Shooting in Time Square

[Jimmy Higgins]

NEW YORK, NY - The NYPD indicated it was likely firearm competency that was to blame for the lack of 24 hour coverage of the Times Square shooting. When asked NYPD Detective John Smillings indicated that the poor aim of the shooter was the likely cause of the Times Square shooting being under reported in the news. The lack of "deaths" was presented as the reason Cable News and the Internet weren't obsessed over the rather uncommon gunfire attack in one of the busiest pedestrian areas in the United States.

The NYPD expected had the shooter killed anyone, it would have likely drawn a lot more coverage. "The number of deaths is critical these days," noted Det. Smilling. While "randomness" was "critically important", not the detective, as an aside explaining why the Colorado trailer park shooting didn't have much coverage, the number deaths is crucial. "The Venn Diagram is a near overlap."

When asked whether the victims being white was also important, the Detective noted, "Typically, if the victims aren't white, it won't even make a Reuters blip."

 

[laughing dog]

Too many people with a lack of self-control and a lack of firearm proficiency have access to fire arms in the USA. Reasonable gun control might slightly reduce the carnage due to a lack of firearm proficiency, but there are much deeper problems to deal with. Blaming _______ (you pick the political spectrum) for this problem is pointless since both liberal and conservative policies have helped us devolve to this current situation.

 

[laughing dog]

So a black Muslim (and likely NoI given his given name; it's like a Nazi naming their kid "Hitler") shoots innocent bystanders while shooting at his brother and the Leftists on here insist that it is the fault of Trump and McConnell?

Times Square shooter was allegedly aiming for his brother, sources reveal

The suspected Times Square gunman was aiming for his brother when he shot three innocent bystanders — and the sibling later dropped the dime on him, law-enforcement sources told The Post on Sunday. Farrakhan Muhammad, a 31-year-old CD peddler, was identified as the alleged shooter in Saturday’s horror — after a bizarre chain of events led cops to his brother, sources said.
[...]
The suspect has been busted before, including last year for allegedly assaulting a random passerby who tried to intervene when Muhammad started hassling a couple on the street, sources said. Muhammad allegedly pushed the good Samaritan into a trash can before the suspect’s buddy punched the victim in the face, sources said.

Looks like Trausti is right about this case having a lot to do with NY bail deform.

It’s all a bit sad. History is repeating. Recall it was the leftist policies of the 1960s and 1970s that changed Manhattan from Breakfast at Tiffany’s to Taxi Driver.

Confusing correlation with causation is a logical fallacy.

How many have must be sacrificed for lefty sanctimony?

Probably as many who have been sacrificed for conservative sanctimony.

 

[Politesse]

Too many people with a lack of self-control and a lack of firearm proficiency have access to fire arms in the USA. Reasonable gun control might slightly reduce the carnage due to a lack of firearm proficiency, but there are much deeper problems to deal with. Blaming _______ (you pick the political spectrum) for this problem is pointless since both liberal and conservative policies have helped us devolve to this current situation.

It's more than a little bit dishonest to exclusively blame policy at all, let alone only the policies of one political faction. American gun culture predates either political party. I was recently reading a private letter from one of my early Pennsylvania relations, in which they proudly mentioned that their twelve year old son was now old enough to "take shotgun" (well, long gun) on their way to church, apparently necessary because the local population had taken to ambushing and robbing families in just that situation.

 

[laughing dog]

Too many people with a lack of self-control and a lack of firearm proficiency have access to fire arms in the USA. Reasonable gun control might slightly reduce the carnage due to a lack of firearm proficiency, but there are much deeper problems to deal with. Blaming _______ (you pick the political spectrum) for this problem is pointless since both liberal and conservative policies have helped us devolve to this current situation.

It's more than a little bit dishonest to exclusively blame policy at all, let alone only the policies of one political faction. American gun culture predates either political party. I was recently reading a private letter from one of my early Pennsylvania relations, in which they proudly mentioned that their twelve year old son was now old enough to "take shotgun" (well, long gun) on their way to church, apparently necessary because the local population had taken to ambushing and robbing families in just that situation.

