"Stand You Ground" Laws

[Foreigner]

again, you are trying to prove a correlation that doesn't exist.

-- I have not tried to prove ANY correlation. Not one. You KNOW that.
I showed THERE IS NO correlation. And that is why increased gun laws won't change anything.
I am sorry your life has been so hard, but that is no excuse for voiding your integrity.



TO THE TOPIC AT HAND:

As far as Florida's Stand Your Ground laws, apparently Blacks actually BENEFIT from that law at a disproportionate rate:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/

"Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites."


Those Black entertainers and "civil rights leaders" who are calling for a boycott of FL are disregarding the thousands of Black small business owners and hundreds of thousands of Black employees of businesses that will be hurt from that boycott.




.

 

[aspen]

Foreigner - a correlation is a relationship between to things, ideas, or events. - if you are not trying to suggest a correlation between crime and gun laws then why did you mention them in the same post?

Please try to take some responsibility for your words

 

[John S]

It doesn't matter if blacks are "helped" by Stand Your Gound laws. That's a ridiculous statement to make. The law allows people, regardless of race, to get away with murder.

If gun laws won't change anything, then why are the Republicans so against a law that 90% of the American population wants - gun registration. We have to register to get a driver's license - to vote - etc. Why not to own a gun?
Why are they against ANY gun law - if it won't make a difference?

One juror now publicly stated that Zimmerman has gotten away with murder.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

It doesn't matter if blacks are "helped" by Stand Your Gound laws. That's a ridiculous statement to make. The law allows people, regardless of race, to get away with murder.

If gun laws won't change anything, then why are the Republicans so against a law that 90% of the American population wants - gun registration. We have to register to get a driver's license - to vote - etc. Why not to own a gun?
Why are they against ANY gun law - if it won't make a difference?

One juror now publicly stated that Zimmerman has gotten away with murder.

The more you open your mouth, the more I am convinced you are a fool.

Are you more content that an innocent person gets assaulted, hurt, killed, or deprived of property than you are that a guilty person is injured or killed in the act of committing a crime. If yes, that speaks poorly of your sense of justice.

The juror who stated that Z got away with murder also said she thought the charges against him were bogus and politically motivated. She contradicted, embarrassed, and discredited herself all in the same interview. You give a person like that credit?

The 90% figure that you keep throwing around is a lie, and you probably know it.

 

[John S]

If a person punches you in the face, offer to let him punch you on the other cheek - instead of shooting him.
If a person makes you walk a mile, offer to walk a second mile - instead of shooting him.
If a person takes your "shirt", offer him your "coat" also - instead of shooting him.
Love your enemies - and don't shoot them.

I didn't say those words but some other liberal "Fool" did. I TRY to follow those "Fool's" words instead of some conservatives words who HATE the words of that "Fool".


Guns ARE antichristian - so is the NRA - and so are the people who own them.

 

[Foreigner]

Foreigner - a correlation is a relationship between to things, ideas, or events. - if you are not trying to suggest a correlation between crime and gun laws then why did you mention them in the same post?

Please try to take some responsibility for your words

-- Wow....just wow lol
Aspen, please focus. Please.

What I have said:
D.C. and Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the nation YET they have the highest gun related crime rates in the nation

What you chose to hear:
D.C. and Chicago have the strictest gun laws I the nation SO they have the highest gun related crime rates in the nation


I have not attempted ANY correlation. I...have...done...just...the...opposite.
I have NOT said there is any correlation between increased gun laws and crime increase or decrease. I have said those laws would have no impact.
No impact = No correlation.
English Language 101

That is why Chicago and Wash. D.C. were mentioned.
Most restrictive gun laws in the nation yet the highest gun-related crime in the nation.
They were pointed out as the two best examples in showing that increased gun laws don't have an impact on the crime rate.

Please "take responsibility for you words".........




Again, as far as Stand Your Ground:

Then State Senator Obama Co-Sponsored The IL Stand-Your-Ground Law

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/22/then-sen-obama-co-sponsored-stand-your-ground-law-/

"President Obama may currently be calling on the states to review their respective “stand your ground” gun laws, but he wasn’t always so opposed to the right-to-carry rule.
In 2004, while a senator in Illinois, he co-sponsored legislation that allowed for the same rights.

