gun show loophole rant
Quote: treetopbuddythread took 4 days off.....here we go again
Haha...it's OK though. We're all pretty well behaved in this thread. For example, even though s2dbaker and I obviously disagree on this issue, he seems like a nice person, and there is no ill will on either end. Plus, I love his "Casino Club Card of the Day" thread.
No ill will :)Quote: Beethoven9thHaha...it's OK though. We're all pretty well behaved in this thread. For example, even though s2dbaker and I obviously disagree on this issue, he seems like a nice person, and there is no ill will on either end. Plus, I love his "Casino Club Card of the Day" thread.
Quote:Josephine Fanning, 48, and her husband, Wilson County Sheriff's Deputy Daniel Fanning, were entertaining family and friends at their Lebanon, Tenn., home Saturday evening, Tennessee state police spokeswoman Kristin Helm told the Los Angeles Times, when Daniel Fanning started showing his guns to a friend in his bedroom.
A 4-year-old boy at the cookout walked into the room with Josephine Fanning and picked up a loaded handgun from the bed and it went off, Helm said.
The wife is dead.
Being as there were no kids in the room when they started, it must of lulled them into this pointless gun accident.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-tennessee-cookout-shooting-20130408,0,537977.story
Quote: rxwineThe wife is dead.
Being as there were no kids in the room when they started, it must of lulled them into this pointless gun accident.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-tennessee-cookout-shooting-20130408,0,537977.story
The Local News has more information and video.
The headline should read, "Off-duty officer suspended after discharging gun in strip club restroom."
Is "I feared for my life and my family" the new "Oh look! It's coming right for us!"? The bad guy was leaving the restaurant when ninja patron decided to start firing in a crowded restaurant. He's lucky that no one else was hurt.Quote: Beethoven9th
It's even worse than I thought. The Washington Times neglects to mention that the "victim" fired a whole lot of bullets at the truck as it was leaving. I knew there was more to this "self-defense" story, sounded too good.
Quote: s2dbaker
It's even worse than I thought. The Washington Times neglects to mention that the "victim" fired a whole lot of bullets at the truck as it was leaving. I knew there was more to this "self-defense" story, sounded too good.
What is worse than you thought? The robber is in custody and would not commit a third robbery that day. Had the gun been at home in the guy's safe with a trigger lock there would have been more robberies that day. Would you prefer that he been able to hold up a McDonald's down the street later that day?
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat is worse than you thought? The robber is in custody and would not commit a third robbery that day. Had the gun been at home in the guy's safe with a trigger lock there would have been more robberies that day. Would you prefer that he been able to hold up a McDonald's down the street later that day?
+1
Hey, I can play this game too. If the "victim" hadn't opened fire on the truck as it was leaving, the police would have caught the perps just the same at the gas station when they ran out of gas. The cops were already on the lookout for armed robbers from the earlier heist. But instead of a simple arrest, the tax payers now have to pay for the guys hospital bills.Quote: AZDuffmanWould you prefer that he been able to hold up a McDonald's down the street later that day?
Quote: s2dbakerHey, I can play this game too. If the "victim" hadn't opened fire on the truck as it was leaving, the police would have caught the perps just the same at the gas station when they ran out of gas. The cops were already on the lookout for armed robbers from the earlier heist. But instead of a simple arrest, the tax payers now have to pay for the guys hospital bills.
Well as a supporter of Obamacare you are happy with the taxpayers picking up the guy's health care anyways, but back to the point. The cops were on the lookout but a citizen helped out, a good thing.
Not sure why you place "victim" in quotes as if he did something wrong. Some people are not of the "just let the robber take my stuff and rape my wife because better that than I shoot myself when I am cleaning my gun" school of thought. When a crime victim fights back that is a good thing. If a perp gets shot robbing a store other perps take notice and go rob an easier target. A good thing.
The minimum sentence in Florida for robbery with a handgun in Florida is 10 years, 20 years if shots were fired, and 30 years if the bullet hits someone. In jail, all medical costs are taken care of anyway. That's an easy way for 2 million Americans to get health care.
