Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #53561
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I know, being reasonable isn't your strong point and you obviously get feelings into this discussion but why do you think it can't be treated as an infraction?
    Because it won't have any effect and it will target victims for no gain except data points. There's precisely fuck-all chance that such a law would be passed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Seriously, where's your logical explanation to NOT report a crime/attempted crime?
    Oh, I think it would be fantastic if more serious attempted crimes were routinely reported to the police. But your whole idea is a farce.

    You're going to force people to make a value judgement about whether or not an actual crime was attempted, on threat of punishment. You're going to get people who have been abused even less likely to come forward, if it means implicating them in previous abuse that they didn't report. You're going to have a ridiculous increase in police effort just to log and keep track of all the extra reports. And what do they do with them? They can't investigate most of them without either more information or evidence. You'll get people who have been reported suing the reporting party for slander/defamation of character, and without evidence of an actual crime, how does a court adjudicate that?

    The whole thing is a shit-show waiting to happen, and it's telling that you can't even see that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Common sense? I mean, you can't know a crime happened if no one reports on it.
    And your marvelous idea is to punish the victim? And you consider that a common-sense approach?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    That is not a fact at all.
    Your only rebuttal recommendation is to punish the victims. So yeah, unless you can come up with some other magical method, it is, indeed, a fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    So it's back to "let's throw our hands in the air, nothing can be done about it". The American way of life.
    Nobody's "doing nothing" about it. But there comes a point where you can't magically do more. It's an imperfect world, and mostly what we have are imperfect solutions. What's irrational is the belief that a perfect solution must be there, if only we'd just look hard enough for one. But hey, if you have another potential reasonable suggestion, I'm all ears. I won't, however, hold my breath.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    No one forces people to drive within the speed limit.
    And yet EVERYONE speeds. So it's worthless except for when it's enforced. And thus your data collection would be shit.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  2. #53562
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,913
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Because it won't have any effect and it will target victims for no gain except data points. There's precisely fuck-all chance that such a law would be passed.
    It won't have any effect is a pretty pessimistic standpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Oh, I think it would be fantastic if more serious attempted crimes were routinely reported to the police. But your whole idea is a farce.
    Do you think so about "denial of assistance" laws as well?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    You're going to force people to make a value judgement about whether or not an actual crime was attempted, on threat of punishment. You're going to get people who have been abused even less likely to come forward, if it means implicating them in previous abuse that they didn't report. You're going to have a ridiculous increase in police effort just to log and keep track of all the extra reports. And what do they do with them? They can't investigate most of them without either more information or evidence. You'll get people who have been reported suing the reporting party for slander/defamation of character, and without evidence of an actual crime, how does a court adjudicate that?
    I'm not going to force people. Stop with the exaggerations, it doesn't help you at all. I am pretty sure a respectable law that would counter these points of yours could be presented.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    The whole thing is a shit-show waiting to happen, and it's telling that you can't even see that.
    I disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    And your marvelous idea is to punish the victim? And you consider that a common-sense approach?
    You really don't think this through do you? If the victim doesn't report anything it can't be punished because as far as everyone else knows, nothing happened. But unlike now, there then is an incentive to report crimes, and it mustn't be the victim that does the reporting, it could also be someone who knows about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Your only rebuttal recommendation is to punish the victims. So yeah, unless you can come up with some other magical method, it is, indeed, a fact.
    Again, no intent on punishing the victim at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Nobody's "doing nothing" about it. But there comes a point where you can't magically do more. It's an imperfect world, and mostly what we have are imperfect solutions. What's irrational is the belief that a perfect solution must be there, if only we'd just look hard enough for one. But hey, if you have another potential reasonable suggestion, I'm all ears. I won't, however, hold my breath.
    It would help if your modus operandi wasn't to imagine the most idiotic idea of what I am suggesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    And yet EVERYONE speeds. So it's worthless except for when it's enforced. And thus your data collection would be shit.
    Oh come on, now you're just making shit up for no reason. The vast majority drive within the speed limit.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  3. #53563
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    It won't have any effect is a pretty pessimistic standpoint.
    What effect do you imagine it to have? You came to this particular argument from the idea that it would be useful from a data collection standpoint, of all things.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Do you think so about "denial of assistance" laws as well?
    Those are a relatively different thing, since they at least purport to effect actual assistance instead of just documentation. Also, they're much more easy to enforce, as there's almost always an investigation conducted and a report filed for the incident anyway. But even those are largely useless:
    But libertarians oppose the laws, and some legal experts argue they may not be effective. David Hyman, a law professor at Georgetown University, and Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, say the laws aren’t likely to change the behavior of people who witness emergencies and, if they do, the consequences of having a law in place would outweigh the benefits.

