Aldon Smith Agrees to Plea Deal

[Rvnight18]

The "cities with strict gun laws still have lots of gun crime" schtick fails for a couple reasons. First and foremost, most cities with strict gun laws enacted those laws because they had a preexisting problem with gun crime. It's not like they were paradises that turned into warzones once guns were outlawed. Has Chicago seen a dramatic increase in gun crime since their laws became stricter? Honest question, I don't know the answer.

Perhaps more to the point so far as this conversation goes, and as I addressed earlier, a finite area with strict gun laws has little relevancy to the conversation of meaningful national firearm reform if the area surrounding that finite area has lax gun laws. Strict gun laws in Washington DC are ineffective in large part because someone can just drive into VA and get a gun, then carry it illegally in DC. It's a given that any sort of reform would have to be undertaken on a significant scale before it would have an appreciable effect.

Finally, you guys keep acting like permissive gun laws limit gun crimes. There is very little hard evidence to support that. You love to cite Chicago and Oakland. Well NO, KC, Memphis, and Cleveland all have very high rates of gun crimes despite permissive gun laws. And the US, which has very permissive laws compared to the rest of the developed world, has a rate of firearm homicide that is twenty times the average in those other countries, and a simple murder rate that is at least 3-4 times that of Canada, Australia, and Western and Southern Europe.

Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country - The Washington Post

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So again, what do we do once we have acknowledged that there is a problem with gun violence in this country? Do we push for a militarized citizenry? Or do we look for other ways to bring our firearm-related homicide rate in line with other developed nations?

That's the problem. Society as a whole. Let's fix the problem as a society we have with feeling the need to kill each other. Let's actually do something that will solve something instead of wasting time passing laws that do nothing but take away my right. But instead you want to fixate on the tool being used instead of the person doing the crime. Let's find out why as a society we feel the need to kill at such a higher rate. But why do the common sense thing.

 

[Rvnight18]

ok. this is what everyone is saying too, for protection of my family. everyone is getting paranoid and its feeding onto itself.

your home will be protected - assuming you're home - but you won't be protected in public.....where most killings occur.

First off deep, I have encountered people wanting to harm my family while home. I lived in a very nice area when this happened as well. You know what saved my little sister from being kidnapped? Guns. So when people like you sit there and say things like what's the odds, or most don't want to hurt you, bullshit, I literally want to beat there face in. Because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. I thank god every day that my uncle saved my little sister who was 15 at the time, the police showed up 20 minutes later by the way. So please stop posting stupid shit saying assuming you're home, or most won't hurt you. Because frankly it causes me to lose all respect for you. All. You have no clue what you speak of. I pray you are never in a situation where having a firearm will save you or your families life, but I also pray you will educate yourself and own a firearm incase something like that happens.

 

[NinerSickness]

The "cities with strict gun laws still have lots of gun crime" schtick fails for a couple reasons. First and foremost, most cities with strict gun laws enacted those laws because they had a preexisting problem with gun crime. It's not like they were paradises that turned into warzones once guns were outlawed.

Here's what happened since last July when they finally got conceal-carry rights:

"In July of 2013, Illinois became the last state in the union to enact a concealed carry law. In January of this year, the state began accepting applications for permits. This week (April 2014), Chicago police announced that the city’s first quarter murder rate was the lowest since 1958." "...Overall crime is down 25 percent from last year."

What Happened to Chicago’s Murder Rate After Illinois Upheld Concealed Carry and Why it Matters

Finally, you guys keep acting like permissive gun laws limit gun crimes. There is very little hard evidence to support that. You love to cite Chicago and Oakland. Well NO, KC, Memphis, and Cleveland all have very high rates of gun crimes despite permissive gun laws. And the US, which has very permissive laws compared to the rest of the developed world, has a rate of firearm homicide that is twenty times the average in those other countries, and a simple murder rate that is at least 3-4 times that of Canada, Australia, and Western and Southern Europe.

Those are not 1 to 1 comparisons. Just like England includes statutory r*pe and simple assault in their "violent crime" list, other countries record murder rates differently (and some don't record them accurately and / or fudge the data for political reasons). For example, in a report to parliament in England:

"homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defense or otherwise” (Report to Parliament)."

Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

We KNOW what the problem is. It's drug users. It's illegal aliens. It's the drug / gun running from Mexico and the problems spilling into the US and the US doing nothing about it. And the problem is gang bangers, thieves & junkies.

We also know what the solution is: Stop & frisk like in NYC. And conceal-carry permits.

 

[NinerSickness]

Not possible. If you were a conservative you would stand behind the constitution. But you don't. So you're not.

In Hawaii "conservative" might be the equivalent of "mildly liberal" in the continental 48.

