Supreme Court could take guns case
 

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices have track records that make predicting their rulings on many topics more than a mere guess. Then there is the issue of the Second Amendment and guns, about which the court has said virtually nothing in nearly 70 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/.../scotus_guns_5

I've read about countries where gun control was passed and it actually made homocides even worse.

They'll probably decline to hear it...again.

Even if they do rule on it there's no guarantee their decision will affect anywhere outside DC, it all depends on what specifically they decide and how they word it.

If Clinton gets elected we all need to hang on tight to our guns. The DNC at large would like to take them away. Time for America to take a stand !!

So is it any coincidence that D.C. has the highest homicide rate per capita in the U.S.? Well is it? NO...it aint! See how that works?

D.C. does not have the highest homicide rate per capita in this country. In fact, their MSA homicide rate in 2006 (8.8/100,000) was lower than the Shreveport-Bossier City MSA (11.3/100,000). The homicide rate for the D.C. MSA was slightly higher than Alexandria, LA's, and slightly lower than Tulsa, OK's, around 63rd in the nation.

#1 was, unsurprisingly, New Orleans (21.7/100,000). #2 was Flint, MI (15.4), and #3 was Baton Rouge (14.4). The national average was 5.7.

The only way Washington gets near the top is if you start adding restrictions such as "among cities over a certain size" or "only counting crimes counted within the city limits instead of the MSA," neither of which reflect reality. The FBI doesn't publish stats for crimes committed within the actual, physical city limits (only publishes by MSA) but MorganQuinto does (a year behind). Restricting it like that puts Washington at #13 for 2005 (latest year available from them).

Source:

2006 FBI Uniform Crime Report

Did you count Spring Lake and Cedar Grove in those numbers :rolleyes:

When they kick out your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun

When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting in death row

You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh, Guns of Brixton
------
Guns of Brixton
The Clash

Alright Joe, upon further investigation, it turns out that you're correct. However,


In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

Drastically increasing homicide led Washington, D.C., to ban handguns in the 1970s. So useless was this that D.C. soon had (and continues to have) some of the nation’s highest murder rates.


So, suffice it to say that D.C. is a dangerous place, in large part due to the prohibitive gun laws. Now, ya smartypants nitpickin little busybody, I'm gonna hafta ask ya to refrain from commentin on my posts since you're so goddamn selective about it, ok? Quid pro quo...if ya want to add your less-than-useful .02, you're gonna hafta reciprocate by addressin questions directed back at you, just as if we were conversin in person.

Ouch that's gotta hurt to say, especially for a salty ole dog like yourself. But it takes a man to admit when his opponent got in a good shot. I'm rootin' fer ya Al. Whip his butt!


I bet Joe packs a shotgun or pistol or something... he ain't no Yankee...


LOL, well, nothing wrong with some actual facts in a good debate. I love to see you two gettin' after it... But I hope you ain't gunna meet at the park at sunrise to cross swords......

He doesnt need a gun when he can just annoy the bad guys with his nitpicky snivelin tone until they surrender or decide to look for less irritatin targets elsewhere.:rolleyes:

>So, suffice it to say that D.C. is a dangerous place, in large part due to the prohibitive gun laws.

Why do you say "in large part?" It may be true, it may not, what evidence do you have either way? Correlation does not equal causation.

NYC upped their handgun restrictions in 1992 and the homicide rate has fallen over 50%. Shreveport's gun laws haven't changed at all in 30 years (except for getting looser by allowing concealed carry and tighter by restricting them in school zones) so what explains our homicide rate roller coaster? Crime follows poverty, poverty follows low intelligence, and low intelligence partly (if not mainly in this country) follows dysgenic social programs.

>I'm gonna hafta ask ya to refrain from commentin on my posts since you're so goddamn selective about it, ok?

And if I don't you're going to...??? Ground me? I think I'll continue to post how I want instead of how you would like me to.

Selective? That was your only post in the thread until now.

The bottom desk drawer in my downstairs office:

http://www.shreveport.com/forums/pho...a788333e71.jpg

Are you a medium? Cuz anyone would think you've been channelin "BS" AKA "he who shall not be named". I say "in large part" because there are other factors that contribute to the incidence of violent crime, as ya pointed out. Draconian firearm restrictions invariably lead to increases in violent crime, as exemplified in England, Australia, etc. This has been proven true time and again and I dont intend to rehash it here for your benefit.

