In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Who is the shooter?

RtWngExtrmstRtWngExtrmst Member Posts: 7,456
edited August 2009 in General Discussion
Just heard on Fox some interesting stastics. In New York City shootings, 82% of the time the shooter is black. 1% of the time the shooter is white.

Since the black population is 29%, you would be 250 times more likely to be shot by a black than a white.
«1

Comments

  • shootuadealshootuadeal Member Posts: 5,054 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    you cant talk about that anymore[xx(]

    thats racist[xx(]

    i bet the new york times will run that as their headline.

    the new thinking seems to be lets disarm the whites to make sure they dont shoot any blacks.

    what are the statistics of black on white crime versus white on black (white on anything actually) crime again?
  • 1911a1-fan1911a1-fan Member Posts: 51,193 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    yep i'm just racist


    http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=390580



    this crap reminds me of a kid hiding dirty clothes and trash under their bed and pretending they dont see it, people even here fail to realize the magnitude of black violence, if its not on their news channel its just not happening
  • MossbergboogieMossbergboogie Member Posts: 12,211
    edited November -1
    It's not racist; it is fact. Thats a cultural problem in the inner city.

    Also in most cases it is blacks killing eachother so I am not sure the 250times stat you have is accurate. That and just being part of the illegal drug culture is going to increse your chance of death.
  • givettegivette Member Posts: 10,886
    edited November -1
    "Just heard on Fox some interesting stastics. In New York City shootings, 82% of the time the shooter is black. 1% of the time the shooter is white"

    Lets stay with the numbers here. Who are the other 17%?? Neo-Mongolians of Tasmanian ancestry?
  • 1911a1-fan1911a1-fan Member Posts: 51,193 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by givette
    "Just heard on Fox some interesting stastics. In New York City shootings, 82% of the time the shooter is black. 1% of the time the shooter is white"

    Lets stay with the numbers here. Who are the other 17%?? Neo-Mongolians of Tasmanian ancestry?



    no its the cops [:)]
  • shootuadealshootuadeal Member Posts: 5,054 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 1911a1fan
    quote:Originally posted by givette
    "Just heard on Fox some interesting stastics. In New York City shootings, 82% of the time the shooter is black. 1% of the time the shooter is white"

    Lets stay with the numbers here. Who are the other 17%?? Neo-Mongolians of Tasmanian ancestry?



    no its the cops [:)]




    [:D]
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by 1911a1fan
    quote:Originally posted by givette
    "Just heard on Fox some interesting stastics. In New York City shootings, 82% of the time the shooter is black. 1% of the time the shooter is white"

    Lets stay with the numbers here. Who are the other 17%?? Neo-Mongolians of Tasmanian ancestry?



    no its the cops [:)]



    or the damn illegals!
  • RtWngExtrmstRtWngExtrmst Member Posts: 7,456
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by givette
    "Just heard on Fox some interesting stastics. In New York City shootings, 82% of the time the shooter is black. 1% of the time the shooter is white"

    Lets stay with the numbers here. Who are the other 17%?? Neo-Mongolians of Tasmanian ancestry?


    I just reported what they said. They didn't say the other 17%, but my speculation would be hispanic. NYC has a large Puerto Rico population plus a lot of illegal Mexican and other Latinos. What else3 could it be? Chinese?
  • wlfmn323wlfmn323 Member Posts: 4,712
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by RtWngExtrmst
    quote:Originally posted by givette
    "Just heard on Fox some interesting stastics. In New York City shootings, 82% of the time the shooter is black. 1% of the time the shooter is white"

    Lets stay with the numbers here. Who are the other 17%?? Neo-Mongolians of Tasmanian ancestry?


    I just reported what they said. They didn't say the other 17%, but my speculation would be hispanic. NYC has a large Puerto Rico population plus a lot of illegal Mexican and other Latinos. What else3 could it be? Chinese?


    i read something similar, the other percentage was taken up in small increments by different latinos, and various orientals, you know yakuza and the like.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Just why do you think that many years ago, they stopped reporting the race of perps on the evening news ?

    It just does not fit the new reality..'we are all the same'...
  • mrseatlemrseatle Member Posts: 15,806
    edited November -1
    Those white devils really do 10% of the shootings, they are just sneakier.
  • armilitearmilite Member Posts: 35,381 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just heard on Fox some interesting stastics. In New York City shootings, 82% of the time the shooter is black. 1% of the time the shooter is white.

    Since the black population is 29%, you would be 250 times more likely to be shot by a black than a white.

    That's only if your black as most blacks shoot other blacks not whites.
    Where I live 90% of shooters are black 7% are hispanic so if your white the chances of getting shot at all are pretty low.
  • WinM70WinM70 Member Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thats racial profiling.
  • wsm 325wsm 325 Member Posts: 1,196 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    i am not racist. i hate them all the same.
  • 1911a1-fan1911a1-fan Member Posts: 51,193 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by armilite1015
    Just heard on Fox some interesting stastics. In New York City shootings, 82% of the time the shooter is black. 1% of the time the shooter is white.

