Open carry is NOT legal at Walmart!

[WalkingWolf]

What is the breakdown by population, with the corresponding rate for each population?

Do you deny that native american populations DO have difficulties with alcoholism? To the point that many Native American towns in Alaska completely BAN alcohol?


Raw death rates are not useful in determining what segment of a population has some level of difficulty.

What is with you and your break from reality? I already posted the facts, both in the history or gun control, and the fact that whites and Hispanics have higher percentage of alcohol problems. Look for yourself instead of the constant dumb trolling questions.

 

[wrightme]

What is with you and your break from reality?

"Break from reality?"



If there are 90 whites, and 10 native americans, and 5 whites die from alcoholism and one native american dies too, native americans have a higher death rate due to alcoholism, even though 5% of the deaths are whites, and only 1% of the deaths are native americans. (facetious example not based in reality)

The reality is that bare death rates do NOT correlate to any specific demographic as having a higher incidence of alcoholism.

I already posted the facts, both in the history or gun control, and the fact that whites and Hispanics have higher percentage of alcohol problems. Look for yourself instead of the constant dumb trolling questions.

No, you posted some relevant facts about gun control, and some false correlation between death rates and alcoholism.


Do you deny that native american populations do have alcohol difficulties?

Do you deny that native populations in Alaska DO ban alcohol to combat such problems?

 

[wrightme]

As well as White, African American, Chinese American, Japanese American, and so on. To single out a single group especially when the history of gun control laws do not point to Native Americans but to blacks and Hispanics. The use of gun control to hinder any group is racist, to defend it when clearly knowing it is bogus and wrong is bigoted if not racist in itself. There are no excuses for violating constitutional rights and there are no excuses for racism.

Those posting in this thread have NOT excused violating constitutional rights, nor have they excused racism.


A single group was not singled out. A single group was mentioned as a possible reason that existing laws were enacted. That was an opinion of one poster; an opinion that was not touted, used as an excuse, blamed for the law, or pointed out as a flaw worthy of ridicule. It was simply an opinion that had no basis in anything other than conjecture. Why does that bother you so much?

I agree with the points about the racism of some gun control in the past. I do NOT agree with that methodology, nor do I support that control no matter the rationale used to enact it. Pointing out that it DID happen that way isn't racist. If I were to agree with how it happened, you could make that accusation. But, I didn't.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I have pointed out clearly that you are wrong, and you continue to try to twist and wiggle, every thing but accept the facts. The initial remark was racist, the following defense of the remark was racist. The continued excuses are racist. I have no need to argue with racists. I did my duty to shine a light you can continue to stand in the light if you like, or drop it.

 

[wrightme]

I have pointed out clearly that you are wrong, and you continue to try to twist and wiggle, every thing but accept the facts.

No, you have not pointed out clearly that I was wrong.

The initial remark was racist, the following defense of the remark was racist.

No, the initial remark was not racist.

The continued excuses are racist. I have no need to argue with racists. I did my duty to shine a light you can continue to stand in the light if you like, or drop it.

You could be more useful shining a light upon something real, as opposed to your choice to shine it upon something contrived.

 

[WalkingWolf]

No, you have not pointed out clearly that I was wrong.

No, the initial remark was not racist.

You could be more useful shining a light upon something real, as opposed to your choice to shine it upon something contrived.

Let me be as blunt as possible, forget the facts are there. I am Native American Indian. The statement besides not being true offended me. Your continued racism and harping on it offends me.

 

[wrightme]

Let me be as blunt as possible, forget the facts are there.

I don't forget that facts are there. I do not agree that you have presented facts that support your contentions.

I am Native American Indian. The statement besides not being true offended me.

Really?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26439767/ns/health-addictions/t/native-american-deaths-alcohol-related/

"1 in 10 Native American deaths alcohol related."

Specifically, "Rate is three times higher than general population, federal report says "

Here is a fair-use excerpt from that article.

The report released Thursday by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found 11.7 percent of deaths among Native Americans and Alaska Natives between 2001 and 2005 were alcohol-related, compared with 3.3 percent for the U.S. as a whole.

That gives lie to your contention, and supports the contention you disagree with.

Your continued racism and harping on it offends me.

If you see information you do not like, it doesn't make the person presenting the information a racist.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I don't forget that facts are there. I do not agree that you have presented facts that support your contentions.

Really?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26439767/ns/health-addictions/t/native-american-deaths-alcohol-related/

"1 in 10 Native American deaths alcohol related."

Specifically, "Rate is three times higher than general population, federal report says "

Here is a fair-use excerpt from that article.

That gives lie to your contention, and supports the contention you disagree with.

If you see information you do not like, it doesn't make the person presenting the information a racist.

Racist you should read the whole report where they admit to fudging the findings. They clearly admit taking statistics from other races and attributing them to Native Americans. No matter how you want to play it you know damn well that alcoholism is across all races, and that likely hood of that law being only for Native Americans is ignorant to say the least. What is apparent is that you knew before I explained it to you why I find it offensive and you continually ran with it, for one purpose only to insult, and propagate racism for your entertainment. What you have shown though is that you are petty and you show some antis that some of us clearly have no business with a firearm. You constant harping is the same as any other racist trying to make excuses.

Now I am going to do what I do with racists, and place you on ignore, you have nothing of worth other than trolling.

 

[wrightme]

Racist you should read the whole report where they admit to fudging the findings. They clearly admit taking statistics from other races and attributing them to Native Americans.

Interesting. I do not see that anywhere in the article. Where do you see that?

No matter how you want to play it you know damn well that alcoholism is across all races, and that likely hood of that law being only for Native Americans is ignorant to say the least.

I am well aware that alcoholism is across all races. Do you have actual refutation of the data presented by the article I linked?

What is apparent is that you knew before I explained it to you why I find it offensive and you continually ran with it, for one purpose only to insult, and propagate racism for your entertainment.

No, you are attempting to assign an emotion where there is no apparent evidence of it.
I presented that article solely to show that there is a basis for the contention that you deny.

What you have shown though is that you are petty and you show some antis that some of us clearly have no business with a firearm. You constant harping is the same as any other racist trying to make excuses.

No, that is simply your anger showing that you cannot evaluate data dispassionately and arrive at logical conclusions.

Now I am going to do what I do with racists, and place you on ignore, you have nothing of worth other than trolling.

So, you ignore information that bothers you, whether it is valid or not? Further, in spite of your repeated posts insulting me and others, I have responded only with facts, and have not insulted you. Do you really see me as the one who "show some antis that some of us clearly have no business with a firearm?" You are the one reacting with anger.

 

[Venator]

Interesting. I do not see that anywhere in the article. Where do you see that?

.

He said the actual study not the article. Below are notes from the CDC report.

[h=3]Editorial Note:[/h]This is the first national report of AADs and YPLLs among AI/ANs; the results demonstrate that excessive alcohol consumption is a leading cause of preventable death and years of lost life in this population. During 2001--2005, AI/ANs were more than twice as likely to die from alcohol-related causes, compared with the U.S. general population; 11.7% of AI/AN deaths were attributed to alcohol. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies (4,5) and might help account for the high rates of injury-related death (e.g., motor-vehicle traffic crashes) that have been observed in this population. The finding that AAD rates vary by region demonstrates that alcohol does not impact all AI/AN communities to the same extent. AI/ANs in specific regions (e.g., Northern Plains) have lower life expectancies; this is likely attributable, in part, to deaths from alcohol-attributable conditions (6).

To further address alcohol-attributable mortality among AI/ANs will require concerted action by multiple organizations and groups, including AI/AN communities, towns on nonreservation lands within and surrounding AI/AN communities, and national, state, and local health agencies. Bans on the sale and possession of alcoholic beverages on certain Indian reservations have been shown to reduce consumption and related harms (5), although the efficacy of such policies is influenced by access to alcohol in surrounding communities (7). Culturally appropriate clinical interventions for reducing excessive drinking (e.g., screening and counseling for excessive alcohol consumption and treatment for alcohol dependence) should be widely implemented among AI/ANs (7). In addition, tribal court systems, which deal with large numbers of alcohol-related crimes, should be better integrated with the health-care system and substance-abuse treatment programs.

