Hey Hussein...wanna "do something"?? Stop and Frisk slashed gun murders by massive numbers.

[bucs90]

People who hate reality will hate this thread. But here goes.....

Obama said we have to "do something" about gun crime. That "we can't stop all" but "if we can stop even just one" then it's worth doing something.

Most gun killings happen in high crime ghettos.

Stop and Frisk causes gun killings to plummet. That's a raw statistical fact. THAT is the "something" to do. It works. Lives have been saved. FAR more than "just one".

But Obama and the left hate it. They say it "violates rights". Well....so does infringements on the 2nd Amendment. And in Obamas lecture...he said sometimes rights are inconvenienced a bit "in a civil society" for the sake of preventing deaths.



Do something? We did. And it worked. And you lefties demanded we stop doing it. Now...you want to replace it with something that WON'T work.

Stop and Frisk in high crime areas. THAT IS what slashes the number of gun deaths more than anything else.


Discuss.

 

[Skylar]

People who hate reality will hate this thread. But here goes.....

Obama said we have to "do something" about gun crime. That "we can't stop all" but "if we can stop even just one" then it's worth doing something.

Most gun killings happen in high crime ghettos.

Stop and Frisk causes gun killings to plummet. That's a raw statistical fact. THAT is the "something" to do. It works. Lives have been saved. FAR more than "just one".

But Obama and the left hate it. They say it "violates rights". Well....so does infringements on the 2nd Amendment. And in Obamas lecture...he said sometimes rights are inconvenienced a bit "in a civil society" for the sake of preventing deaths.



Do something? We did. And it worked. And you lefties demanded we stop doing it. Now...you want to replace it with something that WON'T work.

Stop and Frisk in high crime areas. THAT IS what slashes the number of gun deaths more than anything else.


Discuss.

Did it? Because stop and frisk ended in 2011 in places like NY. And gun murders continued to decline.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

 

[bucs90]

People who hate reality will hate this thread. But here goes.....

Obama said we have to "do something" about gun crime. That "we can't stop all" but "if we can stop even just one" then it's worth doing something.

Most gun killings happen in high crime ghettos.

Stop and Frisk causes gun killings to plummet. That's a raw statistical fact. THAT is the "something" to do. It works. Lives have been saved. FAR more than "just one".

But Obama and the left hate it. They say it "violates rights". Well....so does infringements on the 2nd Amendment. And in Obamas lecture...he said sometimes rights are inconvenienced a bit "in a civil society" for the sake of preventing deaths.



Do something? We did. And it worked. And you lefties demanded we stop doing it. Now...you want to replace it with something that WON'T work.

Stop and Frisk in high crime areas. THAT IS what slashes the number of gun deaths more than anything else.


Discuss.

Did it? Because stop and frisk ended in 2011 in places like NY. And gun murders continued to decline.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

Of course it did. Because stop and frisk CAUGHT FELONS WITH GUNS and they were put in prison. See? When you find the criminals with guns...and jail them....the effect carries on for years.

But...it will slowly tick back up as they're released and as criminals feel more comfortable carrying guns again.

 

[Skylar]

People who hate reality will hate this thread. But here goes.....

Obama said we have to "do something" about gun crime. That "we can't stop all" but "if we can stop even just one" then it's worth doing something.

Most gun killings happen in high crime ghettos.

Stop and Frisk causes gun killings to plummet. That's a raw statistical fact. THAT is the "something" to do. It works. Lives have been saved. FAR more than "just one".

But Obama and the left hate it. They say it "violates rights". Well....so does infringements on the 2nd Amendment. And in Obamas lecture...he said sometimes rights are inconvenienced a bit "in a civil society" for the sake of preventing deaths.



Do something? We did. And it worked. And you lefties demanded we stop doing it. Now...you want to replace it with something that WON'T work.

Stop and Frisk in high crime areas. THAT IS what slashes the number of gun deaths more than anything else.


Discuss.

Did it? Because stop and frisk ended in 2011 in places like NY. And gun murders continued to decline.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

Of course it did. Because stop and frisk CAUGHT FELONS WITH GUNS and they were put in prison. See? When you find the criminals with guns...and jail them....the effect carries on for years.

That might be an argument for *maintaining* the same lower levels for years afterward. But their continued decline? Where NY's murder rate is now the lowest its been since the 1960s?

Nope. Try again.

Further, I can think of all sorts of ways to make ourselves safer if we don't want to be burdened with something like the constitution.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Stop and frisk was a racist program at that violated people's civil rights. If you want to live in a police state go move to North Korea.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's a far better solution then waiting for em to kill someone and possibly getting away with it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Stop and frisk was a racist program at that violated people's civil rights. If you want to live in a police state go move to North Korea.

I agree it was a heavy handed policy but it worked.
And to tell you the truth it's no worse than the attack on the 2nd.

 

[bucs90]

People who hate reality will hate this thread. But here goes.....