    Imposing a duty to rescue, Hyman said, may actually make situations more deadly by compelling people to act in often perilous circumstances. And the laws may actually make it less likely that people who witness criminal acts cooperate with police, Volokh said. If a witness knows the law requires them to immediately report what they see, and they don’t, they may be less likely to come forward later out of fear that they will be prosecuted.

    People are rarely, if ever, prosecuted or sued for breaking these laws, said Christopher Roberts, an associate law professor at the University of Minnesota.

    This is partly because there are so few instances in which people see someone in an emergency and have the ability to help, but choose not to, Hyman said. He researched emergencies across the U.S. over a 10-year period, from 1994 to 2004, and identified one or two “non rescues” a year on average, compared to about 263 rescues in risky situations and about a thousand non-risky rescues. “Rescue is the rule, even if it isn’t the law,” he said.

    Prosecuting people under the current duty to rescue laws is difficult, according to opponents. It’s also hard to define who laws apply to, and when.

    The laws create a slippery slope, said Walter Block, an economist at Loyola University New Orleans. “If I have an obligation to toss you a life raft — if you are starving, do I have an obligation to feed you?”
    Yeah, that sounds pretty worthless.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I'm not going to force people. Stop with the exaggerations, it doesn't help you at all.
    You're proposing a law that would force people. Same difference.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    I am pretty sure a respectable law that would counter these points of yours could be presented.
    So you're "pretty sure [one] could be presented." Sounds an awful lot like you believe that a perfect solution must be there, if only we'd just look hard enough for one. Where have I heard that before?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    You really don't think this through do you? If the victim doesn't report anything it can't be punished because as far as everyone else knows, nothing happened. But unlike now, there then is an incentive to report crimes, and it mustn't be the victim that does the reporting, it could also be someone who knows about it.
    You really didn't think this through, did you? If there's a third party that reports the attempted crime even if the victim doesn't, then the police would know that the victim was in violation of your proposed statute and should be punished. And if people know that they could be punished and/or prosecuted for admitting to unreported attempted crimes, then that will only hamper police investigations because people will not want to admit knowing anything that they should have had a duty to report earlier.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Again, no intent on punishing the victim at all.
    And yet that's the way it would be seen, and that's what would actually happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    It would help if your modus operandi wasn't to imagine the most idiotic idea of what I am suggesting.
    Your problem is that you are incapable of seeing that reality backs me up. You also have a naive belief that your "intent" means fuck-all once the law is in place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Oh come on, now you're just making shit up for no reason. The vast majority drive within the speed limit.
    BWAHAHAHA! What?!

    From an NHTSA study on speeding:
    Speeding is a pervasive behavior with about three-quarters of drivers reporting they drove over the speed limit on all types of roads within the past month, and one-quarter or more reported speeding over the limit on the day of interview
    And another study indicated that basically everyone is okay with speeding:
    Of the 988 drivers in the survey, 21 percent thought it was safe to drive up to 5 mph over the speed limit, 43 percent thought it was safe to drive up to 10 mph over and 36 percent thought it was safe to drive up to 20 mph over the speed limit.
    That's what I mean about your naivete getting in the way.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  4. #53564
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,913
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    What effect do you imagine it to have? You came to this particular argument from the idea that it would be useful from a data collection standpoint, of all things.
    Some information is better than none.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Those are a relatively different thing, since they at least purport to effect actual assistance instead of just documentation. Also, they're much more easy to enforce, as there's almost always an investigation conducted and a report filed for the incident anyway. But even those are largely useless:

    Yeah, that sounds pretty worthless.
    So contradicting points.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    You're proposing a law that would force people. Same difference.
    Well, let's see how much force it actually is when we're going to read about how many people are forced to drive within the speed limit later in your post.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    So you're "pretty sure [one] could be presented." Sounds an awful lot like you believe that a perfect solution must be there, if only we'd just look hard enough for one. Where have I heard that before?
    There never will be a law that is a perfect solution, what's your point, make away with all laws unless they're perfect?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    You really didn't think this through, did you? If there's a third party that reports the attempted crime even if the victim doesn't, then the police would know that the victim was in violation of your proposed statute and should be punished. And if people know that they could be punished and/or prosecuted for admitting to unreported attempted crimes, then that will only hamper police investigations because people will not want to admit knowing anything that they should have had a duty to report earlier.
    That entirely depends on the situation and how the law is written. Just like with "denial of assistance", you can't be fined if you would have to place yourself in the risk of getting harmed. Same thing could apply to victims/observers/bystanders of crimes that would have reason to fear consequences for reporting a crime. But we mostly weren't talking about those but situations were "simply showing your weapon" was enough to stop a criminal from engaging.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    And yet that's the way it would be seen, and that's what would actually happen.
    No, it would not unless of course, some maniac was tasked with writing the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Your problem is that you are incapable of seeing that reality backs me up. You also have a naive belief that your "intent" means fuck-all once the law is in place.
    No, it does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    BWAHAHAHA! What?!

