Reducing Gun Violence

[Westside Steve]

"accountability for actual law enforcement professionals who knowingly allow violent predators to harm more innocent people? "

Walk me through that one. Who are these people? How does this work in your world?

Pretty much the same as your plan. If, as you suggest, I leave my loaded pistols laying around my house whent I know my crazy drug dealer crackhead wife beating nephew is going to be hanging out and he takes it and kills some people I should air some responsibility correct?t

So let's say somebody rapes a little child in Vermond and it is given probation.

He sets out and does it again but this time he kills her. Sound familiar?

 

WSS

 

P s. you aren't going to tell me he will have to pay at the ballot box are you???

[calfoxwc]

And how did we lower car-related death while increasing the numbers of cars on the road? Might it have been because we took a bunch of steps to improve safety, while acknowledging that no one was going to ban cars or car travel, or eliminate accidents? Heck

*************************************************

Heck wants seatbelts for guns and speed limits for bullets.....

 

"brilliant"

[heckofajobbrownie]

Pretty much the same as your plan. If, as you suggest, I leave my loaded pistols laying around my house whent I know my crazy drug dealer crackhead wife beating nephew is going to be hanging out and he takes it and kills some people I should air some responsibility correct?t

So let's say somebody rapes a little child in Vermond and it is given probation.

He sets out and does it again but this time he kills her. Sound familiar?

 

WSS

 

P s. you aren't going to tell me he will have to pay at the ballot box are you???

 

Yes, if it can be proven that you're negligent in securing your own firearms, and they fall into the hands of someone else in the commission of a crime, you should face some penalty. This is not likely to be prosecuted often, but sets the standard that gun owners are liable for the guns. You're trying to change behavior.

 

As for your example, the case rings a bell but I'm not aware of the particulars of the case you're talking about. But if rape of a child is proven, and the man is guilty, and the sentence is probation, then something horribly wrong happened. But I'd have to look at why the judge made that ruling. Just because this ended in tragedy and it was on Bill O'Reilly it doesn't mean the legal system did something wrong. (Though it may have.) And just because tragedy exists, and recidivism exists, and the legal system isn't perfect, is not a good reason to begin retroactively jailing prosecutors and defense lawyers and judges for rulings that you don't retroactively like.

 

If you can prove misconduct, then that's the appropriate action to take. If you want more mandatory sentencing, then go right ahead and argue for that, though again, we already do that, and all over the place.

 

Let's be clear: a solid percentage of criminals are recidivists. You can't always lock someone up forever. So in your system, every criminal that's released from a stint in jail that commits another violent crime - which happens every day and all the time - we're now allowed to go back and find the prosecuting attorney or defense attorney and the judge and want to know why they didn't give this person a longer sentence than the legal system decided at the time knowing (somehow) that this person was dangerous and would commit more crimes later with their future vision.

 

My man, many/most of these people are in the system because they're dangerous. That's why we put them in jail! To separate them from the general population. And most of them are eventually released. And many will commit crimes again, many of them violent. Here you are on one hand arguing how ridiculous it is to go after gun manufacturers and bartenders (I'd agree) for the crimes people commit while using their products, but not the perpetrator (not a good frame because we obviously do go after the perpetrator), and then turning around and arguing for going after the judges and prosecutors and defense attorneys who didn't stop unforeseen future crimes by giving sentences that you don't agree with after the fact.

 

The dumbest idea I've heard bandied about in this whole debate.

[Westside Steve]

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/148579875.html?id=148579875&mobile=true

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yeah, would have to know a little bit more about the case than that.

[Westside Steve]

Yeah, would have to know a little bit more about the case than that.

Admittedly so I'm just referring to the recidivism part of it. It's pretty damn high.

 

That was just the first 1 that popped up in a search, I'm sure there are hundreds more.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's just a really bad idea, Steve. I don't know how else you want to me to address it. A bit busy.

[Westside Steve]

It's just a really bad idea, Steve. I don't know how else you want to me to address it. A bit busy.

I'm not really asking you to address it sir.

I think it boils down to a simple difference of ideology between you and me.

 

If we err, I'd rather err on the side of the victim.

 

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

http://video.today.m...208495#50208495

 

It appears from what I have been reading that this story is true. The AR15 type rifle was in the car. 4 semi auto pistols were used. Fucking liberal medial.

[MLD Woody]

And how did we lower car-related death while increasing the numbers of cars on the road? Might it have been because we took a bunch of steps to improve safety, while acknowledging that no one was going to ban cars or car travel, or eliminate accidents? Heck

*************************************************

Heck wants seatbelts for guns and speed limits for bullets.....