Quote: boymimboIt's certainly scary to be robbed at gunpoint, but more unsafe to fire bullets at a perp in public especially if the criminals decided to shoot back.
I'll remember this the next time a police officer fires his/her gun at a criminal in public.
Quote: boymimboAnd really, you're willing to take someone else's life because your cell phone was stolen?
He was shot in the leg, which wasn't fatal.
Quote: boymimboOh, I didn't realize that the penalty for stealing cell phones was death. It's certainly scary to be robbed at gunpoint, but more unsafe to fire bullets at a perp in public especially if the criminals decided to shoot back. And really, you're willing to take someone else's life because your cell phone was stolen?
If the crook pointed a gun at me to take it then yes. He would take my life to get it.
Quote:The minimum sentence in Florida for robbery with a handgun in Florida is 10 years, 20 years if shots were fired, and 30 years if the bullet hits someone. In jail, all medical costs are taken care of anyway. That's an easy way for 2 million Americans to get health care.
Americans have health care. It is just that we have 47% who think it should be provided free or with no profit for the provider.
Quote: Beethoven9thI'll remember this the next time a police officer fires his/her gun at a criminal in public.
He was shot in the leg, which wasn't fatal.
Hit the femeral artery, and that can change real quick.
Quote: thecesspitHit the femeral artery, and that can change real quick.
That's not the point. I was responding to someone who implied that a person who shoots a criminal always has an intent to kill. That's not the case at all.
The police were able to catch the thieves because it was reported by someone else who (probably heard the gunshots) and noted where the pickup truck had gone to. The person who brandished the firearm will be spending a minimum of 10 years in jail without parole as a result.
So, I ask again, is it right to take someone else's life over three cell phones or because you are the victim of a robbery? Obviously the law says you have the right to do so (in Florida apparently).
Quote: boymimboI'm still confused. Given the number of gunshot holes in the side of the truck that were left and the number of shots fired, the shooter definitely had an intent to do something, including killing. And the robber had already commited the crimes by taking the cell phones -- a crime was not stopped. It's not like the shooter fired a single bullet into the intended robber's leg. He fired indiscrimately at the robber and the truck because the victim of the robbery perfectly thought it was okay to take another's life because he was the victim of a crime.
Not at all. He was simply trying to stop the criminal's car.
Quote: boymimboSo, I ask again, is it right to take someone else's life over three cell phones or because you are the victim of a robbery?
And I say again, nobody was trying to take anyone's life. That good, upstanding citizen was simply trying to keep that useless criminal from getting away and committing another crime. (He had already committed a first crime earlier that day.) The armed citizen should be commended, not criticized.
Only in liberal land would a courageous hero be "jailed for negligence, recklessness and attempted murder".
In liberal land, true heroes don't shoot up parking lots of fast food restaurants in a transparent act of revenge just because they think that they can get away with it.Quote: Beethoven9thOnly in liberal land would a courageous hero be "jailed for negligence, recklessness and attempted murder".
Actually, in liberal land, well trained police officers arrest and jail dangerous criminals and do it without having to fire a single shot.Quote: Beethoven9th...you're right, in liberal land criminals are free to terrorize innocent, unarmed citizens without fear of repercussion.
Quote: s2dbakerIn liberal land, true heroes don't shoot up parking lots of fast food restaurants in a transparent act of revenge just because they think that they can get away with it.
In liberal land he should have offered the thief his wallet and social security card because the thief was somehow oppressed and not responsible for his own actions.
btw this is why people are moving from liberal to conservative areas.
I haven't decided if it's sad or funny that you really believe that about liberals in your heart.Quote: AZDuffmanIn liberal land he should have offered the thief his wallet and social security card because the thief was somehow oppressed and not responsible for his own actions.
Quote: s2dbakerActually, in liberal land, well trained police officers arrest and jail dangerous criminals and do it without having to fire a single shot.
Well that proves that liberal land doesn't exist because police officers were nowhere to be found when that criminal was committing both crimes that day...haha ;)
Except for the gas station where the criminals were actaully arrested without a single shot being fired. Yeah, that part was conveniently forgotten.Quote: Beethoven9thWell that proves that liberal land doesn't exist because police officers were nowhere to be found when that criminal was committing both crimes that day...haha ;)
Quote: AZDuffmanIn liberal land he should have offered the thief his wallet and social security card because the thief was somehow oppressed and not responsible for his own actions.
