# Kurt Schlichter proposes a reasoned compromise on gun control with the democrats.........



## 2aguy (Jun 6, 2022)

Considering that everything being proposed by the democrats would have done nothing to stop the various mass public shooters.....and that each thing they demand is simply a baby step toward banning and confiscating guns...with their golden ticket first step being gun registration, with the plan to later use the registration list to ban and confiscate guns....

The actual compromise we should make with the democrats as voiced by Kurt Schlichter.......

*Here is my proposed gun control compromise following the latest attack on children that millions of us did not commit. Ready? You gun fascists can kiss my Schumer and we keep our guns. In fact, let's also repeal the National Firearms Act and impose national constitutional carry. I think this compromise fairly balances our respective legitimate interests regarding guns. Our legitimate interest is maintaining the capacity to deter and defeat tyrants and criminals. Your legitimate interest in limiting our ability to do so is non-existent.
-------------
The idea of a compromise involves getting something you want but giving away something to get it. So far, so good – that's how negotiating works. But the key point is to get something you want. Here, what we get is that we lose less than they want us to ultimately lose. Instead of banning "assault rifles" completely – every healthy, law-abiding adult citizen should have a real military assault rifle, but that's a tangent – the proposed "compromise" seems to be just to ban them completely for some younger adult citizens. See, I'm missing the part where we get something in return instead of merely losing less. But the durwoods of the softcon wing of the GOP seem pretty eager to fail less spectacularly than they might otherwise and call it a victory.  *









						No Compromise on Guns
					

Here is my proposed gun control compromise following the latest attack on children that millions of us did not commit.




					townhall.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

I've told you my idea. 

Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued.   You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've told you my idea.
> 
> Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued.   You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.


Why would you allow someone to sue firearms manufactures? What exactly is the charge?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Why would you allow someone to sue firearms manufactures? What exactly is the charge?



Negligence.  They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 6, 2022)

I propose we mandate prosecutors stop letting violent criminals off without a strike & mandate 3 strikes law nation wide.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Negligence.  They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.



Only as long as we can sue prosecutors for negligence on every criminal they let walk that harms another US citizen.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

KissMy said:


> Only as long as we can sue prosecutors for negligence on every criminal they let walk that harms another US citizen.



Prosecutors are elected, and  unless you want to pay your whole salary in taxes to lock up everyone, some people are going to get released.  

We have 100 million people with police records.  Do we lock them all up?


----------



## Votto (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've told you my idea.
> 
> Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued.   You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.


People need to start suing the government for a lack of police response, like the school shooting in Texas.

Police departments that are defunded need immediate litigation for every crime that occurs afterward.


----------



## Votto (Jun 6, 2022)

Compromise for the Left looks like this, we get a handful of things we ask for and you get nothing.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 6, 2022)

commit a crime with a firearm?

first offence:


----------



## Votto (Jun 6, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> commit a crime with a firearm?
> 
> first offence:
> View attachment 654500


Na, I was thinking something more like this


I think that statistics will show that this punishment will create a zero percent repeat of a said criminal offense.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Prosecutors are elected, and  unless you want to pay your whole salary in taxes to lock up everyone, some people are going to get released.
> 
> We have 100 million people with police records.  Do we lock them all up?


I want everyone who committed a violent felony to get a strike & at least see the inside of a jail cell followed by mandatory counseling. If they decide to repeat that crap a couple more times, then they can rot for 20 years or die.

Clinton cut crime in half this way.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

Votto said:


> People need to start suing the government for a lack of police response, like the school shooting in Texas.
> 
> Police departments that are defunded need immediate litigation for every crime that occurs afterward.



Uh, sorry.  The courts have already ruled the police are under no obligation to protect you, personally. 

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia  - 1981





						Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








						DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








						Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






Votto said:


> Compromise for the Left looks like this, we get a handful of things we ask for and you get nothing.



I guess the question is, why are you guys so invested in mass shooters being able to do mass shootings?  

You see, when I go to the airport, I have to get my shoes x-rayed and I have to go through a body scanner.  I know damned well I have no intention of hijacking that aircraft, but it's a reasonable comprimise to make sure no one else does. 

I find it annoying when I open a pill bottle and have to remove THREE safety seals, but I am also relieved that 

When I applied for my last home loan, I really didn't like all the paperwork I had to submit, forgetting that this is the Sixth time I've gone through the mortgage process with my third home, and I haven't missed a payment in 35 years.  But I like the security that they aren't going to have another bank collapse because they gave loans to people who shouldn't have had them.  

But you tell a gun owner that, hey, maybe we are going to make sure we give you some extra scrutiny to make sure you aren't a nut who is going to shoot up a school, and listen to you guys howl.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

KissMy said:


> I want everyone who committed a violent felony to get a strike & at least see the inside of a jail cell followed by mandatory counseling. If they decide to repeat that crap a couple more times, then they can rot for 20 years or die.
> 
> Clinton cut crime in half this way.



No, he didn't. 

Crime declined in the 1990's because the Baby Boom ended in 1965.  Which meant the criminal class simply got to old for that kind of shit.  

We lock up 2 million people, we have another 7 million on probation or parole, and we have 100 million with police records.   
Do you feel any safer?  I don't.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, he didn't.
> 
> Crime declined in the 1990's because the Baby Boom ended in 1965.  Which meant the criminal class simply got to old for that kind of shit.
> 
> ...


And you will never acknowledge the fact that we lock up mostly nonviolent criminals and let the violent ones back on the streets.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And you will never acknowledge the fact that we lock up mostly nonviolent criminals and let the violent ones back on the streets.



Nope, I won't... because it's bullshit.  

We lock up too many people, period.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've told you my idea.
> 
> Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued.   You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.



  That makes as much sense as allowing automobile manufacturers and liquor producers to be sued every time some drunk driver causes a fatal accident.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, I won't... because it's bullshit.
> 
> We lock up too many people, period.


Really?









						Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022
					

The big picture on how many people are locked up in the United States and why




					www.prisonpolicy.org
				




There are more people in prisons right now for drug property and public order crimes than for vioent crimes


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> That makes as much sense as allowing automobile manufacturers and liquor producers to be sued every time some drunk driver causes a fatal accident.



You can already sue a bar for overserving someone who later gets into a drunk driving accident.  

As for cars, I would have no problem handling guns like cars.   Which means they should be licensed, registered, insured, and inspected on a regular basis. 




*"but, but, but...the founding fathers said I can have guns...."  *


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, sorry. The courts have already ruled the police are under no obligation to protect you, personally.



  Which means that we need to retain, as much as possible, the abilities to protect ourselves.

  But you consistently oppose that.  Of course, that is in keeping with your broader position, wherein you always take the side of subhumans criminal pieces of shit, against the side of human beings.  Always.

  And you always advocate positions that make it safer and easier to be a subhuman criminal piece of shit, and less safe to be a law-abiding human being.  You lie about wanting to reduce crime, yet you always take positions that are obviously intended to facilitate crime.  Do you really believe that you are fooling anyone?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> There are more people in prisons right now for drug property and public order crimes than for vioent crimes



Yes, there are...  and if we tried to let them out, guys like Mormon Bob would whine to the high heavens about it.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You can already sue a bar for overserving someone who later gets into a drunk driving accident.
> 
> As for cars, I would have no problem handling guns like cars.   Which means they should be licensed, registered, insured, and inspected on a regular basis.
> 
> ...


A bar and the manufacturer are 2 entirely different entities.

FYI a person does not have to go to a bar to drink.  

You are not allowed to sue an alcohol manufacturer for deaths their products are directly involved in


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, he didn't.
> 
> Crime declined in the 1990's because the Baby Boom ended in 1965.  Which meant the criminal class simply got to old for that kind of shit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We lock up too many people, period.



  The amount of violent and destructive crime that is taking place these days proves otherwise.  There are too many _“people”_ who ought to be locked up, or put to death, that are running around free to commit these crimes.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, there are...  and if we tried to let them out, guys like Mormon Bob would whine to the high heavens about it.


So now you admit that we lock up mostly nonviolent criminals?

Didn;t you just say you would never agree to that?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Which means that we need to retain, as much as possible, the abilities to protect ourselves.


Except most gun deaths aren't inflicted by criminals, they are suicides and domestic violence.   The cure is worse than the disease. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> But you consistently oppose that. Of course, that is in keeping with your broader position, wherein you always take the side of subhumans criminal pieces of shit, against the side of human beings. Always.
> 
> And you always advocate positions that make it safer and easier to be a subhuman criminal piece of shit, and less safe to be a law-abiding human being. You lie about wanting to reduce crime, yet you always take positions that are obviously intended to facilitate crime. Do you really believe that you are fooling anyone?



See, this is why we can't have Prison Reform, Blues Man guys like this Mormon piece of crap who think that even the most petty Criminal needs to be PUNISHED. 

To Bob- um, here's the problem.  What makes it easy to have criminals is our unwillingness as a society to address poverty, addiction, mental illness, gun proliferation.  The Europeans have figured this out.  The Japanese have figured this out.   America is stuck on stupid.  

A woman can walk by herself at night in downtown Tokyo with no worries about being robbed or raped.   And it's not because the Japanese lock people up or execute them. (Japan does have capital punishment, but it's rarely carried out.) It's because they have the social programs to cure the underlying problems.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, there are...  and if we tried to let them out, guys like Mormon Bob would whine to the high heavens about it.



  You do not speak for me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> The amount of violent and destructive crime that is taking place these days proves otherwise. There are too many _“people”_ who ought to be locked up, or put to death, that are running around free to commit these crimes.



Has it occurred to your tiny brainwashed mind that we have these problems because we are doing what you say? 
Let's take prisons.  We lock people up, for mostly non-violent offenses.  More likely if they aren't white.   
As a result, they often end up in gangs in prison for protection.  This makes them more violent and anti-social. 
At some point, they get out, they can't get jobs because of their records, and they often go back to committing crime.  Except after five years of being brutalized over stealing a TV, they are a lot less concerned about who they hurt in the process this time.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> You do not speak for me.



but you just did exactly what I predicted you would do.  



Blues Man said:


> So now you admit that we lock up mostly nonviolent criminals?
> 
> Didn;t you just say you would never agree to that?



Except we aren't going to let the non-violent criminals go as long as we have a prison industrial complex.  American Crime is self-perpetuating.  Follow the money, see who is getting rich off the status quo.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've told you my idea.
> 
> Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued.   You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.


Also require gun owners to carry insurance


----------



## KissMy (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, he didn't.
> 
> Crime declined in the 1990's because the Baby Boom ended in 1965.  Which meant the criminal class simply got to old for that kind of shit.
> 
> ...


Because there are too many people locked up by revenue generating traffic stops, checkpoints, nonviolent crimes that could not pay bail, drug crimes instead of sending them to treatment centers, or sex crime because they had porn on their computer.

Crime is now rising rapidly again thanks to lame prosecutors like STL Kimberly Gardner not prosecuting murders & LA DA Gascon


----------



## KissMy (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except most gun deaths aren't inflicted by criminals, they are suicides and domestic violence.   The cure is worse than the disease.
> 
> See, this is why we can't have Prison Reform, Blues Man guys like this Mormon piece of crap who think that even the most petty Criminal needs to be PUNISHED.
> 
> ...


You lie & obfuscate. You claim the US population aging cut the crime rate in half in the 1990's, but US population is not inverting, unlike Japan that has actually grown old & collapsing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Negligence.  They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.


How is the manufacture responsible for what the stores sell the product too?


----------



## para bellum (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Crime declined in the 1990's because the Baby Boom ended in 1965. Which meant the criminal class simply got to old for that kind of shit.


WTF is that even supposed to mean? What criminal class? WW2 veterans?

It ain't rocket science. The decline in violent crime in the 90's was largely due to Roe v Wade and the subsequent decline of kids born to unmarried black women.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

KissMy said:


> Because there are too many people locked up by revenue generating traffic stops, checkpoints, nonviolent crimes that could not pay bail, drug crimes instead of sending them to treatment centers, or sex crime because they had porn on their computer.
> 
> Crime is now rising rapidly again thanks to lame prosecutors like STL Kimberly Gardner not prosecuting murders & LA DA Gascon



Crime isn't rising rapidly.  We had a slight spike because of Covid and the recession, but they are going back to normal. 



KissMy said:


> You lie & obfuscate. You claim the US population aging cut the crime rate in half in the 1990's, but US population is not inverting, unlike Japan that has actually grown old & collapsing.



Um, you are a tad confused.  America's only avoiding Japan's fate because of immigration (legal or otherwise.)



para bellum said:


> WTF is that even supposed to mean? What criminal class? WW2 veterans?
> 
> It ain't rocket science. The decline in violent crime in the 90's was largely due to Roe v Wade and the subsequent decline of kids born to unmarried black women.



Uh, okay, try to follow along here, because you seem a little slow.  

Most people who commit crimes commit them before age 30.  After age 30, they either smarten up, or end up in prison for life.   So when the last Boomers started getting into their 30's, crime started declining.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> America's only avoiding Japan's fate because of immigration (legal or otherwise.)


Few illegal immigrants answer the census. Their anchor babies are the ones increasing the census population.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 6, 2022)

KissMy said:


> Few illegal immigrants answer the census. Their anchor babies are the ones increasing the census population.



Obviously, you've never been involved in a Census...  

If anyone fails to answer the census, the Census Bureau sends out enumerators to check every address that didn't respond.   If they still don't get cooperation, they ask neighbors, school boards, etc.    

I know this because I was a census enumerator in 2000 and 2010.  

The 2020 Census, however was a shit show.  Partially because Trump didn't want to get an accurate count, and partially because Covid made it harder to send out enumerators.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Considering that everything being proposed by the democrats would have done nothing to stop the various mass public shooters.....and that each thing they demand is simply a baby step toward banning and confiscating guns...with their golden ticket first step being gun registration, with the plan to later use the registration list to ban and confiscate guns....
> 
> The actual compromise we should make with the democrats as voiced by Kurt Schlichter.......
> 
> ...


I read the title of the thread and my blood was already at a simmer before I even got the page opened but this is a good article.

I've said it many times here, to many so-called, self-proclaimed, gun rights supporters, 2nd Amendment advocates, here on this site who are really just gun controllers like the Bradys.  There is no such thing as compromise.  Compromise is where you trade something the other side wants, and that you don't really want to give up, in order to get them to give you something you want, but that they don't really want to give up.  Everyone gives a little to get a little.  But there's nothing the anti-gunners can give us.  We had it all, in the beginning, with "shall not be infringed".  

The only thing the anti-gun crowed offered was to take it all or take a little so gun owners thought they were compromising when they replied with, "OK, just take a little."  That wasn't compromise, that was surrender.

So, I appreciate the post and I appreciate Schlichter's take, but I've been saying this many times here to self-proclaimed-but-not-really 2nd Amendment supporters here who support gun control they like and then cry about gun control they don't like.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I've said it many times here, to many so-called, self-proclaimed, gun rights supporters, 2nd Amendment advocates, here on this site who are really just gun controllers like the Bradys. There is no such thing as compromise. Compromise is where you trade something the other side wants, and that you don't really want to give up, in order to get them to give you something you want, but that they don't really want to give up. Everyone gives a little to get a little. But there's nothing the anti-gunners can give us. We had it all, in the beginning, with "shall not be infringed".
> 
> The only thing the anti-gun crowed offered was to take it all or take a little so gun owners thought they were compromising when they replied with, "OK, just take a little." That wasn't compromise, that was surrender.
> 
> So, I appreciate the post and I appreciate Schlichter's take, but I've been saying this many times here to self-proclaimed-but-not-really 2nd Amendment supporters here who support gun control they like and then cry about gun control they don't like.



Well, this is the problem with Gun Fetishists... 

Politics is ALWAYS the art of compromise. 

I can't see any sane person who wants Salvador Ramos out there with a couple of AR's walking into their kids' schools, but that is exactly what the Ammosexuals are arguing for.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Negligence.  They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.


I'd call that just plain stupid but it's not out of stupidity that you say it.  You know it's not true but your goal isn't stopping crime or gun deaths; it's removal of guns.  

Manufacturers didn't sell any guns to an unstable person.  And the gun shops called the FBI to see if the person was unstable.  If the FBI says the person is not unstable to their knowledge, how would a gun seller, and especially the gun manufacturer, be able to determine otherwise. 

No, it's not stupidity that makes you give a stupid answer, it's plain dishonesty and moral bankruptcy that drives you.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, this is the problem with Gun Fetishists...
> 
> Politics is ALWAYS the art of compromise.
> 
> I can't see any sane person who wants Salvador Ramos out there with a couple of AR's walking into their kids' schools, but that is exactly what the Ammosexuals are arguing for.


Another lie.  We don't want Salvador Ramos, or you, or me, walking into the schools at all, with or without an AR.  But you don't really want to protect the schools and, should the AR be banned and confiscated, the next Ramos will go into the schools with a Glock 9mm and you'll be clamoring for those to be banned, too.

Eventually, you'll be crying for all pointy objects to be banned, like in the UK.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, sorry.  The courts have already ruled the police are under no obligation to protect you, personally.
> 
> Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia  - 1981
> 
> ...


So you do understand that the police won't protect you, as do the parents in Uvalde, but you want to take away our means of protecting ourselves like they do in the UK.  You want Americans arrested and imprisoned, as they do in the UK, for defending themselves from violent attack while the attacker goes scott free.

The thing I don't understand is why.  Why do you want to make us all victims, unable to defend ourselves from violent attackers?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, I won't... because it's bullshit.
> 
> We lock up too many people, period.


We'd lock up far fewer people if we locked up violent criminals until they were too old or feeble to be violent again.  It is a fact that most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders.  We could reduce crime in half by simply locking up violent offenders on their first offense for a violent crime.

Then, when prisons are a terrible enough place to be, and sentences are long enough to deter, younger people considering their first offense will choose not to commit crimes.  When we take away the juvenile protections, sentencing juveniles as adults, as we should, juveniles aren't going to commit as many crimes.

When we quit rewarding child-birth outside of wedlock or stable homes, when homes have  two parents, the actual genetic parents of children as often is possible, parents committed to each other and their families, then juvenile violent crime will nearly disappear.  And as juvenile crime goes, so goes adult crime since most criminals chose life as a criminal in their youth.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I'd call that just plain stupid but it's not out of stupidity that you say it. You know it's not true but your goal isn't stopping crime or gun deaths; it's removal of guns.
> 
> Manufacturers didn't sell any guns to an unstable person. And the gun shops called the FBI to see if the person was unstable. If the FBI says the person is not unstable to their knowledge, how would a gun seller, and especially the gun manufacturer, be able to determine otherwise.
> 
> No, it's not stupidity that makes you give a stupid answer, it's plain dishonesty and moral bankruptcy that drives you.



Naw, man, what's stupid is that we let the gun industry make the gun laws, and exempt them from liability. 

Let's take Tylenol.  In 1982, some twisted fuck poisoned some bottles of Tylenol, and seven people died.  As a result, the manufacturers of Tylenol and all other OTC drugs redesigned the bottles to have multiple safety seals, redesigned the pills themselves to you couldn't mix poison in with them, etc.   In short, they as a company acted responsibly. 

Some nitwit tried to light his shoes on fire to blow up a plane in 2001.  As a result, the airlines began screening everyone's shoes to make sure they aren't laced with explosives. 

The gun industry has had dozens of incidents of mass murder perpetrated with their products.   They resist ANY attempt to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable. They've watered down NICS to be completely ineffective.  They oppose closing the private sale or gun show loopholes. 


You have to ask yourself why?   Mostly because the gun industry WANTS criminals to have guns.  They could design a far  more effective system of background screening than the government ever could, they just don't want to.  Crooks with guns means everyone else will want them, too.  



woodwork201 said:


> Another lie. We don't want Salvador Ramos, or you, or me, walking into the schools at all, with or without an AR. But you don't really want to protect the schools and, should the AR be banned and confiscated, the next Ramos will go into the schools with a Glock 9mm and you'll be clamoring for those to be banned, too.
> 
> Eventually, you'll be crying for all pointy objects to be banned, like in the UK.



Works for me.   but again, reasonable compromises.  The problem here is that Salvador Ramos starts out with the assumption that he is ENTITLED to an AR-15.   Then we have to prove that there's a good reason why he shouldn't have it.   Well, that incident where he was thrown out of school for threatening his classmates when he was 14 should have been one, but that was in a sealed juvenile record.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You can already sue a bar for overserving someone who later gets into a drunk driving accident.
> 
> As for cars, I would have no problem handling guns like cars.   Which means they should be licensed, registered, insured, and inspected on a regular basis.
> 
> ...


Suing the bar for serving a drunk is not in any way similar to suing the gun manufacturer.  Suiing the bar would be like suing the gun shop for selling a gun to a guy who walks in and says, "Which gun would be the most effective for shooting up an elementary school?"  And, yes, you should sue the bar owner and you should sue that gun shop.  

But you are, as usual and as expected, being completely dishonest when you try to liken suing gun manufacturers to suing the bar.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So you do understand that the police won't protect you, as do the parents in Uvalde, but you want to take away our means of protecting ourselves like they do in the UK. You want Americans arrested and imprisoned, as they do in the UK, for defending themselves from violent attack while the attacker goes scott free.
> 
> The thing I don't understand is why. Why do you want to make us all victims, unable to defend ourselves from violent attackers?