 

"brilliant"

 

 

Really Cal? Really...

 

And you say I'm the one that makes worthless posts

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm not really asking you to address it sir.

I think it boils down to a simple difference of ideology between you and me.

 

If we err, I'd rather err on the side of the victim.

 

WSS

 

And in doing so you create a completely hideous system that looks nothing like Western justice and more Southeast Asian or Middle Eastern.

 

You've come out for torture not just for foreign nationals who are suspected of terrorism, but American citizens who are suspects in things like kidnapping cases and murders. Now you've come out for jailing judges and defense attorneys and prosectors when people they've put away turn out to be recidivists, because they should have known to give them stiffer sentences.

 

You've also come out against the 2nd Amendment and have little regard for the 4th, and you don't like rules of evidence and would like to give the police more powers than they already have.

 

Yes, i'm happy not to share your ideology. It's a long ways from American. I'll leave you with one of my favorite Steve moments: "you might have mistaken me for someone who gives a s*** about human rights."

[Westside Steve]

Yes that sums it up.

I would rather torture a terrorist than let another downtown area be blown up, sorry.

I would rather a cop search someone without a warrant than let a killer repeat his offense, sorry.

And I'd rather give long sentences to violent criminals with high recidivism rates then let them out to rape and kill more children, sorry.

Pretend it's your child, or even just someone you care about.

 

And yes the second Amendment is outdated overlooked and might as well be discarded.

It is not nor has it ever been about hunting.

The framers had no idea what modern times would be like.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Another lovely exercise in false choices.

 

You're pretty good at dumbed down, right-wing cant. You should really run for office some day. I can picture the speeches. You, in front of a flag:

 

"Call me crazy, but I'd rather torture a terrorist than let an American city blow up! (Hurray!) I'd rather let the police search you without a warrant then let a killer repeat his offense! (Hurray!) And I'd rather give long sentences to violent criminals with high recidivism rates then let them out to rape and kill more children! (Hurray!)

 

(Patriotic music wells up.)

 

"Because I'm Steve Simmons, dammit!"

 

(Woman in crowd wipes away tear.)

 

"And I'm running for office because i believe that the Second Amendment is outdated, overlooked, and might as well be discarded. Because it's not nor has it ever been about hunting!"

 

(People look at each other quizzically, then...)

 

BOOOO!!!

[MLD Woody]

"nine......eleven"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg

[Westside Steve]

" While my opponent the Honorable Heck Brown Supports the right of common Citizens to own weapons equal to what are used by the United States Army!

The people should have the firepower to break the shackles of the Obama regime!"

 

At which point Cal and die hard look at each other and say "Hey maybe this Heck guy has something!"

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm for the 2nd Amendment because I support the rights of homeowners like this: Best. Story. Ever.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Leg, tell me what you think about the Feinstein bill and the list of guns at the end.

[Legacy Fan]

First & foremost: I don't like it.

 

Here's why - the bill needs to amended because of the way some things are written. Here's the hi-cap mag ban part.

All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Watch this:

I mean, Michel is on the Sig Sauer team, but still - that's 18 rounds in under 5 seconds - FROM 3 DIFFERENT 6 RD MAGAZINES. I guarantee you that Lanza, Albuquerque, Holmes, and Loughner couldn't touch that kind of speed & accuracy with their big bad assault rifles (only Holmes is confirmed to have used it in the execution of the massacre; the killer (kid) in NM only used the AR on his father. The rest of the family was killed with a .22 "hunting" rifle).

 

 

As far as the list at the end it reads like the lyrics to "Strait outta Compton" and every other "gangsta rap" lyric from the 90s. It's pretty comprehensive in that it covers every "scary tactical style" weapon that is currently available for legal purchase. I don't think every person in the country has a use for one of those weapons, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to own one and go out and plink some paper or beer bottles behind their barn one afternoon. Or go clear varmints off of farmland etc. Some of those guns are fun as hell to shoot, and some are ridiculous. Also, I know this story has floated around recently in light of the proposal, but some of those Korean shop owners armed with AK-47's (semi auto, not full auto) were able to keep their stores from the mayhem of the LA riots. The police & national guard that were called in and have access to full auto sure as shit weren't going in to protect these US citizens and their property/livelihoods. Katrina? If I lived in NO during that, I think that's plenty of a reason to own something "tactical and scary" for self defense.

