Oh I agree that we have to do something to slow the flow of illegal firearms. Absolutely need super strict punishments for anyone caught selling firearms illegally or to people that can't legally purchase ones. Aren't mass shootings normally committed by people that legally purchased the guns? Not really relevant to this POS. I also don't know if that's true or just something I read online (that makes it true right?).
I'm saying according the criminals, they have not committed crimes because they thought the home owner had a gun. If they knew the homeowner had a gun they almost unanimously would not target that house. So it's not that they pick one house, think they have a gun, and go home and wait for a gun ban so they can go back and rob that house. More likely, it seems, they pick a house, and if they think, for whatever reason, that homeowner has a gun, they go to the next house.
it would but the barrel is a little long for home defense :) sorry I didn't realize that was the specific topic.
i need an IP attorney in charleston. client who lives there has an issue with trademark infringement. lol: i thought this was the charleston thread. anyways, stop killing eachother you fucking twats.
In Dallas this week, President Obama spoke movingly of the five officers killed after a protest. The president spoke beautifully of these officers’ acts of service, charity and good will, and he honored how bravely they placed themselves between a gunman and the people who had come to defend their constitutional rights. Then, while discussing the increased burdens placed upon officers by our society, the president said that in some neighborhoods it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than a book. That line was uttered in the context of the burdens facing police, but many of the officers watching were taken aback: Although we had lost five brothers, Texas law enforcement had never blamed the gun. Obama was making an unmistakable reference to the gun-control agenda he has passionately advocated since the horrors at Sandy Hook. Cops, such as Dallas Police Department Chief David O. Brown, recognize America’s serious gun-violence problem. But many of the Dallas-area cops I know felt that the line foreshadowed a renewed push of efforts to restrict assault rifles — this time, in the names of our fallen brothers. And the political morass created every time such measures are put forth has not improved anything. Again and again, calls to increase restrictions on assault rifles and magazines get nowhere, despite bipartisan agreement on what I believe is the most important thing: We all want to reduce gun violence. We need to think of different ways to accomplish that goal. [I’m a doctor in a critical care unit. Here’s what gun violence looks like to me.] I and many of my fellow officers believe reducing the oppressive levels of daily gun violence that plague American cities is possible without even raising the question of new gun-control legislation. While they grab attention, justifiably, mass shootings remain outliers. Two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. The tyranny of everyday shootings — the 12,000 homicides a year that happen so regularly that some people don’t even call 911 anymore — follow patterns completely divorced from the weapons used. These shootings have much more to do with the realities of life for the poor, the drug-addicted, the mentally ill and the criminal. Gun violence is most acute among young black men. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency says the homicide rate per 100,000 of white males between 15 and 19 years old is 1.8. For Hispanic males, it’s 14.6. For African American males, it’s a staggering 50.6 per 100,000. Only recently, Richmond, Calif., had among America’s highest per capita rates of gun violence. In 2009, there were 47 homicides among 100,000 residents. Officials there theorized that a few bad actors caused most of the problem. As it turned out, 70 percent of their gun violence in 2008 was caused by fewer than 1 percent of the city’s residents. This isn’t unique: in Cincinnati, less than 1 percent of the city’s population was responsible for 74 percent of homicides in 2007. [Guns are killing my community. It’s time to end the stale debate.] Richmond developed an innovative, controversial program: They identified the 50 people most likely to shoot someone and engaged with them, even paying them to participate. The city provided career help, training, resume writing and health care. It asked people what they feared and helped them create plans to mitigate those fears. Critics called it “paying gang members not to shoot people.” It was more than that. And it worked. From 2007 to 2012, the city experienced a 61 percent reduction in homicides. It turned out that the money was nowhere near as important as people had thought — people still show up to the meetings even though no one is paying them anymore. The interventions steered potential killers onto a better path. “We don’t ask them to turn in their guns,” Devone Boggan, the neighborhood safety director of Richmond’s Office of Neighborhood Safety, told me. “Considering we aren’t negotiating the war zones they do daily, it would reek of privilege for us to make that request.” The program aims to teach participants that they don’t have to settle their conflicts with guns. Boggan says the process has repeatedly demonstrated that most put their guns down themselves. Through data-driven decision-making, public-private partnerships and other new methods, the program is expanding. Cities around the United States have taken note. Toledo, Ohio; Washington, D.C.; and several cities in California are considering the model. Others are developing their own innovative programs. Chicago’s Strategic Subject List seeks information about those at risk of gun violence through who they know — actual social networks. Albany, N.Y., has seen success of the predictive accuracy of the Violent Offender Identification Directive tool. These programs successfully save the lives of young black men by reducing gun violence. And none of them depend on passing new gun laws. Americans need to think beyond guns, and to confront the underlying social and economic problems that cause gun violence. Programs like these are proving