Guns are to blame--not people.

[hadit]

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.

Exactly. It would be no more onerous than a bartender carding someone to be sure they're old enough to drink. Imagine that, preventing people with a problem from accessing alcohol. It's almost like preventing people who can't control their tempers from accessing firearms. In either case, you exercise the prevention AFTER someone demonstrates they have a problem, not because you think they MIGHT have a problem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Exactly. It would be no more onerous than a bartender carding someone to be sure they're old enough to drink. Imagine that, preventing people with a problem from accessing alcohol. It's almost like preventing people who can't control their tempers from accessing firearms. In either case, you exercise the prevention AFTER someone demonstrates they have a problem, not because you think they MIGHT have a problem.

Joe has gone as far as to say firearm sellers should be liable because they sold a person a gun that passed the federal background check but looked a little crazy and then committed a crime with the gun they bought. That's just how they think.

 

[JoeB131]

I hope you get cancer. I hope it kills you slowly, with you living in agony for years, begging to die.

Wow, I'm wondering what I did to hurt your feeling so bad, Ditchweed... I mean besides calling you Ditchweed.

Yes, that way he would have killed himself by starting the car with the garage door closed. A lot accomplished there, huh?

He didn't have a garage. Give his dry run with a gun might have well hit someone walking through the parking lot, it's a bit more serious than if he had to get more creative.

Stop and frisk worked greatly. Three strikes worked out well. Did they stop everybody? No they didn't, but at least there was a reduction in violent crime.

The reduction in crime in the 1990's had a lot more to do with end of the Baby Boom and people aging out of the "young and stupid" phase. Stop and Frisk was a racist policy that encouraged the kind of police misconduct they burnt down the country over in 2020. So, um, good job, everyone.

5 years minimum for illegally carrying a firearm would stop them from carrying guns. 10 years minimum if it was stolen. The less demand, the less the supply meaning that gun theft would not be such a huge market as it is today if nobody wanted to buy the guns. 20 years minimum if you use a gun in the commission of a crime like robbery. Death penalty if you use a firearm to illegally kill somebody.

We lock up 2 million people
We lock up 2 million people
We lock up 2 million people.

The reason why people want to buy guns is because the gun industry has made it so easy for criminals to get them, and when someone like Kellerman proves that a gun in the home is actually more dangerous to the people living in it, they stomp that shit out...

You've been had, son.

The democrat party judges and prosecutors release the most violent gun offenders over and over, often within 48 hours of their arrest.......these are the individuals doing almost all of the gun crime and gun murder in democrat party controlled cities.....so locking up violent gun criminals for 48 hours is not doing anything......

Except we have 2 million people in prison... so clearly prison isn't a deterrent.

 

[JoeB131]

You misspelled “criminal”.

No surprise, given that you are one of the most open supporters on this forum of the criminal culture and its predations against human beings. And a supporter of policies that have no other intent or effect than to make human beings easier prey for criminals.

As always, you take the side of your own kind against the side of human beings.

Hey, Mormon Bob, I don't worry about the criminal.

I worry about the nutjob who shows up at a workplace because someone let him buy a gun. The fact that companies have to have Active Shooter Policies even AFTER doing criminal background checks on their employees says the problem goes well beyond your mythical criminal.

Exactly. It would be no more onerous than a bartender carding someone to be sure they're old enough to drink. Imagine that, preventing people with a problem from accessing alcohol. It's almost like preventing people who can't control their tempers from accessing firearms. In either case, you exercise the prevention AFTER someone demonstrates they have a problem, not because you think they MIGHT have a problem.

If someone is slapping their old lady around, that indicates they have a problem.

 

[JoeB131]

You're really something. You'd condemn a dying man to a torturous death by denying him the tool for a clean suicide? I've seen people go through Chemo, my wife had to for Colon Cancer. As the doctor told us, the Chemo kills the cancer slightly faster than it kills you IF it works. In my wife's case it didn't work, but they removed her colon so she's still with me. I wouldn't condemn anyone for choosing a clean, quick death over dying slowly and painfully of cancer.

I lost both of my parents to Cancer, at a very young age. No, I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but I would have been more horrified if I came home one day and found they had taken their own lives. This is what makes suicide a bad thing. Some one ends up finding that body.

 

[JoeB131]

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?

Again, he gave the Squirrel Cops some sob story about how he was dying of cancer and they felt sorry for him.

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.

Mormon Bob, doesn't see any problem that can't be solved by making the OTHER GUY suffer.

Mormon Bob: Lock that person up for committing a minor offense... OR KILL HIM!!!
ALso Mormon Bob: The government wants me to get a shot! MURDER THEM!!!!

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.

