Trayvon Martin

[Jenksismyhero]

No, but I have little issue with regulating where and when they can be used. For example, if you're using one while driving, you've put other people at increased risk, taken away their rights, and that's something we might want to avoid. If you could illustrate a practical method by which removing smart phones from people's hands/pockets while on the street would substantially decrease the crime rate, I'd listen.

 

But of course, that's not going to happen, because any time people take an item of nonzero value outside, it's possible for it to be stolen. It would be just as sensible to ban automobiles because they might be stolen.

 

The point of course also differs in another way. If I try to rob someone on the street, I'm unlikely to try to steal a concealed weapon from them. Thus, the setup and motivation is fundamentally different. And smartphones, cars, money, etc., presumably everything else you'd be carrying that could be stolen, would likely be expected to have some use other than killing people.

 

Guns have the same types of restrictions and more of them.

 

And iphones/smart phones are not normal luxury items (as we've argued before, they're not a luxury but a necessity!) like a car. It's a specific item that, at least here in Chicago, criminals are targeting. And they're doing it in systematic fashion at the same types of public areas (public transit/public transit stations). It's now a dangerous object to carry around because of that target. It's still a "thing" that has increased crime merely for possessing it, just like having a gun is supposedly increasing crime merely for owning/carrying it around.

 

And I obviously don't agree that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people.

[Balta1701]

Guns have the same types of restrictions and more of them.

 

And iphones/smart phones are not normal luxury items (as we've argued before, they're not a luxury but a necessity!) like a car. It's a specific item that, at least here in Chicago, criminals are targeting. And they're doing it in systematic fashion at the same types of public areas (public transit/public transit stations). It's now a dangerous object to carry around because of that target. It's still a "thing" that has increased crime merely for possessing it, just like having a gun is supposedly increasing crime merely for owning/carrying it around.

 

And I obviously don't agree that the only purpose of a gun is to kill people.

A car isn't a necessity either (you cite people on trains for example). But anyway.

 

If you can give me a setup where banning people from carrying smartphones in the public or in certain places not only decreases crime but does so without significantly impacting economic activity, I'm happy to listen. If you could give me evidence that having people carrying guns significantly reduced the crime/murder rate, I'd be similarly happy to listen.

 

We do accept some measure of fraud/crime associated with the presence of various economic actions. We could ban credit cards to reduce ID theft, but that would seriously impact economic activity, so we don't do it. If we banned cash, that would put a major crimp on people being mugged for their wallets, but same deal.

 

Unfortunately, my problem here is that I can give you a mechanism on the firearm front that has very little cost economic cost (have the George Zimmermans of the world keep the weapons in their homes), would appear based on the evidence available to have positive impacts on the crime rate, and could be at some level enforceable/doable (considering cities regulate where you can have firearms all the time anyway). And yet, that option is not only off the table, but things are moving in the other direction.

[Soxbadger]

Even mildly dishonest journalists use ... to indicate that they left something out that was there. Piecing together lines that didnt go together IS editing.

 

I didnt see that, where was there a question that they used an answer from a different question?

 

I dont know what journalists do, I do know that in court every day this occurs when you are impeaching a witnesses testimony. I could be missing something, but to me it just seems she omitted certain sections, which is absolutely allowed.

[EvilMonkey]

I didnt see that, where was there a question that they used an answer from a different question?

 

I dont know what journalists do, I do know that in court every day this occurs when you are impeaching a witnesses testimony. I could be missing something, but to me it just seems she omitted certain sections, which is absolutely allowed.

Take just these lines, looks like she is lying about the money:

 

The text as it appears in the actual transcripts:

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —

 

A: Currently, I do not know.

 

 

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

 

A: I do not.

 

Add in the lines that were omitted between those two questions, she is sayign i can't tell you an exact number, but I am not hiding anything, here is who knows.

 

The text as it appears in the actual transcripts:

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —

 

A: Currently, I do not know.

 

Q: Who would know that?

 

A: That would be my brother-in-law.

 

Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?

 

A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.

 

Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.

 

A: No, he is not, sir.

 

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

 

A: I do not.

 

Can you NOT see how that testimony is dramatically changed by omitting those 3 questions? Leaviung those out to get an inditement is like lying. Those aren't somethgin she said 10 minutes later, they were direct answers to questiosn asked, that she supposedly lied about.

[Soxbadger]

No the bolded questions are irrelevant to the other questions.

 

Either she A) knew how much money her husband had or she B) didnt know.

