Don't tell us it's Guns

You forgot already? It was literally last night. Oh wait…you’re just playing your usual games.

As a reminder…You tried making the claim that it’s a matter of policy for blue cites to not pursue, arrest and bring to trial murderers. Since I know you will deny this…see post #450. Carry on.

 

I said Chicago has a no persuit policy. That's a fact. It's also a fact that that policy allows violent offenders to get away from police. Change my mind.

 

I literally proved you wrong last night.
I’ll post this again I guess. From the article you provided and clearly didn’t fully read…

Under the policy, officers may give chase if they believe a person is committing or is about to commit a felony, a Class A misdemeanor such as domestic battery, or a serious traffic offense that could risk injuring others, such as drunken driving or street racing.

 

You didn't prove that no violent offenders we're able to escape because of this policy. The crime rate proves I'm right.

 

You’re not right because the claim you made is that it’s policy to not pursue, arrest or bring to trial murderers. Where is your proof cops haven’t chased down murderers? Are you going to try to claim cops have witnessed someone committing murder and just walked away as if nothing happened? Please provide factual evidence that this type of scenario has occurred on a regular basis.

 

The murder rate reflects that there's a problem in Chicago and it isn't guns.

 

A policy not to procecute might as well be a policy not to pursue. Why would cops risk their necks to catch and charge when they know the District Attorney will drop the case?

 

Glad to see you could never support Trump based on ur logic. As he has done more for the anit gun lobby then any other president in the last 20 years.

That is unless you are full of it.

 

I’ll take that as you not having proof. Thanks.

The problem is gang culture

 

Exactly what do you consider a 'violence problem'? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-r...ecent,the National Crime Victimization Survey.

So, other than children, you feel someone should be responsible for other people's actions?

What happens when a weapon of protection is 'secured' in a manner that makes it inaccessible for it's intended purpose?

Individual to home invader: Wait, hold on a second, I need to punch in the code to my safe to get my gun so you don't hurt me!

There is more solid foundation to the statement that when seconds count, Law Enforcement id only minutes away that most want to admit to. Law enforcement is for the aftermath, not to prevent the event from actually happening.

So the insurance would pay an intruder in someone's home, because the homeowner defend themselves and their family? Exactly why would it be anyone's responsibility other than the person breaking the law to begin with?

I said it before, if the actual tools were the problem, then there would be a LOT more issues at hand. Those that are criminals to begin with, don't care what the law says. They will obtain weapons that do the most and broadest damage possible regardless of any law.

It is a people thing. You have people who have mental/emotional issues, some which are already flagged in LE systems, gaining access to guns. THAT is the problem that needs to be addressed. And the actual problem is WHY people are having the mental/emotional issues. That is a many pronged discussion for another thread, if people are capable of carrying it.

 

That poster says lot of things which are not entirely true. The no-pursuit policy, which exists in many cities, says it applies only to minor offences like parking violations.

"officers may give chase if they believe a person is committing or is about to commit a felony, a Class A misdemeanor such as domestic battery, or a serious traffic offense that could risk injuring others, such as drunken driving or street racing. Officers won't be allowed to chase people on foot if they suspect them of minor offenses such as parking violations, driving on suspended licenses or drinking alcohol in public. But they will still have discretion to chase people who they've determined are committing or about to commit crimes that post "an obvious threat to any person."

So, no, they don't let murdered get away as the other poster claims.

 

Oh I know. I already showed him, twice, the following info from the article HE provided. He just chooses to ignore it.

Under the policy, officers may give chase if they believe a person is committing or is about to commit a felony, a Class A misdemeanor such as domestic battery, or a serious traffic offense that could risk injuring others, such as drunken driving or street racing.

 

Looks like a severe case if "clinging to the myth".

 

yes, most gun banners don't call for banning guns. they merely say they want the "next sensible" gun law.

