Biden's Thursday Speech On Gun Control, A Bust!

[Rigby5]

Except for creating the society in which those losses occur.

The stresses that cause violence are caused by capitalism, that makes everything as expensive as the market will bear.
We have no access to health care, housing security, legal defense, union job security, higher education, good nutrition, etc.
We use schools as boarding as we have forced families to need 2 paychecks in order to just survive.
This is all a built in formula for disaster.

 

[Rigby5]

1 mass shooting in the 1950.

But there were more school arsons in the past, so if they do pass total gun control, that will ensure even more dead students.

 

[Rigby5]

Not me. I am a responsible owner, handler, have taught weapons safety, support permits, and cracking down on people who are not supposed to have weapons.

Yes you, because a "crack down on people" who government decides "are not supposed to have weapons", is bound to greatly increase the death toll.
Crack downs never work, people resent them, and do the opposite.
For example, Prohibition and the War on Drugs both greatly increased what they claimed to want to stop, and increased the murder rate by about a factor of 10 as well.
Improved mental health does not need or imply a "crack down".

 

[Rigby5]

So the kid that allegedly shot you. Lets say he is arrested and gets out on bail.

He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

Should he still have access to a gun? If not..why not?

Because giving up gun rights temporarily is a condition he agrees to when he accepts bail.
You can not force someone to lose a right of defense without a judge, but the bail judge can let cooperative people out more than uncooperative.

 

[Rigby5]

Again with Amber Guyger?

What is it with you?

When you tell me the motive for her having shot the guy she thought was in her apartment, then we can talk....you refuse to tell me the motive.....even now, after the trial is over....it should be really easy .....

But in tearful testimony last week, Guyger said she was "scared to death" when she opened what she thought was her own apartment door and saw the silhouette of a man she mistook for an intruder.

"I was scared whoever was inside my apartment was going to kill me," she told the jury. "No police officer would want to hurt an innocent person."

Guyger lived on the third floor of an apartment complex just south of downtown Dallas. Her lawyers said she was in uniform and had just finished a 13-hour workday on Sept. 6th, 2018, when she mistakenly opened Jean's door.

"What was going through Amber's mind was just, 'I'm going home,' " defense lawyer Robert Rogers said. " 'I'm exhausted, and I'm going home.' "

Guyger testified that she had put her key in the door and realized it was unlocked. Thinking someone had broken in, she drew her gun and entered the apartment.

Guyger said she ordered Jean, "Let me see your hands," and that he instead started to move toward her. Prosecutors countered that nobody in the apartment complex heard her instruct Jean to raise his hands.

Within seconds of opening the door, she fired two shots at Jean. One of the bullets struck him in the chest, killing him.

Guyger called 911 and told the operator over and over: "I thought it was my apartment."
------
Under Texas law, convicting a defendant of murder requires proving someone intentionally killed another person, as opposed to manslaughter, in which prosecutors have to show someone was killed because of recklessness.

Ex-Dallas Officer Who Killed Man In His Own Apartment Is Found Guilty Of Murder

Guyger’s team argued in a brief filed Tuesday that although she did knowingly shoot with the intention of killing Jean, her belief that he was an intruder justified her use of deadly force.

“The evidence was legally insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Guyger committed murder because (1) through mistake, Guyger formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact — that she entered her apartment and there was an intruder inside — and (2) her mistaken belief negated the culpability of murder because although she intentionally and knowingly caused Jean’s death, she had the right to act in deadly force in self defense since her belief that deadly force was immediately necessary was reasonable under the circumstances,” court documents read.
-----
Guyger’s defense team has previously argued that the confusing layout of the upper floors at the apartment complex contributed to the situation that led to Jean’s death. Guyger lived on the the fourth floor, and Jean lived directly below her.

In the appeal, Guyger’s defense team mentions that residents of her complex often walk into or enter the wrong apartment or park on the wrong floor. Several residents testified about this at her trial.

Of 71 tenants interviewed, 44% said they had walked into the wrong apartment on the wrong floor before, court documents state. Twenty-three percent of tenants said they had accidentally gone to the wrong door and entered their key into the lock, according to court documents.

Amber Guyger’s defense team seeks to overturn her murder conviction for killing Botham Jean

The problem with Guyger's defense is that confusion over the similarity of different floors, works against her.
What if she had it right and it was the Black guy who had been confused and had gone to the wrong floor?
Did that mean he should have been shot and killed for being confused?
Of course not.
Amber had no reason to shoot, even IF it HAD been her apartment.
I would have convicted her of murder if she had shot an unarmed intruder who was sitting and eating ice cream in her apartment.
You do not execute someone for being confused, and it is even more wrong since it was she who had the floor wrong.

 

[2aguy]

The problem with Guyger's defense is that confusion over the similarity of different floors, works against her.
What if she had it right and it was the Black guy who had been confused and had gone to the wrong floor?
Did that mean he should have been shot and killed for being confused?
Of course not.
Amber had no reason to shoot, even IF it HAD been her apartment.
I would have convicted her of murder if she had shot an unarmed intruder who was sitting and eating ice cream in her apartment.
You do not execute someone for being confused, and it is even more wrong since it was she who had the floor wrong.

