One statistic the FBI doesn’t publish is murders by political party affiliation.
Based on crime reports, it seems a safe bet that 90+% of murders are committed by Democrats, or future Democrats. Perhaps 95%.
The math is simple. Most murders occur in neighborhoods which vote 95+% Democratic. If Democrats were not allowed to own illegally obtained guns, the violent crime rate would drop dramatically.
So let’s see – America should pass a law saying that illegal guns should only be sold to Republicans ? Incidentally, I have just been reading how Obama and McCain both supported the Warner-Lieberman cap and trade Bill to cut carbon emissions by 63%; both supported the May 2007 Supreme Court decision that CO2 was a toxic gas; both supported a switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy’ and both were shown standing in front of the same wind farm.
By & large, your fancy little Rehuglikkans don’t buy illegal guns. So: yes, if only (R)s were allowed to buy illegal guns, 99% of illegal guns would never be sold, solving most (if not all) of your problem in one fell swoop. Retard.
This is a lie. You are an illiterate idiot (IQ < 26).
So you believe that Democrats should be allowed to keep illegal weapons? That is pretty weird.
If he wasn’t pretty weird he is unlikely to have been a Democrat in the first place.
See (from the above comments), this is a good example of why I don’t believe in public debate, because it degenerates so fast (practically instantaneously). Goddard’s “If Democrats were not allowed to own illegally obtained guns” was, to any reasonable mind, a joke. My reaction (also in the form of a joke) was, “there ought to be a law making illegally obtained guns illegal”. But NO-O-O, you had to turn it into a partisan knife fight…and those other guys just above fell for it. “You kids, don’t make me come down there!”
The consumption of exactly how many illicit drugs is required for this sentence to make any sense whatsoever?
It should only be legal for Republicans to buy illegal guns. Then there won’t be any illegal guns at all.
McCain ? The Manchurian RINO?
Not to mention all the murders effected by repeated, failed economic policies by liberals and progressives … hunger, starvation, death by hypothermia (brought on by fuel poverty) and more.
One need only study the programs enacted under and promulgated by the librul icon FDR to see how to keep people economically repressed. One place to begin to ‘unlearn’ about FDR and pick up some truth about his failed, repressive policies is here:
“Great Myths of the Great Depression” http://www.mackinac.org/4013
Here is the Introduction:
– – – – – –
Introduction
By Lawrence W. Reed, published on Jan. 1, 1998
Many volumes have been written about the Great Depression of 1929-1941 and its impact on the lives of millions of Americans. Historians, economists and politicians have all combed the wreckage searching for the “black box” that will reveal the cause of the calamity. Sadly, all too many of them decide to abandon their search, finding it easier perhaps to circulate a host of false and harmful conclusions about the events of seven decades ago. Consequently, many people today continue to accept critiques of free-market capitalism that are unjustified and support government policies that are economically destructive.
How bad was the Great Depression? Over the four years from 1929 to 1933, production at the nation’s factories, mines and utilities fell by more than half. People’s real disposable incomes dropped 28 percent. Stock prices collapsed to one-tenth of their pre-crash height. The number of unemployed Americans rose from 1.6 million in 1929 to 12.8 million in 1933. One of every four workers was out of a job at the Depression’s nadir, and ugly rumors of revolt simmered for the first time since the Civil War.
“The terror of the Great Crash has been the failure to explain it,” writes economist Alan Reynolds. “People were left with the feeling that massive economic contractions could occur at any moment, without warning, without cause. That fear has been exploited ever since as the major justification for virtually unlimited federal intervention in economic affairs.”
Old myths never die; they just keep showing up in economics and political science textbooks. With only an occasional exception, it is there you will find what may be the 20th century’s greatest myth: Capitalism and the free-market economy were responsible for the Great Depression, and only government intervention brought about America’s economic recovery.
– – – – – – – – – –
Always amazes me that the “D’s” think FDR was a great president.
Hoover was no prize since his interventions made things worse, but then FDR came along and doubled-down on every one of Hoover’s bone-headed interventions.
The panic of 1921 corrected fairly quickly because the government didn’t intervene.