"Ground" ya? Wish I could. Obviously there's not much I can do to discourage ya from makin a nuisance of yourself if you're of a mind, which is why I asked ya not to. I suppose I could lobby the administrators to censor any posts ya make referencin my posts, but I shouldnt have to do that...that I asked ya should be enough. I dont care what ya post or how ya post it as long as you're not snipin at mine every time I turn around with your hairsplittin nitpickin snivelin semantics, seizin on every lil detail and generally makin a giant pain in the ass of yourself (which by the way I'm convinced is how ya obtain sexual gratification). Like a pesky gnat flittin about my head, the level of annoyance ya inspire is wayyyyy out of proportion to your presence. Now I realize you've got an axe to grind with me for all the times I highlighted your rather pedestrian thought processes, and I can understand how frustratin that must be for ya. Ya have my sympathy, but badgerin me aint gonna make ya appear any smarter. So again, I'll thank ya kindly to leave off and find someone else to bother. Fair enough?

And yes...selective...as ya know damn well you've been dodgin direct questions put to ya on other threads, so dont play dumb.

Nice Super Redhawk...can ya hit anythin with it? Personally, I've always found the standard Redhawk more aesthetically pleasin.

I'd have to say that drugs figure in there somewhere Joe.

>Draconian firearm restrictions invariably lead to increases in violent crime, as exemplified in England, Australia, etc. This has been proven true time and again and I dont intend to rehash it here for your benefit.

1. That has most certainly not "been proven true time and again." Again, correlation does not equal causation.

2. England and Australia are not America, there is no reason to believe our population will behave as theirs does.

I asked you you why you believed that DC's crime problem was due "in large part due to the prohibitive gun laws." Like I said it may be in large part due to that, it may be in small part due to that, it may have nothing to do with that, but you offered no evidence to indicate either, you've only offered grammatically questionable insults and delusions of your "putting me in my place."

>ya know damn well you've been dodgin direct questions put to ya on other threads, so dont play dumb.

Is this, like your supposed intellectual victories, made up, as well?

>Crime follows poverty

Tell that to Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco, etc. etc.

>poverty follows low intelligence

Our City is $1B in debt.... You might be onto something there... ;)

>low intelligence...follows dysgenic social programs

I would say that low intelligence follows not having your butt whipped by your parents for bad grades or skipping school... I wouldn't call that a failure of a "social program".

I had to look up the word "dysgenic".....

That sounds a bit racist and not very credable...

>I would say that low intelligence follows not having your butt whipped by your parents for bad grades or skipping school... I wouldn't call that a failure of a "social program".

Our social programs encourage breeding by people that are more likely to be the kind of parents that don't "whip your butt for bad grades and skipping school." Also, I was talking about intelligence, not education, but education is important, as well.

>That sounds a bit racist and not very credable...

It has nothing to do with race, the term "dysgenic" (note that I used the adjective, not the noun) basically means "evolving backwards." If you were to select plants from your garden and selectively breed only the weak ones, you would be creating dysgenic pressure on the evolution of that selection of plants. You get survival of the weakest instead of survival of the fittest.

Same goes with most any system: Intelligence in a population, taxation and it effect on the economy, crime.

Intelligence follows education.. My dad should have stamped "social program" on his belt, and then said "Don't make me enact my 'social program'!! LOL, would have been very effective. My dad made sure I was smart, not the government. But I get your point that there is often a negative effect to government programs and handouts.

So do you believe that everyone is evolving backwards? Even yourself? Or just some people are evolving backwards, weaked by the trap of "social programs" which creates a government form of "selective breeding" so to speak? Sounds like a touchy subject and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but you chose an interesting adjective I had not heard before.

>Intelligence follows education.

Education has almost no effect on intelligence.

>So do you believe that everyone is evolving backwards? Even yourself? Or just some people are evolving backwards, weaked by the trap of "social programs" which creates a government form of "selective breeding" so to speak? Sounds like a touchy subject and I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but you chose an interesting adjective I had not heard before.