Okay, here's the thing.  A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.  (And, no 2AGuy, I don't want to hear your usual "Kellerman was the devil" shit.)   Most gun deaths are suicides, domestic violence and accidents.   It's another case of the "cure" being worse than the disease. 



woodwork201 said:


> We'd lock up far fewer people if we locked up violent criminals until they were too old or feeble to be violent again. It is a fact that most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. We could reduce crime in half by simply locking up violent offenders on their first offense for a violent crime.



We lock up 2 million people.  If prisons were the answer, we'd have the LOWEST crime rate in the industrialized world, not the highest.  We can't lock up old violent offenders because we don't have room for the NEW violent offenders. 



woodwork201 said:


> Then, when prisons are a terrible enough place to be, and sentences are long enough to deter, younger people considering their first offense will choose not to commit crimes. When we take away the juvenile protections, sentencing juveniles as adults, as we should, juveniles aren't going to commit as many crimes.



Yup, we tried all that... it doesn't work.  You can't have grinding poverty for one sector of the population and then whine about crime.  



woodwork201 said:


> When we quit rewarding child-birth outside of wedlock or stable homes, when homes have two parents, the actual genetic parents of children as often is possible, parents committed to each other and their families, then juvenile violent crime will nearly disappear. And as juvenile crime goes, so goes adult crime since most criminals chose life as a criminal in their youth.



You know what, we aren't going backwards...  The sexual revolution happened, and women don't have to marry their sperm donors if they don't want to.  Sorry, that's just how it is.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Considering that everything being proposed by the democrats would have done nothing to stop the various mass public shooters.....and that each thing they demand is simply a baby step toward banning and confiscating guns...with their golden ticket first step being gun registration, with the plan to later use the registration list to ban and confiscate guns....
> 
> The actual compromise we should make with the democrats as voiced by Kurt Schlichter.......
> 
> ...


Kurt Schlichter is your typical rightwing liar and demagogue.

No one is ‘anti-gun,’ whatever that’s supposed to be; no one is suggesting anyone ‘give up’ his guns.

There is no effort to ‘ban’ guns, there is no effort to ‘confiscate’ guns.

This is yet another example of the reprehensible right refusing to address the issue of gun crime and violence; another example of the reprehensible right refusing to at least consider solutions that have nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 12, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I read the title of the thread and my blood was already at a simmer before I even got the page opened but this is a good article.
> 
> I've said it many times here, to many so-called, self-proclaimed, gun rights supporters, 2nd Amendment advocates, here on this site who are really just gun controllers like the Bradys.  There is no such thing as compromise.  Compromise is where you trade something the other side wants, and that you don't really want to give up, in order to get them to give you something you want, but that they don't really want to give up.  Everyone gives a little to get a little.  But there's nothing the anti-gunners can give us.  We had it all, in the beginning, with "shall not be infringed".
> 
> ...


And another rightwing liar and demagogue chimes in.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Suing the bar for serving a drunk is not in any way similar to suing the gun manufacturer. Suiing the bar would be like suing the gun shop for selling a gun to a guy who walks in and says, "Which gun would be the most effective for shooting up an elementary school?" And, yes, you should sue the bar owner and you should sue that gun shop.
> 
> But you are, as usual and as expected, being completely dishonest when you try to liken suing gun manufacturers to suing the bar.



Really?  So let's look at this... 

Someone is in your bar and he's getting shitfaced drunk.  That's when you cut him off and maybe drop a line to the cops.

Someone walks into your gun store acting like the Joker and asks for an AR-15 and a 100 round magazine, you assume he's up to no good. 





*Yeah, he looks normal! *


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, here's the thing. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.



  A flat-out lie that has been refuted over and over and over again, and even retracted by the lying piece of shit who first told it.

  By now, you have no excuse to not know that this was a lie, yet you keep repeating it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 12, 2022)

KissMy said:


> Because there are too many people locked up by revenue generating traffic stops, checkpoints, nonviolent crimes that could not pay bail, drug crimes instead of sending them to treatment centers, or sex crime because they had porn on their computer.
> 
> Crime is now rising rapidly again thanks to lame prosecutors like STL Kimberly Gardner not prosecuting murders & LA DA Gascon


No one has been locked up for sex crimes for porn on their computer unless that porn is kiddie porn - and you're right; those people should not be locked up, at least not any longer than it takes to get a new rope.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've told you my idea.
> 
> Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued.   You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.



Yes….you are fascist we get it, you don’t have to keep telling us


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really?  So let's look at this...
> 
> Someone is in your bar and he's getting shitfaced drunk.  That's when you cut him off and maybe drop a line to the cops.
> 
> ...


You're changing the argument.  We're talking about suing the manufacturer.  Did he walk into the manufacturer's factory looking like that?  In fact, he didn't walk into the gun store looking like that.  And you offer this picture as rebuttal to my statement that the gunshot should be sued when there's evidence they sold a gun to an obviously crazy person.

But, even in spite of the two lies you made above - changing the argument from the gun manufacturer to the gun store, and the lie that we hadn't already said the gun shop should be sued for selling a gun to a known crazy person, there's a third lie.  Honestly, I've never seen someone able to lie three times in a single sentence.  You are like the most proficient, prolific, liar I have ever known.

The third lie:  Here's Holmes' booking photo.  






He didn't look like the picture you showed when he bought the gun.  The gunshop called the FBI and asked them if the guy is known to be a maniac with mass killings in his future and the FBI told the shop that they had no reason to suspect anything wrong with Holmes and that it was OK to sell him the gun.  So, if you're going to sue anyone, sue the FBI, though that would be as wrong as suing anyone else you've proposed suing.  Not only are you an idiot, you're a lying idiot.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Negligence.  They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.



Should the local Chevy dealer be charged with negligence if a customer gets drunk, runs a red light, hits a minivan and kills a young family?

If your answer is "no", then the same logic should be applied to gun dealers and manufacturers. If your answer is yes, then you're stupid...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> A flat-out lie that has been refuted over and over and over again, and even retracted by the lying piece of shit who first told it.
> 
> By now, you have no excuse to not know that this was a lie, yet you keep repeating it.



No one has proven that number a lie, and frankly, if anything, I suspect it's understated...  

The FBI's own figures only count 200 homicides with guns a year by civilians as "justified" out of 42,000 gun deaths.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> As for cars, I would have no problem handling guns like cars.   Which means they should be licensed, registered, insured, and inspected on a regular basis.



What would be the purpose of registering firearms?

If we can come to a compromise on those measures which will cut down on gun violence and make school yards and shopping malls safer, I'm absolutely willing to have that conversation.

How does registering and licensing them make us safer?

I'll wait...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really?  So let's look at this...
> 
> Someone is in your bar and he's getting shitfaced drunk.  That's when you cut him off and maybe drop a line to the cops.
> 
> ...


except you can not actually point to any such case of someone going to a firearms shop and acting crazy.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jun 12, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So, if you're going to sue anyone, sue the FBI, though that would be as wrong as suing anyone else you've proposed suing.  Not only are you an idiot, you're a lying idiot.



Joe is incapable of reasoned discussion, nor is he willing to compromise an iota on the issue.

Hence, he's easy to ignore...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You're changing the argument. We're talking about suing the manufacturer. Did he walk into the manufacturer's factory looking like that? In fact, he didn't walk into the gun store looking like that. And you offer this picture as rebuttal to my statement that the gunshot should be sued when there's evidence they sold a gun to an obviously crazy person.



The gun manufacturers work with licensed dealers... they have about as much credibility as the piano player at the whorehouse who claimed he had no idea what was going on upstairs.  



woodwork201 said:


> But, even in spite of the two lies you made above - changing the argument from the gun manufacturer to the gun store, and the lie that we hadn't already said the gun shop should be sued for selling a gun to a known crazy person, there's a third lie. Honestly, I've never seen someone able to lie three times in a single sentence. You are like the most proficient, prolific, liar I have ever known.



Wahhhhh,..  I don't want that to be true.... Waaaahhhhhhh



woodwork201 said:


> He didn't look like the picture you showed when he bought the gun. The gunshop called the FBI and asked them if the guy is known to be a maniac with mass killings in his future and the FBI told the shop that they had no reason to suspect anything wrong with Holmes and that it was OK to sell him the gun. So, if you're going to sue anyone, sue the FBI, though that would be as wrong as suing anyone else you've proposed suing. Not only are you an idiot, you're a lying idiot.



Uh, actually, he did look like that.   

And you can't blame the FBI when you don't let the FBI, and more importantly, the ATF do it's job.  As stated, NICS is a system that is flawed by DESIGN.   We need something a little better than "Well, I typed in his name and nothing came up.  I hope I spelled it right!"  

When I got my last mortgage, I had to provide a LOT of paperwork to prove I was credit worthy.  It didn't matter that I had an 800+ Credit score or that I had previously gotten three mortgages and two home equity loans (all paid off but one) previously, had no credit card debt, and never had a bankruptcy.   They checked every last damned financial transaction that had my name on it.  


When I was hired for my last job, it didn't matter that a current employee vouched for me, they did a thorough background check that involved checking my credit, criminal record (I don't have one), employment history and residency history.  


In short, if you care, you check.  


So if the gun industry REALLY WANTED To keep guns out of the hands of the crazies, they could set up a system of checking people.   They just refuse to do so.  Why not? They've gotten themselves exempted from liability no matter how reckless their business practices are.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> except you can not actually point to any such case of someone going to a firearms shop and acting crazy.



funny thing about crazy people... you can usually tell if they are crazy pretty quickly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> funny thing about crazy people... you can usually tell if they are crazy pretty quickly.


No you cant crazy people that want things are more then capable of acting sane, further if they were so insane why hadnt any action been take against them legally?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 12, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No you cant crazy people that want things are more then capable of acting sane, further if they were so insane why hadnt any action been take against them legally?



Where have you been?  Unless an insane person presents an immediate threat to himself or others, you can't hold them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Where have you been?  Unless an insane person presents an immediate threat to himself or others, you can't hold them.


You can document it and get them barred from buying firearms dumbass.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Negligence.  They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.


First let's get all the car dealers who do the same.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, this is the problem with Gun Fetishists...
> 
> Politics is ALWAYS the art of compromise.
> 
> I can't see any sane person who wants Salvador Ramos out there with a couple of AR's walking into their kids' schools, but that is exactly what the Ammosexuals are arguing for.




We already had all the laws on the books to keep him from getting that rifle legally.........and your god, "government" failed.......

Nothing you idiots propose would have stopped him, the laws already on the books should have stopped him....the cops failed....


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> We already had all the laws on the books to keep him from getting that rifle legally.........and your god, "government" failed.......
> 
> Nothing you idiots propose would have stopped him, the laws already on the books should have stopped him....the cops failed....



The laws on the books are inadequate if this keeps happening.  

Like I said, simple enough solution.  Let victims of gun violence sue gunmakers if they sell to the wrong person.  

Then they either clean up their act or they go out of business, and I'm fine either way


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really?  So let's look at this...
> 
> Someone is in your bar and he's getting shitfaced drunk.  That's when you cut him off and maybe drop a line to the cops.
> 
> ...


How do you know that's what he looked like when he bought the gun?


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> funny thing about crazy people... you can usually tell if they are crazy pretty quickly.


Yeah I knew that about you from the very first post I read of yours


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The laws on the books are inadequate if this keeps happening.
> 
> Like I said, simple enough solution.  Let victims of gun violence sue gunmakers if they sell to the wrong person.
> 
> Then they either clean up their act or they go out of business, and I'm fine either way


Laws on the books are not being enforced


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> How do you know that's what he looked like when he bought the gun?



That he looked like that at all should have been a pretty clear signal that if he wanted an AR and a 100 round magazine, he was up to nothing good. 



Blues Man said:


> Yeah I knew that about you from the very first post I read of yours



Yeah, I have this crazy idea we should love our children more than our guns....  what a crazy idea. 



Blues Man said:


> Laws on the books are not being enforced



No, the laws on the books are inadequate by design.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That he looked like that at all should have been a pretty clear signal that if he wanted an AR and a 100 round magazine, he was up to nothing good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have no idea how he was dressed or looked like when he bought that gun.

Maybe people should love their children enough to lock the fucking doors 

And the laws are perfectly adequate and work when they are enforced


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You have no idea how he was dressed or looked like when he bought that gun.



Sure. He looked like a  crazy person. It's why his school was trying to throw him out, because he was a crazy person.   and if someone had called his school, they'd have known this. 



Blues Man said:


> Maybe people should love their children enough to lock the fucking doors



Why stop at locked doors.  Let's turn all our schools into armed fortresses, because heaven forbid we actually deny crazy people their access to military grade weapons!!!  



Blues Man said:


> And the laws are perfectly adequate and work when they are enforced



Except this guy was able to legally get a gun and shoot people, so, um, no.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Sure. He looked like a  crazy person. It's why his school was trying to throw him out, because he was a crazy person.   and if someone had called his school, they'd have known this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only idiots think locking the doors turns a building into a prison.

In fact if you don;t lock your doors you are one of the stupidest people on the planet.

And semiautos have been available to civilians for well over 100 years and there is nothing military grade about them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Only idiots think locking the doors turns a building into a prison.
> 
> In fact if you don;t lock your doors you are one of the stupidest people on the planet.



I only lock my doors at night, actually.   

But my question remains...  why do the rest of us have to put up with security doors, metal detectors, active shooter drills, checkpoints, militarized police departments, because you ammosexuals can't practice even the most common sense restrictions on your fetish? 



Blues Man said:


> And semiautos have been available to civilians for well over 100 years and there is nothing military grade about them.



An AR-15 was designed for the military to military specs.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> But my question remains... why do the rest of us have to put up with security doors, metal detectors, active shooter drills, checkpoints, militarized police departments, because you ammosexuals can't practice even the most common sense restrictions on your fetish?



  The overwhelming vast majority of gun owners pose no threat whatsoever to your safety.  Not until you try to commit any crimes against us, anyway.

  Why should any of us have to feel less safe because criminal-loving subhuman shit such as yourself won't allow criminals to be dealt with properly?

  You insist that criminals need to be allowed to run free, to prey on human beings, and at the same time, you want to deny us the means to defend ourselves against them.

  That you are a subhuman criminal piece of shit, that takes the side of your own kind against that of human beings, is your own fault, and the rest of us should not have to suffer for it.

  If anyone should be made to feel unsafe, it should be criminals and their allies, such as you.  Of course, the real reason you oppose allowing human beings to be armed, is that you want criminals filth such as yourself to be able to feel safe, free of the fear that your prey might be armed and able to stop you from whatever crimes you wish to commit.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I only lock my doors at night, actually.
> 
> But my question remains...  why do the rest of us have to put up with security doors, metal detectors, active shooter drills, checkpoints, militarized police departments, because you ammosexuals can't practice even the most common sense restrictions on your fetish?
> 
> ...



Only criminals are insulted by a locked door.

And the AR 15 is only cosmetically different from any other rifle that fires the same round.

The Mini 14 performance is exactly the same as an AR 15


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The laws on the books are inadequate if this keeps happening.
> 
> Like I said, simple enough solution.  Let victims of gun violence sue gunmakers if they sell to the wrong person.
> 
> Then they either clean up their act or they go out of business, and I'm fine either way



Moron.......the laws on the books are fine....that your god, government, doesn't actually enforce them is on your god, government, not normal gun owners who actually obey the laws.....

Let the car makers get sued into extinction for every drunk driver......you are an idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I only lock my doors at night, actually.
> 
> But my question remains...  why do the rest of us have to put up with security doors, metal detectors, active shooter drills, checkpoints, militarized police departments, because you ammosexuals can't practice even the most common sense restrictions on your fetish?
> 
> ...




Wrong...doofus....

The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”


> *“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”*






Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Considering that everything being proposed by the democrats would have done nothing to stop the various mass public shooters.....and that each thing they demand is simply a baby step toward banning and confiscating guns...with their golden ticket first step being gun registration, with the plan to later use the registration list to ban and confiscate guns....
> 
> The actual compromise we should make with the democrats as voiced by Kurt Schlichter.......
> 
> ...


That is EXACTLY what I have been yelling for 10 years.  

Let we the responsible have machine guns and full-blown assault rifles (real assault rifles, not just "civilian" "assault weapons").


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> How do you know that's what he looked like when he bought the gun?


He didn't look like that when he bought the gun or killed a bunch of people; you've probably gotten by now to where I posted the mugshot.  The crazy look was invented by his defense.  Though there's always a measure of crazy in a mass killer, he wasn't so crazy that he couldn't have been hung.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 13, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That is EXACTLY what I have been yelling for 10 years.
> 
> Let we the responsible have machine guns and full-blown assault rifles (real assault rifles, not just "civilian" "assault weapons").


That's a compromise.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That he looked like that at all should have been a pretty clear signal that if he wanted an AR and a 100 round magazine, he was up to nothing good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've already shared his booking photo so you know this post is a lie and he didn't look like that when he bought the gun.  

But it's clear that you are OK with gun sellers, or any other sellers, deciding to sell something to someone based on their opinions about the physical characteristics or looks of the buyer?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I only lock my doors at night, actually.
> 
> But my question remains...  why do the rest of us have to put up with security doors, metal detectors, active shooter drills, checkpoints, militarized police departments, because you ammosexuals can't practice even the most common sense restrictions on your fetish?
> 
> ...



So the only option is full-on fortress or dead children?  What a liar.  

The Uvalde shooter had a handgun which was already illegal for him to have.  He came to the school intending on killing children, which was already illegal for him to do, so please explain any law that you can imagine that would have prevented this shooting.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> The overwhelming vast majority of gun owners pose no threat whatsoever to your safety. Not until you try to commit any crimes against us, anyway.
> 
> Why should any of us have to feel less safe because criminal-loving subhuman shit such as yourself won't allow criminals to be dealt with properly?
> 
> You insist that criminals need to be allowed to run free, to prey on human beings, and at the same time, you want to deny us the means to defend ourselves against them.



Are they? Most gun deaths are suicides, domestic violence and accidents.  Given you come off as a homicidal maniac under normal circumstances, I would imagine what you would be like if you were ever truly stressed out.  



2aguy said:


> the laws on the books are fine....that your god, government, doesn't actually enforce them is on your god, government, not normal gun owners who actually obey the laws.....



Salvador Ramos was able to walk into a gun store, buy two military grade rifles, and then go to a school and shoot 21 people. 

The gun laws are not fine if something like this can happen.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I've already shared his booking photo so you know this post is a lie and he didn't look like that when he bought the gun.



Are you trying to claim he dyed his hair orange AFTER he was arrested?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The Uvalde shooter had a handgun which was already illegal for him to have. He came to the school intending on killing children, which was already illegal for him to do, so please explain any law that you can imagine that would have prevented this shooting.



Sure. 

If you buy a gun, you have to wait thirty days while a government agency does a FULL background check on you, including interviewing your family, co-workers, and school if you graduated in the last 10 years.   During that time, your name will be sent out on a list to all members of the psychiatric community.  

Or better yet, we can ban all private gun ownership.  That would also work.  But I'm trying to work with you Ammosexuals, I know that a lot of you would feel "inadequate" without your guns.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I know that a lot of you would feel "inadequate" without your guns.



  That's funny, a pathetic almost-sixty-year-old incel preaching to the rest of us about _“inadequacy”_.

  How's your wife doing, Incel Joe?  Oh, yeah, that's right—you don't have a wife.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, he didn't.
> 
> Crime declined in the 1990's because the Baby Boom ended in 1965.  Which meant the criminal class simply got to old for that kind of shit.
> 
> ...


Actually, crime PEAKED in the mid-90s.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> That's funny, a pathetic almost-sixty-year-old incel preaching to the rest of us about _“inadequacy”_.
> 
> How's your wife doing,  Oh, yeah, that's right—you don't have a wife.



Nope, I've got a girlfriend who doesn't get half my property when we are done with our relationship.  

That's kind of awesome.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Actually, crime PEAKED in the mid-90s.



um, yeah... it's still way too high for a wealthy nation, compared to other wealthy nations.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, I've got a girlfriend who doesn't get half my property when we are done with our relationship.



  Not much of a _“relationship”_, if you're already treating it as disposable, talking about when you're done with it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Not much of a _“relationship”_, if you're already treating it as disposable, talking about when you're done with it.



Nothing lasts forever, that's the point, Mormon Bob.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Nothing lasts forever, that's the point, Mormon Bob.



  You're just plain wrong, there.

  My marriage will last forever.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Another lie.  We don't want Salvador Ramos, or you, or me, walking into the schools at all, with or without an AR.  But you don't really want to protect the schools and, should the AR be banned and confiscated, the next Ramos will go into the schools with a Glock 9mm and you'll be clamoring for those to be banned, too.
> 
> Eventually, you'll be crying for all pointy objects to be banned, like in the UK.


Oh, he does. Joey ABSOLUTELY DOES want school stootings.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 14, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Oh, he does. Joey ABSOLUTELY DOES want school shootings.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> How do you know that's what he looked like when he bought the gun?


Joey has an awesome ouija board.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> um, yeah... it's still way too high for a wealthy nation, compared to other wealthy nations.


Not even a fair deflection, Joey. You were wrong, admit it.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Are they? Most gun deaths are suicides, domestic violence and accidents.  Given you come off as a homicidal maniac under normal circumstances, I would imagine what you would be like if you were ever truly stressed out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




He was able to buy those guns legally because your god, government, failed........his family, friends, school, and local police all could have taken action under current law...had he been arrested for any of the felonies he actually committed, or been committed because of his dangerous behavior, he would have popped on the already, Federaly mandated background check.....