    Since the black population is 29%, you would be 250 times more likely to be shot by a black than a white.

    That's only if your black as most blacks shoot other blacks not whites.
    Where I live 90% of shooters are black 7% are hispanic so if your white the chances of getting shot at all are pretty low.



    ya but if i'm the only white guy out of 100 blacks, my 1% chance of getting shot doesnt look all that good
  • armilitearmilite Member Posts: 35,381 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:ya but if i'm the only white guy out of 100 blacks, my 1% chance of getting shot doesnt look all that good


    If your the only white guy out of 100 blacks you have my condolences.
  • Frontiersman101Frontiersman101 Member Posts: 3,259
    edited November -1
    It won't be long befor the white population will seast to exist in America. The mexican population in America is growing and the white population is screaching to a hault.
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Do you people even know where these sources come from before you sign over your minds to people like Ann Coulter?

    First of all, that 82% statistic needs to be re-examined for a multitude of reasons. One being that the estimated number proposed by Elizabeth McDonald didn't even encompass other ethnicities so the entire pie chart is reviewed literally as the rest of the hole is just 'blacks' and Ann Coulter's amazing dexterity in 'spinning' seems to have left this point unchallenged. Secondly, there's a difference between logical criticism of ethnicity and full out bigotry.

    As an African American, i'll be the first to tell you that of course there's a horrible epidemic of uneducated black males and females out there who resort to the social stigma of stereotypes in the wrong fashion by remaining uneducated and that of course, as humans and it lies in human nature, there's violence of all kinds. But it's ridiculous and hypocritical to de-humanize an ethnic race of people while the same injustices are woven between ANY race found in this great nation. If the point of the study is to bring blame to skin, then what about the outstanding level of rape by Caucasian males in both urban and/especially religious settings?

    It's easy to say "They're different and they cause problems, so that's that" and it's even easier to say "Well you can't critize them without being racist, so screw em". It's not that you can't call a black man out on being ignorant or ghetto, it's that you paint yourself and people who think like you as a victim and then use that to spread hateful messages.

    Black on White Crimes, white on black. Black on black, white on white, what the hell does it matter? A crime's a crime and a life's a life so you dishonor the real victims (the people who loose their lives in gang violence and racial prejudice) by drawing these proverbial 'lines in the sand' and trying to pick sides. I didn't know Gun Broker existed till I was doing research of my own, but after reading the comments on this page I made an account right away to say this in hopes that just one person sees the message for what it is, and contemplates his/her own views based on that alone:

    I'm not here to change anyone's personal beliefs. I'm not here to degrade the importance of whatever events have happened in their lives that would make them feel defensive/hateful/critical of blacks or anyone (if they have that excuse in question). But I am here to ask you people to think about what you're doing when you try to make this a race war. And I know it's not all one people, one side or one person in general. But you see, it's that subjective view right there that makes my point legitimate (not over others, just in reflection)> Because we're all in this together, but the sooner we stop getting over the awkwardness of 'Understanding' of social conduct(on a personal, spiritual and political level) the sooner we can solidify our nation as one true country, instead of a bunch of 'black persons'/'Crackers'/Spics'/Jew-Bagels'/'Beaners'/'etc' pointing fingers at themselves and each other to decide who has the most blame, who's the real group at fault while destroying the moral fiber of their country in the meantime. It's all of our faults for sanctioning and it's none of out faults because it's the stigma of our ANCESTORS. Let's rise above it all.
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Frontiersman101
    It won't be long befor the white population will seast to exist in America. The mexican population in America is growing and the white population is screaching to a hault.

    And if you're really stupid enough to believe that the ethnic race of one group will soon die out because of illegal immigrants than keep it to yourself because that's just nonsense. To try and scare others into thinking how you do is a cheap tactic that serves no logical or sensible statistics or facts and is a step in the wrong direction towards social progress. The same kind of tactic was use to demean Eastern Continental immigrants from the 40's-50's; people said Austrians and Polish would eat up America and is that true? Shut up, out of every ethnicity in question, Caucasians are and will be the most safe so cut it out. But if you feel like poisoning more minds, do it with backed up information rather than your horribly myopic view of the neighborhood you see around you.
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Think-4-Yourself
    Do you people even know where these sources come from before you sign over your minds to people like Ann Coulter?

    First of all, that 82% statistic needs to be re-examined for a multitude of reasons. One being that the estimated number proposed by Elizabeth McDonald didn't even encompass other ethnicities so the entire pie chart is reviewed literally as the rest of the hole is just 'blacks' and Ann Coulter's amazing dexterity in 'spinning' seems to have left this point unchallenged. Secondly, there's a difference between logical criticism of ethnicity and full out bigotry.

