There is a direct link from the democrat party policies and gun crime in the U.S.

[candycorn]

I know this is the CDZ and they don't like conflict here......but I thought I would try to take this debate to this forum....

There is a direct link between the gun crime rates in our large, democrat party controlled cities and democrat party policies.

We do not have a gun crime problem in the United States because we have guns. We have a gun crime problem, in tiny areas of our large cities because the democrat party policies that allow repeat gun offenders out of jail on bond, and out of prison on short sentences.

If you look at these cities....D.C. St. Louis, Chicago, New York (again), Baltimore, New Orleans........ you will find stories that relate time and time again criminals with multiple gun convictions being released on bond, often now no cash bond, and out of prison on short sentences. Then, after being released, they use new illegal guns for crime and murder.

They are the ones driving the gun crime rate in these tiny areas of our cities.....not John and Jane citizen who own guns primarily for self defense, but also for hunting, sport and recreation.....

They are not the ones using the guns they own for crime and murder.....and targeting them with gun control laws will not effect the gun crime rate...as we already know and see.....

I put this in the CDZ for honest debate.........I think this is an accurate statement about our gun crime issue.

Causation vs Correlation – What’s the difference

Causality is an area that is frequently misunderstood and it can be notoriously difficult to infer causation between two variables without doing a randomized controlled experience. Furthermore, correlation can be a useful measure but has limitations as it is usually associated with measuring a linear relationship. But understanding that correlation does not imply causation and knowing the difference is a good place to start.

A 'link' is not the same thing as causality. Basic statistics.

Have any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies?

You were just given 10 links by the OP citing the CAUSATION.. It's when cities take the LEAD role in prosecuting gun crimes and refuse to jail folks for committing crime/violence. That causation DOES LINK to the cities with the "toughest gun laws" but the weakest will to "lock them up"... And it's those mostly large blue cities that have the morgues filled every weekend with fresh victims...

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

I know this is the CDZ and they don't like conflict here......but I thought I would try to take this debate to this forum....

There is a direct link between the gun crime rates in our large, democrat party controlled cities and democrat party policies.

We do not have a gun crime problem in the United States because we have guns. We have a gun crime problem, in tiny areas of our large cities because the democrat party policies that allow repeat gun offenders out of jail on bond, and out of prison on short sentences.

If you look at these cities....D.C. St. Louis, Chicago, New York (again), Baltimore, New Orleans........ you will find stories that relate time and time again criminals with multiple gun convictions being released on bond, often now no cash bond, and out of prison on short sentences. Then, after being released, they use new illegal guns for crime and murder.

They are the ones driving the gun crime rate in these tiny areas of our cities.....not John and Jane citizen who own guns primarily for self defense, but also for hunting, sport and recreation.....

They are not the ones using the guns they own for crime and murder.....and targeting them with gun control laws will not effect the gun crime rate...as we already know and see.....

I put this in the CDZ for honest debate.........I think this is an accurate statement about our gun crime issue.

Causation vs Correlation – What’s the difference

Causality is an area that is frequently misunderstood and it can be notoriously difficult to infer causation between two variables without doing a randomized controlled experience. Furthermore, correlation can be a useful measure but has limitations as it is usually associated with measuring a linear relationship. But understanding that correlation does not imply causation and knowing the difference is a good place to start.

A 'link' is not the same thing as causality. Basic statistics.

Have any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies?

You were just given 10 links by the OP citing the CAUSATION.. It's when cities take the LEAD role in prosecuting gun crimes and refuse to jail folks for committing crime/violence. That causation DOES LINK to the cities with the "toughest gun laws" but the weakest will to "lock them up"... And it's those mostly large blue cities that have the morgues filled every weekend with fresh victims...

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Amber Guyger got 10 years by the Dallas County Judge. The city of Dallas had nothing to do with it. My question to you is this... Was that an adequate sentence for Murder?

