Seriously

[Maringue]

If Florida lets this guy off,http://gawker.com/white-florida-man-said-i-hate-thug-music-before-shoo-1519304881?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow, it's time for some drastic action. I mean the guys own fiance won't back his story up.

[cloud]

Girlfriend, not fiance. Also, as much as this makes me angry, like it says in the post, he may still get off because of some dumb law.

[Sanic-X]

Yeah, that law is ridiculous. How it got passed is anyone's guess.

[UncleTestes]

While I don't think this guy should go free, that "dumb law" was in place for a reason. Self defense laws HAVE saved lives. Those situations just don't make it to the liberal news as often as people who it didn't save.

In any case, I'm not sure what was going through this guy's mind when he shot into the car, but whatever it was I don't think the shooting is justified.

EDIT: In addition, this is relevant.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/114761-day-clarence-thomas-says-race-conscious-black-lawmaker-calls-uncle-tom/

[Maringue]

While I don't think this guy should go free, that "dumb law" was in place for a reason. Self defense laws HAVE saved lives. Those situations just don't make it to the liberal news as often as people who it didn't save.

In any case, I'm not sure what was going through this guy's mind when he shot into the car, but whatever it was I don't think the shooting is justified.

EDIT: In addition, this is relevant.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/114761-day-clarence-thomas-says-race-conscious-black-lawmaker-calls-uncle-tom/

I agree, but I also think that if someone has an easy route of escape, they need to take it before being legally allowed to use deadly force in their own defense.

[Balubish]

While I don't think this guy should go free, that "dumb law" was in place for a reason. Self defense laws HAVE saved lives. Those situations just don't make it to the liberal news as often as people who it didn't save.

In any case, I'm not sure what was going through this guy's mind when he shot into the car, but whatever it was I don't think the shooting is justified.

EDIT: In addition, this is relevant.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/114761-day-clarence-thomas-says-race-conscious-black-lawmaker-calls-uncle-tom/

I agree, but I also think that if someone has an easy route of escape, they need to take it before being legally allowed to use deadly force in their own defense.

We dont have weapon like the ones u have in the US, but this shit like this can't happen here that easy. Why, first of, its really hard to get a weapon here unless u have any contacts true the mob or beeing a cop that is.
But I still agree, that guy should be hanged or something. U dont shoot down ppl cause they play loud music.

[psyk]

Sorry, big fan of self defense laws here. Florida's is a bit too lenient I agree. But stand your ground is there for a reason. Cant say how many stories I have heard where person chose to run from criminal first and got shot in back and hit down to ground in back. If your life is threatened, turning your back will only threaten it more. But I digress.. This dude is going to jail. His lawyers have no evidence to prove that there was a weapon in the car that could have threatened this mans life. He has no visible marks that show he was being hit or anything. There is nothing to prove to a jury that he was in danger, so stand your ground is already out of the window. He is going to prison for murder, simple as that.

Please stop attacking stand your ground because the media doesn't have enough time to show all the times it has actually saved a persons life. (Talking from experience).

[Maringue]

I agree, with Zimmerman there was at least evidence of a struggle. Not that I think he was actually innocent, but at least his case held water. I don't agree, but I don't fault the jury for having reasonable doubt.

But even if we pretend there was a shotgun, what's faster? Moving your hand from the wheel to the gear shift and pop the car in reverse and get out; or lean over, open the glove box and grab the gun, then lean back over and unload a clip?

[Arty_pn]

I don't think stand you ground laws really help, it just seems to me it's there to allow for more damaging/fatal engagements. Why should someone stay to be injured? I feel confident in saying not everyone will be in possession of a weapon. It is a fallacy that an engagement would benefit from being prolonged. I am probably biased on this issue for living in California, but this law does not seem to make any sense.

[Sanic-X]

Yes, I agree, self-defense law save lives, but this is ridiculous. In my opinion, it is just too easy to get guns in America, and that America is just so violent in general.

[UncleTestes]

Yes, I agree, self-defense law save lives, but this is ridiculous. In my opinion, it is just too easy to get guns in America, and that America is just so violent in general.

Making guns more difficult to obtain isn't going to solve anything, and neither will banning them. If a group is planning to get guns to rob a bank, they WILL find a way, whether they have to smuggle them or steal them.

And yeah, dem CA gun rights laws.

[psyk]

BTW. I looked into it more. He fired into their vehicle as it was leaving. This guy cant use stand your ground and will be going to prison.

[Balubish]

Yes, I agree, self-defense law save lives, but this is ridiculous. In my opinion, it is just too easy to get guns in America, and that America is just so violent in general.

Making guns more difficult to obtain isn't going to solve anything, and neither will banning them. If a group is planning to get guns to rob a bank, they WILL find a way, whether they have to smuggle them or steal them.

And yeah, dem CA gun rights laws.

Yeah true but you missed on pretty obvious fact even though robber, and killers and such will always exist.

Guns dont kill ppl, ppl like this that have guns do. If that idiot didnt have the same rights for carrying a gun he probably wouldnt have one Im guessing, and he wouldnt be able to shoot at that car in the first place, and probably just flipping them of and screaming instead of shooting at the car. Angry persons or ppl with low fuse that gets pissed of easily can be dangerous. Same situation, give him a gun and see and the end result is much worse. How humans work. We are mentally fragile beeing in this world. If we were an animals we fight for survival. Stuff like this makes us just stupid. "IF we have a weapon we will probably use it either way. Don't have a weapon, well then what? Just like religous wars. Weak fuckin ppl with braindamage. Example, Palestina or what the hell they are from. Jews and Muslims have been fighting for thousands of years "With weapons" why? Cause of religous supersticous crap. I hate you, no I hate you more, bla bla bla die infedel etc. Weak fucking ppl that shouldnt have guns in the first place. Personally I hate ppl that you can't discuss with even though you have different believes in. We should all roll a big fuckin joint and cover earth in a big fog of smoke and all chill.

Sorry I might have gone of topic a bit but fuck it, im not deleting all that. And probably alot of typos. Sorry about that, no im not.

[UncleTestes]

You make a lot of good points Balbuish, but you need to keep in mind that justified stand your ground situations aren't reported in the media, especially liberal media, nearly as often as situations like this seemingly race-based one. (And I normally don't believe in riding the race train) I'm probably wrong but I think this guy was just itching for an opportunity to teach rap blasters a lesson but took it even farther than the cop in the movie theater did, which wasn't remotely called for.