Yup, lock up the cancer patients, that's a solution, Mormon Bob.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Okay, that sounds nice, but the only way that works if if bars check ID's. I haven't had a bar check my ID since the 1980's. I imagine it would be less so if you are a regular at that bar.

My solution was elegant. Equip every car with a blow-meter. Just like they all have airbags and seat belts now. But there's money to be made from pulling over people for DUI's, so you won't ever see the government do that. So some guy gets $10,000 in fines for blowing a .08.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe has gone as far as to say firearm sellers should be liable because they sold a person a gun that passed the federal background check but looked a little crazy and then committed a crime with the gun they bought. That's just how they think.

Yes, because this guy looks perfectly normal. You should totally sell him an assault rifle with a 100 round clip.

Don't check with his school, which was in the process of throwing him out for mental instability, or check with his family. Nope, just rely on the Federal Background check system which was intentionally underfunded at the insistence of the NRA.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Yup, lock up the cancer patients, that's a solution, Mormon Bob.

Not because he had cancer.

Because he had behaved in a manner that proved that he was a danger to others.

In the end, fortunately, it turned out that he only ended up killing himself, and not someone else, but if he had killed someone else, then the malfeasant cops who allowed him to remain free after it became clear how dangerous he was would have had that blood on their hands.

 

[JoeB131]

Not because he had cancer.

Because he had behaved in a manner that proved that he was a danger to others.

In the end, fortunately, it turned out that he only ended up killing himself, and not someone else, but if he had killed someone else, then the malfeasant cops who allowed him to remain free after it became clear how dangerous he was would have had that blood on their hands.

We barely hold cops accountable when they straight up murder people and we have it on tape.

Now, I don't know what actions they took against the cops in our little town with a police department of all of 11 officers. My guess is someone got a talking to and that was it.

Someone should have taken the man's gun. They didn't. Locking him up would have been cruel... but then again, you are a bit of a sadist, aren't you Mormon Bob?

 

[hadit]

Hey, Mormon Bob, I don't worry about the criminal.

I worry about the nutjob who shows up at a workplace because someone let him buy a gun. The fact that companies have to have Active Shooter Policies even AFTER doing criminal background checks on their employees says the problem goes well beyond your mythical criminal.




If someone is slapping their old lady around, that indicates they have a problem.

A neighbor having the power to put someone through the hassle of losing his firearms for a time, then having to defend himself in court though committing no crime, then fighting the bureaucracy to get his guns back, maybe, someday, IS a problem. And how convenient that it would be public knowledge that a house has been disarmed, leaving it a target for thieves. There's a reason why even the most ardent anti-gunners won't put a sign in their front yard stating that they have no guns, yet that's what you want forced on other people.

 

[JoeB131]

A neighbor having the power to put someone through the hassle of losing his firearms for a time, then having to defend himself in court though committing no crime, then fighting the bureaucracy to get his guns back, maybe, someday, IS a problem.

not a problem for me! If I had a gun nut living next door and saw him slapping his old lady around, damn straight I'd report him. That's actually the decent thing to do.

And how convenient that it would be public knowledge that a house has been disarmed, leaving it a target for thieves.

Actually, the thieves would pass that one up. No guns to steal.

Gun Theft In America

Gun theft is on the rise in the U.S. and it's increasingly becoming an issue where guns are stolen from vehicles. If you travel with firearms, you need to make sure they're locked up when unattended.

truckvault.com

Every day in the U.S., roughly 1 gun is stolen every 90 seconds. That amounts to around 380,000 stolen guns every year, many of which are later used to commit violent crimes. People buy guns to help protect themselves, but when they don’t protect them from being stolen, they’re putting themselves and their communities in danger.

Now, given that accorind to the FBI, there are 1,117,696, it means that one out of three burglaries involved stealing a gun. Guns don't prevent crimes.

There's a reason why even the most ardent anti-gunners won't put a sign in their front yard stating that they have no guns, yet that's what you want forced on other people.

Again, most burglaries happen when no one is home. Understandable, if you break into a house when someone is home, the charge ups to "Home Invasion" and that's a whole other peck of trouble you don't need.

So in addition to gun proliferation causing 23,000 suicides, a large chunk of the 16,000 homicides, and 380,000 guns getting into the wrong hands every year... how is this a benefit again?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Someone should have taken the man's gun. They didn't. Locking him up would have been cruel... but then again, you are a bit of a sadist, aren't you Mormon Bob?

If they had locked him up, perhaps he would still be alive. Perhaps not. I don't know how bad his cancer was, but perhaps locking him up would have just condemned him to a much more painful death from cancer instead of a clean, quick, bullet in his head.

