How does someone shoot up two houses in country that banned guns?

[Bruce_T_Laney]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

And how many people are killed by reckless drivers and drunk drivers?

Notice the laws against drunk driving have not stop people from driving drunk and yet you do not call for the banning of automobiles and you can not ban alcohol again except on the local and state level but never on the Federal level...

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

Nope.....again.....answer the question....

Which British gun control law stopped this man with an illegal gun from walking into a mall, a school, a church, a synagogue or theater?

Since the British police admit they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into Britain.....again that word...increasing, gun control is not working, since the point of gun control is to keep criminals from having guns....so that is the measure.....is gun control keeping guns out of the hands of actual criminals, and the answer is no.....so it is not working in Britain.

It is, however, preventing law abiding British citizens from preventing rapes, robberies and murders......

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

And the population size of Scotland is a fraction of ours...

Only five million people live in Scotland which mean we have more people in most of our States than Scotland!

 

[2aguy]

Glasgow, Scotland......a guy shoots up 2 houses....

Tell us.......which British, or Scottish gun laws kept this guy from walking into a school, a mall, a theater, a church or a synagogue and shooting a bunch of people......

Please....tell us how those anti-gun laws kept this guy from killing a bunch of people...

Police hunt Glasgow gunman who opened fire at two homes

And that is wrong.......in order to get even close they have to include suicide.....the majority of gun deaths every single year.......so this entire post is a lie. Suicide does not count, but when you include it, you show that you don't care about facts, merely scoring on emotion.....

Americans save more lives each year with their legal guns than the casualty numbers in each war.....that is a fact....

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders.....which means they save lives far and above your number....

Guns save lives in this country......that is a fact.

 

[2aguy]

Glasgow, Scotland......a guy shoots up 2 houses....

Tell us.......which British, or Scottish gun laws kept this guy from walking into a school, a mall, a theater, a church or a synagogue and shooting a bunch of people......

Please....tell us how those anti-gun laws kept this guy from killing a bunch of people...

Police hunt Glasgow gunman who opened fire at two homes

Do you realize that if we take the number of civilians murdered by their governments in Europe.....either German citizens or the citizens handed over to the Germans during world war 2.....unarmed citizens......that number dwarfs our gun murder number by millions....do you understand that truth? 12 million innocent men, women and children were murdered by the German socialists in World War 2....far more than the criminals who kill each other with guns in our country over the same time period.......

 

[2aguy]

Nope.....again.....answer the question....

Which British gun control law stopped this man with an illegal gun from walking into a mall, a school, a church, a synagogue or theater?

Since the British police admit they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into Britain.....again that word...increasing, gun control is not working, since the point of gun control is to keep criminals from having guns....so that is the measure.....is gun control keeping guns out of the hands of actual criminals, and the answer is no.....so it is not working in Britain.

It is, however, preventing law abiding British citizens from preventing rapes, robberies and murders......

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

I agree that prohibition generally doesn't work.
It's lucky that few are calling for prohibition of firearms.

Yes...those few would be every single member of the democrat party leadership, in particular those running the democrats in the House, Senate, and currently running for the Presidency....but other than the entire political leadership of the democrat party.......it is few.........well, you can include the entire Hollywood elite, the entire democrat Press.......and them.........and the mayors of democrat controlled cities, the governors of democrat controlled states.......

You mean other than those few people.....right?

 

[Jitss617]

So unless EVERY shooting is stopped, gun control doesn’t work

Meanwhile, our gun laws get us 33,000 deaths a year

Also saved 94 thousand lives last year

 

[2aguy]

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

I agree that prohibition generally doesn't work.
It's lucky that few are calling for prohibition of firearms.

Explaining that prohibition doesn't work also demonstrates that restriction doesn't work. It can be thought of as "Soft Prohibition", since neither actually prevent individuals from obtaining the item or items in question.

So do you agree with no controls at all?
If that's the case why have laws for anything?

And you fall back on the dumb argument......accusing supporters of 2nd Amendment Rights of being stupid because if they call you morons out on the failure of gun control laws, then they have to support no laws at all....

This is stupid, and typical since none of the actual gun control laws you people say are "common sense," are common sense at all, since criminals ignore them, mass shooters obey them, and the only ones impacted are law abiding gun owners.

