Don't tell us it's Guns

Look at you - unable to defend the charge against you, so you try to change the subject.

As you are only interested in unnecessary, ineffective and unconstitutional restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding...
No,
You aren't

 

Richmond has sensible gun laws.

What it lacks are sensible leaders and sensible voters, and FYI it's been run by Democrats for decades.

 

I pointed out the depravity of the Republican party on gun legislation - actual evidence.

Whining about me is a little silly, isn't it?

There is a simple way to test if I'm open to suggestions. You could make a suggestion!

 

Yes...
Because you are unable to defend the charge against you, you tried change the subject.
Just like I said.
Glad you agree.
And thank you for the concession of the point.

1: Get rid of all the unnecessary, ineffective and unconstitutional gun laws
2: Enforce those that remain to the fullest extent possible.

 

Like most cities (and their states) there are a lot of gun laws covering Richmond, Virginia.

Are there gun laws you would like to promote to other cities?

 

I conceded nothing. Republicans fully demonstrated the party direction on guns by working to ensure that CRAZY PEOPLE can have guns. And, given the work to ensure that anyone can carry guns in public, the combination is particularly idiotic as a party direction.

1. that one isn't specific enough to be useful. I'm sure that useless laws exist. But, you know how laws are changed.
2. enforcement is an issue that pertains to states and cities. So, assessments of what is possible are being made all the time.

But, I don't know what you are hoping for here. What kind of laws are you hoping that police forces will enforce?

Let's say you run a department with a bunch of policemen.

What would you have them do?

 

you use a gun to harm innocents-you go to jail
you use a gun in a reckless manner-you either get fined or go to jail
you supply someone whom you know is going to commit a violent felony with a gun-you go to jail

 

are you claiming everyone who has any type of mental illness should be barred from owning guns?
such as dudes who think they are dames? Democrats had banned people from owning guns who had neither been adjudicated mentally incompetent nor had exhibited any danger to others

 

When you try to change the subject, you concede the issue put to you is true.
Thus, your concession.

Tell us what gun control laws -you- believe are unnecessary, ineffective and unconstitutional.

And the federal government.
Why do you believe the entities charged with enforcing the laws should not do so to the greatest extent possible?

 

The perhaps this will clarify.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/21346/...he surveys, the,while Canadians have the most.

What do you believe is 'the cowboy attitudes glorifying violence' that is present in the US that is not present in the UK?

Social support - what exactly do you mean? Social programs? For exactly what?

Keeping on firearm on your person is considered securing it. Most people carry concealed, and if done properly, no one is going to know you are carrying it. If the person actually carrying it accidently shots someone, they are going to be responsible regardless of insurance. If someone else struggles with the person, takes the gun and shoots a third party, the liability is there, but not exclusive.

The purpose renders it unsecure.... that statement doesn't make sense. Most firearms carried in public (usually concealed) are for personal safety. If some **** is brandishing it with no obvious defense situation warranted, then they can be charged with brandishing and other related charges.

While this is not a you/me discussion, but a discussion of basics, you seem to think that anyone who carries a firearm in public does so with a strut and a bloated chest. The majority of the time, the public doesn't even know that a firearm is being carried, and the public is not being exposed to a risk.

Once again, this is (or at least was) not a you/me discussion. Let's just say there is more meat to the statement of 'equalizing the fight' than you realize.

The assumption that the majority of people do not act responsibly with firearms is a bit of a media coloration. Other than a prized hunting rifle or critter shot gun (usually mounted on the wall or in a locked case), you don't walk into the average US household and see firearms laying around. I have no idea where that perception comes from, because it is in the truth.

Additional laws inhibiting the purchase of firearms by legitimate request aren't going to fix any issue. If the current laws are deemed ineffective then they either need to be fixed, or databases created and more accessible by professionals to report concerns. And, as always, removing firearms from criminals is like eating pudding (the American version) with your fingers.

 

Yes, there are, and as I stated Richmond has sensible gun laws. I know. I lived there. My wife and I bought two firearms there. My wife got her concealed weapons permit there.

How about you?

I'm also intimately aware of Richmond's long sordid history of bad governance and how it has gotten worse over the past several years. Tell me about the experiences and observations you've had over the years as a Richmond resident. I'm all ears.