US gun culture is the product of almost 4 centuries of immigrant society on this continent. Those social arrangement arose from political ideologies and were fostered in part by ideology. It is foolish to claim otherwise.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Too many people with a lack of self-control and a lack of firearm proficiency have access to fire arms in the USA. Reasonable gun control might slightly reduce the carnage due to a lack of firearm proficiency, but there are much deeper problems to deal with. Blaming _______ (you pick the political spectrum) for this problem is pointless since both liberal and conservative policies have helped us devolve to this current situation.

Selling guns to suicidal people should be universally accepted as being restricted.

But we can't even get that far. Forget about addressing how to actually prevent sales of guns to suicidal people (short of my, make sellers of guns liable for crimes of those they sell weapons to).

 

[Treedbear]

... I was recently reading a private letter from one of my early Pennsylvania relations, in which they proudly mentioned that their twelve year old son was now old enough to "take shotgun" (well, long gun) on their way to church, apparently necessary because the local population had taken to ambushing and robbing families in just that situation.

Are you sure that wasn't just a colloquialism? "Riding shotgun" might mean able to ride in the front seat.

 

[Politesse]

... I was recently reading a private letter from one of my early Pennsylvania relations, in which they proudly mentioned that their twelve year old son was now old enough to "take shotgun" (well, long gun) on their way to church, apparently necessary because the local population had taken to ambushing and robbing families in just that situation.

Are you sure that wasn't just a colloquialism? "Riding shotgun" might mean able to ride in the front seat.

The colloquialism was mine, hence why I put it in quotes. Shotguns had not been invented yet, nor would be for two more centuries. But guns in church were apparently a necessity.

My point is that gun culture is an inherent product of the colonial past which has deeply sunk into our common culture, and modifying it is not going to be as easy to solve as winning an election. Despite rhetoric, there is no "anti-gun" party, and both parties can serve as convenient blame mattresses for the current situation since both contribute to maintaining it.

 

[Treedbear]

... I was recently reading a private letter from one of my early Pennsylvania relations, in which they proudly mentioned that their twelve year old son was now old enough to "take shotgun" (well, long gun) on their way to church, apparently necessary because the local population had taken to ambushing and robbing families in just that situation.

Are you sure that wasn't just a colloquialism? "Riding shotgun" might mean able to ride in the front seat.

The colloquialism was mine, hence why I put it in quotes. Shotguns had not been invented yet, nor would be for two more centuries. But guns in church were apparently a necessity.

My point is that gun culture is an inherent product of the colonial past which has deeply sunk into our common culture, and modifying it is not going to be as easy to solve as winning an election. Despite rhetoric, there is no "anti-gun" party, and both parties can serve as convenient blame mattresses for the current situation since both contribute to maintaining it.

Oops, my mistake. You were talking about much earlier relations. So it seems Obama was right on target with his comment about Pennsylvanians clinging to their "guns and Bibles". They have historical relevance. Going back even further though to pre-revolutionary colonialism the goal was always to take Indian land by use of force. My theory is that we wouldn't have the 2nd amendment today if it wasn't for the first pioneers in western PA fearing the government would confiscate their rifles, as British troops had done once before. The Brits were trying to get along with the Indians and grant them land rights. That was just prior to the writing of the US Constitution in Philadelphia. So it was very relevant at the time. Killing Indians I mean.

 

[ZiprHead]

As for the OP, it's really not a biggie. Just last week here in our little city, four people were shot, one killed, in a home.

 

[ZiprHead]

The colloquialism was mine, hence why I put it in quotes. Shotguns had not been invented yet, nor would be for two more centuries. But guns in church were apparently a necessity.

My point is that gun culture is an inherent product of the colonial past which has deeply sunk into our common culture, and modifying it is not going to be as easy to solve as winning an election. Despite rhetoric, there is no "anti-gun" party, and both parties can serve as convenient blame mattresses for the current situation since both contribute to maintaining it.