The first great depression was perpetuated for 10 extra years because of FDR’s new innovation-of-the-month interventions. With the ground constantly shifting, industry and business couldn’t make plans for the next year, let alone next month because the financial-guru-in-chief was bound to change the rules next month… Things got better after WWII because the government was too busy with the war to continue meddling with the economy…
Murray Rothbard’s tome “America’s Great Depression” can be downloaded for free: https://mises.org/document/694/Americas-Great-Depression – I think it’s well worth the time since we’re in the 2nd depression at the moment…..
I wish Murray had spent some time writing about Argentina and it’s many currency collapses….. History repeats. Especially when those who are ignorant of history are nominally in charge. (like our current laughingstock-in-chief)
Yup.
Perhaps Bush/Obama = Hoover/FDR?
Cutting to the chase, probably the biggest impediment to any real progress and the reason the Great Depression was extended for nearly a decade was FDR’s failed batch of programs headed by “The Alphabet Commissars”.
– – – – – – – – –
The Alphabet Commissars
By Lawrence W. Reed, published on Jan. 1, 1998
Roosevelt next signed into law steep income tax increases on the higher brackets and introduced a 5 percent withholding tax on corporate dividends. He secured another tax increase in 1934. In fact, tax hikes became a favorite policy of Roosevelt for the next 10 years, culminating in a top income tax rate of 90 percent. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, who opposed much of the New Deal, lambasted Roosevelt’s massive tax increases. A sound economy would not be restored, he said, by following the socialist notion that America could “lift the lower one-third up” by pulling “the upper two-thirds down.” Vandenberg also condemned “the congressional surrender to alphabet commissars who deeply believe the American people need to be regimented by powerful overlords in order to be saved.”
Alphabet commissars spent the public’s money like it was so much bilge. They were what influential journalist and social critic Albert Jay Nock had in mind when he described the New Deal as “a nation-wide, State-managed mobilization of inane buffoonery and aimless commotion.”
Roosevelt’s Civil Works Administration hired actors to give free shows and librarians to catalog archives. It even paid researchers to study the history of the safety pin, hired 100 Washington workers to patrol the streets with balloons to frighten starlings away from public buildings, and put men on the public payroll to chase tumbleweeds on windy days.
The CWA, when it was started in the fall of 1933, was supposed to be a short-lived jobs program. Roosevelt assured Congress in his State of the Union message that any new such program would be abolished within a year. “The federal government,” said the president, “must and shall quit this business of relief. I am not willing that the vitality of our people be further stopped by the giving of cash, of market baskets, of a few bits of weekly work cutting grass, raking leaves, or picking up papers in the public parks.” Harry Hopkins was put in charge of the agency and later said, “I’ve got four million at work but for God’s sake, don’t ask me what they are doing.” The CWA came to an end within a few months but was replaced with another temporary relief program that evolved into the Works Progress Administration, or WPA, by 1935. It is known today as the very government program that gave rise to the new term, “boondoggle,” because it “produced” a lot more than the 77,000 bridges and 116,000 buildings to which its advocates loved to point as evidence of its efficacy.
With good reason, critics often referred to the WPA as “We Piddle Around.” In Kentucky, WPA workers catalogued 350 different ways to cook spinach. The agency employed 6,000 “actors” though the nation’s actors’ union claimed only 4,500 members. Hundreds of WPA workers were used to collect campaign contributions for Democratic Party candidates. In Tennessee, WPA workers were fired if they refused to donate 2 percent of their wages to the incumbent governor. By 1941, only 59 percent of the WPA budget went to paying workers anything at all; the rest was sucked up in administration and overhead. The editors of The New Republic asked, “Has [Roosevelt] the moral stature to admit now that the WPA was a hasty and grandiose political gesture, that it is a wretched failure and should be abolished?” The last of the WPA’s projects was not eliminated until July of 1943.
Roosevelt has been lauded for his “job-creating” acts such as the CWA and the WPA. Many people think that they helped relieve the Depression. What they fail to realize is that it was the rest of Roosevelt’s tinkering that prolonged the Depression and which largely prevented the jobless from finding real jobs in the first place. The stupefying roster of wasteful spending generated by these jobs programs represented a diversion of valuable resources to politically motivated and economically counterproductive purposes.