 

so his justices voted against gun rights in Bruen while the quota queen and the Obama picks voted for gun rights? do you know the party of the appointees at lower levels who have voted for gun bans and those who have voted against gun bans?

 

By violence problem I mean the topic of the thread.

I don't know what your link was meant to show, but it makes no mention of violent crime in the US as compared to elsewhere. It does say there has not been a sharp increase recently, but I don't see why that's relevant. The US has long had a violence problem. It's both the cowboy attitudes glorifying violence (and guns) and the shocking lack of social support.

If you bring in a deadly weapon and fail to secure it, and it is then used either by accident or on purpose to kill another person then you are responsible to the victim, yes. You are part of the cause in that case.

If your purpose for the weapon renders it unsecure and dangerous to the public, then you better have a purpose for it that does significant good for the public to offset that risk you are exposing the public to.

True. And you imagine that having a gun is more likely to keep you safe than to expose yourself and all around you to greater danger. I disagree.

Not only is the there the threat of accident, misunderstanding, misidentification, and theft, but if there is a home invader and they know you have guns around, they are far more likely to kill you and others around you, for their own safety.

I am not talking about the invaders. I am talking about the innocent guy next door who gets caught in the crossfire, the child who gets shot by your child who took your gun you failed to secure to play with, or the lady down the street who was raped and murdered at gunpoint with the gun stolen from you that you failed to secure.

I said it before, the tools here (guns) are not the root of the problem, but they do amplify the damage and make violence a lot easier. The other issue that needs to be addressed is the culture. Some other countries are able to handle guns being about without mass shootings being a monthly event.

Agreed. American society creates a higher than average number of them. Some are flagged by police, and many more are not. None of them should be sold guns, yet they are. That's part of the problem.

 

tell us what legal standards you would impose on the USA if you could as to who could own guns and who could not

 

You realize you're not allowed to own a pellet gun with over a 500 ft per second velocity without your government's permission?

I'll take a little dangerous freedom over Nanny/police state safety any day

 

I am not going to tell you what your laws should be. That's up to you. I am only saying why I think it is the way it is. If you like it that way, then that's your choice. I am happy to steer clear and leave you to it.

 

Good point. That's yet another part of the culture I was referring to above.

 

Sorry I ruffled your feathers before Jolly Penguin.

Now let me tell you how to run Canada, eh?

Just kidding. You are free to have an opinion.

 

Then, offer some sensible gun law!

 

"Common sense" gun laws.
All of their "common sense" laws are unnecessary, ineffective, and unconstitutional.
Thus, their version of "sense".

 

Here's what it is:

Richmond has turned into a crime-infested shithole over the past several years. The mayor, Levar Stoney, let Leftist rioters run amok in 2020 and stabbed the community and the Richmond PD in the back when the police tried to do their jobs and maintain order. The city is going on its fourth police chief in three years, and recently the interim chief reported that murders are up a whopping 31% from last year.

Let all that sink in for a moment.

The problem in Richmond is a "progressive" mayor and government that panders to criminals, and as the murders continue to rise under Stoney Baloney's watch, he keeps blowing smoke in people's eyes to deflect attention away from the central role he has played in all of this.

One last thing, and it's the ages old adage the people get the government they deserve. Richmonders are getting exactly what they wanted and asked for when they re-elected Stoney, and he is just the latest in a long line of terrible mayors and councilpersons, some of whom have gone to prison for their malfeasance. The City has a long shameful history of bad governance and this is just more of the same.

 

Republican's view of "sense" was to pass a bill to ensure that those judged by courts to have mental problems MUST be allowed guns. That was one of the FIRST bills after Republicans had a majority on both sides of congress under Trump - THAT is what they saw as important to do.

They didn't work on the budget or any of the other issues that Republicans always say they can't address because of those darn Democrats.

No, they worked on guns for CRAZY PEOPLE!!

Seriously.

Then YOU suggest others have no "common sense"!


I'm open to solutions. But, you need to do a better job of identifying what is crazy.