 

[flacaltenn]

Causation vs Correlation – What’s the difference

Causality is an area that is frequently misunderstood and it can be notoriously difficult to infer causation between two variables without doing a randomized controlled experience. Furthermore, correlation can be a useful measure but has limitations as it is usually associated with measuring a linear relationship. But understanding that correlation does not imply causation and knowing the difference is a good place to start.

A 'link' is not the same thing as causality. Basic statistics.

Have any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies?

You were just given 10 links by the OP citing the CAUSATION.. It's when cities take the LEAD role in prosecuting gun crimes and refuse to jail folks for committing crime/violence. That causation DOES LINK to the cities with the "toughest gun laws" but the weakest will to "lock them up"... And it's those mostly large blue cities that have the morgues filled every weekend with fresh victims...

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Sentences for violent crimes are way too lenient across the board.

Not sure why you guys are fixated on the cities; most often serious crimes are prosecuted by the counties; the cities have little to do with the county criminal courts.

Cities, counties, makes no big diff for this discussion.,. Because the cities we're talking about ARE COUNTIES or Metro Areas because they are so big... And it's these big cities that have the most appalling rates for even CLEARING a crime and bringing charges.. Never mind what the penalties are..

The STATES should set the penalties and licensing and standards for firearms.. If THEY don't, the criminals will just exploit the weakest jurisdictions for their crime sprees.. And that's what's happening actually.. And all the major Gun rights groups are FOCUSED on getting penalties for criminal acts with firearms and MOST gun owners support that..

 

[flacaltenn]

Causation vs Correlation – What’s the difference

Causality is an area that is frequently misunderstood and it can be notoriously difficult to infer causation between two variables without doing a randomized controlled experience. Furthermore, correlation can be a useful measure but has limitations as it is usually associated with measuring a linear relationship. But understanding that correlation does not imply causation and knowing the difference is a good place to start.

A 'link' is not the same thing as causality. Basic statistics.

Have any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies?

You were just given 10 links by the OP citing the CAUSATION.. It's when cities take the LEAD role in prosecuting gun crimes and refuse to jail folks for committing crime/violence. That causation DOES LINK to the cities with the "toughest gun laws" but the weakest will to "lock them up"... And it's those mostly large blue cities that have the morgues filled every weekend with fresh victims...

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Causation vs Correlation – What’s the difference

Causality is an area that is frequently misunderstood and it can be notoriously difficult to infer causation between two variables without doing a randomized controlled experience. Furthermore, correlation can be a useful measure but has limitations as it is usually associated with measuring a linear relationship. But understanding that correlation does not imply causation and knowing the difference is a good place to start.

A 'link' is not the same thing as causality. Basic statistics.

Have any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies?

You were just given 10 links by the OP citing the CAUSATION.. It's when cities take the LEAD role in prosecuting gun crimes and refuse to jail folks for committing crime/violence. That causation DOES LINK to the cities with the "toughest gun laws" but the weakest will to "lock them up"... And it's those mostly large blue cities that have the morgues filled every weekend with fresh victims...

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Amber Guyger got 10 years by the Dallas County Judge. The city of Dallas had nothing to do with it. My question to you is this... Was that an adequate sentence for Murder?

Don't know.. But I DO KNOW that I've seen this type of sentence many times before.. The FBI wants to toss PROCESS CRIME people in the slammer for more than SOME of the murder sentences I've seen..

 

[candycorn]

You were just given 10 links by the OP citing the CAUSATION.. It's when cities take the LEAD role in prosecuting gun crimes and refuse to jail folks for committing crime/violence. That causation DOES LINK to the cities with the "toughest gun laws" but the weakest will to "lock them up"... And it's those mostly large blue cities that have the morgues filled every weekend with fresh victims...

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Sentences for violent crimes are way too lenient across the board.

Not sure why you guys are fixated on the cities; most often serious crimes are prosecuted by the counties; the cities have little to do with the county criminal courts.

Cities, counties, makes no big diff for this discussion.,. Because the cities we're talking about ARE COUNTIES or Metro Areas because they are so big... And it's these big cities that have the most appalling rates for even CLEARING a crime and bringing charges.. Never mind what the penalties are..

