Nine people shot and injured on Broadwalk in Hollywood

Dude you literally offered that things would be better if people would solve their conflicts with hands and feet rather than a pistol.
People includes all persons. All persons includes women and the infirm. You've suggested that the infirm and females should attempt fisticuffs, should be REQUIRED TO since from prior discussions it's clear you're a grabber, with the sorts of persons who initiate violent crimes IE generally speaking physically fit males.

You spoke broadly, and you had a bad time. Just say "O my bad, imprecise use of language. What I meant was [far more nuanced point]".

And that data has no place in a chart indicating how likely it is you might experience an assault on your person in a given area.
Cease trying to use emotional manipulation to get your way. Its a turn off, rhetorically speaking.

 

You're not a victim of gun violence. Your friend offed himself, and didn't have the common decency to do it where someone else like a cop would have to find him.

Its not gun violence. Your friend didn't commit violence against 3rd parties, he smeared his brains all over the wall.
You were not a victim of gun violence. You were the victim of a very selfish suicide doing it where you had to deal with the mess.

 

If he had taken a bottle of pills, it would not have been violent.

The reason it was violent was because a gun was involved.

 

There was no violence directed toward 3rd parties, therefore including it in a stat or discussion involving that AS HERE is unreasonable and specious.

If It was 'violent' the way you're using the term, it would be because your friend's selfishness caused you extreme emotional distress.
I wager if you'd found him covered in blood, drool, vomit, piss, and **** from OD'ing on pills, convulsed and wracked with the seizures that killed him, you'd still use the same descriptor.
You've bargained with yourself however, while working through the stages of grief, and decided that if it had JUST been pills it wouldn't have been so bad.
Rather than focus on yourself and your friends and what you might have missed, the mistakes you might have made, with your buddy crying out for help as suicides do, you've externalized it to an inanimate object. Rather than think about the easy catches you fumbled that if you'd been better might have left your friend alive, you worship a totem, a graven idol, to focus your hurt feelings and angst on.

Which is fine for you, project away, climb into those neuroses. But don't expect me to.

 

lol, it was 1994. I'm over it.

It was absolutely gun violence, which is the phrase that was being used when i made the comment.

Suicide deaths by firearm, are firearm deaths, and should be counted as such. Accidental deaths related to firearms, are firearm deaths and should be counted as such.

 

Yes. Wouldn't you rather have a black eye than a bullet in your spine?

No. Apparently the point sailed a mile over your head. The topic is two groups of young folks settling disagreements with guns as opposed to fists. And no, I have no interest in grabbing your gun, or having someone grab mine. I'm all for people carrying guns for self defense, but that was obviously the case here.

Eh.....come again.....

I have not suggested a 'my way' here, and again I am not sure what you are trying to say. What data?

 

You brought it up like a person holding up a cross to ward off a vampire. Sure you're over it.

There was no violence directed at a 3rd party, you're not a victim of gun violence ffs.

Firearm deaths are a meaningless stat. The **** do I care if someone offed themselves? The **** do I care if someone got plugged in a justifiable homicide?
Assaults by firearm, murders by firearm, these are the stats that make sense to track and to discuss when attempting to discuss CRIME which is what we're talking about.

 

Firearm deaths is the only stat that matters.

 

Two of the guns were stolen, too.

 

I'd rather defend myself without being required to engage in a physical strength contest.

Your position is as I described. I prefer not to require my wife or my mother to engage in fisticuffs with Lil Spyder and Da Boyz in the event they need to self defend. They have literally no chance in such a case. They have a SLIGHT chance with firearms. Slight is better than none.

As stated: The post we're all criticizing you claim doesn't mean what it plainly says. Ergo, you must be claiming you had a more nuanced point to make. So say that you misspoke, and reform your argument. Don't continue to dig the hole.

You chimed in on a post where WhoDat is attempting emotional manipulation by revealing a turrible gun jumped up and murdered their friend one time, sharing a similar story and aim.
So I replied to you as I have to them. What data? The data we've been discussing in that line you responded to. Do you not know?

 

When it includes suicides and justifiable homicides? Its a completely useless stat.

 

Ok, you didn't get it the 1st time, or the 2nd time, so we'll move on.

I said: "The topic is two groups of young folks settling disagreements with guns as opposed to fists. And no, I have no interest in grabbing your gun, or having someone grab mine. I'm all for people carrying guns for self defense, but that was obviously the case here."

If your wife and mother are in habit of engaging in arguments with Lil Spyder and Da Boyz, they they should definitely carry guns, and even that will probably not be enough. Might as well issue the "thoughts 'n prayers" pre-empively.

If it was a post from someone else why did you respond to it while quoting my post?

I asked what data you are referring to, and its still a mystery.

 

for what purpose?

 

No, I got it both times. You're just rapidly backpeddling.

You understand that a person can have beef with you when you don't initiate anything? You grasp this intellectually?

Because the post you quoted was a person talking to me, and you were also talking to me in the post, so I assumed it applied. Maybe break up posts to multiple posters and avoid such confusion in the future?

To quote the Big Lebowski:
Walter Sobchak:
So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

 

I see. Well, thanks for stopping by to troll the thread.

No, you inserted his words into the post as if I has posted them. Accidentally? Maybe. Who cares. I am not going to argue for the sake of arguing, so have a nice day.

 

What a shocking and unexpected development..... I thought for sure it was those Amish again

 

your Amish references were maybe funny the first time but now they are just lame … find a new schtick …

 

Making fun of mass shootings is his way of trying to downplay the problem.

 

We aren't making fun of the mass shooting...lol

 

Well if I just came right out and said it were black folks shooting again then I would be called racist.

But the reality is a lot of the times that's what turns out to be the case.

 

They were black, so we can just sweep it away like it never happened.

 

the people who sweep black on black gun violence under the rug are usually the gun banners who wish to ignore shootings that don't help the gun banning agenda

 

Why not? The pink elephant in the room is that black people are responsible for the majority of shootings here in the United States but no one actually wants to talk about it because then you're called a racist.
So yes that's exactly what you progressives wish to do is to sweep it under the rug.

Perhaps black people should suffer more of a burden of proof to prove that they're not going to use guns illegally because they tend to overwhelmingly do so?

But of course that would be racist wouldn't it?

When the founding fathers established the second amendment they never imagined black people having guns. And to this very day it appears that that was justified.

Of course not all black people will missuse guns but a lot of the people that misuse guns, just happen to be black

 

Well, no one is ignoring this one since 9 bystanders were shot. If victims are gang-bangers no one cares, and it had nothing to do with their skin color. Also, why do you think gang shootings wouldn't help 'banning agenda'?

No one talks about it? Black race is literally all you ever talk about.

Project much?

Its a pretty good example of race based discrimination aka racism. Are you saying its not?

Maybe they just forgot to add the "white" to the text. How sloppy of them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the WHITE people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

in some states, "Papists" and of course "Indians" were not covered either, but what many anti gun advocates ignore is confusing the extent of the right vs those covered