Supreme Court could take guns case

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

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

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!

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

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.

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

Originally Posted by Al Swearengen

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.

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......

[Al Swearengen]

I bet Joe packs a shotgun or pistol or something

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.

[joepole]

>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.

[joepole]

I bet Joe packs a shotgun or pistol or something

The bottom desk drawer in my downstairs office:

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

>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.

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.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by joepole

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

[joepole]

>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?

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

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

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.

[joepole]

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.

[Al Swearengen]

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

[joepole]

>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

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by joepole

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.

>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".....

dysgenic is a term describing a progressive evolutionary "weakening" or genetic deterioration of a population of organisms relative to their environment, often due to relaxation of natural selection or the occurrence of negative selection. The antonym of dysgenic is eugenic (see also eugenics).

The plural noun dysgenics refers to "racial degeneration" or "genetic deterioration", the opposite of eugenics, first so used by Aldous Huxley in 1920. Applied to humans, it is not a topic of significant scientific research, but appears occasionally in fiction and the popular media

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

[joepole]

>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.

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by joepole

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.

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.

Originally Posted by joepole

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.

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.

[joepole]

>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.