Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lolz ... I bet you really think your map is about guns and violence ... When I was certain I had seen a map like yours before.
File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, the article is about that. That's why I left a link.
Then again, I left it for the thinkers, not the superficial. I even quoted the opening points.
But I understand, for some of us just looking at pictures is a full plate. Hence the disclaimer at the top. I do understand that ponderable information is like kryptonite for the superignorant.
Woodward is riffing here on the sociocultural treatise The Nine Nations of North America ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Nations-North-America/dp/0380578859"]q.v.[/ame])
Lolz ... I bet you really think your map is about guns and violence ... When I was certain I had seen a map like yours before.
File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, the article is about that. That's why I left a link.
Then again, I left it for the thinkers, not the superficial. I even quoted the opening points.
But I understand, for some of us just looking at pictures is a full plate. Hence the disclaimer at the top. I do understand that ponderable information is like kryptonite for the superignorant.
Woodward is riffing here on the sociocultural treatise The Nine Nations of North America ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Nations-North-America/dp/0380578859"]q.v.[/ame])
I know what the article says ... And gave some credit to the nations theory.
You don't have to go all the way around the world to say something a simple as ... "Attitudes towards guns and violence are the result of simple demographics."
If it makes someone feel more useful or smarter to try and explain the obvious ... They need to get a clue.
No, the article is about that. That's why I left a link.
Then again, I left it for the thinkers, not the superficial. I even quoted the opening points.
But I understand, for some of us just looking at pictures is a full plate. Hence the disclaimer at the top. I do understand that ponderable information is like kryptonite for the superignorant.
Woodward is riffing here on the sociocultural treatise The Nine Nations of North America (q.v.)
I know what the article says ... And gave some credit to the nations theory.
You don't have to go all the way around the world to say something a simple as ... "Attitudes towards guns and violence are the result of simple demographics."
If it makes someone feel more useful or smarter to try and explain the obvious ... They need to get a clue.
Wow -- just say "I fucked up and didn't bother to read it". Saves keystrokes.
Pogo is just another anti-gun loon, uinable to argue from anythig other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - thus, he and his drivel may be safely ignored.I know what the article says ... And gave some credit to the nations theory.
You don't have to go all the way around the world to say something a simple as ... "Attitudes towards guns and violence are the result of simple demographics."
If it makes someone feel more useful or smarter to try and explain the obvious ... They need to get a clue.
Wow -- just say "I fucked up and didn't bother to read it". Saves keystrokes.
Wow ... Think that because you think you are smart ... It means you are.
Give it a few more keystrokes ... And you may get a grant ... Then get paid to tell us what we already know.
Please.
Pogo is just another anti-gun loon, uinable to argue from anythig other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - thus, he and his drivel may be safely ignored.Wow -- just say "I fucked up and didn't bother to read it". Saves keystrokes.
Wow ... Think that because you think you are smart ... It means you are.
Give it a few more keystrokes ... And you may get a grant ... Then get paid to tell us what we already know.
Pogo is just another anti-gun loon, uinable to argue from anythig other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - thus, he and his drivel may be safely ignored.
You're the one using "emotion" here, son. Nothing in my post says jack squat about "anti-gun" anything.
People shooting back at criminals certainly does a lot to cancel it out. You shoot back at a criminal, that's additive, you are as bad as they are. That's your argument.
No, that's not cancellation, that's escalation. There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.
This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire. Or hose it down with gasoline.
Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other. They're additive, not exclusive.
Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
If anyone cares to ponder (rather than continue parroting standard demagogue catch phrases) -- this article may prove worthy of ponderation (credit: MisterBeale):
>> Last December, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with a rifle and killed twenty children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed in debates about gun control. Another flash point occurred this July, when George Zimmerman, who saw himself as a guardian of his community, was exonerated in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida. That time, talk turned to stand-your-ground laws and the proper use of deadly force. The gun debate was refreshed in September by the shooting deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard, apparently at the hands of an IT contractor who was mentally ill.
Such episodes remind Americans that our country as a whole is marked by staggering levels of deadly violence. Our death rate from assault is many times higher than that of highly urbanized countries like the Netherlands or Germany, sparsely populated nations with plenty of forests and game hunters like Canada, Sweden, Finland, or New Zealand, and large, populous ones like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. State-sponsored violence, tooin the form of capital punishmentsets our country apart. Last year we executed more than ten times as many prisoners as other advanced industrialized nations combinednot surprising given that Japan is the only other such country that allows the practice.
Our violent streak has become almost a part of our national identity. Whats less well appreciated is how much the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regionsdividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwestmasks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines dont respect state boundaries.
