Another mass shooting (2 Viewers)

[Isaac]

Except in Conneticut

Is the solution to that problem the same as liberals' usual one, then? Remove guns from police stations?

 

[Isaac]

at least once.

Bangladesh teacher suspended after allegedly shooting student in exam

Students in Bangladesh organised a protest calling for the teacher's suspension after the alleged incident.

www.bbc.com

Had to go to Bangladesh for it, ok my mistake for not clarifying, I'm talking about US problem. Sure, maybe once. But generally it's not that way, so who'd you rather arm? Nonteachers wandering into a school, or teachers?

 

[moke123]

Nonteachers wandering into a school, or teachers?

neither

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Pat Hartman]

Except in Conneticut

We grow em' really stupid in Connecticut, or maybe she was an import. This one was almost too drunk to stand up. The cops at least waited until she emptied her gun before showing their faces.

Apparently the student gave the wrong answer.

 

[Isaac]

neither

Yeah, that would be a utopia. It's a shame the criminals don't usually obey the gun control laws.

 

[Isaac]

neither

That's kind of like passing a law that says "No punching anyone, ever, and for any reason". Those obeying the law have to stand there still, while those disobeying the law punch them. It makes no sense.

 

[Pat Hartman]

It's a shame the criminals don't usually obey the gun control laws.

THAT's the problem. We need a NEW LAW that says that criminals MUST obey the gun control laws. THAT will fix everything.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

THAT's the problem. We need a NEW LAW that says that criminals MUST obey the gun control laws. THAT will fix everything.

The problem, Pat, is... OK, there is a new law that someone obviously disobeyed when they used their gun. So you could use that law to stack on extra charges. That is, you could if the local DA would ever obtain an indictment. The laws we have aren't being followed. Why bother with a new law that applies to gun-wielding criminals? Now if we could only pass a law that would require district attorneys to actually seek indictments. But if it is itself a criminal law, then the DA would have to indict himself. Clear conflict of interests.

 

[Isaac]

I hesitate to suggest any federalization-based solution, but what if that law were federal, doc? Then US Attorneys could pursue rogue DA's for failing to indict. Hmm. Not sure about that though.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I want to know WHY any person who commits a crime while carrying a gun whether it is used or not spends less than 10 years in prison?

I was being facetious Doc. We don't actually need new laws, we need to enforce existing laws. If you come down HARD on the criminal use of a gun, criminals might think twice about using guns to commit crime. The idiots keep letting the gun using people off with soft sentences because to lock them up would be "racist". We need to purge the drug users from prisons and replace them with criminals who are caught violating ANY gun law.

 

[Isaac]

We need to purge the drug users from prisons and replace them with criminals who are caught violating ANY gun law

AMEN !!!! The drug possession penalties have gone all over the pendelum, swinging wildly back and forth and MAKE NO SENSE.

1. So back in the 80's and 90's, crack began to cause a LOT of problems - violent ones - so society came down hard on it.
2. After a while, people notice this "disproportionately affects" blacks, since that's their favorite drug as a demographic.
3. So everyone eases up on the penalties, and all of a sudden simply possessing crack is not that big a deal, especially as a first timer, you are quite likely to do Drug Court, Intervention, Community Service, Weekend Jail, Probation, and such niceties and not PRISON, if it's nothing but simple possession.
4. Fast forward a few more years, people start to see Meth as the big villain of the day. So they start implementing incredibly harsh penalties for meth, which happens to be the favorite drug of whites and possibly hispanics as a demographic.
5. So now the same thing that put a bunch of blacks in prison is putting a bunch of whites in prison - in Arizona, 1.75 years MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCE for FIRST TIME charge of POSSESSION ONLY. Can you imagine? Almost 2 years in prison for simply holding a grain of rice size meth without having hurt a soul.
6. Fast forward another year or two, they'll probably switch their focus to fentanyl. The point is, this is silly.

So where's the racial outrage now? Yes, there is such a thing as other-colors-privilege, and this is an example of it. It has occurred to nobody that penalizing meth ultra-harshly is no less racially targeting (in practice, not necessarily motivation), just like crack was back in the day.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Possession needs to be handled differently from intent to sell. The drug dealers handle this by using mules to hand off the drug so that the mule has only a small amount on his person at any point in time. So, unless you catch him in the act of exchanging money for drugs, he gets charged with possession. I'm not sure how to solve this problem except to get the mule doing "soft time" in the guise of community service and training classes. Then you have to get to the multiple offences step. If the mule stays a mule, you know who he is and will probably catch him again. But, how much money and manpower can a city spend monitoring mules in the hopes of getting to the guy behind the curtain.