A brief analogy will illustrate this point. If a thief goes house to house robbing everybody in the neighborhood, then heads off to a nearby shopping mall to spend his ill-gotten loot, it is not assumed that because his spending “stimulated” the stores at the mall he has thereby performed a national service or provided a general economic benefit. Likewise, when the government hires someone to catalog the many ways of cooking spinach, his tax-supported paycheck cannot be counted as a net increase to the economy because the wealth used to pay him was simply diverted, not created. Economists today must still battle this “magical thinking” every time more government spending is proposed — as if money comes not from productive citizens, but rather from the tooth fairy.
– – – – – – – – – –
Side note:
The Supreme Court
THE SUPREME COURT came under attack by President Roosevelt because it declared important parts of the “New Deal” unconstitutional. FDR’s “court-packing” scheme contributed to the resumption of economic depression in 1937.
– – – – – –
Stick all of the above into your Keynesian pipe and smoke it …
.
Interesting that a post about guns evolved into a discussion about the Great Depression, but is some more thought. There is a difference between government intervention and government policy. Most of the time, government intervention is bad — because of favoritism, corruption of incentives, diversion of capital and resources away from productivity, unintended consequences, etc. However, government policy such as monetary policy, tax policy, regulation policy can be either bad or good.
Roosevelt was not the only one who intervened vis-à-vis the Great Depression. Hoover and Congress dramatically raised taxes, implemented the Smoot-Hartley tariff Act, and bullied businesses. The monetary policy of shrinking the money supply was Bad Policy. Together these interventions and bad policy turned a transitory recession into the Great Depression. Then the Great Depression persisted because of Roosevelt’s interventions and policies.
Here is the tie-in (from a post above): Not to mention all the murders effected by repeated, failed economic policies by liberals and progressives … hunger, starvation, death by hypothermia (brought on by fuel poverty) and more.
Murder is murder, but you would quibble with the method?
Did I absolve Hoover no? No, BUT the doubling-down by FDR on some of the same actions EVEN THOUGH he campaigned on just the opposite position was even dumber (and disingenuous even) …
.
Steven,
“Most murders occur in neighborhoods which vote 95+% Democratic. ”
How do you know that it is not nasty Republicans using their legal guns to travel to Democrat neighbourhoods and doing the killing?
Do I need the /sarc tag?
Yeah, this is easy. Because the Republicans are at home, spending time with something called ‘family’ and therefore aren’t out running around with ‘guns’. This is something that the dems can’t understand, since there is nothing that parallels it in their own lives …
Also Jim, Republicans are too tired after working two jobs during the day, to go out and pop a cap into the brothers at night … they need their sleep so that they can pay the taxes.
Yup. That too. No time for nonsense like protesting, handcuffing ourselves to trees, fences or anything else in view of TeeVee cameras …
I saw this quote today, which made me wonder which political party would it fit? I’m thinking the ones who are doing all the murders.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move.” – Doublas Adams
It doesn’t fit any political party. If you don’t believe me, ask Mark Twain (ask yourself, “What would Mark Twain say?”) I want you guys to stop picking on the humorists with a healthy sense of the absurd (analogous to scientists who are skeptical about scientific theories); they are the very ones who don’t believe in partisan hackery, and deserve protection as an endangered species.
The underground army of previously deceased Democrat voter are the main culprits in the high murder rate amongst Democrat voting areas. Being dead has not stopped these individuals from voting (many times) or causing multiple murders in their neighborhood. The Democratic authorities are finding it hard to combat the murders. All these dead assassins are a hard group to track down, round-up, and charge with their crimes.
To fight this the Democrats are focusing their merger resources on the rising problem of murder by future Democrats by setting-up the prenatal murder investigation squad. They hope that by disarming and confiscating the illegal weapons from these murders early the murder rate will fall.
–
🙂
So THAT’s what Planned Parenthood has been up to!
Are you counting the “dronings” done by the laughingstock-in-chief?? (and I’m not referring to his teleprompter speeches)
He does claim to be really good at killing people. And naturally he wants to work with his strengths.
Democrats are also more frustrated and angry. Put them all on Prozac.
Except that the doctors are among the most frustrated and angry…who Prozacs the Prozacers?
Better not do that!
Violence in Schools? It’s the Prozac and Ritalin Stupid! by Dr. Larry Wilson, MD Edited by: William Wong ND, Ph.D., Member World Sports Medicine Hall of Fame.
This is an excellent article with lots of good information.
Of real interest:
However the US government wants to do the opposite. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) came up with the recommendation that America Should Adopt a ‘Plant-Based’ Diet.
And the EPA, USDA&FDA working hard to see that it occurs. link
If you take away guns, knife crime rockets.
Most (if not all) Democrats are felons, in which case it’s already illegal for them to own any guns at all.
So most (if not all) of the 66 million people who voted for Obama are felons ?
Well, according to Harvey Silverglate, http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ all the people who voted are felons (and those who didn’t vote too).
Just most of them haven’t been targeted by the “justice” system and convicted yet.
No, there were plenty of non-felonious retards who also voted for him. You can count yourself in the good company of Anne Althouse, David Weigel, & Chris Christie.
Althouse … “winner”. Need I say more? And, she teaches. (Or, at least employed in that category. The ‘republic’ is at high risk of failure continuing under these circumstances.)
How do you know 66 million voted for him?
The 2012 presidential election results say :-
Barack Obama 65,915,796 (Wikipedia) or 65,917,258 (US election atlas)
Willard Mitt Romney 60,933,500 or 60,932,235
@Richard Mallett – I was being partially sarcastic, but partially inquisitive.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/17/cincinnati-illegal-voting/2530119/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/hundreds-cases-potential-voter-fraud-uncovered-in-north-carolina/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/nun-suspected-voter-fraud/1935949/
And those are just the first hits. Since you appear to be sincere, I will ask again – How do YOU know 66 million voted for him?
I trust the official figures that say that 66 million people voted for him. If America’s a third world country, where the elections aren’t fair, then all the numbers for all the elections are meaningless, and 62 million didn’t vote for Bush in 2004, and 50.5 million didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 (both years when there were a whole host of controversies, and in 2000 Bush was still a minority president). There comes a point where you have to believe in something.
How many voted for him is as you see a matter of debate. Did he receive more than his opponents? most believe so and that is why he is president. But your quoted figures are indeed incorrect.
He did receive the quoted number of votes. But we know now for a fact that he did not have the quoted number of people voting for him.
Does that make America a 3rd world place? That is up to you to decide. I was merely pointing out that your statement as written is false. He received almost 66 million VOTES. We have no idea how many PEOPLE voted for him.
If we have no idea how many people voted for Obama, we have no idea how many people voted for Bush, or even if he should have been President, yet he dragged America (and other countries) into two wars by saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (he didn’t) and Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan (he wasn’t)
@Richard Mallett – The subject is not Boosh. He has been gone 6 years now. You made an erroneous statement. I called you on it. I proved my point. So now you blame Boosh? I thought we could have a rational civil discussion, but I was sadly mistaken.
But as I go, I would love for you to try to wiggle yourself out of this statement:
Which 2 wars did Boosh use Saddams WMDs as justification for? Please enlighten us!
The full quote was :-
“If we have no idea how many people voted for Obama, we have no idea how many people voted for Bush, or even if he should have been President, yet he dragged America (and other countries) into two wars by saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (he didn’t) and Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan (he wasn’t)”
It seems as though you are the one that cannot read. Bush only became president because of dodgy vote counting, and fought two wars on the basis of lies.
Where was my erroneous statement ? That 66 million voted for Obama ? How great was the error in that statement ? Greater or less than the ‘error’ by which Bush became president ?
@Richard Mallet – I can read. And I know that “and” as a rejoinder means both, not either or. Perhaps you just cannot write?
And I would love to see your proof that Bin Laden was not in Afghanistan. Please provide it. The rest of the world disagrees with you, but how can the whole world be right when they disagree with you, right?
And again with Boosh! You just will not let him go. You got Boosh on the brain. As you have no evidence, much less proof, of any of your vote accusations, I will ignore them because, like Obama, he won, and was president (a savory statement that hopefully will be made about Obama in 3 years as well).
But your statement is wrong because I have proven (a foreign concept for you?) that some people voted multiple times for Obama. So the numbers you quoted could not have voted for Obama or he would have received more votes. And that is just what we know.