EDIT: RV, just learned (accidentally) that I can edit other peoples' posts and accidentally edited you instead of quoting you. So I essentially deleted one of your posts. Sorry about that RV. I'll watch out for that now that I know I can do it.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

That's the problem. Society as a whole. Let's fix the problem as a society we have with feeling the need to kill each other. Let's actually do something that will solve something instead of wasting time passing laws that do nothing but take away my right. But instead you want to fixate on the tool being used instead of the person doing the crime. Let's find out why as a society we feel the need to kill at such a higher rate. But why do the common sense thing.

I'd love to focus on both. But again, the clear difference in the US homicide rate compared to other similar nations is that tool.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Guns are easily transported. Very easily.

No I am not for hard drugs being legalized because hard drugs are only bad. They offer nothing good. They lead people to do things they normally wouldn't.

I know where you are trying to go with this, and it won't work. Guns have great uses. I feed my family with mine. I will protect my family if need be with mine. However, drugs won't feed my family, or protect them.

The relative ease of transporting drugs vs. guns is not even close to being comparable. An amount of drugs the size of a 9mm, semiautomatic handgun would be literally hundreds of doses.

And claiming that drugs are only bad is willfully ignorant. Drugs have all sorts of medicinal purposes. Methamphetamine and opiates are regularly used in prescription medications. We have very strict limitations on drugs. As you point out, those limitations have not eliminated widespread use. If your logic with firearms is sound, I don't see how you could be against legalizing drugs.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Deep you seem to be of the mind set that guns are just bad. Bad evil things that do no good. A gun is a tool. If used wrong it can be very bad. If used right, they are great. If you want to fix the problem of murders don't look at the tool being used, look at the person. What caused this? What can we do as a society to help keep people from taking these actions. Until liberals want to do that, this gun grabbing bullshit is just flat out horse shit. You act like you care but you don't really give a shit. If you gave two shits, that's what you would want to be worked on, but instead you try to remove people's rights, because your scared of a tool you know nothing about.

Right. Because it's conservatives who are so outspoken about our society providing the mentally ill with the treatment they need, and seeing that children who are statistically likely to engage in criminal activity achieve access to quality education and opportunities.

What policies have the gun lobby - with their considerable influence - put in place to "look at the person"? And why is it that other countries, many of which have similar or even higher rates of crime in general, have a fraction of the homicides?

Your argument is the most disingenuous argument that is regularly put forth in the gun debate.

 

[whysies]

Your argument is the most disingenuous argument that is regularly put forth in the gun debate.

So much this. It's kind of insulting to anyone with a brain. Just admit that guns are fun toys to play with and move on. Nothing wrong with that.

"I use it to protect my family!"- ok, all you need for that is a pistol, why do you have a whole armory of semi-automatic weapons?

"I use it to feed my family!"- sure, you can eat a deer that you kill. But lets not pretend that your primary purpose in hunting wasn't sport. It's fun. And you don't need to hunt to feed your family unless you're some crazy off the grid mountain man. And again, why the armory? All you need is a rifle. And why did I catch you killing squirrels with a shotgun? Was that to feed your family?

I'm not against normal, not mentally ill people lawfully owning guns as long as they are registered and they have some sort of proper training. Not at all. But don't give me all this BS about it being some sort of "right" or that there are any real reasons to have them beyond being fun to play with.

 

[Rvnight18]

Right. Because it's conservatives who are so outspoken about our society providing the mentally ill with the treatment they need, and seeing that children who are statistically likely to engage in criminal activity achieve access to quality education and opportunities.

What policies have the gun lobby - with their considerable influence - put in place to "look at the person"? And why is it that other countries, many of which have similar or even higher rates of crime in general, have a fraction of the homicides?

Your argument is the most disingenuous argument that is regularly put forth in the gun debate.

I'm not a conservative.

 

[Rvnight18]

Right. Because it's conservatives who are so outspoken about our society providing the mentally ill with the treatment they need, and seeing that children who are statistically likely to engage in criminal activity achieve access to quality education and opportunities.

What policies have the gun lobby - with their considerable influence - put in place to "look at the person"? And why is it that other countries, many of which have similar or even higher rates of crime in general, have a fraction of the homicides?

Your argument is the most disingenuous argument that is regularly put forth in the gun debate.

It's not disingenuous in the least. I want mental health to be funded better and research to be done to find out what causes us as a people to be more violent. It's honestly how I feel. If you don't want to believe that, that's on you. But putting bans on guns doesn't fix any problems at all. Just like all the laws already on the books don't stop people now.

 

[Rvnight18]

So much this. It's kind of insulting to anyone with a brain. Just admit that guns are fun toys to play with and move on. Nothing wrong with that.

"I use it to protect my family!"- ok, all you need for that is a pistol, why do you have a whole armory of semi-automatic weapons?