[Beartato]

Yes, I agree, self-defense law save lives, but this is ridiculous. In my opinion, it is just too easy to get guns in America, and that America is just so violent in general.

Making guns more difficult to obtain isn't going to solve anything, and neither will banning them. If a group is planning to get guns to rob a bank, they WILL find a way, whether they have to smuggle them or steal them.

And yeah, dem CA gun rights laws.

Yeah true but you missed on pretty obvious fact even though robber, and killers and such will always exist.

Guns dont kill ppl, ppl like this that have guns do. If that idiot didnt have the same rights for carrying a gun he probably wouldnt have one Im guessing, and he wouldnt be able to shoot at that car in the first place, and probably just flipping them of and screaming instead of shooting at the car. Angry persons or ppl with low fuse that gets pissed of easily can be dangerous. Same situation, give him a gun and see and the end result is much worse. How humans work. We are mentally fragile beeing in this world. If we were an animals we fight for survival. Stuff like this makes us just stupid. "IF we have a weapon we will probably use it either way. Don't have a weapon, well then what? Just like religous wars. Weak fuckin ppl with braindamage. Example, Palestina or what the hell they are from. Jews and Muslims have been fighting for thousands of years "With weapons" why? Cause of religous supersticous crap. I hate you, no I hate you more, bla bla bla die infedel etc. Weak fucking ppl that shouldnt have guns in the first place. Personally I hate ppl that you can't discuss with even though you have different believes in. We should all roll a big fuckin joint and cover earth in a big fog of smoke and all chill.

Sorry I might have gone of topic a bit but fuck it, im not deleting all that. And probably alot of typos. Sorry about that, no im not.

The Palestine-Israel conflict is so much more than a religious conflict; you would have the exact same conflict if you put in two aetheist cultures into that situation.

[Balubish]

The Palestine-Israel conflict is so much more than a religious conflict; you would have the exact same conflict if you put in two aetheist cultures into that situation.

Yeah I know tato it was just an example of ppl that have guns and cant discuss and have different believes, cause they all think. My god is better, no mine, no mine is, dont talk smack about my GOD, FU ur god, I kill you. And so on. It doesnt matter what cultures you put in it, its still generally weak fuckin ppl that cant handle the truth that other humans believes in other stuff than their owns. Believe in what u think is right and be proud of that. You dont have to prove it to everybody.

And well maybe not only religion is in the Palestine-Israel conflict, you forgot power struggle with ppl with small dicks and guns. Like this fellow on this thread from the start, he had a gun and had to make himself heard and made a point using the gun instead of common frikkin sense and talk. The more guns that are in the world the more killing there will be, just a factor that we all have to accept. Im maybe average on math, but I can calculate that shit easy.
And it sounds really bad, and yeah it fuckin is too. Remove all the guns and im pretty sure there will be 95% less killings like this.

For example, think about Colombine story and such too. If those blokes parents didnt have guns, what would they have done then if they cant find guns, shoot kids and teachers with bow and arrows? Not that effective is it. Im not sure if Im mixing that up with the Finish school shooting but either way. US can do something about it, but they probably wont, cause of law about the right having guns at home for safety. And I can understand that too. But man do something, Psycholigical tests or something cause fuck ups like this destroy those lifes just because he was an angry idiot, just like that movie shooting, cmon Obama care, take care of stupid ppl too.

[Beartato]

There are very significant political aspects to the Palestinian-Israeli situation. The whole thing began with Western countries carving up the Middle East and displacing some people to move other people in. So much of it is struggles between groups for land, water, rights, etc.

As for Columbine, those kids had some pipe bombs and they could have easily made more. In fact, the largest school massacre in the US was the Bath School Massacre in which some guy killed 44 people using explosives. If people have an interest in killing others, they can and will make it happen with or without guns.

[Balubish]

There are very significant political aspects to the Palestinian-Israeli situation. The whole thing began with Western countries carving up the Middle East and displacing some people to move other people in. So much of it is struggles between groups for land, water, rights, etc.

As for Columbine, those kids had some pipe bombs and they could have easily made more. In fact, the largest school massacre in the US was the Bath School Massacre in which some guy killed 44 people using explosives. If people have an interest in killing others, they can and will make it happen with or without guns.

Yeah you are right on that point. I just mean that if guns weren't availible there would be even less killings. They will and have always been killers in this world and the last focker aint born yet.

[Harri]

[GoDM1N]

In fact, the largest school massacre in the US was the Bath School Massacre in which some guy killed 44 people using explosives. If people have an interest in killing others, they can and will make it happen with or without guns.

Adding to this think of the Boston bombing. What many others in this thread have said is true, you rarely hear about all the times these laws or other cases of legal carry owners save lives.


More on topic however, while I'm not on the guys side, I have thought about slashing someones tires before for rolling about with that loud "thug music" in parking lots etc.

[UncleTestes]

If people have an interest in killing others, they can and will make it happen with or without guns.

^pretty much sums it up^

Don't you love these people though: "uh if guns wer illegil then no 1 wud get shot duh comon sense"
Sure is common sense, if there weren't a such thing as other countries or ships.

More on topic however, while I'm not on the guys side, I have thought about slashing someones tires before for rolling about with that loud "thug music" in parking lots etc.

right though?

[Maringue]

If people have an interest in killing others, they can and will make it happen with or without guns.

^pretty much sums it up^

Don't you love these people though: "uh if guns wer illegil then no 1 wud get shot duh comon sense"
Sure is common sense, if there weren't a such thing as other countries or ships.

Some people will always have the urge to kill someone else. That's a fact. It's also a fact that those people will be able to kill more people with a semi-auto with a 30 round clip. That's also a fact. So why can't we make it harder to get those items that let the psychos multiply their body count.

My favorite example. After one of the mass shootings, I can't keep track of which, a news story came out of China. A dude went crazy and stabbed something like 22 people. Every over zealous gun owners came out of the woodworks to say "Look, crazy people will perform violent acts even if they can't get guns!"

Funny thing is that if they read 10 seconds past the headline, they would see why this didn't support their point. In the first two sentences, the article stated that out of the 22, one person was killed and 4 others were significantly injured. The rest had minor injuries. Had they same story included a guy with a gun, the dead toll would have been much, much, much higher. So yeah, guns help people kill more people.