We have all the laws we need to stop these guys, but the government keeps failing to use them.....

He isn't the first one the government failed to stop when they knew all about him...he won't be the last.....


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He was able to buy those guns legally because your god, government, failed........his family, friends, school, and local police all could have taken action under current law...had he been arrested for any of the felonies he actually committed, or been committed because of his dangerous behavior, he would have popped on the already, Federaly mandated background check.....
> 
> We have all the laws we need to stop these guys, but the government keeps failing to use them.....
> 
> He isn't the first one the government failed to stop when they knew all about him...he won't be the last.....


Let's not forget that Joe thinks it's domestic violence if two people barely know each other.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 14, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You're just plain wrong, there.
> 
> My marriage will last forever.



Right, I keep forgetting your bizarre cult thinks marriages last after death...   unlike what the Bible actually says about "until death do us part." 




2aguy said:


> He was able to buy those guns legally because your god, government, failed........his family, friends, school, and local police all could have taken action under current law...had he been arrested for any of the felonies he actually committed, or been committed because of his dangerous behavior, he would have popped on the already, Federaly mandated background check.....



Not the government that sold him a gun.  A gun store did that.  Because the NRA fought for years to tie their hands behind their backs on doing background checks.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Right, I keep forgetting your bizarre cult thinks marriages last after death...



  It is certainly a more rational and honorable view than your attitude of women as disposable whores to be used and discarded.




JoeB131 said:


> unlike what the Bible actually says about "until death do us part."



  The Bible says no such thing.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Are you trying to claim he dyed his hair orange AFTER he was arrested?


No; I'm not trying to say it.  I'm absolutely saying it and I absolutely proved it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Sure.
> 
> If you buy a gun, you have to wait thirty days while a government agency does a FULL background check on you, including interviewing your family, co-workers, and school if you graduated in the last 10 years.   During that time, your name will be sent out on a list to all members of the psychiatric community.
> 
> Or better yet, we can ban all private gun ownership.  That would also work.  But I'm trying to work with you Ammosexuals, I know that a lot of you would feel "inadequate" without your guns.



Like the way the ban on 18-year-olds possessing a pistol stopped him from having a handgun at the shooting? Because if you make him wait 30 days while they do a background investigation, he won't do whatever he did to get the pistol he had that day.  FAIL

And banning all private gun ownership?  Thanks for making it clear what you're really after.  Are you one of those here who keep saying no one wants to take our guns?  

But in countries where guns are severely restricted, gun crimes are actually on the rise.  New Zealand, for instance, went from 1 per million before their ban to 2.4 per million in each of the two years following.  Gun crime is increasing in the UK and in Australia.

If you think a total ban would work, please tell us the story of how that worked for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.  

Yes, you failed again.  I knew, of course, that you couldn't propose a law that would mean anything.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It is certainly a more rational and honorable view than your attitude of women as disposable whores to be used and discarded.



Not really.  I mean, I guess your cult is good for the men, where women know their damned place and stay in the kitchen.  But really, no one should stay in a relationship after it stops working.   Thankfully, we've evolved to the point where women have options to leave bad relationships, and so do men. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> The Bible says no such thing.



Do you actually READ the Bible, or do you just take the Cult leaders' word for what is in there. 

(Mk 12:18-27).
_Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and put this question to him, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us, ‘If someone’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, his brother must take the wife and raise up descendants for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers. The first married a woman and died, leaving no descendants. So the second married her and died, leaving no descendants, and the third likewise. And the seven left no descendants. Last of all the woman also died. At the resurrection, whose wife will she be? For all seven had been married to her.”

Jesus said to them, “*Are you not mistaken because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.* As for the dead being raised, have you not read about the burning bush in the Book of Moses, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living. You are badly mistaken”_


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 15, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> No; I'm not trying to say it. I'm absolutely saying it and I absolutely proved it.



You can say it, but it's just not true....  He cut his orange hair off after he was in jail.  When he was indicted within days of the shooting, he looked like THIS. 





Long orange hair with brown roots. 

As opposed to that undated photo, which shows him with short brown hair. 

Probably after his lawyer told him, "You'd probably do better in court if you didn't look like a creepy clown"! 



woodwork201 said:


> Like the way the ban on 18-year-olds possessing a pistol stopped him from having a handgun at the shooting? Because if you make him wait 30 days while they do a background investigation, he won't do whatever he did to get the pistol he had that day. FAIL
> 
> And banning all private gun ownership? Thanks for making it clear what you're really after. Are you one of those here who keep saying no one wants to take our guns?



I'm a realist,  Total gun bans would be preferable, but also not entirely practical, as we already have 300 million guns out there.  let's keep more guns from being put out there and start reducing them by attrition.  



woodwork201 said:


> But in countries where guns are severely restricted, gun crimes are actually on the rise. New Zealand, for instance, went from 1 per million before their ban to 2.4 per million in each of the two years following. Gun crime is increasing in the UK and in Australia.



Not even sure where you are getting those figures from. 

Number of gun murders in Australia.  34 in 2020
Number of gun homicides in New Zealand - 73 in 2018. ( I assume it went up in 2019 due to the Christchurch massacre, but went down afterwards when they passed even tougher gun laws. 
Number of gun murders in the UK- 32 in 2015
Number of gun murders in USA - 14,389 in 2018.  USA! USA! USA! 




woodwork201 said:


> If you think a total ban would work, please tell us the story of how that worked for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc.


You're comparing guns to addicting substances?  Well, you might be on to something here... it's pretty clearly that a lot of you Ammosexuals have a problem.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 15, 2022)

Population of New Zealand 4.8 million the US 330 million. Population of Australia 25.3 million. Population of Britain 64.1 million.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Not really. I mean, I guess your cult is good for the men, where women know their damned place…



  We know what you think a woman's _“damned place”_ is—as a disposable fucktoy to be used and discarded.  You have never given any indication of being able to imagine more value in a female companion than that.

  The very worst distortions that you come up with of what view you try to attribute to me of a woman's value as a companion are far better than yours, and my true view of my wife's value to me are very far past your capability to imagine.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Not really. I mean, I guess your cult is good for the men, where women know their damned place


My wife would put a hollow point between your eyes if you said that shit to her


----------



## LibertyKid (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You can already sue a bar for overserving someone who later gets into a drunk driving accident.
> 
> As for cars, I would have no problem handling guns like cars.   Which means they should be licensed, registered, insured, and inspected on a regular basis.
> 
> ...


Then you agree that the car MFG sand the distilleries should be sued, along with the retailers, based on your current comments?


----------



## LibertyKid (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Has it occurred to your tiny brainwashed mind that we have these problems because we are doing what you say?
> Let's take prisons.  We lock people up, for mostly non-violent offenses.  More likely if they aren't white.
> As a result, they often end up in gangs in prison for protection.  This makes them more violent and anti-social.
> At some point, they get out, they can't get jobs because of their records, and they often go back to committing crime.  Except after five years of being brutalized over stealing a TV, they are a lot less concerned about who they hurt in the process this time.
> ...


How about, don't break laws. If you don't break laws, no prison, no gangs, no being released and being part of the system.

I'm sure your next statement is that the person breaking the law was a "had no choice" because of systemic racism, income inequality, or some other bogus social narrative to point the finger at someone else other than themselves. 

The primary problem, as I see it, is the the lack of respect for oneself, other humans, and societal laws (whether written or moral). The family model (and I'm not talking about traditional Male/Female parents as I do accept that two homosexuals can raise a child to respect society and humans) where two parents nurture and raise a child with values and the idea that they can be a productive human and interact in society with the confines of the existing laws is becoming extinct. Fewer and fewer want to have any consequences for their actions and they want without having to earn. We have children being born with a parent(s) that provide no moral compass or unfortunately a skewed compass. 

As a society, we have to do better in teaching our children what it means to live in a civilized society. Unfortunately there are too many kids that see anarchistic examples everyday. 
Guns are not the problem, social decorum is deteriorating crumbling. Guns are just a tool now for the criminal to execute their debased social existence. Unfortunately the mentally ill mass shooter which is a very very small number of shootings is getting lumped in with the bigger issue of criminal and gang related violence.


----------



## LibertyKid (Jun 15, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I'd call that just plain stupid but it's not out of stupidity that you say it.  You know it's not true but your goal isn't stopping crime or gun deaths; it's removal of guns.
> 
> Manufacturers didn't sell any guns to an unstable person.  And the gun shops called the FBI to see if the person was unstable.  If the FBI says the person is not unstable to their knowledge, how would a gun seller, and especially the gun manufacturer, be able to determine otherwise.
> 
> No, it's not stupidity that makes you give a stupid answer, it's plain dishonesty and moral bankruptcy that drives you.


It also can't and or will not ever account for the person who is stable, but can have a mental breakdown years later and uses the gun on themselves and or others.

IMO, the logical conclusion is that any amount of legislation will NEVER be enough. There will always be gun crime. The left has to ask, what is the acceptable number of guns deaths before we accept that we can't keep legislating for every scenario? 

The only potential outcome is to ban guns completely. And that is the gun advocates understanding and position. They know that no amount of gun legislation will fix gun crimes and eventually politicians and the MSM will create enough outcry that the Gov't will ban them. I don't know when, but that is the ONLY logical conclusion that I can see.  And even if guns are banned for citizens, there will be black market for them and guns will still be used in crimes.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Kurt Schlichter on Red Flag Laws….

*Red flag laws are ripe for abuse. You can tell because the left is slobbering to get them enacted. Do Dems arrest the myriad scumbags wandering the streets of Democrat cities? Do they prosecute them? No, and these animals commit an Uvalde every few days. If Dems cared about “gun crime,” they would arrest, charge, and lock-up gun criminals, but they don’t. They care about thought crimes – yours. These laws might be used to disarm a few nutballs, sure, but they will also be used against us when we dissent too much.

We’ve seen how they use the power of government against political opponents like us – IRS targeting, FBI entrapment, selective prosecutions, to name a few – and why the hell would we give them a new weapon when they have abused the ones they already have in the service of the regime?.*









						No White Flag on Red Flag Laws
					






					townhall.com


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You can say it, but it's just not true....  He cut his orange hair off after he was in jail.  When he was indicted within days of the shooting, he looked like THIS.
> 
> View attachment 658169
> Long orange hair with brown roots.
> ...



Moron….gangs in New Zealand are still shooting each other and they had rare mass public shootings before the ban……


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Negligence.  They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.


No they didn't!  They sold a perfectly legal sporting rifle to the Sandy Hook shooter's Mom and the kid killed her to gain access to it. What did the manufacturer do wrong?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> No they didn't!  They sold a perfectly legal sporting rifle to the Sandy Hook shooter's Mom and the kid killed her to gain access to it. What did the manufacturer do wrong?



Trial lawyers love joe……..allow legal warfare by democrat party lawyers against gun makers….and you open up the same lawsuits against car makers and every other industry…they can’t wait….


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> *Crime isn't rising rapidly. * We had a slight spike because of Covid and the recession, but they are going back to normal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What planet do you live on?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You can say it, but it's just not true....  He cut his orange hair off after he was in jail.  When he was indicted within days of the shooting, he looked like THIS.
> 
> View attachment 658169
> Long orange hair with brown roots.
> ...



New Zealamd…hmmmmmmm..how do they do drive by shootings without guns?
Oh…that’s right, they ignore gun laws….

*Utu between warring gangs is being blamed for the ongoing violence spilling into Auckland streets almost daily, with police vowing to "go hard" to stop it.*
*
Police deputy commissioner Wally Haumaha told TVNZ's Breakfast that the escalating tit-for-tat shootings between the Killer Beez and Tribesmen was at a dangerous level that hadn't been seen for years and putting everyone at risk.
*
*There have been at least 23 drive-by shootings targeting homes in the last two weeks in Auckland.*

*Haumaha said teams were working around the clock to put an end to the drive-by shootings he claimed were sparked by revenge.*











						'We're coming after you' - Utu behind warring gang Auckland drive-by shootings
					

Police say they've made a 'significant' number of arrests.




					www.nzherald.co.nz
				




*A tit-for-tat gang war between the Tribesmen and Killer Beez gangs has had Aucklanders on edge for weeks, following a number of brazen shootings across the city*.









						'Dismantle gangs from inside': City shootings spur call for Oz gang laws in NZ; PM responds
					

Opposition parties eye tough measures already working in most Australian states.




					www.nzherald.co.nz
				




*A couple living with their grandchildren have been left shaken after their home on Auckland's North Shore was targeted in a suspected gang shooting early this morning.*













						'Someone will be killed this weekend' - Gang 'war' continues in Auckland, house shot at as family sleep
					

A Beach Haven house was targeted and gunshots were heard in the latest gang war incident.




					www.nzherald.co.nz


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The gun manufacturers work with licensed dealers... they have about as much credibility as the piano player at the whorehouse who claimed he had no idea what was going on upstairs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Moron!  Why would his name be wrong on the ID he provides?  My God, you are fucking stupid!

You must have picked a lousy bank or credit union for your loan.  I did none of that and I filed bankruptcy in 2000.

Exactly how are the gun manufacturers business practices reckless?  Why is it their responsibility to check if the government is so fucked up?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You can say it, but it's just not true....  He cut his orange hair off after he was in jail.  When he was indicted within days of the shooting, he looked like THIS.
> 
> View attachment 658169
> Long orange hair with brown roots.
> ...




Hmmmm..The Netherlands……notice the names…..3rd world immigrants who don’t value western law or culture……using guns….










						Shootings, fires, and an anti-tank missile: Peter R. de Vries and the battle to cover gangs in the Netherlands
					

<p>Nabil Bakkali, a thirty-year-old member of the Dutch-Moroccan mafia, was smoking hookah and playing pachisi with friends in a lounge in Utrecht in 2017 when a phone call interrupted their game.  It was an associate of Ridouan Taghi, the alleged leader of a brutal cocaine empire and Bakkali’s...




					www.cjr.org


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The laws on the books are inadequate if this keeps happening.
> 
> Like I said, simple enough solution. * Let victims of gun violence sue gunmakers if they sell to the wrong person. *
> 
> Then they either clean up their act or they go out of business, and I'm fine either way


Again, why is that their responsibility?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Sure. He looked like a  crazy person. It's why his school was trying to throw him out, because he was a crazy person.   and if someone had called his school, they'd have known this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have no idea what you are talking about!  An AR-15 is about as military grade as Cheerios showing up on a steakhouse menu!


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've told you my idea.
> 
> Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued.   You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.



Nonsense.
Gun sellers do nothing remotely illegal, can get sued or prosecuted if they do, and have very strict regulations and record keeping.
The only laws protecting anyone is gun makers, which is because they have nothing to do with individual sales, so there is no way they could possibly be liable for anything there.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Negligence.  They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.



And how are they supposed to know that a person is unstable?
They do the FBI background check, and if that is clear, they can sued if they don't sell.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Prosecutors are elected, and  unless you want to pay your whole salary in taxes to lock up everyone, some people are going to get released.
> 
> We have 100 million people with police records.  Do we lock them all up?



If we ended the illegal War on Drugs, then 50 million of them would never have been listed as criminals in the first place.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, sorry.  The courts have already ruled the police are under no obligation to protect you, personally.
> 
> Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia  - 1981
> 
> ...



You miss the whole point.
It is NOT that they do background checks.
No one complains about that.
But it is NOT supposed to be the feds.
That is illegal, as they have NOT been granted any jurisdiction over firearms in the Constitution.
And the feds are distant, corrupt, inaccessible, impossible to sue unless you are a millionaire, and unreliable.
If it was the local police, as with a concealed carry permit, there would be no problem at all.
No one minds local licensing and registration.
It is the federal bureaucracy and corruption they do not like.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You can already sue a bar for overserving someone who later gets into a drunk driving accident.
> 
> As for cars, I would have no problem handling guns like cars.   Which means they should be licensed, registered, insured, and inspected on a regular basis.
> 
> ...



Insurance is fraud.
Whenever you have to prepay, you lose all control over quality or cost.
Car insurance should be illegal, but they claim cars are a privilege instead of a right.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've told you my idea.
> 
> Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued.   You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.


...shall not be infringed


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 16, 2022)

The US has about the highest crime rate in the world, and we all know what causes crime.
It is injustice, lack of opportunity, like no public health care, unaffordable tuition, jobs all being offshored, no unions, a corrupt government with illegal things like the War on Drug, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, 3 strikes, etc.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> We know what you think a woman's _“damned place”_ is—as a disposable fucktoy to be used and discarded. You have never given any indication of being able to imagine more value in a female companion than that.
> 
> The very worst distortions that you come up with of what view you try to attribute to me of a woman's value as a companion are far better than yours, and my true view of my wife's value to me are very far past your capability to imagine.



Quite the contrary, I think she should be able to have any career she wants, to have control over her own body, and not be subjected to bad treatment at work... all things your party vehemently opposes.  

I just don't believe in handing over half of my property to someone who is more than capable of earning her own property in a modern world.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ...shall not be infringed



How would that infringe on your right to own a gun. 

You will still be able to own a gun if someone is foolish enough to sell you one.  
just if they sell it to you and you go off and slaughter a schoolroom of preschoolers, they should be held responsible.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about! An AR-15 is about as military grade as Cheerios showing up on a steakhouse menu!



I've seen an AR-15, and DAMN, it is identical to the M-16A1 that I carried when I was in the army.  

I wonder if I could still field strip an M-16...  It's been about 30 years.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've seen an AR-15, and DAMN, it is identical to the M-16A1 that I carried when I was in the army.
> 
> I wonder if I could still field strip an M-16...  It's been about 30 years.


OOHH it looks like the same gun but it doesn't PERFORM the same

The AR 15 is no fucking different than the Mini 14 but you all dont think those rifles are scary


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Quite the contrary, I think she should be able to have any career she wants, to have control over her own body, and not be subjected to bad treatment at work... all things your party vehemently opposes.



  By _“have control over her own body”_, of course, what you mean is that you think she should have the right to murder her own child in cold blood.

 Other than that, neither I, nor any mainstream part of Republicans/conservatives hold the views that you are trying to attribute to us.

  As is nearly always the case, with you, you're flat-out lying, you know that you're lying, you know that we know that you're lying.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> Gun sellers do nothing remotely illegal, can get sued or prosecuted if they do, and have very strict regulations and record keeping.
> The only laws protecting anyone is gun makers, which is because they have nothing to do with individual sales, so there is no way they could possibly be liable for anything there.



Bullshit. 

Let's review WHY Congress passed that law.  Congress passed that law in the aftermath of the DC Sniper shootings.   The DC Snipers NEVER should have been allowed to buy guns.  One of them was a minor, the other was a convicted felon, but the gun stores sold them guns and ammo anyway.  Except instead of being slapped with a meaningless fine like the ATF normally does, the victims of these two guys sued the gun store and maker for negligence.  AFTER that, Congress passed a law immunizing gun sellers and makers from liability. 









						Johnson v. Bull's Eye | Brady
					

Brady is uniting Americans against gun violence. We invite everyone who wants to end our epidemic of gun violence to take action, not sides.



					www.bradyunited.org
				




The snipers obtained their gun, a Bushmaster XM-15, from Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, a gun store run in such a grossly negligent manner that guns routinely left the store without a record of the sale. Bull’s Eye claimed that it had no record of selling the snipers’ XM-15 when federal agents requested its sale documents
LAWSUIT​On January 16, 2003, Brady filed suit against the snipers, Bull’s Eye, and Bushmaster. The lawsuit alleged that the store was responsible for the shootings due to its grossly negligent sales practices, which allowed the shooters to acquire the weapon. The suit also alleged that Bushmaster was accountable for continuing to supply the store despite years of audits by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) that found egregious violations. Lastly, the suit claimed that the defendants created a public nuisance by distributing and selling guns in such a grossly negligent manner.
After the trial court held that the dealer and manufacturer could be held liable for the shootings, the parties agreed to a settlement in a pre-trial mediation session: Bull’s Eye would pay $2 million to the families, and Bushmaster would pay $568,000 out of its insurance policy. As part of the settlement, Bushmaster agreed to reform its distribution practices and stated that it supported laws requiring licensing and ATF monitoring for firearms dealers. ATF later revoked Bull’s Eye’s license to sell guns.



Rigby5 said:


> Insurance is fraud.
> Whenever you have to prepay, you lose all control over quality or cost.
> Car insurance should be illegal, but they claim cars are a privilege instead of a right.



Uh, guy, I WANT the other guy to have insurance.  

Now, I've had a run of bad luck, in that I've been in a couple of fender benders, and I am DAMNED glad I had insurance.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I just don't believe in handing over half of my property to someone who is more than capable of earning her own property in a modern world.



  You want a prostitute, but you don't want to pay for it.

  You've never given any indication that you think of companionship with women about anything other than sexual services and a financial burden.  The true value of a wife, of a female companion and helpmate, is far beyond your capacity to imagine.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> By _“have control over her own body”_, of course, what you mean is that you think she should have the right to murder her own child in cold blood.
> 
> Other than that, neither I, nor any mainstream part of Republicans/conservatives hold the views that you are trying to attribute to us.



Fetuses aren't people, and yes, you want to legislate what women do with their own bodies. 

As for the others.