As for myself, what I can tell you is that the problem in Richmond, like many other Democrat-run cities I have and have not lived in, is that it has a "progressive" mayor who craps on the police and panders to criminals. The City lost an enormous number of cops since he let his fellow travelers run amok during the summer of 2020, and now it is understaffed and looking for its fourth chief in three years. Not surprisingly, homicides are up 31% from last year.

When you pander to criminals and enable lawlessness in your streets that is what you get.

No there aren't, because I believe in the principle of local autonomy.

That being said, what I would tell the citizens of Richmond, Chicago and all the other failed Democrat-run cities in this country who have "progressive" mayors and DAs who pander to criminals is to put up or shut up. If you don't like the crime, get serious about fighting it and start by getting rid of your "progressive" mayors and DAs who don't want to fight it.

Furthermore, I might advise them to do something about the root causes of the violence in their cities, instead of letting Democrats distract them by shifting the focus of their attention to the symptoms instead of the root causes.

This is a warning Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) gave his fellow Democrats while they were crafting their Great Society and War on Poverty programs in the 1960s, and people would do well to consider his warning and how the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost in their communities today:

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder — most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure — that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable...

What do you suggest we do about THAT, Will?

Continue to ignore it?

 

Senator Moyinhan was very astute.

 

Well, this is the theory.

However, we can see that the results are not even CLOSE to good enough.

 

You're right.. Best to be on the offensive, buy a firearm

 

Wow - I thought you liked Richmond and had something to offer on gun violence.

But, I do agree that a stronger society would be a big help.

What actions are you proposing for that?

Specifically, what would you suggest for reducing the number who are brought up in broken homes or find their formative years dominated by women?

 

And thus:
2: Enforce those that remain to the fullest extent possible.
You disagree.

 

No, I'm fine with that. EXCEPT that it isn't a real answer as it does not specify actual changes in enforcement.

 

It certainly is.

It certainly does.

Still waiting for you to tell us what gun control laws -you- believe are unnecessary, ineffective and unconstitutional.

 

Wow - I've already pointed out the problems in Richmond, what needs to get fixed and how to start fixing things.

Stronger societies are built by stronger individuals. Change starts at home.

I asked you to answer those questions.

What do you suggest?

 

Bad typo day, apologies.

 

"Stronger societies are built by stronger individuals"-Talon

- there is not anything more true to say about a society than that.

 

You want ME to answer how we can improve American society, because YOU think that's a solution to gun violence?

Are you serious?? If you have an idea, then OWN IT. That's what we need to expect of adults.

But since you asked, we need a serious effort on diversity and equality. Allowing hate begets violence. We need the opposite - a nation where people know they have an equal shot and they know there there aren't whole groups out to destroy their chances - or even their lives.

We need serious support for democracy - the kind of support where people fully support democracy even when their ideas don't win. Support where people recognize that excluding citizens from voting is full on assault on what America stands for.

Also, we've been ruling against working America for a long time now. Our SC rules against workers with regularity. The result leaves families in the serious stress of poverty. This is another strong exclusionary force that pushes people outside of the civil world we need them to WANT to be part of.

 

Sure.

But, it does not suggest how to move in that direction.

It doesn't suggest addressing poverty, improving education, supporting wider availability of post-high school education, greater attention to addressing false representations in media, or whatever anyone might think would help.

 

Well then: Ban hate
Anyone who displays or espouses hatred goes to jail.
Right?

We don't have a Democracy; the only people who lose elections are those running for office.

Who is excluded form voting that should not be?

You have no rational or factual basis for your+ statement.

You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship you claim, above.

 

You were asking people to offer sensible gun laws because YOU think that's a solution to gun violence.

Were you being serious?

As for Senator Moynihan's warning every bit of it has come true.

Thanks for the response, but I don't see how any of that even begins to address the problem of allowing a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future that is largely responsible for the crime, violence, unrest, disorder and furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure that we are currently seeing in our communities.

Worse yet, not only do we allow that, we encourage it. We reward it. Why in the world would we want to do that?

Didn't Senator Moynihan warn us that we don't want to do that, that the consequences would be violence, crime and anti-social behavior?

How is that desirable in any way, shape or form, and if it's not desirable why are we doing it?