it is possible to significantly reduce gun deaths without new gun-control measures — and without breaking the bank. Admittedly, one thing raised by the prospect of police using “data-driven” solutions to a problem is the specter of government data gathering on civilians. When civil libertarians hear phrases like “data-driven crime-reduction,” their ears perk up — because it usually means government will be increasing the kinds of data officials access, and the ways those data will be used. Americans are right to view such measures skeptically, and groups like the Brennan Center for Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union exist to serve as champions of personal privacy and liberty. Regardless of politics, I believe all Americans — from NRA lifetime members to Mayors Against Illegal Guns — truly want to reduce the number of people killed every year by guns. So we should consider programs that are much easier for elected officials to pass, and have a much higher chance of success. We owe at least that to our children, and to the officers killed and wounded in Dallas. Nick Selby is a Texas police detective
if a situation in which 2 kids are playing pokemon on a public street results in you using deadly force against those kids (who were doing nothing illegal), you fucked up somewhere. they weren't in his driveway or on his property or doing anything illegal. they should not have been shot at or even been approached with someone pointing a gun at them. again, if you're concerned about a car on the street, call the cops you would be furious if it was your kid that got shot at as a result of parking their car on a public street to play pokemon
Guy was woken up at 1:30am by loud noises outside his house, he sees a car in front of his house, walks outside to see what the deal is, hears "Did you get anything?", he stands in front of car and tells them not to move (so he can call cops) bc thinks he's been robbed, car revs engine and tries to run him over, he fires on them. He didn't know they were playing Pokemon. They didn't have a flashing light on their car saying they were playing a game. It was reasonable for him to think he was being robbed. He didn't do anything wrong and that's why he wasn't charged. Thankfully nobody was hurt.
were the kids doing anything illegal by playing pokemon on a public street? actually answer this question they weren't trespassing. they weren't doing anything illegal. they were playing pokemon and got fucking SHOT AT. I can think of 5 different ways to handle a car that's parked on a street near my house that doesn't result in me shooting a gun at some kids playing a video game if you make assumptions that somebody is breaking the law and you're wrong and you fire a deadly weapon at them, you should be prepared for the consequences. these kids could have ended up dead because of this dumbass making assumptions and being wrong
You're completely glossing over the fact they tried to run him over. That's why they were shot at, not for playing a game. And no, they weren't doing anything illegal but their activity was highly suspicious. I have no issue with a guy walking outside to find out what's going on around his house at 1:30am that woke him up.
I'm not glossing over anything. he put HIMSELF in harm's way by planting himself in front of a fucking car. and he didn't even shoot at it until the car was ALREADY PAST him (meaning he wasn't in danger when he fired his weapon). you don't get to plant yourself in front of a car on a public street and then open fire on it when it decides to move. I also have no issue with somebody walking outside to find out what's going on. I have an issue with shooting your weapon at people who aren't breaking the law. you have no right to fire your weapon at somebody on a public street because you're suspicious they may have committed a crime. that's why you call the police. he fired a deadly weapon at kids who at NO POINT were doing anything illegal. he had no right to fire at them and hopefully after the investigation is over he'll be charged
1. He put himself in danger by standing in front of a parked car? Seriously? 2. He did not shoot at them after they past him. He shot at them as they were speeding towards him. http://www.news4jax.com/news/pokemon-go-hunters-shot-at-while-searching-for-pokemon Very doubtful he'll be charged for firing at a car trying to run him over. Should he have stayed inside and called the cops? Yes. Do I blame him for going topside to investigate what's going on around his house? No.
the bullets were on the back of the car, not in the front. and it says in the original article that you posted that he "jumped out of the way and shot at the car several times". he shot at the car after the car had already passed him. again, you don't get to plant yourself in front of a car on a public street and then have free reign to kill the driver when it decides to move. that's not how it works.
You don't get to try to run someone over bc they are in front of your car. That's not how it works. I didn't post the original article to get into a debate over it. I just posted it to show how dumb people are being with that game. Making a lot of noise in a neighborhood at 1:30am is pretty dumb and is bound to cause a confrontation. We disagree on how the guy handled it. We're not going agree so no point in going back and forth over it.
Let's go back and see what dbl said about George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin. By a show of hands, who thinks that dbl will be consistent in his beliefs and defends Zimmerman's actions like he's doing for this old man?
Has there been any corroborating statements that say the kids "tried to run him over" other than from the homeowner? Yet dbl is just taking it as fact
And if anything this is a prime example of why stricter gun controls need to be put in place. Hearing "loud noises" outside in the middle of the night? Not even sure it's coming from your own house? Better load up and charge out there and deal me some vigilante justice!
Yeah, this wasn't some "good guy with a gun". This was a fucking nosey, trigger happy cowboy. I wonder if he yelled 'citizen's arrest" too?
I'd shoot too. That's my squirtle, bitches. But seriously team gun, but that guy is wrong and needs jail.