The thing is....penelope or candy corn or whichever leftist keeps brining up her case? Doesn't care about it......they think they have some sort of Gotcha on me because of that case.....

I keep asking the idiot...what was the motive for the murder....a pretty basic....and really important question.....before you convict on a first degree murder charge....

they can't answer that, but still bring up this case...

 

[2aguy]

The stresses that cause violence are caused by capitalism, that makes everything as expensive as the market will bear.
We have no access to health care, housing security, legal defense, union job security, higher education, good nutrition, etc.
We use schools as boarding as we have forced families to need 2 paychecks in order to just survive.
This is all a built in formula for disaster.

No....capitalism brings people out of poverty...it is government action that destroys families, and creates fatherless homes......fatherless homes create crime and poverty, and violence.....

 

[Rigby5]

The thing is....penelope or candy corn or whichever leftist keeps brining up her case? Doesn't care about it......they think they have some sort of Gotcha on me because of that case.....

I keep asking the idiot...what was the motive for the murder....a pretty basic....and really important question.....before you convict on a first degree murder charge....

they can't answer that, but still bring up this case...

I suppose the main motive was fear, but an irrational fear of Blacks, combined with an irrational disregard for the life of the Black man.
That is less than a deliberate murder for the purposes of theft or something though, if that is what you mean.

I would have gone 3rd degree if she was an ordinary person.
But since she was a cop who was supposed to be trained in dealing with situations like that, I would go with 2nd degree.

And I agree it does not have much bearing here.

 

[Rigby5]

No....capitalism brings people out of poverty...it is government action that destroys families, and creates fatherless homes......fatherless homes create crime and poverty, and violence.....

Generally capitalism causes poverty.
That is because a profit motive has no ethical limits, and traditionally tries to use force, extortion, monopolies, etc. to gain the most profits.
The industrial revolution was the beginning of the loss of individual freedom, due to the economic slavery of capitalism.
Everyone had previously supported themselves with cottage industries that suddenly were no longer able to compete, because factories sold good for less than half the price.
The result was massive starvation, child labor, etc.
Competition sounds good in that it tends to increase efficiency, but the reality is that since it is a winner take all, it destroys 10 times what it creates. Look at all the auto companies destroyed even though they made reasonable products, like American motors, Studebaker, DeSoto, etc.
The natural result of capitalism is always monopolies, and the only way to prevent that is socialist anti-trust laws to prevent things like price fixing.
Capitalism is powerful, but dangerous and needs to be carefully controlled.

As far as "fatherless homes", if people were still living in multi generation homes, that would not be a problem, and the cause of "fatherless homes" is lack of unions and jobs, not government welfare.

 

[White 6]

Yes you, because a "crack down on people" who government decides "are not supposed to have weapons", is bound to greatly increase the death toll.
Crack downs never work, people resent them, and do the opposite.
For example, Prohibition and the War on Drugs both greatly increased what they claimed to want to stop, and increased the murder rate by about a factor of 10 as well.
Improved mental health does not need or imply a "crack down".

When New York City was under stop and frisk, a crack down on illegal carry, I was under the impression, shootings and shooting deaths declined. Am I wrong?
I am in no way, in favor of a confiscation, but a reduction of new ARs coming into the landscape.
I have no problem with some type check and certification. Naturally, I am exactly the type of person that would meet all the standards, all boxes checked. I have no problem with not being allowed to carry one on the streets of a city, especially one in civil unrest. I have a lot of problems with people coming from out of town, out of state, bringing them into that type situation. If not allowed on the street, a carrier is identified as a probably bad guy, on sight. I have no problem with restricting loaded magazines, anywhere but the range or on somebodies private property, in home, etc to a low number. Even hunting with my shotgun, when hunting I am restricted to a number of rounds in the gun. I have no problem with all weapons being serial numbered, though figure the upper and barrel would be more effective than the lower. I am all for improved mental health, but know it is only part of the problem. All schools need minimum hardening with minor engineering and technology, as well as enforcement of security Standard Operational Procedures in place and rigidly enforced to the point of termination, with two strikes your out.

 

[Flash]

 

[candycorn]

Because giving up gun rights temporarily is a condition he agrees to when he accepts bail.
You can not force someone to lose a right of defense without a judge, but the bail judge can let cooperative people out more than uncooperative.

Again, I'm all for bond conditions. I'm playing devils advocate here.

What you're describing is coercion....you either agree to this or stay locked up based on accusations--not a jury verdict...aka "due process".

 

[woodwork201]

As long as they continue to call for "banning" guns, they will get NOTHING done.

As I have said before. I'm not against stopping people who are mentally ill from obtaining a gun, or not keeping one until they can be evaluated and be deemed no threat. But WHO and HOW that happens is what I have a serious problem with because I don't support the loss of ANYONES 2nd amendment right without due process. And I never will. Even if 300 kids are killed.

Sorry, it's just me.

