Guns are to blame--not people.

[Superbadbrutha]

Most, most murders go unsolved.

Only 1/3 go unsolved.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My next door neighbor at my old place shot himself. A couple of weeks before, he fired his gun through his patio window and then lied to the cops about it. The cops didn't take his gun and a few weeks later he offed himself. (Oh, incidentally, NOBODY in the building heard the shot, it was only discovered when his wife came home and found him.)

In most cities, it is illegal to carelessly discharge a firearm within a populated area.

Why was this neighbor not arrested then, and charged with a crime?

But then, as you've made clear enough often enough, you're opposed to arresting dangerous criminals and putting them in prison. So, it was entirely consistent with your own positions that this critter was allowed to remain free, and to remain a danger to itself and to others.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We should take guns away from people who are a danger to themselves or others.... that's actually pretty sensible.

Taking a gun away from someone who is a danger to himself or to others does not cause him to not be a danger to himself or to others.

Such a person needs to be removed form free society; either to be given whatever psychological help might allow him to cease to be dangerous; or else, if nothing else, to keep him confined to prevent him from endangering others.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Only 1/3 go unsolved.

depends on where you live.
edit: I checked. nationwide over forty percent of all homicides go unsolved. I was wrong. In 2018 there were slightly over sixteen thousand murders in the USA, so about six thousand four hundred went unsolved.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And how would you know if a person is a harm to themselves or others? Again you leftists with your obsession of Thought Police.

In our country you are considered innocent until proven guilty; a law abiding citizen until you break our laws. I know you hate this idea of protecting the innocent, but that's the way this country should remain.

An important point, and one of the challenges of anything other than the sort of tyranny under which a creature like CrimIncel Joe would force us to all live, is that you really cannot know what any individual will do, until that individual does it.

But once someone commits a criminal act, and is convicted thereof, we have a solid basis on which to assume that that creature is likely to commit similar acts again, if given the opportunity to do so.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Well, let's take my neighbor. He shot out a window. When the police responded, he lied at first saying someone shot in at him, but that was quickly disproven by the glass shatter pattern. At the point, the cops SHOULD have confiscated his gun. But they didn't.

At that point, the police should have arrested him. He had already shown himself, by his action of carelessly discharging a firearm, to be an unreasonable danger to others.

To leave him free, to create more danger, was an act of malfeasance on the part of the police.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Tell me Ray, should this domestic violence abuser be allowed to own a gun.

He didn't use a gun, didn't need a gun and it sounds like he should have been locked up long ago for that temper. Beating your girlfriend is a crime, she should have locked him up the first time he attacked her. Most domestic violence "victims" enable their attackers until things escalate to something like this or even worse.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think those numbers should be bumped...

30 years if a felon is caught in possession of a gun when they are legally prohibited from buying, owning or carrying a gun...

Life in prison for any crime by a criminal with a gun....

I disagree, here.

If a former criminal is salvageable, then once he's been rehabilitated, and has “paid his debt to society”, then he does not owe society any further loss of his essential freedoms.

Those who, by an established pattern of criminality, demonstrate themselves to be an irredeemable danger to society, should be dealt with they way we used to deal with them—at the end of a rope. After that, there is no need to worry about whether they still have the right to keep and bear arms; if they want to keep their guns, then they can have them buried with them in their graves.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You have my vote on that. Joe gets upset because people like us carry guns for protection.

CrimIncel Joe's opposition to the right of human beings to bear arms, stems from a desire to do that which would give a human being just cause to use those arms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

An important point, and one of the challenges of anything other than the sort of tyranny under which a creature like CrimIncel Joe would force us to all live, is that you really cannot know what any individual will do, until that individual does it.

But once someone commits a criminal act, and is convicted thereof, we have a solid basis on which to assume that that creature is likely to commit similar acts again, if given the opportunity to do so.

Correct but Joe wants to take guns away from people "in case" they might do something illegal with them, and the people that do get busted get nothing more than a slap on the hand. It's like liberals have zero common sense or logic. Taking guns away from people who committed no crime is like taking cars away from everybody to try and stop DUI"s. The car is not the problem, it's the person driving the car that is, so that's how you address the problem, by going after the person, not the object they used.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Tell me Ray, should this domestic violence abuser be allowed to own a gun.

WTF does this have to do with what we're talking about? This is a felony assault, not a misdemeanor assault. Felons are not allowed to own firearms or be in possession of firearms in this country.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Correct but Joe wants to take guns away from people "in case" they might do something illegal with them, and the people that do get busted get nothing more than a slap on the hand. It's like liberals have zero common sense or logic. Taking guns away from people who committed no crime is like taking cars away from everybody to try and stop DUI"s. The car is not the problem, it's the person driving the car that is, so that's how you address the problem, by going after the person, not the object they used.

If you look at any of CrimIncel Joe's positions, from the point of view of being on the side of criminals against that of human beings, from a position of wanting criminals to be free to commit acts of theft, destruction, and violence against human beings, and of wanting human beings to be helpless to resist any such acts, then CrimIncel Joe's positions make perfect sense.