[psyk]

If people have an interest in killing others, they can and will make it happen with or without guns.

^pretty much sums it up^

Don't you love these people though: "uh if guns wer illegil then no 1 wud get shot duh comon sense"
Sure is common sense, if there weren't a such thing as other countries or ships.

Some people will always have the urge to kill someone else. That's a fact. It's also a fact that those people will be able to kill more people with a semi-auto with a 30 round clip. That's also a fact. So why can't we make it harder to get those items that let the psychos multiply their body count.

My favorite example. After one of the mass shootings, I can't keep track of which, a news story came out of China. A dude went crazy and stabbed something like 22 people. Every over zealous gun owners came out of the woodworks to say "Look, crazy people will perform violent acts even if they can't get guns!"

Funny thing is that if they read 10 seconds past the headline, they would see why this didn't support their point. In the first two sentences, the article stated that out of the 22, one person was killed and 4 others were significantly injured. The rest had minor injuries. Had they same story included a guy with a gun, the dead toll would have been much, much, much higher. So yeah, guns help people kill more people.

Also after one of these shootings, In Russia, I believe, a man walked into a school and stabbed and killed 22 kids. Don't see news covering that anywhere. And typically a semi-auto is for hunting things like hog, not self defense. At least in my book. To be honest though, I would rather have the upper hand in a self defense situation (Remember taken from experience), than have that upper hand taken from me.

[UncleTestes]

My favorite example. After one of the mass shootings, I can't keep track of which, a news story came out of China. A dude went crazy and stabbed something like 22 people. Every over zealous gun owners came out of the woodworks to say "Look, crazy people will perform violent acts even if they can't get guns!"

Funny thing is that if they read 10 seconds past the headline, they would see why this didn't support their point. In the first two sentences, the article stated that out of the 22, one person was killed and 4 others were significantly injured. The rest had minor injuries. Had they same story included a guy with a gun, the dead toll would have been much, much, much higher. So yeah, guns help people kill more people.

If you'll notice, news coverage of little shootings and killings like this one multiply after mass shootings. The period of time after the school shooting in Connecticut was a big one, and it was the closest we'd ever come to having our guns taken away. After a little while, I figure the liberal news gives up on getting people to think guns should be illegal and calms down and covering shootings. Just speculation; that could just have to do with how long viewers feel like listening to stories of shootings.

[Maringue]

But back on topic, so they convicted the guy of attempted murder and firing into and occupied vehicle, but not guilty on the attempted murder that was FUCKING SUCCESSFUL. Fuck you Florida, fuck you.

Here's the problem. The only person who claims there was a gun was Dunn. No one else, not the police, not his girlfriend, not the kids in the car he shot into, NO ONE except the shooter saw a gun and they still let him off. This is basically setting the precedent that if you shoot first and claim you were in fear of your life you will get off.

Luckily, his going to be doing a minimum of 60 years in jail. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that they didn't find him guilty of murder and that shooting of unarmed kids is ok because they piss you off.

Florida is soon going to become the state where whom ever draws their gun first wins.

[UncleTestes]

Florida is soon going to become the state where whom ever draws their gun first wins.

That's not necessarily true. If 3 guys rob a bank, and 8 citizens draw their pistols in the bank, the robbers know they won't get out unharmed if they continue. They may be stupid enough to rob it, but they're not going to be stupid enough to die. They didn't go there to kill people, just to steal cash.

But anyway, yeah. Back on topic. Why call it attempted murder if it was successful? At least he won't see freedom again.

[Maringue]

Florida is soon going to become the state where whom ever draws their gun first wins.

That's not necessarily true. If 3 guys rob a bank, and 8 citizens draw their pistols in the bank, the robbers know they won't get out unharmed if they continue. They may be stupid enough to rob it, but they're not going to be stupid enough to die. They didn't go there to kill people, just to steal cash.

But anyway, yeah. Back on topic. Why call it attempted murder if it was successful? At least he won't see freedom again.

You know why they didn't convict him of murder? Because some asshole on the jury believed this guy when he said it was self defense, despite the fact that not a single witness corroborated his story and several people discredited it. In fact, many legal analysts believe that had he not fired that second round of bullets as the truck was pulling away that he would have been found completely innocent.

So my point stands, if this guy can claim self defense after seeing an imaginary gun, then this is what Florida is going to turn into:

Except substitute any non-white person for the animals

[Maringue]

Oh, and apparently this just happened: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/us/arkansas-prank-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Yep, another proud gun owner defending himself from the viciously threatening combo of eggs, toilet paper and mayonnaise.

[psyk]

But back on topic, so they convicted the guy of attempted murder and firing into and occupied vehicle, but not guilty on the attempted murder that was FUCKING SUCCESSFUL. Fuck you Florida, fuck you.

Here's the problem. The only person who claims there was a gun was Dunn. No one else, not the police, not his girlfriend, not the kids in the car he shot into, NO ONE except the shooter saw a gun and they still let him off. This is basically setting the precedent that if you shoot first and claim you were in fear of your life you will get off.

Luckily, his going to be doing a minimum of 60 years in jail. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that they didn't find him guilty of murder and that shooting of unarmed kids is ok because they piss you off.

Florida is soon going to become the state where whom ever draws their gun first wins.

They didn't count him guilty of first degree murder. The prosecutor will come back with a lesser murder charge. They didn't see premeditated intent to kill which is definition of first degree (Dating a lawyer). He will most likely be guilty of murder when prosecutor comes back with the proper charge.

The issue in Florida with a lot of these is they really try to overcharge all of over the state and the jurys will have none of it.

[psyk]

Oh, and apparently this just happened: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/us/arkansas-prank-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Yep, another proud gun owner defending himself from the viciously threatening combo of eggs, toilet paper and mayonnaise.

This one will depend on Arkansas' laws in regards to protection of property. In Texas, house and car or castle domain. And if someone is threatening the well being of your castle, you are allowed to defend it. Don't agree he shot them, but the kids need to not be defacing peoples shit, even if in retaliation to a prank.

[UncleTestes]

Oh, and apparently this just happened: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/us/arkansas-prank-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Yep, another proud gun owner defending himself from the viciously threatening combo of eggs, toilet paper and mayonnaise.