    From an NHTSA study on speeding:


    And another study indicated that basically everyone is okay with speeding:

    That's what I mean about your naivete getting in the way.
    I thought surveys are a bad method to gather information about behavior? Also, those studies contradict each other. The former says three-quarters of participants think something should be done about speeding and the later says people are ok with speeding?

    So to come back to your former argument, people aren't forced to drive within the speed limit at all. But still, think something should be done about speeding.

    You do have a point though and I have to explain what I meant by "the vast majority drive within the speed limit" was that most of the time the majority drives within the speed limit, not that no one ever speeds at some point. Apologies for that.

    From the first study: Slightly over one-half (51%) of drivers say that
    they sometimes (29%) or often (22%) drive 10 MPH over posted speed limits on
    interstate highways.

    I'd say that would conclude to the majority of time people drive within the speed limit.

    Neither are the people forced to drive within the speed limit, some are even speeding often, but the majority of the time they drive within the speed limit, self-enforced.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  5. #53565
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post

    A knife-wielding man, also armed with a gun, killed at least one person and injured 9 more Tuesday afternoon during a “violent attack” at a mall in central Finland, police said.

    SNIP

    And it was a good guy with a gun who stopped the attacker.

    Another buch of good guys with a guns

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...r-his-birthday

    "A Florida man shot and killed his son-in-law after the victim jumped out of the bushes to surprise him for his birthday.

    https://www.wishtv.com/news/neighbor...unsecured-gun/

    Davis’ 5-year-old daughter found his loaded, unsecured shotgun on the floor in front of his bed and accidentally pulled the trigger, shooting off the tip of her thumb and striking her 2-year-old sister in the leg




    https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/nat...560712521.html
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...tates-n1055966

    Report Finds Gun Violence Costs US $229 Billion Per Year
    Rural states, meanwhile, have the highest rates of gun deaths and bear the largest costs as a share of their economies. Nationally, the cost of gun violence in the U.S. runs $229 billion a year, or 1.4 percent of the gross domestic product, the report said.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  6. #53566
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    Another buch of good guys with a guns

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...r-his-birthday

    "A Florida man shot and killed his son-in-law after the victim jumped out of the bushes to surprise him for his birthday.

    https://www.wishtv.com/news/neighbor...unsecured-gun/

    Davis’ 5-year-old daughter found his loaded, unsecured shotgun on the floor in front of his bed and accidentally pulled the trigger, shooting off the tip of her thumb and striking her 2-year-old sister in the leg




    https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/nat...560712521.html
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...tates-n1055966

    Report Finds Gun Violence Costs US $229 Billion Per Year
    Rural states, meanwhile, have the highest rates of gun deaths and bear the largest costs as a share of their economies. Nationally, the cost of gun violence in the U.S. runs $229 billion a year, or 1.4 percent of the gross domestic product, the report said.
    Interesting a lot of those states it's because of high suicide rates and not violence against another person, and over half of all across the country are suicide.

  7. #53567
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/4-killed-...y-bar-shooting

    Four people were killed when a suspect — who remains on the run — entered a Kansas City, Kan., bar early Sunday morning and opened fire, police said.

    Nine people were shot at Tequila KC Bar, located around 10th Street and Central Avenue, around 1:30 a.m., Kansas City police spokesperson T.J. Tomasic told reporters.


    What the article does not state, is if the bar was a gun safe zone. In Ohio, conceal carry permit carries have been able to carry their firearms into a bar since 2011. They can not however, consume any alcohol while carrying. Not heard of any mass shooting in a bar here since that became law.

    I do know in Kansas, people with firearms are not prohibited from carrying a firearm into bars. But bar owners can post a sign, not allowing them.
    Last edited by Ghostpanther; 2019-10-06 at 12:49 PM.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  8. #53568
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/4-killed-...y-bar-shooting

    Four people were killed when a suspect — who remains on the run — entered a Kansas City, Kan., bar early Sunday morning and opened fire, police said.

