waitforufo

I don't understand, please explain.

Not if your goal is to reduce homicide. But that is not your goal is it?

That 3.50 per hour is tax free and doesn't impact your ability to get an EBT card or lose your Medicaid/Obamacare. Who knew the drug trade came with death benefits? Per your link five grand. Also, all the education you need is the school of hard knocks. A 1/12 chance of getting killed means that the day you join the drug trade you have a 50% chance of death in 7 years and a 90% chance of death in 26 years. My guess is that many are willing to take that risk and believe they can kill before being killed. Hence the high homicide rate for criminals, proving my point. So why go after guns. Go after criminals instead.

I included a link with more that one hypothesis for balance. I think the link to my claim is very obvious. Our criminal justice system is based on the control theory. It's based on making the cost of crime high.

Sorry, I had to go on a business trip. My comment was based on the control theory of crime causation. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3403000066.html

Here is another one. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/01/nopd_release_of_murder_victims.html So the fact that avoiding criminal behavior makes the likelihood of being involve in homicide or shooting is very small has been know for quite some time. Note "extensive criminal histories" and that non criminal victims are "an exception." The best part of the quote is "Ignoring or concealing this fact can make an entire city feel like they're living in a dangerous world, when in fact they're not," All gun control enthusiast ignore or conceal this fact. Convincing people that they live in a dangerous world is their key tactic in convincing people that gun control is necessary. It is not necessary. In fact free access to guns mostly decreases the criminal population. Then there is the old canard about acquaintance murders. Well criminals have relatives, friends, and acquaintances, too. 'Acquaintance' can describe many sorts of acquaintances -- drug dealers are acquainted with their customers, gang members are acquainted with their rivals, and prostitutes are acquainted with their johns. Yes, if you are acquainted with lots of criminals, you might fall victim to an acquaintance murder by one of those criminals.

A true expression of the modern liberal mind.

You gun control folks are always combining all firearms fatalities and injuries into the same bucket and saying look we are all in danger. When the numbers are broken down however it all becomes complex and nuanced for you. Let's look at the WaPo article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?tid=sm_tw So suicides make up ~60% of firearm fatalities, but the US does not have an unusual suicide rate. The US is at 50, which is comparable to France at 47 and Austria at 54. Then I just pointed out that the vast majority US homicide victims are criminals. So you come back with don't be poor. Really? I think most poor people would be insulted by the association you are making which is poor people are criminals. I'm sure that the vast majority of poor people are good, honest, law abiding citizens. It should not be surprising that criminals are poor because they have a problem with working for a living.

Then lets look a a different statistic. What percentage of homicide victims have criminal pasts. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-31-criminal-target_N.htm http://www.steakleylawfirm.com/index.php/blogs/entry/usa-today-statistics-show-that-criminals-target-each-other http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/19/edward-flynn/85-percent-shooting-suspects-and-victims-milwaukee/ http://www.wpr.org/gun-related-deaths-increase-prior-criminal-records-common-link-among-shooters-victims Somewhere north of 70%. Since not all criminals have a criminal record, one should assume that even a larger number of homicide victims are criminals. Every occupation has it's risks. I'm not interested in reducing the rate of homicides of criminals. So don't have an arrest history and you are much less likely to be a victim of homicide.

But firearm fatalities are down even as gun purchases are way up. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/04/washington-post-gun-violence-declining-except-gun-free-zones/

Here is how well gun control works http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/mystery-gun-buyer-eyed-san-bernardino-massacre-n474416 Straw purchases, high capacity magazines, attempts to full automatic conversion. All illegal under California law.

That can't be right. You make this sound like a Muslim problem.

And what do terrorist attacks nourish? What does throwing gays off of 10 story buildings nourish? If we had just paid those barbary pirates I'm sure this cycle of fear and loathing would have never started. Our bad I guess. Maybe if we forced the Marine Corps to remove "to the shores of Tripoli" from their hymn would be a good start in creating a Muslim safe space.

Why don't we just drop bundles of cash? Maybe they are still upset with the United States for taking out the barbary pirates. Maybe if we just paid our jizya the Muslim would calm down and tolerate us infidels more.

And none of this would have happened if Obama would have negotiated a status of forces agreement with Iraq leaving 30 thousand troops in Iraq as his generals recommended. Instead Obama offered 4 thousand troops and Iraq told him there was no point in leaving such a small force. Now Obama keeps adding more troops. Watching Obama is like watching the keystone cops.

How can you do this and guarantee zero civilian collateral damage. Zero is the threshold the President Obama has set. We have been attempting to shut down oil revenues by ISIS by bombing and strafing oil tanks and tanker trucks. We won't strafe moving tanker trucks because they may be driven by civilians. We drop leaflets on tank farms surrounded by tanker trucks warning of imminent attack and then do a few aircraft flybys to show we mean business. Even then we won't bomb or strafe if we feel civilians are present. Many of our sorties return with their weapons because of this zero tolerance policy. Not a way to fight a war. Perhaps Obama should study General W.T. Sherman a bit more. Bullshit, it is done all the time. You just need to teach those with such ideas you will never grow tired of killing them and then kill as many as you can. Ask Japan. Ask the Nazis. Ask the KKK. Sure there will be a few hard cases about, but when was the last time you saw a KKK parade in Washington DC?

Tar, Give it up. Those people are being thrown off of buildings because of the United States. All evil in the world is happening because of the United States. Have you not read the posts in this topic? They all point to the evilness of the United States. We are the Great Satan. Even when we pass wind we create radical terrorism. Wake up.

It was more than not extinguished by Clinton. Eight years of no fly zones, bombings, and cruse missile attacks. All of this by the way would have stopped if Saddam would have let Hans Blix verify that Iraq had no weapons. Did Blix ever verify that to be true? No. Clinton had his bimbo problems but all in all he wasn't that bad of a president. At least he signed welfare reform, balance budgets, and maintained prosperity in the country. More than Obama could do. Well ISIS certainly controls territory. They also have weapons because Obama abandoned those weapons in Iraq. They also have oil exports. We could bomb or strafe those oil trucks but we can't hurt the drivers because of a constant fear of "collateral damage." Obama says ISIS is contained. Contained where? Not in a state according to you. Too bad Obama's general Joseph Dunford doesn't agree about this containment. General Dunford made Obama look quite the fool today when he testified to the House Armed Services Committee. I seem to remember Obama running for president when Bush was in office. I seem to remember him having full knowledge of the wars he was about to inherit. He wanted the job. Campaigned to attain it. Stood on his stage of Greek Columns and assured us that he was going to make it all better. The economy would prosper, wars would end, and the sea level would fall. Well are things better now?

This alleged deployment of additional US forces to Iraq must be some kind of joke. Obama declared victory in Iraq. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/14/barack-obama-iraq-war-success Look how happy Obama is in the video. Also his vice president said it was Obama's greatest achievement. Here it is. So Ash Carter must be talking out his ass. There is no need for troops in Iraq. Obama the magnificent took care of that problem.

Lets not forget that the US was in a continuous state of war with Iraq since they invaded Kuwait in 1990 up to the W Bush invasion in 2003. In fact Bill Clinton maintained this war throughout his entire presidency firing cruse missiles into Iraq whenever he needed a Monica distraction. Sure, Hans Blix was busy writing stern letters the entire time and was always months away from getting to the bottom of Iraq's chemical weapons but could never get there. There comes a point when patience wears thin.

My post was about the many missed opportunities of the cowardly professor. His own ambassador said that all the moderate opposition in Syria needed at the start was ammunition and money. But that was too big a leap for the cowardly professor. Then he showed the big yellow stripe running down his back when he wouldn't even back up his own red line on chemical weapons use. Now he chastises those resisting the refuges that his policies, or lack there of, brought about. The guy is a baffoon when it comes to foreign policy. All Obama had to do was negotiate a status for forces agreement leaving 30000 troops in Iraq, as his generals recommended, and we wouldn't even have ISIS. What should we do right now? Obama has backed us in to quite the corner. At this point all we can do is wait for Russia to get it's S-400 missile system deployed in Syria. The Russians clearly stated that they would shoot down any aircraft regardless of the airspace they occupy if they felt they were a threat to Russian aircraft or troops. By that statement Russia is annexing quite a bit of Turkish air space. I doubt many Turkish pilots will stay in their own airspace when the S-400 missile system locks on them or turns on the illuminator of the 48N6DM long range missile. If the turks are foolish enough to show a little bravado they will be shot down creating a NATO crisis that the cowardly professor just doesn't have the backbone for. Putin know this.

Too bad Obama didn't listen to his own ambassador Robert Ford. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/syrias-moderate-opposition-needs-help-ground-says-former-ambassador http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33997408 https://news.vice.com/article/its-one-big-conflict-now-former-ambassador-robert-ford-on-the-way-forward-in-syria-and-iraq I'm sure the cowardly professor is still analyzing the situation. Too bad events on the ground move much faster than Obama's cowardly mind.

You got to love this article. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-track-russia-plane-shot-down-turkey-turkish-airspace/ This as a pretty nice missile system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_(missile) Great quote. This one follows

And so it begins. http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/25/europe/nato-putin-turkey-syria-analysis/index.html

Putin knows Obama is a coward. If he attacks Turkey NATO's response will likely be zero. Sure the cowardly professor will pout and study it ad infinitum but ultimately nothing will be done. Could be the end of NATO. We will just have to see if Putin rolls the dice.