Oops, my mistake. You were talking about much earlier relations. So it seems Obama was right on target with his comment about Pennsylvanians clinging to their "guns and Bibles". They have historical relevance. Going back even further though to pre-revolutionary colonialism the goal was always to take Indian land by use of force. My theory is that we wouldn't have the 2nd amendment today if it wasn't for the first pioneers in western PA fearing the government would confiscate their rifles, as British troops had done once before. The Brits were trying to get along with the Indians and grant them land rights. That was just prior to the writing of the US Constitution in Philadelphia. So it was very relevant at the time. Killing Indians I mean.

Slave patrols had a lot to do with the creation of the second amendment.

https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=2nd%20amendment%20and%20slave%20patrols

 

[Gospel]

I have a dream, that one day I'll make it to the TFTPD's mountain top & scream "It's not about race!" and be in accordance with reality.

 

[Politesse]

The colloquialism was mine, hence why I put it in quotes. Shotguns had not been invented yet, nor would be for two more centuries. But guns in church were apparently a necessity.

My point is that gun culture is an inherent product of the colonial past which has deeply sunk into our common culture, and modifying it is not going to be as easy to solve as winning an election. Despite rhetoric, there is no "anti-gun" party, and both parties can serve as convenient blame mattresses for the current situation since both contribute to maintaining it.

Oops, my mistake. You were talking about much earlier relations. So it seems Obama was right on target with his comment about Pennsylvanians clinging to their "guns and Bibles". They have historical relevance. Going back even further though to pre-revolutionary colonialism the goal was always to take Indian land by use of force. My theory is that we wouldn't have the 2nd amendment today if it wasn't for the first pioneers in western PA fearing the government would confiscate their rifles, as British troops had done once before. The Brits were trying to get along with the Indians and grant them land rights. That was just prior to the writing of the US Constitution in Philadelphia. So it was very relevant at the time. Killing Indians I mean.

Very much so. If you're interested in the subject, a colleague of mine has written an excellent historical review about the connection between the theft of Indian land, the persecution of escaped slaves, and the myriad of viscious ways that the Second Amendment has historically been interpreted.

 

[Treedbear]

The colloquialism was mine, hence why I put it in quotes. Shotguns had not been invented yet, nor would be for two more centuries. But guns in church were apparently a necessity.

My point is that gun culture is an inherent product of the colonial past which has deeply sunk into our common culture, and modifying it is not going to be as easy to solve as winning an election. Despite rhetoric, there is no "anti-gun" party, and both parties can serve as convenient blame mattresses for the current situation since both contribute to maintaining it.

Oops, my mistake. You were talking about much earlier relations. So it seems Obama was right on target with his comment about Pennsylvanians clinging to their "guns and Bibles". They have historical relevance. Going back even further though to pre-revolutionary colonialism the goal was always to take Indian land by use of force. My theory is that we wouldn't have the 2nd amendment today if it wasn't for the first pioneers in western PA fearing the government would confiscate their rifles, as British troops had done once before. The Brits were trying to get along with the Indians and grant them land rights. That was just prior to the writing of the US Constitution in Philadelphia. So it was very relevant at the time. Killing Indians I mean.

Slave patrols had a lot to do with the creation of the second amendment.

https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=2nd%20amendment%20and%20slave%20patrols

Thanks. I followed a few of those links and didn't see any reference to Indians and only secondary references to slave revolts. Not that I doubt the fact, but I think the temptation toward westward expansion was gaining momentum among the wealthy investor class as well as the settlers, both seeking unspoiled lands for farming. Probably the more so for southern tobacco farmers since it rapidly depletes the soil.

...
Very much so. If you're interested in the subject, a colleague of mine has written an excellent historical review about the connection between the theft of Indian land, the persecution of escaped slaves, and the myriad of viscious ways that the Second Amendment has historically been interpreted.