Your side opposed the Violence Against Women Act
Your side opposed the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act
your side opposed expansion of sexual harassment laws.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You want a prostitute, but you don't want to pay for it.
> 
> You've never given any indication that you think of companionship with women about anything other than sexual services and a financial burden. The true value of a wife, of a female companion and helpmate, is far beyond your capacity to imagine.



Yes, if you belong to a cult that regulates them to second class status, I guess.  

Me, I looked at all the senior NCO's whose "companions" cheated on them when they were on deployment and then sued for divorce and got hooks into half their pensions.  

Hard pass.  

Frankly, marriage is an obsolete patriarchal institution, which is why half of them end in divorce.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Fetuses aren't people…



  You can repeat that lie as loudly and as often as you will, but it will always be a lie.




JoeB131 said:


> …and yes, you want to legislate what women do with their own bodies.



  If abortion was about the woman's own body, then she would be the one to die from it, and not her innocent child.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You can repeat that lie as loudly and as often as you will, but it will always be a lie.



Actually, it will always be a reality. 

We don't hold funerals for miscarriages, we don't arrest women for smoking while pregnant... if we took your logic to it's conclusion, that fetuses are people, then they are people who have more rights than the other people they are inside, and frankly, that's just not workable. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> If abortion was about the woman's own body, then she would be the one to die from it, and not her innocent child.



But that was the point, women DID die from abortions when they were illegal, which is why they were legalized.  Because people who don't belong to crazy cults didn't think a woman should die for the sake of a kidney-bean sized lump of tissue that can be easily removed in an outpatient service.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, if you belong to a cult that regulates them to second class status, I guess.



  It's a good thing, then, that I do not have any association with any cult that takes any such position.




JoeB131 said:


> Frankly, marriage is an obsolete patriarchal institution, which is why half of them end in divorce.



  Spoken as a pathetic nearly-sixty-year-old incel who doesn't have the capacity to imagine what it would like to be in a relationship with a woman as anything other than a disposable whore; and who, from that position keeps trying to paint me as a misogynist.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> How would that infringe on your right to own a gun.
> 
> You will still be able to own a gun if someone is foolish enough to sell you one.
> just if they sell it to you and you go off and slaughter a schoolroom of preschoolers, they should be held responsible.


2A is the only thing holding back our homicidal Progressives, so, no thanks

...shall not be infringed


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 16, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 2A is the only thing holding back our homicidal Progressives, so, no thanks
> 
> ...shall not be infringed



Really?  Because I see 49,000 dead a year and I don't see us being "protected" from anything.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really?  Because I see 49,000 dead a year and I don't see us being "protected" from anything.



Most of the death by gun is suicides…the majority of the rest are criminals murdered by criminals…

Meanwhile, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes,robberies , murders, beatings, stabbings and also mass public shootings…according to the Centers for Disease Control……

Do you know how big that number is?


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, sorry.  The courts have already ruled the police are under no obligation to protect you, personally.
> 
> Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia  - 1981
> 
> ...


If the police aren't obligated to protect us, we are obligated to ourselves. I see why you are a gun grabber, shooting yourself in the foot like that.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> You miss the whole point.
> It is NOT that they do background checks.
> No one complains about that.
> But it is NOT supposed to be the feds.
> ...


Actually, you miss the whole point at least as much as Joe does.
Local PD also does not have the right to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  No one complains about that because it's the Feds requiring it.  But anyone who understands liberty and anyone who understands the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment very much cares if local government infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.  Do you really think all we care about is who takes our guns?

If it was the local police, we'd absolutely care very much.
Anyone who cares about their liberty, the safety of their families, the right to keep and bear arms, or the Constitution absolutely minds local licensing and registration.
I'll try to not get more vocal about what I think of what you think I think of the federal bureaucracy and corruptrion - don't like the bureaucracy and corruption -  but your idea that I, or anyone else who understands the right to keep and bear arms, would be OK with our guns being taken, as long as it was the local police doing the taking, is pretty fucking stupid.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The US has about the highest crime rate in the world, and we all know what causes crime.
> It is injustice, lack of opportunity, like no public health care, unaffordable tuition, jobs all being offshored, no unions, a corrupt government with illegal things like the War on Drug, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, 3 strikes, etc.


You really are a communist.   I need to remember that next time I think I agree with something you said.  I have to figure out what I'm missing in your words because your goal is communism just like Joe's.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, if you belong to a cult that regulates them to second class status, I guess.
> 
> Me, I looked at all the senior NCO's whose "companions" cheated on them when they were on deployment and then sued for divorce and got hooks into half their pensions.
> 
> ...


When it's just the woman's body, I agree: her body, her choice.  But she made the choice to have sex.  It's an adult decision and  has potential adult consequences.  But once she exercised her choice and had sex and got pregnant, it was no longer just her body.  Choices have consequences.   A woman should never have sex, protected or otherwise, birth control or otherwise, with someone she isn't willing to spend her life with, someone she doesn't believe would be a loving, protecting, caring, provider for her children.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, it will always be a reality.
> 
> We don't hold funerals for miscarriages, we don't arrest women for smoking while pregnant... if we took your logic to it's conclusion, that fetuses are people, then they are people who have more rights than the other people they are inside, and frankly, that's just not workable.
> 
> ...


Since when do we care about a murderer getting killed in the commission of their crime?  It doesn't bother me a bit if a woman is killed having an abortion with a coat-hanger in the back alley.  The price for taking an innocent life is one's own life.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really?  Because I see 49,000 dead a year and I don't see us being "protected" from anything.


You guys already tried murdering Republican Congressmen and a Supreme Court Justice, so again....shall not be infringed


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've told you my idea.
> 
> Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued.   You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.


Take your idea and shove it up your ass why aren't auto makers sued when a drunk driver kills people?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Prosecutors are elected, and  unless you want to pay your whole salary in taxes to lock up everyone, some people are going to get released.
> 
> We have 100 million people with police records.  Do we lock them all up?


If you can't be trusted with a gun you don't need to be allowed out in public without supervision.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You can already sue a bar for overserving someone who later gets into a drunk driving accident.
> 
> As for cars, I would have no problem handling guns like cars.   Which means they should be licensed, registered, insured, and inspected on a regular basis.
> 
> ...


Rights vs privilege
Once you make them the same only the wealthy and criminals will have guns. I get it you don't care about your rights so stay the fuck in your lane and get the fuck off my rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really?  Because I see 49,000 dead a year and I don't see us being "protected" from anything.


Where is this 49,000 coming from? If you're talking about suicide's those people don't want to be protected hence the word 
s u i c i d e


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Negligence.  They sold a dangerous product to an unstable person.


That's like saying the auto maker sold a car to a drunk driver.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, sorry.  The courts have already ruled the police are under no obligation to protect you, personally.
> 
> Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia  - 1981
> 
> ...


Fuck off shrimp brain you don't have a fucking right to fly.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, he didn't.
> 
> Crime declined in the 1990's because the Baby Boom ended in 1965.  Which meant the criminal class simply got to old for that kind of shit.
> 
> ...


Most people who kill with a gun got the gun illegally.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Nope, I won't... because it's bullshit.
> 
> We lock up too many people, period.


And there you go people like you are the reason for a second amendment.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Most of the death by gun is suicides…the majority of the rest are criminals murdered by criminals…



Oh, that makes it okay then, because none of those people have people who will miss them.  Let's not do anything to keep guns away from depressed people or criminals.  



2aguy said:


> Meanwhile, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes,robberies , murders, beatings, stabbings and also mass public shootings…according to the Centers for Disease Control……



Still a horseshit number... but even if it were true, I'd rather have 1000 robberies than one murder or suicide.  



CrusaderFrank said:


> You guys already tried murdering Republican Congressmen and a Supreme Court Justice, so again....shall not be infringed



Not sure who "you guys" are..  Those people were injured by crazy people who were able to get guns.  I don't want crazy people to get guns.  Someone should do something about crazy people having guns.. you know like Congress or SCOTUS.  



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Take your idea and shove it up your ass why aren't auto makers sued when a drunk driver kills people?



Cars aren't designed to kill people and we already hold bars accountable for overserving their customers.  



bigrebnc1775 said:


> If you can't be trusted with a gun you don't need to be allowed out in public without supervision.



Actually, nobody can be trusted with a gun unless they are part of a "Well-Regulated Militia" - i.e. a cop or a soldier.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rights vs privilege
> Once you make them the same only the wealthy and criminals will have guns. I get it you don't care about your rights so stay the fuck in your lane and get the fuck off my rights.



I have a right to being able to go about my business without a crazy person shooting up wherever I happen to be at.  If that right interferes with your right to compensate for a tiny pecker, so be it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> If that right interferes with your right to compensate for a tiny pecker, so be it.



  I do not think that anyone here cares to hear about your tiny pecker, nor otherwise to hear of your sexual inadequacies being projected on others.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 17, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> View attachment 658980


I knew if I started talking about  peckers, Mormon Bob would show up. 

He wishes he had a bulge in his magic underwear.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really?  Because I see 49,000 dead a year and I don't see us being "protected" from anything.


Most of those are suicides and you can;t protect people from their own freely made choices


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I have a right to being able to go about my business without a crazy person shooting up wherever I happen to be at.  If that right interferes with your right to compensate for a tiny pecker, so be it.


But you don't have a right to pick how you'll get there. And a crazy person like you shouldn't be allowed behind a deadly weapon called a car.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, that makes it okay then, because none of those people have people who will miss them.  Let's not do anything to keep guns away from depressed people or criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Neither of those are part of the unorganized militia. Ok how about the cops at the last school shooting?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Sure.
> 
> If you buy a gun, you have to wait thirty days while a government agency does a FULL background check on you, including interviewing your family, co-workers, and school if you graduated in the last 10 years.   During that time, your name will be sent out on a list to all members of the psychiatric community.
> 
> Or better yet, we can ban all private gun ownership.  That would also work.  But I'm trying to work with you Ammosexuals, I know that a lot of you would feel "inadequate" without your guns.


Here's a better compromise.  

I get any fucking gun I want and any accessory, including full-auto belt-fed machine guns, and I promise I will not kill you with them until you deserve it.

Deal?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I have a right to being able to go about my business without a crazy person shooting up wherever I happen to be at.  If that right interferes with your right to compensate for a tiny pecker, so be it.


But you don't have the right to infringe on my right, just because you are a chicken-shit motherfucker.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> And there you go people like you are the reason for a second amendment.


Dealing with the most hardcore idiots here is a two step process.  First, just quit responding to them.  Step two is then to quit even reading their posts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 17, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Dealing with the most hardcore idiots here is a two step process.  First, just quit responding to them.  Step two is then to quit even reading their posts.


Joe's thinks he won if you don't kick his mini me mind around.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Neither of those are part of the unorganized militia. Ok how about the cops at the last school shooting?



How about those cops?  YOu had some small town cops who usually don't have to deal with anything more serious than a traffic violation now having to deal with a crazy person with a military grade weapon on a shooting rampage. 

Shame on them for not acting sooner, but shame on us for letting them get into that situation.  



Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Here's a better compromise.
> 
> I get any fucking gun I want and any accessory, including full-auto belt-fed machine guns, and I promise I will not kill you with them until you deserve it.



As I always say, the best argument for gun control is to let the Gun Fetishist babble about all the people they want to kill.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> How about those cops?  YOu had some small town cops who usually don't have to deal with anything more serious than a traffic violation now having to deal with a crazy person with a military grade weapon on a shooting rampage.
> 
> Shame on them for not acting sooner, but shame on us for letting them get into that situation.
> 
> ...



It’s not a military grade anything……..it is a normal civilian rifle also used by the police.

The same week the cops failed to go into a building to save those kids, a woman in West Virginia used her legal concealed carry pistol to stop another mass public shooter who also had an AR-15……she wasn’t a cop, she wasn’t a SEAL……..

As she demonstrated…..the AR-15 wasn’t the insipid…the failure to act was the issue.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> It’s not a military grade anything……..it is a normal civilian rifle also used by the police.
> 
> The same week the cops failed to go into a building to save those kids, a woman in West Virginia used her legal concealed carry pistol to stop another mass public shooter who also had an AR-15……she wasn’t a cop, she wasn’t a SEAL……..
> 
> As she demonstrated…..the AR-15 wasn’t the insipid…the failure to act was the issue.











						Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia
					

A woman at a birthday party drew her pistol and left the gunman with multiple wounds, police say.



					www.bbc.com
				




Yeah, let's look at that. 

_Dennis Butler, a 37-year-old with an extensive criminal history, was killed after he targeted a group of around 40 people attending a birthday party.

Mr Hazelett said it is not yet clear how Butler obtained the weapon - which he was not legally allowed to carry as a convicted felon._


Now, imagine if we lived in a country where NOBODY has a gun.  We wouldn't count on the good maniac with a gun having to stop the bad maniac with a gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia
> 
> 
> A woman at a birthday party drew her pistol and left the gunman with multiple wounds, police say.
> ...



Nobody has a gun? Except for the government?   Ask Europe how that worked out when the German Socialists murdered 15 million people in just 6 years of slaughter……

Hows that working for Mexico…one gun store, and normal people can’t get a gun……but the drug cartels with their allies in the Mexican military rack up more murder than American criminals do……

And, of course…you are trying to divert away from the fact that a woman…..with her legal pistol….not a cop…..not a Navy SEAL…..stopped a mass public shooter who also had an AR-15 ….while an entire police Department….you know, the government at work……did not engage a mass public shooter killing kids and teachers……

The civilian with their legal gun stopped a mass public shooter while the government sat on its hands ….

Yeah…I’ll trust normal people over government …..even when criminals commit murder, they don’t murder people in the millions at a time….


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia
> 
> 
> A woman at a birthday party drew her pistol and left the gunman with multiple wounds, police say.
> ...


how come you always obsess over the outliers?

You never mention the 100 million plus gun owners who will never commit any crimes and will certainly never kill anyone.

It is obvious to anyone that gun owners as a whole are no more murderous than anyone else.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> how come you always obsess over the outliers?
> 
> You never mention the 100 million plus gun owners who will never commit any crimes and will certainly never kill anyone.
> 
> It is obvious to anyone that gun owners as a whole are no more murderous than anyone else.



Then you shouldn't have a problem with rigorous background checks...


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Then you shouldn't have a problem with rigorous background checks...


We already have BG checks.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Then you shouldn't have a problem with rigorous background checks...



We have rigorous background checks…….your god, government, keeps failing to submit paperwork on the dangerous people, or simply refuses to arrest or commit them……..

Then you blame normal gun owners…


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nobody has a gun? Except for the government? Ask Europe how that worked out when the German Socialists murdered 15 million people in just 6 years of slaughter……



Uh, guy, here's the thing about the Holocaust.  Most of Europe was fine with it. The Germans found people happy to hand over their Jews in every country they invaded.  There were plenty of guns, just no one stupid enough to try to take on a tank with one.  



2aguy said:


> Hows that working for Mexico…one gun store, and normal people can’t get a gun……but the drug cartels with their allies in the Mexican military rack up more murder than American criminals do……



Um, because the US Gun stores keep flooding the place with guns.   And some Marine tries to sneak into Mexico, gets caught by the Mexican government, and the GOP screams about how horrible it was that Obama wasn't doing more to get him released. 




2aguy said:


> And, of course…you are trying to divert away from the fact that a woman…..with her legal pistol….not a cop…..not a Navy SEAL…..stopped a mass public shooter who also had an AR-15 ….while an entire police Department….you know, the government at work……did not engage a mass public shooter killing kids and teachers……



No diversion necessary.  BOTH of those situations happened because someone who had no business buying a military grade weapon was able to buy one.  That one had a slightly better outcome by random chance really doesn't mean that much to me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We already have BG checks.





2aguy said:


> We have rigorous background checks…….your god, government, keeps failing to submit paperwork on the dangerous people, or simply refuses to arrest or commit them……..



Uh, guy, if Joker Holmes and Salvador Ramos can get guns, they aren't rigorous background checks.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, if Joker Holmes and Salvador Ramos can get guns, they aren't rigorous background checks.


once again you obsess over 2 out of over 100 million


----------



## Dadoalex (Jun 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Considering that everything being proposed by the democrats would have done nothing to stop the various mass public shooters.....and that each thing they demand is simply a baby step toward banning and confiscating guns...with their golden ticket first step being gun registration, with the plan to later use the registration list to ban and confiscate guns....
> 
> The actual compromise we should make with the democrats as voiced by Kurt Schlichter.......
> 
> ...


The "compromise" is coming.
Stay in your hard line.
Refuse to admit the facts
Then
They will outlaw all of these weapons
Criminalize their possession
Confiscate

AND

they will pack the SCOTUS to make sure it stands.

You celebrate the murder of innocent in which you are complacent.
You claim weapons of war are "personal defense" when even the military keeps hard locks on their possession and use

It's coming.
And by being you, you are expediting the end.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia
> 
> 
> A woman at a birthday party drew her pistol and left the gunman with multiple wounds, police say.
> ...


How do you plan to disarm the gangs and criminals?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, here's the thing about the Holocaust.  Most of Europe was fine with it. The Germans found people happy to hand over their Jews in every country they invaded.  There were plenty of guns, just no one stupid enough to try to take on a tank with one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hmmmm....

Most of Europe was fine with it....until they found out they were murdering 15 million people........

Yeah...that isn't a great argument for gun control, you dumb ass....

Sure, your neighbors will be fine with you and your family being murdered, so give up your guns.....

You are an idiot.

Nope......the Mexican government and military sells the guns Americans supply them to the drug cartels......they also get their guns from Central and South America, China and Europe.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, if Joker Holmes and Salvador Ramos can get guns, they aren't rigorous background checks.




Yeah...there are rigorous background checks, they just don't work when your god, government, doesn't arrest or commit them no matter how many crimes they commit, or how many problems they exhibit.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 19, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> How do you plan to disarm the gangs and criminals?


waiting for an answer


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> How about those cops?  YOu had some small town cops who usually don't have to deal with anything more serious than a traffic violation now having to deal with a crazy person with a military grade weapon on a shooting rampage.
> 
> Shame on them for not acting sooner, but shame on us for letting them get into that situation.
> 
> ...


Moron they just had training for that very act. What military grade weapons? They had the exact weapons as the shooter did. Yes antiguners do want gun control so they gave a kid a lot of cash to buy his guns and go shoot up a place that antiguners want to keep guns out of.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 19, 2022)

Was he a former NFL QB with a massive gambling issue ?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> once again you obsess over 2 out of over 100 million



Only 19 Muslims were involved in 9/11 out of one billion...  yet we did something about that.  

Gun violence claims the equivalent to 30 9/11's every year.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Moron they just had training for that very act. What military grade weapons? They had the exact weapons as the shooter did. Yes antiguners do want gun control so they gave a kid a lot of cash to buy his guns and go shoot up a place that antiguners want to keep guns out of.



I doubt these small town cops had Active Shooter training.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I doubt these small town cops had Active Shooter training.




Moron...they had just had active shooter training in March of this year...you doofus.  All police are trained to not wait, to go into the building as soon as you arrive on scene.......you do not wait.....they waited and cost those lives...your god, government.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Hmmmm....
> 
> Most of Europe was fine with it....until they found out they were murdering 15 million people........



Uh, guy, here's the thing.  Nobody in 1940 felt all that bad about the Jews.   Your average German had no problem having a gun... he just wasn't going to risk his life to protect his Jewish neighbor.  They did use those guns to fight to the last old man and little boy in the last stages of the war, though.   That's why Ike had to go house to house to confiscate every gun in Germany in 1945.  



2aguy said:


> Yeah...there are rigorous background checks, they just don't work when your god, government, doesn't arrest or commit them no matter how many crimes they commit, or how many problems they exhibit.....



Except Joker Holmes and Ramos hadn't done anything that merited arresting them... until they did. 

But a simple background check that would have involved talking to their schools, families, would have uncovered neither one of them had any business owning a gun.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron...they had just had active shooter training in March of this year...you doofus. All police are trained to not wait, to go into the building as soon as you arrive on scene.......you do not wait.....they waited and cost those lives...your god, government.



But you grabbed that government money with both hands when you were in the National Guard, didn't you? 

Okay, let's get real.  An 8 hour training course isn't going to make Andy and Barney proficient in taking on a mass shooter.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Only 19 Muslims were involved in 9/11 out of one billion...  yet we did something about that.
> 
> Gun violence claims the equivalent to 30 9/11's every year.


We really didn't.

We invaded Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11

And as I have said many times everyone knows where the most gun violence takes place but cops and politicians refuse to do anything about it because in the end it's mostly young minority males killing other young minority males and no one really gives a shit.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, here's the thing.  Nobody in 1940 felt all that bad about the Jews.   Your average German had no problem having a gun... he just wasn't going to risk his life to protect his Jewish neighbor.  They did use those guns to fight to the last old man and little boy in the last stages of the war, though.   That's why Ike had to go house to house to confiscate every gun in Germany in 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wrong.....holmes could have been committed.....and ramos had several felony level crimes that the police never acted on, and he could have been committed as well......

A mandatory federal background check was done......and since the government hadn't arrested them or committed them, which they could have done......they didn't pop on the background check.









						Robb Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						James Holmes (mass murderer) - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> But you grabbed that government money with both hands when you were in the National Guard, didn't you?
> 
> Okay, let's get real.  An 8 hour training course isn't going to make Andy and Barney proficient in taking on a mass shooter.




I worked for the national guard and got paid, you dumb ass....