The pertinent legislation was SB 2386, amending the criminal code of 1961. It was introduced in the 93rd General Assembly session and passed into law on July 28, 2004.
The text summary read: “Provides that it is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another. Effective immediately.”

The Illinois General Assembly website indicates then-Sen. Obama signed on as a co-sponsor on March 25, 2004."




John S, your "turn the other cheek" diatribe goes out the window when it comes to an armed intruder entering your home or attacking you in a parking lot.
If it comes down to standing there and letting him rape your wife and murder your children, or shooting him to save them....

.....then I say God Bless the NRA.

Unless you REALLY think God expects you to sit back and watch that happen...

 

[Dodo_David]

If a person punches you in the face, offer to let him punch you on the other cheek - instead of shooting him.
If a person makes you walk a mile, offer to walk a second mile - instead of shooting him.
If a person takes your "shirt", offer him your "coat" also - instead of shooting him.
Love your enemies - and don't shoot them.

I didn't say those words but some other liberal "Fool" did. I TRY to follow those "Fool's" words instead of some conservatives words who HATE the words of that "Fool".


Guns ARE antichristian - so is the NRA - and so are the people who own them.

John S, your attempt to rewrite Matthew 5:39-41 won't work. Here is what Jesus says in those verses:

"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles."

New Testament theologian William Barclay writes the following about Matthew 5:39*:

Suppose a right-handed man is standing in front of another man, and suppose he wants to slap the other man on the right cheek, how must he do it? Unless he goes through the most complicated contortions, and unless he empties the blow of all force, he can hit the other man's cheek only in one way - with the back of the hand. Now according to Jewish Rabbinic law to hit a man with the back of the hand was twice as insulting as to hit him with the flat of the hand. So, then, what Jesus is saying is this: "Even if a man should direct at you the most deadly and calculating insult, you must on no account retaliate, and you must on no account resent it."

In Matthew 5:40-41, Jesus isn't talking about cases in which a person is being physically attacked, in which a person's life is threatened. Instead, he is talking about situations in which a man is compelled by law to do certain things.

Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus tell us that we can't defend ourselves if we are attacked physically, if our lives are threatened.

To claim that gun-owners are anti-Christian is to make a claim that isn't supported by the Bible.

[*William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1, The Daily Study Bible Series (Westminster Press: 1975), p. 166.]

 

[aspen]

Oh my.......Foreigner, I think you really need a dictionary and some higher education, perhaps?

Your use of the word 'YET' suggests a correlation - yes, it does - a correlation.

If you had used the word 'SO' it would have been causation.

Please stop your quibbling while you are woefully behind, I beg you.

Maybe this will help - your last quibble with me lasted at least a year, remember? Let me help you - it involved you following me around all the homosexual threads and suggesting that one statement I had made about homosexual marriage and voting, which involved a violation of civil rights, was so shocking that everyone needed to know that I had written it back in 2000-whatever so that they could realize how foolish I must be. When I finally lowered myself to your playground taunting by reminding you that denying an American citizen their legal pursuit of happiness is a civil rights issue; you finally admitted it and dropped it from your Aspen propaganda mantra. Please do not force me to pantse you in public again. Just move on.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

If a person punches you in the face, offer to let him punch you on the other cheek - instead of shooting him.
If a person makes you walk a mile, offer to walk a second mile - instead of shooting him.
If a person takes your "shirt", offer him your "coat" also - instead of shooting him.
Love your enemies - and don't shoot them.

I feel sorry for your wife and kids to have someone like you as their protector.

 

[lforrest]

Oh my.......Foreigner, I think you really need a dictionary and some higher education, perhaps?

Your use of the word 'YET' suggests a correlation - yes, it does - a correlation.

If you had used the word 'SO' it would have been causation.

Please stop your quibbling while you are woefully behind, I beg you.

Maybe this will help - your last quibble with me lasted at least a year, remember? Let me help you - it involved you following me around all the homosexual threads and suggesting that one statement I had made about homosexual marriage and voting, which involved a violation of civil rights, was so shocking that everyone needed to know that I had written it back in 2000-whatever so that they could realize how foolish I must be. When I finally lowered myself to your playground taunting by reminding you that denying an American citizen their legal pursuit of happiness is a civil rights issue; you finally admitted it and dropped it from your Aspen propaganda mantra. Please do not force me to pantse you in public again. Just move on.