Laws define penalties for hurting other citizens. We have all the laws on the books we need to punish people who use guns illegally to hurt other people. What you mopes want is to ban and confiscate guns from people who do not break the law, and do not hurt other people......that is stupid, dumb, and insane.

We do not have a gun problem in this country...what we have are democrats who ignore the laws that we have for using guns illegally. The democrat judges, prosecutors and politicians ignore the laws when they capture actual, violent, repeat gun offenders.......throwing out the gun charges to get pleas....giving the violent criminal earlier release from prison......reducing the time for actual gun crimes, and allowing known, repeat gun offenders out on bail, and out of prison.........

We have the laws we need to stop gun crime...the democrat party simply refuses to keep violent gun offenders locked up.....that is why we have gun crime.

A few examples....

How about before you use that same stupid argument.....you explain why democrats keep letting violent gun offenders out of jail, and out of prison, over and over again....

CWB Chicago: Man connected to Whitney Young High School carjacking is on probation for gun violation, has juvenile robbery record, more

The man who is charged with driving the carjacked SUV of a Whitney Young High School teacher this week is on probation for possessing a handgun—a probation term that was cut in half just three weeks ago by a Cook County judge.

The CPD arrest report that documents the capture of Nicholas Williams on Tuesday says cops and federal agents found Williams “in possession” of a loaded 9-millimeter handgun with a defaced serial number. But, a source with knowledge of the case told CWBChicago tonight that the gun was “ditched” and weapons charges could not be approved.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to an after-hours email seeking comment.

Court records show that in Aug. 2017 Williams was charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon for allegedly carrying a handgun in the front of his waistband during a traffic stop on the West Side. Police said in a report that the gun had been reported stolen one month earlier.

A grand jury returned a 12 felony count true bill against Williams. But the Cook County State’s Attorney dropped all charges on May 3, 2018.

Five months after that case was dropped, Williams was charged with a new set of eight weapons felonies for allegedly carrying a handgun in the front of his waistband while riding his bike on the West Side.

----

Last month, Judge Maria Kuriakos-Ciesil sentenced Williams to two year’s probation, 30 hours of community service and 175 days time served in the case.

His attorneys asked for a reduced sentence and, on April 29th, Kuriakos-Ciesil granted the motion by reducing Williams’ punishment to one year of TASC probation and 30 hours of community service.

-------------------------
14 year old shot two men, released without bond or home confinement...


Cook County, IL: 14-Year-Old Charged With Shooting Two, Freed Without Supervision - The Truth About Guns

Welcome to Cook County, Illinois, where crime often has no meaningful consequences. Between a State’s Attorney’s Office reluctant to file charges and judges who mollycoddles defendants, Chicagoland has become the modern Wild West.

Case in point: a 14-year-old who (reportedly) shot and tried to kill two in a nice uptown neighborhood was released by a judge Friday to his parent with no bond – not even electronic home monitoring.


The Cook County judge claims the police failed to bring this suspected would-be gang killer (pictured above, right) in front of a judge quickly enough. So the judge, in order to penalize the police, released the kid without conditions other than to report to court next week.

Of course, the judge is really only penalizing the community as the accused certainly missed his calling as a choir boy.

The police, on the other hand, said they had concerns about the young man’s safety. Police released images of the suspects to the media in an effort to identify them and the media published them.

The Chicago mainstream media refer to the accused as a “boy.” Even though this “boy”reportedly shot one man in the back, abdomen, buttocks and groin and the other in the head.
===========

16 year old shooter released on 10,000 bond.....Cuomo's Raise the age bill for family court let this shooter go free on bail...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/44304/case-16-year-old-accused-shooting-bronx-street-hank-berrien

Bronx Supreme Court Justice John Collins made Garcia’s release contingent on either $10,000 bail or $25,000 bond, he made bail and he was freed. As The New York Post explains, “The law already guarantees that he can’t be held in a jail that also houses adults — and if convicted, his sentencing judge would have to take his age into account.”
--------
On Monday, prosecutor Daniel Defilippi indicated he would try to stop the case from being transferred to Family Court. Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, referring to the case as a “prime example” of the problems with the Raise the Age bill, said, “One of the things we brought up during debate was how this encourages gang recruitment. Gangs can recruit young people to do dirty work because they won’t be treated the same when caught.
------
Residents of the neighborhood acknowledged that the neighborhood has become a frightening place to live; one said, “We don’t go out. We don’t go to the park. I keep my kids in the house. We’re scared.” Another commented, “People don’t feel safe. People shooting in the street like that? No one is safe.” A third commented of the young girl, “She is lucky. Like an angel is watching over her because she was really close.”