 

Living in NM, AZ, TX, on those border towns where Cartels are running people and blow through your backyards? I sure as hell want a rifle that can compete with the fully automatic weapons that the US govt is supplying to the cartels when they come through my yard and want to stash their weight in my garage. Again, I have experience with guns, and I'd never have a need for a full auto - even in those situations, but I would damn well use a AR chambered in 7.62/.308 that had more than a 1-3 rd capacity and be able to protect my family from a safe distance of 500-600 yds. But again, I will be making a conscious effort not to live there.

 

 

Personal responsibility (safes, locks, etc) and more comprehensive background checks (delayed Lanza at least a week) should be our focus. But much like a school administration that creates a regimented seating chart for test taking after reports of cheating, this bill is a poorly thought out, hastily created bandaid response that only seeks to make headlines instead of making any effort towards a solution to the problem. Something that shouts "hey, we did something!" but achieves nothing. Or it's a much more sinister calculated measure to disarm United States citizens in disguise. Which I hope it's not. Those are the only two angles of this bill, IMO.

[The Cysko Kid]

First & foremost: I don't like it.

 

Here's why - the bill needs to amended because of the way some things are written. Here's the hi-cap mag ban part.

 

Watch this:

I mean, Michel is on the Sig Sauer team, but still - that's 18 rounds in under 5 seconds - FROM 3 DIFFERENT 6 RD MAGAZINES. I guarantee you that Lanza, Albuquerque, Holmes, and Loughner couldn't touch that kind of speed & accuracy with their big bad assault rifles (only Holmes is confirmed to have used it in the execution of the massacre; the killer (kid) in NM only used the AR on his father. The rest of the family was killed with a .22 "hunting" rifle).

 

 

As far as the list at the end it reads like the lyrics to "Strait outta Compton" and every other "gangsta rap" lyric from the 90s. It's pretty comprehensive in that it covers every "scary tactical style" weapon that is currently available for legal purchase. I don't think every person in the country has a use for one of those weapons, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to own one and go out and plink some paper or beer bottles behind their barn one afternoon. Or go clear varmints off of farmland etc. Some of those guns are fun as hell to shoot, and some are ridiculous. Also, I know this story has floated around recently in light of the proposal, but some of those Korean shop owners armed with AK-47's (semi auto, not full auto) were able to keep their stores from the mayhem of the LA riots. The police & national guard that were called in and have access to full auto sure as shit weren't going in to protect these US citizens and their property/livelihoods. Katrina? If I lived in NO during that, I think that's plenty of a reason to own something "tactical and scary" for self defense.

 

Living in NM, AZ, TX, on those border towns where Cartels are running people and blow through your backyards? I sure as hell want a rifle that can compete with the fully automatic weapons that the US govt is supplying to the cartels when they come through my yard and want to stash their weight in my garage. Again, I have experience with guns, and I'd never have a need for a full auto - even in those situations, but I would damn well use a AR chambered in 7.62/.308 that had more than a 1-3 rd capacity and be able to protect my family from a safe distance of 500-600 yds. But again, I will be making a conscious effort not to live there.

 

 

Personal responsibility (safes, locks, etc) and more comprehensive background checks (delayed Lanza at least a week) should be our focus. But much like a school administration that creates a regimented seating chart for test taking after reports of cheating, this bill is a poorly thought out, hastily created bandaid response that only seeks to make headlines instead of making any effort towards a solution to the problem. Something that shouts "hey, we did something!" but achieves nothing. Or it's a much more sinister calculated measure to disarm United States citizens in disguise. Which I hope it's not. Those are the only two angles of this bill, IMO.

 

 

Really? You're going to take on the cartel? That's fucking brave man. Have you seen what they do to each other? Life is worthless to them.

[Legacy Fan]

Really? You're going to take on the cartel? That's fucking brave man. Have you seen what they do to each other? Life is worthless to them.

Please tell me you're kidding.

 

Okay, let's start simple - tell me what you think this means:

[The Cysko Kid]

Please tell me you're kidding.

 

Okay, let's start simple - tell me what you think this means:

 

 

You said it, not me. I'm merely pointing out if you gave shit one about your family you'd just go ahead and let the cartel stash whatever they want wherever the fuck they want to. Being a faux hard-ass will get you nowhere. No offense you're a dentist, not the man with no name. Protecting yourself from burglars is one thing. Mexican drug cartels tend to be a little more vicious.

[Legacy Fan]

So that's a "no" then.