Obama said we have to "do something" about gun crime. That "we can't stop all" but "if we can stop even just one" then it's worth doing something.

Most gun killings happen in high crime ghettos.

Stop and Frisk causes gun killings to plummet. That's a raw statistical fact. THAT is the "something" to do. It works. Lives have been saved. FAR more than "just one".

But Obama and the left hate it. They say it "violates rights". Well....so does infringements on the 2nd Amendment. And in Obamas lecture...he said sometimes rights are inconvenienced a bit "in a civil society" for the sake of preventing deaths.



Do something? We did. And it worked. And you lefties demanded we stop doing it. Now...you want to replace it with something that WON'T work.

Stop and Frisk in high crime areas. THAT IS what slashes the number of gun deaths more than anything else.


Discuss.

Did it? Because stop and frisk ended in 2011 in places like NY. And gun murders continued to decline.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

Of course it did. Because stop and frisk CAUGHT FELONS WITH GUNS and they were put in prison. See? When you find the criminals with guns...and jail them....the effect carries on for years.

That might be an argument for *maintaining* the same lower levels for years afterward. But their continued decline? Where NY's murder rate is now the lowest its been since the 1960s?

Nope. Try again.

Further, I can think of all sorts of ways to make ourselves safer if we don't want to be burdened with something like the constitution.

Ah....the Constitution huh? Obama is wiping his ass with it with his plans. Stop and Frisk is no more or less illegal than his ideas. Right?

 

[Skylar]

People who hate reality will hate this thread. But here goes.....

Obama said we have to "do something" about gun crime. That "we can't stop all" but "if we can stop even just one" then it's worth doing something.

Most gun killings happen in high crime ghettos.

Stop and Frisk causes gun killings to plummet. That's a raw statistical fact. THAT is the "something" to do. It works. Lives have been saved. FAR more than "just one".

But Obama and the left hate it. They say it "violates rights". Well....so does infringements on the 2nd Amendment. And in Obamas lecture...he said sometimes rights are inconvenienced a bit "in a civil society" for the sake of preventing deaths.



Do something? We did. And it worked. And you lefties demanded we stop doing it. Now...you want to replace it with something that WON'T work.

Stop and Frisk in high crime areas. THAT IS what slashes the number of gun deaths more than anything else.


Discuss.

Did it? Because stop and frisk ended in 2011 in places like NY. And gun murders continued to decline.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

Of course it did. Because stop and frisk CAUGHT FELONS WITH GUNS and they were put in prison. See? When you find the criminals with guns...and jail them....the effect carries on for years.

That might be an argument for *maintaining* the same lower levels for years afterward. But their continued decline? Where NY's murder rate is now the lowest its been since the 1960s?

Nope. Try again.

Further, I can think of all sorts of ways to make ourselves safer if we don't want to be burdened with something like the constitution.

Ah....the Constitution huh? Obama is wiping his ass with it with his plans. Stop and Frisk is no more or less illegal than his ideas. Right?

So you acknowledge that stop and frisk violates the constitution?

Good. That's progress.

Now explain how prisoners put away in 2011 could have continued to reduce gun murder rates in NY in 2015? Again, your argument *might* work for maintaining the 2011 levels. But shatter on the continued declines.

Better ignore that little inconvenience, eh?

 

[bucs90]

Stop and frisk was a racist program at that violated people's civil rights. If you want to live in a police state go move to North Korea.

Then what's your plan to stop gun violence?


And please....stop letting those white belts embarrass you. Gotta use your hips and posture up Bro.

 

[jillian]

People who hate reality will hate this thread. But here goes.....

Obama said we have to "do something" about gun crime. That "we can't stop all" but "if we can stop even just one" then it's worth doing something.

Most gun killings happen in high crime ghettos.

Stop and Frisk causes gun killings to plummet. That's a raw statistical fact. THAT is the "something" to do. It works. Lives have been saved. FAR more than "just one".

But Obama and the left hate it. They say it "violates rights". Well....so does infringements on the 2nd Amendment. And in Obamas lecture...he said sometimes rights are inconvenienced a bit "in a civil society" for the sake of preventing deaths.



Do something? We did. And it worked. And you lefties demanded we stop doing it. Now...you want to replace it with something that WON'T work.

Stop and Frisk in high crime areas. THAT IS what slashes the number of gun deaths more than anything else.


Discuss.

what's to discuss? that you're an obamas-deranged angry nutter?

and that would be president obama to you.

as for your misinformation.... most mass shootings are done by angry white male gun nuts.

 

[bucs90]

People who hate reality will hate this thread. But here goes.....

Obama said we have to "do something" about gun crime. That "we can't stop all" but "if we can stop even just one" then it's worth doing something.

Most gun killings happen in high crime ghettos.

Stop and Frisk causes gun killings to plummet. That's a raw statistical fact. THAT is the "something" to do. It works. Lives have been saved. FAR more than "just one".