I think it is quite clear that the only thing that CrimIncel Joe is sincerely worried that any human being •might• do with a gun is to successfully defend himself against a criminal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In Europe, assaults are most often carried out with a knife.

They also have higher rates of other violent crime because nobody there can protect themselves.

In the United States, it's estimated that Americans pull out their gun between 1 to 4 million times a year to stop attacks on themselves or others. Using the lowest figure, it's about a million times a year a crime or attack is stopped in it's tracks. So even if it were possible to stop every American from having a gun, criminals will still find a way to carry out their crimes.

The Bob Livingston Letter®

 

[Superbadbrutha]

WTF does this have to do with what we're talking about? This is a felony assault, not a misdemeanor assault. Felons are not allowed to own firearms or be in possession of firearms in this country.

What is misdemeanor domestic violence?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What is misdemeanor domestic violence?

From links that's been posted on this topic it could be yelling at your spouse and making threats against her. Not even any physical contact. It could be a scratch on her arm or some other superficial wound she "claims" to have suffered from you. Any kind of physical touching even if you grab her by the shoulders and shake her while you're trying to make a verbal point.

 

[hadit]

Tell me Ray, should this domestic violence abuser be allowed to own a gun.

Should his victim have been armed?

 

[hadit]

Correct but Joe wants to take guns away from people "in case" they might do something illegal with them, and the people that do get busted get nothing more than a slap on the hand. It's like liberals have zero common sense or logic. Taking guns away from people who committed no crime is like taking cars away from everybody to try and stop DUI"s. The car is not the problem, it's the person driving the car that is, so that's how you address the problem, by going after the person, not the object they used.

More accurately, it would be like taking away alcohol to stop DUI's, something liberals assure us didn't work and will never work because people will always find a way to get alcohol if they want. Sound familiar? In fact, they condemn the entire war on drugs for that very reason, yet it seems to totally evade them when talking about people getting hold of guns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you look at any of CrimIncel Joe's positions, from the point of view of being on the side of criminals against that of human beings, from a position of wanting criminals to be free to commit acts of theft, destruction, and violence against human beings, and of wanting human beings to be helpless to resist any such acts, then CrimIncel Joe's positions make perfect sense.

I think it is quite clear that the only thing that CrimIncel Joe is sincerely worried that any human being •might• do with a gun is to successfully defend himself against a criminal.

That's why he relies on phony statistics. You are X more likely to be killed by a gun in the house than if you didn't have one. Well no shit. You're also X less likely to have a fire in your home if you don't own a stove either.

No matter how he fudges the numbers like omitting suicides in his gun homicide figures, what can't be ignored is how many times Americans use their firearms to stop attacks on themselves or others every single year.

What they want is for criminals to roam free creating the problem, and disallowing us from self-defense from the problems they create. Again, it makes zero sense. if you want less people owning and carrying firearms, then you eliminate the problem that cause us to own and carry firearms, not eliminate the firearms.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

92% of all women killed with guns in high-income countries in 2015 were from the US.

In 2015:
800-1000 women are killed with guns.
220 are killed with knives
300 are killed with other

Access to a gun makes it five times more likely that the abusive partner will kill his female victim.

4.5 million women have reported being threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.

Guns and Violence Against Women: America’s Uniquely Lethal Intimate Partner Violence Problem

Laws keeping guns out of the hands of abusers are associated with lower rates of violence against women and intimate partner homicides.

everytownresearch.org

If your daughter is in an abusive relationship, and there's a gun in the house, tell her to gtfo.

Most of those deaths are from black men killing black women, that is a ritual i find concerning, because of the lack of black families..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

More accurately, it would be like taking away alcohol to stop DUI's, something liberals assure us didn't work and will never work because people will always find a way to get alcohol if they want. Sound familiar? In fact, they condemn the entire war on drugs for that very reason, yet it seems to totally evade them when talking about people getting hold of guns.

Joe and I had this discussion. I know people that had DUI's. In almost all cases, they are coming from a public place where alcohol is served which is usually the bar.

Bar people are very strange. They are more addicted to the bar environment than they are the alcohol itself. They get busted, quit drinking for a week or two, but that mad desire overcomes them. They go to the bar and only drink a soda. After a week of that, they only have one drink, then two. Before you know it, they are right back to where they started.

So I told Joe the way to reduce the amount of DUI's is to have your license marked. If you have a marked license, you are not allowed in any establishment that serves alcohol even if you are not drinking yourself. If you eliminate the attraction to public drinking, you reduce the amount of DUI's because you break this bar habit of theirs. To be honest, it would also be the biggest deterrent from getting drunk at the bar because these people can't live without it.

Joe claimed it could never work because the establishments that serve alcohol would never comply with inspecting all drivers licenses for a marked one. Okay, then the bar gets fined if busted. Very few people get drunk at home and then decide to get in the car and ride around. It would work.

Liberals don't like solutions, they like pandering to the problem instead.