|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 2, 2013 18:13:58 GMT -6
A person is still a person even if they do make wrong decisions. If you kill somebody, even if they are a gang-banger and they are thugs. Its not anybody's right except the state to execute somebody especially if they dissed you and are in a rival gang. People do care, What would you classify the gang-banger's family members as? If you kill somebody unlawfully through murder, you should be punished. there's really no argument there. obviously, since EVERY, without exception, gang banger is a murderer, every one of them should be executed. that won't happen though. at any rate, in ninety percent of the cases, the family are all gang bangers. of those that aren't, if they haven't done everything possible to make the worthless piece of *crap* stay away from garbage, they obviously don't care that much anyway. if they did try, and it chose to just defy them, they shouldn't care about it anyway the cops don't even waste any more manpower investigating gang murders than they have to. it's "good riddance" as far as they're concerned too Gang members will murder/rape anyone, even babies. Part of getting into a gang. O/T Jumbo. I like " Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the U.S. Ask any Indian. "Robert Orben"
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 2, 2013 18:19:48 GMT -6
and my point is that if you live in a nation with big cities, and a great deal of poverty then you need at least a reasonable level of gun control. Even if it only applies to the areas of risk We had a reasonable level of control imposed in 1965. The murder rate went up. As more "reasonable" gun laws were imposed, the murder rate continued to go up. After "concealed carry" became law the murder rate went down. Since then, as more and more firearms were purchased by Americans, the murder rate has continued to decline. I actively supported a "reasonable level of gun control" for 50 years as thousands of "reasonable" gun control laws were passed. I was wrong. "Gun control" is not about guns, it is about control. Like many things going on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2013 4:44:24 GMT -6
and my point is that if you live in a nation with big cities, and a great deal of poverty then you need at least a reasonable level of gun control. Even if it only applies to the areas of risk We had a reasonable level of control imposed in 1965. The murder rate went up. As more "reasonable" gun laws were imposed, the murder rate continued to go up. After "concealed carry" became law the murder rate went down. Since then, as more and more firearms were purchased by Americans, the murder rate has continued to decline. I actively supported a "reasonable level of gun control" for 50 years as thousands of "reasonable" gun control laws were passed. I was wrong. "Gun control" is not about guns, it is about control. I would suspect you aren't doing it properly. Our gun control laws did not work effectively until they were implemented nationally. That is, all states have identical laws. I suspect consistency will reduce the level of guns among crooks. Not the magnitude of the laws passed
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Oct 3, 2013 21:01:06 GMT -6
We had a reasonable level of control imposed in 1965. The murder rate went up. As more "reasonable" gun laws were imposed, the murder rate continued to go up. After "concealed carry" became law the murder rate went down. Since then, as more and more firearms were purchased by Americans, the murder rate has continued to decline. I actively supported a "reasonable level of gun control" for 50 years as thousands of "reasonable" gun control laws were passed. I was wrong. "Gun control" is not about guns, it is about control. I would suspect you aren't doing it properly. Our gun control laws did not work effectively until they were implemented nationally. That is, all states have identical laws. I suspect consistency will reduce the level of guns among crooks. Not the magnitude of the laws passed There is no value in effectively limiting the natural right of self defense. I have been directly and actively involved in the "gun control" issue in the US for fifty years, mostly on the anti-human rights (pro "gun control") side. I haven't just dabbled in the issue occasionally from across an ocean.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Oct 4, 2013 2:20:52 GMT -6
A person is still a person even if they do make wrong decisions. If you kill somebody, even if they are a gang-banger and they are thugs. Its not anybody's right except the state to execute somebody especially if they dissed you and are in a rival gang. People do care, What would you classify the gang-banger's family members as? If you kill somebody unlawfully through murder, you should be punished. there's really no argument there. obviously, since EVERY, without exception, gang banger is a murderer, every one of them should be executed. that won't happen though. at any rate, in ninety percent of the cases, the family are all gang bangers. of those that aren't, if they haven't done everything possible to make the worthless piece of *crap* stay away from garbage, they obviously don't care that much anyway. if they did try, and it chose to just defy them, they shouldn't care about it anyway the cops don't even waste any more manpower investigating gang murders than they have to. it's "good riddance" as far as they're concerned too Gangbanger means that they killed somebody already right? What about low-level gang members that don't kill anybody or rape anybody. They just steal and sell drugs. Should they get a death sentence? True if someone OD's it their fault, but I don't see that being first degree murder. Yes, people that kill should also be killed. But its not the right of another gangbanger to do the killing. That's why we have the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Oct 5, 2013 13:45:17 GMT -6
Ohh merr gerred they commin' to take our gernss. Vermont also has the lowestr percentage of black and brown citizens in the nation. Do you find that relevant? Yes. Places without a large inner-city minority population seem to have less thug crime from both whites and blacks.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Oct 5, 2013 13:47:13 GMT -6
Ok maybe disgruntled is not the right word maybe jaded is. Cylcone didn't beat around the bush and said it perfectly, I didn't Maybe you are jaded at the world because you see time get compressed, as the tyrant your guns won't ward off, will still meet you at your front door, i.e. the Reaper. Maybe you did not set out to do what you aspired to. Possibly, because you had the wrong birthday and got to go to Vietnam instead. I volunteered for the Armed Forces and later went to college on the GI Bill. I am a Masters in American History from a Jesuit university. I had a quite successful career as a business owner, paid myself 150K a year, and had 15 employees. I sold the business in 2001 and retired at age 54. My net worth might surprise you. Later in life, I served two terms as an elected official. I still have my unit's ball cap from Vietnam. I drive 2 Pontiacs, my daily driver and an old convertible. See above. I'm a Buckeye by birth. I like the weather here. Many people think LA and San Francisco are California. They're really not. I live in a nice subdivision in the middle of town, in a comfortable (but not ostentatious) 4 bedroom house with my lady (we're not married, but have been together 28 years) and my current aging Springer spaniel. I've never been a farmer. I used that avatar because I think the show was possibly the funniest ever on television. Nope. KGO, San Francisco. I can stand either Rush or Beck only in short doses. too bombastic for me. I'm a well-known man of the middle. My political philosophy draws from ideas considered both left and right wing. God help us all. And the fact that you're a commissioned officer continues to terrify me for out nation. So basically one shouldn't make generalizations?