Correlation or not his point is made. If there is no correlation that means gun control has no affect on crime rates and therefore there is no reason for increased gun control. If there is a correlation it is opposite of what was intended, meaning gun control is actually increasing crime rates.

 

[Foreigner]

Your use of the word 'YET' suggests a correlation - yes, it does - a correlation.

If you had used the word 'SO' it would have been causation.

Please stop your quibbling while you are woefully behind, I beg you.

-- Wow, no you are just being creepy.

cor·re·la·tion
/ˌkôrəˈlāSHən/



Noun

1. A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.
2. Interdependence of variable quantities.

Synonyms
interrelation


I have repeatedly said that increased gun laws have NO EFFECT on the crime rate because Chicago and Wash. D.C.
Why? They have the most restrictive gun laws, yet the highest gun crime rates.

Again: Never once said that one is CONNECTED to the other or BECAUSE of the other or IMPACTED by the other or INFLUENCED by the other or RELATED to the other or AFFECTED by the other.

And that - according to dictionary definition - which you seem unacquainted with. (Why is that?) - means there is NO CORRELATION.

If there is no connection whatsoever between the number of gun laws and the rate of crime in a city, how oh wise one.....that is a correlation?

One simple single unambiguous question....Take your time....we can wait....






And I have no idea why you brought this up other than you were still stinging but:

According to the United States Supreme Court, voting against Gay Marriage does NOT violate anyone's Civil Rights....as you have repeatedly claimed it does.
It is - as the Supreme Court states- a simple exercising of your Constitutional right to vote your conscience on an issue.
Sorry, but the Supreme Court trumps you.....and quite easily I might add.
You claimed it. They proved you wrong. You should really get over it.





.

 

[aspen]

Correlation is a statistical measurement of the relationship between two variables. Possible correlations range from +1 to –1. A zero correlation indicates that there is no relationship between the variables. A correlation of –1 indicates a perfect negative correlation, meaning that as one variable goes up, the other goes down. Correlation of +1 indicates a perfect positive correlation, meaning that both variables move in the same direction together.[\b] (which was your point in the first place, in order to discredit strict gun laws, you provided two cities with strict gun laws and high crime)

Now, I am finished providing you with a free education - you need to move on.

BTW, I accept your apology.

Now, let's talk about 'creepy'. The term creepy perfectly illustrates your behavior, which includes dredging up my past posts and either taking my own words out of context or reframing them for the purpose of discrediting me, years later.

 

[Foreigner]

Correlation is a statistical measurement of the relationship between two variables

-- And since no one is claiming any 'relationship between two variables,' - at all - you again make my point for me. Thank you.

A zero correlation indicates that there is no relationship between the variables.

-- Exactly. As I have pointed out a dozen times in this thread. Thank you for finally noticing and agreeing.


The other tripe you posted would apply - and PLEASE try to focus here - ONLY if a claim of correlation or attempt at correlation was made.

Unfortunately for you, no one made any attempt to posit that.

Translation: Your 'free education' proved to be worth even less than that. lol I love it.

BTW, I accept your apology.

Now, let's talk about 'creepy'. The term creepy perfectly illustrates your behavior, which includes dredging up my past posts and either taking my own words out of context or reframing them for the purpose of discrediting me, years later.

-- Oh Aspen, you deserve a lot of things. An apology is NOT one of them :lol:

Please notice it was actually YOU that "dredged up" one of your past posts in this thread. Not me.
An inconvenient truth for you, but the truth none the less....

 

[aspen]

If there is no correlation between the variables you presented together then why did you mention both together? If there is no connection, your statement is meaningless. If you meant to suggest a connection and are now denying it, you are just be provocative. Of course, we both know that your intention was to lead people to draw a conclusion about the futile nature of gun laws in deterring crime. This signifies a relationship between the variables.

I hope I never catch you criticizing Clinton for quibbling about the definition of the word "is". Jealousy would be the only logical conclusion.