    As an African American, i'll be the first to tell you that of course there's a horrible epidemic of uneducated black males and females out there who resort to the social stigma of stereotypes in the wrong fashion by remaining uneducated and that of course, as humans and it lies in human nature, there's violence of all kinds. But it's ridiculous and hypocritical to de-humanize an ethnic race of people while the same injustices are woven between ANY race found in this great nation. If the point of the study is to bring blame to skin, then what about the outstanding level of rape by Caucasian males in both urban and/especially religious settings?

    It's easy to say "They're different and they cause problems, so that's that" and it's even easier to say "Well you can't critize them without being racist, so screw em". It's not that you can't call a black man out on being ignorant or ghetto, it's that you paint yourself and people who think like you as a victim and then use that to spread hateful messages.

    Black on White Crimes, white on black. Black on black, white on white, what the hell does it matter? A crime's a crime and a life's a life so you dishonor the real victims (the people who loose their lives in gang violence and racial prejudice) by drawing these proverbial 'lines in the sand' and trying to pick sides. I didn't know Gun Broker existed till I was doing research of my own, but after reading the comments on this page I made an account right away to say this in hopes that just one person sees the message for what it is, and contemplates his/her own views based on that alone:

    I'm not here to change anyone's personal beliefs. I'm not here to degrade the importance of whatever events have happened in their lives that would make them feel defensive/hateful/critical of blacks or anyone (if they have that excuse in question). But I am here to ask you people to think about what you're doing when you try to make this a race war. And I know it's not all one people, one side or one person in general. But you see, it's that subjective view right there that makes my point legitimate (not over others, just in reflection)> Because we're all in this together, but the sooner we stop getting over the awkwardness of 'Understanding' of social conduct(on a personal, spiritual and political level) the sooner we can solidify our nation as one true country, instead of a bunch of 'black persons'/'Crackers'/Spics'/Jew-Bagels'/'Beaners'/'etc' pointing fingers at themselves and each other to decide who has the most blame, who's the real group at fault while destroying the moral fiber of their country in the meantime. It's all of our faults for sanctioning and it's none of out faults because it's the stigma of our ANCESTORS. Let's rise above it all.
    Ha, and during that typing I wasn't aware that the site automatically switches 'n*ggers 'with [black persons] so don't be offended if it seems I left blacks out of the slur, because it was a typing error and a controversial metaphor to illustrate the idiocy of labeling and 'picking sides'
  • Colt SuperColt Super Member Posts: 31,007
    edited November -1
    There are some newbies around who think we will buy into their revisionist lies.

    Doug
  • cce1302cce1302 Member Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Think-4-Yourself
    Do you people even know where these sources come from before you sign over your minds to people like Ann Coulter?

    First of all, that 82% statistic needs to be re-examined for a multitude of reasons. One being that the estimated number proposed by Elizabeth McDonald didn't even encompass other ethnicities so the entire pie chart is reviewed literally as the rest of the hole is just 'blacks' and Ann Coulter's amazing dexterity in 'spinning' seems to have left this point unchallenged. Secondly, there's a difference between logical criticism of ethnicity and full out bigotry.

    As an African American, i'll be the first to tell you that of course there's a horrible epidemic of uneducated black males and females out there who resort to the social stigma of stereotypes in the wrong fashion by remaining uneducated and that of course, as humans and it lies in human nature, there's violence of all kinds. But it's ridiculous and hypocritical to de-humanize an ethnic race of people while the same injustices are woven between ANY race found in this great nation. If the point of the study is to bring blame to skin, then what about the outstanding level of rape by Caucasian males in both urban and/especially religious settings?

    It's easy to say "They're different and they cause problems, so that's that" and it's even easier to say "Well you can't critize them without being racist, so screw em". It's not that you can't call a black man out on being ignorant or ghetto, it's that you paint yourself and people who think like you as a victim and then use that to spread hateful messages.

    Black on White Crimes, white on black. Black on black, white on white, what the hell does it matter? A crime's a crime and a life's a life so you dishonor the real victims (the people who loose their lives in gang violence and racial prejudice) by drawing these proverbial 'lines in the sand' and trying to pick sides. I didn't know Gun Broker existed till I was doing research of my own, but after reading the comments on this page I made an account right away to say this in hopes that just one person sees the message for what it is, and contemplates his/her own views based on that alone:

    I'm not here to change anyone's personal beliefs. I'm not here to degrade the importance of whatever events have happened in their lives that would make them feel defensive/hateful/critical of blacks or anyone (if they have that excuse in question). But I am here to ask you people to think about what you're doing when you try to make this a race war. And I know it's not all one people, one side or one person in general. But you see, it's that subjective view right there that makes my point legitimate (not over others, just in reflection)> Because we're all in this together, but the sooner we stop getting over the awkwardness of 'Understanding' of social conduct(on a personal, spiritual and political level) the sooner we can solidify our nation as one true country, instead of a bunch of 'black persons'/'Crackers'/Spics'/Jew-Bagels'/'Beaners'/'etc' pointing fingers at themselves and each other to decide who has the most blame, who's the real group at fault while destroying the moral fiber of their country in the meantime. It's all of our faults for sanctioning and it's none of out faults because it's the stigma of our ANCESTORS. Let's rise above it all.
    Oh, neat. Blame "the man" for keeping people of the color the NAACP advances stereotyped, uneducated, and violent.
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    Drugs and lack of education only goes so far.. But I do believe that this rate of violence and crime once started will continue to perpetuate until the education problem and drug problems are fixed.
    Gangs wouldnt exist, or have lees effect if drugs where legalized of the government did its Flipping job. There have been four generations of drug degradation and counting, and it is mostly the irish, blacks and browns who live it.