    Nine people were shot at Tequila KC Bar, located around 10th Street and Central Avenue, around 1:30 a.m., Kansas City police spokesperson T.J. Tomasic told reporters.


    What the article does not state, is if the bar was a gun safe zone. In Ohio, conceal carry permit carries have been able to carry their firearms into a bar since 2011. They can not however, consume any alcohol while carrying. Not heard of any mass shooting in a bar here since that became law.

    I do know in Kansas, people with firearms are not prohibited from carrying a firearm into bars. But bar owners can post a sign, not allowing them.
    So what's your point?

    Even in Ohio the bar could refuse entry to anyone carrying a gun.
    Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!

  9. #53569
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Right, the police force me to drive within the speed limit by being present at all times when I am driving, oh wait.
    Exactly, which means its not self enforced...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    So it's a risk of getting caught.
    Right, it is a risk of getting caught by a cop who could be hiding. A cop wont likely be hiding in my house to see me get robbed and not report the crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    Well there you have it, the same principle would work with reporting crimes/attempted crimes. If the police find out you didn't report anything, infraction granted. And since it would be ridiculous to ask of everyone to know every law, make it about serious crimes only, theft, violent crimes, you get the idea.
    How would the police find out, is this something the criminal will divulge. "Oh hey I robbed that house the other day and noticed they didnt report it."

    Will you have a statute of limitations for not reporting?

    So if a woman get raped and doesnt come forward because its an embarrassing ordeal, then you will punish that woman?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    A somewhat similar law would be denial of assistance we have over here. You can get fined for a hefty sum of money if you don't provide assistance to someone who is in danger/injured. Of course, no one expects of you to place yourself in danger to do so, just so we're clear.
    Good Samaritan laws are thing because people were being sued by the people they were tending aid to.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    So what's your point?

    Even in Ohio the bar could refuse entry to anyone carrying a gun.
    By definition if you conceal carry, nobody will know you are armed. So unless you are going through a pat down check, which not many bars do, there is no way to stop people from entering with a concealed weapon.
    Kara Swisher: What do you think about Cory Booker saying kick them in the shins?
    Hillary Clinton: Well, that was Eric Holder.
    Kara Swisher: Eric Holder, oh, Eric Holder, sorry.
    Hillary Clinton: Yeah, I know they all look alike.

  10. #53570
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    https://www.dispatch.com/news/201910...-from-gun-plan

    Less than two weeks ago, a confident Gov. Mike DeWine was not backing off his insistence that a “red flag” law and universal background checks would be part of his bid to reduce gun violence.

    DeWine also, though, had signaled all along that he would not submit legislation that stood no chance of passing the Republican-dominated — and gun-friendly — Ohio General Assembly.


    Which it was not going to pass. So he came up with a new proposal.....

    DeWine’s legislation would expand “pink slip” laws by expanding the 72-hour involuntary commitments of those with severe mental health problems to include hospitalization for those suffering from drug dependency and chronic alcoholism. In addition, if doctors decide a person needs long-term treatment, a probate court hearing would be required within five days after the commitment.

    Rather, his proposed law would make such checks on private sales voluntary and include some money to streamline the process, Lt. Gov. Jon Husted said. The lieutenant governor conceded that the adjustment was made to help the measure’s chances of passing the legislature.

    Husted said the proposal would allow would-be gunbuyers to obtain a sheriff-issued background check to certify they were not barred from buying a gun. Sellers then could use the “seller protection certificate” or a buyer’s concealed-carry permit to sell a gun without criminal liability as part of a “safe harbor” provision.

    The maximum prison sentence for selling a gun to a felon or person otherwise forbidden to possess a firearm would be increased to 36 from 18 months. And the standard for proving a violation would drop from “reckless” to “negligent conduct,” providing an incentive for sellers to insist on checks, Husted said.


    I like the increased prison time for selling a firearm to person who has a felon record. Increasing the penalties for violating gun laws is a important step in helping to reduce misuse and stopping those who should not have guns in the first place.

    Overall, I am not opposed to this new proposals by our Governor, as it seems to have some built in safe guards for misuse. Part of the proposal also includes the need for a family member to report the possible issue of another family member to the police. Which then need to do a investigation and if they feel it is warranted, then they must petition the courts to have the firearms seized.
    Last edited by Ghostpanther; 2019-10-08 at 03:11 AM.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  11. #53571
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    https://www.dispatch.com/news/201910...-from-gun-plan

    The maximum prison sentence for selling a gun to a felon or person otherwise forbidden to possess a firearm would be increased to 36 from 18 months. And the standard for proving a violation would drop from “reckless” to “negligent conduct,” providing an incentive for sellers to insist on checks, Husted said.