Note the word: Know. No opinion there.
But as a further aside, are you now going to state that the Iranis and Kurds fell over from Myocardial infarctions by the thousands and that no Gas (the C in ABC of the WMD definition) was ever used on them? Please provide your evidence of that as well.
Given the multiple errors you have made in just a few simple posts, I really am beginning to think you do not know how to write.
Phil Jourdan is the one who cannot read or write. He cannot even spell my name correctly. Arguing with illiterates is a total waste of time.
Then you should have no problems arguing with me. I apologize for my typo MALLETT. But your descent into useless ad hominems shows that I am right and you know it. Unfortunately for you, this is a no spin zone, so you are not allowed your own reality.
Deal with it MALLETT.
Glad you are learning how to write, even though you have forgotten (or are not old enough to have learnt) how Bush stole the election.
here we go again! Boosh! If you had been at all observant, you would have noticed I spelled your name correctly before the typo.
And if you actually knew anything other than your hat size, you would know that Boosh stole nothing. As every recount done before and after the fact attested to. But of course those who make a living at lying, such as you, will never know the truth. So of course it is all Boosh’s fault.
Still a Sore loser 14 years later.
As I said, I live too far away to be a winner or a loser in US elections.
Good for you! However, you did decide to pontificate on it out of your ignorance. If you have no idea what you are talking about, best to keep your yap shut so you do not prove yourself the fool.
Under the Obamanation, I figure nothing from the government is true unless the laughingstock-in-chief officially denies it.
Just look at the inflation stats and the unemployment stats. Does anyone actually believe those government generated numbers? (at least anyone with an IQ greater than that of your average turnip)
re: Richard Mallett say May 22, 2014 at 8:23 pm
… how Bush stole the election.
Hooo boy … hopefully this boy just forgot to close his sarc tag …
.
No, he is a true wingbat.
I live too far away to have voted for any of them.
When an illegal gun is in the police property room, is it still illegal? What about in a museum?
“Illegal gun” is a ridiculous construct. They are just plastic and metal, or real guns, which are metal and wood.
Richard Mallett says: @ May 22, 2014 at 8:23 pm
Glad you are learning how to write, even though you have forgotten (or are not old enough to have learnt) how Bush stole the election.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
At least that time it ended up in the courts and made a big splash in the news. With Obama they didn’t even bother to mention the voter fraud cases in the MSM
This is from the website of the person who has been constantly harassed by the US government because she wants honest voting.
Did You Know There are Voter Fraud Convictions and Prosecutions in 46 States?
The fact that there ARE voter fraud cases in all but four states since 2000 AND the fact the US government is harrassing someone pushing for honest voting I think say all we need to know about the honesty of US voting especially when it becomes a worldwide scandal.
The New Zealand Media blows the lid off of US vote fraud!
Just a short snippet from that story (there are a lot of other problems):
THREE SETS OF BOOKS!!!! Try that with the IRS and it is go directly to jail.
That’s why we are safer here in the UK with paper ballots only.
My town went back to paper ballots las election because of the Diebold fraud.
What a stupid, irresponsible, inflammatory comment. Thank you, writer, for completely impeaching your credibility. Now I know to ignore your byline in the future.
This is not science at all, much less real science. In fact, violent crime is statistically significantly higher in red states than blue, and highest in the reddest states.
Moron alert
Illinois and NY are Red states? Since when? Michigan is a red state? Guess Hillary is going to lose big according to this moron. There are no more blue states for her.
You cannot judge a man by the color of his state, but by the content of his character.
1. Most murders occur in inner city Afro-Democrat neighborhoods.
2. Most guns are owned in rural Cauco-Republican regions where the murder rate is basically zero.
3. Therefore, take guns away from “2” to solve the murder problem in “1”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
OBAMA”S CITY CHICAGO
So how is that working for you Chicago?
For 2013 – 15.2 murders per 100.000 with a crime index of 485.2 (higher means more crime, U.S. average = 294.7) The data includes visitors and daily workers commuting into city to dilute the true violence numbers.
The maps and HERE show how high crime is in Chicago vs other cities and the surrounding areas.