This one will depend on Arkansas' laws in regards to protection of property. In Texas, house and car or castle domain. And if someone is threatening the well being of your castle, you are allowed to defend it. Don't agree he shot them, but the kids need to not be defacing peoples shit, even if in retaliation to a prank.

This should have been a situation where the homeowner asked questions first and shot later. One thing that caught my attention was that the shooter was charged with an act of terrorism, as well as a couple of other charges. Terrorism, of all things?

[Maringue]

They didn't count him guilty of first degree murder. The prosecutor will come back with a lesser murder charge. They didn't see premeditated intent to kill which is definition of first degree (Dating a lawyer). He will most likely be guilty of murder when prosecutor comes back with the proper charge.

A common misconception about premeditation is the amount of time. You don't have to be planning something a day or even an hour ahead of time. As long as it wasn't an instantaneous reaction, then it's premeditated.

When he said stuff like "They were playing that rap crap and acting like thugs," and then proceeded to shoot someone who had an imaginary gun, that's still premeditation. 2nd Degree murder would be a fine conviction for me though.
The problem is the precedent it sets. If you even imagine a gun that not a single other person can prove exists and use it as justification for the use of deadly force, you're going to end up devolving into a shooting gallery.
And let's not even forget the woman who fired a warning shot (who happened to be black) because she feared for her life was sentenced to 20 years. Go Florida, way to enforce your laws equally.

Also, several studies show that Stand Your Ground doesn't reduce home invasions, robberies or assaults and has increased the rate of death by firearms significantly.

[Maringue]

This should have been a situation where the homeowner asked questions first and shot later. One thing that caught my attention was that the shooter was charged with an act of terrorism, as well as a couple of other charges. Terrorism, of all things?

If I read the reports right, the kids were even running away at the time he shot them. But yeah, I don't really get the terrorism charge, but then again I think that's a made up crime that is covered by existing laws like murder.

[UncleTestes]

I don't understand why terrorism is its own separate charge anyway. That seems like something largely opinion based.

[psyk]

They didn't count him guilty of first degree murder. The prosecutor will come back with a lesser murder charge. They didn't see premeditated intent to kill which is definition of first degree (Dating a lawyer). He will most likely be guilty of murder when prosecutor comes back with the proper charge.

A common misconception about premeditation is the amount of time. You don't have to be planning something a day or even an hour ahead of time. As long as it wasn't an instantaneous reaction, then it's premeditated.

When he said stuff like "They were playing that rap crap and acting like thugs," and then proceeded to shoot someone who had an imaginary gun, that's still premeditation. 2nd Degree murder would be a fine conviction for me though.
The problem is the precedent it sets. If you even imagine a gun that not a single other person can prove exists and use it as justification for the use of deadly force, you're going to end up devolving into a shooting gallery.
And let's not even forget the woman who fired a warning shot (who happened to be black) because she feared for her life was sentenced to 20 years. Go Florida, way to enforce your laws equally.

Also, several studies show that Stand Your Ground doesn't reduce home invasions, robberies or assaults and has increased the rate of death by firearms significantly.

Different jury. The questions they were asking, you could tell they were struggling with pre-meditation. Also, don't know what studies you look at because if you look at the places in the US with the highest violent crimes, places wihtout stand your ground are closer to the top in general than places that have stand your ground laws.

[cloud]

The problem becomes that no one knows what he was thinking at the time except for him. Hes the only one that knows if he thought "If they don't turn that down then I'm gonna shoot them." or if he got pissed and just decided to start shooting.

[Ron Swansons Stache]

Looks like I'm a bit late to this discussion but I just wanted to post this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

Sort by homicides only and you'll see the US is the 15th highest in the world, with some real sketchy countries ahead of us. I used to be all pro-gun but that is just frankly alarming. I understand people will get guns and people will kill people no matter what, but how do you respond to something that staggering?

[GoDM1N]

I understand people will get guns and people will kill people no matter what, but how do you respond to something that staggering?

I would respond by saying they're not related. There is very little homicide caused from legal ownership, it's mostly from illegal guns. Taking away legal ownership would likely result in more illegal gun related homicide. Again, it's a gang problem, not a legal ownership problem. What your suggesting is a misuse of statistics



Also why can't we leave this to the jury? Ever consider they have access to knowledge that more factual than the crap most media sites pump out for views?

[Maringue]

I would respond by saying they're not related. There is very little homicide caused from legal ownership, it's mostly from illegal guns. Taking away legal ownership would likely result in more illegal gun related homicide. Again, it's a gang problem, not a legal ownership problem. What your suggesting is a misuse of statistics

That's the wonderful Catch-22 of the pro-gun argument. Illegal guns are the problem, but you can't do ANYTHING about it because that would only affect legal gun owners. It's just bullshit. Criminals are not making guns in their basements. At some point, a legally purchased gun was sold/given to a criminal. That could happen at the gun store/show (lax background checks) or in a sale between two private individuals. But no matter what you say, at some point a legally made firearm got illegally transferred to a criminal. So yes, there is something we can do about it. First thing would be to crack down on straw buyers, like the guy on welfare in Arizona who was buying $50,000 worth of guns PER FUCKING WEEK, but the government couldn't do anything about it because that would be infringing his 2nd Amendment rights.

But apparently ANYTHING that makes the system less leak proof would create "an undue burden on legal gun owners". So the NRA would rather have criminals get guns than have someone fill out some extra paperwork or wait a day or two longer to get their gun while a background check goes through. That's fucking great. But why would the NRA want to keep guns out of criminal hands? They're great fucking customers! It's all about sales to them, and guns are a durable product that has nearly saturated the segment of the population that wants to own one. There are only so many rednecks that want 48 guns to defend themselves against the government invasion of their backwater home.

Also why can't we leave this to the jury? Ever consider they have access to knowledge that more factual than the crap most media sites pump out for views?

Because Stand Your Ground defenses have about a 1% success rate if the person isn't white. And racism is still quite rampant and middle aged white people from the South are terrified of young black men.

Read this: http://www.vladtv.com/blog/184751/non-fatal-self-defense-shooting-gets-black-military-vet-25-yrs/ or just Google Michael Giles.

An active duty member of the Air Force went to a club. A huge fight broke out that he had nothing to do with and he got separated from his friends. He makes it out and gets his permitted conceal carry weapon and pockets it, then goes back in to try to get his friends out safely. A random guy sucker punches him hard enough to knock him to the floor and he fires a single round into the guys leg. The guy who punched him even admitted it was a random attack and told the police "The first person I get to I'm going to hit," and other witnesses said the attacker "leapfrogged" at him.