There of course is some truth to that. Criminals become criminals for a reason - they need objects that they can pawn for money which then buys drugs and do not fear criminal repercussions. They're failures of society. From a personal responsibility, of course, the criminal is to blame, but had the criminal had a better upbringing and education, he might have been managing that Burger King rather than robbing it. The decisions of government to provide more or less opportunities for the poor and unemployed has a direct relationship to later criminality in life. The decision to spend a few tens of thousands of dollars per underprivileged child is a heck of lot cheaper than the incremental cost of $240,000 - $260,000 it is going to cost to house that criminal for the next ten years (and I support that penalty for gun crime, by the way).
Of course we can talk about rates of incarceration in the USA which is 753/100,000, about 6.5 x higher than the Canadian rate and 50% higher than is was 17 years ago. Your incarceration rate is more than 3 times higher than any other western country and higher than Russia, which is #2 in the world among ALL countries. Much of that is due to "tough on crime" laws which include drug crimes and property crimes where a community setting might be better (and cheaper)
Economically, everyone seems to be content to leave criminals in jail and pay the $24 - $26K / inmate / year to leave them there. And that expense is PURELY paid by taxpayers to the tune of $75 billion per year. Wouldn't it be far economically better to identify those youth and young men who are risk of being criminals and make their lives a bit better so that they don't brandish a pistol at Burger King?
But we digress.
Quote: Beethoven9thWell that proves that liberal land doesn't exist because police officers were nowhere to be found when that criminal was committing both crimes that day...haha ;)
Yeah, I find that police officers usually are not present at the scene of a crime.
Quote: s2dbakerExcept for the gas station where the criminals were actaully arrested without a single shot being fired. Yeah, that part was conveniently forgotten.
Wasn't forgotten, but it looks like you ignored the fact that the criminal was injured. If he had been healthy and lived in liberal land, he would have certainly gotten away. Thank god for that brave citizen!
Quote: boymimboYeah, I find that police officers usually are not present at the scene of a crime.
...which is why armed citizenry is a must.
Quote: s2dbakerHey, I can play this game too. If the "victim" hadn't opened fire on the truck as it was leaving, the police would have caught the perps just the same at the gas station when they ran out of gas. The cops were already on the lookout for armed robbers from the earlier heist. But instead of a simple arrest, the tax payers now have to pay for the guys hospital bills.
No shit, you invented the game.
I mean WE invented the game. Good thing I am a liberal now, otherwise I would be responsible for what I say on the internet, but since I am a full blown Obamian, I get say whatever the hell I want, true or no, just like you!
Quote: Beethoven9th...which is why armed citizenry is a must.
Absolutely. That makes perfect sense.
MASS STABBING ALERT!!!
studebaker, should you start the "knife control loophole rant" thread, or should I?
Everybody needs to start eating their steaks with spoons, damnit. This is going too far, don't all you "Pro 2nd Amendment" types want to strip everyone's right to sharp objects? I think this is just common sense.
Quote: s2dbakerI haven't decided if it's sad or funny that you really believe that about liberals in your heart.
That means a lot to me given how you portray lawful gun owners for just one group. But here is the thing. When a conservative libertarian like myself makes a humorous statement about liberals like this it is usually just a matter of time before the statement is proven true.
Quote: Maverick17http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/09/at-least-5-reportedly-stabbed-on-lone-star-college-campus/
MASS STABBING ALERT!!!
studebaker, should you start the "knife control loophole rant" thread, or should I?
Everybody needs to start eating their steaks with spoons, damnit. This is going too far, don't all you "Pro 2nd Amendment" types want to strip everyone's right to sharp objects? I think this is just common sense.
We only are given plastic knives here in nannyland. Actually, the solution to knife crimes is to get rid of the Universities. No opportunities then.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat means a lot to me given how you portray lawful gun owners for just one group. But here is the thing. When a conservative libertarian like myself makes a humorous statement about liberals like this it is usually just a matter of time before the statement is proven true.