    I like the increased prison time for selling a firearm to person who has a felon record. Increasing the penalties for violating gun laws is a important step in helping to reduce misuse and stopping those who should not have guns in the first place.
    No issues from me, though it should be "transfer" rather than "sell" I didn't look at the actual bills. Also, I've always suggested an optional background check system via phone or internet, going to the Sheriff seems like it'll be ignored.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  12. #53572
    Over 9000! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    9,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    No issues from me, though it should be "transfer" rather than "sell" I didn't look at the actual bills. Also, I've always suggested an optional background check system via phone or internet, going to the Sheriff seems like it'll be ignored.
    I've always thought that it's a bit of a disconnect from reality when you consider what percent of people supposedly support universal background checks and then compare that with the percent of people who actually follow the rules for private party transfers in those areas where universal background checks are already law.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  13. #53573
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    No issues from me, though it should be "transfer" rather than "sell" I didn't look at the actual bills. Also, I've always suggested an optional background check system via phone or internet, going to the Sheriff seems like it'll be ignored.
    That is so you can get the document which proves you had a background check done to cover your ass.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  14. #53574
    https://www.theroot.com/florida-man-...ume-1838947129

    "The white Floridian who gunned down an unarmed father of three over a parking dispute has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

    Michael Drejka got the book thrown at him in the 2018 death of Markeis McGlockton, wherein the sentencing judge blasted the 49-year-old, calling him a self-appointed “handicapped parking space monitor.” "

    Good Guy with a Gun gets 20 years in prison because he's actually just a shit head with a gun.

    Bonus fact:
    https://www.urban.org/research/publi...ur-ground-laws

    "Cases with a white perpetrator and a black victim are 281 percent more likely to be ruled justified than cases with a white perpetrator and white victim. "

  15. #53575
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    https://www.theroot.com/florida-man-...ume-1838947129

    "The white Floridian who gunned down an unarmed father of three over a parking dispute has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

    Michael Drejka got the book thrown at him in the 2018 death of Markeis McGlockton, wherein the sentencing judge blasted the 49-year-old, calling him a self-appointed “handicapped parking space monitor.” "

    Good Guy with a Gun gets 20 years in prison because he's actually just a shit head with a gun.

    Bonus fact:
    https://www.urban.org/research/publi...ur-ground-laws

    "Cases with a white perpetrator and a black victim are 281 percent more likely to be ruled justified than cases with a white perpetrator and white victim. "
    you sound racist. You should not hate on white folks so much.

    [Infraction]
    Last edited by Rozz; 2019-10-11 at 04:01 PM. Reason: Minor Trolling
    "It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."

  16. #53576
    Quote Originally Posted by Saucexorzski View Post
    you sound racist. You should not hate on white folks so much.
    So you're unhappy that justice has been served?

  17. #53577
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    So you're unhappy that justice has been served?
    sounds like more abuse of the justice system to me, are you cool with the everything in the book being thrown at folks in order to make an example of them? i'm not, But hey if you want to dance and celebrate about how its a white person this time then you be racist. /shrug
    "It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."

  18. #53578
    Quote Originally Posted by Saucexorzski View Post
    sounds like more abuse of the justice system to me, are you cool with the everything in the book being thrown at folks in order to make an example of them? i'm not, But hey if you want to dance and celebrate about how its a white person this time then you be racist. /shrug
    So 20 years in prison is too much time for someone who committed 2nd Degree Murder? 2nd Degree Murder in Florida can actually get you a death sentence or up to 30 years otherwise. The guy got lucky in my opinion.

    To be fair, I am actually surprised that he was found guilty. As I noted above if the shooter is white and the target is black, the white person will more likely to be found not guilty.

  19. #53579
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    So 20 years in prison is too much time for someone who committed 2nd Degree Murder? 2nd Degree Murder in Florida can actually get you a death sentence or up to 30 years otherwise. The guy got lucky in my opinion.

    To be fair, I am actually surprised that he was found guilty. As I noted above if the shooter is white and the target is black, the white person will more likely to be found not guilty.
    yes i understand why you justify your racist beliefs.
    "It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."

  20. #53580
    Quote Originally Posted by Saucexorzski View Post
    yes i understand why you justify your racist beliefs.
    Sorry for posting the facts! Its not my fault that Florida prefers to let white shooters off the hook. That's the problem with being a cynical optimist. Sometimes the cynic gets salty when presented with reality.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •