Democrats are the primary cause of gun violence

[Ray From Cleveland]

The thugs committing street crime dont give a crap about politics, nor do they vote. Those people paying attention to politics are a higher class. People that pick a side and vote are a higher class.

72% of our population is registered to vote. You have 28% of people who dont give a crap either way. And then add to that: the percent of people that voted out of the eligible to vote population is 66%. So now a 3rd of the population doesnt give a shit, they're not on the right or the left. That's where your street killers mostly come from, neither on the left or the right.

But on the mass shooting side, all of the 2022 extremists are right wing.

If you really believe that, riddle me this: Why are the Democrats always on the side of criminals? Why are they always against our police? Why do they lower penalties for criminals encouraging them to commit more violent crime? Cashless bail??? Little to no deterrent to crime? Why do they want criminals to keep their guns while disarming law abiding citizens?

I've been following politics a very long time, and if it's one thing I learned about Democrats, they don't make policy or law unless it benefits the party first. Furthermore let's take your claim as Gospel: Criminals don't have a party or vote. Why is it most of the violent crime happens in their cities? And even if they didn't vote, do you think the rest of their family and friends don't either?

 

[Failzero]

In 2022 the lions share of Mass Shootings were “ When Liberals on SSRIs Attack “ incidents

 

[candycorn]

In one sense the OP is true. Usually they are the targets of right wing lunatics who have been infused with hate...

 

[Pellinore]

Blaming this shooting on the judge who let them out on bail
means that
you support locking up every first-time gun possession offender without bail.
In Texas.

I think the jails might overflow, quickly.

Oh, and this is also the state that wants handgun ownership at 18 and now has limitless concealed carry. If both of those had been in effect, then this punk wouldn't have been even detained.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Blaming this shooting on the judge who let them out on bail
means that
you support locking up every first-time gun possession offender without bail.
In Texas.

I think the jails might overflow, quickly.

Oh, and this is also the state that wants handgun ownership at 18 and now has limitless concealed carry. If both of those had been in effect, then this punk wouldn't have been even detained.

But the fact is that he wasn't allowed to carry a firearm and the judge basically let him go. Now he's up on charges that could end his life by execution. Maybe if he had spent a little time in prison he might have thought twice before killing somebody.

 

[Pellinore]

But the fact is that he wasn't allowed to carry a firearm and the judge basically let him go. Now he's up on charges that could end his life by execution. Maybe if he had spent a little time in prison he might have thought twice before killing somebody.

Fair enough, but he's not the only one who faces this kind of possession charge. The judge (apparently) did not know that he was the one who would later shoot up a Game Stop.

I'm no huge fan of letting violent criminals out on the streets, but he does have the same Eighth Amendment protection against excessive bail that you and I have.

At the time he was just a punk with a possession charge, so they set bail at 500 bucks (which was a lot to me at 18) and made him turn in the three handguns they knew he had. If you were the judge, Judge Ray Cleveland, what more would you have done?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fair enough, but he's not the only one who faces this kind of possession charge. The judge (apparently) did not know that he was the one who would later shoot up a Game Stop.

I'm no huge fan of letting violent criminals out on the streets, but he does have the same Eighth Amendment protection against excessive bail that you and I have.

At the time he was just a punk with a possession charge, so they set bail at 500 bucks (which was a lot to me at 18) and made him turn in the three handguns they knew he had. If you were the judge, Judge Ray Cleveland, what more would you have done?

Seeing that this guy was a potential problem in the first place, I would have at least sent him to prison for a couple of months. $500.00 to come up with in this day and age is much different than coming up with that kind of money 40 years ago or so. I bet his monthly cell phone bill is about a third of that.

The maximum penalty for illegally carrying a firearm in Texas is one year in prison and/ or $4,000 fine. In comparison he got nothing so he didn't learn a thing. Maybe if he did spend a few of those months in prison (not the max) he would have concluded this is not the place he would want to spend the next 25 years of his life. One of the reasons we have penalties for breaking the law is to act as somewhat of a deterrent.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why, because you said so? We don't write laws or violate constitutional rights on opinions. But let's go on a limb and say so-called assault rifles get banned. What do you hope that would accomplish?

No citizen in possession of an assault rifle. There is no reason for you to own one. Fuck the 2nd Amendment. It does nothing for the good of the country.

 

[Billo_Really]

Guns are designed to send a projectile through the air to hit a target. That target could be a beer can, a piece of cardboard, a human being.

Under your definition, all guns are designed to kill. That's why I said this stupid assault weapons ban is only the start.

I'm only talking about the ones that fire 20 rounds per second.

 

[Ralph Norton]

I'm only talking about the ones that fire 20 rounds per second.

"Assault rifles" available to civilians are semi-automatic - NONE of them fire 20 rounds per second.

 

[Billo_Really]

"Assault rifles" available to civilians are semi-automatic - NONE of them fire 20 rounds per second.

Fine. I'm not a gun guy.

 

[Failzero]

No citizen in possession of an assault rifle. There is no reason for you to own one. Fuck the 2nd Amendment. It does nothing for the good of the country.

Legalized Drugs does nothing for the Country

 

[Failzero]

Fine. I'm not a gun guy.

Then GTFO of the discussion

 

[Billo_Really]

Legalized Drugs does nothing for the Country

Wrong. They help people live.

 

[Billo_Really]

Then GTFO of the discussion

No, I think I'll talk more! Happy?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm only talking about the ones that fire 20 rounds per second.

By your own admission you are not a gun guy, so let a gun guy fill you in: ARs and AKs can shoot only as fast as a semi-automatic handgun. So why the concern about assault rifles? Because they look scary and people do use them for mass murders. But that doesn't negate the fact the same can be accomplished with a semi-automatic handgun. Nor does it negate the fact that banning both would not reduce mass shootings.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No citizen in possession of an assault rifle. There is no reason for you to own one. Fuck the 2nd Amendment. It does nothing for the good of the country.

Americans use their firearm for self-defense, the defense of others, and even to stop a crime between 1 and 4 million times a year depending on who's research you subscribe to. So of course armed law abiding citizens do a lot for the good for the country. Why do you suppose most mass shooters pick gun-free zones to carry out their evil? They are afraid of other armed citizens stopping them.

 

[Billo_Really]

Americans use their firearm for self-defense, the defense of others, and even to stop a crime between 1 and 4 million times a year depending on who's research you subscribe to. So of course armed law abiding citizens do a lot for the good for the country. Why do you suppose most mass shooters pick gun-free zones to carry out their evil? They are afraid of other armed citizens stopping them.

I can agree with that.