The STATES should set the penalties and licensing and standards for firearms.. If THEY don't, the criminals will just exploit the weakest jurisdictions for their crime sprees.. And that's what's happening actually.. And all the major Gun rights groups are FOCUSED on getting penalties for criminal acts with firearms and MOST gun owners support that..

Couldn’t agree more about standardized sentences.

If it’s the counties (Which are the entities prosecuting crimes) , blame the county officials...if you want to be accurate.

 

[candycorn]

You were just given 10 links by the OP citing the CAUSATION.. It's when cities take the LEAD role in prosecuting gun crimes and refuse to jail folks for committing crime/violence. That causation DOES LINK to the cities with the "toughest gun laws" but the weakest will to "lock them up"... And it's those mostly large blue cities that have the morgues filled every weekend with fresh victims...

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

You were just given 10 links by the OP citing the CAUSATION.. It's when cities take the LEAD role in prosecuting gun crimes and refuse to jail folks for committing crime/violence. That causation DOES LINK to the cities with the "toughest gun laws" but the weakest will to "lock them up"... And it's those mostly large blue cities that have the morgues filled every weekend with fresh victims...

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Amber Guyger got 10 years by the Dallas County Judge. The city of Dallas had nothing to do with it. My question to you is this... Was that an adequate sentence for Murder?

Don't know.. But I DO KNOW that I've seen this type of sentence many times before.. The FBI wants to toss PROCESS CRIME people in the slammer for more than SOME of the murder sentences I've seen..

You don’t know if 10 years for the crime of “murder” is adequate? You have zero standing to criticize anyone for being soft on crime if you can’t see that sentence is too soft.

 

[flacaltenn]

Causation vs Correlation – What’s the difference

Causality is an area that is frequently misunderstood and it can be notoriously difficult to infer causation between two variables without doing a randomized controlled experience. Furthermore, correlation can be a useful measure but has limitations as it is usually associated with measuring a linear relationship. But understanding that correlation does not imply causation and knowing the difference is a good place to start.

A 'link' is not the same thing as causality. Basic statistics.

Have any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies?

You were just given 10 links by the OP citing the CAUSATION.. It's when cities take the LEAD role in prosecuting gun crimes and refuse to jail folks for committing crime/violence. That causation DOES LINK to the cities with the "toughest gun laws" but the weakest will to "lock them up"... And it's those mostly large blue cities that have the morgues filled every weekend with fresh victims...

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Sentences for violent crimes are way too lenient across the board.

Not sure why you guys are fixated on the cities; most often serious crimes are prosecuted by the counties; the cities have little to do with the county criminal courts.

Because there's there's little distinction when the CITY is large enough to be its own COUNTY... And LARGELY -- those are the cities we're talking about..

Trials might be HELD in county courts in those places, but the laws they are enforcing on GUNS in particular are LARGELY set by the "mega - cities"... Counties in those places are just "shell representation" for the NON directly annexed residents...

 

[flacaltenn]

EVERY city we're concerned about is like New York City,.. The 5 boroughs ARE counties. all bound to the same general "New York City" law.. They have VERY LITTLE discretion on law making in general and probably NONE on making gun laws different from the NYC laws..

Same with Chicago, Baltimore, Philly.. Even NASHVILLE is 85% of Davidson county and the other 15% has little "law making" room that varies from "Metro Nashville"... Once you're big enough to be a METRO -- counties are just place holders for residents OUTSIDE the major city to dick around with each other and the city..

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is a direct link from the democrat party policies and gun crime in the U.S.

The title would be more accurate if you left out the word “gun”.

Democrat policies lead to increases in crime of nearly all types, not just those involving guns.

The only relevance to “gun crime” is that the Democrats are very vocal about wanting to fight it, ironically by making it more difficult to obtain and keep guns for those who are not inclined to commit crimes with them, while doing little or nothing about actual criminals. But ultimately,that just goes back to the point about Democrat policies promoting crime, in this case, by making good people into easier prey for criminals.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Because most IMPORTANT gun penalties are defined by the states... And that's really the way it SHOULD BE...

No, they are defined legitimately by the Second Amendment, which asserts the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and forbids government from infringing this right. It is an act of corruption and unlawfulness for any level of government to impose restrictions on any free citizen's exercise of this right, or to set penalties for exercising this right.

But I guess too many in government find it easier to do this, and get away with it, than to do anything about actual crimes, and the criminals who commit them.

 

[candycorn]

You were just given 10 links by the OP citing the CAUSATION.. It's when cities take the LEAD role in prosecuting gun crimes and refuse to jail folks for committing crime/violence. That causation DOES LINK to the cities with the "toughest gun laws" but the weakest will to "lock them up"... And it's those mostly large blue cities that have the morgues filled every weekend with fresh victims...

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Sentences for violent crimes are way too lenient across the board.

Not sure why you guys are fixated on the cities; most often serious crimes are prosecuted by the counties; the cities have little to do with the county criminal courts.

Because there's there's little distinction when the CITY is large enough to be its own COUNTY... And LARGELY -- those are the cities we're talking about..

Sure there is. Judges for the Counties are the ones hearing these cases, not those who are elected by citizens in the city limits. Either way, if you want to be accurate (you guys have no problem spewing inaccuracies obviously), you'd rightfully state it is the counties who are doling out light sentences; as we saw with Amber Guyger. I know why you guys do it; you don't get as much "shock value" from blaming the counties as you do when you wrongfully blame cities. But honesty should be your guide.

Trials might be HELD in county courts in those places, but the laws they are enforcing on GUNS in particular are LARGELY set by the "mega - cities"... Counties in those places are just "shell representation" for the NON directly annexed residents...

Well, thanks for confirming that...except in almost all cases, the counties ARE where the punishment is being doled out or not. Cities play very little part in the jurisprudence; just the apprehension of the criminals.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

And of course, while you're “feeling”, rational people are THINKING. You probably don't even know the difference.

And what I think, is this: Anyone who commits a crime, which demonstrates a willingness to murder another human being, in the absence of significant mitigating factors, forfeits his right to be considered human, and for the good of actual humans, should be put to death.

And I don;'t care what tool it is that the subhuman fragment of solid digestive waste intended to use to take a human life, whether it is a gun, a knife, a club, an abortionist's tools, explosives, poison, or whatever. There is no rational reason to single out the tool used to commit a crime. It's the lack of regard for human life, the willingness to murder, that matters.

 

[flacaltenn]

Because most IMPORTANT gun penalties are defined by the states... And that's really the way it SHOULD BE...

No, they are defined legitimately by the Second Amendment, which asserts the right to keep and bear arms as belonging to the people, and forbids government from infringing this right. It is an act of corruption and unlawfulness for any level of government to impose restrictions on any free citizen's exercise of this right, or to set penalties for exercising this right.

But I guess too many in government find it easier to do this, and get away with it, than to do anything about actual crimes, and the criminals who commit them.

Appreciate your stridency here, but it's long been determined that REASONABLE gun carrying laws, penalties for misuse and certain types of restrictions CAN be administered by the states...

As much as you'd like to think the 2nd Amend. covers everything, CERTAINLY THE LEGAL PENALTIES for misuse of firearms are largely (now) up to the states. And it's the enforcement of those laws that we're discussing here.. Thank the Lord those things are not yet "Federally dictated"....

 

[flacaltenn]

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Sentences for violent crimes are way too lenient across the board.

Not sure why you guys are fixated on the cities; most often serious crimes are prosecuted by the counties; the cities have little to do with the county criminal courts.

Because there's there's little distinction when the CITY is large enough to be its own COUNTY... And LARGELY -- those are the cities we're talking about..

Sure there is. Judges for the Counties are the ones hearing these cases, not those who are elected by citizens in the city limits. Either way, if you want to be accurate (you guys have no problem spewing inaccuracies obviously), you'd rightfully state it is the counties who are doling out light sentences; as we saw with Amber Guyger. I know why you guys do it; you don't get as much "shock value" from blaming the counties as you do when you wrongfully blame cities. But honesty should be your guide.

Trials might be HELD in county courts in those places, but the laws they are enforcing on GUNS in particular are LARGELY set by the "mega - cities"... Counties in those places are just "shell representation" for the NON directly annexed residents...

Well, thanks for confirming that...except in almost all cases, the counties ARE where the punishment is being doled out or not. Cities play very little part in the jurisprudence; just the apprehension of the criminals.

You're quite a contortionist here Candy.. I copped to some trials MIGHT be held in County courts, but the SENTENCING AND THE LAWS in these Mega counties are gonna be UNIFORMLY the laws of the Mega city. And no discretion beyond that would apply...

 

[flacaltenn]

Sure there is. Judges for the Counties are the ones hearing these cases, not those who are elected by citizens in the city limits. E

Does not matter.. The CODES they are indicting under in these cases are made by the METRO councils.. That's the CITY... And the sentencing mandates and guidelines are also based on the CITY protocols..

There's really NO difference in the outcome or JUDICIAL DISCRETION if the case is prosecuted in the BRONX or MANHATTAN...

 

[candycorn]

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

And of course, while you're “feeling”, rational people are THINKING. You probably don't even know the difference.

And what I think, is this: Anyone who commits a crime, which demonstrates a willingness to murder another human being, in the absence of significant mitigating factors, forfeits his right to be considered human, and for the good of actual humans, should be put to death.

And I don;'t care what tool it is that the subhuman fragment of solid digestive waste intended to use to take a human life, whether it is a gun, a knife, a club, an abortionist's tools, explosives, poison, or whatever. There is no rational reason to single out the tool used to commit a crime. It's the lack of regard for human life, the willingness to murder, that matters.

Amber Guyger included...right?

 

[candycorn]

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Sentences for violent crimes are way too lenient across the board.

Not sure why you guys are fixated on the cities; most often serious crimes are prosecuted by the counties; the cities have little to do with the county criminal courts.

Because there's there's little distinction when the CITY is large enough to be its own COUNTY... And LARGELY -- those are the cities we're talking about..

Sure there is. Judges for the Counties are the ones hearing these cases, not those who are elected by citizens in the city limits. Either way, if you want to be accurate (you guys have no problem spewing inaccuracies obviously), you'd rightfully state it is the counties who are doling out light sentences; as we saw with Amber Guyger. I know why you guys do it; you don't get as much "shock value" from blaming the counties as you do when you wrongfully blame cities. But honesty should be your guide.

Trials might be HELD in county courts in those places, but the laws they are enforcing on GUNS in particular are LARGELY set by the "mega - cities"... Counties in those places are just "shell representation" for the NON directly annexed residents...

Well, thanks for confirming that...except in almost all cases, the counties ARE where the punishment is being doled out or not. Cities play very little part in the jurisprudence; just the apprehension of the criminals.

You're quite a contortionist here Candy.. I copped to some trials MIGHT be held in County courts, but the SENTENCING AND THE LAWS in these Mega counties are gonna be UNIFORMLY the laws of the Mega city. And no discretion beyond that would apply...

No...

County laws and ordinances are laws and ordinances enacted by the County Commissioner's office.

Municipal laws and ordinances are laws and ordinances enacted by the City or Municipality.

County courts are county courts....

City courts are city courts...

Not sure why this concept is so hard for some to understand.

 

[candycorn]

Sure there is. Judges for the Counties are the ones hearing these cases, not those who are elected by citizens in the city limits. E

Does not matter.. The CODES they are indicting under in these cases are made by the METRO councils.. That's the CITY... And the sentencing mandates and guidelines are also based on the CITY protocols..

There's really NO difference in the outcome or JUDICIAL DISCRETION if the case is prosecuted in the BRONX or MANHATTAN...

The courts are run by the counties... Not the cities. Again...not sure why this is a point of contention with you guys...it's a fact.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Appreciate your stridency here, but it's long been determined that REASONABLE gun carrying laws, penalties for misuse and certain types of restrictions CAN be administered by the states...