    As far as I am concerned the government uses the undeducated and other poor people as a resource to keep the DEA/LEOAs working and get elected on the promise of more hand outs.. The elected dont want to fix the problems... None of them, not obama, not anyone else that is part of the government.
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    Does that mean I am a socialist or a communist? Flip no..But what it does mean is that the government dont give dam about the poor, and that aint EVER going to change, as long as the elites run the show.[;)]

    The government feeds on them and rely on them.
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by cce1302
    quote:Originally posted by Think-4-Yourself
    Do you people even know where these sources come from before you sign over your minds to people like Ann Coulter?

    First of all, that 82% statistic needs to be re-examined for a multitude of reasons. One being that the estimated number proposed by Elizabeth McDonald didn't even encompass other ethnicities so the entire pie chart is reviewed literally as the rest of the hole is just 'blacks' and Ann Coulter's amazing dexterity in 'spinning' seems to have left this point unchallenged. Secondly, there's a difference between logical criticism of ethnicity and full out bigotry.

    As an African American, i'll be the first to tell you that of course there's a horrible epidemic of uneducated black males and females out there who resort to the social stigma of stereotypes in the wrong fashion by remaining uneducated and that of course, as humans and it lies in human nature, there's violence of all kinds. But it's ridiculous and hypocritical to de-humanize an ethnic race of people while the same injustices are woven between ANY race found in this great nation. If the point of the study is to bring blame to skin, then what about the outstanding level of rape by Caucasian males in both urban and/especially religious settings?

    It's easy to say "They're different and they cause problems, so that's that" and it's even easier to say "Well you can't critize them without being racist, so screw em". It's not that you can't call a black man out on being ignorant or ghetto, it's that you paint yourself and people who think like you as a victim and then use that to spread hateful messages.

    Black on White Crimes, white on black. Black on black, white on white, what the hell does it matter? A crime's a crime and a life's a life so you dishonor the real victims (the people who loose their lives in gang violence and racial prejudice) by drawing these proverbial 'lines in the sand' and trying to pick sides. I didn't know Gun Broker existed till I was doing research of my own, but after reading the comments on this page I made an account right away to say this in hopes that just one person sees the message for what it is, and contemplates his/her own views based on that alone:

    I'm not here to change anyone's personal beliefs. I'm not here to degrade the importance of whatever events have happened in their lives that would make them feel defensive/hateful/critical of blacks or anyone (if they have that excuse in question). But I am here to ask you people to think about what you're doing when you try to make this a race war. And I know it's not all one people, one side or one person in general. But you see, it's that subjective view right there that makes my point legitimate (not over others, just in reflection)> Because we're all in this together, but the sooner we stop getting over the awkwardness of 'Understanding' of social conduct(on a personal, spiritual and political level) the sooner we can solidify our nation as one true country, instead of a bunch of 'black persons'/'Crackers'/Spics'/Jew-Bagels'/'Beaners'/'etc' pointing fingers at themselves and each other to decide who has the most blame, who's the real group at fault while destroying the moral fiber of their country in the meantime. It's all of our faults for sanctioning and it's none of out faults because it's the stigma of our ANCESTORS. Let's rise above it all.
    Oh, neat. Blame "the man" for keeping people of the color the NAACP advances stereotyped, uneducated, and violent.
    Listen to you dude, right there is the problem. My entire point encompossed the fact that we ARE ONE NATION and that there ISN'T ONE PERSON TO BLAME.
    See, you'd like me to blame 'the man' or my problems on someone else because that's what you expect and that's what would make you right in your view. But the fact of the matter is that any intelligent person who can actually take the time and effort to read and reflect would come to the conclusion, whether they agree or not, that that's not the attention at all. What you're getting confused is 'theme versus focus'. If you'd like to have an intellectual debate based on these topics or others I'd be more than happy to oblige but don't try to patronize me because you're too incompetent to fully understand the English language or too arrogant to back up what you say with anything less than aggression and barbaric, meaningless rebuddle for the sake of offending. Because when you show how stupid you 'can' be you're only embarrassing yourself whether you have the shame to feel it or not.