Anything that results in the progression of a system to go the "wrong" way is a dygenic force. The word "evolution" has gotten too tied up in politics and people forget that it simply means "change over time." Our country currently has policies that encourage/enable the breeding of people that otherwise (if they were following normal evolutionary protocols) would not.

Our society encourages/enables the best and brightest to have very few children and the bottom of the barrel to have as many as they can. This is a dysgenic pressure on our society. The average felon in this country has almost three times as many children as the average physician.

I've not insulted ya, you're merely feignin offense because eveything I said is true. For example, I stated that ya derive sexual gratification from nitpickery. Do ya deny it? I couldnt even hazard a guess at how much facial tissue ya go thru when you're on here snipin at my posts. It has occured to me that your badgerin me might indicate that you're in love with my online persona here at SBL...some sort of hero worship, possibly. I mean, its either that or ya have an axe to grind...hell, it might even be a combination of the two. In any case, this unhealthy obsession ya have with me has to stop. I've asked ya twice to leave off and ya refuse to comply. I think we're done here.

Maybe I correct everyone I see who posts something incorrect (DC has most murders per capita, etc.) and you're just wrong more than most.

I'm fairly certain I could never love someone that thinks Chili's is a good restaurant.

DC did in fact, have the highest murder rate percapita a few years ago. When I checked to see if you were right and found that ya were, I admitted as much. They no longer hold that distinction, but DC still has one of the highest murder rates. What this all boils down to is nitpickery on your part. You're obviously a stickler for detail, but I think most people would agree ya take it much too far. Excessive to the point of obsession. Its downright anal, Joe. You are a classic anal retentive. No doubt your folks had some trouble potty-trainin ya.

This from the guy who thinks the lottery is a tax on people with poor math skills...from the guy who thinks ownin and operatin a computer makes him smarter than about 98% of the population. You're right Joe...I doubt anyone sufferin from such toxic levels of hubris could feel the love.

And by the way, I'd be willin to bet this aint the first time you've been characterized as an anal retentive.

I'm agreeing with you in spirit Joe, but since you went the extra mile and provided us with an actual number and a specific population, I'd like to see your source for this data.

Most of the physicians I know have 3-4 children. I don't know all of them, however, and I don't know any felons, so naturally I'm curious about this statistic.

I remember well the "welfare moms" of the 80s-90s, but I thought I remembered reading that this practice had ceased by and large. However, I don't have any proof, and I'm always on the lookout to raise my intelligence by being educated.

Accordin to Joe, ya cant.

in·tel·li·gence (n-tl-jns)
n.
1.
a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.


I would argue that as one's knowledge increases, so too does one's ability to apply that knowledge. But Joe does sound pretty sure of himself, doesnt he?

A person with a Ph.D is almost always more intelligent than a high school drop out.

So who is the smarty pants and who is the dummy in the eyes of Mother Nature (evolution)? Perhaps now I see how your prior statement could be right. (Re: Education has almost no effect on intelligence)

>A person with a Ph.D is almost always more intelligent than a high school drop out.

Look at it the other way, someone of high intelligence is more likely to be a PhD holder than a high school dropout. The education didn't make him smart, his brains got him educated.

>Excessive to the point of obsession. Its downright anal, Joe. You are a classic anal retentive. No doubt your folks had some trouble potty-trainin ya.

Since I grew up about three decades after anyone that went to college stopped using expressions like "anal retentive" it never really was much of an issue. Are you going to ask about my bodily humors, too? Perhaps I need some leeches.

Also, if I was the guy on the "The lottery is a good investment" side of the argument, I'd probably go out of my way not to remind people of it. When are you going to start sending me my money? I told you I'd give you better odds than the Powerball. Just send me $100M and I'll send you $20M back.

>In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
>Drastically increasing homicide led Washington, D.C., to ban handguns in the 1970s. So useless was this that D.C. soon had (and continues to have) some of the nation’s highest murder rates.

Define "soon." The handgun ban went into effect in 1977. By 1985, the murder rate was lower than it had been in 1977, despite the fact that the city was falling apart by every other metric. In 2005 the rate for DC itself was 28.5/100K, which is about 3% higher than 1977 (which was 27.8/100K) not 134%. Where did you get 134%?