"I use it to feed my family!"- sure, you can eat a deer that you kill. But lets not pretend that your primary purpose in hunting wasn't sport. It's fun. And you don't need to hunt to feed your family unless you're some crazy off the grid mountain man. And again, why the armory? All you need is a rifle. And why did I catch you killing squirrels with a shotgun? Was that to feed your family?

I'm not against normal, not mentally ill people lawfully owning guns as long as they are registered and they have some sort of proper training. Not at all. But don't give me all this BS about it being some sort of "right" or that there are any real reasons to have them beyond being fun to play with.

This is the most ignorant piece of bullshit I have ever read. Litterally.

My sister is still with us because she was saved by a family member with a gun. Just because it hasn't happened in your life doesn't mean it hasn't in others. And to us who have, your insulting.

I hunt more than deer. You can hunt squirrel, rabbit, turkey, doves, wood chucks, geese, ducks, boar, antelope, bear, elk, and others. You don't have a one gun fits all there buddy. I can't use a rifle to hunt deer in Ohio, but I can use a shot gun, muzzle loader, and bow. I have all three. Why? Because of different hunting seasons for these weapons. I can use a rifle for squirrel, wood chucks, coyotes, and other varmit. But I wouldn't use the same rifle for squirrel and yotes. If I wanted to go bear hunting, I need something more powerful. Antelope are hard to get close to, might need something with longer range, but not a huge caliber that blows up meat.

I feed my family with a lot of wild meat because it's healthier. Way healthier. My family farms and we have cattle. I'm very very informed on how raising cattle or pigs or chickens goes. My family doesn't shoot their steers up with anything at all, but I know lots that do. I would rather not give those to my children. I process my own food from taking it down, cleaning it, and cooking it. I know what goes into my families mouth. That's my decision to make not yours.

It is my right. Apparently you have no clue what you speak of. Just as you have the right to religion, free speech, and a whole host of others. Guns are "fun to play with". You don't play with guns. They are a tool that needs to be respected like all tools. A car, plane, knife, all tools that can cause great damage not used properly. So get that "fun to play with" crap out of here.

 

[whysies]

This is the most ignorant piece of bullshit I have ever read. Litterally.

My sister is still with us because she was saved by a family member with a gun. Just because it hasn't happened in your life doesn't mean it hasn't in others. And to us who have, your insulting.

I hunt more than deer. You can hunt squirrel, rabbit, turkey, doves, wood chucks, geese, ducks, boar, antelope, bear, elk, and others. You don't have a one gun fits all there buddy. I can't use a rifle to hunt deer in Ohio, but I can use a shot gun, muzzle loader, and bow. I have all three. Why? Because of different hunting seasons for these weapons. I can use a rifle for squirrel, wood chucks, coyotes, and other varmit. But I wouldn't use the same rifle for squirrel and yotes. If I wanted to go bear hunting, I need something more powerful. Antelope are hard to get close to, might need something with longer range, but not a huge caliber that blows up meat.

I feed my family with a lot of wild meat because it's healthier. Way healthier. My family farms and we have cattle. I'm very very informed on how raising cattle or pigs or chickens goes. My family doesn't shoot their steers up with anything at all, but I know lots that do. I would rather not give those to my children. I process my own food from taking it down, cleaning it, and cooking it. I know what goes into my families mouth. That's my decision to make not yours.

It is my right. Apparently you have no clue what you speak of. Just as you have the right to religion, free speech, and a whole host of others. Guns are "fun to play with". You don't play with guns. They are a tool that needs to be respected like all tools. A car, plane, knife, all tools that can cause great damage not used properly. So get that "fun to play with" crap out of here.

I think the home invasion protection argument can be valid in some instances (as I acknowledged) but that largely depends on where you live because otherwise its fairly remote. Also, you only need one specific gun for that. If you need an auto shotgun for protection you're largely fucked because whatever SWAT team is breaking into your house is almost certainly going to kill you eventually.

As for the hunting- I have a hard time believing you need to feed your family with your spoils as much as you claim. If you were living off the land as much as you claim I don't think you would spend nearly as much time as you do on an Internet sports forum. People who have to live off the land generally aren't the sitting behind a computer type. No debt you eat what you hunt, but I'm guessing your purpose is far more "varmit huntin'" than subsisting. AKA fun. And if you are more the crazy mountain man type then good for you, I think that's legit too.

I think gun ownership can be somewhat of a necessity for people on the extremes. But for Joe Blow Schmos? Naw. I'm fine with Joe Blow Schmos owning guns, but they shouldn't pretend they are neccessary or a right.

You seem to think its a right, where does that right come from?