The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, some AI/ANs might have been misclassified by race on death certificates, which would underestimate the total number of AI/AN deaths (8). In a 1996 Indian Health Service study, racial misclassification on death certificates of American Indians ranged from 1.2% in Arizona to 28.0% in Oklahoma and 30.4% in California (8). Second, this study did not use race-specific AAFs for most conditions, which might result in AAD underestimates for certain conditions (e.g., homicide and suicide) for which the AAFs are thought to be higher among AI/ANs (4). Third, ARDI does not estimate AADs for several conditions (e.g., tuberculosis, pneumonia, hepatitis C, and colon cancer) for which alcohol is believed to be an important risk factor but for which suitable pooled risk estimates are not available. Finally, bridged-race census estimates used in this report are based on multiple race categories; use of denominators based on other race categorization methods (e.g., 2000 U.S. Census data or tribal census data) would result in higher rates than reported.

Indian Health Service has initiated an alcohol screening and brief counseling intervention program to help reduce excessive alcohol consumption and related harms among AI/ANs in trauma settings. In addition, effective population-based interventions should be implemented to reduce excessive alcohol consumption in AI/AN populations. These include reducing alcohol availability by limiting outlet density, enforcing 21 years as the minimum legal drinking age (9), increasing alcohol excise taxes, and enforcing laws prohibiting sales to underage or already intoxicated persons, particularly in communities bordering reservations (10). Future efforts should explore regional differences in AADs and evaluate other intervention strategies for reducing alcohol-attributable mortality among AI/AN populations.

 

[wrightme]

Even more interesting. The "fudging" he complains about actually decreased the rate. Had they not fudged, the rate would be higher.



But, while interesting, it is really irrelevant to the topic of this thread. It is possible that the opinion about the restaurant carry laws is valid, but there is no proof of it at all.

 

[AH.74]

Ever hear of the Trail of Tears? Ohhh I guess us drunk Indians had it so good. There was no reason absolutely at all to point a finger at any religious, sex, race, or heritage. It was bigoted it was racist and it was rude. Your defense of it just shows how deeply imbedded you are into it. I understand the misconceptions of alcoholism to gun laws. But it is more religious and of a racial nature but as the article you probably did not bother to read it was not related to NA, it was related to Hispanics and blacks. If you are going to spew racism you should at least know what you are talking about.

You have serious problems with reading comprehension, and serious issues with inferiority complex if you think my speculation about alcohol use and Indian populations is racist. That is ridiculous. Who keeps mentioning Indians as drunks? Not I.

You are continuing to show your ass in all postings. How old are you, twelve?

 

[papa bear]

people, people. who gives a flin' flip how many alcoholics there are? what in the world would that have to do with someone that doesn't even drink, legally and constitutionally carrying for protection or just because they want to. there is a story now of a man in WV, that was robbed in a Walmart parking lot, that is current right now

AH.74, i believe most of this argument started because you took offense that this law in NM was called a stupid law. IMO, it is a dumb law. no matter what the original causes were. in so much that it probably was enacted by the anti's. just like the dumb laws in NC, that i don't have the choice of going into a restaurant that serve alcohol, when i don't even drink.
i do think calling someone an ass is juvenile, and is something that a liberal/progressive would do.

WALKINGWOLF. brother, you know that discrimination is a lot of the root of the laws that are used to keep people from using their 2ndA rights. NC being one of them. check out the thread; http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?94723-Nc-jim-crowe. please remember that these guys are on the same side as far as trying to keep our liberties that all Americans that shed red blood for, no matter what their birth was.

 

[wrightme]

people, people. who gives a flin' flip how many alcoholics there are? what in the world would that have to do with someone that doesn't even drink, legally and constitutionally carrying for protection or just because they want to. there is a story now of a man in WV, that was robbed in a Walmart parking lot, that is current right now

Correct, the law in NM seems to have nothing to do with whether someone is drinking or not. That "alcoholic" reference was only presented as a possible rationale for the implementation of that regulation; and it has not been shown to be correct. Nor has it been shown to be incorrect.