The solution is to put those who are a threat to society under lock and key. Prison for criminals and hospitalization for the insane. That worked for nearly 200 years, and school shootings were exceedingly rare.

 

[woodwork201]

So the kid that allegedly shot you. Lets say he is arrested and gets out on bail.

He hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

Should he still have access to a gun? If not..why not?

A kid out on bail for shooting someone already has access to a gun.

Since 1% of violent offenders commit 63% of violent crimes, he was going to get another gun, in all likelihood, anyway. It's not like the kid accused of shooting someone and out on bail was going to go straight. But, yes, according to his momma he was out at 2 AM working to make money for a new suit of clothes for church on Sunday.

 

[woodwork201]

Why? You haven't been convicted of anything. Aren't you innocent until proven guilty?

You're absolutely correct. A person out on bail should legally have the means to protect himself and his family and shouldn't be forced into victimhood by the government.

 

[woodwork201]

He spoke a few days ago about doing something about 9mm with high capacity magazines. That is when he lost me on the whole effort, rather than when it went for limits on ARs, AKs, etc. I have an AR, and still doubt I would be effected, but when he spoke about standard carry 9mm pistols, mine being a full size 9mm PPQ holding 15+1, that is when I knew this whole thing, if they got their way was going to try to go way beyond the pale. Some of us are licensed, highly trained, highly background checked, with even deeper checks still on file. I am no lawbreaker, but I would be a lawbreaker before I gave up my AR and service pistol along with it. I am no gang banger, but I do not plan to be unarmed if I ever have to meet one. I don't live in a bad neighborhood, but at night especially, it's like American Express. I don't leave home without it. I am sorry for your loss or losses, but I had no hand in it.

He could be sabotaging the effort, himself, by bringing other things into discussion, by acting like he would like to do something. The OP pointed out, the last ban they had ran out in 94 with Republicans in charge, but the Democrats didn't try to put it back in, when they were in charge, 2 years later.

An ex-coworker who had recently left the Army, honorably discharged, was in Army Intelligence so was very highly background checked, was arrested a couple years ago for child molesting and child porn. Background checks mean nothing.

And if I recall, you once openly admitted here to committing a felony - something about the cops coming to investigate gunfire at your neighbor's house and you lied to the police performing an investigation in order to cover up for the neighbor and how much all the neighbors call you first instead of the police.

Less than half of felony arrests at the Federal level are prosecuted. And that doesn't even account for known felony crimes for which no one is arrested or felony crimes that are not reported. That means there are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of violent felons who have no record and can get approved through NICS to purchase a gun.

So, no, background checks don't do a thing. They only effect the convicted felons, not the unconvicted felons. It's a ridiculously minuscule actual effect on crime. Even those convicted felons who can't pass the background check still get guns.

 

[candycorn]

You're absolutely correct. A person out on bail should legally have the means to protect himself and his family and shouldn't be forced into victimhood by the government.

I disagree completely. I was just quibbling over the "due process" allegation that some made--a bond agreement isn't "due process" as much as it is coercion.

 

[White 6]

An ex-coworker who had recently left the Army, honorably discharged, was in Army Intelligence so was very highly background checked, was arrested a couple years ago for child molesting and child porn. Background checks mean nothing.

And if I recall, you once openly admitted here to committing a felony - something about the cops coming to investigate gunfire at your neighbor's house and you lied to the police performing an investigation in order to cover up for the neighbor and how much all the neighbors call you first instead of the police.

Less than half of felony arrests at the Federal level are prosecuted. And that doesn't even account for known felony crimes for which no one is arrested or felony crimes that are not reported. That means there are tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of violent felons who have no record and can get approved through NICS to purchase a gun.

So, no, background checks don't do a thing. They only effect the convicted felons, not the unconvicted felons. It's a ridiculously minuscule actual effect on crime. Even those convicted felons who can't pass the background check still get guns.

I handled the situation regarding the neighbor having too many beers, and emptying his 9 millimeter into the air above his head in celebration, on my own. The situation was not repeated by him, ever. You could say, I moderated the situation on my own with no official entanglements. I guess, I was just lucky to have an existing ongoing relationship with the neighborhood beat cops, being the head of the local neighborhood watch, hosting them in meetings and attending training. They left reasonably satisfied.

In relation to your comment on background checks, Nothing anywhere, ever works perfectly, every time in any complex system. Does no mean no attempt should be made. I'm an 80% solution guy, meaning I know in dealing with attacking a problem or clean up, often 80% of the goal, if started and worked, can be accomplished with 10-15% of the labor. Progress on the problem is much better than no progress on the problem.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why? You haven't been convicted of anything. Aren't you innocent until proven guilty?

And they don't have to let you out on bail either. Bail is not guaranteed and not. Only excessive bail is forbidden. They could keep you in jail until trial if they want.

Conditions of bail include no drinking and a host of other restrictions, in exchange for letting you out of jail.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I disagree completely. I was just quibbling over the "due process" allegation that some made--a bond agreement isn't "due process" as much as it is coercion.

Bail is not required. They can keep you locked up until trial. Bail is a privilege. You only have the right to non-excessive bail.