    But addressing your ever so clever 'highlights', don't twist them to make it seem like i'm calling out anyone besides those African American individuals who still revere 'black culture' to be the latest Hip Hop album. In fact, upon further reflection, you must really play some mental gymnastics in your mind if you can think you've successfully spun my own comment to single out Caucasians or any race. If you spent half of that time thinking of how you could piss off your opponent in a debate, or even spin his words, towards making legitimate points then perhaps you'd have something here.
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
    There are some newbies around who think we will buy into their revisionist lies.

    Doug

    1) yes, your absolutely correct. The length of my membership dictates the legitimacy of my words or points. Not the reasoning behind them, or sense or morals. That'd be silly. You'd have to be a member for six months before that happens. [B)]

    2) Fictional revisionism-The retelling of a story with substantial alterations in character or environment, to "revise" the view shown in the original work.

    You tell me what part of my statements, now or later, have been 'revised' at all, before I make a comment showing what a lie (or misinterpretation of the English language) that is.
  • COLTCOLT Member Posts: 12,637 ******
    edited November -1
    [:D][:D] Doug, you are correct, the sheeple speaking about free thinking, bizzare isnt it?

    Barrack Insane YO'Mama will/is setting race relations back 20 years, said that awhile back before dopeys Gates gate beer fest debacle, he's just a radical Al Shop-ton or Jesse Jack-Sum, not much difference, oh...and Barry is cleaner...Joey Bidens words.

    The race thing sure mattered(s) to Barrack Insane YO'Mama, now didnt it sheeple? Go and tell HIM to wise up...[;)]

    ani-texas-flag-2.gif
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    Does that mean I am a socialist or a communist? Flip no..But what it does mean is that the government dont give dam about the poor, and that aint EVER going to change, as long as the elites run the show.[;)]

    The government feeds on them and rely on them.
    I agree with about 99.9% of what your saying: There's been an outstanding failure of drug policy that's hurting our nation, that could be fixed by removing simple arrogance and ignorance on both sides of the 'Drug War'.

    Marijuana for instance: Here's a evident piece of American history with world renown involvement. Which isn't to place the spotlight on Cannabis, which is a huge problem in and of itself. Parents with teenage children feel that by simply talking logically about it enables their children to make uneducated decisions that will haunt them for the rest of their life. So we have an ignorant ban on something that yields millions of cash cropping in California alone and is scientifically proven as the lowest potential harming agent that anyone can indulge in for the sake of substance alteration, and yet the social stigma involved causes debate to stem away from 'What should be legal and what shouldn't be' to 'Get away from my son you pot smoking drug dealer'. And what ends up happening is that those children they try to shelter don't receive their choice to learn for themselves and that's what causes mistakes that can haunt us, not whether or not we were guardians to shelter them from the world. Does that mean I want heroin legal? No, even though making it illegal is what causes Crime Families to form (like the mobsters during prohibition). But it's ridiculous for humans to fear a plant that causes no long term illness and that increases the quality of life for some individuals (which is then their right to use whatever they please as an American citizen and a human being with free thought)
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    Well my line of thinking was more along the lines that drug dealers make thousands of dollars a day. Which means they need the terf to make the cash.. This leads to competiion which leads to the forming of gangs and violence on a massive scale everywhere that there is a need for drugs and money.

    users need money to buy drugs and most low level druggies dont work.
    Because there is also competition for jobs in urban areas is huge. crack heads or other druggys cant compete.

    leading to petty crimes or prositution.
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by COLT
    [:D][:D] Doug, you are correct, the sheeple speaking about free thinking, bizzare isnt it?

    Barrack Insane YO'Mama will/is setting race relations back 20 years, said that awhile back before dopeys Gates gate beer fest debacle, he's just a radical Al Shop-ton or Jesse Jack-Sum, not much difference, oh...and Barry is cleaner...Joey Bidens words.

    The race thing sure mattered to Barrack Insane YO'Mama, now didnt it sheeple? Go and tell HIM to wise up...[;)]

    ani-texas-flag-2.gif


    You're absolutely rediculous to read and try to understand.

    1) The "sheeple" talking about free thinking? What I see in my depicted 'free thought' were points validated by history and opinons backed by example and morals. What your stating right here and now is the same B.S that makes it feel wrong to others to speak what may be on their mind. THAT kind of ignorance is passed down from generation to generation as it's evident in you and i'm sure is evident in your family. But since I don't know them and never will, I'm above attacking personally.

    2)If you can really look yourself in the mirror and not spit on it, you amuse me. The hypocrisy you dribble is more than that, it's just simply stupidity. To try and even fathom an intelligent remark about race relations and then compound that by referring to your President as 'Yo Mama' isn't offensive to anyone, it's degrading to yourself and your country.