 

If the answer is A, she perjured herself, it doesnt matter that she said her brother in law may know. If the answer is B, she didnt commit perjury.

 

Here is a similar example, well use Barry Bonds:

 

Did you take steroids?

 

No

 

He is charged with perjury.

 

It doesnt matter if the next question is:

 

Do you know anyone who may have known if you took steroids?

 

Yes

 

Who?

 

My doctor.

 

There mere fact he was telling the truth in the omitted section does not change whether or not he perjured in the original question. Perjury is not about context, it is about whether or not you answered truthfully to a specific question.

 

Thus the part omitted is irrelevant. The question is, did his WIFE actually know about the money at the time of the questioning. If she did know about the money her answer "I do not" is perjury. It does not matter if his brother in law knew, what matters is whether she knew at the time she answered "I dont know."

Edited June 15, 2012 by Soxbadger

[EvilMonkey]

No the bolded questions are irrelevant to the other questions.

 

Either she A) knew how much money her husband had or she B) didnt know.

 

If the answer is A, she perjured herself, it doesnt matter that she said her brother in law may know. If the answer is B, she didnt commit perjury.

 

Here is a similar example, well use Barry Bonds:

 

Did you take steroids?

 

No

 

He is charged with perjury.

 

It doesnt matter if the next question is:

 

Do you know anyone who may have known if you took steroids?

 

Yes

 

Who?

 

My doctor.

 

There mere fact he was telling the truth in the omitted section does not change whether or not he perjured in the original question. Perjury is not about context, it is about whether or not you answered truthfully to a specific question.

 

Thus the part omitted is irrelevant. The question is, did his WIFE actually know about the money at the time of the questioning. If she did know about the money her answer "I do not" is perjury. It does not matter if his brother in law knew, what matters is whether she knew at the time she answered "I dont know."

Quit being lazy and read what was asked. Do you CURRENTLY know HOW MUCH money is in there. Considering they were in court and at any time it could change with a new donation, she said no, she doesn't know the amount. Not no, I dont have any money, just that right now, when you asked, I dont know. BUT, i can tellyou who does. So unlessthey are going to prove that seconds before she was asked that question she checked the balance on her smartphone or something, there is no way that answer can be considered false, or to construe that she didnt know there was any money, because she said there was, but didn't know the exact amount. And when they tried to get her to guess, so they COULD have a number to stick her with, she refused to guess.

 

Do you know what your bank account balance is right now? Without looking, do you know what checks have cleared, gas station holds been released or deposits actually accredited? If you had $500 and deposited $1000, you could say $1500, but then hey, if that rent check didnt post yet, ytou might actually have $2500, liar!

[Soxbadger]

I think perjury charges are a waste of time, they are almost impossible to prove (see the Barry Bonds thread where I rail on it.)

 

That being sad, your original argument was that the Prosecutor was editing the testimony, which wasnt true.

 

You now are making the correct point, its likely that she didnt know. The estimate question is harder, but I wouldnt allow someone to be convicted over perjury over it. If I was pressed, I could estimate how much money I have in a bank account to within $500.

 

So Im not being lazy, you asked if she edited testimony, I said she didnt. You now are completely changing the argument to something that I agree with, this is a waste of time, and likely being done as an intimidation tactic.

 

Wow theres a shock, the govt using its power to intimidate people. Its just usually you dont see a lot of Republicans who care about the govt mistreating "alleged criminals and their family".

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

I think perjury charges are a waste of time, they are almost impossible to prove (see the Barry Bonds thread where I rail on it.)

 

That being sad, your original argument was that the Prosecutor was editing the testimony, which wasnt true.

 

You now are making the correct point, its likely that she didnt know. The estimate question is harder, but I wouldnt allow someone to be convicted over perjury over it. If I was pressed, I could estimate how much money I have in a bank account to within $500.

 

So Im not being lazy, you asked if she edited testimony, I said she didnt. You now are completely changing the argument to something that I agree with, this is a waste of time, and likely being done as an intimidation tactic.

 

Wow theres a shock, the govt using its power to intimidate people. Its just usually you dont see a lot of Republicans who care about the govt mistreating "alleged criminals and their family".

How is leaving out entire questions, then weaving 2 questions together that didnt go together to make your case, NOT editing?

 

And you also don't usually see a lot of liberals jumping to convict a minority before the case is even tried.

[Soxbadger]

Where have I ever jumped to convict?

 

Ive consistently said that there may have been enough evidence to charge him with a crime, which is a substantially lower thresh hold than a conviction.

 

How is leaving out entire questions, then weaving 2 questions together that didnt go together to make your case, NOT editing?

 

Well if you consider omission "editing" then yes she did. But when I originally read your comment I thought you were implying that she changed testimony (that is what most lawyers would consider editing testimony). As for weaving 2 questions together, thats just once again omission. She left out certain questions, which lead to 2 questions being juxtaposed that were not previously that way.

 

Once again its omitting testimony. Now depending on how you are defining "editing" omission may or may not be included. That being said, your comment made it seem like you were alleging she did something wrong, and omission during impeachment is clearly allowable, so I just am not sure where this is going.

 

What she did has no impact on whether or not the 2 questions were answered truthfully again, an example:

 

Q: Did you rob the bank?

 

A: No

 

(Omitted testimony)

 

Q: Do you know who robbed the bank?

 

A: Yes, my brother

 

(Return to non-omitted)

 

Q: Do you know how much money was stolen?

 

A: No

 

If the person robbed the bank or knew how much money was stolen, they committed perjury. It doesnt matter that they also may have told the truth to other questions. It seems like you are not understanding that perjury is about a single question and answer, that the context doesnt matter.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/j...-up-crime-down/

 

Gun-control advocates are noticeably silent when crime rates decline. Their multimillion-dollar lobbying efforts are designed to manufacture mass anxiety that every gun owner is a potential killer. The statistics show otherwise.

 

Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that violent crime decreased 4 percent in 2011. The number of murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults all went down, continuing a pattern.

 

“This is not a one-year anomaly, but a steady decline in the FBI’s violent-crime rates,” said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association. “It would be disingenuous for anyone to not credit increased self-defense laws to account for this decline.”

 

Mr. Arulanandam pointed out that only a handful of states had concealed-carry programs 25 years ago, when the violent-crime rate peaked. Today, 41 states either allow carrying without a permit or have “shall issue” laws that make it easy for just about any noncriminal to get a permit. Illinois and Washington, D.C., are the only places that refuse to recognize the right to bear arms. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence did not respond to requests for comment.

 

If the gun grabbers were right, we’d be in the middle of a crime wave, considering how many guns are on the streets. “Firearms sales have increased substantially since right after the 2008 election,” said Bill Brassard, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which represents the $4 billion firearms and ammunition industry. “There was a leveling off in 2010, but now we’re seeing a surge again.”

[CrimsonWeltall]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/j...-up-crime-down/

 

“This is not a one-year anomaly, but a steady decline in the FBI’s violent-crime rates,” said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association. “It would be disingenuous for anyone to not credit increased self-defense laws to account for this decline.”

 

Mr. Arulanandam pointed out that only a handful of states had concealed-carry programs 25 years ago, when the violent-crime rate peaked.

 

The entire South had CCW in the early 90s. Most of the country had followed by the mid-90s. There have been barely any changed in CCW in the past 10 years. So the crime rate dropping now is based on actions from 15-25 years ago?

 

I could hardly care less about gun control, but this guy's analysis is just a talking point. There are individual statistics for state crime rates. If there is an obvious correlation between when a state adopts CCW and their crime rate dropping, then it should be easy for him to point it out.

 

I did some browsing on http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ and couldn't find any. Florida had CCW in 1987 but their crime rate peaked in 1993. Texas' crime rate peaked in 1991 and began declining before they adopted CCW in 1995. Georgia got CCW in 1989 and crime peaked in 1993.

[Balta1701]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/j...-up-crime-down/

This of course is why the ways to compare whether those laws do antyhign good is not to look at the overall trend, because the first order trend is very poorly correlated with firearm ownership or usage (it's a second order effect in the states that choose to have it).

 

Crime rates have been dramatically trending down since the early 1990's, and while there are probably a number of other things that play into it (increased police presence/funding, better training, etc.), my personal favorite is lead exposure. The people who were exposed to the most lead as children wound up producing the highest crime rates when they reached ~ age 20, and then as you've gotten the lead out, crime rates have plummeted. Of course, correlation isn't causation, but man this one is a tempting explanation.

[Soxbadger]

Crime rates going down could be a million things.

 

I dont think guns commit crimes, I think people commit crimes. More or less guns should have very little impact on crime rates. Someone who is a law abiding citizen isnt more likely to become a criminal just because they buy a gun. Someone who is a criminal isnt less likely to be a criminal just because they cant get a gun. What guns should impact is death rate as guns are better at killing people than knifes and other weapons.

