Finding and Fixing the root causes of Mass Shootings

Here's the last one.

Darwin shooting: Banned shotgun used in four killings, police say

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48522342

 

Which is absolutely irrelevant in this discussion.

 

You're quoting part of the decision so YOU opened the door and made it relevant chief

 

When it comes to major reductions of shootings in populated areas, the police need resources dedicated to that purpose and mandates to keep the guns off the streets. Chicago isn't an area where it would be easy to limit the amount of firearms, but Baltimore is.

 

Absolutely irrelevant to your statement, and my rebuttal of your quote.

Handguns! Why did you omit to mention that word in the above paragraph? And why did you not quote the text verbatim (like I did)? Because you want to take the phrase out of context to, again, change the subject.

It's not working.... You're just trying to obfuscate and to change the subject again and again. I'm done!

 

I'm making it relevant to the matter I was debating. Not for you to take it out of context.

 

And if the police need MP5s to protect themselves from the ravening Huns, I need one too.
Why not Chicago and Why Baltimore? Explain your reasoning because I need to be amused.

 

Except the portion you're quoting is taken out of context as it is DICTA which holds no force of law as the laws mentioned were not before the court and thus the court lacked the power to rule upon them.

If you're going to quote the case, you must understand this basic and simple concept.

 

Third World.

 

You have to change the gun economy of a city to control the amount of firearms and Chicago is surrounded by rural areas that can't be easily controlled. Stopping the guns getting to the streets is a big help.

 

Have you ever found anyone who wants to disarm you? I never have.

 

Is there a point your attempting to make? If they don’t want them they don’t have to buy them. Is it troubling living among so many irrational people? Do you think fearing inanimate objects that have never harmed anyone of their own volition may be “nuts”? Or that the criminals might be the real nuts? And that they all seem to come from the population centers that “don’t want assault weapons around them”? Maybe you should concentrate on your variety of “nuts” since that seems to be the problem. If you don’t want to be forced into things that don’t work for you (which you obviously aren’t because you are the only one advocating authoritarianism) maybe you should stop trying to enforce your will on others.

And get a bigger bucket. Your boat is low in the water.

 

For the simple reason the united state supreme court was very deliberate in the language it utilized when issuing the ruling. It utilized the words "arms" and "firearms" enough times throughout the ruling to all but explicitly spell out how the protections of the second amendment were not limited exclusively to handguns, but rather encompassed all firearms currently available on the private market.

 

You asked for a country, any country, with regard to tyranny and a disarmed public that could not resist even if it did notice the tyranny coming. An example of such was given.

If the answer that is received is not liked, work harder at structuring the question more appropriately.

Once a country succumbs to tyranny, it loses whatever first world status it may have held previously.

 

Then the city of Chicago should not be attempting such a course of action with its firearm-related restrictions, as the rest of the state is not willing to go along with the nonsense. Therefore the majority dictates the city of Chicago must get rid of its firearm-related restrictions, and instead be inline with the rest of the state of Illinois.

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/tho...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/

From January 2006 through August 2013, thousands of cases involving a weapons violation were thrown out in Cook County’s criminal courts, The Chicago Reporter found. More than 13,000 cases that included a gun violation have been dismissed during that period, shows the Reporter’s analysis of records maintained by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County. In fact, more felony cases involving a gun–from illegal possession to unlawful sale to a felon–have been thrown out than cases with any other type of charge.


The politics of gun violence in Chicago could be inadvertently driving the dismissals, said Rely Vilcica, a former judge in Romania and now an associate professor of criminal justice at Temple University. So much pressure is mounting about gun violence that public officials are now saying, “We cannot do nothing about guns,” said Vilcica, who similarly examined dismissed gun cases in Philadelphia.


The high volume of dismissed cases point to a broken criminal justice system, critics say. But where is it breaking down? Is it among police officers who, under pressure to make gun-related arrests, might be filing charges that don’t hold up in court? Or is it among prosecutors who might be allowing thousands of weak cases–only to dismiss them later to preserve their conviction rate? Or might it be that judges are agreeing to suppress evidence because of a bad arrest?


“What ends up being plausible is all of it has the potential to be true,” said Roseanna Ander, executive director of the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab, which studies the way gun offenses are prosecuted in Cook County’s criminal courts. “But what is the bulk of it?”


The number of dismissed felony gun-related cases has grown from 845 in 2006 to 2,109 in 2012, the Reporter analysis shows. The trend has continued during the first seven months of this year, during which more gun cases were thrown out than in either 2006 or 2007.

 

You better stock up if you live around me, because we'll ban the damn things.

 

You couldn’t pay me enough or exert enough force on me to get me to live in your **** hole. Best of luck in your endeavors. Your advocating for unprovoked violence again is noted. Scary stuff.

You present a brilliant intellectual argument by the way. I’m sure you are gaining much support.

 

Damn sure aren't going to shoot 40 people in 30 seconds with a shotgun

 

Look. If you're going to jump into a debate, you damn well better know what the debate is about. The poster I responded spoke about that paragraph without quoting it, so I quoted it.

As for the rest... what nonsense! What is said will "forever" be part of jurisprudence and will be used in trials. Or at least until either a sensible Congress legislates or a rational Supreme Court throws the whole piece of garbage into the gutter where it belongs.

 

Perhaps not forty, but certainly a great many if the shotgun in question is this:

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/kel...-greenmatte-black-finish/FC-640832007442.html



Twenty five rounds of ammunition can lead to a great many deaths in a very short amount of time.

 

Dicta carries no legal weight whatsoever. It serves no purpose other than a summary for those who are too ignorant, or too short in terms of attention span, to read the ruling itself and see what was stated.

 

The Post reports, "None of the eight victims of the El Paso mass shooting still being treated at University Medical Center agreed to meet with President Trump when he visited on Wednesday, the hospital’s spokesman said.

"Two victims who had been discharged from UMC and their families returned to the hospital to meet with Trump, Mielke said."

A girl who was shot in the leg and released from the hospital said her dad remains in critical condition and said her family refused to speak with Trump.

“The whole family said if he wants to go into the room, no. We don’t want him in the patient’s room. And we respect all of our family's opinion,” said Leticia Mariscal.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

While visiting a hospital in El Paso, Texas on Wednesday after a mass shooting that left 22 people dead, Trump found time to boast about the crowd size at a campaign rally he held in the city several months ago.

A video shows him saying, “I was here three months ago and we made a speech.”

“That was some crowd,” Trump bragged. “And we had twice the number outside.”

“And then you had this crazy Beto,” he continued. “Beto had like 400 people in the parking lot. They said his crowd was wonderful. But we had some—”

Trump then interrupted himself to admire a hospital worker’s Trump-themed socks.

“Oh wow! Look at that,” he exclaimed. “Don’t tell it to the press because they won’t even believe it.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-brag-rally-crowd-size-el-paso-hospital-visit

The man is a disgrace, but his fans love him. Perhaps, it is kinship. Trump is one their own kind.

 

That's not really how it works. But you go on with your bad self buddy