But Obama and the left hate it. They say it "violates rights". Well....so does infringements on the 2nd Amendment. And in Obamas lecture...he said sometimes rights are inconvenienced a bit "in a civil society" for the sake of preventing deaths.



Do something? We did. And it worked. And you lefties demanded we stop doing it. Now...you want to replace it with something that WON'T work.

Stop and Frisk in high crime areas. THAT IS what slashes the number of gun deaths more than anything else.


Discuss.

Did it? Because stop and frisk ended in 2011 in places like NY. And gun murders continued to decline.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

Of course it did. Because stop and frisk CAUGHT FELONS WITH GUNS and they were put in prison. See? When you find the criminals with guns...and jail them....the effect carries on for years.

That might be an argument for *maintaining* the same lower levels for years afterward. But their continued decline? Where NY's murder rate is now the lowest its been since the 1960s?

Nope. Try again.

Further, I can think of all sorts of ways to make ourselves safer if we don't want to be burdened with something like the constitution.

Ah....the Constitution huh? Obama is wiping his ass with it with his plans. Stop and Frisk is no more or less illegal than his ideas. Right?

So you acknowledge that stop and frisk violates the constitution?

Good. That's progress.

Now explain how prisoners put away in 2011 could have continued to reduce gun murder rates in NY in 2015? Again, your argument *might* work for maintaining the 2011 levels. But shatter on the continued declines.

Better ignore that little inconvenience, eh?

Possibly. Each stop has to be evaluated for its own merits. Obamas plans do too.

But one works. The other doesnt.

*** REALLY? DO I REALLY have to explain how a prisoner who is put away in 2011 affects murder rates in 2015??? Ok. Here's how: Felon caught in 2011 with a gun. Felon sentenced to 6 years in jail. Therefore...felon can't murder anyone in 2015. Because he's in jail. Repeat a few thousand times. And PRESTO!!! IT'S MAGIC!!!

Can't believe I had to explain that. Keep sentencing felons with guns to prison time....and murder rates drop!! It's magic!!!

 

[S.J.]

Hussein doesn't want to stop gun violence.

 

[bucs90]

Hussein doesn't want to stop gun violence.

No he doesn't. He knows what works. Saturating high crime areas with aggressive cops. THAT formula is undefeated all time when fighting gun violence stats. It always works.

But....the left doesn't want murder rates to go down. They want gun ownership rates to go down.

 

[Skylar]

Did it? Because stop and frisk ended in 2011 in places like NY. And gun murders continued to decline.

When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

Of course it did. Because stop and frisk CAUGHT FELONS WITH GUNS and they were put in prison. See? When you find the criminals with guns...and jail them....the effect carries on for years.

That might be an argument for *maintaining* the same lower levels for years afterward. But their continued decline? Where NY's murder rate is now the lowest its been since the 1960s?

Nope. Try again.

Further, I can think of all sorts of ways to make ourselves safer if we don't want to be burdened with something like the constitution.

Ah....the Constitution huh? Obama is wiping his ass with it with his plans. Stop and Frisk is no more or less illegal than his ideas. Right?

So you acknowledge that stop and frisk violates the constitution?

Good. That's progress.

Now explain how prisoners put away in 2011 could have continued to reduce gun murder rates in NY in 2015? Again, your argument *might* work for maintaining the 2011 levels. But shatter on the continued declines.

Better ignore that little inconvenience, eh?

Possibly. Each stop has to be evaluated for its own merits. Obamas plans do too.

But one works. The other doesnt.

*** REALLY? DO I REALLY have to explain how a prisoner who is put away in 2011 affects murder rates in 2015??? Ok. Here's how: Felon caught in 2011 with a gun. Felon sentenced to 6 years in jail. Therefore...felon can't murder anyone in 2015. Because he's in jail. Repeat a few thousand times. And PRESTO!!! IT'S MAGIC!!!

Which might explain maintaining the 2011 levels for 6 years or so. But it doesn't explain why the rates would continue drop. As not a single felon was put behind bars due to stop and frisk in 2012. Or 2013.Or 2015. So all those felons that stop and frisk would have put away per your logic....are still on the streets.

By your logic the murder rate is tied to the felon level. And the felon level DOESN'T drop after 2011. Because stop and frisk is no longer in place. So the felon rate doesn't drop, but the murder rate still goes down?

You just shattered your entire argument. As you broke your connection between dropping felon levels and dropping murder rates. And if there are *other* ways of getting felons off the street that don't require we violate the constitution like stop and frisk that resulted in a murder rate that continued to decline after stop and frisk ended....

....then we don't need stop and frisk. We can use constitutional methods to get the same results.

So....you have two choices.

1) Either there's no connection between the number of felons on the street and murder rates, as per your logic the number of felons remained the same after 2011 but the murder rates still went down. Demonstrating stop and frisk is irrelevant.

2) There is a connection between the number of felons on the streets and murder rates, and felons on the street continued to drop after 2011 without stop and frisk. Demonstrating we don't need it to get the same results.

Pick one.