AH.74, i believe most of this argument started because you took offense that this law in NM was called a stupid law. IMO, it is a dumb law. no matter what the original causes were. in so much that it probably was enacted by the anti's. just like the dumb laws in NC, that i don't have the choice of going into a restaurant that serve alcohol, when i don't even drink.

That seems likely, yet even anti's typically need something to "teeth" into when presenting prospective legislation.

i do think calling someone an ass is juvenile, and is something that a liberal/progressive would do.

Yep.

WALKINGWOLF. brother, you know that discrimination is a lot of the root of the laws that are used to keep people from using their 2ndA rights. NC being one of them. check out the thread; http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?94723-Nc-jim-crowe. please remember that these guys are on the same side as far as trying to keep our liberties that all Americans that shed red blood for, no matter what their birth was.

Yep. NO ONE in this thread was justifying racism as a valid impetus for restriction or regulation.

 

[AH.74]

Papa Bear, I took no offense at all to the remark about a "stupid" law. It's just a law, I don't take them personally. I did, however, not appreciate being called a racist for no good reason other than someone's immaturity and inability to remain intelligent in their replies.

Calling someone an ass if they are acting as such is not juvenile. I call them like I see them. It's certainly better than calling someone an idiot or a moron, which people are very quick to do. I am certainly not a liberal.

And wrightme, you fully agreed with me before about him being an ass. I appreciate your support, but righteousness is misplaced after the fact.

 

[wrightme]

Papa Bear, I took no offense at all to the remark about a "stupid" law. It's just a law, I don't take them personally. I did, however, not appreciate being called a racist for no good reason other than someone's immaturity and inability to remain intelligent in their replies.

Calling someone an ass if they are acting as such is not juvenile. I call them like I see them. It's certainly better than calling someone an idiot or a moron, which people are very quick to do. I am certainly not a liberal.

And wrightme, you fully agreed with me before about him being an ass. I appreciate your support, but righteousness is misplaced after the fact.

So, if I agree that calling someone an ass is juvenile, it is misplaced? I disagree. Whether he is or is not I can agree to. But, that doesn't change a label placed upon naming him as one.

 

[AH.74]

So, if I agree that calling someone an ass is juvenile, it is misplaced? I disagree. Whether he is or is not I can agree to. But, that doesn't change a label placed upon naming him as one.

No. Agreeing with me that he was an ass, and then joining in on the criticism of me because I chose to use that term is misplaced. I might even say it's bordering on hypocritical.

This thread has outlived its usefulness, and therefore I am bowing out.

 

[wrightme]

No. Agreeing with me that he was an ass, and then joining in on the criticism of me because I chose to use that term is misplaced. I might even say it's bordering on hypocritical.

If you want to split and spin it that way, feel free. I feel fine agreeing with the comment, while also agreeing that making the comment was juvenile. You don't agree.

This thread has outlived its usefulness, and therefore I am bowing out.

The thread is useful. Most of the posts in it are not.

 

[JamesB]

Off topic

I start this post by saying that it is completely off-topic...


wrightme, is there a board on this site that you don't go into just looking to pick a fight with someone?
Is there any kind of point in trying to piss off everyone you encounter?

P.S. These are retorical questions...That means they don't need you to respond.

 

[wrightme]

I start this post by saying that it is completely off-topic...


wrightme, is there a board on this site that you don't go into just looking to pick a fight with someone?
Is there any kind of point in trying to piss off everyone you encounter?

P.S. These are retorical questions...That means they don't need you to respond.

If you do not desire a response, you could have chosen to not post.


My intent is not to pick fights. Nor is it to piss off everyone I encounter. My intent is to question preconceived notions that do not show a basis in fact. Do you not desire to find out the actual legal status of items such as signs? Or are you content to simply "do as they say" without confirming a basis in statute for restrictions?