[wink] Come on, AZ, you take yourself far too seriously to make a humorous statement. [/wink]
Quote: boymimbo...get rid of the Universities.
Hey, I kinda like that idea! ;)
Quote: boymimboThere of course is some truth to that. Criminals become criminals for a reason - they need objects that they can pawn for money which then buys drugs and do not fear criminal repercussions. They're failures of society. From a personal responsibility, of course, the criminal is to blame, but had the criminal had a better upbringing and education, he might have been managing that Burger King rather than robbing it. The decisions of government to provide more or less opportunities for the poor and unemployed has a direct relationship to later criminality in life. The decision to spend a few tens of thousands of dollars per underprivileged child is a heck of lot cheaper than the incremental cost of $240,000 - $260,000 it is going to cost to house that criminal for the next ten years (and I support that penalty for gun crime, by the way).
Horse Hockey. News flash here but we already spend on the order of $200M on chdren between schooling and social programs. What on earth is the government supposed to provide? There lies the thought problem. People thinking they should go steal and rob because "the government didn't help me enough."
Here is the government program I support to reduce crime. "Don't commit crime and you don't have to play 'drop the soap' in Lewisburg." Nothing more should be required.
Quote:Of course we can talk about rates of incarceration in the USA which is 753/100,000, about 6.5 x higher than the Canadian rate and 50% higher than is was 17 years ago. Your incarceration rate is more than 3 times higher than any other western country and higher than Russia, which is #2 in the world among ALL countries. Much of that is due to "tough on crime" laws which include drug crimes and property crimes where a community setting might be better (and cheaper)
Economically, everyone seems to be content to leave criminals in jail and pay the $24 - $26K / inmate / year to leave them there. And that expense is PURELY paid by taxpayers to the tune of $75 billion per year. Wouldn't it be far economically better to identify those youth and young men who are risk of being criminals and make their lives a bit better so that they don't brandish a pistol at Burger King?
But we digress.
Well I am happy to pay that instead of paying the equivent amount of welfare we would be paying them as at least it keeps criminal off the street. I will state it simply. You are not supposed to commit crimes. You should not expect an incentive to not commit crimes. But out of curiosity what do you propose we try to keep them from turning to crime?
I doubt the criminal is thinking I'm going to rob because the government isn't helping me enough. It's more like "I need alcohol or drugs".
I will say this... you have more than 2% of the adult male population in prison. Why is that? Or is that just acceptable, that for the United States, the incarceration rate is just fine because it somehow has the effect of reducing crime? Or do people just like dropping soap in prisons? Is there a link between the high incarceration rate and the apparent increase in the the male homosexuality in America. Inquiring minds want to know.
The government program you support to reduce crime doesn't work, obviously. Because the incarceration rate has increased by 350% in the last 28 years.
I will say that there definitely is a relationship between poverty and crime however. You have two choices: put your head in the sand and continue to have high crime rates because of your high poverty rates or do more to resolve the high poverty rates. There are plenty of other countries to look at for ideas. However, I am not going to play your game.
What I will say however is that, like health care, it is far cheaper to PREVENT crime from happening vs paying for it later within the "correctional" system (just like it is to have early detection programs for cancers, diabetes, heart disease, obesity etc then to pay for life-time drugs and hospitalization).
Quote: AZDuffmanYou are not supposed to commit crimes. You should not expect an incentive to not commit crimes. But out of curiosity what do you propose we try to keep them from turning to crime?
Providing incentive since 1982.
Quote: boymimbo
I will say this... you have more than 2% of the adult male population in prison. Why is that? Or is that just acceptable, that for the United States, the incarceration rate is just fine because it somehow has the effect of reducing crime? Or do people just like dropping soap in prisons? Is there a link between the high incarceration rate and the apparent increase in the the male homosexuality in America. Inquiring minds want to know.
It is because starting in the 1980s the USA began to realize a guy locked up cod not commit more criminal activity. Fwiw I have read that the higher numbers of black males in prison leads to higher rates of homosexuality among that group for whatever reason.