Get back to me in a year or two about being creepy for bringing up past conversations if you want me to take you seriously. Or you can go and ask your public speaking class.....YIKES

 

[Dodo_David]

Wow, this thread has gone downhill.

 

[Pelaides]

Wow, this thread has gone downhill.

Im surprised the catholics and protesants didnt start fighting yet.

 

[Foreigner]

If there is no correlation between the variables you presented together then why did you mention both together?

-- Why you ask? The answer still hasn't changed. When are you going to listen?

They were mentioned to show there is no connection between increased gun laws and gun violence.

FACT: Gun violence in Chicago and Wash. D.C. was increasing even before the gun laws were put in place.
FACT: Gun violence continued to increase even after the new gun laws were implemented.

How many times do I have to say "there is no correlation" before you choose to actually hear it?

If you meant to suggest a connection and are now denying it, you are just be provocative.

-- Another implied unsubstantiated accusation...
If I did suggest a connection and then deny it, it would be BRUTALLY EASY for you to prove it......simply provide the exact quote where I did that.

You of course STILL haven't done that.
Why? Because I did no such thing......and you know it.

I hope I never catch you criticizing Clinton for quibbling about the definition of the word "is". Jealousy would be the only logical conclusion.

-- Now you want to bring Bill Clinton into this conversation? Really?
Okay, fine.
I'd be much more interested in criticizing his flat out lie under oath in front of a Grand Jury where he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
The lie that got him impeached and cost him his law license, but would have gotten you or I prison time.
Maybe it is you who is dealing with 'Jealousy.' He's still married.

Wow, this thread has gone downhill.

-- Not my fault.

In the course of this discussion I have pointed out:

1.) Zimmerman's defense had nothing to do with Stand-Your Ground and the Prosecution acknowledged that. (Post # 46)
2.) The Jury unanimously found Zimmerman innocent and their decision was not based on Stand-Your-Ground law. (Post # 68)
3.) In 2004 IL State Senator Barack Obama voted to strengthen the states Stand-Your-Ground law. http://newsbusters.o...2004-will-media (Post # 71)
4.) Florida's Blacks benefit from that state's Stand-Your-Ground law at a disproportionate rate. http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/ (Post # 81)

Can't help it if you and others chose not to comment on those points.




.

 

[aspen]

Well, I have done all I can do to open your eyes, Foreigner. You can lead a horse to water....

 

[Dodo_David]

-- Why you ask? The answer still hasn't changed. When are you going to listen?

They were mentioned to show there is no connection between increased gun laws and gun violence.

FACT: Gun violence in Chicago and Wash. D.C. was increasing even before the gun laws were put in place.
FACT: Gun violence continued to increase even after the new gun laws were implemented.

How many times do I have to say "there is no correlation" before you choose to actually hear it?



-- Another implied unsubstantiated accusation...
If I did suggest a connection and then deny it, it would be BRUTALLY EASY for you to prove it......simply provide the exact quote where I did that.

You of course STILL haven't done that.
Why? Because I did no such thing......and you know it.



-- Now you want to bring Bill Clinton into this conversation? Really?
Okay, fine.
I'd be much more interested in criticizing his flat out lie under oath in front of a Grand Jury where he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
The lie that got him impeached and cost him his law license, but would have gotten you or I prison time.
Maybe it is you who is dealing with 'Jealousy.' He's still married.






-- Not my fault.

In the course of this discussion I have pointed out:

1.) Zimmerman's defense had nothing to do with Stand-Your Ground and the Prosecution acknowledged that. (Post # 46)
2.) The Jury unanimously found Zimmerman innocent and their decision was not based on Stand-Your-Ground law. (Post # 68)
3.) In 2004 IL State Senator Barack Obama voted to strengthen the states Stand-Your-Ground law. http://newsbusters.o...2004-will-media (Post # 71)
4.) Florida's Blacks benefit from that state's Stand-Your-Ground law at a disproportionate rate. http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/ (Post # 81)

Can't help it if you and others chose not to comment on those points..

Apparently, you overlooked what I posted earlier on this thread. I have repeatedly said that Stand Your Ground was not used as a defense in the Zimmerman trial.

 

[laid renard]