He is lucky to be alive. Maybe someone can start a GoFundMe page for him (wish I knew how)

except all evidence suggests that the proliferation of guns actually leads to more gun violence.

But fuck facts, right?

unless up is down and twenty years of falling crime and gun deaths rates don't mean what they appear to mean. We have cut our murder and manslaughter rate in half since 1992 - are you saying in the same time gun ownership went down?

Yes , a place with more guns will more likely have more gun deaths than a place without guns. But if those gun deaths are happening at significantly decreased rates then how does that square with the notion that more guns equal more gun deaths? The numbers show exactly the opposite - as more Americans owned guns, they killed fewer people. How is that possible?

Plus, as hack said, the necessity of these studies to count suicides.

Most other industrialized countries don't have r he biggest narco state in the world on their southern border. How many of those deaths are drug related?

I'll keep my gun and stay out of the narcotics business, so I feel comfortable.

The drug war started in the US and was exported to Mexico, creating the "narco state" from whole cloth.

The violence we've caused in Mexico is a moral abomination. Incarceration people for possession is not something I support.

BTW

Overall crime went down (not just homicides), but it doesn't mean it was due to increased gun ownership.

I can link to a Harvard study. What do you got?

Nothing.

BTW, as global temperatures have risen, the number of pirates has decreased.

?w=627

Correlation does not equal causation.

Go sell your logical fallacies elsewhere.

I ain't buying.

that is the question. I don't think you can.

I don't question that places with more guns have more gun deaths. But that Harvard study doesn't answer my question, now does it? You said that "proliferation of guns actually leads to more gun violence." Yet you cannot show where gun violence is increasing. Your Harvard study certainly does not show that.

Here is another question I bet you won't answer - in those states that the study points out as having lots of guns/lots of murders, did those state show an increase or decrease in gun violence over the past 20 years. Yes, they have more than states with fewer guns. Do they have more than they themselves had 20 years ago? Simple question.

You introduced your own question in an attempt to discredit the Harvard study, but you failed miserably because you introduced nothing but a logical fallacy. You're attempting to link increased gun ownership to a decrease in overall crime over the past two decades.

Just because overall crime went down (including homicides), it doesn't mean it was due to increased gun ownership.

Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

The Harvard study blows bullshit gun nutter arguments out the window.

Sorry.

Let's make it simple

I do not think that more guns equals fewer gun deaths over time.

Do you think that more guns equals more gun deaths over time?

If I'm not involved in either, it kind of destroys that statistic. So yeah, if a guy involved in narcotics or gangs discards his gun that doesn't make him any safer. The gang affiliation and the drugs he possess are why people with guns want to kill him, not the fact that he owned a gun.

Poor interpretation of statistics

Over a time of increasing gun sales and decreasing violent crime rates, there would be nothing to inherently substantiate that the decrease in crime was due to the increase in guns.

However, this evidence absolutely discredits the idea that more guns shall always lead to more crime.

There is no direct link between these two measurements.

I think I use guns far more wisely than then average person, which is what statistics measure.

Of course, you had better end up on the right side of this statistic, otherwise you're dead.

Their businesses were pretty much left alone while others were looted and destroyed.

Said rioters moved on quickly.

It makes it a lot harder to be unarmed and be willing to sacrifice oneself for principal. Im not q proponent of every day carry in most cases, but if I were that guy, i might consider the same thing. The other option is to pack and leave another empty, blighted shop in the city.

if the store owner was armed???

I think you need to read up on the concept of cognitive dissonance, amigo/a.

I'm not MLK and have never presented myself as a pacifist. I do believe in the use of deadly force to defend innocent people. I don't believe in God even though MLK was deeply religious

Until you've been doused in lighter fluid and nearly burned alive, it's difficult for us to understand his desire to carry.

Since he had armed bodyguards, an "arsenal" of weapons and applied (unsuccessfully) for a concealed carry permit before he chose to embrace non-violence:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html

In fact, I would recommend reading up on anything you intend to have a strong opinion about, and preferably doing so before you formulate that opinion.

Heh, learn something new every day

Ironically he appears North African, possibly Berber. Get back at white police by burning African immigrants. Very clever

The racist shit heads took one look at him, probably thought "terruhist" and watched. Scum

Bad example, because he would have gotten away with shooting them if he hadn't went Charles Bronson.

The pharmacy owner in that case emptied his clip, got another gun, and then shot an already-wounded robber in the head while he was down and unconscious. As comparisons go, yours fails. Maybe a little more research next time.

When your favorite tool is a gun, every problem looks like a target.

A cycle indeed.

This is a heaping pile bullshit!

Nice straw man.

Pointing out why rioters are angry is not defending the rioters.

It's about discussing the root causes of the riots.

Too nuanced for you?

And will continue trying to reframe. It's almost gotten to the point of silly.

I do, however, have a lot of empathy for the workers who are out of a job at CVS, the people who have to be bused to other pharmacies, and guys like this in the OP. You know, the victims of the people tearing down this community.