”DC Won’t Allow Concealed Carry, But Takes It Easy On Armed, Violent Criminals

The problems stem from the city’s Youth Rehabilitation Act, legislation implemented in the 1980s to provide leniency to criminal offenders under the age of 22, even violent ones, with murder convictions being the only exception. It allows judges to disregard mandatory minimums meant to dissuade criminals, often to disastrous effects. The homicide rate spiked by 54 percent in the District in 2015, and 22 of the murderers were previously sentenced for crimes under the Youth Rehabilitation Act, according to an investigation by The Washington Post.

A man released on probation in 2015 under the law was involved in the July shooting death of Deeniquia Dodds, a transgender man. Just over 120 people previously sentenced under the Youth Rehabilitation Act have subsequently been convicted of murder since 2010.

“I knew they were going to let me off easy,” Tavon Pinkney, an 18-year old convicted of homicide in 2015, told The Washington Post regarding his previous sentencing under the youth law. “Nothing changed … They just gave me the Youth Act and let me go right back out there. They ain’t really care.”

4/20/18

Democrats in Chicago want to replace guards w/therapists

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ers-grapple-with-school-safety-after-parkland



SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Some Illinois lawmakers want to give extra money to schools that replace armed security officers with unarmed social workers and behavior therapists, an approach to safety that's far different than a national push to add police or arm teachers following a mass shooting at a Florida high school.

Rep. Emanuel "Chris" Welch, a Hillside Democrat, said he proposed the plan after hearing from advocates who argue that investing in mental health resources is the best way of treating the epidemic of violence.

His plan, which is backed by 16 other Democrats in the House, would allow schools to apply to an optional grant if they promise to reallocate funding for school-based law enforcement to mental health services, including social workers or other practices "designed to promote school safety and healthy environments."


3/27/18
ACLU effect on gun murder in Chicago..
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...c-monitoring-sheriff-dart-20180222-story.html
Study: Chicago homicides spiked due to ACLU police decree

Cassell and Fowles have studied the spike of homicides in Chicago in 2016. Through multiple regression analysis and other tools, they conclude that an ACLU consent decree triggered a sharp reduction in stop and frisks by the Chicago Police Department, which in turn caused homicides to spike. In other words, what Chicago police officers call the“ACLU effect” is real. That effect was more homicides and shootings.

-------

Detailed regression analysis of the homicide (and related shooting) data strongly supports what visual observation suggests. Using monthly data from 2012 through 2016, we are able to control for such factors as temperature, homicides in other parts of Illinois, 9-1-1 calls (as a measure of police-citizen cooperation), and arrests for various types of crimes.


Even controlling for these factors, our equations indicate that the steep decline in stop and frisks was strongly linked, at high levels of statistical significance, to the sharp increase in homicides (and other shooting crimes) in 2016.

Cassell and Fowles then searched for other possible factors that might be responsible for the Chicago homicide spike. None fit the data as well as the decline in stop and frisks.

Cassell and Fowles quantified the costs of the decline in stop and frisks in human and financial terms.


They found that, because of fewer stop and frisks in 2016, a conservative estimate is that approximately 236 additional homicides and 1115 additional shootings occurred during that year.


A reasonable estimate of the social costs associated with these additional homicides and shootings is about $1,500,000,000. And these costs are heavily concentrated in Chicago’s African-American and Hispanic communities.

Dart sees 'alarming' rise in gun defendants freed on electronic monitoring

Judges have treated felony gun charges in a dramatically different way since the reforms were implemented, according to data from the sheriff's office.

Over a nearly four-month period in 2016, judges gave out cash-based bonds in nearly 96 percent of felony gun cases and released just 2 percent on electronic monitors. In the 10 weeks after the bond order took effect in September, though, the number of cash-based bonds for gun cases plummeted to about 40 percent, while those freed on the electronic bracelets jumped to 22 percent.