The woman in West Virginia using her concealed carry pistol didn't have any training and she stopped a mass public shooter armed with an AR-15 that same week....you idiot...she was by herself, she didn't have an entire police department with her...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I doubt these small town cops had Active Shooter training.


You're a dumbass


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We really didn't.
> 
> We invaded Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11
> 
> And as I have said many times everyone knows where the most gun violence takes place but cops and politicians refuse to do anything about it because in the end it's mostly young minority males killing other young minority males and no one really gives a shit.



The politicians refuse to do anything about it because the NRA is very good at intimidating them.  




2aguy said:


> I worked for the national guard and got paid, you dumb ass....



So you hate the government except when they are giving you money... got it.  



2aguy said:


> Wrong.....holmes could have been committed.....and ramos had several felony level crimes that the police never acted on, and he could have been committed as well......
> 
> A mandatory federal background check was done......and since the government hadn't arrested them or committed them, which they could have done......they didn't pop on the background check.



Oh, you are finally admitting that Ramos DID have a criminal record.  That's nice. 

Okay, so let's say instead of just punching in a name in a database, and hoping you spelled it right, you actually make Ramos wait a couple of days..  while someone conducts a thorough background check.  And they would have found THIS (from your link). 

Born on May 16, 2004, in North Dakota,[113] Salvador Ramos was a resident of Uvalde and a former student at Uvalde High School.[114] He did not have a criminal record or any documented mental health issues;[53] _*he had previously posted violent threats online.*_[115] According to his classmates and some of his friends, Ramos had a stutter and a strong lisp, for which he was often bullied; he frequently had fistfights with classmates, occasionally with boxing gloves that he carried around with him, and he had few friends. He was scheduled to finish high school in 2022, but his frequent absences made his graduation unlikely. He eventually dropped out of school.[93][116]

_*Ramos's social media acquaintances said he openly abused and killed animals such as cats and would livestream the abuse on *_*Yubo*.[117] *Other social media acquaintances said that he would also livestream himself on Yubo threatening to kidnap and rape girls who used the app, as well as threatening to commit a school shooting*.[115] Ramos's account was reported to Yubo, but no action was taken.[115][118] Up until a month before the shooting, Ramos worked at a local Wendy's and had been employed there for at least a year. According to the store's night manager, he went out of his way to keep to himself.[119] One of his coworkers said he was occasionally rude to his female co-workers, to whom he sent inappropriate text messages, and would intimidate co-workers at his job by asking them, "Do you know who I am?"[93] *Ramos's coworkers referred to him by names including "school shooter" because he had long hair and frequently wore black clothing*.[120]

Now, here's a crazy idea.   How about actually TALKING to his co-workers before he gets a gun.  Or his school.  Or checking his social media account?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The politicians refuse to do anything about it because the NRA is very good at intimidating them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The NRA isn't telling the democrats to keep releasing violent criminals over and over again.....and they aren't telling people to do mass public shootings.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The politicians refuse to do anything about it because the NRA is very good at intimidating them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Shithead......the torture and killing of cats is a felony.......had his friends or family had him arrested, he would have failed the background check.  The threatening to rape girls could have gotten him a restraining order....bingo, another pop on a background check....

This was a failure of government, not normal gun owners.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 19, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> How do you plan to disarm the gangs and criminals?


Still waiting for your answer Joe


----------



## Flash (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've told you my idea.
> 
> Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued.   You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.


We have told you what we think of your stupid idea.  Cram it up your Libtard ass.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The politicians refuse to do anything about it because the NRA is very good at intimidating them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The NRA is US not some imaginary thing.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 19, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The NRA is US not some imaginary thing.


The NRA has 1/25th the pull
That the SEIU has on Congress


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia
> 
> 
> A woman at a birthday party drew her pistol and left the gunman with multiple wounds, police say.
> ...



Name a country that does not have recorded cases of shootings committed with illegal guns?  The UK has them.  New Zealand has them.  Australia has them.  Just where has banning guns eliminated illegal guns?

That Butler was a criminal forbidden from owning guns proves that no gun law you can ever imagine will stop criminals from  having guns.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nobody has a gun? Except for the government?   Ask Europe how that worked out when the German Socialists murdered 15 million people in just 6 years of slaughter……
> 
> Hows that working for Mexico…one gun store, and normal people can’t get a gun……but the drug cartels with their allies in the Mexican military rack up more murder than American criminals do……
> 
> ...



It has come out now, backed up by the video of the scene, that the police never even tried to open the door to the classroom where the shooter was.  The shooter fired a couple rounds through the door and the cops fled in terror.  Parents with guns would have gone in.  One or two might have died in the process but they would have gotten the shooter.  I can guarantee you that 38 parents dying to save 19 children would have been an absolute success if was possible to ask dead parents.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, here's the thing about the Holocaust.  Most of Europe was fine with it. The Germans found people happy to hand over their Jews in every country they invaded.  There were plenty of guns, just no one stupid enough to try to take on a tank with one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Butler wasn't able to legally buy a gun.  Making them more illegal wouldn't change a thing.  And it wasn't gun stores sending guns to Mexico, it was Obama.

That Europe had enough guns, there were plenty of guns as you say, but didn't stop the murder of 6 million Jews proves that the guns need to be in the hands of the people.

The proof of the Uvalde shooting, the Stoneman Douglas shooting, the Holocaust, is all the same: people who are not the targets of evil will often not risk their lives to stop evil while those who are the targets have nothing at all to lose and, if allowed to do so, will stop the evil or die trying.   They just need you and the Government to get out of their way.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, here's the thing.  Nobody in 1940 felt all that bad about the Jews.   Your average German had no problem having a gun... he just wasn't going to risk his life to protect his Jewish neighbor.  They did use those guns to fight to the last old man and little boy in the last stages of the war, though.   That's why Ike had to go house to house to confiscate every gun in Germany in 1945.



You really are an idiot... As 2aguy said, you are the case against gun control.  That nobody in 1940 felt bad about the Jews is proof that a man needs the tools to defend himself because no one else is going to do it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The politicians refuse to do anything about it because the NRA is very good at intimidating them.


A post or two ago, you said we did something about 9/11.  Now you're claiming that the reason we did nothing was the NRA. So which is it?  We did something or we did nothing?

And are you seriously going to claim that the NRA convinced Bush to attack Iraq rather than Afghanistan?  Because maybe the NRA was defending the right to fly airplanes into buildings or what?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, here's the thing.  Nobody in 1940 felt all that bad about the Jews.   Your average German had no problem having a gun... he just wasn't going to risk his life to protect his Jewish neighbor.  They did use those guns to fight to the last old man and little boy in the last stages of the war, though.   That's why Ike had to go house to house to confiscate every gun in Germany in 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Except how many laws would that violate?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> It has come out now, backed up by the video of the scene, that the police never even tried to open the door to the classroom where the shooter was.  The shooter fired a couple rounds through the door and the cops fled in terror.  Parents with guns would have gone in.  One or two might have died in the process but they would have gotten the shooter.  I can guarantee you that 38 parents dying to save 19 children would have been an absolute success if was possible to ask dead parents.


Those kids and teachers were already dead.  Sacrificing more cops or parents made no sense.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> It’s not a military grade anything……..it is a normal civilian rifle also used by the police.
> 
> The same week the cops failed to go into a building to save those kids, a woman in West Virginia used her legal concealed carry pistol to stop another mass public shooter who also had an AR-15……she wasn’t a cop, she wasn’t a SEAL……..
> 
> As she demonstrated…..*the AR-15 wasn’t the insipid*…the failure to act was the issue.


WTF?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 19, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Those kids and teachers were already dead.  Sacrificing more cops or parents made no sense.


Absolute lie.  Several of the kids bled out slowly.  One of the teachers died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.  Most of the children could have been saved simply by the distraction of having the shooter focusing on the cops instead of the children.

You're one fucked up son of a bitch liberal leftist to defend cowards who let kids die just so you can use the narrative to ban guns from law abiding citizens.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The NRA isn't telling the democrats to keep releasing violent criminals over and over again.....and they aren't telling people to do mass public shootings.



We lock up 2 million people.  If locking them up was the answer, we'd be there. 



2aguy said:


> Shithead......the torture and killing of cats is a felony.......had his friends or family had him arrested, he would have failed the background check. The threatening to rape girls could have gotten him a restraining order....bingo, another pop on a background check....



Or we can have someone do an actual background check rather than hoping someone decides to put him in jail for a petty offense. 

Locking someone up for killing a cat is stupid.  But I wouldn't let that person have a gun.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Name a country that does not have recorded cases of shootings committed with illegal guns? The UK has them. New Zealand has them. Australia has them. Just where has banning guns eliminated illegal guns?


They don't have them on a daily basis like our country does.  




woodwork201 said:


> A post or two ago, you said we did something about 9/11. Now you're claiming that the reason we did nothing was the NRA. So which is it? We did something or we did nothing?


My apologies, I didn't realize that I was dealing with a retard.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> They don't have them on a daily basis like our country does.
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies, I didn't realize that I was dealing with a retard.


Still waiting for you to tell me how the Government will confiscate all the criminals firearms.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I didn't realize that I was dealing with a retard.



  When do you ever not have to deal with yourself?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 19, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Absolute lie.  Several of the kids bled out slowly.  One of the teachers died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.  Most of the children could have been saved simply by the distraction of having the shooter focusing on the cops instead of the children.
> 
> You're one fucked up son of a bitch liberal leftist to defend cowards who let kids die just so you can use the narrative to ban guns from law abiding citizens.


You best back your mother-fucking truck up!

Distracting the shooter accomplishes what?  You still cannot get to the victims!

Calling me a leftist liberal is about as far away as you can be off course, dickhead! Where did I say that I wanted to ban guns, retard?

I happened to train special operations forces for 11 years.  I often served as the role of shooter holed up in a room in their scenarios.  You have no idea how many of them got killed leading with their testicles into the room instead of using their brains!


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The politicians refuse to do anything about it because the NRA is very good at intimidating them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your obsession with outliers clouds your thinking


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 20, 2022)

Failzero said:


> The NRA has 1/25th the pull
> That the SEIU has on Congress


I was just pointing out what the NRA is, not what joey believes that it is.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Your obsession with outliers clouds your thinking



Uh, guy, it isn't an outlier when you have schools getting shot up.  

I'm all for a solution that keeps guns out the hands of the crazies but still lets you compensate for your shortcomings.

But the latter isn't a priority.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, it isn't an outlier when you have schools getting shot up.
> 
> I'm all for a solution that keeps guns out the hands of the crazies but still lets you compensate for your shortcomings.
> 
> But the latter isn't a priority.


Yes it is.

Tell me what percentage of people who legally buy and possess guns commit school shootings?

And unlike you juvenile idiots I understand that a gun is nothing but an inanimate tool


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We lock up 2 million people.  If locking them up was the answer, we'd be there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No....when the democrat party is refusing to arrest, or jail, the most dangerous and violent criminals, that 2 million doesn't mean anything...and when they are also doing their best to release the most violent and dangerous criminals, that two million means nothing...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> They don't have them on a daily basis like our country does.
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies, I didn't realize that I was dealing with a retard.




Our country has daily shootings because of the democrat party....the cities they control, they destroy the family, the police, then release the most dangerous and violent criminals into black neighborhoods....

Keep them from doing those things and our gun crime rate will be like the rest of the country, almost 0.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> Tell me what percentage of people who legally buy and possess guns commit school shootings?
> 
> And unlike you juvenile idiots I understand that a gun is nothing but an inanimate tool




There has been one mass school shooting this year....out of over 135,000 public and private schools in this country....and had they had basic security, and had the police actually entered the building the way they are trained to do, the deaths could have been at least reduced if not stopped altogether.....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 20, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You best back your mother-fucking truck up!
> 
> Distracting the shooter accomplishes what?  You still cannot get to the victims!
> 
> ...




Any bullet fired at the police is a bullet that isn't hitting an innocent victim......if he has to concentrate on the door to keep the police from entering, he isn't pulling the trigger on innocent victims..

Also....and mosts important...

These killers tend to do one of 3 things when actually confronted by someone, police or civilian, armed with a gun...

They commit suicide

They surrender

They run away....

That only happens if they have someone shooting at them...the Sandy Hook killer killed himself as soon as he heard the police sirens...

The Colorado theater shooter surrendered as soon as a cop called him out.

The Texas church shooter stopped shooting and murdering the wounded when the NRA instructor approached the church and called him out...

The Parkland shooter ran away as soon as the police finally decided to enter the building...

Putting pressure on the killer is the one way to save lives...


----------



## Failzero (Jun 20, 2022)

The other Texas Church Attacker was killed early
On in attack with a 15 yard headshot from an old timer parishioner


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, it isn't an outlier when you have schools getting shot up.
> 
> I'm all for a solution that keeps guns out the hands of the crazies but still lets you compensate for your shortcomings.
> 
> But the latter isn't a priority.


You're crazy because you sound like you are.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 20, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> You best back your mother-fucking truck up!
> 
> Distracting the shooter accomplishes what?  You still cannot get to the victims!
> 
> ...



You're an idiot.  It is sad for our special forces that they are trained by idiots.  And I can tell you 38 people who would have gladly stormed the shooter, even unarmed, to save 19 children.  

The police could have easily gotten to the shooter; the door was unlocked and they never once tried it.  It turns out that it's on video; no one ever touched the fucking door until the special forces unit of the Border Patrol went in and they killed the shooter.  So that proves you're completely full of shit that they all would have died.  They went in and not a single one of them died.  Not a single cop died.  

By the way, all of the cops had body armor; the shooter did not.

And, the globally agreed upon standard in a school shooting is that the cops go in even if it costs them their lives.  You and the Uvalde cops can't claim any of the heroism of other cops.  They can't talk about running to the sound of gunfire.  If cops never risk their own lives then we don't need them.

But, again, the Border Patrol team went in and stopped the shooter and not a single one was killed or even injured.  So the others could have rushed the door as well.  Most likely, just as happened when the Border Patrol did go in, not a single cop would have been  hurt.  Middle case might have been that a cop got hit in the armor or might have gotten injured.  Worst case would be that a cop or two got killed.   That would be very sad but that's the job they signed up for and promised to do.  

You are so full of shit it's just mind-boggling.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....when the democrat party is refusing to arrest, or jail, the most dangerous and violent criminals, that 2 million doesn't mean anything...and when they are also doing their best to release the most violent and dangerous criminals, that two million means nothing...


When prison is a bad-boy's club where they get to hang out in the yard, play basketball, lift weights, and study under the best gang mentors in the world, watch TV, watch movies, lead their gang activities, do drugs, have cell phones, etc., two million means nothing.

Prisons need to change.  They need to be prisons, not boys' clubs.  And as bad as prisons would be to you or me, even the best of them, these sociopaths don't have the same feelings we have; they don't care about family or loved ones the way we do.  Their allegiance is to their boys and prison doesn't threaten them the way it does us.  But that needs to change.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 20, 2022)

The police never tried to open the door to the classroom where a madman was killing children.



			https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/uvalde-robb-elementary-shootings/2022/06/19/id/1075063/


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You're an idiot.  It is sad for our special forces that they are trained by idiots.  And I can tell you 38 people who would have gladly stormed the shooter, even unarmed, to save 19 children.
> 
> The police could have easily gotten to the shooter; the door was unlocked and they never once tried it.  It turns out that it's on video; no one ever touched the fucking door until the special forces unit of the Border Patrol went in and they killed the shooter.  So that proves you're completely full of shit that they all would have died.  They went in and not a single one of them died.  Not a single cop died.
> 
> ...


There wasn't a border patrol special unit at the shooting. It was 1 member of the border patrol special unit that, was off duty with a barrowed shotgun that took the shooter out.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> Tell me what percentage of people who legally buy and possess guns commit school shootings?
> 
> And unlike you juvenile idiots I understand that a gun is nothing but an inanimate tool



What percentage of airline passengers hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Very very few, but we put all the rest through scans and searches and confiscate their bottles of mouthwash to make sure that doesn't happen again. 



2aguy said:


> No....when the democrat party is refusing to arrest, or jail, the most dangerous and violent criminals, that 2 million doesn't mean anything...and when they are also doing their best to release the most violent and dangerous criminals, that two million means nothing...



If prison were a deterrent, then we wouldn't have violent criminals.  

Our prisons are overcrowded now, and we don't have the resources or staffing to build more.  


So when someone who turned to crime because of the poverty, racism, mental illness or drug addiction we let go untreated is put back out there, they end up committing more crimes.  Which they can easily do because the NRA has made it so damned easy to get a gun. 


Now, imagine if we made it EASY to get mental health treatment and HARD to get a gun, instead of the other way around.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Our country has daily shootings because of the democrat party....the cities they control, they destroy the family, the police, then release the most dangerous and violent criminals into black neighborhoods....
> 
> Keep them from doing those things and our gun crime rate will be like the rest of the country, almost 0.



Wow, 2AGuy, so you are arguing if we have no people like the rural areas, we won't have crime.   Wow.  

We have crime because it's too easy for mentally unstable people to get guns.  Uvalde is the kind of rural community you think is the ideal.  Republican governance, a crazy was still able to get a gun and kill 21 people.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> What percentage of airline passengers hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Very very few, but we put all the rest through scans and searches and confiscate their bottles of mouthwash to make sure that doesn't happen again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Moron….it is hard to murder a store clerk or rival gang member when you are doing 30 years in prison…….

It is much easier to murder innocent people when the democrat party prosecutor won’t press charges against you for shooting at people in public…so you can keep shooting at people until you finally injure or kill someone…


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> What percentage of airline passengers hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Very very few, but we put all the rest through scans and searches and confiscate their bottles of mouthwash to make sure that doesn't happen again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I keep asking you how the Government will confiscate all the gang and criminals firearms?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, 2AGuy, so you are arguing if we have no people like the rural areas, we won't have crime.   Wow.
> 
> We have crime because it's too easy for mentally unstable people to get guns.  Uvalde is the kind of rural community you think is the ideal.  Republican governance, a crazy was still able to get a gun and kill 21 people.



He got the gun because your god,  government, failed….the school and local police could have had him arrested or committed for his criminal activity and dangerous mental health issues, they didn’t stop him……..


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> When prison is a bad-boy's club where they get to hang out in the yard, play basketball, lift weights, and study under the best gang mentors in the world, watch TV, watch movies, lead their gang activities, do drugs, have cell phones, etc., two million means nothing.
> 
> Prisons need to change. They need to be prisons, not boys' clubs. And as bad as prisons would be to you or me, even the best of them, these sociopaths don't have the same feelings we have; they don't care about family or loved ones the way we do. Their allegiance is to their boys and prison doesn't threaten them the way it does us. But that needs to change.



A think anyone who tells me how nice the prisons are should be required to spend a month there.  

The problem with the prison industrial complex is that it does make matters worse.  You send a kid to prison for some property crime.  He pretty much as to throw in with a gang to get protection, and is often sexually abused by the other prisoners.  


When he gets out, he finds he has NO job prospects, because no one wants to hire an ex-con. So, yup, he gets back into crime, often with people he met in prison.  Except this time he does something worse.  

The United States locks up 2 million people.  That's more than Russia or Communist China.  The other G-7 countries lock up less than 100,000.  NObody is making money off of prison industries, so there is no incentive to lock people up and create a self-perpetuating criminal class.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I keep asking you how the Government will confiscate all the gang and criminals firearms?



And I've told you, and you keep pretending you didn't see it.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> A think anyone who tells me how nice the prisons are should be required to spend a month there.
> 
> The problem with the prison industrial complex is that it does make matters worse.  You send a kid to prison for some property crime.  He pretty much as to throw in with a gang to get protection, and is often sexually abused by the other prisoners.
> 
> ...



How about we start with not letting the violent gun offenders out over and over again….you know, the ones actually shooting people?  How about we start there….you doofus.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He got the gun because your god, government, failed….the school and local police could have had him arrested or committed for his criminal activity and dangerous mental health issues, they didn’t stop him……..



He got the gun because government isn't allowed to meaningfully restrict or investigate who should have them. 

So that's why I say, get the government out of it.  Just let the victims of gun violence sue the gunmakers and sellers, and you will be AMAZED how quickly they start vetting their customers. 

Kind of like the banks.  I compare my loan process in 2021 to the one I went through in 2004, and man, they pretty much did everything short of doing a colonoscopy before they signed off on that loan.  


Buying a gun should be like that.  A thorough investigation to make sure you aren't the kind of person who is going to muck it up.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> What percentage of airline passengers hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Very very few, but we put all the rest through scans and searches and confiscate their bottles of mouthwash to make sure that doesn't happen again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't have a Constitutional right to fly on a plane.

You are allowed to fly by the airlines that own the plane


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> How about we start with not letting the violent gun offenders out over and over again….you know, the ones actually shooting people? How about we start there….you doofus.



We lock up 2 million people.
We have another 7 million on probation or parole.
We have 100 million Americans with a police record. 

How many people do you want to lock up, Dick Tiny?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> He got the gun because government isn't allowed to meaningfully restrict or investigate who should have them.
> 
> So that's why I say, get the government out of it.  Just let the victims of gun violence sue the gunmakers and sellers, and you will be AMAZED how quickly they start vetting their customers.
> 
> ...



No, he got the gun because he’s a criminal…they break the law.

And the car makers too……next time I’m I’m a fender bender I’ll sue Toyota….


