New L.A. gun control law proposed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

because profiling is not accurate.. humans will never eliminate bias.. and it has been proven profiling carries a lot of mistakes.. and innocent people shouldn't be framed by some xenophobic excuse as profiling

Again the problem with profiling is that ethnicity can become the basis for suspicion, rather than... Oh I dunno... a suspicious act.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

You are right. What about them? Why should they be a victim of crime while Caucasians like yourself living in peaceful neighborhoods play PC games? Sit anonymously behind forums and question and criticize anyone who is trying to do something. As you have done so before suggesting police go out and target minorities.

At the end of the day, low socioeconomic Latinos and Blacks are being killed by Latinos and blacks. That is the reality. So we either target the offenders and the actual perpetrators of the crime or we do nothing in the name of civil rights and being PC.

maybe the denials of who is doing it, and outrage over profiling, is a dark plot to continue the violence against low socio-economic latinos and blacks, and we should really be asking why these people hate latinos and blacks by not supporting profiling, which would keep the law abiding safe.

because profiling is not accurate.. humans will never eliminate bias.. and it has been proven profiling carries a lot of mistakes.. and innocent people shouldn't be framed by some xenophobic excuse as profiling

so you hate low socio-economic latinos and blacks, got it.

[Peikko 1,575]

You are not reading the proof that your logic is faulty. You are just thumping the desk and telling us how you are so unfairly treated.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

anyone ever watch gangland on history channel?

i think there's a few in this thread that don't

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're not paying attention BY.

I didn't deny or discredit the statistics you posted. Not at all.

Anyway, as usual you discredit others views but fail to provide any evidence of your own to back YOUR own assumptions.

Saying someone is wrong does not prove you right. Until you provide evidence of your own suggesting otherwise, my stats are right and Latino's should have guns taken away from them.

What assumptions did I make BY?

You're still not paying attention.

I did not and do not deny that blacks and hispanics make up the largest proportion of gang members.

But that fact alone doesn't "prove" that blacks and hispanics should (as a whole) have their guns taken away. The failure in your argument is one of logic.

When it comes to you or your close group of buddies here, without fail, it's always a problem in the other persons logic.

Get over stating that someone is wrong but never ever actually providing any proof that you are correct. So since you claim these stats don't paint the overall picture, show me using actual proof how they are wrong. Until you can do that I am not going to sit here and defend anything I posts while you never hold yourself up to the same standards and prove your own views.

PS This is not a press conference.

BY you can't prove what you're saying either.

As I said I agree that most gang members are of certain ethnicities. What I don't agree with is your failure of logic that this fact justifies taking guns away from minorities.

BTW - you're still not paying attention. Your reading comprehension skills really are abysmal.

PS This is not a press conference.

No... it isn't.

What's your point?

[pedroh 21]

You are right. What about them? Why should they be a victim of crime while Caucasians like yourself living in peaceful neighborhoods play PC games? Sit anonymously behind forums and question and criticize anyone who is trying to do something. As you have done so before suggesting police go out and target minorities.

At the end of the day, low socioeconomic Latinos and Blacks are being killed by Latinos and blacks. That is the reality. So we either target the offenders and the actual perpetrators of the crime or we do nothing in the name of civil rights and being PC.

maybe the denials of who is doing it, and outrage over profiling, is a dark plot to continue the violence against low socio-economic latinos and blacks, and we should really be asking why these people hate latinos and blacks by not supporting profiling, which would keep the law abiding safe.

because profiling is not accurate.. humans will never eliminate bias.. and it has been proven profiling carries a lot of mistakes.. and innocent people shouldn't be framed by some xenophobic excuse as profiling

so you hate low socio-economic latinos and blacks, got it.

no, but i don't want tosee a poor latino being pulled over by the cops just because he looks hispanic.. or 2 black guys walking into a store and suddenly all the people that work there are checking them 'in case they steal'

[Heracles 417]

You're having a laugh now mate aren't you? Seriously dude your reasoning helps no one, least of all these people you think you are helping.

We are on two completely different wavelengths. I want to target the problem directly. Whereas you are more concerned about the innocent bystanders who will be targeted because of their similarities to the culprits. Much in the same way freedom is defended by a barrel of a M16, violence cannot be solved without collateral damage.

If Australians represented a majority of gang bangers, I would have no qualms with the government saying Australia's should not be allowed to own guns. Whereas you are basically suggesting all guns should be banned to ensure PC. Effectively punishing everyone rather than the perpetrators of crime. Then again this is a very British chain of thought. It does happen in AUS quite a bit. Punish everyone for the actions of the few just to be PC.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Aficionado

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

You are right. What about them? Why should they be a victim of crime while Caucasians like yourself living in peaceful neighborhoods play PC games? Sit anonymously behind forums and question and criticize anyone who is trying to do something. As you have done so before suggesting police go out and target minorities.