The amount set for bonds also sharply fell on average, from nearly $134,000 in 2016 to almost $22,000 in 2017, according to the analysis.

By contrast, judges also boosted how often they ordered no bond for those charged with felony gun offenses, to more than 9 percent in 2017, compared with no cases at all in 2016, the analysis showed.

---------------

Dart, along with Preckwinkle and other elected county officials, has been a vocal opponent of the cash-bond system in which judges require defendants to put down money to secure their release from jail while awaiting trial.

Critics say the system unfairly punishes the poor and that defendants charged with violent offenses who sometimes have easy access to cash because of gang ties can be back out on the street within days.

In July, as part of the reform push, Chief Judge Timothy Evans announced that judges would be required to set bail only in amounts that defendants could afford to pay in an effort to ensure that people charged with nonviolent crimes weren’t languishing in jail simply because they didn’t have the cash, sometimes only a few hundred dollars, to post for bond.

======The democrat prosecutor let this monster loose.......

But Democrat State’s Attorney Julia Reitz cut a deal to let Robbie Patton, a sociopathic predator who will never contribute anything but sewage and sadness to our society, avoid serving hard time for attempted murder.

It’s true. Bad guys in prison don’t victimize the innocent. Florida had proven success with 10-20-Life sentencing enhancements for the use of a firearmwhile committing a violent crime. A court struck down the law in 2016. Under the law, Florida’s firearmviolent crime rate plummeted to the lowest levels in the Sunshine State’s recorded history.


----------

John Boch: Lock Them Up! - The Truth About Guns

When you lock up violent criminals, you prevent them from victimizing other innocents. Crime in America dipped almost 50%after America abandoned “soft on crime” attitudes of the 1970s. Of course, many soft-on-crime politicians like Reitz have once more taken a love to “diversion” programs. And that’s how we get Robbie Patton (above), a local crime celebrity of sorts.

In 2015, he had an altercation at a Champaign Steak ‘n Shake restaurant commonly frequented by my friends and me. While none of us were enjoying a milkshake or steakburger at 5:30pm, Robbie was.

Robbie found himself in an altercation inside the restaurant. He felt one of his friends had been “disrespected”, so little Robbie went outside. He waited for the other group to emerge, pulled out of gun and tried to kill those other people.

He missed, and fled the scene with an Illinois State Trooper in hot pursuit. After a short, high-speed chase in a stolen car, Robbie crashed and escaped on foot.

Cops caught up with him. Local prosecutor Julia Reitz then went soft on little Robbie. She let him go to “boot camp”, even though that sentencing option is not supposed to be available for violent offenders. And squeezing off a bunch of shots at other people, trying to kill them, pretty much fits the bill as a violent crime.

After serving eight months on an eight-year sentence, Robbie returned to the streets of Champaign-Urbana. In less than two days, cops arrested him again for drugs and who knows what else. Not even three weeks after that, he’s illegally got agun. When someone “disrespects” another one of Robbie’s friends, guess what he does? He pulls out the gun and fires shots at those he believes responsible.




He misses his intended targets, but in the busy University of Illinois campustown district, his errant, not-so-late-night rounds found four innocent people within a block or two. George Korchev, the recent nursing school graduate due to start his career as a registered nurse at a hospital in Libertyville, IL, the following Monday morning, was struck and killed a blockaway from one of Robbie’s bullets.

----------

Democrats lower sentences in California...for gun criminals


California Democrats hate the gun, not the gunman – Orange County Register

Now that Democrats have supermajorities in the California state Legislature, they’ve rolled into Sacramento with a zest for lowering the state’s prison population and have interpreted St. Augustine’s words of wisdom to mean, “Hate the gun, not the gunman.”

I say this because, once they finally took a break from preaching about the benefits of stricter gun control, the state Senate voted to loosen sentencing guidelines for criminals convicted of gun crimes.

Currently, California law requires anyone who uses a gun while committing a felony to have their sentence increased by 10 years or more in prison — on top of the normal criminal penalty. If enacted, Senate Bill 620 would eliminate that mandate.

The bill, which passed on a 22-14 party-line vote, with support only from Democrats, now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

Republicans and the National Rifle Association have vowed to campaign against it.