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We lock up 2 million people.
> We have another 7 million on probation or parole.
> We have 100 million Americans with a police record.
> 
> How many people do you want to lock up, Dick Tiny?



The democrats keep releasing the most violent and dangerous criminals over and over again….how about we just don’t let out the violent killers…..


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> What percentage of airline passengers hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Very very few, but we put all the rest through scans and searches and confiscate their bottles of mouthwash to make sure that doesn't happen again.
> 
> 
> If prison were a deterrent, then we wouldn't have violent criminals.
> ...



  Your solution is to turn the whole world into a prison, where nobody is free, and nobody can be trusted.

  Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the difference between criminals and human beings, you simply wish to treat everyone as criminals.  And in refusing to isolate criminals from human beings, you put human beings in greater danger of predation from criminals.




JoeB131 said:


> So when someone who turned to crime because of the poverty, racism, mental illness or drug addiction we let go untreated is put back out there, they end up committing more crimes. Which they can easily do because the NRA has made it so damned easy to get a gun.



  BULLSHIT!

  Criminals commit crimes because they are subhuman piece of shit, and that's what they do.

  Nobody here buys your bullshit excuses that you are always making for subhuman criminal shit, to justify taking their side against the side of human beings.

  Be known by the company that you choose to keep.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You don't have a Constitutional right to fly on a plane.
> 
> You are allowed to fly by the airlines that own the plane



That's always your fallback, isn't it? 

*THE FOUNDING SLAVE RAPISTS SAID I CAN HAVE A GUN BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CLEARLY DEFINE A MILITIA! *

Let's pretend we were writing the constitution today.  Do you think we'd have something like the Second Amendment (which again, was about militias, not guns) in it? Of course not.  We'd allow sensible gun laws, just like we allowed them before Guido Scalia decided the NRA talking points were sane.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That's always your fallback, isn't it?
> 
> *THE FOUNDING SLAVE RAPISTS SAID I CAN HAVE A GUN BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CLEARLY DEFINE A MILITIA! *
> 
> Let's pretend we were writing the constitution today.  Do you think we'd have something like the Second Amendment (which again, was about militias, not guns) in it? Of course not.  We'd allow sensible gun laws, just like we allowed them before Guido Scalia decided the NRA talking points were sane.


It's not a fall back it is a fact.

And why do you ignore the fact that the Constitution was legally changed in accordance to the rules set forth when slavery was abolished?

So all you have to do is amend the the Constitution to get rid of the Second Amendment.  And good luck with that.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That's always your fallback, isn't it?
> 
> *THE FOUNDING SLAVE RAPISTS SAID I CAN HAVE A GUN BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CLEARLY DEFINE A MILITIA! *
> 
> Let's pretend we were writing the constitution today.  Do you think we'd have something like the Second Amendment (which again, was about militias, not guns) in it? Of course not.  We'd allow sensible gun laws, just like we allowed them before Guido Scalia decided the NRA talking points were sane.



*You vote for the political party actually created by slave rapists…..the democrat party*


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> And I've told you, and you keep pretending you didn't see it.


LOL no you havent. Liar.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> What percentage of airline passengers hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Very very few, but we put all the rest through scans and searches and confiscate their bottles of mouthwash to make sure that doesn't happen again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You keep repeating the same old worn out debunked fascist scared of gun talking points , why? You sound like a 12 years old trying to get his way


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The democrats keep releasing the most violent and dangerous criminals over and over again….how about we just don’t let out the violent killers…..



Okay... except how do you expect them to behave themselves in prison if they don't even have the possibility of parole?  32% of people released for a violent crime reoffend. But 68% of them don't. 

The thing is, we only have 20,000 homicides a year.  The murderers - most of whom get life sentences, aren't really the problem.  It's the non-murderers who fall into a rut of more crime. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Your solution is to turn the whole world into a prison, where nobody is free, and nobody can be trusted.
> 
> Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the difference between criminals and human beings, you simply wish to treat everyone as criminals. And in refusing to isolate criminals form human beings, you put human beings in greater danger of predation from criminals.



Since we are talking specifically about mass shooters here...  most mass shooters have no criminal records before they go off the edge.  Some of them are people who just snapped.   And reading your posts, you strike me as the kind of guy who could just snap some day.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That's always your fallback, isn't it?
> 
> *THE FOUNDING SLAVE RAPISTS SAID I CAN HAVE A GUN BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CLEARLY DEFINE A MILITIA! *
> 
> Let's pretend we were writing the constitution today.  Do you think we'd have something like the Second Amendment (which again, was about militias, not guns) in it? Of course not.  We'd allow sensible gun laws, just like we allowed them before Guido Scalia decided the NRA talking points were sane.


No one but God gave me the right to defend myself. The founders only ensured that right was protected written in the law of the land.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay... except how do you expect them to behave themselves in prison if they don't even have the possibility of parole?  32% of people released for a violent crime reoffend. But 68% of them don't.
> 
> The thing is, we only have 20,000 homicides a year.  The murderers - most of whom get life sentences, aren't really the problem.  It's the non-murderers who fall into a rut of more crime.
> 
> ...


Execute them or don't release them


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> And reading your posts, you strike me as the kind of guy who could just snap some day.



  I doubt if anyone else her thinks you're likely to be any good judge of who is likely to snap, and who is not.

  Certainly, you clearly demonstrate the lack of ethics, and the lack of a soul, and a general hatred for all humankind, that would make you a good candidate for such snappage.  I think the only things holding you back from such behavior are that you're too cowardly, too weak, and too stupid to do anything.

  I can say this much:  If I ever were to snap, and become a violent criminal, I know that then, you would be solidly on my side.

  You hate me, above all else, because I am not a criminal, but an actual human being who would rather not be easy prey for your kind.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No one but God gave me the right to defend myself. The founders only ensured that right was protected written in the law of the land.



There is no God.  
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. 



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Execute them or don't release them



We don't have enough room in the prisons and executing people is right out when you can't tell me you are killing the right guy.  We've released 164 people from death row after they were exonerated, and maybe as many as 14 were wrongfully executed. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I doubt if anyone else her thinks you're likely to be any good judge of who is likely to snap, and who is not.
> 
> Certainly, you clearly demonstrate the lack of ethics, and the lack of a soul, and a general hatred for all humankind, that would make you a good candidate for such snappage. I think the only things holding you back from such behavior are that you're too cowardly, too weak, and too stupid to do anything.



Uh, guy, you're the one who wants to murder 

Women who have abortions
Bureaucrats who pass laws you don't like
Petty criminals over property crimes
Teachers who don't agree with your extreme homophobia.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> There is no God.
> A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.
> 
> 
> ...


Your opinion is not proof
Execute them  
Murder is not the same as killing. 
Bureaucrats don't make laws and are not legal.
And you can go fuck yourself with your other bullshit. I hope one day you'll come face to face with a criminal intent on doing you harm and when you take your last breathe after they finish say as loud as you can I WAS WRONG.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> There is no God.
> A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.
> 
> 
> ...


DEBUNKED BULLSHIT is still DEBUNKED BULLSHIT no matter how many times you repeat it


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay... except how do you expect them to behave themselves in prison if they don't even have the possibility of parole?  32% of people released for a violent crime reoffend. But 68% of them don't.
> 
> The thing is, we only have 20,000 homicides a year.  The murderers - most of whom get life sentences, aren't really the problem.  It's the non-murderers who fall into a rut of more crime.
> 
> ...




No....it is the felons caught with illegal guns who are released despite being felons in possession of illegal guns that go on to eventually murder people......

Mass public shooters in 2021

6.....out of a population of over 330 million people.....

Total killed....

43..... out of a population of over 330 million people...

Out of over 10,000 gun murders....

So you want to focus on mass public shooters because they are the one gun crime that is covered 24/7 by the democrat party media, and who actually make normal Americans afraid, even though the odds of being involved in a mass public shootings are essentially 0.

But, because of the 24/7, Oscars of crime coverage of mass public shootings, you can drag dead bodies in front of the cameras and scare uninformed Americans into giving you power....

Meanwhile, in democrat party controlled cities, young black males are murdering each other in the thousands every single year......but you don't care about them because they already vote for your slave rapist party at over 95%............


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> There is no God.
> A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.
> 
> 
> ...



*A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.*

Again...that is a lie......and it was repealed by the very guy who did the research.....

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

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

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

*Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.*


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

*Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----
*

Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. 
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

*Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

*It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> There is no God.
> A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.
> 
> 
> ...




And more.....

http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/05/you-know-less-than-you-think-a/1

Is Having a Gun in the Home Inherently Deadly?

The idea that keeping a gun in the home puts owners and their families at elevated risk first rose to prominence in a 1993 _New England Journal of Medicine_ article by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues. "Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection," they concluded, "this study shows that the practice is counterproductive."

*The study has many flaws. In addition to the predictable failure to establish causality, there's a more glaring irregularity: Slightly less than half of the murders Kellermann studied were actually committed with a gun (substantially less than the national average in 1993 of around 71 percent). 


And even in those cases he failed to establish that the gun owners were killed with their own guns.*


 If even a small percentage of them weren't, given that more than half of the murders were _not_committed with guns, the causal relevance of the harmed being gun owners is far less clear. (The study found that even more dangerous risks than having a gun at home included living alone, using drugs, or being a renter.)

A 2013 literature review in the journal _Aggression and Violent Behavior_, written by the University of Utrecht psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe, starts with Kellermann but rejects the idea that firearm possession is "a primary cause of either suicide or homicide." However, he writes, "since guns are more effective means for [actually killing someone] than poison or other weapons, the rate of firearm possession can be expected to be positively related to overall rates of suicide and homicide." But even then we can't be sure of causality, since guns might be the choice of people with more serious lethal intent, against themselves or others, to begin with.

*Stroebe notes that the two major post-Kellermann studies most often used to demonstrate an association between gun ownership and risk of homicide shared one of Kellermann's fatal flaws: 

They offer no information about whether the gun used to kill the gun owners was their own. 

And despite Kellermann's finding that living alone was very risky, one of the follow-ups, a 2004 study by Linda Dahlberg and colleagues, found that it was only those with roommates who faced a higher risk of a specifically gun-related homicide.*


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, you're the one who wants to murder
> 
> Women who have abortions



  It is bizarre that you think there is any moral high ground for you to claim by defending the brutal cold-blooded murder of innocent children, and opposing any effort to bring anyone to proper justice for these murders.




JoeB131 said:


> Bureaucrats who pass groundlaws you don't like
> Petty criminals over property crimes



  Those are lies, and you know damn well that they are lies.

  It is rather telling, of course, the way you staunchly and consistently alway take the side of criminals and corrupt politicians against the side of human beings.




JoeB131 said:


> Teachers who don't agree with your extreme homophobia.



  Everyone here knows that what you mean here are perverts who engage in the abusive sexual grooming and exploitation of young children.

  Damn right I want them dead.  Any decent person would.

  It is not the least bit surprising that you take the side of those who sexually abuse children.  It's completely consistent with the rest of your demonstrated [lack of] character.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Any bullet fired at the police is a bullet that isn't hitting an innocent victim......if he has to concentrate on the door to keep the police from entering, he isn't pulling the trigger on innocent victims..
> 
> Also....and mosts important...
> 
> ...


By the time he engaged the cops, every victim had already been shot.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You're an idiot.  It is sad for our special forces that they are trained by idiots.  And I can tell you 38 people who would have gladly stormed the shooter, even unarmed, to save 19 children.
> 
> The police could have easily gotten to the shooter; the door was unlocked and they never once tried it.  It turns out that it's on video; no one ever touched the fucking door until the special forces unit of the Border Patrol went in and they killed the shooter.  So that proves you're completely full of shit that they all would have died.  They went in and not a single one of them died.  Not a single cop died.
> 
> ...


What type of distraction device did the cops employ?  Oh, they didn't, probably because they didn't have one. 

Your tactic would have simply increased the body count with no guarantee of saving any of the victims.  The testimony is being heard in Texas today.  We'll see what they have to see.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Again...that is a lie......and it was repealed by the very guy who did the research.....



He didn't repeal it, he just clarified for people who are a tad slow like you.  

For every intruder killed by a homeowner, there were 43 suicides, domestic murders or accidents.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> It is bizarre that you think there is any moral high ground for you to claim by defending the brutal cold-blooded murder of innocent children, and opposing any effort to bring anyone to proper justice for these murders.



Fetuses aren't people.  The law doesn't see them as people, the government doesn't count them as people.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> Everyone here knows that what you mean here are perverts who engage in the abusive sexual grooming and exploitation of young children.



MOMMY, My teacher told me today gay people exist!!!!   

Um, yeah, how abusive.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> Damn right I want them dead. Any decent person would.



Yup, you are a crazy Mormon, aren't you?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> He didn't repeal it, he just clarified for people who are a tad slow like you.
> 
> For every intruder killed by a homeowner, there were 43 suicides, domestic murders or accidents.
> 
> ...




No....when you go from 43 times more likely, to pulling your study, doing it all over and coming out with 2.7 times.....and you are still wrong.....that is repealing it.....

And what part of the fact that he couldn't show the gun in the house was actually part of the violence do you not understand?

MOMMY, My teacher told me today gay people exist!!!!   And then he gave me a book about 10 year old boys giving each other blow jobs, and another book talking about a man having sex with a young kid...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Fetuses aren't people.



  Are you still entertaining the hope that if you tell that lie enough times, it will take on any truth?

  It won't, you know.  No matter how many times you repeat it, no matter how often you repeat it, no matter how loudly you repeat it; it will remain just as much a lie as it was the first time you told it.




JoeB131 said:


> MOMMY, My teacher told me today gay people exist!!!!



  And another Incel Joe lie.  You know damn well that that isn't what is happening, nor is it what I or any other sane people are objecting to.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And what part of the fact that he couldn't show the gun in the house was actually part of the violence do you not understand?



  He counted as _“a gun in the home”,_ guns brought into homes by criminals to be used against the occupants of those homes.  That bit of skulduggery by itself should be sufficient to expose him as too willfully dishonest to ever be considered credible on any subject.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> MOMMY, My teacher told me today gay people exist!!!! And then he gave me a book about 10 year old boys giving each other blow jobs, and another book talking about a man having sex with a young kid...



_“And taught us how Johnny is really a girl.”_


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> What percentage of airline passengers hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Very very few, but we put all the rest through scans and searches and confiscate their bottles of mouthwash to make sure that doesn't happen again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We have plenty of resources to build more prisons and plenty of time.  And it is the Democrats who have been fighting against mental health funding so they can focus solely on guns.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> He got the gun because government isn't allowed to meaningfully restrict or investigate who should have them.
> 
> So that's why I say, get the government out of it.  Just let the victims of gun violence sue the gunmakers and sellers, and you will be AMAZED how quickly they start vetting their customers.
> 
> ...


He also had a handgun.  The law already prevents him from  having a handgun but, somehow, he managed it.  Until you show us a way to make sure every American bad guy can't get a gun from anywhere in the world, your argument is pointless.

Even if you could guarantee they couldn't get a gun, I have no plans on getting into a one-on-one knife fight so even if you could take all the guns from the bad guys, I'm keeping mine.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> What type of distraction device did the cops employ?  Oh, they didn't, probably because they didn't have one.
> 
> Your tactic would have simply increased the body count with no guarantee of saving any of the victims.  The testimony is being heard in Texas today.  We'll see what they have to see.


The distraction would have been the guys at the door shooting guns at Ramos.  And the increased body count would have been zero, exactly as it was when the Border Patrol went in and took the shooter out.  The proof that every sissy thing you say is in the fact that they took the shooter out.  

It would absolutely saved victims.  There were several shot later answering calls from the police to give themselves away so the shooter would focus on children and not on the police. It would have gotten them in to recover the wounded sooner.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We lock up 2 million people.
> We have another 7 million on probation or parole.
> We have 100 million Americans with a police record.
> 
> How many people do you want to lock up, Dick Tiny?


The reason we have so many criminals is because we don't lock them up long enough and in harsh enough conditions.  Now that the mess is created, as demonstrated by your numbers, it will get worse; we'll have to keep those 2 million locked up while locking up maybe another million or two.  That's the dilemma that soft-on-crime has created and the harm it has done to even the criminal class.  

The only thing that will fix it is long sentences and now, because we've created so many criminals, we'll have to lock up more.  In about 20 to 40 years, though, the locked up numbers will go way down as people understand that robbing a gas station is a 20 year hard-time sentence and doing it again is a life sentence.  The first positive impact will be criminals off the street.  The long-term impact will be far fewer criminals because a pack of Newports and 50 dollars just isn't worth the time.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> *You vote for the political party actually created by slave rapists…..the democrat party*


He also votes for the party that supplies women and children to the immigrant rapists and the sex/child slave rapists today.  JoeB131 likes rapists and wants them on the street with access to unarmed and disarmed victims.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay... except how do you expect them to behave themselves in prison if they don't even have the possibility of parole?  32% of people released for a violent crime reoffend. But 68% of them don't.
> 
> The thing is, we only have 20,000 homicides a year.  The murderers - most of whom get life sentences, aren't really the problem.  It's the non-murderers who fall into a rut of more crime.
> 
> ...


I expect them to behave in prison because to not do so would add to their already terribly long sentence and have them put into hot cells with little light, and bread and water to eat.  And if they still choose to misbehave, well, why the hell do I care if murderers from the outside go into prison and murder each other in prison.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> He also votes for the party that supplies women and children to the immigrant rapists and the sex/child slave rapists today.  JoeB131 likes rapists and wants them on the street with access to unarmed and disarmed victims.



  Ask Incel Joe about Roman Polanski.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay... except how do you expect them to behave themselves in prison if they don't even have the possibility of parole?  32% of people released for a violent crime reoffend. But 68% of them don't.
> 
> The thing is, we only have 20,000 homicides a year.  The murderers - most of whom get life sentences, aren't really the problem.  It's the non-murderers who fall into a rut of more crime.
> 
> ...



but..but...but...  but background checks and shit.  Aren't background checks supposed to catch people who just snap before they snap?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> The distraction would have been the guys at the door shooting guns at Ramos.  And the increased body count would have been zero, exactly as it was when the Border Patrol went in and took the shooter out.  The proof that every sissy thing you say is in the fact that they took the shooter out.
> 
> It would absolutely saved victims.  There were several shot later answering calls from the police to give themselves away so the shooter would focus on children and not on the police. It would have gotten them in to recover the wounded sooner.


All I will say to answer your stupid conjectures of "woulda, coulda, shoulda" is that you have never been in such a scenario and I firmly believed you would have simply stood aside, pissing your pants!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 21, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> All I will say to answer your stupid conjectures of "woulda, coulda, shoulda" is that you have never been in such a scenario and I firmly believed you would have simply stood aside, pissing your pants!


Dumb ass they JUST had training on this and the PROPER response is to go IN,


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> By the time he engaged the cops, every victim had already been shot.


At least one victim was shot when the cops called out for kids who needed help to call out.  One girl in the classroom trusted the police and paid for that trust with her life.  Others who had been shot bled to death slowly.  One teacher died in the ambulance.  

When the seconds counted, the Uvalde PD was only an hour away.

That said, back up your lie about every victim had already been shot.  Post a link the video or witness inside the classroom who can back that up.  Or quit making up lies.  You are really a worthless example of a human being.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 21, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Insurance is fraud.
> Whenever you have to prepay, you lose all control over quality or cost.
> Car insurance should be illegal, but they claim cars are a privilege instead of a right.


Are you on crack?


JoeB131 said:


> I've seen an AR-15, and DAMN, it is identical to the M-16A1 that I carried when I was in the army.


This is a lie.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> All I will say to answer your stupid conjectures of "woulda, coulda, shoulda" is that you have never been in such a scenario and I firmly believed you would have simply stood aside, pissing your pants!


Of course, you can say anything you want about what you think I might have done if I were there - that's woulda, coulda, shoulda.  But the attack on me acknowledges that you can no longer pretend to defend the Uvalde cowards in the hallway of the school without looking like an idiot - because I have proven you to be an idiot in every defense you make.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 21, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dumb ass they JUST had training on this and the PROPER response is to go IN,


I am sorry, where did you get the idea that the training requires cops to commit suicide?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Of course, you can say anything you want about what you think I might have done if I were there - that's woulda, coulda, shoulda.  But the attack on me acknowledges that you can no longer pretend to defend the Uvalde cowards in the hallway of the school without looking like an idiot - because I have proven you to be an idiot in every defense you make.


Oh, STFU you fucking coward.  You are the all high and mighty keyboard commando, aren't you?

Pathetic!

Goodbye!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That's always your fallback, isn't it?
> 
> *THE FOUNDING SLAVE RAPISTS SAID I CAN HAVE A GUN BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T CLEARLY DEFINE A MILITIA! *
> 
> Let's pretend we were writing the constitution today.  Do you think we'd have something like the Second Amendment (which again, was about militias, not guns) in it? Of course not.  We'd allow sensible gun laws, just like we allowed them before Guido Scalia decided the NRA talking points were sane.


That's a lie.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 21, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Oh, STFU you fucking coward.  You are the all high and mighty keyboard commando, aren't you?
> 
> Pathetic!
> 
> Goodbye!


Translation: "I concede."

You're pathetic, midshipman.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....when you go from 43 times more likely, to pulling your study, doing it all over and coming out with 2.7 times.....and you are still wrong.....that is repealing it.....