Also, the homicide rate in DC was already in decline by the time the law was passed in 1977. The trend continued until the mid 1980s until it exploded upwards (with no corresponding change in DC gun laws) so you're going to have to come up with something other than the handgun ban to explain it. I'd bet it probably had more to do with the invention of crack than it did with handgun laws.

Sources:

Rothstein catalog on disaster recovery

FBI Uniform Crime Report

Common usage
Conversationally, the term is often used to describe a person deemed to be overly obsessed with minor details. Its roots are said to be from Sigmund Freud.

The term is often used in a derogatory sense to describe a person with such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, and can be carried out to the detriment of the so-called anal-retentive person.


Origins
In the psychology of Freud, the anal stage is said to follow the oral stage of infant/early-childhood development. This is a time when an infant's attention moves from oral stimulation to anal stimulation (including the bowels and bladder), usually synchronous with learning to control their excretory functions, a time of toilet training. Freud theorized that children who experience conflicts during this period of time may develop "anal" personality traits, namely those associated with a child's efforts at excretory control: orderliness, stubbornness, a compulsion for control. Those whose anal characteristics continue into later life are said to be "anal retentive" personality types.


Oh but it most definitly is an issue, Joe. Ya say the term is antiquated? Well even if they are an old pair o' shoes, they still fit...and you're wearin em!

That's seriously what you're going to go with? A cut & paste job from Wikipedia that doesn't actually refute anything?

"Often used' doesn't make it right. The word "irregardless" qualifies as "often used." So does "Daylight Savings Time." Neither of those are correct, either.

>Oh but it most definitly is an issue, Joe. Ya say the term is antiquated? Well even if they are an old pair o' shoes, they still fit...and you're wearin em!

They don't fit, Freud is almost completely discredited; especially B.S. like "anal retentive." Like I said, you might as well tell me my humors are out of balance or my chakra needs tuning.

There's a simple solution: Stop saying stuff that is wrong and I can't correct you.

I didn't use it to refute anything, I used it to support my contention that your fixation with minutia is annoyin to me and probably everyone else ya interact with...and it drove that point home quite nicely! Besides, the term isn't as outdated as ya say...it's still in the vernacular, as in "Joe is quite anal about everything".

Ha! You're doin it again, and ya dont even realize it...you're completely oblivious to it! Ya just proved my point...the damn shoes fit and you're wearin em! Face it Joe, you're anal, and it's apparent to everyone butt you (pardon the pun)! You're like a guy with halitosis who insists his breath isn't foul since he himself can't smell it. And "Freud is almost completely discredited"... really Dr. Pole? I dont think you're qualified to make that pronouncement. But hey, whatever....knock yourself out.

Anyone that can read is qualified to make that pronouncement.

What was that deal you were talking about earlier? Selectively ignoring direct questions? Does you have anything to offer besides nonsensical, grammatically flaccid ad hominem arguments? Some more false statements about crime would at least be a little more interesting to read.

Morpheus is fighting Neo ....................
Attachment 1821
:rotflol::matrix::rotflol:

You mean like when I directly questioned your source for the number of offspring produced by physicians versus the number produced by felons?

I dunno. I asked him if he had a gun and he whipped out a 44 magnum! Be careful guys! ;)

>You mean like when I directly questioned your source for the number of offspring produced by physicians versus the number produced by felons?
Read that one on the toilet and didn't respond.

I'm at the office now so I don't have access to the book from which I acquired that factoid, so I'll have to post it tonight. The link between lack of education, crime, and birth rate isn't exactly a secret.

Take this, for example, from the CDC. A high school dropout has twice the birthrate of a woman. The number are even more disparate among men. The accidental pregnancy rate among women with IQs over 125 is almost 0.

Hey I hear ya Joe, and I said I agreed with you in spirit. I just thought it curious that you picked physicians specifically.

Hey Joe, here is part of the abstract from the link you provided.

Results—Birth rates differ considerably by educational attainment. In 1994
women with 0–8 years of education had the highest birth rates overall, while those who started but did not complete college had the lowest. For women 30–39 years of age, however, those with college degrees had the highest rates. Among women aged 25 years and older, unmarried women with less education have much higher birth rates than unmarried women who attended school longer. Conversely, rates for college educated married women are much higher than those of less educated women. For college-educated women, low first birth rates for women in their twenties and high rates for women in their thirties point to the continuing trend of delayed childbearing.