 

That being said, untrained individuals having guns on the street pose a risk to innocent people, guns unlocked in the home pose a risk to innocent children.

 

Here is a Utah study:

 

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORI...NS/GUNSTAT.html

 

Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occured in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson, 1986) A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded. (Miller, et al, 2005)

 

 

Here is a Boston study:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11937613

 

Between 1988 and 1997, the suicide, homicide, and unintentional firearm death rates among women were disproportionately higher in states where guns were more prevalent.

 

Im not really huge on either side of this debate, I just dont believe that more guns= less crime. I also dont think that more guns = more crime.

[StrangeSox]

I could hardly care less about gun control, but this guy's analysis is just a talking point. There are individual statistics for state crime rates. If there is an obvious correlation between when a state adopts CCW and their crime rate dropping, then it should be easy for him to point it out.

 

You mean a spokesman from the NRA, a group who insists that Obama's lack of doing anything at all on gun control is evidence of his dastardly gun control plans, might not be making an intellectually honest argument!?

[Jenksismyhero]

Lol. Great reactions there.

[StrangeSox]

Great specious reasoning in that article. Though Obama can take credit for the paranoia-driven gun purchases after his election.

[EvilMonkey]

You mean a spokesman from the NRA, a group who insists that Obama's lack of doing anything at all on gun control is evidence of his dastardly gun control plans, might not be making an intellectually honest argument!?

Fast and Furious was hardly 'lack of doing anything'. It was a complete setup to try and make guns seem worse than they are to advance his own agenda. And it got people killed, including American border patrol agents.

[Balta1701]

Fast and Furious was hardly 'lack of doing anything'. It was a complete setup to try and make guns seem worse than they are to advance his own agenda. And it got people killed, including American border patrol agents.

Which is why the Bush administration started it. To make guns seem bad.

[StrangeSox]

Fast and Furious was hardly 'lack of doing anything'. It was a complete setup to try and make guns seem worse than they are to advance his own agenda. And it got people killed, including American border patrol agents.

F&F was a giant disaster of a program from the start. No arguments there.

 

Claims that it was "a complete setup" are paranoid fantasies akin to 'Agenda 21' tinfoil-hat nonsense. Obama has done absolutely nothing on the gun control front and it isn't a plank in the DNC platform. They did not and have not pushed any legislation on this front. Gun control has really taken a beating since the AWB expired and then the Heller and McDonald rulings.

Edited June 19, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Which is why the Bush administration started it. To make guns seem bad.

F&F was an Obama administration thing, but the larger "gunwalker" program that it was a part of started under bush.

[EvilMonkey]

Which is why the Bush administration started it. To make guns seem bad.

Um, no, it wasn't started under Bush. This is an Eric Holder/Obama production. One complete with the attempted silencing of the whistle blower, cover ups, deaths, lawsuits lying under oaths and soon to be a resignation.

[StrangeSox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner

 

Project Gunrunner is an operation of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico, in an attempt to deprive the Mexican drug cartels of weapons.[1]

 

In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.[2][3]

[EvilMonkey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner

Read your own link. Project Gunrunner was workign in partnership with the Mexican officials and esulted in 650 cases referred for prosecution. Simply because the 'stated' goal of Fast and Furious was the same, it gets lumped under the same umbrella name. F&F, under Obama, had no oversight, no Mexican cooperation, no nothing. If it wasn't any sort of conspiracy, there are boatloads of people that should be fired over it, immediately. They were warned, and tried to burn the whistleblower.Then, as usual, the attempted cover up makes things look even worse. I also notice many attempts n the citations to refer to F&F and Project Gunrunner, even tho it is it's own operation, hoping to tie it back into Bush. Holder f***ed up on this one, big time. Dems burned Gonzalez for less.

[StrangeSox]

There are lots of people that should be fired or sanctioned for F&F. It was a bad program with terrible results and people did try to bury it once things went to s***.

 

That doesn't mean it was some crazy calculated conspiracy to make guns look bad. Project Gunrunner was the umbrella project with different operations, including F&F, under it. The operations under Bush were run much better, but the point Balta was making is that the goals and some of the methodology was essentially the same. It seriously weakens the already strained claim that F&F was a nefarious plot by Obama to get gun control support.

[StrangeSox]

In somewhat related news, a federal judge struck down one of Chicago's gun control laws for being unconstitutionally vague.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06...dinance-gun-law

 

more here:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/19/the-secon...gun-possession/

Edited June 20, 2012 by StrangeSox