wishes to commit suicide will find a way anyways. Yes, guns make it easier for them to succeed. But so does jumping off the Empire State Building or a cliff or stepping in front of a Mac Truck going 60-70 down the freeway.

The only reason to include suicides is to bump up the numbers to make "gun violence" seem more of a "crisis" than it is. Of course those that can do math know that "gun violence" not a crisis by any stretch of the imagination. It affects less than .001% of the US population.

 

So, given over time that there have been nearly equal numbers of conservative and progressive administrations, can you please point out the successful "tactic" that conservatives have employed to assist with mental health during their time in office...?

 

My response would be.....'So what...??'

Are black people not part of your citizenry? Aren't white people? Aren't Democrats and Republicans citizens...? Aren't your laws framed to protect ALL of your people...? How does focusing on those divisions help the problem...?

 

It’s interesting to compare homicide rates of these states as well.

“A rated” firearm law
California 6.1
New Jersey 4.3
Connecticut 4.6
Hawaii 3.3
Illinois 11.2
Maryland 11.4
Massachusetts 2.7
New York 4.7
Rhode Island 3
Washington 4.2

“F rated” firearm law
Wyoming 4.9
West Virginia 7
Texas 7.6
South Dakota 6.5
Oklahoma 9
South Carolina 12.7
North Dakota 4.4
New Hampshire 0.9
Montana 6.6
Missouri 14

 

think about it this way. in San Fransico Walgreens has closed a bunch of stores due to crime. these were places where people could work entry level and greater jobs. crime drove them out so the opportunities left.

crime drives poverty.

 

The only interesting thing, here, is that you cited no source for your figures, unlike me (who used the source chosen by gun rights' defender, Condor060). Or rather, the interesting part, is that-- while your figures for all of the "A" rated firearm law states match my own (and that is actually a mislabeling, on your part, because the last two, only got B pluses, and just the first two got A-grades; the other 6 got A minuses)-- the rates of gun deaths that you give, for the "F"-rated states, vary drastically from mine.
So the obvious question is, where are you getting your, clearly erroneous, numbers?

WY is not 4.9, but rather 25.9.
WV not 7-- it's 18.1;
TX not 7.6-- it's 14.2;
SD not 6.5-- it's 13.6;
OK not 9-- it's 20.7;
SC not 12.7-- it's 22.0
ND not 4.4-- it's 13.8;
NH not 0.9-- it's 8.9;
MT not 6.6-- it's 20.9;
MO not 14-- it's 23.9.

Again, my source had been:
https://www.kff.org/other/state-ind...0&sortModel={"colId":"Location","sort":"asc"}

 

Sorry about missing the B+

Nothing erroneous about my numbers. You can verify them here.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/murder-rate-by-state

I’m very sorry you are so emotional about the topic you are unable to distinguish between firearm deaths and homicides. You really ought to think more and react to talking heads less.

Carry on…

 

Well I see your error, already: all of my figures are "gun deaths (per 100k population)," not murder rates. Which makes it seem very odd, that all your numbers for the states with highly-rated gun laws, match my numbers, exactly-- kind of like you used total gun deaths, for states w/ strong laws, but murder rate-- which is, naturally lower-- for all the states with "F"- rated gun laws.

And I am sorry to discover that you would stoop to such cheap trickery, just to try to "win" the argument. You are, btw, completely wrong, also, in your laughable "appraisal" of my "emotional" state. To me, a death has some meaning, even if it is only accidental, or a suicide, or some other killing, which is deemed something less than "murder"-- believe it, or not.

So, I am also sorry for you, that these other deaths are apparently too trivial, in your eyes, to be counted.

 

it sounds like you are claiming there is some inherent madness that affects the populations of cities where the people are forced to live cheek by jowl and that this is what causes them to be so violent. hmmm... perhaps this madness is responsible for more than just their violent tendencies. perhaps this is what causes them to elect a series of democratic representatives that inevitably fail to live up to a single one of their promises and why they keep doing it over and over and over again.