Guilty, 25 years. Case closed. That's why we can't just leave it up to juries.

[GoDM1N]

That's the wonderful Catch-22 of the pro-gun argument. Illegal guns are the problem, but you can't do ANYTHING about it because that would only affect legal gun owners. It's just bullshit

How? Most gun crime comes from illegal use yes? So the course of action should be to ban assault rifles right? Yea, make sense. I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws regarding firearms, but for example, the suggested ban on assault rifles was one of the dumbest and most desperate attempts to gain support from people like you (strongly anti gun) I've seen. Its not to help prevent murder, its to please the anti gun crowd, that's it.

Criminals are not making guns in their basements.

Okay, maybe hes not a "criminal", but still.

At some point, a legally purchased gun was sold/given to a criminal. That could happen at the gun store/show (lax background checks) or in a sale between two private individuals. But no matter what you say, at some point a legally made firearm got illegally transferred to a criminal.

Sure, this is a problem. I however have yet to hear a real answer to fixing it however. It's a consequence of freedom and privacy. Which happen to be two things that are very important to myself, and a lot of other Americans.

So yes, there is something we can do about it. First thing would be to crack down on straw buyers, like the guy on welfare in Arizona who was buying $50,000 worth of guns PER FUCKING WEEK, but the government couldn't do anything about it because that would be infringing his 2nd Amendment rights.

I wouldn't have a problem with cracking down on straw buyers. This said, to me, the real question is why are we giving people $50,000 a week? Really? Are there people who need that much to live? That's more than I make a year. This living off the government shits got to go. Put them to work in the military or something

But apparently ANYTHING that makes the system less leak proof would create "an undue burden on legal gun owners". So the NRA would rather have criminals get guns than have someone fill out some extra paperwork or wait a day or two longer to get their gun while a background check goes through. That's fucking great. But why would the NRA want to keep guns out of criminal hands? They're great fucking customers! It's all about sales to them, and guns are a durable product that has nearly saturated the segment of the population that wants to own one.

Again, consequence of freedom and privacy. Going back to what I've been saying this whole time though, taking away firearms wouldn't fix the problem. The problem is dependent on gang warfare, not firearms. The government has made it very profitable to be a criminal due to things like the drug war

There are only so many rednecks that want 48 guns to defend themselves against the government invasion of their backwater home.

I have to say, that was pretty insulting and racist and shows a great deal of ignorance on the situation.

Because Stand Your Ground defenses have about a 1% success rate if the person isn't white. And racism is still quite rampant and middle aged white people from the South are terrified of young black men.

Oh its not just the south

Racism is a thing

Read this: http://www.vladtv.com/blog/184751/non-fatal-self-defense-shooting-gets-black-military-vet-25-yrs/ or just Google Michael Giles.

Again, we were not part of the jury, the jury has facts I do not. That or they're just racist, I won't say that is completely ruled out but assuming that is the case they should of chose the jury more wisely. Oh, and need I bring up OJ

Guilty, 25 years. Case closed. That's why we can't just leave it up to juries.

Then come up with your own justice system, with black jack, and hookers. Just because you read something in the news doesn't make it factual or means its the full story.

[Maringue]

Again, consequence of freedom and privacy. Going back to what I've been saying this whole time though, taking away firearms wouldn't fix the problem. The problem is dependent on gang warfare, not firearms. The government has made it very profitable to be a criminal due to things like the drug war

This is kind of insulting since it implies that your desire for privacy trumps someone else's desire to not be shot and killed. And there's the problem, reducing the number of gun WILL reduce the number of people killed with them, it's just a fact.

You've just described the Catch-22, can't keep guns out of criminals hands because my privacy might be slightly affected, so we can't make it harder for criminals to get guns, so in turn people claim they need more guns to protect themselves from criminals with guns. The circle of logic for the NRA, who won't be happy until everyone is packing and we have old west style shootouts 3 times a week. Let's be clear, I have no problem with legal gun ownership. But the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect you from having to prove you are legally allowed to buy a gun.

Oh, that guy was not getting $50k a week from welfare, I thought that was obvious. If you thought that was the biggest problem in this whole discussion, we have a bigger issue then. He was getting paid by a Mexican drug cartel to buy guns for them. But no one could even investigate him because it was in AZ and that would infringe his 2nd Amendment rights. Never mind that it's fucking obvious to anyone that something illegal is going on if a man with a monthly income of $1500 is buying nearly a quarter million dollars worth of firearms a month.

Also, why is it that 2nd Amendment rights people think it's the ONLY amendment that cannot be constrained under any circumstances? The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, and every single other amendment has reasonable restrictions placed on it. I can't yell fire in a movie theater now can I, or at least without going to jail? No right is unfettered, not a single one. But that's fine, we can continue to have a gun death rate higher than any other 1st world nation and just do nothing while people die from a preventable cause. That seems sensible. After all, the government might know you own a gun, and we can't have that.

[GoDM1N]

This is kind of insulting since it implies that your desire for privacy trumps someone else's desire to not be shot and killed. And there's the problem, reducing the number of gun WILL reduce the number of people killed with them, it's just a fact.

I'm not sure how difference of opinion is insulting, but okay, sorry for insulting you.

You've just described the Catch-22, can't keep guns out of criminals hands because my privacy might be slightly affected, so we can't make it harder for criminals to get guns, so in turn people claim they need more guns to protect themselves from criminals with guns. The circle of logic for the NRA, who won't be happy until everyone is packing and we have old west style shootouts 3 times a week. Let's be clear, I have no problem with legal gun ownership. But the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect you from having to prove you are legally allowed to buy a gun.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Do you think making it harder to legally obtain a firearm will really stop a criminal capable of murder from getting one? Because that is what you're asking for, and to me its nonsense. Like I said I have no problem with keeping them out of criminals hands, but there's only so much you can do, there is always a loop hole and at some point you have to fix the pipe instead of applying more duct tape to stop that dripping. Putting a end to the drug war would massively drop the amount of homicide we see in the US for instance, much like it did after prohibition. Much more so than any gun law you could pass because even if you made guns completely illegal, guess what, criminals (you know, the ones doing 99% of the homicides) still have guns and the homicide rate isn't changed

Oh, that guy was not getting $50k a week from welfare, I thought that was obvious. If you thought that was the biggest problem in this whole discussion, we have a bigger issue then. He was getting paid by a Mexican drug cartel to buy guns for them. But no one could even investigate him because it was in AZ and that would infringe his 2nd Amendment rights. Never mind that it's fucking obvious to anyone that something illegal is going on if a man with a monthly income of $1500 is buying nearly a quarter million dollars worth of firearms a month.