    Furthermore, what kind of race relations do YOU set when you lump together famous black names and label them as the same so that you can give a face to the African American majority..what even gives you the right to own a computer if you're gonna spout this insane nonsense. Yes they're black. Yes, they're renoun. Stop speaking about race relations when you don't know bababooey about your own words.
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    Well my line of thinking was more along the lines that drug dealers make thousands of dollars a day. Which means they need the terf to make the cash.. This leads to competiion which leads to the forming of gangs and violence on a massive scale everywhere that there is a need for drugs and money.

    users need money to buy drugs and most low level druggies dont work.
    Because there is also competition for jobs in urban areas is huge. crack heads or other druggys cant compete.

    leading to petty crimes or prositution.





    Agreed, this is the problem with prohibition. It doesn't work because it's an opprotunity for bad people to profit from ignorance.

    But then we have to call into question what qualifies as a drug or not, in terms of distribution. Right now, under Proposition 215 and SRB 420, citizens of the state are practicing their rights as citizens to use cannabis legally. This is possible as more than 300 dispensaries and growing in the South California area alone. What scares people is the thought that 'drug dealers' are profiting more by the distribution being semi-legal, but actually the inverse is true. Only licensed Caregivers can legally own and operate a dispensary and only licensed vendors can stock said dispensaries. Which means every dispensary and vendor on the market are traceable, which is a new source of information for police. Does that mean that people won't take advantage of the system? Of course not, but show me one system where people don't. All the new countermeasure means is that the police force have a better understanding of whose a criminal and who isn't, if they so choose to operate under that assumption. But so many people think "It's against federal law, it must be wrong" even after San Diego county LOST it's case in a Supreme Court ruling against banning dispensary's.
  • mateomasfeomateomasfeo Member Posts: 27,143
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Think-4-Yourself


    ...If you can really look yourself in the mirror and not spit on it...




    Ouch!

    I'll be usin' that one...
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Think-4-Yourself
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    Well my line of thinking was more along the lines that drug dealers make thousands of dollars a day. Which means they need the terf to make the cash.. This leads to competiion which leads to the forming of gangs and violence on a massive scale everywhere that there is a need for drugs and money.

    users need money to buy drugs and most low level druggies dont work.
    Because there is also competition for jobs in urban areas is huge. crack heads or other druggys cant compete.

    leading to petty crimes or prositution.





    Agreed, this is the problem with prohibition. It doesn't work because it's an opprotunity for bad people to profit from ignorance.

    But then we have to call into question what qualifies as a drug or not, in terms of distribution. Right now, under Proposition 215 and SRB 420, citizens of the state are practicing their rights as citizens to use cannabis legally. This is possible as more than 300 dispensaries and growing in the South California area alone. What scares people is the thought that 'drug dealers' are profiting more by the distribution being semi-legal, but actually the inverse is true. Only licensed Caregivers can legally own and operate a dispensary and only licensed vendors can stock said dispensaries. Which means every dispensary and vendor on the market are traceable, which is a new source of information for police. Does that mean that people won't take advantage of the system? Of course not, but show me one system where people don't. All the new countermeasure means is that the police force have a better understanding of whose a criminal and who isn't, if they so choose to operate under that assumption. But so many people think "It's against federal law, it must be wrong" even after San Diego county LOST it's case in a Supreme Court ruling against banning dispensary's.


    Has drug related violence droped? Or are there not enough hash houses yet?

    The real money makers are coke, meth, and H. So any reduction in violence will be small in any event.
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by mateomasfeo
    quote:Originally posted by Think-4-Yourself


    ...If you can really look yourself in the mirror and not spit on it...




    Ouch!

    I'll be usin' that one...



    Feel free, it was impromptu; i've yet to copyright it.
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    quote:Originally posted by Think-4-Yourself
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    Well my line of thinking was more along the lines that drug dealers make thousands of dollars a day. Which means they need the terf to make the cash.. This leads to competiion which leads to the forming of gangs and violence on a massive scale everywhere that there is a need for drugs and money.

    users need money to buy drugs and most low level druggies dont work.
    Because there is also competition for jobs in urban areas is huge. crack heads or other druggys cant compete.

    leading to petty crimes or prositution.





    Agreed, this is the problem with prohibition. It doesn't work because it's an opprotunity for bad people to profit from ignorance.

    But then we have to call into question what qualifies as a drug or not, in terms of distribution. Right now, under Proposition 215 and SRB 420, citizens of the state are practicing their rights as citizens to use cannabis legally. This is possible as more than 300 dispensaries and growing in the South California area alone. What scares people is the thought that 'drug dealers' are profiting more by the distribution being semi-legal, but actually the inverse is true. Only licensed Caregivers can legally own and operate a dispensary and only licensed vendors can stock said dispensaries. Which means every dispensary and vendor on the market are traceable, which is a new source of information for police. Does that mean that people won't take advantage of the system? Of course not, but show me one system where people don't. All the new countermeasure means is that the police force have a better understanding of whose a criminal and who isn't, if they so choose to operate under that assumption. But so many people think "It's against federal law, it must be wrong" even after San Diego county LOST it's case in a Supreme Court ruling against banning dispensary's.


    Has drug related violence droped? Or are there not enough hash houses yet?

    The real money makers are coke, meth, and H. So any reduction in violence will be small in any event.

    Well first of all, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't refer to a legal operating dispensary as a 'Hash House' when there's no growing of any illegal tender of any sort, if that's what your myopic analogy is trying to convey. But I have no power to stop you from doing so, but if you still wish to then use your own logic to refer to a pharmacy as 'Pill Popper Huts' and Hospitals as 'Butcher Homes'.

    Secondly, yes I agree with you in terms of drug abuse. There will still be many and they will be as frequent. But what won't be a drug abuse is marijuana and that's what's important because tax payers are spending more than they know arresting and convicting often first time offenders or repeat offenders whose only crime was practicing their own rights as given. Does that mean there aren't bad people out there? No. Does that mean there aren't drug dealers. No. But I leave it to the law enforcement to make those diffriantiating labeling, because that's what they're paid for. And if people aren't capable of seeing something or someone for what it is because of an ongoing 'scare' in the face of facts because they'd rather have political officials with no doctrine in medical health, then I fear for the country.
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Think-4-Yourself
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    Originally posted by Think-4-Yourself
    Originally posted by quickmajik
    Well my line of thinking was more along the lines that drug dealers make thousands of dollars a day. Which means they need the terf to make the cash.. This leads to competiion which leads to the forming of gangs and violence on a massive scale everywhere that there is a need for drugs and money.

    users need money to buy drugs and most low level druggies dont work.
    Because there is also competition for jobs in urban areas is huge. crack heads or other druggys cant compete.

    leading to petty crimes or prositution.





    Agreed, this is the problem with prohibition. It doesn't work because it's an opprotunity for bad people to profit from ignorance.

    But then we have to call into question what qualifies as a drug or not, in terms of distribution. Right now, under Proposition 215 and SRB 420, citizens of the state are practicing their rights as citizens to use cannabis legally. This is possible as more than 300 dispensaries and growing in the South California area alone. What scares people is the thought that 'drug dealers' are profiting more by the distribution being semi-legal, but actually the inverse is true. Only licensed Caregivers can legally own and operate a dispensary and only licensed vendors can stock said dispensaries. Which means every dispensary and vendor on the market are traceable, which is a new source of information for police. Does that mean that people won't take advantage of the system? Of course not, but show me one system where people don't. All the new countermeasure means is that the police force have a better understanding of whose a criminal and who isn't, if they so choose to operate under that assumption. But so many people think "It's against federal law, it must be wrong" even after San Diego county LOST it's case in a Supreme Court ruling against banning dispensary's.


    Has drug related violence droped? Or are there not enough hash houses yet?

    The real money makers are coke, meth, and H. So any reduction in violence will be small in any event.





    Well first of all, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't refer to a legal operating dispensary as a 'Hash House' when there's no growing of any illegal tender of any sort, if that's what your myopic analogy is trying to convey. But I have no power to stop you from doing so, but if you still wish to then use your own logic to refer to a pharmacy as 'Pill Popper Huts' and Hospitals as 'Butcher Homes'.

    I mean hash, as in pot that has been soaked in rendered MJ oil, Nothing derogatory intended, house.. As for wishing that I use logic, uhh I'll forgive that one.. You are new here.

    Secondly, yes I agree with you in terms of drug abuse. There will still be many and they will be as frequent. But what won't be a drug abuse is marijuana and that's what's important because tax payers are spending more than they know arresting and convicting often first time offenders or repeat offenders whose only crime was practicing their own rights as given. Does that mean there aren't bad people out there? No. Does that mean there aren't drug dealers. No. But I leave it to the law enforcement to make those diffriantiating labeling, because that's what they're paid for. And if people aren't capable of seeing something or someone for what it is because of an ongoing 'scare' in the face of facts because they'd rather have political officials with no doctrine in medical health, then I fear for the country.

    I think you will be surprised to find that many, many members on this forum think that drugs should be legalized because of the reasons that you and I have stated.

    I am not one Of those "people." I try my best given human nature to let logic and reality dictate my outlook on serious matters.
  • kimberkidkimberkid Member Posts: 8,857 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by shootuadeal
    you cant talk about that anymore[xx(]

    thats racist[xx(]


    only if you are white
    If you really desire something, you'll find a way ?
    ? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    quote:Originally posted by Think-4-Yourself
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    Originally posted by Think-4-Yourself
    Originally posted by quickmajik
    Well my line of thinking was more along the lines that drug dealers make thousands of dollars a day. Which means they need the terf to make the cash.. This leads to competiion which leads to the forming of gangs and violence on a massive scale everywhere that there is a need for drugs and money.

    users need money to buy drugs and most low level druggies dont work.
    Because there is also competition for jobs in urban areas is huge. crack heads or other druggys cant compete.

    leading to petty crimes or prositution.





    Agreed, this is the problem with prohibition. It doesn't work because it's an opprotunity for bad people to profit from ignorance.