 

 

They were hypotheticals. Just saying I wanted to be legally allowed a weapon that "competes" should the situation arise. I concluded with "I will be avoiding this at all costs"

 

 

I'm starting to think English might be a 2nd language for you. If so, "Welcome!" and I'll try to type slower.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Leg, I'm just wondering where you draw the line. You want some serious weaponry to defend your family in the event Mexican drug cartels storm your property (hypothetically). So why not a fully automatic weapon? Why not a machine gun? If that's the standard - possibly going to have to protect myself from serious criminal elements from 100s of yards away before they're up on me - then you don't seem to have a line in mind. Your line seems to be, "Whatever it takes to outgun the worst criminal elements I can imagine."

[Legacy Fan]

It's not necessarily a line (or lack thereof) drawn to compete with the "worst I can imagine" I was just stating a response to the "who has a need for an 'assault style' weapon?" questions that are common. For me personally (basically, IMO), those are situations where it could be argued that there is a 'need' for one (or several). Just addressing "need vs want".

 

Full auto are just so inaccurate. The barrel lifts several inches after the 2nd rd leaves the muzzle, and it gets harder to control after that. Even with experience/ practice. They're good for grabbing attention in close quarters, but so is a 12 gauge.

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's not necessarily a line (or lack thereof) drawn to compete with the "worst I can imagine" I was just stating a response to the "who has a need for an 'assault style' weapon?" questions that are common. For me personally (basically, IMO), those are situations where it could be argued that there is a 'need' for one (or several). Just addressing "need vs want".

 

Full auto are just so inaccurate. The barrel lifts several inches after the 2nd rd leaves the muzzle, and it gets harder to control after that. Even with experience/ practice. They're good for grabbing attention in close quarters, but so is a 12 gauge.

 

I get the need versus want arguments. I even get the want arguments, the "because it's fun to shoot them" arguments. I'd think it was fun too. But can you cite me an example of such an incident? I don't doubt that it's ever happened, but I can't image these scenarios are anything less than one in 100,000 type of incidents. And should we really be making policy based on scenarios like the ones you envisioned? Clearly, for the vast, vast majority of people, they'll be able to defend their homes just fine without using "assault style" weapons.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, check this story out. Straw buyers.

[Legacy Fan]

I get the need versus want arguments. I even get the want arguments, the "because it's fun to shoot them" arguments. I'd think it was fun too. But can you cite me an example of such an incident? I don't doubt that it's ever happened, but I can't image these scenarios are anything less than one in 100,000 type of incidents. And should we really be making policy based on scenarios like the ones you envisioned? Clearly, for the vast, vast majority of people, they'll be able to defend their homes just fine without using "assault style" weapons.

 

That rarity of incidence sounds awfully familiar. Yet we are currently ( if DF gets her way) making policy based on it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You'd have to do better than that. You'd have to come with some sort of evidence that some people really do need these weapons to defend your home or property, and that the incidence of this outweighs the risks of having more of these guns on the streets.

 

Because we know how many times these guns are used in the commission of crimes. It's not high, but it's not irrelevant either. My guess is that your scenario is so rare as to be irrelevant to the debate. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

Instead of fishing for stats that might not even be there, just let me know what steps you'd be willing to take, if any, to remove the most lethal guns currently available from the legal roster?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Also, straw buyers. What do you think should happen to them, like the one in the article?

[Legacy Fan]

You'd have to do better than that. You'd have to come with some sort of evidence that some people really do need these weapons to defend your home or property, and that the incidence of this outweighs the risks of having more of these guns on the streets.

 

Because we know how many times these guns are used in the commission of crimes. It's not high, but it's not irrelevant either. My guess is that your scenario is so rare as to be irrelevant to the debate. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

Instead of fishing for stats that might not even be there, just let me know what steps you'd be willing to take, if any, to remove the most lethal guns currently available from the legal roster?

Evidence? An article was just posted saying that DHS ordered 7000 of them. The AR platform is an outstanding home/self defense weapon. That's the evidence.

 

I'm not really sure why you're putting effort (albeit less effort than Cysko) into making me appear like some Dirty Harry Hollywood vigilante. I mean, it's an easily debatable foe, so I understand. You're focusing on one hypothetical example of need vs want.

 

Irrelevant and rare stats aren't worth looking up to go tit for tat on assault rifle "good guy column vs bad guy column".

 

I think the number floated around is 1-2.5 mil instances of defensive gun uses annually. Most end in just brandishing. I think brandishing something that looks "intimidating & scary" is more effective right?