Don't get me started on CVS because I (who can't have my prescriptions filled there) would love to see corporate pharmacies ended in favor of mom and pops.

CVS? Are you bummed that people are actively trying to shut down Walmart and Chick-fil-A? Are you sorry that if that happens, thousands will be out of jobs? Do you trumpet against that here? Somehow, I don't think so. The employees in the stores we love to boycott are often long-suffering at part time jobs. I don't buy the fake sympathy, and I never will.

I still go to one, which my high-school friends own, myself. I hate Wal-Mart. I love Chik-fil-A. It's wrong to set any of them on fire. Anyone who does is an asshole who belongs in prison.

You mentioned the poor people who lost their jobs. The poor people of Walmart would lose their jobs if the stores shut down, and no fire would be present. Therein lies the hypocrisy of false sympathy.

The behavior in Baltimore was reprehensible. the feelings that motivated it? Completely understandable.

I want it to pay a living wage. That or be replaced by a ton of other stores that pay living wages.

The behavior in Baltimore was reprehensible. I couldn't agree more.

people can't answer a simple question about empathy not equalling defense? I find the sympathy displayed by so many here utterly false.

Do I have any sympathy (or empathy) for the rioters? No. Anything else?

isn't happening. That's "why." So please, answer the actual question. Don't make up a new one because you were caught.

I wasn't caught doing anything, and I stand by everything I said.

Yes, you'll get this again an again with each time you try to reframe something with hypocrisy. Fake sympathy is not becoming.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That won't help you tighten a lug nut, though.

And again, I will never buy fake sympathy. Sorry.

We're talking in different tongues I suppose.

Okay.

I apologize for the "bro."

I'm not offended. I just find that a rather odd way to end a conversation.

Thank Heavens that MLK had empathy for the rioters. He realized that "A riot is the language of the Unheard."

You know it's possible to like MLK and not agree with him on everything, right?

I happen to agree with him.

to the many white riots that have occurred, and usually for really stupid reasons? Such as the Kentucky dipshits who went nuts and rampaged through the streets, burning cars and whatnot, over losing a fucking football game? Or (one of my favorite examples of white hypocrisy on this subject-and I'm white so I'm well aware of the hypocritical thinking of whites in this regard), ten-fifteen thousand spoiled white UPenn idiots rioting and rampaging, burning cars and looting, over the firing of a pedophile enabler and liar, simply because he was a "winning" football coach? Or do you only apply that lack of sympathy to minorities who've been oppressed, trod on, and endlessly harassed, injured and killed by the police for ages until they finally can't take it anymore?

Damn right. They should be in jail.

Kentucky rioted over a football game? I didn't know they ever even won a football game. Are you sure you don't mean basketball?

It'll be an interesting, if bumpy ride

"A riot is the language of the Unheard". But, I don't think that meant He was defending rioters. What do you think that he meant?

Never heard that before.

The context is perfect. He refused to condemn the riots without first condemning the system, then decided the system was the cause of the riots.

The fake sympathy for people most give two shits about on any normal day of the week is killing me.

"I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-a-riot-is-the-language-of-the-unheard/

King elaborated on the relationship of urban disorder to the struggle for full human rights and dignity for black American in his "The Other America" speech where he stated that:

I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

Would help to have some context.

home of the "Papa Palace" visible on the menu.

That's in East Baltimore near Johns Hopkins Hospital (Number One in the U.S. for several years running).

and torch that repuke legislator.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026577020

lets see if someone funds him. He obviously is a real business man from the neighborhood.

On Thu Apr 30, 2015, 03:37 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Rioters attempt to set Pizza Shop Owner on fire...cops do nothing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026597495

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This video is produced by Independent Journal Review, a RW whackjob site.

Here is a NYT piece on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/business/media/independent-journal-review-website-becomes-a-draw-for-conservatives.html?_r=0



You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 30, 2015, 03:49 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just post the alternative site then instead of an alert. This is a silly alert.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If the post were shown to be disinformation or misleading, I would vote to shut it off. But, until then, it stands.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I get where the alerter is coming from. I just don't think this is enough to hide the post. I think an open discussion of the subject matter is important.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WASH repeat. yes. it is a cycle.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: We can handle it.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looks like valid news to me.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Sort of a "kill the messenger" thing I suppose.

Post right wing garbage - get flamed - You'd Better Believe It.

Just right wing sources.

Kill the message this.

...Pizza shop owners

Can a gofundme be far behind?

Victim blaming an immigrant when he gets doused in lighter fluid?

...my skeptical @#$ will continue to disbelieve. I'm getting a major Parlockian vibe from this guy's tale (mostly because the people promoting it are agenda driven right-wads).


Parlockian? See no. 4:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/04/171.html

Unless you think this obvious immigrant man is a fraud. He's walking around the ruins of his burned establishment, telling his story.

The gun thing shouldn't cause you to lack sympathy.

.

A thug uses violence and intimidation to force an outcome. These punks are destroying other people's livelihoods just because they can, not as a protest against police brutality.