In any event, at that point, it was clear that this man was a danger to others. He had already behaved in a manner that put other people in danger, and which demonstrated a lack of concern for the danger that he was causing to others. For the safety of others, if not his own safety, he needed to be locked up. Your ersatz concern over what might have been “cruel” to him pales next to your depraved-heart indifference toward the danger that he posed to others.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And how convenient that it would be public knowledge that a house has been disarmed, leaving it a target for thieves.

It's tempting to think that one of CrimIncel Joe's motives for wanting his neighbor's gun to be taken, but the neighbor and his belongings left be, was a desire to burgle that neighbor's apartment, knowing that the neighbor was now sick, weak, disarmed, and somewhat lacking in credibility after the first event, making him a perfect target, unable to defend any of his property, or even to be taken seriously when he tried to tell police who robbed him.

As I said, CrimIncel Joe's positions always make perfect sense, when viewed from the position of wanting a criminal to be free to prey on a human being.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Actually, the thieves would pass that one up. No guns to steal.

Do you really believe that guns are the only things that thieves are interested in stealing?

Do you really believe that a criminal will only break into a home to rob it, if he thinks the owner has guns?

Of course you don't. Even you are not that stupid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Every day in the U.S., roughly 1 gun is stolen every 90 seconds. That amounts to around 380,000 stolen guns every year, many of which are later used to commit violent crimes. People buy guns to help protect themselves, but when they don’t protect them from being stolen, they’re putting themselves and their communities in danger.

Now, given that accorind to the FBI, there are 1,117,696, it means that one out of three burglaries involved stealing a gun. Guns don't prevent crimes.

But what if there was no market to sell the guns? Then guns would not be very valuable to a criminal. That could be accomplished by making laws I suggested before which is ten years minimum prison sentence for anybody caught illegally carrying a gun that was stolen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, because this guy looks perfectly normal. You should totally sell him an assault rifle with a 100 round clip.

View attachment 592006
Don't check with his school, which was in the process of throwing him out for mental instability, or check with his family. Nope, just rely on the Federal Background check system which was intentionally underfunded at the insistence of the NRA.

Really? The NRA? You have a credible link to that? Of course not. More bullshit you make up as you type.

You can't deny selling somebody a firearm because you don't like the way they looked. A gun seller does not have the training or expertise to make that determination. And what if he was a minority? That's another lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, that sounds nice, but the only way that works if if bars check ID's. I haven't had a bar check my ID since the 1980's. I imagine it would be less so if you are a regular at that bar.

My solution was elegant. Equip every car with a blow-meter. Just like they all have airbags and seat belts now. But there's money to be made from pulling over people for DUI's, so you won't ever see the government do that. So some guy gets $10,000 in fines for blowing a .08.

If bars have to check ID"s then bars have to check ID's. how hard is that? Why do you commies have so many problems with ID's anyway? In our state you have to present an ID to buy cigarettes. My mother is 87 years old, and they make her present her ID before being allowed to buy her cigarettes. If that's the law, you obey it. Break the law, and you face a heavy fine.

So how much more do the rest of us non law breakers have to pay for a car by them installing a $1,000 blow meter in each one because of the few that drive drunk. My solution doesn't cost anybody a dime but the offender. Plus my solution would work.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, he gave the Squirrel Cops some sob story about how he was dying of cancer and they felt sorry for him.

No, they likely had no evidence to arrest him. The cops make the claim he shot a gun, he denies it, there is no evidence that he did, and they can't arrest him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow, I'm wondering what I did to hurt your feeling so bad, Ditchweed... I mean besides calling you Ditchweed.


He didn't have a garage. Give his dry run with a gun might have well hit someone walking through the parking lot, it's a bit more serious than if he had to get more creative.





The reduction in crime in the 1990's had a lot more to do with end of the Baby Boom and people aging out of the "young and stupid" phase. Stop and Frisk was a racist policy that encouraged the kind of police misconduct they burnt down the country over in 2020. So, um, good job, everyone.



We lock up 2 million people
We lock up 2 million people
We lock up 2 million people.

The reason why people want to buy guns is because the gun industry has made it so easy for criminals to get them, and when someone like Kellerman proves that a gun in the home is actually more dangerous to the people living in it, they stomp that shit out...

You've been had, son.


Except we have 2 million people in prison... so clearly prison isn't a deterrent.

If he didn't have a garage, it would be so difficult to rent one? How about buying dope to OD on? How about jumping out of a 20 floor window?

Much like crime, you are placing the blame on an object instead of a person. As I pointed out, only 50% of suicides are by guns.

The reduction of crime is proportional with more and more states adopting CCW programs and laws that switched the guilt from the victim to the criminal. But those added laws such as Stop and Frisk plus Three Strikes certainly played a part in the cities that had such policies. When they got rid of them, violent crime once again increased.