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Oct 5, 2013 13:55:17 GMT -6
there actually are some good people being murdered in chicago, but, the majority of those dying are gang bangers, which is heartwarming. NO normal person cares when a gang banger dies A person is still a person even if they do make wrong decisions. If you kill somebody, even if they are a gang-banger and they are thugs. Its not anybody's right except the state to execute somebody especially if they dissed you and are in a rival gang. People do care, What would you classify the gang-banger's family members as? If you kill somebody unlawfully through murder, you should be punished. One less gang banger on the streets mean one less armed robbery, one less murder, one less car jacking, one less a$$hole to vandalize property, one less mugging victim. Although having said that they should get the death penalty for the crime so I have always considered gang banger murders a two for one discount one gang banger dead another one or two headed for death row.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 7, 2013 16:27:09 GMT -6
Who ever said" never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Well, how about a machette.. a criminal went into the store and held a gun to the man behind the counter, the employee pulled out his machette and chased the criminal out of the store, across the parking lot as the criminal was screaming in fear. I love it..
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 23, 2013 10:06:12 GMT -6
there's really no argument there. obviously, since EVERY, without exception, gang banger is a murderer, every one of them should be executed. that won't happen though. at any rate, in ninety percent of the cases, the family are all gang bangers. of those that aren't, if they haven't done everything possible to make the worthless piece of *crap* stay away from garbage, they obviously don't care that much anyway. if they did try, and it chose to just defy them, they shouldn't care about it anyway the cops don't even waste any more manpower investigating gang murders than they have to. it's "good riddance" as far as they're concerned too Gang members will murder/rape anyone, even babies. Part of getting into a gang. O/T Jumbo. I like " Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the U.S. Ask any Indian. "Robert Orben" that's true. that is the character of any fool who would join a gang. on some forum, i don't recall offhand, i have that in my signature. it is soooo true
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 23, 2013 10:17:54 GMT -6
there's really no argument there. obviously, since EVERY, without exception, gang banger is a murderer, every one of them should be executed. that won't happen though. at any rate, in ninety percent of the cases, the family are all gang bangers. of those that aren't, if they haven't done everything possible to make the worthless piece of *crap* stay away from garbage, they obviously don't care that much anyway. if they did try, and it chose to just defy them, they shouldn't care about it anyway the cops don't even waste any more manpower investigating gang murders than they have to. it's "good riddance" as far as they're concerned too Gangbanger means that they killed somebody already right? What about low-level gang members that don't kill anybody or rape anybody. They just steal and sell drugs. Should they get a death sentence? True if someone OD's it their fault, but I don't see that being first degree murder. Yes, people that kill should also be killed. But its not the right of another gangbanger to do the killing. That's why we have the death penalty. EVERY member of a criminal conspiracy, however slight the participation, is guilty of each and every act of the conspiracy. by definition, a gang is a criminal conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Oct 23, 2013 21:25:27 GMT -6
there's really no argument there. obviously, since EVERY, without exception, gang banger is a murderer, every one of them should be executed. that won't happen though. at any rate, in ninety percent of the cases, the family are all gang bangers. of those that aren't, if they haven't done everything possible to make the worthless piece of *crap* stay away from garbage, they obviously don't care that much anyway. if they did try, and it chose to just defy them, they shouldn't care about it anyway the cops don't even waste any more manpower investigating gang murders than they have to. it's "good riddance" as far as they're concerned too Gangbanger means that they killed somebody already right? What about low-level gang members that don't kill anybody or rape anybody. They just steal and sell drugs. Should they get a death sentence? True if someone OD's it their fault, but I don't see that being first degree murder. Yes, people that kill should also be killed. But its not the right of another gangbanger to do the killing. That's why we have the death penalty. You are assuming that low level gang bangers only commit petty crimes. There are two flaws in that assumption. Though it might be true at first that the low level kids are just simply drug runners, but they grow up. The low level echelons of these groups are more likely to carry out the murders ordered by the higher leaders in an attempt to shield the more seniors from prosecution or retaliation. Simply put, these are the gang consider to be the more disposable people in their ranks. Second, is the low level trying to prove their mettle. These are the more dangerous ones, because they will kill at the first opportunity they get in order to prove that they are worthy to being in the more inner folds. These are the ones more likely to kill an innocent bystander who happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Nope they all need to be exported a special camp in remote area where they shall stripped of their humanity, if any and shot at will by the guards.
|
|
|
Post by liljessncda on Nov 15, 2013 0:29:56 GMT -6
I have no idea what the stats are on this but if I had to guess, most crimes committed with guns are ones in which the gun isn't registered to the owner ? Does anybody have info on this. Just my opinion but I think criminals are going to possess weapons whether it's legal or illegal for them to do so. I think we need to look into mental health more then criminal background.
|
|