Gun shots on 14th street tonight!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White privileged going all in on broken windows policing again?

This is what happens when the pendulum swings too far left.

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because schools CANNOT fix society's problems. You want the schools to be childcare, holding pens for kids who would otherwise be carjacking, combat teen pregnancy, address learning loss, feed kids 3 meals a day, keep kids 11 hours a day etc.

Schools cannot fix it because we were never supposed to.

Right. But it’s politically incorrect to suggest that bad parenting is to blame.

[Anonymous]

So true.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:So true.

To be fair to Igor, he was walking down 14th Street when the shooting happened right in front of him. You don't really expect him to ignore it do you? Brazil has one of the highest murder rates in the world. How many of those murders has Greenwald covered? He gives more coverage to his dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our streets and communities weren't flooded with guns. There is blood on the hands of every republican in this country.

The Republicans have to move on the gun debate. But at the end of the day, the most important factor by far in explaining disparities in all manner of life outcomes (poverty, unemployment, crime, education) is whether you were born out-of-wedlock. And we all know the statistics are not pretty. Until the Democrats are willing to have a conversation about this, the gunfire will continue.

Democrats are already pro-choice and in favor of policies that increase education, jobs, and alleviate poverty. So, what's your point? That they should be in favor of forced-marriage and polygamy?

I'm sincerely not following exactly what you think Democrats haven't done on these issues.

It’s more that on the road to equity, which is paved with good intentions, democrats blame the guns first. They are which a huge part of the problem, but democrats also casually gloss over the 80% out of birth rate and single parent households, and rise in teens causing crimes, and basically ignore the lack of accountability from the actual perpetrator of a crime. Democracts are basically 100% equity focused and if that means that wealthy tax payers have to put with rising crime to achieve better disparate impact statistics regarding crime, than so be it. It’s this “I know crime is rising and your city might lose its tax base to tax payers fleeing to the safe suburbs, but you can’t make an equity omelette without cracking some eggs. And those eggs are everyone else.”

I hope democrats lose the mid terms because of this, and I hate this word, but this woke attitude toward crime. I also hope Charles Allen and the other Uber liberal idiots on the city council lose on the local level, but I won’t hold my breath. There are too many self flagellating city dwellers who will allow themselves to be crime victims before they actually get serious about policing. They won’t complain. I’ve lived here my whole life, so I know this town is way liberal.

How about we start with gun control and go from there John Wayne

Don't we have gun control in Chicago? How's that working for ya?

The problem is intractable because gun control will never happen to the point where we could actually remove enough guns (or even the types of guns like handguns and ar-15s) off the streets for any meaningful statistical drop in gun violence.

Additionally, no sane politician will point directly to any community that has outsized levels of criminality in proportion to its size and try to implement actual policing.

So there you go folks. You kind of just wait for gentrification to help lower crime and then along the way people complain or push for subsidized housing and all that but the hope is that developers win and crime goes down with their work before rich people flee.

Could you please explain how a AR-15 materially differs from other rifles, say the M1 Garand?

If that’s too hard, suppose you clarify what the “AR” stands for?

Inanimate objects don’t commit crimes. Criminals who misuse objects commit crimes. They use cars too. Should we ban all old model Honda’s because they’re easy to steal?

Listen gun-humper, I don’t know anything about them, I just know we need to take them away. All of them. I don’t know or care about the minutiae of which model or whatever, they all need to go. From your cold, dead hands if necessary.

Name calling, huh? Wow! That’s powerful!

Thank you for acknowledging that your overdetermined views on firearms are completely unreasoned, bereft of factual support and the product of an irrational fear that borders on, and may even rise to the level of, pathology.

Thank you also for acknowledging your absolute, invincible ignorance regarding how firearms work, the distinctions between them or anything else about them. For your information. The “AR” in “AR-15” stands for Armilite, the company that originally developed that and other rifles. AR-15 rifles are not “assault weapons.” They are incapable of automatic fire, which is an essential element of anything that might properly be called an assault rifle.

As for “cold dead hands,” cf., the response of Leonidas I to the demand by Xerxes I that the Spartans surrender their weapons.

You’d be outraged if medical or educational or monetary or any other policy was made on the basis of ignorance and irrational fear, but you feel entitled to control others’ right to the efficacious means of self-defense and recreation on precisely those grounds. Privileged much?

TL;DR

You sound really, really stupid though. Like all trumpers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White privileged going all in on broken windows policing again?

This is what happens when the pendulum swings too far left.

The pendulum has even crossed the middle from where Reagan put it in the 80’s. I promise you, when it finally does reach the left of center, it won’t be coming back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our streets and communities weren't flooded with guns. There is blood on the hands of every republican in this country.

it feels so hopeless--the gun nuts don't get it.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So true.

To be fair to Igor, he was walking down 14th Street when the shooting happened right in front of him. You don't really expect him to ignore it do you? Brazil has one of the highest murder rates in the world. How many of those murders has Greenwald covered? He gives more coverage to his dogs.

Nobody is slamming him for covering a shooting that happened right in front of him.
How many of the 109 murders has he covered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our streets and communities weren't flooded with guns. There is blood on the hands of every republican in this country.

it feels so hopeless--the criminals don't get it.

Fixed it!
You're welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White privileged going all in on broken windows policing again?

This is what happens when the pendulum swings too far left.

