Now do you believe me? https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/t1582 Runboard| Now do you believe me? en-us Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:22:43 +0000 Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:22:43 +0000 https://www.runboard.com/ rssfeeds_managingeditor@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds managing editor) rssfeeds_webmaster@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds webmaster) akBBS 60 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20312,from=rss#post20312https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20312,from=rss#post20312quote:msdulittle wrote: I'm certainly not for gun control...but i am for cops being better trained before they are let loose on the populous. I really don't know why they can't just shoot to wound or disable. I know they are risking their lives, but nobody forced them to become cops. Many of them seem to like that license to bully. I doubt seriously this woman was a threat to these two macho azzwipes. In this particular case, where the cop shot across the inside of the car, the muzzle must have been very near the ear of his partner. I wonder how much trouble hearing he has now? Seems incredibly dangerous to me. If is partner would have suddenly moved, he could have been hit instead.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:57:27 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20304,from=rss#post20304https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20304,from=rss#post20304I'm certainly not for gun control...but i am for cops being better trained before they are let loose on the populous. I really don't know why they can't just shoot to wound or disable. I know they are risking their lives, but nobody forced them to become cops. Many of them seem to like that license to bully. I doubt seriously this woman was a threat to these two macho azzwipes.nondisclosed_email@example.com (msdulittle)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 22:05:12 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20291,from=rss#post20291https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20291,from=rss#post20291Frankly I think anyone in favor of gun control is either misguided or a fascist, but anyone who says gun control could possibly reduce suicides, has to be a liar as well as a fascist.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 20:38:22 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20290,from=rss#post20290https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20290,from=rss#post20290Yeah, comparing gun toting to Bible toting does seem fair. Which has caused more death ?   nondisclosed_email@example.com (Geezess)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 20:36:57 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20289,from=rss#post20289https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20289,from=rss#post20289Anyone who consistently quotes a liar and fascist and supports them, has to be a liar and fascist. There is no way around that. {... Before you dig in to the full transcript, here's another statement the NRA's President made that day (May 15 of 1934): MR. FREDERICK: ... "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses" [emphasis added] You'll find that section of his testimony on page 59, below. But before you read on, take a moment and replace the words "weapons" and "guns" with "Bible" and "religious materials" in the above quote and see how it sounds. To save you the time in transposing the words yourself, here is the same quote with the words replaced as suggested: "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying Bibles. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of religious materials. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses" Religious texts are covered by the First Amendment. Firearms are covered by the Second Amendment. The analogy seems quite fair. NOTE OF HISTORICAL INTEREST: As a matter of purely historical interest, Frederick's testimony took place on April 18, 1934 -- the exact same day Adolf Hitler named J von Ribbentrop as Germany's "Ambassador for Disarmament." See: http://www.hiphistory.com/e/1934/apr18.65305.html and http://www.hiphistory.com/d/apr18.html. That's not to suggest a relationship between the two events, of course -- that would be silly. But history buffs might find it rather intriguing. NFA'34 is the foundation for all federal gun control and has been used in courts to justify many state gun controls -- and gun control is clearly about disarmament. Odd timing. Almost as odd as the fact that the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 was copied from the Nazi Firearms Act of 1938. ...}nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 20:33:34 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20277,from=rss#post20277https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20277,from=rss#post20277quote:katie5445 wrote: quote:Geezess wrote: So it is not adult to whom and why to reply "No", to the question " "Care to share your source for this?" ... when my point was self evident common sense ? Just asking respectly because it is so odd, but how can you be so sensitive to sexist harassment but so oblivious to others sort of it, Katie ? And what sexist harassment might that be? ROTFLOL Read again what I said more carefully: "Just asking respectly because it is so odd, but how can you be so sensitive to sexist harassment BUT BE SO OBLIVIOUS to others sort of it (harassment), Katie ? > "And what sexist harassment might that be?" Give it up, gal. How funny is it that you just hoisted yourself on your own petard ?   