Thanks, I am. I find that to completely understand a problem I need to go back to the origins in order to consider it objectively. Here's what Wikipedia says about founding father Patrick Henry -

Henry invested some of his earnings in frontier lands, in what is now the western part of Virginia, as well as in present-day West Virginia and Kentucky. He claimed ownership though many of them were controlled by the Native Americans, and sought to get the colonial (and, later, state) government to recognize his claims. This was common among Virginia's leading citizens, such as George Washington. Henry foresaw the potential of the Ohio Valley and was involved in schemes to found settlements. ...

Contemporary historians observe that Henry was known to have used fear of Indian and slave revolts in promoting military action against the British ...

And from the Declaration of Independence -

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Today we're paying the price for such liberties.

 

[Trausti]

The colloquialism was mine, hence why I put it in quotes. Shotguns had not been invented yet, nor would be for two more centuries. But guns in church were apparently a necessity.

My point is that gun culture is an inherent product of the colonial past which has deeply sunk into our common culture, and modifying it is not going to be as easy to solve as winning an election. Despite rhetoric, there is no "anti-gun" party, and both parties can serve as convenient blame mattresses for the current situation since both contribute to maintaining it.

Oops, my mistake. You were talking about much earlier relations. So it seems Obama was right on target with his comment about Pennsylvanians clinging to their "guns and Bibles". They have historical relevance. Going back even further though to pre-revolutionary colonialism the goal was always to take Indian land by use of force. My theory is that we wouldn't have the 2nd amendment today if it wasn't for the first pioneers in western PA fearing the government would confiscate their rifles, as British troops had done once before. The Brits were trying to get along with the Indians and grant them land rights. That was just prior to the writing of the US Constitution in Philadelphia. So it was very relevant at the time. Killing Indians I mean.

Slave patrols had a lot to do with the creation of the second amendment.

https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=2nd%20amendment%20and%20slave%20patrols

State constitutions before the Bill of Rights recognized the right to bear arms; even non-slave states.

E.g., Pennsylvania.

https://www.paconstitution.org/texts-of-the-constitution/1776-2/

XIII. That the people have a right bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

To understand the Second Amendment, you need to understand English history.

 

[ZiprHead]

Slave patrols had a lot to do with the creation of the second amendment.

https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=2nd%20amendment%20and%20slave%20patrols

State constitutions before the Bill of Rights recognized the right to bear arms; even non-slave states.

E.g., Pennsylvania.

https://www.paconstitution.org/texts-of-the-constitution/1776-2/

XIII. That the people have a right bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

To understand the Second Amendment, you need to understand English history.

And there were gun control laws even earlier. So right back atcha.

America’s early governmental preoccupation with gun possession, storage,
and regulation was tied to the overarching concern for public safety, even as it
intruded into citizens’ private gun ownership and habits. Symptomatic of this is
the fact that colonial and state governments enacted over 600 laws pertaining
specifically to militia regulation and related militia activities alone.15 Yet militiarelated laws hardly constituted the extent of gun regulation in America.
A recently researched and compiled listing of colonial and state gun laws
spanning from America’s founding up to 1934 (the year the first significant
national gun law, the National Firearms Act, was enacted16), has recently become
available.17 It is by far the most comprehensive compilation to date. This farreaching compilation process, conducted by lawyer and researcher Mark
Anthony Frassetto, has become possible thanks to the ever-growing digitization
of state law archives and other electronic sources of historical information about
law, including HeinOnline Session Laws Library and the Yale Law School’s
Avalon Project, and also some digitized state session law archives. Aside from
key-word electronic searches of these sources, Frassetto also consulted secondary
sources to produce this prodigious list.18
The result is a compilation of nearly one thousand gun laws of every variety—
with some exceptions, this list does not include militia laws, hunting regulations,
laws pertaining to gunpowder storage, and laws against weapons firing.19
Following Frassetto’s method of organization, these laws are organized by
category and summarized in Table 1. Within those categories, they are arrayed
by state alphabetically within four historical periods: 1607–1789 (the colonial and
pre-modern-Constitution period); 1790–1867 (the pre-Fourteenth Amendment
period); 1868–1899 (the post-Fourteenth Amendment period); and 1900–1934
(the twentieth century). Despite the admirable thoroughness of Frassetto’s
electronic database searches, he notes that his list cannot be considered
definitive, owing to multiple spellings of common words and other glitches
inherent in the nature of such searches.20 Thus, his total list of laws is an
underestimate of the actual universe of gun statutes—indeed, this article
discusses a few early laws from Massachusetts in the 1600s that were not a part
of Frassetto’s list.21

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp

 

[Trausti]

State constitutions before the Bill of Rights recognized the right to bear arms; even non-slave states.