Quote:The government program you support to reduce crime doesn't work, obviously. Because the incarceration rate has increased by 350% in the last 28 years.
And at the same time crime has gone down.
Quote:I will say that there definitely is a relationship between poverty and crime however. You have two choices: put your head in the sand and continue to have high crime rates because of your high poverty rates or do more to resolve the high poverty rates. There are plenty of other countries to look at for ideas. However, I am not going to play your game.
Mule Muffins. Since the 1960s we have pumped a full year of GDP to reducing poverty and it is still high. Poverty wend down in the 1990s after the Gingrich welfare reform bill passed. When Obama gutted the work requirement poverty went ack to record levels. But I do ask you to play the game and stand behind your statement. What kind of handouts/programs do you propose?
Quote:What I will say however is that, like health care, it is far cheaper to PREVENT crime from happening vs paying for it later within the "correctional" system (just like it is to have early detection programs for cancers, diabetes, heart disease, obesity etc then to pay for life-time drugs and hospitalization).
Best way to prevent crime is make the punishment not worth it.
the criminals not to do it. If they want to rob a bank
of $3000, just give them $3000 not to do it. Of course
it would somebody elses money, Lib's never use their
own.
But that gun didn't prevent a crime from happening. The robber had already committed the crime and the victim of the crime then pursued the robber with a gun, jeopardizing the safety of anyone in the area. How would have the victim of the robbery felt if a ricochet bullet hit an innocent bystander, or if the folks in the truck decided to fire back, or if the driver was hit and he swerved into traffic and kill someone else. We'd be having a different conversation right now. Inotherwords, the actions of the victim, at best, was risky.
Now, Face, had that been you with the gun in that restaurant, I am sure it might have taken you one shot to disable the shooter, and good on you. But you having the gun didn't deter that criminal from committing that crime, nor did the liberal carry laws in that state (in Florida, $70 for a seven year license and completion of a firearms course as well as normal background checks allow you to conceal-carry).
Now, if it's your home, it's a different story. Defend your property.
Quote: boymimboGood thing I'm not to the left of the monitor, otherwise you'd be pointing that thing at me.
But that gun didn't prevent a crime from happening. The robber had already committed the crime and the victim of the crime then pursued the robber with a gun, jeopardizing the safety of anyone in the area. How would have the victim of the robbery felt if a ricochet bullet hit an innocent bystander, or if the folks in the truck decided to fire back, or if the driver was hit and he swerved into traffic and kill someone else. We'd be having a different conversation right now. Inotherwords, the actions of the victim, at best, was risky.
Now, Face, had that been you with the gun in that restaurant, I am sure it might have taken you one shot to disable the shooter, and good on you. But you having the gun didn't deter that criminal from committing that crime, nor did the liberal carry laws in that state (in Florida, $70 for a seven year license and completion of a firearms course as well as normal background checks allow you to conceal-carry).
Now, if it's your home, it's a different story. Defend your property.
The gun prevented the completion of the crime aka the getaway. Hence it helped prevent the crime.
Yet despite all of the "money" threw at poverty, its rate remains among the highest in western nations. That, in turn, relates to increased crime. Heavy penalties lead to very high costs of keeping prisoners in jail at the rate of about $1,000/family/year.
There are all kinds of programs that I can think of: youth sports and academic programs; better teachers in inner cities; rehabilitation programs for young offenders; higher welfare rates for single parents with children; child support enforcement so that money flows to the custodial parent; cheap/free daycare based on income so that a parent can work in a job and afford to put their kid through daycare instead of receiving welfare and staying at home; subsidized college education; police enforcement against gangs and these are off the top of my head.
If I spend $20K to prevent $100K of costs due to incarceration what is the better deal? The programs that I suggest all are cheaper than the cost of jail.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe gun prevented the completion of the crime aka the getaway. Hence it helped prevent the crime.
Huh? The crime was already committed. If someone murders you, but they get caught, does that prevent the murder??
And they had to stop for gas. A bystander called 911 and directed the police to the truck. The same would have been accomplished if the victim simply yelled "call 911". Now, if you want to argue that the bullets in the side of the truck may have tipped police, you'd have a point!!!!