At the end of the day, low socioeconomic Latinos and Blacks are being killed by Latinos and blacks. That is the reality. So we either target the offenders and the actual perpetrators of the crime or we do nothing in the name of civil rights and being PC.

maybe the denials of who is doing it, and outrage over profiling, is a dark plot to continue the violence against low socio-economic latinos and blacks, and we should really be asking why these people hate latinos and blacks by not supporting profiling, which would keep the law abiding safe.

because profiling is not accurate.. humans will never eliminate bias.. and it has been proven profiling carries a lot of mistakes.. and innocent people shouldn't be framed by some xenophobic excuse as profiling

so you hate low socio-economic latinos and blacks, got it.

no, but i don't want tosee a poor latino being pulled over by the cops just because he looks hispanic.. or 2 black guys walking into a store and suddenly all the people that work there are checking them 'in case they steal'

of course you don't. regardless of whether it's in the long run beneficial for those who are of the low socio-economic class, of whatever race.

so why do you hate poor people, by refusing to allow proactive policing?

[tmma 467]

My .01c here.

Someone said that "the new laws will not affect the responsible gun owners"...and that's prob true, but I think it isn't going to do much of a squat about the illegal gun owners either, because they usually obtain their weapons without formal registration or criminal background checks....( i.e 'on the street'), and they'll get them and use them regardless of whatever 'laws' are in place.

edit-grammar.

Edited February 13, 2009 by tmma

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

My .01c here.

Someone said that "the new laws will not affect the responsible gun owners"...and that's prob true, but I think it isn't going to do much of a squat about the illegal gun owners either, because they usually obtain their weapons without formal registration or criminal background checks....( i.e 'on the street'), and they'll get them and use them regardless of whatever 'laws' are in place.

edit-grammar.

how many times have we heard that mantra before?

[Heracles 417]

of course you don't. regardless of whether it's in the long run beneficial for those who are of the low socio-economic class, of whatever race.

so why do you hate poor people, by refusing to allow proactive policing?

The irony is that good innocent people like Pedroh are usually the victims. I just don't get why he doesn't want to minimize his chance and his families chance of being a victim. I would rather the police do their job and target the perpetrators than ending up a victim of crime. I would want police to be able to pull over a car load of males cruising at 3am in the morning and ask them for ID and ####### they are doing.

I remember seeing a story and posting it here a while back how a Black American family had to sleep in the middle of their house because there was random gun fire every single night. Is this what some here call a life? Should this family have to put up with that in the United States of America because the police are not allowed to pull over people in cars cruising around without probable cause. That is a freakin joke that a family has to live like that.

How would PD or CLEO like it if they had to take their matress and move it to the center of their house (no windows) every single night so they are not a victim of crime. So they would not be hit by possible stray gunfire.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Aficionado

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We are on two completely different wavelengths. I want to target the problem directly. Whereas you are more concerned about the innocent bystanders who will be targeted because of their similarities to the culprits. Much in the same way freedom is defended by a barrel of a M16, violence cannot be solved without collateral damage.

No... what you are suggesting is that its fine to target 100% of a people because of 5-10% of wrongdoers.

If Australians represented a majority of gang bangers, I would have no qualms with the government saying Australia's should not be allowed to own guns. Whereas you are basically suggesting all guns should be banned to ensure PC. Effectively punishing everyone rather than the perpetrators of crime. Then again this is a very British chain of thought. It does happen in AUS quite a bit. Punish everyone for the actions of the few just to be PC.

She didn't suggest that at all.

[NickD 203]

My .01c here.

Someone said that "the new laws will not affect the responsible gun owners"...and that's prob true, but I think it isn't going to do much of a squat about the illegal gun owners either, because they usually obtain their weapons without formal registration or criminal background checks....( i.e 'on the street'), and they'll get them and use them regardless of whatever 'laws' are in place.

edit-grammar.

how many times have we heard that mantra before?

Should be asking why the richest nation on earth, the land of opportunity has so many poor people.

[natty bumppo 297]

By Maeve Reston, LA Times

Just a few weeks after the Los Angeles City Council approved a batch of new gun and ammunition ordinances tightening restrictions on ammunition vendors, council members Jack Weiss and Janice Hahn are proposing a new law that would make it more difficult for individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors to own guns.

The proposal, which Weiss and Hahn plan to introduce as early as today's council meeting, would expand on a state law that bars possession of a gun for 10 years if convicted of certain crimes, including assault, illegal weapons sales or threatening a public official or a witness.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gu...3,0,52723.story

What makes the public official or witness more "special" than the ordinary person? Must suk to be an ordinary person in LA and not be protected by this ordinance ...

*goes to look-up if public officials and witnesses are listed as an endangered species along with the Giant Kangaroo Rat and Amargosa Vole *

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

My .01c here.

Someone said that "the new laws will not affect the responsible gun owners"...and that's prob true, but I think it isn't going to do much of a squat about the illegal gun owners either, because they usually obtain their weapons without formal registration or criminal background checks....( i.e 'on the street'), and they'll get them and use them regardless of whatever 'laws' are in place.

edit-grammar.

how many times have we heard that mantra before?

Should be asking why the richest nation on earth, the land of opportunity has so many poor people.

not enough guns