I like how this ties into what I was saying above.

Also, why is it that 2nd Amendment rights people think it's the ONLY amendment that cannot be constrained under any circumstances? The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you, and every single other amendment has reasonable restrictions placed on it. I can't yell fire in a movie theater now can I, or at least without going to jail? No right is unfettered, not a single one. But that's fine, we can continue to have a gun death rate higher than any other 1st world nation and just do nothing while people die from a preventable cause. That seems sensible. After all, the government might know you own a gun, and we can't have that.

We just have a difference of opinion here, and most likely always will. I trust people, and don't think the government needs to stick their hands in our business unless its directly effecting others. You'd rather them handle everything and baby the public. The yelling out in a theater directly effects others, so I have no problem with the law, but I also do not think they need to know you have the ability to shout for our "safety". You can currently buy a car that goes well over the speed limit, would you suggest a ban on this as well? That trust between people and government is essential to me. They allow me to own something that has the capability of breaking a law, and trust me to use it correctly.

[Arty_pn]

Privacy is not sacred. I mean why can't I bring a gun on an airplane? Privacy is a privilege. Abuse your privacy and it can become a crime. The right of baring arms and the drug war are to separate issues, guns are an issue of allowing people to apply lethal force on a whim and the sociology of a society under the impression that not all is right with the world, the drug war is an issue with treating a medical problem as a crime. The proxy that privacy is the reason why the populous allows lenient weapon laws is a fallacy. The majority of people want to have a few more gun laws if it means less fatalities. The real reason advocates dislike gun laws is because there is a fear fueled by echo chambers that not being able to use a weapon for any whim is degrading. Tell me how many people with risk a homemade gun killing themselves instead of their target?
The reason why a man on welfare would have access to 2 million to month to purchase weapons is not due to government lapse in judgment is it because of a mutual economic tie, a group is better of paying for weapons then to engineer them, and the man is better off with more money in his pocket because no one chooses to pay him a living wage.

[GoDM1N]

Abuse your privacy and it can become a crime.

You can drive above the speed limit as well, should we remove the ability to do so? You're right its a privilege, and should be taken away if abused, but that trust between government and people is what freedom is to me.

The right of baring arms and the drug war are to separate issues,

They are, but we're talking about the relation between the drug war and the homicide rate, which the right to bare arms has little to do with. Remove the drug war and homicide rates will go down at least 80%, add more gun laws and it won't change because you haven't attacked the actual problem.

guns are an issue of allowing people to apply lethal force on a whim and the sociology of a society under the impression that not all is right with the world

Guns are a issue because they've been wrongly associated with the homicide rate by the left.

the drug war is an issue with treating a medical problem as a crime.

The drug war is a issue of the government knowing whats best for people and forcing their morals on the public and we saw the same thing happen with prohibition. Them getting involved in things like this only feeds crime, it doesn't stop it.

The proxy that privacy is the reason why the populous allows lenient weapon laws is a fallacy. The majority of people want to have a few more gun laws if it means less fatalities.

Depends on the city. Chicago, a state with a high violent crime rate and lots of gang problems, wants more gun laws because they have more homicide and have wrongly connected the homicide rate with the right to bare arms. A city like mine, Raleigh, which has half the amount of violent crimes as Chicago, are more open to firearms. If the homicide rate had anything to do with legal firearms this would be the other way around, but people ignore this little fact.

The real reason advocates dislike gun laws is because there is a fear fueled by echo chambers that not being able to use a weapon for any whim is degrading.

I don't have a problem with gun laws that don't ban things. I have no problem with background checks, required classes, etc.

Tell me how many people with risk a homemade gun killing themselves instead of their target

Potato guns can be pretty dangerous (so can fireworks) doesn't stop people from partaking in them.

[Ron Swansons Stache]

I trust people, and don't think the government needs to stick their hands in our business unless its directly effecting others. You'd rather them handle everything and baby the public. The yelling out in a theater directly effects others, so I have no problem with the law, but I also do not think they need to know you have the ability to shout for our "safety". You can currently buy a car that goes well over the speed limit, would you suggest a ban on this as well? That trust between people and government is essential to me. They allow me to own something that has the capability of breaking a law, and trust me to use it correctly.

"I trust people..unless it's people who work for the government! THEN KEEP YOUR GRUBBY HANDS OFF ME!!"

[Maringue]

Godmin, I love how you said "that's not what I'm saying at all" and then said exactly what I was talking about.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Do you think making it harder to legally obtain a firearm will really stop a criminal capable of murder from getting one? Because that is what you're asking for, and to me its nonsense. Like I said I have no problem with keeping them out of criminals hands, but there's only so much you can do, there is always a loop hole and at some point you have to fix the pipe instead of applying more duct tape to stop that dripping.

That's the fucking definition of making something harder to do, fewer people will be able to do it. Again, I refuse to accept the argument that we can do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns or even reduce that number. It's just pure, uncut bullshit. Ever single fucking gun that any criminal has ever owned was legally sold to someone at some point. Sometimes the last legal sale of a gun was from manufacturer to dealer, then the dealer illegally (knowingly or unknowingly) sold the gun. Sometimes it's further down the line between individuals such as the straw buyer case. Tightening up the system does not ever prevent a person who is legally allowed to buy a gun from getting one. Yes, filling out paperwork is a pain in the ass, but the alternative is a criminal getting a gun, so pick up the pen and suck it up.

Guess what, there will always be loopholes, but that doesn't mean we can't try to fix them anyway. Saying that because there will always be some criminal who can get a gun (even if it's ridiculously hard) is not a valid reason for trying to make it harder for criminals to get guns. That would be like me saying, "Well, I can't cure all cancer, so I shouldn't try to cure any cancer and just go home."