Except he didn't pull his study.  Here merely pointed out that 39 of those deaths were suicides, and 2.7 were homicides.  Point remains.  GUn in the home meant someone in that household died.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> And another  Joe lie. You know damn well that that isn't what is happening, nor is it what I or any other sane people are objecting to.



Actually, that's exactly what is happening, and it's crazy. No one is grooming kids merely by telling them that some people are gay, and some people are trans.   They are going to figure that out from TV, anyway. 

I bet you are one of these people who shit a brick because the new Buzz Lightyear movie had a gay character in it. 



woodwork201 said:


> He also had a handgun. The law already prevents him from having a handgun but, somehow, he managed it. Until you show us a way to make sure every American bad guy can't get a gun from anywhere in the world, your argument is pointless.



That's kind of the point. He shouldn't have been able to get ANY kind of a gun, given what we know about him. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Ask  Joe about Roman Polanski.


You mean the guy who had sex with a teenage girl just like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did?  I think that's awful.  He totally deserved that 90 days in jail he got.  

What I was against- and I know you are a little slow - was a judge (who also like to fuck them young) throwing out a plea agreement reached in good faith so he could hang a celebrity.   I am also against a lynch mob in Carthage, IL storming a jail and murdering Joseph Smith for his abuse of teenage girls.  It's called "Due Process of Law".


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 21, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> I am sorry, where did you get the idea that the training requires cops to commit suicide?


LOL retard  the active shooter training teaches to go in after the shooter which if you actually trained anyone you would know.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL retard  the active shooter training teaches to go in after the shooter which if you actually trained anyone you would know.


Luckily, the SEALs who went in to get Bin Laden weren't trained by that idiot.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Jun 21, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL retard  the active shooter training teaches to go in after the shooter which if you actually trained anyone you would know.


You were probably a supply sergeant. Ever hear of the funnel of death?


----------



## Failzero (Jun 21, 2022)

Not one of the 43 Guns in my household has killed a Person ( while I have owned them )


----------



## Failzero (Jun 21, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> By the time he engaged the cops, every victim had already been shot.


And or bled out


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except he didn't pull his study.  Here merely pointed out that 39 of those deaths were suicides, and 2.7 were homicides.  Point remains.  GUn in the home meant someone in that household died.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He pulled his study and did it over…

You again refuse to admit he didn’t even show that the gun was in the home……


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Oh, STFU you fucking coward.  You are the all high and mighty keyboard commando, aren't you?
> 
> Pathetic!
> 
> Goodbye!


I guarantee that I am far braver than you and anyone who follows any training you provided to anyone.

Now they just showed video of the cowards in the hallway at the Uvalde elementary school.  The cops had rifles, an axe and ballistic shields and gunshots were still being fired, children were still calling 911, and the fucking cowards, cowards you defend, standing in the hallway at 19 minutes into the shooting and they never, ever, even approached the door.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I guarantee that I am far braver than you and anyone who follows any training you provided to anyone.
> 
> Now they just showed video of the cowards in the hallway at the Uvalde elementary school.  The cops had rifles, an axe and ballistic shields and gunshots were still being fired, children were still calling 911, and the fucking cowards, cowards you defend, standing in the hallway.


Back the Blue Blue lol


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Back the Blue Blue lol


I do back the blue but those cowards are pure yellow.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I do back the blue but those cowards are pure yellow.


Blue Blue is Socially Liberal Union oriented LEOs


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I guarantee that I am far braver than you and anyone who follows any training you provided to anyone.
> 
> Now they just showed video of the cowards in the hallway at the Uvalde elementary school.  The cops had rifles, an axe and ballistic shields and gunshots were still being fired, children were still calling 911, and the fucking cowards, cowards you defend, standing in the hallway at 19 minutes into the shooting and they never, ever, even approached the door.



Correction; now they're saying the shields and rifles were available in 3 minutes, not 19.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 21, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Blue Blue is Socially Liberal Union oriented LEOs


I didn't realize; but you probably figured that out.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 22, 2022)

2aguy said:


> He pulled his study and did it over…
> 
> You again refuse to admit he didn’t even show that the gun was in the home……



Um, if someone is dead in a house, and he has a bullet hole in him, it's pretty easy to conclude there was a gun in the home. 

Again- for every intruder killed, there were 39.3 suicides, 2.7 homicides (domestic) and 1 accident.  That's how you got to the 43-1 ratio.   A gun in the home made a bad situation worse, not better.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 22, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Again- for every intruder killed, there were 39.3 suicides, 2.7 homicides (domestic) and 1 accident. That's how you got to the 43-1 ratio. A gun in the home made a bad situation worse, not better.



  When a criminal breaks into someone's home, and brings a gun in with it, intent on using that gun against the occupants of the home, then it's a safe bet that the presence of that gun isn't going to make the situation better.

  But continuing to repeat that lie over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again after it has been so solidly disproven, only makes you look stupid.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 22, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> When a criminal breaks into someone's home, and brings a gun in with it, intent on using that gun against the occupants of the home, then it's a safe bet that the presence of that gun isn't going to make the situation better.



Except that's not what most murders are.  Most criminals have the good sense to NOT break in while people are home, because that increases the charge from burglary to home invasion, which has a much higher penalty. 

Most murders are domestic violence.  Most people who are murdered know their murderers, whether they be a family member, a neighbor or a friend. 

This is why the gun lobby was so horrified by Kellerman.  He pointed out guns in the home are more likely to be used against people in the home than bad guys.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 22, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except that's not what most murders are.  Most criminals have the good sense to NOT break in while people are home, because that increases the charge from burglary to home invasion, which has a much higher penalty.
> 
> Most murders are domestic violence.  Most people who are murdered know their murderers, whether they be a family member, a neighbor or a friend.
> 
> This is why the gun lobby was so horrified by Kellerman.  He pointed out guns in the home are more likely to be used against people in the home than bad guys.


So every Chicago Street battle or East LA drive by is done by a person known to the victim ?


----------



## Flash (Jun 22, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> A gun in the home made a bad situation worse, not better.


Only if you are irresponsible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Again- for every intruder killed, there were 39.3 suicides, 2.7 homicides (domestic) and 1 accident. That's how you got to the 43-1 ratio. A gun in the home made a bad situation worse, not better.



What about every intruder who was shot and didn't die?
Every intruder who was detained until the police arrived?
Every intruder who fled instead of killing or raping someone in the house?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 22, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What about every intruder who was shot and didn't die?
> Every intruder who was detained until the police arrived?
> Every intruder who fled instead of killing or raping someone in the house?



What about the person who got shot, but didn't die? 
What about the person who threatened suicide with a gun and his family had to beg him to stop.
What about the domestic abuser who threatened his family with a gun? 
What about the crazy neighbor who points his shotgun at kids who play on his lawn? 

I'm only discussing those incidents that had dead bodies. 

VERY FEW criminals are killed by civilians with guns in self-defense.  According to the FBI, only about 200 a year.  

Meanwhile we have 20,000 murders and 23,000 suicides.  

So doing a cost benefit analysis, it just wouldn't be worth it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> What about the person who got shot, but didn't die?
> What about the person who threatened suicide with a gun and his family had to beg him to stop.
> What about the domestic abuser who threatened his family with a gun?
> What about the crazy neighbor who points his shotgun at kids who play on his lawn?
> ...



*What about the person who got shot, but didn't die?*

Yes. Intruder breaks in to kill me, I shoot them and they go to the hospital.
I wasn't shot or killed with my own gun.
How does that fit with the fake 43 times statistic?

*What about the domestic abuser who threatened his family with a gun?*

What about the domestic abuser who threatened his family and had to be stopped with a gun?

*What about the crazy neighbor who points his shotgun at kids who play on his lawn?*

Does that fit under the fake 43 times stat?

*I'm only discussing those incidents that had dead bodies.*

That's why you end up undercounting the benefit.

*VERY FEW criminals are killed by civilians with guns in self-defense. *

OK. How many are stopped from raping or murdering someone, because a civilian had a gun?

*Meanwhile we have 20,000 murders and 23,000 suicides. *

Ok.

*So doing a cost benefit analysis, it just wouldn't be worth it.*

What was the cost? What was the benefit?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 23, 2022)

I would like to know when we had 20000 murders a year?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes. Intruder breaks in to kill me, I shoot them and they go to the hospital.
> I wasn't shot or killed with my own gun.
> How does that fit with the fake 43 times statistic?



It doesn't.  

Neither does the abusive husband who threatens his family with his guns every day.  

Just talking about a clearly measurable metric... how many people die from guns and under what circumstances.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I would like to know when we had 20000 murders a year?


2020.  Try to keep up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> 2020.  Try to keep up.


so lots of dead black men and you arent screaming for democrats heads for their piss poor leadership? How about BLM?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 23, 2022)

Number of homicides by firearm in the U.S. 2020 | Statista there were not 20000 firearms murders in 2020.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, if someone is dead in a house, and he has a bullet hole in him, it's pretty easy to conclude there was a gun in the home.
> 
> Again- for every intruder killed, there were 39.3 suicides, 2.7 homicides (domestic) and 1 accident.  That's how you got to the 43-1 ratio.   A gun in the home made a bad situation worse, not better.



Kellerman refused to turn over his data….refused to show if the gun was in the home or brought in by the attacker…

Kellerman retracted his first study, the 43:1 study and then still used the same flawed methods to get the 2:1 number…. You know this, having been corrected over and over again on this


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> 2020.  Try to keep up.



Yes….after 5 years of the democrats making war on the police and ramping up the release of violent gun criminals back into black neighborhoods…

Up to 2015 our gun murder rate was going down, not up…..it was do n 49%….our gun crime rate was going down too….down 75%  going into 2015… then the democrats began their prolonged and concentrated attacks on local police…..forcing them to stop doing their jobs….and causing massive retirements and quitting

They also put in place judges and prosecutors who refuse to press charges against gun offenders, and ho release violent, repeat gun offenders on no cash bail, and who give light sentences for the most violent gun offenders

But those are facts, truth and reality…

We don’t have a gun problem…we have a major problem with the democrat party increasing crime and murder in the cities they control


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Number of homicides by firearm in the U.S. 2020 | Statista there were not 20000 firearms murders in 2020.



The FBI, the gestapo of the democrat party, uses different numbers…


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Just talking about a clearly measurable metric... how many people die from guns and under what circumstances.



It lied about the costs and undercounted the benefits.


----------



## ding (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Meanwhile we have 20,000 murders and 23,000 suicides.


Life is hard.  Get a helmet.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Number of homicides by firearm in the U.S. 2020 | Statista there were not 20000 firearms murders in 2020.


Democrats believe in truth over facts, remember?  And they make up their own truths and please do not challenge their preferred truth with provable facts.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Up to 2015 our gun murder rate was going down, not up…..it was do n 49%….our gun crime rate was going down too….down 75% going into 2015…



Our gun murder rate was not going down before 2015. In fact, between 2000 and 2014, it stayed pretty flat, around 11K-12K a year.   Then after 2015, it shot up?  Not surprisingly, not soon after the Heller and McDonald decisions struck down most of the sensible gun laws. 

2020: 19,384
2019: 14,389
2018: 13,958
2017: 14,542
2016: 14,415
2015: 12,974
2014: 11,008
2013: 11,207
2012: 11,6223
2011: 11,068 
2010: 11,0783
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
1998: 9,2573



2aguy said:


> then the democrats began their prolonged and concentrated attacks on local police…..forcing them to stop doing their jobs….and causing massive retirements and quitting



Uh, sorry, man the cops have no obligation to protect you.  This is actually black letter law. 

Crime is going up because we've saturated our streets with guns.  Nothing more, nothing less. 



2aguy said:


> They also put in place judges and prosecutors who refuse to press charges against gun offenders, and ho release violent, repeat gun offenders on no cash bail, and who give light sentences for the most violent gun offenders



We lock up 2 million people.  If locking people up were a solution, we'd be there by now.  The judges have to let the penny-ante gun possession beefs off because they don't have jail cells to put these guys in.   They don't have guards to guard them.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Our gun murder rate was not going down before 2015. In fact, between 2000 and 2014, it stayed pretty flat, around 11K-12K a year.   Then after 2015, it shot up?  Not surprisingly, not soon after the Heller and McDonald decisions struck down most of the sensible gun laws.
> 
> 2020: 19,384
> 2019: 14,389
> ...




Wrong.....you didn't take into account population growth....

again...Pew...you know, Pew...the research group?

Over  27 years,  from 1993  to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019 (in 2020 that number is 21.52 million)...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

*Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.*


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?

*What changed in 2015?*

The democrat party did 3 things...

1) they began a war on the police that forced officers to stop pro active police work, allowing criminals to run wild.

2) they began to release the most violent and dangerous gun offenders over and over again, not matter how many times they had been arrested for gun crimes

3) they used their brown shirts, blm/antifa to burn, loot and murder for 7 months in primarily black neighborhoods while the democrat party mayors ordered the police to stand down and not stop them......in order to hurt Trump during the election.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Our gun murder rate was not going down before 2015. In fact, between 2000 and 2014, it stayed pretty flat, around 11K-12K a year.   Then after 2015, it shot up?  Not surprisingly, not soon after the Heller and McDonald decisions struck down most of the sensible gun laws.
> 
> 2020: 19,384
> 2019: 14,389
> ...




Crime is going up because the slave rapist party that you vote for, the democrat party, wants to destroy local police forces, and they are releasing the most violent criminals over and over again, and they are implementing policies to let violent criminals out of jail and prison........


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Number of homicides by firearm in the U.S. 2020 | Statista there were not 20000 firearms murders in 2020.





woodwork201 said:


> Democrats believe in truth over facts, remember? And they make up their own truths and please do not challenge their preferred truth with provable facts.



According to the CDC, there were 19,384 gun homicides in the US out of 24,756 homicides total. 

Happy to have helped you out there, you were looking a little dopey. 






						Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control
					

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in United States, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development




					www.gunpolicy.org
				




So why did the gun homicide rate shoot up?  Well, as I always say, most gun violence is domestic.  You lock up half the country in their homes, getting on each other's nerves even more than they usually do, and put a gun in that mix, you are going to have problems.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Our gun murder rate was not going down before 2015. In fact, between 2000 and 2014, it stayed pretty flat, around 11K-12K a year.   Then after 2015, it shot up?  Not surprisingly, not soon after the Heller and McDonald decisions struck down most of the sensible gun laws.
> 
> 2020: 19,384
> 2019: 14,389
> ...




When the democrat party let's the most violent criminal back out...that isn't keeping them locked up....and when democrat party prosecutors and judges are now refusing to prosecute criminals caught on video shooting at people....that is the problem...not guns or gun owners.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> According to the CDC, there were 19,384 gun homicides in the US out of 24,756 homicides total.
> 
> Happy to have helped you out there, you were looking a little dopey.
> 
> ...




Give us the FBI number...the CDC is rabidly anti-gun, and has been caught pushing gun control.....

And if not for the democrat party attacking the police and releasing violent criminals, the gun murder rate would not have gone up since 2015....

But you vote for the party you call the slave rapist party.......


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong.....you didn't take into account population growth....
> 
> again...Pew...you know, Pew...the research group?



Fuck Pew.  Population growth didn't go up that much between 2000 and 2020. 

Population only grew 16% in the years between 2000 and 2020, according to the Census Bureau.  Moreover, the population has grown demographically older.  Yet crime has spiked in the last five years after being flat for the previous 15. 



2aguy said:


> 3) they used their brown shirts, blm/antifa to burn, loot and murder for 7 months in primarily black neighborhoods while the democrat party mayors ordered the police to stand down and not stop them......in order to hurt Trump during the election.



Wow... paranoid much?  There wouldn't have been riots if Trump hadn't outright endorsed police misconduct.   You see, BLM has been around for a while.  But we didn't have riots before 2020 because their concerns were being addressed.  


They just got tired of asking nicely.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> According to the CDC, there were 19,384 gun homicides in the US out of 24,756 homicides total.
> 
> Happy to have helped you out there, you were looking a little dopey.
> 
> ...




It's cute....the FBI, the gestapo of the democrat party....is now only computing murders by weapon in 10 year increments........rather than yearly as they did before...at least I can't find a yearly estimate...perhaps someone else can...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Fuck Pew.  Population growth didn't go up that much between 2000 and 2020.
> 
> Population only grew 16% in the years between 2000 and 2020, according to the Census Bureau.  Moreover, the population has grown demographically older.  Yet crime has spiked in the last five years after being flat for the previous 15.
> 
> ...




The democrats ordered their brown shirts, blm and antifa to riot, to burn, loot and murder blacks in their neighborhoods to hurt Trump......your slave rapist party at work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yet crime has spiked in the last five years after being flat for the previous 15.



Hands up don't shoot, eh?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> When the democrat party let's the most violent criminal back out...that isn't keeping them locked up....and when democrat party prosecutors and judges are now refusing to prosecute criminals caught on video shooting at people....that is the problem...not guns or gun owners.



Again, was anyone hit?  If they weren't, it's a petty nuscience crime.  We don't have time for those.  You can't flood the streets with guns like you Ammosexuals have, and then whine that there are too many bad guys with guns out there.  YOU BUILT THIS.  



2aguy said:


> Give us the FBI number...the CDC is rabidly anti-gun, and has been caught pushing gun control.....





2aguy said:


> It's cute....the FBI, the gestapo of the democrat party....is now only computing murders by weapon in 10 year increments........rather than yearly as they did before...at least I can't find a yearly estimate...perhaps someone else can...



Aw, what's wrong, can't find an FBI number to back up your claims? 

Let me get this straight.  You trust the FBI on gun numbers, but you don't trust them when they tell you that Trump colluded with the Russians.  Got it. 

The FBI has a vested interest in lowballing numbers.  They really suck at their jobs if crime is going up.  Especially when they rely on law enforcement to report. 

The CDC has more complete numbers because they are collecting data from health care.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> and then whine that there are too many bad guys with guns out there. YOU BUILT THIS.



Stop letting the bad guys with guns skate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The democrats ordered their brown shirts, blm and antifa to riot, to burn, loot and murder blacks in their neighborhoods to hurt Trump......your slave rapist party at work.



Oh, so you have evidence of this order?  YOu know, like Trump ordering the riots on Jan 6. 

We'd love to see it.  

Here's why you have riots. 

You had a population already stressed the fuck out because of Covid. They they watched a black man be murdered in the street by a cop and they had enough.  

That's why you had riots.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You trust the FBI on gun numbers, but you don't trust them when they tell you that Trump colluded with the Russians.



Colluded? Tell me more!!!


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, was anyone hit?  If they weren't, it's a petty nuscience crime.  We don't have time for those.  You can't flood the streets with guns like you Ammosexuals have, and then whine that there are too many bad guys with guns out there.  YOU BUILT THIS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I can't find a year by year breakdown anymore.........they give 10 year totals....not helpful....

Trump didn't collude with the Russians as the mueller inquisition pointed out........

The FBI deals with crime...the CDC does not.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 23, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Stop letting the bad guys with guns skate.



We lock up 2 million people.  We don't have enough room for all the bad guys with guns your side has armed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, so you have evidence of this order?  YOu know, like Trump ordering the riots on Jan 6.
> 
> We'd love to see it.
> 
> ...



You have to give them room to destroy!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We lock up 2 million people.  We don't have enough room for all the bad guys with guns your side has armed.



If lack of room leaves gun criminals free, build more rooms, or stop whining about gun crime.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 23, 2022)

Trust the FBI ( Not since the Richard Jewell fiasco )


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> According to the CDC, there were 19,384 gun homicides in the US out of 24,756 homicides total.
> 
> Happy to have helped you out there, you were looking a little dopey.
> 
> ...


LOL CDC? Really? I listed the numbers with a valid link. where is yours?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 23, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> According to the CDC, there were 19,384 gun homicides in the US out of 24,756 homicides total.
> 
> Happy to have helped you out there, you were looking a little dopey.
> 
> ...


The CDC.  Now there's a federal agency from whom we can trust their data.  But as bad a reputation as the CDC has gained in data because of their complete cover ups of data during the Fauci pandemic,  you are even less trustworthy. 

Homicides does not equal murder.  Homicides include murder plus every legal death caused by someone other than suicide.  You can be certain that if guns are outlawed and bad guys try to kill with knives there will still be justifiable gun homicides - and there should be.

Accident, my ability to carry, or just bad choices on my part might get me in a situation where I have either equal weapons against a bad guy or lesser weapons than a bad guy, but that will never be my intent.  Even if not perfect in it, it is my intention to always out-arm the bad guys who might want to kill me by so much that it's not even a close fight.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL CDC? Really? I listed the numbers with a valid link. where is yours?


You listed murders.  He listed homicides.  That's what the left does; they include the dead attacker who intended to kill you with his gun as a gun crime victim.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You have to give them room to destroy!



You mean don't make the situation worse by shooting more people?  Um, yeah. That was done.  They also only shot one MAGAt storming the Capitol. 

Now, not a cop, but when I was in the National Guard, they gave us Civil Disturbance Training. 

And still stung by the memory of Kent State (This was only about a decade after) a very wise officer giving the training said the following to us. (And it's stuck with me for 40 years). 

"Those are not the enemy out there.  Those are your fellow citizens, they are upset about something, and they have every right to be."

The decision NOT to over-react to demonstrations was the right one.  

And not at all comparable to Trump organizing a riot, spending hours riling these people up, and then unleashing them on Congress. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> If lack of room leaves gun criminals free, build more rooms, or stop whining about gun crime.