Where in the words, “shall not be infringed” do you find the authority to infringe?

The hard, undeniable fact is this: The Second Amendment absolutely forbids any infringement at all of this right. Every act of government that infringes this right, or upholds any claimed authority to do so, is a blatant violation of the Constitution, and a blatant act of corruption and lawlessness. The Constitution is this nation's highest authority, and no legislature, court, or executive has the authority to override it. Period.

As much as you'd like to think the 2nd Amend. covers everything, CERTAINLY THE LEGAL PENALTIES for misuse of firearms are largely (now) up to the states. And it's the enforcement of those laws that we're discussing here.. Thank the Lord those things are not yet "Federally dictated"....

Misuse of a firearm is not the same thing as keeping and bearing one. No rational interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms includes any right to use one in a way that unjustifiably harms or endangers someone else, or otherwise unjustly violates anyone else's rights.

And the big problem, here, is that Democrats in particular, are focused on violating the right to keep and bear arms, but refusing to properly deal with the criminal misuse of arms. They illegally go after the explicitly, constitutionally-affirmed right of citizens to keep and bear arms right of law-abiding citizens, while actively opposing the proper accountability of violent criminals who willfully cause harm to others, using firearms or otherwise. It is all too clear on whose side the Democrats are, and it is not the side of honest, decent, law-abiding citizens.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

No real progressive policies that burn shitloads of taxpayer money have never been tried ....let's give em a try...

Derp

 

[2aguy]

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Okay I went back and did a quick review of links- I didn't see any studies showing a causality of gun violence due to Democratic Party policies. Everything I saw was anecdotal.

I get it- you want to blame Democrats for gun violence and don't want anyone to even consider that guns might be part of the problem. But all of the links I looked at were anecdotal accounts of violence that people claim are a result of policies.

Where is the evidence?

One of the issues I have frankly with both sides of the gun debates is the appeal to emotion rather than facts. I am in favor of gun laws- if there is evidence that the gun laws will reduce gun violence. I am in favor of tougher enforcement of laws- if there is evidence that will reduce gun violence.

I feel that if you commit a crime while using a gun, you go away for life.

Great position to take.. Go tell that to all the states and cities that DO NOT ENFORCE existing laws to that effect.. EVEN the NRA lobbies all these entities for tougher enforcement of gun crimes and violence.. We should ALL agree on that..

But once you reach the Amber Guyger example and the crime is MURDER -- does it REALLY matter if the penalties are enhanced? The number of PROSECUTED murders are small compared to the number of "drive-bys" that IF they get apprehended -- don't face ENOUGH severe penalties for misuse of a firearm..

And in the big Blue cities, the "solution rate" to those crimes is embarrassingly small.. All the more REASON to "throw the book" at them...

Amber Guyger got 10 years by the Dallas County Judge. The city of Dallas had nothing to do with it. My question to you is this... Was that an adequate sentence for Murder?

Don't know.. But I DO KNOW that I've seen this type of sentence many times before.. The FBI wants to toss PROCESS CRIME people in the slammer for more than SOME of the murder sentences I've seen..

You don’t know if 10 years for the crime of “murder” is adequate? You have zero standing to criticize anyone for being soft on crime if you can’t see that sentence is too soft.

I believe in the death penalty for murder. Amber Guyger did not murder the man she shot, it was an accident....again, please show us the motive behind the killing that would make it more than a terrible accident and make it murder.

From this case, it is apparent that unless you can show a motive for her killing the man, this was at most manslaughter and she should have her conviction over turned...it was a political case of the highest order and she recieved the wrong sentence.

As to the actual criminals.......if they use a gun for pre-meditated murder they should get the death penalty....if they use a gun for a crime, rape, robbery ....they should get life in prison. If they are a felon caught in possession of an illegal gun, they should get at least 30 years.

That is how you stop gun crime....not the democrat party policy of releasing violent criminals over and over again.....