When I first moved to Miami in the early 70's they had a prostitution problem. They solved it by publishing the names and addresses of the Johns each week in the Monday edition of the Miami Herald. Too bad most local papers have folded. It is a soft way to shame the buyers. But you need to get them into rehab also.

Drug addiction leads to lots of other crimes so it cannot be ignored but prison doesn't ever solve this particular problem. This is the crime you need to sic the social workers on. Job training for the mules as well as community service. Rehab for the buyers and they should probably do community service as well because they are costing the community money.

 

[Isaac]

Agreed, I am mainly just thinking of plain old users. Your first time arrested user with $20 worth, I don't care if it's crack cocaine, meth or fentanyl, shouldn't be going to prison at all. Maybe 3rd, 4th, maybe if they were doing other crimes, sure, but I'm thinking of the most basic case, the crack laws used to be fierce in comparison to the 'crime' and now the meth laws are, and soon someone will cry for fentanyl to be treated like that.

Gotta go at the dealers only, IMHO. And it's all about catching it at the borders and oceans and skies so that the market gets super scarce and those people who were seriously thinking of trying to start recovering (a significant % of users at any given time), are kind of goaded into doing so from scarcity and expense.

 

[DickyP]

A word of warning about gun control. In the UK we have the strictest gun control laws anywhere probably. The normal citizen may not own a gun full stop (period in US speak) - there are exceptions where required for work etc such as farmers and gamekeepers, but they are few and far between.

However, the total banning of gun ownership has led to a massive rise in gun related deaths, and an even bigger rise in deaths by stabbing since everyone can now own the main weapon available.

Don't ask me what the answer is however.

 

[Isaac]

I've noticed a LOT of stabbing crimes in Phoenix, and I was also pondering this, wondering "what if nobody had guns - why is stabbing better? is it preferred? I'd rather people have guns so the good guys can fight back then we all just stand around being quietly stabbed"

 

[Isaac]

A word of warning about gun control. In the UK we have the strictest gun control laws anywhere probably. The normal citizen may not own a gun full stop (period in US speak) - there are exceptions where required for work etc such as farmers and gamekeepers, but they are few and far between.

However, the total banning of gun ownership has led to a massive rise in gun related deaths, and an even bigger rise in deaths by stabbing since everyone can now own the main weapon available.

Don't ask me what the answer is however.

To us in the US on this side of the issue, it seems so obvious: When guns are illegal, then only criminals will own guns (they obviously won't obey the law) - thus only the bad guys will be able to attack, and the good guys who obey the "no guns" law won't be able to fight back.

 

[Pat Hartman]

and the good guys who obey the "no guns" law won't be able to fight back.

The protection to allow citizens to keep and bear arms was placed in the Constitution by people wise beyond reason. The idea was for the government to be afraid of the people rather than the people being afraid of the government. If the government becomes overbearing and does not live up to the Constitution (which it hasn't been doing for years), it is up to the citizenry to overthrow it. What they didn't foresee was the arms race so this is now easier said than done. The government has been very successful in ensuring that the only "guns" that citizens had access to were toys compared to what the military was equipped with. That means that even if the general population had the will to throw off the overbearing government, they would not succeed unless the army would stand with them. To prevent that from happening, the government has been eliminating any member of the armed forces who dares to not conform to the "political correctness" of the progressives.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The idea was for the government to be afraid of the people rather than the people being afraid of the government.

Someone must have watched "V for Vendetta" at some time in her life.

I was being facetious Doc. We don't actually need new laws, we need to enforce existing laws.

I knew that, Pat. You are preaching to the choir here. But unfortunately, some of our foreign readers might not understand.

 

[Pat Hartman]

This is not a new article but it does a good job of summarizing the actual causes of mass-shooting events and probably the rise in knife events in Europe. Neither of which has anything to do with the actual weapon since neither a gun nor a knife is capable of killing someone under its own volition. The weapons MUST be wielded by a human (or robot), normally with some type of psychological illness since sane people are not murderers.

97.8 Percent of Mass Shootings Are Linked to This | The Epoch Times