How many cells do you want to waste on. 

Again- cost benefit analysis.  It costs $45,000 a year to incarcerate one prisoner.  And that is if you can find people do to it, corrections departments are ALREADY facing shortages of corrections officers.  

So lock up a murderer or rapist? Absolutely.  And he violates his parole by merely having a gun, throw him back in.  But locking people up for merely having guns? Um, no, just not practical.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 24, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You listed murders. He listed homicides. That's what the left does; they include the dead attacker who intended to kill you with his gun as a gun crime victim.



Only 200 homicides a year by civilians are ruled as justified.  It doesn't bump the number that much.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You mean don't make the situation worse by shooting more people? Um, yeah. That was done. They also only shot one MAGAt storming the Capitol.



No, I mean let them loot and burn for a while. Get it out of their system.
That always calms down a mob.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 24, 2022)

It started when 90+ Riot Cops did a “ Tactical Retreat “
From Florence & Normandy flashpoint of 92 LA Riots .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> How many cells do you want to waste on.



Like you guys always say, if it saves even one life........it's worth it.

*But locking people up for merely having guns? Um, no, just not practical.*

If he commits a crime with the gun, jail him. Stop letting them skate like the twit here in Chicago, Kim Foxx, likes to do.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 24, 2022)

Have a Gun ( Prohibited person) go to prison


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 24, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like you guys always say, if it saves even one life........it's worth it.
> 
> *But locking people up for merely having guns? Um, no, just not practical.*
> 
> If he commits a crime with the gun, jail him. Stop letting them skate like the twit here in Chicago, Kim Foxx, likes to do.



Except Fox has a higher conviction rate than Anita Alvarez did... 

She drops 29% of felony charges compared to 19% dropped by Alvarez. 

But even that only tells part of the story, as the charges she's likely to drop are things like narcotics charges, 



Failzero said:


> Have a Gun ( Prohibited person) go to prison


Awesome.  Get us five million more jail cells, and we can do that.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except Fox has a higher conviction rate than Anita Alvarez did...
> 
> She drops 29% of felony charges compared to 19% dropped by Alvarez.
> 
> ...


Stop imprisoning non violent offenders and we have more than enough room for the animals


----------



## Failzero (Jun 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except Fox has a higher conviction rate than Anita Alvarez did...
> 
> She drops 29% of felony charges compared to 19% dropped by Alvarez.
> 
> ...


So raiding Criminal Safe Houses and Gangbangers Drug dens and arresting criminals with guns is racis umkay ?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Only 200 homicides a year by civilians are ruled as justified.  It doesn't bump the number that much.




Yeah....only 235, actually, really stupid criminals most years...the rest run away, surrender or get injured by normal people defending themselves with guns...

Which happens 1.1 million times a year according to the CDC...1.5 according to the Department of Justice, or 2.5 million times a year according to Gary Kleck and his more exacting research...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except Fox has a higher conviction rate than Anita Alvarez did...



She sounds awesome!
Almost makes me forget all the criminals she let out with no bail or off with no charges.

*She drops 29% of felony charges compared to 19% dropped by Alvarez.

But even that only tells part of the story, as the charges she's likely to drop are things like narcotics charges,*

Or mutual combat I think she called it. That was great!


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 24, 2022)

Failzero said:


> So raiding Criminal Safe Houses and Gangbangers Drug dens and arresting criminals with guns is racis umkay ?



Actually, the entire war on drugs is stupid.   It's like we learned not a fucking thing from Prohibition. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or mutual combat I think she called it. That was great!



No, it was a fair evaluation of the situation.  Nobody could tell for certain who fired the first shot.  So every person involved in that incident could credibly claim that one of the others did it, or blame it on one of the dead guys.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, it was a fair evaluation of the situation. Nobody could tell for certain who fired the first shot. So every person involved in that incident could credibly claim that one of the others did it, or blame it on one of the dead guys.



Why didn't she charge all of them?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why didn't she charge all of them?



Because the police couldn't tell her who fired the first shot.  Whoever fired the first shot was guilty.   Whoever fired the second shot was acting in "self-defense".  

This isn't fucking complicated.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> So lock up a murderer or rapist? Absolutely.  And he violates his parole by merely having a gun, throw him back in.  But locking people up for merely having guns? Um, no, just not practical.


So you support a complete gun ban, thereby disarming 100% of law-abiding citizens of 100% of their guns but then when criminals get caught still having guns, don't put them in jail.  Wow.  Can you imagine that world?  Very scary.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, I mean let them loot and burn for a while. Get it out of their system.
> That always calms down a mob.


Nikes and TVs used to calm a mob but, these days, it takes gold and designer bags.  I'm  not sure if that's just mobflation or if the mobs are just more angry.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except Fox has a higher conviction rate than Anita Alvarez did...
> 
> She drops 29% of felony charges compared to 19% dropped by Alvarez.
> 
> ...


It won't take 5 million more cells but it might take 500,000 more cells. By the time word gets out that possession of a gun actually gets you the 10 years promised - whether you're 14 or 44 years old, there will be far fewer gun arrests.

The reason it will take 500K cells is that the Democrats have promised criminals that they won't go to jail and it's going to take hard time, very hard time, for a much larger number before the bad guys  get the message than it would have taken had the Democrats enforced the law from the start.  Had we always enforced the law then we'd be past that part.

That said, I don't think there should be a prohibited person so there's another side to the story.  But if the criminal is caught with a stolen gun, or otherwise illegally obtained gun, then maximum penalty.  And, you're right.  If they commit a crime - the gun has nothing to do with it - put them in prison.  

Armed robbery first offense should get 20 years.  Second offense gets life.
Violent or forced rape or child rape, first offense should be death penalty.  Statutory rape first offense 20 years.

Kidnapping of a child not your blood child should be 20 years first offense, life for multiple kidnappings first offenses or any second offense.  

The current practice of kidnapping charges over custody disputes really suck and should not be the way those are settled.

I don't like laws that don't address the real problem - like gun restrictions.  Locking up people for having a gun is only intended as a bad response to the bad law that let criminals on the street in the first place.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the entire war on drugs is stupid.   It's like we learned not a fucking thing from Prohibition.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was a fair evaluation of the situation.  Nobody could tell for certain who fired the first shot.  So every person involved in that incident could credibly claim that one of the others did it, or blame it on one of the dead guys.


But since most of those ins the shootouts are in possessions of illegal guns then they can still be charged - and I don't mean for felon in possession, but for possessing stolen guns.

You're right that the war on drugs is stupid.  We should get the Supreme Court to review the laws, recognize that the Federal Government does not have the authority to regulate personal use of drugs in the states,  and send it back to the states... sort of like they did in another case yesterday.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Because the police couldn't tell her who fired the first shot. Whoever fired the first shot was guilty. Whoever fired the second shot was acting in "self-defense".



None of these guys had priors preventing them from owning a gun?
If you're shooting in self-defense and you're hitting neighboring houses, no charges?
Throw them all in jail while you try to prove who fired first.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 25, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> It won't take 5 million more cells but it might take 500,000 more cells. By the time word gets out that possession of a gun actually gets you the 10 years promised - whether you're 14 or 44 years old, there will be far fewer gun arrests.



We have 7 million people on probation or parole.  

In Chicago alone, the CPD confiscates 12,000 illegal guns a year.  That's just in Chicago.  

Nationwide the figure is 1.3 million in the last five years.  



woodwork201 said:


> The reason it will take 500K cells is that the Democrats have promised criminals that they won't go to jail and it's going to take hard time, very hard time, for a much larger number before the bad guys get the message than it would have taken had the Democrats enforced the law from the start. Had we always enforced the law then we'd be past that part.



Uh, we've had the NRA go around telling everyone in the country that having a gun is your god-given right.  That's why the message won't ever sink in.   Either you have gun control or you don't. 



woodwork201 said:


> But since most of those ins the shootouts are in possessions of illegal guns then they can still be charged - and I don't mean for felon in possession, but for possessing stolen guns.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> None of these guys had priors preventing them from owning a gun?
> If you're shooting in self-defense and you're hitting neighboring houses, no charges?
> Throw them all in jail while you try to prove who fired first.



Did you manage to kill all the lawyers before you tried that?  Because if the CPD couldn't tell Fox who shot first, then a lawyer is going to rush right to a judge and say, "Yer Honor, my client was only defending himself!"  (It's funnier if I do the Chicago Lawyer accent).


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Did you manage to kill all the lawyers before you tried that? Because if the CPD couldn't tell Fox who shot first, then a lawyer is going to rush right to a judge and say, "Yer Honor, my client was only defending himself!" (It's funnier if I do the Chicago Lawyer accent).



"Your honor, the defendant already has 3 felony convictions and is not allowed to possess a firearm, even in mutual combat"

_The mid-morning gunfight, which left one shooter dead and two of the suspects wounded, stemmed from an internal dispute between two gang factions, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

New video from city pod cameras shows what police say is two people pulling up and opening fire at an Austin home. They ducked for cover as the people inside fired back. One person was killed and two others were hurt in the shootout. Three people were arrested._









						Chicago violence: Prosecutors reject charges in deadly gang-related Austin shooting
					

Police sought to charge all suspects with murder and aggravated battery.




					abc7chicago.com
				




If only we had the technology to find fingerprints in a vehicle.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Like you guys always say, if it saves even one life........it's worth it.
> 
> *But locking people up for merely having guns? Um, no, just not practical.*
> 
> If he commits a crime with the gun, jail him. Stop letting them skate like the twit here in Chicago, Kim Foxx, likes to do.




Yeah....see....joe knows they need the gang bangers shooting each other so that they can use those shootings to push gun control.....and if a gang member is in jail for 30 years for an illegal gun charge, he can't be shooting other young black males to give power to gun grabbing fanatics.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 25, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah....see....joe knows they need the gang bangers shooting each other so that they can use those shootings to push gun control.....and if a gang member is in jail for 30 years for an illegal gun charge, he can't be shooting other young black males to give power to gun grabbing fanatics.....



We have 2 million people in jail. 

Putting them in prison doesn't discourage the next guy.  

gang bangers wouldn't be a probelm if they couldn't get guns to start with.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We have 2 million people in jail.
> 
> Putting them in prison doesn't discourage the next guy.
> 
> gang bangers wouldn't be a probelm if they couldn't get guns to start with.




Putting the gun offender in prison for 30 years means he isn't shooting people for 30 years.

Gang bangers get guns in every country.....even Canada, Britain and France...

A muslim terrorist just shot up gay bars in Oslo.......using a pistol and a military rifle.....so criminals get guns because they don't care about the law...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Putting them in prison doesn't discourage the next guy.



Sure stops the guy in prison from hurting or killing any civilians in his old neighborhood for a while.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure stops the guy in prison from hurting or killing any civilians in his old neighborhood for a while.




Might help keep people alive...since the guy isn't out shooting up his neighborhood......but joe isn't very bright...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 25, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure stops the guy in prison from hurting or killing any civilians in his old neighborhood for a while.




And the Yakuza in Japan....used to shoot each other up all the time...then they stopped......why?

Long Prison sentences made it not worth it to use or even get caught with a gun.....long prison sentences...

Japan’s gun control laws so strict the Yakuza turn to toy pistols

*Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.*

*“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. *

*That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.
*
*Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.*

*Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison. 

If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. 

The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.*
*-----*
*A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”*


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 26, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Putting the gun offender in prison for 30 years means he isn't shooting people for 30 years.



We can't put murderers in prison for 30 years, much less gun offenders.  

The average murderer only served 13.5 years.  

We don't have enough prison space.  



2aguy said:


> And the Yakuza in Japan....used to shoot each other up all the time...then they stopped......why?
> 
> Long Prison sentences made it not worth it to use or even get caught with a gun.....long prison sentences...



Guns have been illegal in Japan since the Meiji restoration.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We can't put murderers in prison for 30 years, much less gun offenders.
> 
> The average murderer only served 13.5 years.
> 
> ...




But that's not how they kept the Yakuza from using them.......as my link showed.......

Long prison sentences kept the Yakuza from using guns, nothing else.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 26, 2022)

2aguy said:


> But that's not how they kept the Yakuza from using them.......as my link showed.......
> 
> Long prison sentences kept the Yakuza from using guns, nothing else.



Um, the Yakuza never went away, and never stopped using guns.  

They just didn't have easy access to them.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 26, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, the Yakuza never went away, and never stopped using guns.
> 
> They just didn't have easy access to them.



Except for what the actual link and story state….


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 27, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Except for what the actual link and story state….



For the record, I ignore all your Ammosexual links, Dick Tiny. 

We are the only advanced country that considers gun ownership to be a right, and we are the only one that has the kinds of gun carnage we experience. This isn't fucking complicated.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> For the record, I ignore all your Ammosexual links, Dick Tiny.
> 
> We are the only advanced country that considers gun ownership to be a right, and we are the only one that has the kinds of gun carnage we experience. This isn't fucking complicated.




No.....

Europe murdered 15 million men, women and children in the modern period....after 1917, in just a 6 year period....

From 1939-1945, the German socialists and the governments in Europe they controlled rounded up and murdered those 15 million people......and only stopped because Americans with guns made them stop....

15 million murdered innocent men, women and children is more people murdered than all of the gun murders in the United States for the entire 246 years we have existed......


There is no comparison......


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No.....
> 
> Europe murdered 15 million men, women and children in the modern period....after 1917, in just a 6 year period....



That's called, "War" dude, it usually sucks.  It has nothing to do with street crime or gun ownership.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> That's called, "War" dude, it usually sucks.  It has nothing to do with street crime or gun ownership.




No...they are not the war dead....these are civilians, rounded up by the socialists who were simply murdered.....

NAZI GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER



*German socialists*
*
By genocide, the murder of hostages, reprisal raids, forced labor, "euthanasia," starvation, exposure, medical experiments, and terror bombing, and in the concentration and death camps, the Nazis murdered from 15,003,000 to 31,595,000 people, most likely 20,946,000 men, women, handicapped, aged, sick, prisoners of war, forced laborers, camp inmates, critics, homosexuals, Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Germans, Czechs, Italians, Poles, French, Ukrainians, and many others. Among them 1,000,000 were children under eighteen years of age.1 
*
*And none of these monstrous figures even include civilian and military combat or war-deaths*

http://[URL='http://hawaii.edu/powe...]http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/NAZIS.CHAP1.HTM[/URL]


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...they are not the war dead....these are civilians, rounded up by the socialists who were simply murdered.....



Yes, during a war...  Wow, funny how that works, when you engage in murder on a mass scale, people die. 

It wasn't TWELVE million people who died in WWII, it was SEVENTY MILLION, killed by all sides.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, during a war...  Wow, funny how that works, when you engage in murder on a mass scale, people die.
> 
> It wasn't TWELVE million people who died in WWII, it was SEVENTY MILLION, killed by all sides.



Moron 
…. The 15million were not killed in combat or as collateral damage…..they were civilians rounded up by your left wing, socialist buddies and murdered .


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron
> …. The 15million were not killed in combat or as collateral damage…..they were civilians rounded up by your left wing, socialist buddies and murdered .



The Nazis are right wing.  Why do you think Neo-Nazis support Trump? 

A shitload of bad things happened in WWII, most of them to civilians.  The country that took the most fatalities was China.  Not a Nazi in sight. (Unless you count the Kuomintang, who were practically Nazis.)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The Nazis are right wing.



Nothing says right wing like massive government control over every aspect of the country.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The Nazis are right wing.  Why do you think Neo-Nazis support Trump?
> 
> A shitload of bad things happened in WWII, most of them to civilians.  The country that took the most fatalities was China.  Not a Nazi in sight. (Unless you count the Kuomintang, who were practically Nazis.)
> 
> View attachment 663555



They are leftists….. you can lie about them all you want but they are leftists, socialists


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The Nazis are right wing.  Why do you think Neo-Nazis support Trump?
> 
> A shitload of bad things happened in WWII, most of them to civilians.  The country that took the most fatalities was China.  Not a Nazi in sight. (Unless you count the Kuomintang, who were practically Nazis.)
> 
> View attachment 663555



Yes….the socialists in China murdered people too


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> They are leftists….. you can lie about them all you want but they are leftists, socialists



Really?  Because it seems to me and anyone who bothered to read a history book, the Nazis stopped being "Socialists" after the Night of the Long Knives, when they eliminated Ernst Roehm and the other revolutionary elements and got into bed with the German Military Industrial complex.  

Krupp, Bayer, Messerschmidt, they all LOVED Hitler and how he was going to bring all the wealth to German Corporations... Even some American corporations got in on the act.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 28, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really?  Because it seems to me and anyone who bothered to read a history book, the Nazis stopped being "Socialists" after the Night of the Long Knives, when they eliminated Ernst Roehm and the other revolutionary elements and got into bed with the German Military Industrial complex.
> 
> Krupp, Bayer, Messerschmidt, they all LOVED Hitler and how he was going to bring all the wealth to German Corporations... Even some American corporations got in on the act.




Yeah.....you guys have been desperately trying to hide the socialism of the nazis since the war....because if you can't, that means the worst mass murderers in modern history, since 1917, were all socialists.......and the socialists in Germany got all of the attention because they lost the war, while the socialists in Russia and china actually murdered way more people than the German socialists....

Nazism is Socialism -- F A Hayek, et al

*One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because -and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany – many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience. But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a move movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt.*

*A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extend directed against their economic policy. What the Nazis mainly objected to was their internationalism and all the aspects of their cultural programme which were still influenced by liberal ideas. 

But the accusations against the social-democrats and the communists which were most effective in their propaganda were not so much directed against their programme as against their supposed practice -their corruption and nepotism, and even their alleged alliance with “the golden International of Jewish Capitalism.”*
*
It would, indeed, hardly have been possible for the Nationalists to advance fundamental objections to the economic policy of the other socialist parties when their own published programme differed from these only in that its socialism was much cruder and less rational. The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitler’s early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, “international finance and loan capital,” the system of “interest slavery” in general; the abolition of these is described as the “[indecipherable] of the programme, around which everything else turns.” It was to this programme that the masses of the German people, who were already completely under the influence of collectivist ideas, responded so enthusiastically.

That this violent anti-capitalistic attack is genuine – and not a mere piece of propaganda – becomes as clear from the personal history of the intellectual leaders of the movement as from the general milieu from which it springs. It is not even denied that man of the young men who today play a prominent part in it have previously been communists or socialists. And to any observer of the literary tendencies which made the Germans intelligentsia ready to join the ranks of the new party, it must be clear that the common characteristic of all the politically influential writers – in many cases free from definite party affiliations – was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist trend. Groups like that formed around the review “Die Tat” have made the phrase “the end of capitalism” an accepted dogma to most young Germans.[3]

And more...

The Myth of "Nazi Capitalism" | Chris Calton
*
*German socialism, as Mises defines it, differs from what he called “socialism of the Russian pattern” in that “it, seemingly and nominally, maintains private ownership of the means of production, entrepreneurship, and market exchange.”

 However, this is only a superficial system of private ownership because through a complete system of economic intervention and control, the entrepreneurial function of the property owners is completely controlled by the State. *


*By this, Mises means that shop owners do not speculate about future events for the purpose of allocating resources in the pursuit of profits. Just like in the Soviet Union, this entrepreneurial speculation and resource allocation is done by a single entity, the State, and economic calculation is thus impossible.
*
*“In Nazi Germany,” Mises tells us, the property owners “were called shop managers or Betriebsführer. The government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham. As all prices, wages and interest rates are fixed by the authority, they are prices, wages and interest rates in appearance only; in fact they are merely quantitative terms in the authoritarian orders determining each citizen’s income, consumption and standard of living. The authority, not the consumers, directs production. The central board of production management is supreme; all citizens are nothing else but civil servants. This is socialism with the outward appearance of capitalism. Some labels of the capitalistic market economy are retained, but they signify here something entirely different from what they mean in the market economy.”*


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 29, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah.....you guys have been desperately trying to hide the socialism of the nazis since the war....because if you can't, that means the worst mass murderers in modern history, since 1917, were all socialists.......and the socialists in Germany got all of the attention because they lost the war, while the socialists in Russia and china actually murdered way more people than the German socialists....



Oh, no, you are going to use Bircher Talking points and try to blame every famine and economic catastrophe on "socialism" (and not Western attempts to punish countries for choosing forms of government we don't like.)


----------



## JoeB131 (Jun 29, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nothing says right wing like massive government control over every aspect of the country.



At the risk of sounding like Mac1958,  um, yeah, the extreme right and the extreme left do try to control every aspect of the country. 

Sweet evil Jesus, you guys are trying to get the government to regulate what women keep in their uteruses.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 29, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> At the risk of sounding like Mac1958,  um, yeah, the extreme right and the extreme left do try to control every aspect of the country.
> 
> Sweet evil Jesus, you guys are trying to get the government to regulate what women keep in their uteruses.



Exactly.....wanting government to be small enough to drown in the bathtub, just like the Nazis.


----------



## miketx (Jul 5, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've told you my idea.
> 
> Repeal the law that prevents gun sellers from getting sued.   You'd be amazed how quickly the gun industry cleans up its act.


Commies gotta commie


----------



## miketx (Jul 5, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> At the risk of sounding like Mac1958,  um, yeah, the extreme right and the extreme left do try to control every aspect of the country.
> 
> Sweet evil Jesus, you guys are trying to get the government to regulate what women keep in their uteruses.


Baby murderer


----------