+1,000

I mean, yeah. What’s the point of having nice things if people are allowed to just shoot guns in the middle of them? I vote Democrat but I truly don’t hear any ideas for solving this coming from the left. If you even try to bring it up you’re met with calls of racism. So yeah, I’m in for more policing if it keeps my neighborhood safe for law abiding citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So true.

Not true. I’ve been paying attention this year and absolutely people paid a lot of attention to the 6 year old girl who was recently killed and many others that happened in other neighborhoods. This is like the third daylight shooting in a neighborhood that is a major destination which is why it’s getting attention. These arguments are so stupid.

[Anonymous]

And the Takoma Park Dad out to dinner with wife. This is horrendously awful gun violence. The 6 yr old … I can’t even imagine, my heart goes out to her parents. Just think of the 8 yr old at Nationals Park PREPARED for gun violence having been thru 2 shootings in less than a year. This is relentless.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is slamming him for covering a shooting that happened right in front of him.
How many of the 109 murders has he covered?

I don't know, but local crime is not his beat. He covers Congress. He was the reporter who filmed Officer Goodman leading the insurrectionists away from the Senate. He has a knack for being in the right place at the right time (or perhaps wrong time).

What news sources do you follow that you would expect to report on local murders? If they aren't doing such reporting, why haven't you found different sources? I believe that I have seen at least basic reporting on almost every murder in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if our streets and communities weren't flooded with guns. There is blood on the hands of every republican in this country.

The Republicans have to move on the gun debate. But at the end of the day, the most important factor by far in explaining disparities in all manner of life outcomes (poverty, unemployment, crime, education) is whether you were born out-of-wedlock. And we all know the statistics are not pretty. Until the Democrats are willing to have a conversation about this, the gunfire will continue.

Democrats are already pro-choice and in favor of policies that increase education, jobs, and alleviate poverty. So, what's your point? That they should be in favor of forced-marriage and polygamy?

I'm sincerely not following exactly what you think Democrats haven't done on these issues.

It’s more that on the road to equity, which is paved with good intentions, democrats blame the guns first. They are which a huge part of the problem, but democrats also casually gloss over the 80% out of birth rate and single parent households, and rise in teens causing crimes, and basically ignore the lack of accountability from the actual perpetrator of a crime. Democracts are basically 100% equity focused and if that means that wealthy tax payers have to put with rising crime to achieve better disparate impact statistics regarding crime, than so be it. It’s this “I know crime is rising and your city might lose its tax base to tax payers fleeing to the safe suburbs, but you can’t make an equity omelette without cracking some eggs. And those eggs are everyone else.”

I hope democrats lose the mid terms because of this, and I hate this word, but this woke attitude toward crime. I also hope Charles Allen and the other Uber liberal idiots on the city council lose on the local level, but I won’t hold my breath. There are too many self flagellating city dwellers who will allow themselves to be crime victims before they actually get serious about policing. They won’t complain. I’ve lived here my whole life, so I know this town is way liberal.

How about we start with gun control and go from there John Wayne

Don't we have gun control in Chicago? How's that working for ya?

The problem is intractable because gun control will never happen to the point where we could actually remove enough guns (or even the types of guns like handguns and ar-15s) off the streets for any meaningful statistical drop in gun violence.

Additionally, no sane politician will point directly to any community that has outsized levels of criminality in proportion to its size and try to implement actual policing.

So there you go folks. You kind of just wait for gentrification to help lower crime and then along the way people complain or push for subsidized housing and all that but the hope is that developers win and crime goes down with their work before rich people flee.

Could you please explain how a AR-15 materially differs from other rifles, say the M1 Garand?

If that’s too hard, suppose you clarify what the “AR” stands for?

Inanimate objects don’t commit crimes. Criminals who misuse objects commit crimes. They use cars too. Should we ban all old model Honda’s because they’re easy to steal?

Listen gun-humper, I don’t know anything about them, I just know we need to take them away. All of them. I don’t know or care about the minutiae of which model or whatever, they all need to go. From your cold, dead hands if necessary.

Name calling, huh? Wow! That’s powerful!

Thank you for acknowledging that your overdetermined views on firearms are completely unreasoned, bereft of factual support and the product of an irrational fear that borders on, and may even rise to the level of, pathology.

Thank you also for acknowledging your absolute, invincible ignorance regarding how firearms work, the distinctions between them or anything else about them. For your information. The “AR” in “AR-15” stands for Armilite, the company that originally developed that and other rifles. AR-15 rifles are not “assault weapons.” They are incapable of automatic fire, which is an essential element of anything that might properly be called an assault rifle.

As for “cold dead hands,” cf., the response of Leonidas I to the demand by Xerxes I that the Spartans surrender their weapons.

You’d be outraged if medical or educational or monetary or any other policy was made on the basis of ignorance and irrational fear, but you feel entitled to control others’ right to the efficacious means of self-defense and recreation on precisely those grounds. Privileged much?

TL;DR

You sound really, really stupid though. Like all trumpers.

Thanks for your deeply thoughtful and profoundly insightful response on the merits of the issue. Work of real brilliance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So true.

To be fair to Igor, he was walking down 14th Street when the shooting happened right in front of him. You don't really expect him to ignore it do you? Brazil has one of the highest murder rates in the world. How many of those murders has Greenwald covered? He gives more coverage to his dogs.

Nobody is slamming him for covering a shooting that happened right in front of him.
How many of the 109 murders has he covered?

The same number as those that happened right in front of him.