And yes, it's not a matter of opinion. Your desire to not want the government knowing if you own a gun is completely subservient to another citizens right to continue their existence without being riddled with bullets. That's just a fact. It's from Law and Order, but it's still true: "Show me where in the Constitution the right to privacy is outlined. It's not there."

Again, all Constitutionally protected rights may have reasonable restrictions put on them. One of the most pro-gun judges on the SCOTUS, Scalia, stated that reasonable restrictions may be placed on gun ownership without violating the 2nd Amendment, so I don't know why people still argue that it would be unconstitutional to do so.

Also, guns and the homicide rate are directly linked since the vast majority are committed with guns. Saying the two are unrelated is like saying air and staying alive are unrelated.

[GoDM1N]

I refuse to accept the argument that we can do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns or even reduce that number. It's just pure, uncut bullshit.

Hows that drug war going? How'd prohibition go?

Ever single fucking gun that any criminal has ever owned was legally sold to someone at some point.

Yea, its not like Russia has made billions, if not trillions, of guns over the years that have been sold/gifted all over the world. And it's definitely not like some of those guns find their way to the US with out any government knowledge

Guess what, there will always be loopholes, but that doesn't mean we can't try to fix them anyway. Saying that because there will always be some criminal who can get a gun (even if it's ridiculously hard) is not a valid reason for trying to make it harder for criminals to get guns. That would be like me saying, "Well, I can't cure all cancer, so I shouldn't try to cure any cancer and just go home."

No, its like saying "Well I keep curing cancer but it keeps coming back some other way, but I definitely shouldn't try to find out whats causing the cancer in the first place"

And yes, it's not a matter of opinion. Your desire to not want the government knowing if you own a gun is completely subservient to another citizens right to continue their existence without being riddled with bullets.

Thats why we have signs like this.



So property owners can choose to not allow firearms on their property. For the record I support this, its your property. If you don't want firearms, so be it.


It is a opinion however if guns should be legal or not, and how they should or shouldn't be legal

Again, all Constitutionally protected rights may have reasonable restrictions put on them. One of the most pro-gun judges on the SCOTUS, Scalia, stated that reasonable restrictions may be placed on gun ownership without violating the 2nd Amendment, so I don't know why people still argue that it would be unconstitutional to do so.

Honestly, trying to bring the constitution in on this topic is a bag of nuts I don't want to open. Not because I think it'd go against my wishes, but because technically it doesn't say what kind of firearms etc, so yes you could argue its not unconstitutional to ban all but potato guns, but like wise someone could argue they should have the ability to own a nuke. It just doesn't go anywhere and is really just a argument of "I interpret the constitution as this, there for you're wrong"

Also, guns and the homicide rate are directly linked since the vast majority are committed with guns. Saying the two are unrelated is like saying air and staying alive are unrelated.

At the core they're not, its the reason why people are killing each other is what you should be looking at. Assuming you could magically take away all firearms in the US you'd still have gangs killing each other for the "right" to sell drugs to the American public, which is exactly what happen with prohibition.




If you want to bring down the homicide rate, for both the US and Mexico, stop the drug war.

"I trust people..unless it's people who work for the government! THEN KEEP YOUR GRUBBY HANDS OFF ME!!"

[Ron Swansons Stache]

What about the 10 year period before prohibition where it's clearly going up?

If you want to bring down the homicide rate, for both the US and Mexico, stop the drug war.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean banning guns would not bring down the homicide rate.

Hey! Me too! So let's agree that we can trust the government won't OMG OVERRUN YOU without your guns and get rid of them for personal use to help lower homicides, k?


By the way, you do realize that you can buy a car that goes well above the speed limit not because "the government trusts you not to break the law" but rather a) if you topped a car out at 60 MPH you won't have fun trying to accelerate it on to a highway b) what engine do you think lasts longer? An engine straining to go 60 MPH at top speed or a car that's not nearly hitting it's maximum. It has nothing to do with "trust" that you won't speed, it's logistics.

[Maringue]

Honestly, trying to bring the constitution in on this topic is a bag of nuts I don't want to open. Not because I think it'd go against my wishes, but because technically it doesn't say what kind of firearms etc, so yes you could argue its not unconstitutional to ban all but potato guns, but like wise someone could argue they should have the ability to own a nuke. It just doesn't go anywhere and is really just a argument of "I interpret the constitution as this, there for you're wrong"

I didn't interpret the Constitution this way, the Supreme Court of the United States did. They kind of have the last word, like literally the last word.

And the problem with your drug war argument is this: poverty rates track right with homicide rates. So the better solution would be to fight poverty, but conservatives find that about as appealing as eating shoe leather.

Here's some maps:
First, the homicide rate map.


Then there's this poverty rate map and educational level map.


Now the homicide rate map is harder to read because of how the statistics are reported, but it's pretty obvious. High poverty correlates well with high homicide rate. And low educational levels correlate well with high poverty rates.
That makes the solution pretty simply, more education. But that would mean spending less on Defense, which republicans won't ever let happen. We spend ~3-6 billion on education and 600-700 billion on defense despite the fact that our greatest threats come from a population that is lagging behind in overall educational levels.

[GoDM1N]

What about the 10 year period before prohibition where it's clearly going up?

It's not as much as it looks compared to what it was during. I have however always assumed it was on the rise due to the environment leading up to prohibition and the fights between the wet and the dry


The numbers without graph are the following

The ten years Prohibition Prohibition
preceeding begins 1920 ends 1933
Prohibition

1910 - 4.6 1920 - 6.8 1933 - 9.7
1911 - 5.5 1921 - 8.1 1934 - 9.5
1912 - 5.4 1922 - 8.0 1935 - 8.3
1913 - 6.1 1923 - 7.8 1936 - 8.0
1914 - 6.2 1924 - 8.1 1937 - 7.6
1915 - 5.9 1925 - 8.3 1938 - 6.8
1916 - 6.3 1926 - 8.4 1939 - 6.4
1917 - 6.9 1927 - 8.4 1940 - 6.3
1918 - 6.5 1928 - 8.6 1941 - 6.0
1919 - 7.2 1929 - 8.4 1942 - 5.9
1930 - 8.8 1943 - 5.1
1931 - 9.2 1944 - 5.0
1932 - 9.0

1917 is when prohibition was proposed, and 1919 was when it was ratified.

But that doesn't mean banning guns would not bring down the homicide rate.