E.g., Pennsylvania.

https://www.paconstitution.org/texts-of-the-constitution/1776-2/



To understand the Second Amendment, you need to understand English history.

And there were gun control laws even earlier. So right back atcha.

America’s early governmental preoccupation with gun possession, storage,
and regulation was tied to the overarching concern for public safety, even as it
intruded into citizens’ private gun ownership and habits. Symptomatic of this is
the fact that colonial and state governments enacted over 600 laws pertaining
specifically to militia regulation and related militia activities alone.15 Yet militiarelated laws hardly constituted the extent of gun regulation in America.
A recently researched and compiled listing of colonial and state gun laws
spanning from America’s founding up to 1934 (the year the first significant
national gun law, the National Firearms Act, was enacted16), has recently become
available.17 It is by far the most comprehensive compilation to date. This farreaching compilation process, conducted by lawyer and researcher Mark
Anthony Frassetto, has become possible thanks to the ever-growing digitization
of state law archives and other electronic sources of historical information about
law, including HeinOnline Session Laws Library and the Yale Law School’s
Avalon Project, and also some digitized state session law archives. Aside from
key-word electronic searches of these sources, Frassetto also consulted secondary
sources to produce this prodigious list.18
The result is a compilation of nearly one thousand gun laws of every variety—
with some exceptions, this list does not include militia laws, hunting regulations,
laws pertaining to gunpowder storage, and laws against weapons firing.19
Following Frassetto’s method of organization, these laws are organized by
category and summarized in Table 1. Within those categories, they are arrayed
by state alphabetically within four historical periods: 1607–1789 (the colonial and
pre-modern-Constitution period); 1790–1867 (the pre-Fourteenth Amendment
period); 1868–1899 (the post-Fourteenth Amendment period); and 1900–1934
(the twentieth century). Despite the admirable thoroughness of Frassetto’s
electronic database searches, he notes that his list cannot be considered
definitive, owing to multiple spellings of common words and other glitches
inherent in the nature of such searches.20 Thus, his total list of laws is an
underestimate of the actual universe of gun statutes—indeed, this article
discusses a few early laws from Massachusetts in the 1600s that were not a part
of Frassetto’s list.21

View attachment 33493

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp

And? You were dishonestly suggesting that gun rights are a result of slave patrols.

Vermont - 1786 - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt02.asp

XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of themselves and the State: and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

 

[ZiprHead]

And? You were dishonestly suggesting that gun rights are a result of slave patrols.

Vermont - 1786 - https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/vt02.asp

XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of themselves and the State: and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

And I notice you didn't dispute any of those articles I linked to.

And how was I being dishonest. Are you saying the links were lying?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Too many people with a lack of self-control and a lack of firearm proficiency have access to fire arms in the USA. Reasonable gun control might slightly reduce the carnage due to a lack of firearm proficiency, but there are much deeper problems to deal with. Blaming _______ (you pick the political spectrum) for this problem is pointless since both liberal and conservative policies have helped us devolve to this current situation.

Selling guns to suicidal people should be universally accepted as being restricted.

The problem with this position is adequately determining who is actually suicidal. Mental health/gun proposals inevitably go way too far, sweeping up a bunch of cases they shouldn't apply to and probably end up increasing the death toll because they make people afraid to get help.

And for that matter, why they are suicidal. Is there really any important difference between selling a dying person a gun and writing them a lethal prescription (which is legal in some situations in some states)?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you sure that wasn't just a colloquialism? "Riding shotgun" might mean able to ride in the front seat.

You realize the colloquialism comes from the stagecoach era where the person to the right of the driver was armed with a shotgun?