 

[Rvnight18]

I think the home invasion protection argument can be valid in some instances (as I acknowledged) but that largely depends on where you live because otherwise its fairly remote. Also, you only need one specific gun for that. If you need an auto shotgun for protection you're largely fucked because whatever SWAT team is breaking into your house is almost certainly going to kill you eventually.

As for the hunting- I have a hard time believing you need to feed your family with your spoils as much as you claim. If you were living off the land as much as you claim I don't think you would spend nearly as much time as you do on an Internet sports forum. People who have to live off the land generally aren't the sitting behind a computer type. No debt you eat what you hunt, but I'm guessing your purpose is far more "varmit huntin'" than subsisting. AKA fun. And if you are more the crazy mountain man type then good for you, I think that's legit too.

I think gun ownership can be somewhat of a necessity for people on the extremes. But for Joe Blow Schmos? Naw. I'm fine with Joe Blow Schmos owning guns, but they shouldn't pretend they are neccessary or a right.

You seem to think its a right, where does that right come from?

First of I can't get an auto shotgun...... Auto weapons are hard to get because of cost, have to go through a dealer, and so on and so forth. Of course law breaking criminals have them still.

Second I lived in a very nice area in the country when my sister was nearly abducted. It doesn't matter where you live. I live in a very nice small city, ranked #18 in the nation for cost of living to quality of school ratio, and we had a guy shot and killed not to long ago. We have very very little crime at all where I live, mostly kids stealing beer out of fridges in garages, but shit happens everywhere.

Second I don't HAVE to feed my family on wild game, I CHOOSE TOO. I still buy chicken or pork from the store but not nearly what I use to. I get all my beef from my families farm. I choose that life style just like you choose to be ignorant on guns and then try and preach to me how bad they are, when you props my have never even held one let alone fired one.

Bill of rights, second amendment.

 

[Rvnight18]

NorthwestOhio.com - Latest local news, weather and high school sports for Toledo area

 

[whysies]

First of I can't get an auto shotgun...... Auto weapons are hard to get because of cost, have to go through a dealer, and so on and so forth. Of course law breaking criminals have them still.

Second I lived in a very nice area in the country when my sister was nearly abducted. It doesn't matter where you live. I live in a very nice small city, ranked #18 in the nation for cost of living to quality of school ratio, and we had a guy shot and killed not to long ago. We have very very little crime at all where I live, mostly kids stealing beer out of fridges in garages, but shit happens everywhere.

Second I don't HAVE to feed my family on wild game, I CHOOSE TOO. I still buy chicken or pork from the store but not nearly what I use to. I get all my beef from my families farm. I choose that life style just like you choose to be ignorant on guns and then try and preach to me how bad they are, when you props my have never even held one let alone fired one.

Bill of rights, second amendment.

I've shot guns at shooting ranges. Good times. Don't own one and have never gone hunting but I would love to sometime.

I think they're bad when in the wrong hands, I don't think they're necessarily inherently evil. I try not to ascribe such characteristics to pieces of metal.

Can you walk me through how the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun?

 

[Rvnight18]

The Unabridged Second Amendment

 

[whysies]

The Unabridged Second Amendment

No, no, you. Can you walk me through it? I'm not interested in some gunnut shitcon drivel.

 

[Rvnight18]

No, no, you. Can you walk me through it? I'm not interested in some gunnut shitcon drivel.

Read it. Quit with the bull. It's an interview with a guy who is an expert on the English language. Webster uses him as a source for crying out loud. If your not going to read it, that's on you.

 

[NinerSickness]

What policies have the gun lobby - with their considerable influence - put in place to "look at the person"? And why is it that other countries, many of which have similar or even higher rates of crime in general, have a fraction of the homicides?

We've already established that England does not record homicides the same way the US does. Other countries may record data differently as well. Some countries' government data is completely unreliable, and not all other countries have gun bans like England.

The only way to show causality is to try to isolate a single variable: that variable being gun control. in the same country, in the same time period, I've pretty much already proven that gun control INCREASES crime. Or did you completely ignore that Chicago's murder rate

Chicago's murders in 2012: 500 or more (500 on Dec 28th). Chicago murder rate sets new record ? RT USA

Within 7 short months of Illinois lifting conceal-carry restrictions (last state to do so) in July '13, homicides fell to the lowest rates in 56 years, and overall crime fell 25%. What Happened to Chicago’s Murder Rate After Illinois Upheld Concealed Carry and Why it Matters

Every time gun restrictions are made there is an immediate, GIGANTIC increase in crime, and vice versa. Your 'solution' to the problem is making it worse (as is typically the case with liberal "solutions").

 

[NinerSickness]

No, no, you. Can you walk me through it? I'm not interested in some gunnut shitcon drivel.

Just out of curiosity Whysies, to what do you think the word "arms" in the 2nd amendment refers? Sticks with nails on the ends of 'em?