Why have Democrats suddenly developed a soft spot for criminals convicted of gun crimes? The bill’s author, state Sen. Steve Bradford, D-Gardena, says that he was motivated to write the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison, even though he claims that he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger.

and for all those anti-gunners who want to know where criminals get guns....well...this law lowers the prison time for those who give guns to criminals.....

Why is that?

Prop. 57, for example, very deceptively and fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a “non-violent” offense.


supplying a firearm to a gang member,

l
felon obtaining a firearm,

discharging a firearm on school grounds

 

[2aguy]

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

I agree that prohibition generally doesn't work.
It's lucky that few are calling for prohibition of firearms.

Explaining that prohibition doesn't work also demonstrates that restriction doesn't work. It can be thought of as "Soft Prohibition", since neither actually prevent individuals from obtaining the item or items in question.

So do you agree with no controls at all?
If that's the case why have laws for anything?

And the Great Internet answers your stupid post......

The problem in Chicago......judges who refuse to keep violent gun offenders locked up, even when they are arrested for violent gun crimes....

Officials Address 'Vicious Cycle' Of I-Bond Violations After Violent Weekend

Many of the gun offenders arrested by Chicago police over the weekend walked out of jail on bond, without having to pay a dime.

As of Monday morning, 19 people had been arrested on gun-related charges. By Monday afternoon, 11 were back on the street, some with prior gun offenses.

“We know who a lot of these people are,” Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson said. “And how do we know that? Because we keep arresting them over and over and over and over and over again. And it’s just a vicious cycle.”

In a tweet Sunday night, a Chicago police spokesperson criticized the practice of letting gun offenders out on Individual Recognizance Bonds or “I-Bonds.”

Sooooo....tell us, oh genius......if you arrest someone on an illegal gun charge, with a record of illegal gun crime and other violent crimes.....then you let them go, over and over again........how is it that you make the stupid argument that gun owners don't want laws against using guns illegally....

Please explain that....

This is Chicago.....filled with democrat judges and politicians .....politicians who are often working with the street gangs...you dope.....that is the problem, not normal people who own and carry guns for self defense....

The tweet said, in part, “Letting gun offenders out on I-Bonds shows there is absolutely no repercussion for carrying illegal guns In Chicago.”
=====

Last month, the Cook County Circuit Court released data showing the frequency of I-Bonds has nearly doubled since new bail practices went into effect in 2017.

 

[2aguy]

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

I agree that prohibition generally doesn't work.
It's lucky that few are calling for prohibition of firearms.

Explaining that prohibition doesn't work also demonstrates that restriction doesn't work. It can be thought of as "Soft Prohibition", since neither actually prevent individuals from obtaining the item or items in question.

So do you agree with no controls at all?
If that's the case why have laws for anything?

We have controls...dipstick....what we don't have are democrats who will enforce them...because they need people using guns illegally to get morons like you to support gun control....

In a statement, an office representative said since the beginning of this year, 72% of gun related cases received monetary bail or no bond.

 

[Nosmo King]

Glasgow, Scotland......a guy shoots up 2 houses....

Tell us.......which British, or Scottish gun laws kept this guy from walking into a school, a mall, a theater, a church or a synagogue and shooting a bunch of people......

Please....tell us how those anti-gun laws kept this guy from killing a bunch of people...

Police hunt Glasgow gunman who opened fire at two homes

After posting speed limits, people still die in speed related auto crashes.

There are laws on the books prohibiting obstruction of justice, yet here we are.

Do you think gun laws will act as a panacea?

Are you taking a stab at logic?

 

[2aguy]

Glasgow, Scotland......a guy shoots up 2 houses....

Tell us.......which British, or Scottish gun laws kept this guy from walking into a school, a mall, a theater, a church or a synagogue and shooting a bunch of people......

Please....tell us how those anti-gun laws kept this guy from killing a bunch of people...

Police hunt Glasgow gunman who opened fire at two homes

After posting speed limits, people still die in speed related auto crashes.

There are laws on the books prohibiting obstruction of justice, yet here we are.

Do you think gun laws will act as a panacea?

Are you taking a stab at logic?