Then why is the murder rate lower in states with more lenient gun laws? Also to mock the proposed ban on assault rifles, more people are killed by hammers than assault rifles in the US

To be clear, I'm not suggesting states with more lenient gun laws have fewer murders than others because of the lenient gun laws. Just pointing out that assuming more guns means more murders, this would show in states with the more lenient laws, but they don't, they actually have less. To me this shows they aren't connected

[GoDM1N]

Now the homicide rate map is harder to read because of how the statistics are reported, but it's pretty obvious. High poverty correlates well with high homicide rate. And low educational levels correlate well with high poverty rates.
That makes the solution pretty simply, more education. But that would mean spending less on Defense, which republicans won't ever let happen. We spend ~3-6 billion on education and 600-700 billion on defense despite the fact that our greatest threats come from a population that is lagging behind in overall educational levels.

This is 100% true, however I could argue that poverty and the drug war are connected because 1, its a trillion dollar failure that has only brought more drugs into the US at cheaper prices, and 2, it feeds crime into communities and turns people to that lifestyle, making that part of the problem even worse.

[Maringue]

This is 100% true, however I could argue that poverty and the drug war are connected because 1, its a trillion dollar failure that has only brought more drugs into the US at cheaper prices, and 2, it feeds crime into communities and turns people to that lifestyle, making that part of the problem even worse.

Making drugs illegal makes them harder to get and more expensive, so saying the drug war has caused more and cheaper drugs to show up is just not true.

Example: A Nameless friend buys and ounce of weed in Virginia for around $400 where it's illegal. Goes onto a ski trip to Colorado and buys the same (if not better) ounce of weed for $200, and that included a bunch of edibles. Making something legal removes a barrier cost and immediately makes it cheaper.

Poverty is the root cause though. High poverty causes drug use, not the other way around.

[Balubish]

Georgia teen holding Wii remote shot by cops at his front door

Not sure if this is added to the thread but here it is.

Link for the news: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-teen-holding-wii-remote-shot-cops-front-door-family-lawyer-article-1.1619842

[GoDM1N]

Making drugs illegal makes them harder to get and more expensive, so saying the drug war has caused more and cheaper drugs to show up is just not true.

Might want to check your facts on that.

29. (Effectiveness of Enforcement) "Similar evidence of the drug war’s failure is provided by US drug surveillance data. For example, from 1981 to 2011, the budget of the US Office of National Drug Control Policy increased by more than 600 percent (inflation-adjusted). However, despite increasing annual multibillion dollar investments in drug control, US government data suggest an approximate inflation- and purity-adjusted decrease in heroin price of 80 percent, and a greater than 900 percent increase in heroin purity between 1981 and 2002, clearly indicating that expenditures on interventions to reduce the supply of heroin into the United States were unsuccessful."

- See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/heroin# ... xR0ly.dpuf

[Arty_pn]

I'm pretty sure weed has been going down in price, also the drug war has been a tremendous failure. In California we are having a prison crisis, basically our prisons are sucking all the funding in our state and we are being taxed for it, I think our sales tax is at 8.5% right now. At the same time our prisons are overcrowded. Why? Because we are holding over 20k people for just having weed in their position. It's lowered however, because now you can only get a ticket for having weed under an ounce.

Jails suck. Not only are they breeding grounds for gangs but being incriminated is a one way ticket to second class citizenship. Every employer asks if you have been to jail and some don't ask why. And suddenly it better to be in jail then to be free because no one is going to employ you and your basic needs are met in jail at expense to taxpayers.

Back to guns, there is one study that shows that background checks do curve murder rates
http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/repeal-of-missouris-background-law-associated-with-increase-in-states-murders.html

Also I still don't understand how stand you ground laws make sense, it just lets a person shoot people that have weapons. I could have a knife in my pocket, get shot, and the shooter would get away with murder. I don't even need a weapon actually, I just need to be unlucky enough to have someone scared enough to want fight me, then shoot.

[Maringue]

I'm not saying that the drug war is a good idea at all. My college roommate was going into the DEA and told me that cartels can have 9 out of 10 shipments seized and still turn a big profit. So yeah, it's pretty pointless to attack the problem from a supply standpoint, which is why I'm more for attacking root causes like poverty. Colorado is learning that by taking a product out of the black market, it puts lots of money into the legitimate economy. Also, unless there is a very large social cost to a drug (like heroin and crack) which costs taxpayers a lot to deal with, I don't think drugs should be illegal in general. It would be much safer to let them be legal, regulated and taxed.

And as a country, we need to stop putting people in jail for petty shit. Prison is where petty thieves learn to become actual criminals. Also, our prison system doesn't rehabilitate people at all, and I don't even think they are trying. What's the point of locking someone up if when they get out they are going to go right back to becoming a criminal?

But honestly, I know a lot of responsible gun owners. My buddy out in Shenandoah was a NRA safety instructor and we used to shoot at his place all the time. I remember bullshitting while he was tending his hemp crop and he told me, "I'm all for tougher background checks and so are most of my friends. I'm tired of getting a bad wrap from idiots who probably should never have been sold a gun in the first place. Gun ownership is a right, but that right comes with a LOT of responsibility. Every law abiding citizen should be allowed to own a gun if they want to, but I have no problem with making someone prove that they are a law abiding citizen up front before they get their gun and most all of my friends feel the same way." I couldn't agree with him more.

[Ron Swansons Stache]

And as a country, we need to stop putting people in jail for petty shit. Prison is where petty thieves learn to become actual criminals. Also, our prison system doesn't rehabilitate people at all, and I don't even think they are trying. What's the point of locking someone up if when they get out they are going to go right back to becoming a criminal?

Revenge justice, our society is obsessed with it. Or at least around here it is. It's really scary, honestly.

[Maringue]

And as a country, we need to stop putting people in jail for petty shit. Prison is where petty thieves learn to become actual criminals. Also, our prison system doesn't rehabilitate people at all, and I don't even think they are trying. What's the point of locking someone up if when they get out they are going to go right back to becoming a criminal?

Revenge justice, our society is obsessed with it. Or at least around here it is. It's really scary, honestly.

And people wonder why so many people end up on public assistance. In a lot of states, you make one relatively minor stupid mistake and you are basically unemployable for the rest of your life. That and there's the fact that minor drug infractions are disproportionately used to arrest minorities (unconscious bias or conscious bias).

[taco man]

[GoDM1N]