The last gun store in San Francisco to close (ordinances, time)

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by ketch89

So now you are falsely atributing quotes to me.

You should really take a step back and evaluate your life. Not to mention you are violating the terms of posting on the website.

[ketch89]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

So now you are falsely atributing quotes to me.

You should really take a step back and evaluate your life. Not to mention you are violating the terms of posting on the website.

Nice sense of humor you have there.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Mass shooting are exceedingly rare and are not on the rise, when adjusted for population growth they have remained constant. What is on the rise is the media going wall to wall with coverage so you think they are increasing.


If you were serious about stopping mass shooting you would be pushing for a ban on media in reporting mass shooting. Many mass shooters act because they want the world to know their grievances, in which the media is happy to share. Once that stops many of the mass shootings will stop. This is just like how sports broadcast stopped showing streakers during games and that stopped and newspapers stopped reporting on suicides because when people read about suicides they are more likely to commit them.


I'm going to guess your thoughts on the above; violating the 2nd amendment even though it won't make a difference in mass shootings is ok because you don't like guns, violating the first amendment even though it will make a difference in the rate of mass shootings is not ok because you like the 1st amendment.

So in other words, it's now no longer the gun toters fault, it's the anti-gun media's fault for reporting the actual facts and informing the public when a mass shooting happens. Instead, they should just not report what happened and sweep these mass shootings under the rug- that's sure to prevent them from happening! Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora CO, etc are all just bunch of anti-gun sound bites. Let's just ignore these incidents. LOL



You are really out to lunch, but at least you're logically consistent. You feel persecuted and blame everyone else for gun violence in this country, except of course, for actual gun users. The NRA should be paying you good money for being such a devout disciple.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

No, no binding decision was made by the court. They simply chose not to take up the case. They don't take up most cases appealed to them. They don't have the time to hear every case.

Did you have a civics class in high school? If the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case the decision of the lower court remains in effect. The supreme court does not refuse to hear a case and then bring it up a year later. It most certainly is BINDING. If a prisoner is on death row and the appellate court refuses to grant a stay to the execution it goes to the supreme court, if the supreme court refuses to hear the case the order of the appellate court stands and the person is executed.

Denial of certiorari means that the case, as presented, isn't of sufficient importance to warrant a review, doesn't involve constitutional issues, conforms to a precedent already set, falls outside the court's jurisdiction, or is moot, etc. It does not mean the court was 'too busy' to hear the matter.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

So in other words, it's now no longer the gun toters fault, it's the anti-gun media's fault for reporting the actual facts and informing the public when a mass shooting happens. Instead, they should just not report what happened and sweep these mass shootings under the rug- that's sure to prevent them from happening! Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora CO, etc are all just bunch of anti-gun sound bites. Let's just ignore these incidents. LOL



You are really out to lunch, but at least you're logically consistent. You feel persecuted and blame everyone else for gun violence in this country, except of course, for actual gun users. The NRA should be paying you good money for being such a devout disciple.

I see you are doubling down on not doing something to actually solve the issue. You are more worried about the guns in my home than reducing the likelihood of these events.

I hope you are not a science denier

If you blast the names and faces of shooters on news stations and constantly repeat their names, there may be an inadvertent process of creating a blueprint,” said Dr. Deborah Weisbrot, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Stony Brook University, who has interviewed hundreds of mostly teenage boys who have made threats.

Experts emphasize that many factors, including mental health issues, may motivate a mass killer.

But anyone interested in the mechanics of such killings can reconstruct them easily through a quick Internet search of news reports, websites and social media. One website lists rampage killings around the world. The gunman who killed 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., in 2012 had a fan club on Tumblr.

“You’d have a hard time finding someone who didn’t do some research about those who went before,” said Robert A. Fein, a psychologist whose specialty is targeted violence and an author of a 2002 report by the Secret Service on school shootings.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/08....html?referer=

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Did you have a civics class in high school? If the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case the decision of the lower court remains in effect. The supreme court does not refuse to hear a case and then bring it up a year later. It most certainly is BINDING. If a prisoner is on death row and the appellate court refuses to grant a stay to the execution it goes to the supreme court, if the supreme court refuses to hear the case the order of the appellate court stands and the person is executed.

Denial of certiorari means that the case, as presented, isn't of sufficient importance to warrant a review, doesn't involve constitutional issues, conforms to a precedent already set, falls outside the court's jurisdiction, or is moot, etc. It does not mean the court was 'too busy' to hear the matter.

The court gets about 10,000 cases a year appealed to it, but only takes on 70-80 cases a year. Tell me how the SCOTUS can hear 10,000 cases a year?

Refusing to hear an appeal may be significant to the parties involved but no actual decision is made. Every court in the land is free afterwards to decide differently on the issue and that has happened repeatedly on every issue, including firearms issues, with different circuits having different takes.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by ketch89

45 percent of Mexico's population lives in poverty.

Russia has the worst income inequality in the world.

Africa is Africa.

None of that changes the fact that the United States has the most gun murders among developed western countries. More than 5 times that of Canada. More than 20 times that of Australia.

So are you admitting that strict gun control can't solve gun crime issues?

If you take a handful of cities out of the equation and statistically, America is far safer than if those cities are included. The problem is a handful of places in this country essentially are like the crime infested places like Mexico, Russia, or Africa. This is a few years old so the stats would need updating, but the point is still valid:

America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Gang Problem | Frontpage Mag

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

The court gets about 10,000 cases a year appealed to it, but only takes on 70-80 cases a year. Tell me how the SCOTUS can hear 10,000 cases a year?

Refusing to hear an appeal may be significant to the parties involved but no actual decision is made. Every court in the land is free afterwards to decide differently on the issue and that has happened repeatedly on every issue, including firearms issues, with different circuits having different takes.

By denying a writ of certiorari a decision is made; that decision is to allow the lower court order to stand. In the San Francisco gun ordinance case it was considered by SCOTUS and only two justices voted to hear the case. Here's an excellent article from SCOTUSblog that might explain the court's thinking in refusing to hear Jackson v. San Francisco

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

By denying a writ of certiorari a decision is made; that decision is to allow the lower court order to stand. In the San Francisco gun ordinance case it was considered by SCOTUS and only two justices voted to hear the case. Here's an excellent article from SCOTUSblog that might explain the court's thinking in refusing to hear Jackson v. San Francisco

No binding decision by the SCOTUS is made. Note the split in the circuits on various gun rights issues.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

No binding decision by the SCOTUS is made. Note the split in the circuits on various gun rights issues.

Please take the time to educate yourself on what a denial of certiorari means. The lower court decision IS binding. In this particular case, the San Francisco gun ordinances stand. A Supreme Court decision can't be appealed. In the future if different appellants raised different issues regarding the same laws then the court could consider whether that argument or circumstances were sufficiently different that it should be considered.