To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established. The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Islesand from France, the Netherlands, and Spaineach with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitorsfor land, capital, and other settlersand even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. Theres never been an America, but rather several Americaseach a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.
...If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States. Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership. << -- "Up in Arms" by Colin Woodward, much more @ the link
You're the one using "emotion" here, son. Nothing in my post says jack squat about "anti-gun" anything. It analyzes simple demographics of how different regions view the whole thing, as well as the greater picture of how they view the concepts of crime and punishment. That's IT.
I can see why you'd want to bury that and pretend it's something else so you can go on with your murmuring of "yammer yammer yammer anti-gun loons yammer yammer". Because ignorance is bliss.
Seven posts in a row attacking the messenger and saying absolutely nothing about the actual content. So you tell me who's melting down into "emotional".
Dismissed.
Pogo is just another anti-gun loon, uinable to argue from anythig other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - thus, he and his drivel may be safely ignored.
If I lived in a big city like New York, I would pack everyday. Law or no law.
-Geaux
Pogo is just another anti-gun loon, uinable to argue from anythig other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - thus, he and his drivel may be safely ignored.
I disagree, he's far beyond the normal anti-gun loons. The normal anti-gun loons take the ostrich approach and pretend that gun laws work and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Pogo actually thinks it's bad to have a gun even if the criminals do, and it's bad to shoot back. He refers shooting at a criminal as "escalation" and compares it to burning down a building to protect it from fire. He also doesn't know when you're defending yourself from someone committing a crime which one of you is the bad guy. He's way beyond "normal" even for a liberal.
You're the one using "emotion" here, son. Nothing in my post says jack squat about "anti-gun" anything. It analyzes simple demographics of how different regions view the whole thing, as well as the greater picture of how they view the concepts of crime and punishment. That's IT.
I can see why you'd want to bury that and pretend it's something else so you can go on with your murmuring of "yammer yammer yammer anti-gun loons yammer yammer". Because ignorance is bliss.
Seven posts in a row attacking the messenger and saying absolutely nothing about the actual content. So you tell me who's melting down into "emotional".
Dismissed.
Where the article goes wrong is that it concludes that agreement on either freer access to guns or stricter restrictions would be the end of the debate. The problem for you on the left is that gun laws don't work, even if you got them, the carnage would not stop and neither would the debate.
The bluest cities with the strictest gun laws have the most gun deaths. The reddest, gun culture areas have the fewest. John Adams, facts are stubborn things....
I've never argued for any gun laws. Your head is up your ass.
No, that's not cancellation, that's escalation. There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.
This argument is based entirely on a fallacy, that fallacy being the idea that the answer to guns is more guns.
Which is like suggesting that the answer to a burning building is to set it on fire. Or hose it down with gasoline.
Gunplay is not an either/or dichotomy; one does not cancel out the other. They're additive, not exclusive.
pogo said:Can I count on you to proceed to all the threads I've been in and tell me what I think in your profound ignorance because you can't understand simple English and prefer to rewrite to suit your own purposes then? I look forward to that. Coward.
If anyone cares to ponder (rather than continue parroting standard demagogue catch phrases) -- this article may prove worthy of ponderation (credit: MisterBeale):
>> Last December, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with a rifle and killed twenty children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed in debates about gun control. Another flash point occurred this July, when George Zimmerman, who saw himself as a guardian of his community, was exonerated in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida. That time, talk turned to stand-your-ground laws and the proper use of deadly force. The gun debate was refreshed in September by the shooting deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard, apparently at the hands of an IT contractor who was mentally ill.
Such episodes remind Americans that our country as a whole is marked by staggering levels of deadly violence. Our death rate from assault is many times higher than that of highly urbanized countries like the Netherlands or Germany, sparsely populated nations with plenty of forests and game hunters like Canada, Sweden, Finland, or New Zealand, and large, populous ones like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. State-sponsored violence, tooin the form of capital punishmentsets our country apart. Last year we executed more than ten times as many prisoners as other advanced industrialized nations combinednot surprising given that Japan is the only other such country that allows the practice.
Our violent streak has become almost a part of our national identity. Whats less well appreciated is how much the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regionsdividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwestmasks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines dont respect state boundaries.
To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established. The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Islesand from France, the Netherlands, and Spaineach with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitorsfor land, capital, and other settlersand even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. Theres never been an America, but rather several Americaseach a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.
...If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States. Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership. << -- "Up in Arms" by Colin Woodward, much more @ the link
how many babies did we kill? I mean seriously, you want to talk about barbaric.
Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.
In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.
So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.
One hundred plus pages of liberals not answering the question. It's a simple question...
spoonman said:how many babies did we kill? I mean seriously, you want to talk about barbaric.
--- huh?
Who?