    But then we have to call into question what qualifies as a drug or not, in terms of distribution. Right now, under Proposition 215 and SRB 420, citizens of the state are practicing their rights as citizens to use cannabis legally. This is possible as more than 300 dispensaries and growing in the South California area alone. What scares people is the thought that 'drug dealers' are profiting more by the distribution being semi-legal, but actually the inverse is true. Only licensed Caregivers can legally own and operate a dispensary and only licensed vendors can stock said dispensaries. Which means every dispensary and vendor on the market are traceable, which is a new source of information for police. Does that mean that people won't take advantage of the system? Of course not, but show me one system where people don't. All the new countermeasure means is that the police force have a better understanding of whose a criminal and who isn't, if they so choose to operate under that assumption. But so many people think "It's against federal law, it must be wrong" even after San Diego county LOST it's case in a Supreme Court ruling against banning dispensary's.


    Has drug related violence droped? Or are there not enough hash houses yet?

    The real money makers are coke, meth, and H. So any reduction in violence will be small in any event.





    Well first of all, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't refer to a legal operating dispensary as a 'Hash House' when there's no growing of any illegal tender of any sort, if that's what your myopic analogy is trying to convey. But I have no power to stop you from doing so, but if you still wish to then use your own logic to refer to a pharmacy as 'Pill Popper Huts' and Hospitals as 'Butcher Homes'.


    Secondly, yes I agree with you in terms of drug abuse. There will still be many and they will be as frequent. But what won't be a drug abuse is marijuana and that's what's important because tax payers are spending more than they know arresting and convicting often first time offenders or repeat offenders whose only crime was practicing their own rights as given. Does that mean there aren't bad people out there? No. Does that mean there aren't drug dealers. No. But I leave it to the law enforcement to make those diffriantiating labeling, because that's what they're paid for. And if people aren't capable of seeing something or someone for what it is because of an ongoing 'scare' in the face of facts because they'd rather have political officials with no doctrine in medical health, then I fear for the country.


    I am not one Of those "people." I try my best given human nature to let logic and reality dictate my outlook on serious matters.[/i]


    "I mean hash, as in pot that has been soaked in rendered MJ oil, Nothing derogatory intended, house.. As for wishing that I use logic, uhh I'll forgive that one.. You are new here"

    If that's your response, then I'd have to point out that Hash in general isn't a well-practiced distributor in terms of dispensaries because many dispensaries have their own interpretation of 'natural' and some dispensaries have been raided by the D.E.A for over stepping the boundaries with Hash. This is the reason I bring it up, not to be defensive but simple misinterpretations can settle someone's mind before hearing fact. As for your.. 'New here line'..yea, I forgot that I can't assert my interpretations of words directed towards me until I'm a member for a full month, right? Not like I've used logical reasoning for metaphorical deductions till then, right?[xx(]

    But I don't want to offend anyone, especially the first person to start encompassing actual thought into their argument, so my apologies for any words I could have stated better.

    Second, nah I wouldn't be too surprised about the members of this forum's view on legalizing Marijuana because I'm sure there are more people like you who assess what they hear with their own minds and make a logical decision. Plus, marijuana rox...so..[:D]
  • Think-4-YourselfThink-4-Yourself Member Posts: 15 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by kimberkid
    quote:Originally posted by shootuadeal
    you cant talk about that anymore[xx(]

    thats racist[xx(]


    only if you are white
    You're the reason Caucasians and other ethnic groups draw lines in the sand, pick a side and call each other bigots and racists: Stop feeding into the idea that "it's only racist when white people say it" by pretending that it's true. You can make an educated decision about when a person is acting a stereotype or ignorant, it's by your words and how you act upon them that determines who you are. Only closeted racists or racists afraid of conflict worry about being called one or not, because if you're not then the simple fact is your not. Stop making it a race game, it's pathetic and old.

    If you're not a racist then your not and no one can tell you different, it's as simple as that. But you can just be an arrogant *, so it takes a certain level of maturity and understanding, with CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and that's what separates racists from Idealists.
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    If you try you will get along just fine here, and make some good friends.. There are some very good and smart people to discourse with here... Grow some thick skin and try to look over some of what you see..

    I have never been fond of seperating myself from others simply because of there race or my own beliefs.. This is my motto: I may disagree with what you say, but I will die for of your right to say it.

    Dispite any short commings that our elected leaders may have, we have the best creed and ethos to live by on this planet.. As long as you share that belief, all is well.

    If you dont, You will find yourself needing to explain why in logical terms. We have more then one socialist on this forum, but many are ran off. The reason they stay and arent shunned is simply because they state the fact in no uncertian terms..

    I am not saying that you are a socialist or any other "ist." What I am trying to get across is that as long as you are honest about who you are and what you believe some may not like it, but many will respect it because you are intellectually honest enough to explain yourself and why.[;)]
Sign In or Register to comment.