nondisclosed_email@example.com (Geezess)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 18:52:04 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20268,from=rss#post20268https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20268,from=rss#post20268Thanks for that, msdulittle. nondisclosed_email@example.com (John1959)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:35:04 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20265,from=rss#post20265https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20265,from=rss#post20265(((John))) i think you are a good man... nondisclosed_email@example.com (msdulittle)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:20:48 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20264,from=rss#post20264https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20264,from=rss#post20264I feel forced to respond to some comments here. 1 - I use that quote of Karl T. Frederick in my signature to show how the NRA has changed since its early years. If anyone is going to attack the man by calling him a "offensive right wing fascist", a "racist and bigot" and a "typical 1930s Texas fascist", they should at least provide some evidence for this. And he was from New York state, not Texas. 2 - Regarding the statistics I posted; Yes, that number includes suicides. As I wrote, "The number of people shot and killed by cops is far less than the number of people shot and killed by other citizens or by themselves." My point was to say that far more people die from firearms by being shot by citizens or themselves than die from being shot by cops. 3 - That does not mean that I think all shootings by cops are justified, including the one posted above. 4 - Go ahead and call me a "disgusting liar", a "fascist", or whatever you like. In my view, it says more about you than it does about me. 5 - And last but not least, before you begin attacks and insulting a member here, make sure you understand their views and what they are saying. If you disagree with their conclusions, say so. There's a huge difference between saying someone is wrong - and posting proof for it - and calling them a liar or worse.nondisclosed_email@example.com (John1959)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:53:12 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20221,from=rss#post20221https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20221,from=rss#post20221quote:Geezess wrote: So it is not adult to whom and why to reply "No", to the question " "Care to share your source for this?" ... when my point was self evident common sense ? Just asking respectly because it is so odd, but how can you be so sensitive to sexist harassment but so oblivious to others sort of it, Katie ? And what sexist harassment might that be?nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 02:43:08 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20218,from=rss#post20218https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20218,from=rss#post20218And that figure of 33k shooting deaths each year are 60% suicides. So the actual deaths representing risk are more like 13k. Since there are 330 times more average citizens than there are police, we should expect over 330k shooting deaths. Since we only have 13k, that police are about 25 times more dangerous than average people are. And if you think that is ok because police have to deal with more dangerous situations than police do, that is also wrong. The police are not the ones being held up and robbed. No one ever attacks the police and tried to rob them. They almost always get to a crime scene after it is all over, and everything is safe. So it is almost always innocent people the police shoot. It is average people who are forced to deal with violent crime, not police.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 02:28:56 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20212,from=rss#post20212https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20212,from=rss#post20212quote:Rigby5 wrote: Remember that this thread is not about gun control, but the dangers of police and their current training to shoot at the slightest provocation. Yes it is...how easily trains can be derailed. nondisclosed_email@example.com (msdulittle)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 00:55:46 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20211,from=rss#post20211https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20211,from=rss#post20211Rigby...i had no idea who Karl Frederick was or what he espoused. After looking up some info on him...i definitely wouldn't have been on his side of the gun control issue and other things. So i can see why the quote makes you feel insulted. I truly doubt John meant to insult anyone here. And you are entitled to your opinion as everyone else is ...sorry i didn't mind my own business. Waving white flag....   nondisclosed_email@example.com (msdulittle)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 00:52:33 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20209,from=rss#post20209https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20209,from=rss#post20209Remember that this thread is not about gun control, but the dangers of police and their current training to shoot at the slightest provocation.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 00:30:16 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20207,from=rss#post20207https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20207,from=rss#post20207quote:msdulittle wrote: Good grief...my favorite quote... Mahatma Gandhi “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I hold that the more helpless a creature the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of humankind.” ― Mahatma Gandhi quoting it would not mean that i am practicing Hinduism.   Just because John chose his particular siggie doesn't mean he is a fascist. He believes in gun control...so what. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. He gave statistics...what was wrong with just saying you didn't think the statistics were accurate? Calling someone a liar is an insult, just because you don't agree with their statics. A verbal slap in the face. Quoting Gandhi on the ethical treatment of animals DOES mean you are promoting the ethical treatment of animals. Quoting a fascist on a fascist position DOES promote fascism. It is extremely offensive as a signature line. There are some ways one can support gun control without being a fascist, but not when you quote a well known racist and bigot. Karl Frederick was a typical 1930s Texas fascist. His goal was to disarm poor people, Blacks, immigrants, and everyone but the wealthy. He was largely responsible for the 1934 gun legislation that plagues us even today. Here is someone commenting on his congressional testimony to support gun control: {... The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a virtual ban on machineguns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and sound suppressors -- a ban for commoners, that is. It ultimately placed a $200 transfer tax on these products (with the usual exception for law enforcement officers, of course). Only the well-to-do could afford that kind of money -- especially for shotguns that were going for five or ten dollars and sound suppressors that were even cheaper. At that time, you could get a brand new, high quality machinegun for around a hundred bucks and a worn one for cheaper. Tripling the price overnight put these already-expensive weapons out of reach for the average Depression Era gun owner. A decade and a half devoted to the study of (and methodical, proud implementation of) gun control regulation, yet the NRA President had not given any serious thought to how the Second Amendment rights of NRA members and gun owners at large might be affected by a machinegun and short-barreled shotgun ban -- even though he knew he'd be testifying before Congress on the proposed legislation. Furthermore, as his testimony shows, he also believed that the States could ban firearms without violating the Second Amendment. ...} The $200 fee the law attached to the ownership of these firearms is equivalent to over $3000 these days. In no way was it intended to make society safer, but to just give the wealthy more of a monopoly on firearms. He clearly is a racist fascist, and is disgusting to quote. As for the statistic, it is far more than insulting. Everyone knows full well that half the shooting deaths are suicides, so how can it be anything but offensive to try to sneak suicides into a number that is being used in an argument to indicate police are less of a risk than other people? Obviously suicides are NOT a risk to others. And such deliberate fraud can be nothing other than lying.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Thu, 20 Jul 2017 00:17:06 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20204,from=rss#post20204https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20204,from=rss#post20204Good grief...my favorite quote... Mahatma Gandhi “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I hold that the more helpless a creature the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of humankind.” ― Mahatma Gandhi quoting it would not mean that i am practicing Hinduism.   Just because John chose his particular siggie doesn't mean he is a fascist. He believes in gun control...so what. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. He gave statistics...what was wrong with just saying you didn't think the statistics were accurate? Calling someone a liar is an insult, just because you don't agree with their statics. A verbal slap in the face.nondisclosed_email@example.com (msdulittle)Wed, 19 Jul 2017 23:56:57 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20189,from=rss#post20189https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20189,from=rss#post20189quote:msdulittle wrote: quote:John1959 wrote: OK, I've had it. I refuse to be labeled a liar for posting statistics from various sources. Saying that I'm wrong, that I've misinterpreted the statistics, or that the statistics are wrong I can accept. I refuse to be called right-wing (as an insult) simply because I don't share someones exact opinion on an issue. (Hell, I supported Sanders and voted for Clinton). And I refuse to be told I am the one who has been rude when I haven't. (Show me what comment I made that was rude?) So screw this thread - I'm done with it. John is owed an apology imho. Nobody likes to be called a liar and nobody likes to be labeled something they aren't. He is far from being a right-winger...again...jmho. He quotes an offensive right wing fascist at the bottom of each and every post. {... “I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” - NRA president Karl T. Frederick, 1938 ...} How then could anyone possibly take him as anything but an offensive right wing fascist? Then in order to prove police are not more of a threat than ordinary citizens, he quotes a number that is half suicides. How could suicides possibly be at all ethical to include as indicating a threat to others? And who would try to justify absurd police shootings other than an offensive right wing fascist? Voting for Clinton does not at all make one not a offensive right wing fascist. All you have to do is be in favor of gun control for everyone but police. That makes one a right wing fascist by definition.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Wed, 19 Jul 2017 23:06:59 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20176,from=rss#post20176https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20176,from=rss#post20176So it is not adult to whom and why to reply "No", to the question " "Care to share your source for this?" ... when my point was self evident common sense ? Just asking respectly because it is so odd, but how can you be so sensitive to sexist harassment but so oblivious to others sort of it, Katie ? nondisclosed_email@example.com (Geezess)Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:44:29 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20175,from=rss#post20175https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20175,from=rss#post20175So it is not adult to whom and why to reply "No", to the question " "Care to share your source for this?" ... when my point was self evident common sense ? Just asking respectly because it is so odd, but how can you be so sensitive to sexist harassment but so oblivious to others sort of it, Katie ? nondisclosed_email@example.com (Geezess)Wed, 19 Jul 2017 19:44:14 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20162,from=rss#post20162https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20162,from=rss#post20162quote:Geezess wrote: quote:katie5445 wrote: And I was referring to