Dbl justifying shooting at people on the street bc of loud noises? Call the cops, sit my happy ass on my front porch with my shotgun and unless they drive in my yard at my front door I don't have to kill a Pokemon playing kid. FOH dbl
Dbl spends days complaining about cops using guns when dealing with an actual dangerous situation and now defends this stupid redneck popping caps at kids. Nice consistency.
Willingly putting yourself in the situation isn't an issue. What's going to get him is the bullets in the rear of the car is what's going to get him. "Threat" was passed him and moving away.
I'm not sure how it's so hard to understand that you should stay in your house and call the cops if you're afraid someone is trying to hurt you. You can pull out your gun right then, but it's for defense not "neutralizing a perceived threat." Shit, if I see someone outside my house late at night, I usually do something to let them know I'm awake. Turn on the tv, flick a light on or off, etc. There are evil people out there hellbent on killing you, but 99.9999% they're looking for an easy target like an unoccupied home or at least one where the people are asleep.
Kid knocks on wrong door so obviously he deserves to get shot and killed. Hurray 2nd amendment https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsn...t-homeowner-door-knock-massachusetts-murder/#
When I lived in South Central I carried a gun. When I moved to west la I didn't feel the need to any more.
Spoiler I was dancing at a party when my Glock went off and shot me in the leg. The salesman had told me that never ever happens with Glocks. (CT, 7/3) http://www.ctpost.com/…/Dancing-triggers-gunshot-8342024.php Some guy thought I stole his parking spot, so I shot him. (GA, 7/4) http://www.wsbtv.com/…/police-1-killed-in-shootin…/384308817 My girlfriend wasn’t spending enough time with me, so I shot her dead. (FL, 7/8) http://www.actionnewsjax.com/…/girlfriend-shot-ki…/407799486 I saw a transgender woman and I don’t think they should exist, so I shot her. (IN, 7/10) http://www.courierpress.com/…/evansville-shooting-suspect-i… A teenager knocked on my door, so I shot him. (MA, 7/16) https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/a-teenager-knocked-on-th…/… I didn’t like the way my neighbor had his sprinklers set up, so I shot him six times. (FL, 7/16) http://www.tbo.com/…/oldsmar-neighbor-feud-ends-in-murder-…/ I live with my mom, and she agreed to babysit my niece and nephew. The kids were loud, so I shot them both. (OH, 7/17) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Man-killed-niece-12-shot-littl… I was arguing with a guy on the street, so I waved my gun around to scare him. It went off and hit a six-year-old girl in the head in a nearby home. (PA, 7/17) http://www.post-gazette.com/…/Girl-6-w…/stories/201607200185 I shot myself in the cheek so I could post the video on Facebook and get attention. (CT, 7/22) http://www.nydailynews.com/…/graphic-video-indiana-man-shoo… Another regular at my favorite bar was arguing with me about the presidential election, so I shot him. (OH, 7/26) http://www.cleveland.com/…/argument_over_presidential_pol.h… My wife was arguing with me and my folks, so I shot our two kids. (FL, 7/27) http://www.miamiherald.com/…/c…/broward/article92071447.html Deputies came to my apartment to tell me I had lost custody of my daughter, so I shot her dead right then and there. (TX, 7/29) http://abc13.com/…/man-shoots-kills-child-before-k…/1449646/
The last two are both brutal. "No history of violence" though, so nothing this country could have done.
Removing guns from the equation is never gonna stop shitty people from being shitty. It just makes shitty people a fuckload less lethal.
Guy went to a party and was killed by some asshole for literally no reason. Hurray 2nd amendment https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...21d82a-5ddd-11e6-84c1-6d27287896b5_story.html
So confused by this paragraph: Raleigh Police said Copley, 39, was arrested hours after he fired a shotgun from inside his garage and hit the victim. Jail records show he was being held without bond on a murder charge.
I can't find the exact article but I'll post when I do. Yesterday I read an article about how gun violence and murders in Chicago have gone up tremendously this year (not breaking news, I know). More murders than LA and NYC combined I think and significantly more than previous years in Chicago. The article tried to explain why this may be with something along the lines of: -90% of this is coming from known gang members and in areas of high crime known for gang and illicit activity (not shocking) -the way police tried to keep that in check in the past is constant patrols and broken-window and stop and frisk type policing - this year, due in part to the significant public criticism of basically anything police related, they've cut back because nobody wants to be the one with their face plastered on the news - criminals see they aren't around as much, now more are carrying guns - more carrying guns leads to even more carrying as nobody wants to be caught in an altercation without one - now there are more guns on the street in total so more altercations end in shootings Thoughts? Sounds like a big oversimplification to me, and it doesn't seem very factual, but I can see where there could be some truth there when combined with other factors.
http://wwlp.com/2016/09/01/u-s-appe...rdholders-can-be-denied-guns/?cid=WWLP-22News Yet mentally ill people can readily purchase guns.