Moron.....I think keeping repeat, violent gun offenders on prison for 30 years will actually reduce gun crime. This is how the Japanese stopped the Yakuza from shooting up Japan....long prison sentences that actually were enacted.......they didn't do it by letting known, violent, repeat gun offenders out of jail over and over again.

You don't reduce gun crime by focusing on law abiding gun owners with taxes, fees, and arbitrary and pointless rules....you reduce gun crime by keeping the actual gun criminals you catch committing gun crimes in jail for long periods of time....

Try that logic....you mope.

 

[idb]

Over the course of a year......Their gun deaths are one third of ours

I would take an occasional gun getting through over unrestricted access

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

I agree that prohibition generally doesn't work.
It's lucky that few are calling for prohibition of firearms.

Yes...those few would be every single member of the democrat party leadership, in particular those running the democrats in the House, Senate, and currently running for the Presidency....but other than the entire political leadership of the democrat party.......it is few.........well, you can include the entire Hollywood elite, the entire democrat Press.......and them.........and the mayors of democrat controlled cities, the governors of democrat controlled states.......

You mean other than those few people.....right?

Except that you're totally wrong...you're right.

 

[2aguy]

They have a different population size, their crime statistics are measured differently, and guns aren't always the cause of death so specifically measuring gun deaths is blatantly retarded. Especially since measuring deaths by gun specifically is only used to craft a narrative, not to argue for something that would reduce victims.

Since this conversation has been had thousands of times, and these arguments for gun monopolization have been refuted thousands of times, I'll make it easy: Would you rather rob someone carrying a gun, or someone carrying a bat?

The obvious answer is the one carrying a bat, since a gun doesn't require as much strength or dexterity to be used properly and can be used at a longer range. "Criminals" naturally associate higher risk with a victim who is armed with a gun over some other type of weapon.

This concept is not difficult to grasp.

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

I agree that prohibition generally doesn't work.
It's lucky that few are calling for prohibition of firearms.

Yes...those few would be every single member of the democrat party leadership, in particular those running the democrats in the House, Senate, and currently running for the Presidency....but other than the entire political leadership of the democrat party.......it is few.........well, you can include the entire Hollywood elite, the entire democrat Press.......and them.........and the mayors of democrat controlled cities, the governors of democrat controlled states.......

You mean other than those few people.....right?

Except that you're totally wrong...you're right.

Wow... must have taken you all day to come up that post....

 

[idb]

So, why do gun advocates constantly use the argument that if you ban guns then you should also ban bats, and scissors, and cars...they can all be used to kill?
You're kicking against the narrative...good for you!!!

I always found that argument weak, since it's not arguing that prohibition doesn't work, it's just throwing the common gun monopolization argument back into the person's face. Sure, it demonstrates that the argument is weak, but much stronger arguments can be used to demonstrate this.

I suppose it's because such an argument requires less effort than demonstrating that nothing should be banned because prohibition doesn't work, and has been demonstrated not to work.

I agree that prohibition generally doesn't work.
It's lucky that few are calling for prohibition of firearms.

Yes...those few would be every single member of the democrat party leadership, in particular those running the democrats in the House, Senate, and currently running for the Presidency....but other than the entire political leadership of the democrat party.......it is few.........well, you can include the entire Hollywood elite, the entire democrat Press.......and them.........and the mayors of democrat controlled cities, the governors of democrat controlled states.......

You mean other than those few people.....right?

Except that you're totally wrong...you're right.

Wow... must have taken you all day to come up that post....

Not at all...it was so completely obvious.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Not meaning to go off topic but.....

Here we go again.....

Fox News Poll: 71 percent say gun violence a 'major problem' government should address
Fox News Poll: 71 percent say gun violence a 'major problem' government should address

It will NEVER end....until guns are demonized and outlawed.

How ironic...Disney takes over FOX group....and Fox News goes anti-gun

Now watch some moron say 'but...but...Disney doesn't own FoxNews" (because they can't think past what their masters tell them to think)

Are We as a nation EVER going to be honest and admit we have a major problem with Liberals and their deadly crazy policies???
(because that's why we have all this gun violence)

 

[idb]

Not meaning to go off topic but.....

Here we go again.....

Fox News Poll: 71 percent say gun violence a 'major problem' government should address
Fox News Poll: 71 percent say gun violence a 'major problem' government should address

It will NEVER end....until guns are demonized and outlawed.