Geezess post when John asked a simple question who kills more people, cops or the average citizen and it as an administrator. While others see what really happen: "You (Geezess) just deferred looking up time consuming numbers. He deliberately put up a number he had to know was obviously wrong and misleading. " Why is that too rude, Katie ? And what is your source for saying it is too rude, Katie ? As I said before: " So, in closing and in fairness to you, Katie, should we just reply to all the right wing alternative truth with :" Care to share your source for this?" knowing that they never do as they demand of others ?" I'm the source with Rose's permission. I am not asking for your fairness and yes asking a question as an adult, works for me but what is more important, it works for Rose and this board.nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:46:12 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20156,from=rss#post20156https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20156,from=rss#post20156quote:John1959 wrote: OK, I've had it. I refuse to be labeled a liar for posting statistics from various sources. Saying that I'm wrong, that I've misinterpreted the statistics, or that the statistics are wrong I can accept. I refuse to be called right-wing (as an insult) simply because I don't share someones exact opinion on an issue. (Hell, I supported Sanders and voted for Clinton). And I refuse to be told I am the one who has been rude when I haven't. (Show me what comment I made that was rude?) So screw this thread - I'm done with it. John is owed an apology imho. Nobody likes to be called a liar and nobody likes to be labeled something they aren't. He is far from being a right-winger...again...jmho. nondisclosed_email@example.com (msdulittle)Wed, 19 Jul 2017 14:08:17 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20142,from=rss#post20142https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20142,from=rss#post20142Your refusals mean what to other free people ? John : I'll respond by simply posing a question; Who shoots and kills more people, cops or average citizens? Me> Who shoots and kills more people, cops or average citizens? per thousand ? Cops. Your reply : Care to share your source for this? To common sense ? What but suggesting that it is a lie is that. Did you Google the figures truthfully. I refuse to roll over to your obvious tactics, come what may, okay. B'bye nondisclosed_email@example.com (Geezess)Wed, 19 Jul 2017 03:14:16 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20138,from=rss#post20138https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20138,from=rss#post20138OK, I've had it. I refuse to be labeled a liar for posting statistics from various sources. Saying that I'm wrong, that I've misinterpreted the statistics, or that the statistics are wrong I can accept. I refuse to be called right-wing (as an insult) simply because I don't share someones exact opinion on an issue. (Hell, I supported Sanders and voted for Clinton). And I refuse to be told I am the one who has been rude when I haven't. (Show me what comment I made that was rude?) So screw this thread - I'm done with it.nondisclosed_email@example.com (John1959)Wed, 19 Jul 2017 01:34:24 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20120,from=rss#post20120https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20120,from=rss#post20120quote:katie5445 wrote: And I was referring to Geezess post when John asked a simple question who kills more people, cops or the average citizen and it as an administrator. While others see what really happen: "You (Geezess) just deferred looking up time consuming numbers. He deliberately put up a number he had to know was obviously wrong and misleading. " Why is that too rude, Katie ? And what is your source for saying it is too rude, Katie ? As I said before: " So, in closing and in fairness to you, Katie, should we just reply to all the right wing alternative truth with :" Care to share your source for this?" knowing that they never do as they demand of others ?" nondisclosed_email@example.com (Geezess)Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:10:37 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20119,from=rss#post20119https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20119,from=rss#post20119quote:Rigby5 wrote: quote:Geezess wrote: LOL  That does answer the question at all. " The number of all firearm deaths in 2014 was 33,594 according to the CDC." / the population of the USA = what ? (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States Compare that to: '963 people have been shot and killed by how many police in 2016. 963/ X = what. 765 ? as there were 765,246 full-time police officers in the United States — blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2016/.../how-many-police-are-there-in-the-united-states/ So 963/765 = what ? 12.6 per 100,000 killed ? Edit Re: Rigby calling me a disgusting liar in this political climate, which is somehow NOT RUDE, here ? : "That is a disgusting attempt to lie. Half those firearm death are suicides" Okay, and given it so common for the police to be trigger happy why is it not fair to compare, to include: Urban Dictionary: suicide by cop www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suicide%20by%20cop Passive method of suicide by those without the guts to kill themselves. Involves entering or drawing a police response, then provoking a lethal draw of fire by ... No, I am calling John1959 the disgusting liar. You just deferred looking up time consuming numbers. He deliberately put up a number he had to know was obviously wrong and misleading. Suicide by cop does not make police look better, but far worse because no one is making them pull the trigger. Instead they could fall back, use a nonlethal weapon, etc. Sorry. Thanks, and I got caught up in his neo-know nothing tactics. They are what is root of rude, here and in politics in general. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Geezess)Tue, 18 Jul 2017 21:08:14 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20107,from=rss#post20107https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20107,from=rss#post20107And I was referring to Geezess post when John asked a simple question who kills more people, cops or the average citizen and it as an administrator.nondisclosed_email@example.com (katie5445)Tue, 18 Jul 2017 18:57:19 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20106,from=rss#post20106https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20106,from=rss#post20106quote:Geezess wrote: LOL  That does answer the question at all. " The number of all firearm deaths in 2014 was 33,594 according to the CDC." / the population of the USA = what ? (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States Compare that to: '963 people have been shot and killed by how many police in 2016. 963/ X = what. 765 ? as there were 765,246 full-time police officers in the United States — blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2016/.../how-many-police-are-there-in-the-united-states/ So 963/765 = what ? 12.6 per 100,000 killed ? Edit Re: Rigby calling me a disgusting liar in this political climate, which is somehow NOT RUDE, here ? : "That is a disgusting attempt to lie. Half those firearm death are suicides" Okay, and given it so common for the police to be trigger happy why is it not fair to compare, to include: Urban Dictionary: suicide by cop www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suicide%20by%20cop Passive method of suicide by those without the guts to kill themselves. Involves entering or drawing a police response, then provoking a lethal draw of fire by ... No, I am calling John1959 the disgusting liar. You just deferred looking up time consuming numbers. He deliberately put up a number he had to know was obviously wrong and misleading. Suicide by cop does not make police look better, but far worse because no one is making them pull the trigger. Instead they could fall back, use a nonlethal weapon, etc.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Tue, 18 Jul 2017 18:51:53 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20100,from=rss#post20100https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20100,from=rss#post20100LOL  That does not answer the question at all. " The number of all firearm deaths in 2014 was 33,594 according to the CDC." / the population of the USA = what ? (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States Compare that to: '963 people have been shot and killed by how many police in 2016. 963/ X = what. 765 ? as there were 765,246 full-time police officers in the United States — blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2016/.../how-many-police-are-there-in-the-united-states/ So 963/765 = what ? 12.6 per 100,000 killed ? Edit Re: Rigby calling me a disgusting liar in this political climate, which is somehow NOT RUDE, here ? : "That is a disgusting attempt to lie. Half those firearm death are suicides" Okay, and given it so common for the police to be trigger happy why is it not fair to compare, to include: Urban Dictionary: suicide by cop www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suicide%20by%20cop Passive method of suicide by those without the guts to kill themselves. Involves entering or drawing a police response, then provoking a lethal draw of fire by ... nondisclosed_email@example.com (Geezess)Tue, 18 Jul 2017 18:21:35 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20099,from=rss#post20099https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20099,from=rss#post20099quote:John1959 wrote: quote:Geezess wrote: Look, I see what you are saying, but why is denying common sense and implying that I'm a liar, wrong thinking for the politically unpure use of logic and common sense not the root cause of the uncivil atmosphere of our politics ? Who said you were lying? I simply asked the question, "Care to share your source for this?" I wanted to know why your view conflicted with my own based on what I have read. And for the record - and you would know this if you had read most of my posts - I am extremely far from "right-wing". No, your view it totally and extremely right wing because you believe government should have total control over all matters of freedom and self defense, and that individuals have no means of right of self defense. You proclaim your fascist intent yourself, by echoing the most fascist organization in the country, the NRA.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Tue, 18 Jul 2017 18:20:32 +0000 Re: Now do you believe me?https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20098,from=rss#post20098https://bthepoliticalgrilltwo.runboard.com/p20098,from=rss#post20098quote:John1959 wrote: quote:Geezess wrote: quote:John1959 wrote: quote:Geezess wrote: Who shoots and kills more people, cops or average citizens? per thousand ? Cops. Care to share your source for this? Nope. It is common logic in reply to YOUR question. If you want the data, find it and post it in support of YOUR OWN (fake news ? ) contention. You do have a computer, right ? Here, learn to use it: https://www.google.com/ Who else is sick and tired of the neo-know nothings, propaganda games ? So you don't want to share a source and you claim it is "common logic". OK, then I'll post what I have found; 963 people have been shot and killed by police in 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/ That seems to be what is reported for each of last few years - somewhere around 1,000. The number of all firearm deaths in 2014 was 33,594 according to the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm That is a disgusting attempt to lie. Half those firearm death are suicides, and most of the others are actually attempted thefts gone bad accidentally. Plus there are over 330 million people, while less than 900 thousand cops, so anything not adjusted by group size is deliberate diversion. This also makes absolutely no attempt to differentiate between valid self defense shooting and aggression. And it is average people who get attacked and need to defend themselves, not police. No one ever attacks police intentionally, normally.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Rigby5)Tue, 18 Jul 2017 18:15:13 +0000