How ironic...Disney takes over FOX group....and Fox News goes anti-gun

Now watch some moron say 'but...but...Disney doesn't own FoxNews" (because they can't think past what their masters tell them to think)

Are you saying Fox News have published a fake poll?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Are you saying Fox News have published a fake poll?

You really want to know?
Do yourself a favor, search my past posts concerning FoxNews.

In a nutshell....I don't trust the majority of polls no matter where they come from.
They are too easy to manipulate to give the impression people support the desired lies.

Remember...."Hillary in a landslide" ??

 

[idb]

Are you saying Fox News have published a fake poll?

You really want to know?
Do yourself a favor, search my past posts concerning FoxNews.

In a nutshell....I don't trust the majority of polls no matter where they come from.
They are too easy to manipulate to give the impression people support the desired lies.

Remember...."Hillary in a landslide" ??

Why do you think the "Hillary in a landslide" poll was fake?
All they can do is report and interpret what people tell them.

Personally, I mistrust polls and especially political polls...I think, no matter how scientific and accurate they are they have a negative effect on the outcome of the political process rather than simply reflecting it.

 

[zaangalewa]

Glasgow, Scotland......a guy shoots up 2 houses....

Tell us.......which British, or Scottish gun laws kept this guy from walking into a school, a mall, a theater, a church or a synagogue and shooting a bunch of people......

Please....tell us how those anti-gun laws kept this guy from killing a bunch of people...

Police hunt Glasgow gunman who opened fire at two homes

And that is wrong.

What is wrong?

......in order to get even close they have to include suicide.....the majority of gun deaths every single year.......so this entire post is a lie. Suicide does not count,

Sure counts suicide. A gun is a very good instrument for a spontanous decision to do suicide. When someone needs 5 minutes before he's able to do suicide then such a sick impulse is able to be over and someone might ask himselve afterwards: "Damn - what was this now?" And he may be able speak with a psychologist about this problem. This is not able to happen, when somenone is faster dead, than he's able to think, because he owns a gun.

but when you include it, you show that you don't care about facts, merely scoring on emotion.....

Americans save more lives each year with their legal guns than the casualty numbers in each war.....that is a fact....

To say so is bullshit, bullshit and bullshit. In Germany for example all policemen together normally shoot less than 100 times a year including warning shots and kill less then 10 people in average a year.
.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders.....

One reason not to visit the USA. Crazy country,

which means they save lives far and above your number....

Guns save lives in this country......that is a fact.

Tell me something else: Pays you someone to say such a nonsense?

 

[zaangalewa]

Glasgow, Scotland......a guy shoots up 2 houses....

Tell us.......which British, or Scottish gun laws kept this guy from walking into a school, a mall, a theater, a church or a synagogue and shooting a bunch of people......

Please....tell us how those anti-gun laws kept this guy from killing a bunch of people...

Police hunt Glasgow gunman who opened fire at two homes

Do you realize that if we take the number of civilians murdered by their governments in Europe.....either German citizens or the citizens handed over to the Germans during world war 2.....unarmed citizens......that number dwarfs our gun murder number by millions....do you understand that truth? 12 million innocent men, women and children were murdered by the German socialists

The USA fought for the Russian Commies under Stalin during WW2. The Nazis were not socialists and with the number "12 millions" I don't know what to do in the moment. 6 million Jews were murdered in many ways. Let me give you this example: For example wrote Nazis a letter to a Jewish married couple, where they had to be at which day and time so they are able to bring them in a working camp, because they are Jews. And the Jews - Germans like all others - waited at this time and place for the transport into a concentration camp, where they were killed.

in World War 2....far more than the criminals who kill each other with guns in our country over the same time period.......

When nearly every German had a gun and was a soldier then this had helped not to kill Hitler. You are simplifying the real problems of the human existence in an inadequate way. Who likes to drink alcohol is an alcoholics. Who likes to shoot is a weapon fetishist or weapon addict. 1000 beers thousand reasons to be drunken. 1000 shoots ... 1000 empty holes in the own brain too. Who thinks violence is the solution of real problems or who likes to do the war, which will end all wars, is on a totally wrong way.

"The journey is the destination"
Confucius